Chamber and committees

We are doing as much as we can to ensure that those who are on low incomes and who are being required to self-isolate—which is a difficult thing to be asked to do—get the support that they need. We have set aside a further £100 million for the self-isolation support grant, which means that those on low incomes who are asked by test and protect to self-isolate can apply for a £500 grant. If they are eligible for it, the grant helps to ensure that they can self-isolate without financial hardship. We will continue to keep under review all the different ways in which we can help people to do the right thing by self-isolating if that is what they are asked to do.

What Jackie Baillie describes is not a Scottish Government policy or proposal. I hope that that deals with that point. We have taken steps to increase the wages of social care workers and we want to continue to do that as resources allow us to, so that we can properly value their contribution.

Staff absence is particularly acute in social care, which is why I spoke about the significant work that the Scottish Government is doing with local authorities and other partners to maximise the resources that support those who rely on social care. In the short term, even if that requires local authorities to take resources from other services to ensure that the most vulnerable who rely on social care get the services that they need, local authorities will do that. We continue to work carefully with local authorities to achieve that.

It is always easy to set out the problem—if I may say so, Jackie Baillie always does that well—but we must focus on finding solutions, including those that come from continuing to bear down on infection. I agree with Jackie Baillie that the approach includes increasing the wages of social care workers, which the Government is already doing.

As I said a moment ago in response to Michelle Thomson, we will consider the clinical advice on the issue, which we will keep under regular review, as with all issues. Having just decided to move from 10 to seven days—that decision was not insignificant and, as I said last week, it is not without risk—I think that the prudent and sensible thing to do is to monitor the impact of that before deciding whether to go further. We will monitor that in the period that is ahead. It would be a mistake to move quickly from seven to five days, but, as I said, we will continue to discuss the matter with clinical advisers.

Let me again be clear that the Government has no plans to introduce a system to start paying family members £15—or any amount—an hour to look after elderly relatives. Individual partnerships might adopt different approaches as they see appropriate in their local circumstances, but it is not a Scottish Government policy or position.

The Government’s position is that we champion self-directed support to allow family members to employ people to provide care. We encourage people to explore that option, where appropriate. I have repeatedly recognised, and we recognise through our policies such as the carers allowance supplement, the enormous contribution that is made by unpaid carers. We are actively considering how we can further support unpaid carers, who are shouldering a disproportionate share of the Covid burden at this time.

As I said in my statement, we are working with local authorities to support the social care service more generally through a very difficult period, which includes increasing the pay rate in the social care sector not just in the immediate term but in the longer term.

The basic data is published every single day. When we can, and where we need to, augment that data, that has happened. I have set out today the way in which Public Health Scotland will, later this week, augment the data to take account of the change in testing advice.

On the hospitalisation data regarding those who are in hospital because of Covid versus those who have Covid but are in hospital primarily for another reason, Public Health Scotland published on Friday the preliminary results of the analysis that it has been doing. I am not sure whether Anas Sarwar is suggesting that Public Health Scotland is somehow hiding some data that it has, but that is not the case. It is doing careful and detailed work so that the information is robust.

What was published on Friday is, so far, broadly in line with similar findings in England on the split between people being in hospital because of Covid and their being in hospital with Covid. The data is broadly in line with, although slightly different from, the same data that was published in August last year, at an earlier stage of the pandemic. That data will continue to be updated as soon as Public Health Scotland can robustly and confidently do so.

As I said last week, any Government that was, right now, basing all its decisions on that particular data set alone would not be serving the country well because—although that information is important—there is a real limit to its significance in terms of the impact of Covid. A person’s being in hospital with Covid, even if that is not the primary reason for their admission, still triggers a response that has a massive impact on the national health service, and the fact that they have Covid will, potentially, exacerbate the other condition that they are in with. Again, I caution against oversimplification of the significance of the data.

Finally, I say that I am happy to give a commitment that we will ask Parliament to consider, and to vote on, the draft revised framework. We will always come to Parliament appropriately with changes to our approach, but I repeat—because it is important to understand this fact—that the virus does not wait until Parliament considers things. It spreads at its own pace, and Governments everywhere sometimes have to respond quickly in the interests of public health and public safety. We will consult on the contents of the framework and the triggers that it includes, and we will seek to give as much clarity and certainty as possible.

