Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 9, 2022

Official Report 981KB pdf

---

Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-03080, in the name of John Swinney, on the Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill.

As members will be aware, at this point in the proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, no provision of the Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter, so the bill does not require a supermajority to pass at stage 3.

I invite any member who wishes to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button, and I call the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the motion.

15:50  

I am pleased to open the final debate on the Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill.

I am grateful to members of Parliament for a constructive and considered stage 1 debate. The COVID-19 Recovery Committee dealt with the bill at stage 2, at which point the Scottish Government lodged three amendments, which addressed all the points raised by the committee and other members and stakeholders at stage 1. No non-Government amendments were lodged at either stage 2 or stage 3.

The first amendment that was lodged at stage 2 introduced a requirement for the Scottish ministers to consult health boards before making regulations that would either prolong the modifications that the bill makes to the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 or expire them early. The amendment also included a requirement to consult

“such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”

to ensure that important health stakeholders and others with a relevant interest are also informed and able to offer views.

The second, related amendment provided that the consultation obligation does not apply when regulations prolonging the modifications are made urgently, using the made affirmative procedure.

The third amendment related to giving reasons for urgency and using the made affirmative procedure.

In any circumstance in which the modifications to the 2008 act are extended, the Scottish ministers will lay a statement of reasons explaining why we need to keep the modifications in place for a longer period. That requirement was in the bill at introduction.

My third amendment at stage 2 introduced a requirement that, should the made affirmative procedure be used, an explanation of why that procedure was used be included in the statement of reasons. That addresses a number of the points that were raised by various members during stage 1 about ensuring that there is sufficient scrutiny of the regulation-making provisions in the bill. The Government acknowledges the importance of appropriate and detailed scrutiny of all legislation involved in handling a pandemic of the nature and circumstances that we have faced.

The amendments also address the suggestion of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that health boards should be consulted before the provisions in the bill are extended or expired early. The Law Society of Scotland also suggested that an explanation for urgent regulations be provided, which has also been addressed.

In the stage 1 debate, various members raised concerns about the availability and, indeed, awareness of self-isolation support. There has been significant take-up of support for isolation. According to the most recent data available, the Scottish Government has processed 63,527 successful applications, each resulting in a £500 payment, through the self-isolation support grant. Self-isolation support services have been used 192,974 times since the start of the pandemic. Support has been promoted to the public in various ways, such as in televised briefings, in Parliament and in public campaigns. There is also comprehensive advice on self-isolation and the support available on the Scottish Government website. I have personal experience of receiving text messages from the local authority as a contact of someone who tested positive. There is direct use of technology so that we can ensure that individuals are aware of the importance of access to self-isolation support grants.

We have also undertaken significant research into compliance with self-isolation guidance, and we are keeping the messaging around availability of self-isolation support under review. Should we need to expand or raise public awareness of the support, we will not hesitate to do so, as we recognise the importance of self-isolation support in interrupting the circulation of the virus.

As I set out in the stage 1 debate, the bill prolongs the modification to the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 that was made by the United Kingdom Coronavirus Act 2020. The 2008 act places an obligation on health boards to compensate people who are notified to isolate as a result of their having an infectious disease. That obligation was changed by the UK act to become a discretionary power. The bill prolongs that change, with respect to Covid-19 isolation only, until October 2022. The Scottish ministers are given a power to extend that change for a longer period by regulations, which would require an affirmative vote of this Parliament, or to expire the provisions early.

The Scottish ministers would have to consult health boards prior to making regulations to change the expiry date, and if an extension of the change was required, they would have to set out their reasons for making it in a statement laid before Parliament. If there were urgent or emergency circumstances that required the change to be extended, the Scottish ministers could extend it by regulations under the made affirmative procedure, setting out the reasons for that urgency to Parliament.

I invite members to consider what would happen if Parliament were not to pass the bill today. It may be a short and technical bill, but it is nevertheless one with important consequences. Should the bill not be passed, the 2008 act duty would be reinstated by virtue of the expiry of the UK Coronavirus Act 2020. Every person who was asked to self-isolate would be able to claim full compensation for that isolation period. Even if case numbers were to reduce, that would come at a significant cost to health boards.

It is clear that the 2008 act was never intended to provide financial support to the very large numbers of people who have been, and continue to be, asked to isolate because of Covid-19. The Scottish Government’s indicative analysis demonstrates that that could cost as much as £320 million a year. At a time when significant resources have been put into our pandemic response, that would not be an efficient use of public funds.

In addition, at a time when they are trying to reduce the backlogs in care that have been caused by the pandemic, health boards would have to find the staff and resources to process applications for compensation.

