Chamber and committees

We take every opportunity, as I have again today, to encourage people to get lateral flow tests. I take every opportunity at regular daily briefings, which the Conservatives were very keen to stop me doing, and all other opportunities to promote all the things that we are asking the public to do. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like that, but one minute they are asking me to communicate regularly with people and the next minute they are asking me not to do that. [Interruption.] I will continue to do my very best.

This is a really important point, which is also relevant to the discussions about the fan zone. For lateral flowing testing to be effective, it depends on people doing it voluntarily and responsibly. I think that the pilot events in England will increasingly recognise the limitations of mandatory lateral flow tests. Anyone who has done one knows that, if someone wants to, they can generate a negative text or email simply by opening the test and putting in the barcode—although that will be a tiny minority of people. Effectiveness therefore depends on people doing the tests voluntarily and responsibly, which the vast majority of people are doing. That is why we continue to promote it, and I will continue to promote it and other matters as regularly and as vociferously as I possibly can, notwithstanding the irritation that that causes our Conservative colleagues.

I, along with ministers and clinical advisers, will be happy to engage in that process. We want to get all parts of the economy and society back to as much normality as quickly as possible.

I think that people understand that there is a very significant difference between things happening outdoors and things happening indoors. As was set out previously when we published one of the updates to the route map, there is a process that organisers can go through to get permission for larger attendances at outdoor events. That is effectively the process that has been gone through for some of the activity around the Euros in Glasgow.

Such matters are difficult, and they demand very close consideration, because we have to mitigate as much as possible the risks of transmission, while recognising the realities of some of the things that we are dealing with. However, we will engage in an on-going basis as we try to get everything back to normal as quickly as we can.

We will continue look at all the possible levers that are open to us, and I will write to the member about the provisions of the act to which he referred. The managed quarantine arrangements that are in place, which have been changed along the way since mid-February, have exemptions that are very limited and restrictive. It is important that we do what we can to ensure that any arrangements in Scotland are as robust as possible, and we are open to making further changes.

That will not take away the vulnerability that I spoke about, which relates to people coming into Scotland via other parts of the UK. Even if we apply tighter restrictions here, if there are less tight restrictions elsewhere, the risk remains that that vulnerability remains. Although some people would perhaps think of this as counterintuitive for me, I have been an advocate of four-nations consistency around travel rules as far as possible, and I will continue to make that argument.

I do not think that I am the only person who will say this, but there is no doubt that the lack of very robust border controls in recent months has been a factor in the situation that we are dealing with right now. That is deeply frustrating, but we are where we are, and we all have to take responsibility for navigating our way through this.

Let us cast our minds back to mid-February. The Scottish Government decided to insist on mandatory managed quarantine for all direct arrivals into Scotland, regardless of which country they came from. That would have included India. At that time, despite our pleading, the UK Government insisted on managed quarantine only for red list countries. It took until the latter part of April to put India on the red list. People have heard me say many times that that left us seriously vulnerable to people coming into English airports and travelling to Scotland, such that they were not caught by our managed quarantine arrangements.

We pleaded with the UK Government to put in place common provisions across the UK and to introduce an arrangement whereby people who were coming into an English airport but were intending to go to Scotland would be made to quarantine at the point of arrival. Back in February, Michael Gove wrote to the transport secretary and refused point blank to do that. The UK Government would not

“legally treat people differently in England based on their final destination within the UK.”

I have a deep frustration about the situation, but we are where we are, and we have to deal with it. However, there is no doubt at all that too lax border controls around the whole UK have played a part in where we are right now.

I thank Jim Fairlie for an important question. Obviously, we feel as if we have been living with Covid for ever, but it has been for only just over a year. It is a relatively new illness, and clinicians and experts are still developing their understanding of it and the effect that it has on people, so that we can ensure that people, including those who have long Covid, get the best possible care and support.

The NHS already delivers services that are tailored as far as possible to the individual needs of people who are experiencing long Covid. In consultation with clinicians and patients, we have developed support for primary care teams to identify, assess and support people who have long Covid. We are also working with Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland to develop its long Covid support service, which complements the work that is being done by the NHS.

