Chamber and committees

Councils are responsible for administering the money. Convention of Scottish Local Authorities leaders met a few days before Christmas to agree that they would administer that tranche of funding. Therefore, the work to get the money out the door is under way.

Local councils will contact businesses in, for example, hospitality that were funded previously through some of the generic funding, so it is not a case of their having to make further applications. However, as is always the case with public money, basic checks will need to be done to ensure that businesses are still operating and eligible for the support. That is being done at pace because it is important that the money gets to businesses as quickly as possible.

I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy to write to Daniel Johnson with details of up-to-date assessments of the impact that the current restrictions are having on business rates revenue and on businesses. We have recognised the importance of business rates exemptions and relief for certain sectors over the pandemic. In this financial year, we have had the most generous business rates relief in the UK for retail, leisure, hospitality and aviation. In the budget, we announced further support for part of the next financial year. We recognise the importance of that, and also of a healthy revenue stream from business rates to fund other public services.

I will come back to the point about essential services and the economy.

I recognise the importance of the issue, and I ask Douglas Ross to recognise that there is a difficult balance to strike, particularly at the moment. The first and perhaps most fundamental point to make, because it feeds into the process of consideration that we are undertaking, is that it is not the self-isolation rules that are hampering the economy; it is the virus that is hampering the economy. The reason why we have tightened the isolation rules for household contacts is that one of the things that we already know about omicron is that it has a much higher attack rate within groups of people who live closely together. Therefore, even more than was the case with previous strains, if one member of a household tests positive or is positive for omicron, the likelihood is that all members of that household, or significant numbers of it, will become positive in the days that follow.

That is why we need to be cautious. The danger is that, if we move away from that too quickly, all that we will do is spread more infection, and the impact on the economy, which I absolutely recognise, will get greater. We need to be careful about that. I absolutely agree that we should not take too long, but nor should we move too quickly at this critical stage of trying to manage our way through the omicron challenge.

The point about critical services and the economy is that quite a significant number of exemptions have been approved, but we have moved—the updated guidance has been published today—to a sector-based exemption process. The advice and the consideration that the Government has given is that that is more likely in the short term to alleviate the pressures on the economy in a safe and sustainable way than opening up the self-isolation rules much more widely now.

However, this is something that is going to change in the period ahead. I know that Douglas Ross picked up on my use of the words “days” and “weeks”. There is uncertainty about this. I hope that it is soon, but we cannot take a view that we need to base what we do on careful public health considerations and then arbitrarily set a date for doing it. This is something that, even over the Christmas period that is ahead, the Government will be reviewing very carefully. Just as soon as the public health advice says that the benefits outweigh the risks, we will move to a more proportionate system, but in the meantime, through the exemptions scheme, we will work to alleviate the pressure that is being felt on the economy, and particularly on critical services.

The Government will certainly do everything in its power to ensure that that is the case. We are working with, and I pay tribute to the efforts of, organisations on the front line of the issue. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, one of those organisations made the point that the numbers of people rough sleeping in the city of Glasgow, which is home to Anas Sarwar and me, had reduced markedly, which is positive.

However, many people are still at risk of homelessness and of rough sleeping. We have updated the ending homelessness together action plan and we are investing significantly in making sure that there are support services for people who face the risk of homelessness or rough sleeping. We will continue to do what we can and work with others to make sure that nobody is on the streets over this winter period.

In the 2021 calendar year—I note that these figures are often reported by financial year—Police Scotland has conducted 15,839 missing person investigations. Police Scotland’s management data suggests that there has been a decrease in the number of investigations since 2016-17. However, there is no complacency, and work continues to improve multi-agency efforts across Scotland through the implementation of the national missing persons framework. I pay tribute to the dedication and expertise of Police Scotland and its partners because, thanks to them, more than 99 per cent of the people who go missing each year are traced and found to be safe and well.

A development like that would be of strategic importance, as well as being important to the local community and economy. Scotland has many attributes when it comes to space technology and I hope that, next year and beyond, we will see that strength grow even further.

The Scottish Government will respond, as we will respond to any organisation that raises understandable and legitimate concerns with us. Although we need to consider that letter and will respond in due course—albeit as quickly as possible—Liz Smith will recall that, around the last time that she raised these issues with me, the Scottish Government provided support to outdoor education. I say that only as an indication of the fact that we are always keen to help and will look positively at helping any organisation through the difficult times that they face now.

It is important and right to highlight the impact on so many people, in so many different ways, of the steps that we have had, by necessity, to take to control Covid.

In many different ways, because many people have been affected in many different ways, we are seeking to provide support, whether that is by helping children to catch up with their education or through investments in mental health to help support people’s wellbeing.