I am grateful to Parliament for its consideration of the bill. As a result of that consideration, the Scottish Government submitted amendments that improved the bill. If Parliament passes the bill today, we can make sure that health boards are protected from significant financial and administrative burdens, and can focus on providing essential care. As that is such a vital part of our work as we build our recovery from Covid, I hope that Parliament will feel able to support the bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

15:57  

I place on record my thanks to the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, those who gave evidence, the bill team and the Deputy First Minister for getting us to this stage.

Scottish Labour will support the bill at stage 3. As I said during the stage 1 debate, I understand and agree with the need for the bill. It is important that legislation is passed to ensure that help continues to go to the people who are most in need of it. I understand that failing to continue with the temporary modifications could have crippling financial implications for our health boards at a time when they are already struggling. There is a great deal of cross-party consensus on the need for the bill.

Scottish Labour’s reasoned amendment is about ensuring that the self-isolation grant is at an appropriate level to support people, given what we know about the cost of living crisis.

Could the member explain the figure referred to in her amendment? The £500 would be 50 hours at £10 an hour.

If Mr Mason will let me develop the point, he will see where we got the calculations from.

Scottish Labour’s reasoned amendment is a recognition that the financial implications of the pandemic have been devastating for families and businesses, and that having to self-isolate instead of going to work and earning a salary would have been a very difficult and worrying prospect for many people, not least those who have a family to support. That is even more the case in the context of the worst cost of living crisis in my memory. That is why the self-isolation support grants are welcome and very much needed if people are to comply with the stay-at-home rules.

However, it is no good having the grants if they are not getting into the pockets of those who need them the most. The latest figures show that fewer than half the people who applied for the grant were successful in their applications.

During the stage 1 debate, MSPs across the chamber told their own stories of people who had been in touch to say that they were unaware that the grants existed, or that the process for applying was lengthy and complicated, with many feeling that they had no choice but to abandon their applications.

I acknowledge the Deputy First Minister’s comments about public awareness, but we should do as much as we can to better advertise the details and eligibility criteria to ensure that as many people as possible get the help that they need.

In addition to the fact that the grants do not always get into the pockets of everyone who is eligible, worryingly, even when grants are paid out, there is not always as much financial help as there could be. The grant is currently capped at £500, which means that workers who usually work full time on the national living wage would come out of a 10-day self-isolation period out of pocket, despite their being successful in their grant application. Scottish Labour believes that there should be an increase in the amount paid out through the self-isolation grant so that it at least matches the living wage of £9.50 per hour from April. That will ensure that people who are low paid are not left worse off because they followed the rules. I hope that the Deputy First Minister will accept the amendment and recognise that the request to review the amount is not unreasonable.

Only last week in the chamber, we all agreed that we are living in the midst of a cost of living crisis of an unprecedented scale. We know all too well that energy prices are skyrocketing. People will be paying £700 more for their energy, at a time when Shell and BP announced eye-watering profits that equate to a profit of £44,710 every single minute.

The cost of the weekly food shop is going up, inflation is rising, interest rates are going up and national insurance will increase by 10 per cent in April. It is undoubtedly the case that, whether we like it or not, the value of the self-isolation grant is being eroded. The £500 grant was agreed almost two years ago. Although it was and remains undoubtedly helpful, given what we now know about household expenses increasing exponentially, we should act to reflect those new realities.

The self-isolation grant provides the incentive that is needed for people to stay at home and protect public health when they are infected with Covid-19. It is our job to ensure that no one is left at a financial disadvantage, especially when they are acting in the public interest. I note that the United Kingdom Government appears to be set to scrap self-isolation. I would be grateful for the Deputy First Minister’s view on that, and on the implications for the Scottish Government’s approach.

I will also raise a practical problem with implementation. At stage 1, I spoke about the delays that my constituents experienced in receiving funds—one waited as long as 11 weeks to receive the funds that they needed immediately to avoid financial hardship. I understand that local authorities make the payments, and I thank all those who are working so hard to process the grants. However, they did not have adequate resources to respond quickly, especially when significant numbers of applications came in.

In my local area of West Dunbartonshire, a total of £718,500 was paid out between October 2020 and November 2021. However, more than half of that was paid out to successful applicants in October 2021 alone. There was a clear backlog in applications. For the future, it is critical to ensure that local authorities build in that surge capacity.

I reiterate my support for the bill, and ask the Deputy First Minister and the chamber to support the very reasonable amendment in my name to make sure that grant payments keep pace with the cost of living.

I move amendment S6M-03080.1, to insert at end:

“, and, in so doing, calls on the Scottish Government to review the amount paid in the self-isolation grant to ensure that it at least matches the National Living Wage.”

16:03  

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland.