However, I will make a final point that goes back to the point about predictability. Of course, we want to give people as much clarity and predictability as possible, but we are dealing with an infectious and unpredictable mutating virus. Any Government that gets itself stuck on fixed triggers or in fixed ways of thinking about things is not serving the health and safety of the country well, so we will not do that.

On Covid certification, Alex Cole-Hamilton and I will have to agree to disagree. I think that vaccination certification has a role to play. I will briefly illustrate why—and this applies to any individual who gets the virus in a setting where the risk of transmission is higher. As I said in my statement, if they are vaccinated, their risk of being hospitalised is significantly lower than it would be if they were not vaccinated. Therefore, making sure that somebody is vaccinated before they are in such a setting has a significant benefit to individuals. In addition, because that then reduces the chance of that individual being in hospital, which would add to the pressure on the health service, that has a broader societal benefit.

There is a place for vaccination certification, and I believe that to be important, but, of course, we continue to consider it carefully.

On the issue of checks, as I understand it, some sport clubs have already gone beyond the minimum 20 per cent called for in guidance. It was not too long ago that members were saying that checking 20 per cent of attendees was unattainable and undeliverable and that it would lead to all sorts of chaos. That has not been the case, and I have confidence in the bigger sport clubs doing the checks effectively, because it is in the interests of sport and sport clubs that we keep the settings as safe as possible.

The long Covid action plan continues to be implemented. I again say that I think that it is wrong and an oversimplification to focus purely on one model of long Covid clinics. That has a role to play, but the overall pathways of care, the development of specialisms and the developing understanding of long Covid and its implications are encapsulated in the wider plan. We will continue to take that forward in partnership with clinicians and health boards across the country.

First, we are in a more positive position now than we might have been in, and than I feared we would be in when I spoke to Parliament before Christmas, but there are still significant uncertainties in the data and in the circumstances that lie ahead, as schools have returned and some people have returned to work. That calls for continued caution coupled with the optimism that we can rightly feel as a result of the more positive signs in the data.

As I said in my statement, the progress that we have made is down to a combination of the vaccination programme—especially booster delivery—the response of the public, and some of the sensible steps that have been taken. It is interesting that Douglas Ross is certain that the measures that he likes have been responsible for progress, but is equally certain that the measures that he does not like have not played any part in the progress. Not for the first time, that is a rather incredible position for him to take.

I am also struck by the fact that some of the measures that the public are willingly following—I thank the public again for that; Douglas Ross is now also rightly praising the public for it—such as using face coverings and working from home when possible, are things that Douglas Ross has stood in the chamber and absolutely opposed in past weeks and months. He said that the Scottish Government was wrong in asking people to do those things. We will continue to take balanced and cautious steps to try to ensure that our progress out of this phase goes one way, and that we do not end up going backwards, despite the unpredictabilities that we know are associated with the virus.

On the two specific questions, first, I did mention indoor events. I hope that indoor events—for the avoidance of doubt, I note that that includes indoor sporting events, although I think that most people who are listening probably know that—will resume on 24 January. However, because of the uncertainties ahead, it makes sense to proceed in phases. As we have done many times in the past, when we phase changes, we lift measures relating to outdoor events before we do it for indoor events.

On vaccination certification, as we lift essential protective measures in settings that we know are, despite the best efforts of those who run those settings, a higher risk for transmission, we are duty bound to consider whether any other measures will protect against and mitigate those risks. That is where vaccination certification comes in. I think that the vast majority of people accept that, if the price of getting to access pubs or nightclubs on a normal basis is to show that they are vaccinated, that might be a price that they are willing to pay. We have not taken a decision on extending the scope. We will consider that carefully and come to a balanced judgment.

Finally, I say that it was not too long ago that Douglas Ross was telling me that Murrayfield would never be able to do the spot checks that we were asking for. Murrayfield has been excellent in coping with that, and I have every confidence that the Scottish Rugby Union will also be able to do it. In some other countries, of course, 100 per cent checks of vaccination certificates are required. I have every confidence that the football and rugby authorities will continue to operate responsibly and effectively.

