Chamber and committees

As has been the case, we will take account of transmission rates, vaccination rates and the overall health impact. I think that anybody who listened to my statement would see that one of the key conditions is that we must be as assured as we can be that the volume of cases will not overwhelm the economy and the NHS and cause serious health harm.

I wish—possibly more than anybody in the Parliament—that the decisions were really straightforward and binary, and that there was a manual that told us exactly what to do. That is not the case for any Government anywhere. Making decisions involves good advice and good clinical expertise, which the Scottish Government is blessed with and lucky to have; it also involves careful judgment, which I accept that we will not get absolutely right on every occasion. However, we try our best to get that as right as possible.

I come back to the point that the public should not be disappointed by the answer that I gave to the previous question. The public should be reassured by that, because when they read data that is published by Public Health Scotland, they will know that they can have confidence in its robustness.

Just before I came into the chamber, I read that the Prime Minister said this morning that the majority of people in intensive care units in England are unvaccinated and that a clarification then had to be issued to say that that was just anecdotal evidence. I do not think that we want to be in a position in which we are making decisions on the basis of anecdotal evidence. We want the information to be robust, and we are very lucky in Scotland to have the expertise and skills of Public Health Scotland in getting us into that position.

What Douglas Ross describes as indecision is actually responsibility. The most important burden on my shoulders is to be as responsible and measured as possible in taking such decisions.

I know that businesses are struggling—critical services are struggling, too—with staff absences. If case numbers continue to rise, the situation will become more difficult, which is why we need to try to slow down the increase. It is the virus, not self-isolation that is the cause of the problem. However, the self-isolation rules need to be proportionate, so that they are not exacerbating the problem.

I do not argue in any way with the central premise of the question, but an element of common sense needs to be applied as well. That is where careful judgment comes into play. If we ease up too quickly on the self-isolation rules and do not take sufficient care, even though we would be doing that for good reasons, all we would do is contribute to the spread of the virus and increase the overall number of infections. Therefore, the problem that businesses are suffering will get not better, but worse.

Those are not easy judgments to arrive at and Governments elsewhere are struggling with that, too. I recognise the importance of speed, but I hope that others will recognise the importance of also being measured and responsible.

In dealing with the virus over the past couple of years, I think that we have all learned that every action has a reaction. Every decision that is made has a potential consequence, which, sometimes, will be an adverse one. That calls for careful decision making, which is what we have tried to do throughout. As I said, we will reach a decision on self-isolation over the next few days and any changes will come into effect after the new year period, from 5 January.

However, we are not doing nothing in the meantime. The sectoral exemption scheme is important and is already helping in many key sectors, and the changes that I have talked about today to ensure prioritisation for essential workers in access to testing will also help further. There is no sense in which we are not taking the issue seriously; we are simply trying to avoid compounding a problem as we try to solve it.

On the second issue that Mr Ross raised, the financial support that is available for businesses in Scotland right now is significantly higher proportionally than it is in England, certainly—I cannot speak so much for Wales and Northern Ireland. That demonstrates the seriousness with which we are taking the issue. Money is flowing and will flow to businesses as quickly as possible. From the money being announced and then being made available through to, just days before Christmas, leaders of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities meeting to agree that they would disburse the funds, right up to the cheques being written right now to get the money out of the door, everything is being done at pace, and money will start flowing to businesses in the days to come. Of course, there will be more of it as we allocate the additional funds that we have made available.

That is an important question. Mental health nurses in all parts of the NHS do a vital job, but those who are on the front line dealing with particularly vulnerable patients do a job that is not only vital, but often puts them at some personal risk, which means that support services for them are vital. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to write to Meghan Gallacher with more details of the support services that are in place and what further action we can take to ensure that, regardless of the pressures that are being faced, people who are working in such positions do not feel themselves to be even more exposed than might otherwise be the case.

PCR testing is a UK-wide system that is administered by the UK Government. We work closely with the UK Government to make sure that capacity is sufficient and that any issues are resolved as quickly as possible, and we take joint responsibility for that.

We have seen lengthening turnaround times over the past few days. That will happen when demand is high. Of course, high demand is being compounded by high staff absences in our testing system right now. I hope that the turnaround times are shortening again, and will continue to be shorter during the next period. As I mentioned earlier, we have also built prioritisation into the testing system to make sure that, although everybody needs test results as quickly as possible, those who need them most quickly are prioritised.

There is on-going daily work with the UK Government to ensure that the turnaround of the testing system is speedy and effective.

The NHS already has policies in place that help to facilitate a return to work and encourage attendance for employees whose health issues impact on their ability to be at work. Employees can be facilitated in their return to work through discussions with their manager and with occupational health, and occupational health teams can support managers and workers with a safe return to work.

A number of options are available to support employees back into the workplace, such as flexible working, phased returns or a change to duties or work patterns. Covid sick pay policies continue to apply, including for those with long Covid. I would encourage and advise anyone who is in that position, including health professionals, to have a discussion with their employer—and with occupational health services if they have them at their place of work—about how best they can return to work in a way that suits their health circumstances.