This is the final point in the legislative process for what has been an uncontroversial—at least, so far—if important piece of legislation. Like others, I put on record my thanks to all those who assisted in the legislative process, particularly the clerks and advisers to the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, all those who gave evidence to the committee in relation to our scrutiny of the bill, and the Scottish Government for its co-operation in relation to the way that the bill was handled at stage 2.

As we have heard, the bill is necessary because without it there will be a substantial burden on the public purse. Under the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008, there is a duty on health boards to provide compensation to any person who has been quarantined because of an infectious disease. A global pandemic such as Covid-19 was not in anticipation when that law was passed, and given the large numbers who have had to self-isolate following Covid infection, there would be a substantial financial burden if the measures in the 2008 act continued to apply. The bill before us is estimated to save £380 million in the financial year 2021-22, and it is therefore important to protecting national health service resources.

In the stage 1 debate a few weeks ago, I outlined some of the evidence that the COVID-19 Recovery Committee heard on access to the self-isolation support grant. There were concerns that there was not enough publicity around how the grant could be accessed, and there was concern among some applicants that their benefits might be affected if they were to apply for it. In her speech, Jackie Baillie referenced other issues about people facing substantial delays in accessing the sums that are required. Those are on-going issues, but we hope that, with the incidence of Covid swiftly reducing and, with it, the need for self-isolation, there will be less demand for the support grant in future months and those issues will no longer be so prevalent.

Jackie Baillie introduced a reasoned amendment to the motion, proposing that the sums paid should match the national living wage of £9.50. I have some sympathy for the position that she outlined; I think that she made a reasonable case. I am concerned, however, about the timing of the introduction of the measure—in the final debate on the bill. Jackie Baillie should have raised the issue in the stage 1 debate, or she could have lodged an amendment at stage 2. She did neither, and I am curious as to why. No doubt she will explain why she has left it until the very last moment to raise this important topic.

I am sure that the member would agree that, as the cost of living crisis is laid bare, it is absolutely right for us to consider and keep under review the amount that is paid in the self-isolation grant. He would recognise that the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets’ lifting of the energy price cap by £700 is a new and significant thing that we should take into consideration.

I hear what Jackie Baillie says. Of course, she could have introduced an amendment at stage 3 to implement the change, instead of lodging a reasoned amendment to the motion.

I listened with great interest to Jackie Baillie’s explanation of costings. Mr Mason intervened to seek some clarity on that, but I am not sure that we quite got an answer to that particular question. Perhaps if Jackie Baillie is contributing later, she might take us through her calculations in more detail on how much the proposal might cost.

I was doing some calculations on a bit of paper myself. I reckon that, if someone was self-isolating for 10 days, with two days for a weekend, they would otherwise have been working on eight days. That is 56 hours, so they would get £560 under Jackie Baillie’s scheme, instead of £500.

Mr Mason is, of course, an accountant. I bow to his mastery of the figures at such short notice. I am sure that Ms Baillie will have the chance to respond to that in due course.

I will move on to other matters. When we took evidence, the Law Society of Scotland raised one issue in relation to the bill. It asked that a statement of reasons be provided by the Scottish Government when making regulations under section 3. I referred to that in the stage 1 debate and it was covered in the committee’s report. The point was accepted by the Scottish Government, and an amendment was lodged by the cabinet secretary at stage 2 to implement the change, which was a welcome concession by the Scottish Government.

Deputy—sorry, Presiding Officer. You have appeared—I was about to demote you.

There is very little more to say about the bill. We look forward to its becoming law in due course. I suspect that the next piece of Covid-19 legislation that will come before us—the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill—might not enjoy such a smooth and uncontroversial parliamentary passage as the one that is before us just now, but that is a matter for another day. In the meantime, we are pleased to support the bill at stage 3.

We move to the open debate.

16:09  

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Presiding Officer. I fear that there will be a bit of repetition from the stage 1 debate, given that little has changed in the time since then. Stage 2 amendments were minimal, as the Deputy First Minister said, and were completely accepted by all members of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, including me.

However, despite the general consensus on the bill and the lack of controversy, I argue that this is an important bill and not just a technical one, as some members have suggested. If we do not pass the bill, the NHS will face additional costs of some £360 million, which is a substantial amount, and it is clear that other services will suffer.

The background to the bill was explained at stage 1 and has been explained again today. The bill deals with Covid-19; it does not provide for the blanket modification of the 2008 act that was the approach of the United Kingdom legislation that we are replacing. Therefore, if someone has to self-isolate because of an infectious disease other than Covid, they will become entitled to the full compensation regime.