We encourage employers to apply fair work principles to support those with long Covid and to make full use of the current furlough scheme. As our understanding of long Covid develops, so too will the services that we are able to put in place to support people. In time, that will include specialist services. The process is one of understanding the impacts and helping people as much as we can as we go along.

These are important issues, and we have to consider all the particular cases to make sure that the system can respond overall. On the point about September, there is a recognised need for the pupils who take advantage of the contingency arrangement to engage with universities, colleges or employers about any knock-on effects. If Anas Sarwar wants to send the particulars of a case, I can make sure that that is happening. It should be happening, and we have to ensure that it happens so that there is no disadvantage at that end.

I come back to the most fundamental point. I apologise that I did not catch the name of the young man who Anas Sarwar talked about, but in his case, if the fundamental issue is that, because of the understandable circumstances, the evidence of attainment could not be provided within the given timescale—and this gets to the heart of the matter—an appeal is not going to rectify that, because appeals can look only at the attainment evidence that is provided. That is why extending the timescale for the accumulation and submission of evidence is seen to be a fairer way of doing this.

Because of the lack of exams, the situation that the pandemic has created is far from ideal, but, in an imperfect situation, we are genuinely finding the best overall way. There will always be individual circumstances that we need to look at and make sure that we are taking proper account of. I give an assurance today that we will make sure that that happens. We are seeking to address this issue in as fair a way as possible. I think we have just highlighted why relying on appeals for exceptional circumstances is not always the best way to do that. The way that we are choosing to do that, although it is absolutely not perfect, is in many ways preferable.

Obviously, I do not know all the circumstances of the case, but it sounds as if it was not an acceptable experience for any patient. I will be happy to look at the details if they are provided.

It is important to say that GP practices have remained open during the pandemic, although they have had to change the way in which they cater for patients. They continue to provide clinical care, making more use of NHS near me and telephone consultations, but we are very clear that there must always be an option to have a face-to-face consultation if that is clinically necessary.

The chair of the British Medical Association’s general practitioners committee has commented that face-to-face appointments are an essential part of what GPs do and that GPs are committed to ensuring availability of those appointments. Obviously, individual GP practices have to assess their own circumstances and risks, but it is absolutely essential that patients get access to face-to-face appointments when that is in their interests.

I repeat the offer to look in more detail at the specific case that has been raised, if the patient wishes her or his details to be passed to me.

I will do what I hope is more helpful, which is to try to resolve the issue without the requirement for a meeting. I am trying to bring to mind right now all the details of a previous issue involving dental students, for whom that problem was resolved. If there is a problem with other parts of that cohort, I will take that away today to see whether we can resolve it without the need for a meeting. If that is not possible, I will come back to Michael Marra with the reasons why.

I thank Jenny Minto for that important question during national carers week. I want to highlight and thank unpaid carers for the incredible contribution that they make. We introduced the carer’s allowance supplement to support carers who are in receipt of carer’s allowance. I recognise that it does not apply to every unpaid carer, but the carer’s allowance supplement has helped more than 100,000 carers since 2018.

The pandemic has added to the pressure on carers, which is why we provided an extra payment last year and we, of course, plan to do the same this year. Establishing a national care service to ensure that the social care system consistently delivers high-quality support for carers and those who need care is vital with regard to the update in the first 100 days of this Administration. We will start the consultation on the necessary legislation and establish a social covenant steering group that will include those with lived experience of care services and unpaid carers, to ensure that the new service is designed around their needs.

I agree very much with the context of the question. It is not for me to comment on what the commissioner might do, but I support any efforts to improve the situation of, and the conditions for, children of asylum seekers.

The Freedom To Crawl campaign was raised with me in the chamber last week or the week before. I have since looked into the matter and, like every other member I am sure, I receive lots of letters from constituents asking me to support the campaign.

The concerns that are being raised are legitimate. I say again that all asylum seekers, particularly young children, must be provided with accommodation that properly meets their needs, ensures that they get support and can access the services that they need, and enables them to be a part of the community. The issues underlying the campaign need to be resolved quickly in the best interests of mothers and babies.

We have repeatedly called on the Home Office to deliver more humane and flexible asylum and immigration policies, and we make clear again that our strong preference is for asylum accommodation to be delivered by the public sector or the third sector.