There is an important point, which I know that Jamie Greene will recognise. The person whom I have heard articulate this point best and most powerfully in recent days is Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England. At times, it can be tempting for us all—I include myself in that—to think that, if we did not take steps to control Covid, we would somehow escape the other impacts. However, that is not the case. If we did not control Covid, all the other impacts—the direct health impacts, and the impacts on the economy and on wellbeing more widely—would be even worse.

It is the virus that is causing all those problems, and until we deal with the virus, through vaccination eventually but in the meantime through action to suppress it, we will continue to see those cycles of impacts. There is no easy way through this, but we need to help all those who are affected in as many ways as we can, and we will continue to seek to do that.

I will come on to the very encouraging study that was published yesterday in a moment. That is important, but I also think that it is important that we get the timing of all this right.

Douglas Ross talked about and quoted clinical advisers. He talked about the clinical advisers to the UK Government. I am not dismissing the views of any of those people, but I think that most people would accept that the clinical advisers that I have to listen to most carefully are the clinical advisers to the Scottish Government. We are basing our very careful considerations on the advice that we are being given and, of course, that advice will continue to inform the difficult judgments that we make.

Two studies were published yesterday—the Scottish study and another study from Imperial College London. They are very encouraging, because they suggest that the proportion of people with omicron who are requiring hospital care might be lower. They estimate that there is a 30 to 70 per cent lower risk of people needing hospital care than there was with previous strains. That is all good but, where we are right now, we have to take care that we do not allow the much higher transmissibility of omicron to outweigh the benefits of, perhaps, its lower severity.

Let me quote some of the authors of those reports. Professor Mark Woolhouse of the University of Edinburgh, who is one of the authors of the Edinburgh report, said:

“An individual infection could be relatively mild for the vast majority of people, but the potential for all these infections to come at once and put serious strain on the NHS remains.”

Professor Neil Ferguson from Imperial College London said:

“It is clearly good news, to a degree.”

However, he said that the reduction is

“not sufficient to dramatically change the modelling”

and that the speed with which omicron is spreading means that

“there’s the potential of still getting hospitalisations in numbers that could put the NHS in a difficult position”.

We need to take care at this critical moment because, if we allow the spread of omicron to get too far ahead of us, even if it is significantly less severe, that is going to overwhelm us. Therefore, anything that we do right now that risks increasing spread, such as removing or weakening self-isolation rules too quickly, could be seriously counterproductive just at the point where we see some very good news on omicron.

These are difficult judgments and they require difficult deliberation. That is what the Scottish Government will continue to give these questions in a very serious manner.

I am certainly happy to look at any proposals that could help us collectively tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. The Scottish Government does not just have a strategy; we are implementing policies and proposals. We have funded record numbers of new affordable homes and we have investment plans to do more of that. We are investing in the housing first approach, which is an important way of making sure that those who have experienced homelessness or are at risk of homelessness move into settled accommodation and have support services around them, so that they can sustain that accommodation.

I agree with the point that temporary accommodation should be temporary. I know that local councils work very hard to move people from temporary to permanent settled accommodation. During the period of the pandemic, when the first priority has often been to get people off the streets and into accommodation, the numbers of people in temporary accommodation have risen. Temporary accommodation is often of good quality, but that is not always the case, and it can take time for local authorities to find the right accommodation, particularly for families and for larger families. The principle of temporary meaning temporary is a very important one.

This is an area of priority for the Government; even our critics would say that there is a lot of good work being done, but I am always open minded to other suggestions and proposals.

I accept all that, but I stress and underline the point that, if we act rashly in these days—I am talking days—we risk a counterproductive effect that makes what we are living through longer rather than shorter. That is the weight of responsibility that rests on the shoulders of those of us who have to take the decisions. The new studies are positive, but they are also early data, as the authors point out. When even the authors tell us not to get carried away yet with what the studies tell us, we should listen.

Clinical advisers advise Governments and it is up to the elected decision makers to decide how much weight to put on that advice. I accept that, ultimately, the buck stops with me in terms of decisions, but I listen carefully to clinical advice. It is for the UK Government to do likewise. I know that there will be clinical advisers advising the UK Government right now to do what the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have done and impose a few more protections to try to slow down omicron but, as is its right, the UK Government is deciding not to do that.

We are all coming to our decisions. I am following the advice that is given to me by clinicians and experts, applying my judgment to that with my Government colleagues and coming to a balanced decision. Yes, we hope that, in the very near future, we will feel much more confident about opening things up in all sorts of ways because we know much more about omicron. We are not quite at that stage yet, despite the positive reports and, if we move too quickly, by the time the Parliament returns after recess, I suspect that members from around the chamber would look at me and ask why I did it and prolonged the agony that we are living through.

Making these decisions is not a perfect or exact science all the time but, particularly at critical moments such as this one, these judgments are very important. If we err on the side of too much caution and things work out better than we hoped, we will be able to lift the restrictions earlier but, if we err on the other side, we do a lot more damage and some of that damage is measured in human lives. That is why these judgments are so important and why we must take them so seriously.