An issue that I mentioned previously but which I think is worth repeating is the difference between the number of people who said that they followed the self-isolation rules and the number who self-isolated properly when they were told to do so. It is reckoned that 94 per cent claimed to have followed the rules, but when that was studied in more detail it was found that only 74 per cent actually did so. In particular, the Government’s detailed literature review indicated that there were lower rates of compliance among men, people in younger age groups, key workers, people from poorer backgrounds and people who had a dependent child in the household. The reviewers said:

“Rates of compliance are heavily influenced by financial constraints and depend on income support, job protection and support with accommodation. The economic risks of self-isolating are often perceived as more significant than risks to health, particularly for people from more disadvantaged backgrounds.”

One factor in that regard is almost certainly the availability and level of compensation. For many people on low incomes, being off work for even a few days is a serious step, and some employers are more supportive than others.

Some people did not know about the compensation that was available, as Jackie Baillie and others said, while others thought that it would impact on their benefits. Some people found it difficult to access compensation and appear to have been knocked back without the reasons for that being made clear.

The level of compensation needs to be carefully considered. The Labour amendment touches on that, although the level of compensation is not part of the bill. As I said during an intervention, I think that £500 is a reasonable amount, equating to 50 hours at £10 per hour or 35 hours at £14 per hour, and I understand that the Labour amendment would mean roughly £560 for many people. If that is the case, I can certainly live with the approach that Labour proposes.

However, households’ essential weekly expenditure varies considerably. For future pandemics, a Government might want to look at tailoring support according to need, although we know from experience over the past two years that the more targeted the support is to be, the longer it takes to design the system and make the payments.

The Law Society had pointed out that there was no definition of “emergency”, and said that the Government should be proactive in setting out why regulations need to be made urgently, so I am glad that the Government took that point on at stage 2 and lodged an appropriate amendment.

Overall, I am happy to support the bill. Full compensation for everyone in the country who has suffered loss because of self-isolation or other aspects of the pandemic has not been and is not affordable or possible, so a more limited and targeted support scheme has been required. The bill seeks to continue that approach.

16:13  

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a practising NHS general practitioner.

The past two years have been incredibly difficult for our country. Covid has been the most challenging test that many of us have experienced when it comes to our public services, our economy and our way of life. At times, it has been all consuming and we have all questioned whether a full return to normality would ever be possible.

However, the situation that we face today is, in all likelihood, the most optimistic since the pandemic began. More than 3.3 million Scots have received their booster jag, and, although the dominant omicron variant is more transmissible, it is proving to be less severe than other strains of the virus. I am sure that all members are pleased and relieved that the Scottish Government forecasts of the likely impact of omicron were way off the mark when set against the reality that we have today.

As we seek to set a strategy that goes beyond Covid, it is timely and important that we start to deal with some of the legislative details that have underpinned our country’s response.

The Coronavirus Act 2020 lets health boards decide whether people who are self-isolating because of Covid-19 receive compensation and allows health boards to pay compensation for other reasons. As we know, that provision expires in March 2022. The Coronavirus Act 2020 will apply until 31 October 2022 and the bill allows for the Scottish Government to reduce or extend that period if required.

The Scottish Conservatives are comfortable with the bill. It provides sufficient flexibility for the Government to act if required while putting down a marker that we are moving beyond Covid. I look forward to the Scottish Government presenting its strategy for living with Covid, which I hope we will be able to see before March.

As members may be aware, the Scottish Conservatives have already published our plan as part of the cross-party consultation strategy. We seek a progressive and ambitious change in direction, to move away from blanket legal restrictions and instead use public health advice to protect vulnerable groups. Just as the bill provides health boards and the Government with a level of flexibility, I believe that we should be open minded and have a rethink about whether we are handling Covid correctly.

That is essential, because restrictions are not without costs. We must balance restrictions against the impact on people’s livelihoods and mental and physical health. We must also think about the signals that we give to people and businesses. To pass a law that retains the power for Government to shut down schools and businesses, release prisoners early and force further lockdowns without any scrutiny sends the wrong signal to society and investors. Those who know how corporate investment decisions are taken will understand that that is plain wrong.

If the Green Party members in the Government are true to their principles, they will also find such a law objectionable. Some might even say that this is the thin end of an over-controlling Government’s door wedge. It is certainly not the kind of law that I would expect to see in the 21st century.

I congratulate John Swinney and the members of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee on steering the bill, which the Scottish Conservatives will support, through Parliament.

16:16  

Since March 2020, many have made sacrifices in exchange for the protection of our national health service and our fellow citizens. Taking action such as self-isolating and following the rules has undoubtedly saved lives. However, as well as being a public health crisis, Covid has contributed to an unprecedented economic crisis that is making people choose between heating their home and putting food on the table.