As I have said on several occasions, local authorities are, as we speak, doing that work. I will be corrected if I get this figure wrong but, from memory, I think that about 14,000 hospitality businesses will be contacted this week so that grants can be paid without the need for further applications. In due course, we will be able to break down allocation of the money by area, so the answer to the question that has been asked will be available. The work is being done quickly; councils are working hard on the issue, which is what everybody would expect.

I will repeat a point that I made a moment ago. It is really important that we get the money out to businesses, but that money is not available elsewhere in the UK. The Scottish Government has, unlike the UK Government, decided to dig into our own funding and to make really difficult decisions in order to provide support. Yes—it takes time, through the administrative processes, for the money to get into bank accounts, but such money will never get into the bank accounts of businesses in other parts of the UK, because it is not available.

I am not sure that the update will contain everything that the Scottish Conservatives have been calling for. If we had done everything that they have been calling for over the past few months, we would probably be in a more difficult position than we are in now. I have referenced some of the policy issues.

We will continue to make the best judgments that we can make, and we will continue to publish as much data and evidence as possible, with the proviso that there must be confidence in the robustness of the data. We publish evidence papers, and we will continue, as far as is reasonable and appropriate, to publish the evidence and advice that underpin the decisions that we take. Ultimately, though, such decisions involve the application of judgment. People elected me and my Government to take responsibility for weighing up all the factors, for making judgments and for being held accountable for them.

Last week, I thought that the benefits of changing the self-isolation rules did not outweigh the risks. Higher transmission rates and the bigger burden of self-isolation on the economy have now changed that judgment. We will continue to have to make such judgments on a range of issues in the weeks to come.

On the data that will be published on Friday, Public Health Scotland has been doing that work. It is important that that data is robust. The data will be the first results of the analysis and will show differentiation between people who are in hospital because of Covid—in other words, Covid is the reason for their admission—and those who are in hospital for another reason and have Covid; either they came in with it or they contracted it in hospital. That is important information to know, which is why we are doing the work carefully.

However, it is also important not to set too much store by that information. As I said in my statement, a person with Covid being in hospital for another reason does not take away the impact of Covid. The fact that they have Covid means that there must be special infection-control measures around that patient, including distancing and other measures. That further reduces capacity in the health service and increases the pressure. It is important that we understand all those things as our knowledge about omicron develops, but we should not kid ourselves that somebody with Covid being in hospital for another reason somehow takes away all the difficult impacts of their having Covid.

We will continue to publish evidence and data, but I will also continue to do the job that I am elected to do, which is to apply judgment to all that evidence and data, and to reach decisions that are motivated by my desire and responsibility to navigate the safest possible path through the pandemic.

On the first point, councils are responsible for distributing the money that we have made available, and I know how hard they are working to get it out the door and into the bank accounts of businesses as quickly as possible. Businesses, particularly in the hospitality trade, are being contacted this week, and I know that councils are doing that at speed and that that process will continue.

On the second part of Anas Sarwar’s question, I have not seen the data on omicron. Previously, such data on variants has been published by Public Health Scotland, but I have not seen the data on omicron yet. As I said in my statement, the first results of that analysis will be published on Friday, as soon as Public Health Scotland considers that it is in a sufficiently robust state.

Lastly, Anas Sarwar raised a point that I covered in my statement and in my answer to Douglas Ross. Yes, there is a difference between somebody being in hospital because of Covid and being in hospital for another reason and having Covid. However, we should not overstate that difference, because even if the reason for someone who has Covid being admitted to hospital is something other than Covid, the protective infection-control measures that apply to someone who is in hospital because of Covid will have to be applied to them. The impact on the individual might or might not be different—if someone has another condition, having Covid could exacerbate or complicate it—but the impacts on the hospital and on the national health service more widely are not as different as people try to suggest. A bed that is occupied by somebody with Covid has infection-control measures around it whether that person is in because of Covid or with Covid. We must understand the difference but, for goodness’ sake, let us not overstate its importance in terms of the impact of those admissions on the national health service.