I recognise the issues that have been raised. There is always tension between having as standardised a system as possible, to get the money out the door as quickly as possible, and having more targeted schemes. The more bespoke such schemes become, the longer it takes to establish and check eligibility and get the money to businesses. That is why, for hospitality, we have, at least for the initial funding, operated on the same approach to grant funding as previously.

However, as I have said a few times today, with the portion of funding on which we have not yet taken decisions, we want to look at more targeted support for the sectors that have not previously been supported or that do not get the more generic support.

I cannot give an absolute guarantee that every form of business that Rhoda Grant has mentioned will be covered, but I guarantee that we will look to reach as many businesses as possible and try to target the next tranche of funding as carefully as possible.

That is an important question. On the funding on which we have already made decisions about allocation, much is being provided to hospitality, for example, in set-level grants. Hospitality businesses that previously got grants will be contacted in order that they get money from the latest round of funding. Other sectors—I will not go into the details of which ones—have been discussing with us how the way in which financial support is provided can be better tailored to reflect various businesses’ actual losses. I referred to some of the issues in the sports sector, which has been badly affected. Some losses will be recouped as events are rescheduled, but that will not be possible for everything.

The money is a mixture of one-size-fits-all grants and much more targeted support that takes account of the variable impacts within different sectors. On that latter point, it is important that we consult properly, which is why we are still consulting on how best to allocate and distribute some of the funding that we have made available.

In general terms, I note that we have already confirmed just over £200 million that will go to hospitality businesses, the wedding sector, supply chain businesses, wholesalers that are affected by hospitality cancellations, parts of tourism, public transport providers and the culture and events sector. Decisions on allocation of the remaining funds might be more targeted, but will also, I hope, enable us to reach sectors that are not covered by the support that has already been announced, including the taxi sector, which I have referred to.

I thank Rona Mackay for raising that issue. Clearly, the conditions under which we are all living right now further increase the risk of domestic abuse to children, young people and those who are vulnerable. Children and young people have the right to be protected from all forms of harm and abuse. Domestic abuse always has an impact on any children.

I will share some information for anybody listening who needs help. If you are a child or a young person, and you are worried about anything or you are looking for some advice right now, you can phone Childline on 0800 1111. If you are a child or young person, please do not hesitate to call Childline for any help or advice that you think that you need.

If anyone else is worried that a child whom they know might be in immediate danger, my advice would be to contact the police on 999. If you are worried about a child who is not in immediate danger, you should share your concerns with your local authority social work department. Those agencies will assess the risk and take appropriate action to protect the child.

I will, indeed, share Childline contact details on social media later today, once this meeting of Parliament has concluded.

The study is really encouraging, and just like everybody else, I want it to be borne out with further data. The study is already informing how we will go about assessing judgments over the next phase. In my statement, I went into quite some detail about how we are looking much more not just at the overall case numbers, but at the impact of those cases, particularly on the health of infected individuals and on the overall impact of the wave on the NHS.

I really want to believe that what the early data is telling us turns out to be the case, and, at this stage, there is no reason to believe that that will not be the case. However, given that the authors of the study are saying that it is early data, that more data is needed to be sure, that the much higher transmissibility of omicron could outweigh the benefits of a lower risk of hospitalisation and that we still need to be cautious in the immediate term, I think that that also needs to continue to inform our approach.

We all want the pandemic to be over as quickly as possible, but, as I have said in relation to the fine judgments that have to be made around self-isolation, if we take precipitate action that feeds greater spread of the virus, we would set ourselves back rather than propel ourselves forwards. Difficult though it is for everybody, we must ensure that we get those judgments as right as we possibly can.

I recognise the burden that staff absences are placing on not only businesses, but many services across the country. That is why it is important that we make the self-isolation rules more proportionate if we can.

The science that Anas Sarwar asked me to share is to do with the incubation period. We know that people can become infectious and test positive for the virus after a period of seven days. In fact, if we cast our minds back to the earlier part of the pandemic, we will remember that the isolation period was not 10 days, as it is now, but 14 days. It has already been shortened, which has already introduced greater risks. If we shorten it further, for good reason, we have to be aware that we will increase that risk. If we get it wrong and increase the risk too much, any benefit will be outweighed by faster spread of the virus, which will not solve but compound businesses’ absence problems. I am not disagreeing with anyone who says that it is an important decision, but I ask people to understand why it is important to get it right.

It is correct to say that different countries are coming to different conclusions. As I understand it from what I read this morning—although I might not be getting this entirely right—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States has reduced the isolation period to five days for asymptomatic cases only. There is some difference of opinion about the appropriate degree of risk.

That all says that we need to weigh these things carefully because, if we do not, any benefits that we might get in the immediate term will be outweighed by the increased risk in the longer term.

I continue to hope that the UK Government will increase the level of support that it is making available to business, so that we are able to do likewise—although proportionately we are already delivering significantly higher levels of business support. As I said in my statement, we have made decisions and confirmed announcements on the allocation of £207 million of the £375 million that we have made available. We are consulting different sectors on allocating the remainder of that support. That will include looking at the taxi sector. We have previously provided support for the taxi sector and we know that it is one part of the economy that suffers considerably from fewer people going out and socialising, so it is very much in our minds as we reach decisions on the allocation of the remainder of that money. We will set out those decisions as soon as possible.