As the immediate threats to public health begin to abate, we must not forget about people on the lowest incomes who, as is too often the case, are suffering the greatest impact. As I heard time and again in the early days of the pandemic, we may all be in the same storm, but we are not always in the same boat. That is why the Scottish Labour Party broadly supports the bill, but we must ensure that it addresses wider issues of inequality and the hardships that are faced by low-paid workers, our creative sector, women, unpaid carers and disabled people.

People in low-income households are already struggling to make ends meet so, without sufficient Government support, having to choose between continuing to work or self-isolating without any income may cause them to forgo public health advice. The bill is vital in order to combat that in its widest sense. As we heard from Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour’s reasoned amendment calls on the Government to increase the self-isolation support grant to ensure that it at least matches the national living wage, which will rise to £9.50 in April. Matching the national living wage will ensure that support for those who are required to self-isolate is directed to those who need it the most. In doing that, we can ensure that those who are living on the margins do not have to choose between making ends meet and protecting other people.

I am sure that colleagues across the chamber will agree that the national living wage is the bare minimum that Scots should receive. I urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that there is equal access to the grant, so that we can protect as many people as possible. As colleagues have noted, there is a disparity across local authorities in access to that vital support. The rates of approval for self-isolation support grants are as low as 32 per cent and 35 per cent in Moray and North Lanarkshire respectively, whereas in Dumfries and Galloway and Dundee they are above 70 per cent.

It is concerning that the extent of available support is guided by something of a postcode lottery, which demonstrates the need for clear and standardised guidance for local authorities, which are tasked with delivering those grants.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will look into that further and perhaps say something about it in his closing speech, because it is vital that money is getting into people’s pockets, no matter where in Scotland they live.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will work towards finding resolutions to the issues that people are experiencing in relation to self-isolation support grant applications—issues that have been raised by me and by other colleagues in the chamber. As long as we continue to call on the Scottish public to do their part in containing the spread of the virus, we, in this Parliament, must also do our part in safeguarding them from falling through the gap and into more financial distress.

16:20  

As has been noted by others, the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 was written long before the Covid pandemic and was not intended to meet the challenges that we have faced over the past two years. The bill therefore serves an essential purpose as it will protect health boards from facing unaffordable self-isolation payments when they are already under immense pressure, and the Scottish Greens will be pleased to support it at decision time.

As I did in my speech at stage 1, I emphasise the importance of ensuring that sufficient self-isolation support is in place, while recognising that the 2008 act is not the appropriate vehicle for that. In my stage 1 speech, I highlighted concerns raised by Shetland Islands Council about the targeted nature of the support provided by the self-isolation support grant. Its response to the COVID-19 Recovery Committee’s call for views highlighted the socioeconomic impact that a failure to review the existing self-isolation support grant scheme would have on people on lower incomes or people in areas with a higher cost of living.

That is an important point. We are two years into the pandemic and the cost of living is rising. Soaring energy prices, the cut to universal credit and the rise in national insurance are creating a perfect storm, and there will be severe consequences for people across Scotland. Many people and their families are not in the financial position that they were in in March 2020. Although I recognise that the 2008 act is not the appropriate means of providing financial support for those who are self-isolating, support must be on-going and should be reviewed regularly to ensure that it continues to be adequate.

We must recognise that, as rising costs hit people’s incomes, it will become harder and harder for them to self-isolate without support. The Scottish Greens have consistently called for comprehensive financial and practical support for people who are self-isolating. We are clear that there are financial and practical barriers to self-isolation, and that addressing those will help to boost compliance. That need will become more pressing as the cost of living crisis continues to unfold.

Gillian Mackay said that it was appropriate, given the cost of living crisis, to regularly review the amount paid. Does that mean that she will be supporting our reasoned amendment at decision time?

I thought that that would be Jackie Baillie’s question. Yes, I will be supporting the amendment.

Alongside ensuring that adequate support is available, we must also publicise it, so that people know what they are entitled to. As I highlighted during the stage 1 debate, the Scottish Women’s Convention said in its submission:

“Of ... the women we spoke to, none of them had successfully accessed the Self-Isolation Support Grant or the Local Self-Isolation Assistance Service.”

Many women said that they had not heard of the scheme, and those who had heard of it did not think that they would be eligible. They also said:

“the application process can be daunting and confusing.”

That must be addressed urgently so that people can access the support that they are entitled to.

We know that the bill is a starting point. It aims to address a very specific issue and further pandemic-related legislation is undoubtedly needed. Like many other countries, we were unprepared for a global pandemic. We did not have appropriate legislation in place to help us to respond to that unprecedented situation. We must learn from this experience and ensure that we are better prepared in future. The Law Society of Scotland has recommended revision of

“the whole vista of emergency legislation”

as well as

“a law for emergencies ... that ... is flexible enough to meet every contingency.”—[Official Report, COVID-19 Recovery Committee, 2 December 2021; c 10.]

That is important work, which the Parliament must undertake. As hard as it may be to look to the next pandemic, given that we are still facing daily challenges related to Covid, we must take the learning from the past two years and ensure that we are better able to respond in future—wherever possible, without the need for emergency legislation.

Once again, I thank the public for self-isolating and for all the sacrifices that they have made to keep others safe.

I call Siobhian Brown, who is the last speaker in the open debate.

16:24  

As convener of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, I thank my fellow committee members and our highly professional clerking team for their work as we considered and scrutinised this bill through its different stages.

As we know, when the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 was introduced, the global Covid crisis, which we have been battling since March 2020, was not a consideration. The 2008 act simply put a duty on health boards to compensate any employee who was asked to isolate or quarantine. Given the magnitude of the pandemic and the need for so many to self-isolate at different stages, in response to different variants, it would not be reasonable to expect health boards to financially compensate workers throughout the crisis. The Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill allows payment to those who need it most, if they need to self-isolate. Workers should not experience financial hardship as a result of doing the right thing.

In the stage 1 debate, there was general broad support across the Parliament for the principles of the bill to be extended. The debate highlighted a number of key considerations, one of which was the level of scrutiny that is afforded when the made affirmative procedure is used. Other issues that were highlighted were awareness of the support that is available for self-isolation and the recognition of the importance of consulting health boards before implementing the measures that are set out in the bill.

The COVID-19 Recovery Committee made a recommendation in paragraph 68 of its stage 1 report that the Scottish Government should

“produce a statement of reasons”

when making emergency regulations.

The Scottish Government responded positively to that recommendation and, at stage 2, brought forward amendment 3, which improves the Scottish Government’s accountability under the bill. We thank the Scottish ministers for making that improvement to the bill—I note that the Law Society of Scotland also commended that amendment.

Our committee took evidence from the Scottish Women’s Convention, which sent out a consultation to more than 4,000 women. Only 100 women responded, and none of them had successfully accessed a self-isolation grant or local self-isolation assistance services. Those figures were from the very early days of the payment; I am aware that there has been an improvement in promoting the self-isolation grant, and most people who receive a positive test result on their mobile phone are quickly sent a link to apply for the self-isolation grant. I appreciate that not everybody has a mobile phone, and there will be groups that are difficult to access. The committee also urged the Government to consider how best to increase public awareness of the support that is available to people who are asked to self-isolate.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government’s response confirmed that those issues will be kept under regular review and that it will continue to review its public communications on self-isolation support. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has listened and considered the issues that were raised at stage 1, and I welcome its amendments 1 to 3 at stage 2 last week.

I believe that, as we emerge from the pandemic, reform is needed to the 2008 act to ensure that permanent support is in place in the event of another pandemic. No country worldwide has had a solid, foolproof, mistake-free guidebook on how to get a country through a pandemic, so lessons must be learned and measures put in place, in order that we are never again in the position in which the world found itself in March 2020.

I will support the bill at stage 3, as the Scottish Government continues to put measures in place to support people who need to self-isolate but not financially burden our health boards, while we continue to navigate our way out of the pandemic.

16:28  

In closing the debate for Scottish Labour, and in expressing our support for the principles and intentions of the bill, I encourage Parliament to support Scottish Labour’s reasoned amendment, which Jackie Baillie set out and put correctly in the context of the cost of living crisis. I also note the mathematics that went on in the chamber while we did that. I thank Mr Mason for that, and I thank the Greens for clarifying that they will support that reasoned amendment.

As we have all said, the Covid-19 pandemic has had implications that we could never have imagined 22 months ago, when the initial restrictions were introduced. As a result, it requires an unprecedented response, which must be targeted at those who have been hardest hit and those who are most vulnerable, as we continue to move forward from the pandemic. Everybody has recognised that point.

We know how important self-isolation has been during the pandemic. It has served to stop the spread of the virus and to protect the most vulnerable, and, ultimately, it has saved many lives. However, we also know that there are significant downsides from a health perspective, such as the impact that isolation can have on an individual’s mental health, and from an economic viewpoint for the thousands of Scots for whom working from home is simply not an option. The loss of income that comes with self-isolation can be, and has been, devastating for many individuals and their families.

In cases where isolation has been as long as 10 days, for some, that has represented 10 days without pay, followed by real worry and concern about whether they will be able to put food on the table and serious difficulty in paying bills. Those worries have only increased amidst the cost of living crisis.

The pandemic has had impacts that go far beyond public health: it has impacted people’s lives, it has left them out of pocket and it has brought further uncertainty to those who were already struggling to get by. As we have all spoken about in the chamber, the self-isolation compensation payment is absolutely required to assist those individuals. It has been valuable to hear everyone come together on that point.

Indeed, if the Parliament backs Scottish Labour’s amendment, we can not only agree to the bill but make a commitment to delivering a payment that matches the national living wage for those who have lost income due to self-isolation. That will reduce the likelihood of that compensation payment still equating to a loss for those individuals. That is an important point.

However, as was mentioned by my colleague Jackie Baillie and others during the stage 1 debate and again at other stages, it is crucial that those payments are made in a timely fashion and that they get to people’s pockets straight away. It is welcome that the Scottish Government is supporting the extension of provision for Covid-19 self-isolation, as we know only too well the crippling financial impact that not doing so would have on our health boards, which are already under significant pressure due to the demands that have been placed on them by the pandemic.

While our thanks go to all those who are helping with the processing of payments, in many cases, people cannot wait lengthy periods of time to receive them. As has been mentioned, the experience has been mixed. We heard from Paul O’Kane that some local authorities seem to have done better than others in processing the payments. It is important that we get those payments to people as timeously as we can.

That brings me to another concern that was raised at stage 1 regarding public awareness of the compensation fund and its uptake among low-income families and other population groups.

It is important that we get that information out to people—I acknowledge that the Deputy First Minister referred to that point. He also said that significant uptake has continued and that the Government will continue to push the message and ensure that it gets the promotional material out there. We must use targeted social media messaging and other methods to do that. Only by doing so will we make the choice to self-isolate more comfortable for those who might have feared previously that self-isolating would lead to significant financial difficulty.

I reiterate my party’s support for the bill, and I encourage members to vote in favour of the reasoned amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie, which will ensure that the payment does not fall short for individuals, and that, importantly, it meets the national living wage.

It is right that we introduce this separate legislation to help the most impacted during the most unpredictable of times. People should not be punished for following the rules and keeping themselves and others safe.

We will continue to hold the Scottish Government to account in its delivery of the legislation and ensure that it supports those who have suffered financially due to self-isolation, that it increases uptake and that it offers support to those who are processing payments.

I thank all members who have spoken in the debate. I hope that we will pass the bill.

16:34  

I am happy to close the stage 3 debate on the Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

As has been mentioned by other members, the legislation, although important, has largely been uncontroversial as it has passed through its various stages. Presiding Officer, you will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to take up much of the chamber’s time.

Hear, hear.

Thank you. That was a welcome intervention from the cabinet secretary.

I put on record my thanks to all those who have helped with the process, particularly the clerks and advisers on the COVID-19 Recovery Committee and those who gave evidence to the committee at stage 1.

As Murdo Fraser pointed out, without the bill, the financial implication for health boards would have been significant—some estimated it to be £380 million in 2021-22—because they have a duty under the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 to compensate those who have had to quarantine because of an infectious disease. The law was not set up to deal with a global pandemic such as the one that we have been living with over the past two years, as the cabinet secretary highlighted in his opening remarks.

At stage 1, there was concern about the publicity of and access to the self-isolation support grant. We heard in committee of instances in which those who should have been eligible for the grant did not realise that they were eligible. I noted at the time the cabinet secretary’s recognition of that issue, and he suggested that the Scottish Government would look at ways of ensuring that the grant reaches those it is targeted to help.

I also note that the Law Society of Scotland’s request that a statement of reasons be provided by the Scottish Government when it makes regulations under section 3 of the bill was accepted by the cabinet secretary at stage 2.

Jackie Baillie’s late amendment gave us something to consider, although I must say that it is rather unusual for an amendment to be lodged and accepted for consideration at this late stage of the bill when it has not even been discussed and scrutinised at stage 2.

I am sure that the member recognises that that is entirely in the gift of the Presiding Officer. I am sure that he does not intend to challenge her ruling. Would he also like to reflect on the fact that it would be inappropriate to amend the bill itself? A reasoned amendment provides more flexibility. My amendment is not prescriptive; it asks the Scottish Government to carry out a review.

I hope that Brian Whittle and his party will not be alone and might just find it in their hearts to pass the reasoned amendment.

We are a very reasoned party, as Jackie Baillie is well aware. Of course, I would never criticise the Presiding Officer—I would never do that. However, I suggest to Jackie Baillie that she could have raised the matter at stage 1 or stage 2. The issue for me is that introducing the amendment at stage 3 does not allow appropriate parliamentary time to properly scrutinise its implications, which makes it difficult for us to consider. I do not think that that is the way to create good legislation.

I want to highlight Sandesh Gulhane’s contribution, in which he discussed living with Covid, which is an issue that the COVID-19 Recovery Committee has wrestled with. One of the key points in his speech was that restrictions are not without cost and there is a need to balance restrictions against the impact that they have on people’s livelihoods and on their mental and physical health. One of the most interesting things that he mentioned was the signals that we give to people and to businesses. He said that passing a law that retains the power for Government to shut down schools and businesses, release prisoners early and force another lockdown without any scrutiny sends the wrong signal.

As Murdo Fraser has suggested, the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill might not be afforded the same easy passage as the Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill. That said, the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill today, and we look forward to its becoming law.

16:38  

I am delighted to have the opportunity to close the debate. I will address the one and only discordant issue first, before I get on to my usual generous way of drawing such matters to a close.

The discordant note is the Conservatives’ persistent line of argument warning me of the troublesome journey of the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill, which is before Parliament. Of course, that is not the subject of today’s debate, so I hope that the Presiding Officer will allow me one moment to continue. I always follow the direction of the Presiding Officer, unlike Mr Whittle.

One of the issues—the point was made by the convener of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, Siobhian Brown, and Mr Mason has made it repeatedly in earlier debates—is that we must have a statute book that is appropriate to deal with the circumstances that we face. Siobhian Brown made the point that, in 2020, we did not have a statute book that was capable of allowing us to take the measures that we had to take to address the impact of the pandemic. We did not have the power to undertake the closure of educational facilities that was required in March 2020—that is beyond dispute.

The point of the legislation that I am bringing to Parliament is to enable Parliament to have a statute book that is fit for purpose when there are utterly exceptional circumstances. I hope that the Conservative members will engage constructively on that point. This is, perhaps, the start of either the constructive engagement or the dogged opposition of the Conservative Party.

In a reasonable way, I gently suggest to the cabinet secretary that the issue that we have with the upcoming legislation is the fact that, as we exit the other side of Covid, what is going on the statute books is not reasonable, and it is not outwith the Government’s ability to bring emergency legislation back into Parliament if it is needed. We do not need it on the statute books any more.

That is an issue that we will have to chew over in the bill process—whether we should have a statute book that can deal with emergencies. The Conservatives could quite easily muster up an argument to say, “Oh my goodness, you have been sitting in government for 15 years and have not yet got the statute book ready for emergency situations.” They could put forward that argument, and I would not put it past them to do so. We will leave that argument there and come back to pursue it on another, unhappy day.

In relation to the bill, I welcome the comments that colleagues have made. A number of colleagues have made points about the importance of ensuring that the self-isolation grant is available to people who require it. I have put on record the steps that we have taken to improve awareness of it. We will continue to do that, because it is vital that individuals receive the support that is necessary.

Jackie Baillie asked me about the United Kingdom Government’s decisions—well, not even decisions, but statements that were made by the Prime Minister earlier today about the removal of any requirement for self-isolation. I will just say to her that I have no clinical advice that would suggest to me that that is a good idea on the timescale that is presented. I shall leave it to Jackie Baillie to judge whether that announcement at Prime Minister’s questions had anything to do with clinical judgment or whether it had more to do with the survivability in office of the current Prime Minister. I think that that is no way to take decisions on an important question of that type.

Moving on to the debate, I confirm that the Government will support the reasoned amendment that Jackie Baillie has moved. However, I want to say a couple of things about it.

First, the Government’s approach to self-isolation support has been very mindful of the importance of ensuring that the self-isolation support grant delivers the national living wage. Obviously, we are putting a different obligation on people for the duration of self-isolation now than we did at earlier stages of the pandemic. The requirement today would be for individuals to self-isolate for seven days and then, with satisfactory clearance from lateral flow tests, to return to work. With £500, they would receive a sum of money that is in excess of the national living wage. That is obviously different from where we started. I accept the terms of the amendment, which asks the Government to review the amount that is paid. We will do that. Our objective is to ensure that that amount at least matches the national living wage, and that has been our position throughout the pandemic.

My second point about the reasoned amendment is that I hope that I do not find myself in the situation, which only a handful of us in Parliament will recall—Liz Smith will recall it—that occurred on the occasion of my first budget to the Parliament, in 2007 or 2008, when I accepted a reasoned amendment from the Labour Party at the conclusion of the stage 3 debate and the Labour Party proceeded to vote against the budget and its reasoned amendment. A few of us have been here long enough to remember that; my dear friend Christine Grahame was here, and she remembers it as well. I hope that I do not find myself in that situation at decision time and find that, after I have generously accepted the reasoned amendment, the Labour Party does the unthinkable on me and does not support the bill.

This is a very practical bill. It is designed to protect the finances of our health boards but also to put in place the support that is required by members of the public who we ask to self-isolate. I invite Parliament to support the bill, along with the reasoned amendment at decision time.

That concludes the debate.