Chamber and committees

No, I do not take that view, because the arrangements around the gathering, handling and processing of information relating to the Covid certification app are all carefully regulated and compliant. Any business would have to be mindful of its policies, decisions and legal obligations in administering any scheme. I am satisfied about legal compliance, and the onus is on businesses to ensure that their operations are legally compliant, too.

By working collaboratively with our partners in local government, business and the third sector, we will deliver a strong recovery that meets needs specific to each area. For example, the Glasgow city region deal empowers Glasgow and its city region partners to identify, manage and deliver a programme of investment to stimulate economic growth and create jobs in the area, thereby supporting the region to achieve its shared long-term vision for the local economy.

The Government is actively involved in dialogue on the city region deal, and we will continue that dialogue, with our focus being on recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.

I do not recognise Mr Kerr’s characterisation of the situation. There is an open procurement process, and the Government has to ensure that such services are procured properly and are legally compliant. That process was followed in these circumstances.

The scheme was expanded significantly beyond its original purpose, which is why it cost more money. Clearly, if we expand a scheme beyond its original concept, it will cost more money—that is as straightforward as B following A.

The Government subjects all its decisions to careful scrutiny with regard to financial handling, legal compliance and compliance with other regulatory arrangements. The scheme has complied in every aspect.

I stress that the scheme is a valuable tool in ensuring that we can take the necessary steps to suppress circulation of the virus. It also allows individuals to provide a crucial piece of evidence to enable them to undertake international travel. If Mr Kerr wants to support our airports in attracting more custom, he should note that they require their customers to be able to comply with the requirements of the Covid status app.

That is a pretty fundamental issue, and it will affect the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill that the Parliament will scrutinise fully in the normal parliamentary process. It relates to whether we have a statute book that is capable of addressing emergency circumstances such as we have faced. In the past, the United Kingdom Parliament has legislated for England and Wales to have statutory powers to—[Interruption.]

Mr Whittle is muttering from the sidelines that this is not the same thing—it is exactly the same thing.

The UK Parliament has legislated for powers that can be exercised by ministers in an emergency such as a pandemic. We did not have those powers in Scotland; we had to legislate for them in a great hurry at the start of the pandemic. The Government—Parliament having considered the legislation—is asking that we extend some limited provisions for six months. Parliament can consider the full legislation.

There are motions on four sets of regulations before Parliament today. I will not rehearse all the details in them. However, if they are not passed today, local authorities will not be able to make the wider public health interventions that they have been using to deal with the pandemic at local level, because the interventions are in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Directions by Local Authorities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022.

Also, if we do not extend the deadlines for the regulations tonight, we will lose our ability to maintain in place the arrangements for face coverings. As Mr Mason has just pointed out when he asked about hospital cases, more than 2,000 people are in hospital with Covid. We have never had so many people in hospital during the pandemic.

We need to continue to address the gravity of the situation. There are measures that the Government will remove as a consequence of the regulations, which is consistent with what we say in the strategic framework—that we will not retain any of the powers or responsibilities for a moment longer than is necessary. I therefore invite Parliament to support the motions on the statutory instruments at decision time. They are essential to ensuring that we have in place the public health protections to deal with the continuing severe situation with Covid. It is the duty of Parliament to ensure that we have a properly considered legislative framework that can address that situation.

On scrutiny, I regularly appear in front of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee to explain the necessary measures that the Government has been having to take in these extraordinary circumstances. I will happily appear in front of the committee any time that the committee wishes to see me so that it can scrutinise what I say and so that I can answer any questions that the committee wishes to put to me.

I answer faithfully the questions that Mr Whittle and his colleagues put to me in committee. I cannot be responsible for the fact that Mr Whittle does not like the answers that I give him. I faithfully attend that committee to give answers on behalf of the Government.

The testing programme has been delivered through a number of channels. Some testing is delivered under the auspices of the NHS in Scotland, and some is delivered within the test and protect infrastructure that was put in place by the UK Government and its contractors.

There are different employment relationships in there. For example, the NHS in Scotland turned over substantial proportions of its lab testing environment for the purposes of Covid. There will be ways in which that will be redeployed for other purposes. There are therefore different ways of approaching the matter.

The key point—this is where I agree with Mr Rowley, and I want to reassure him—is that we have staff shortages in a range of areas within the health and social care system. Individuals who have been involved in testing have also been involved in that activity, so it would seem natural to make sure that they have access to recruitment opportunities within the NHS, as well as appropriate training opportunities. That will be taken forward by individual health boards, all of which have in place recruitment strategies to fill vacancies at different levels of activity in the health service.

No.

There are two numbers that I encourage Mr Mason to look at. The total number of people who are in hospital with Covid is important, but just as important is the number of new admissions week by week, by comparison. The latter number—the number of people being admitted to hospital week by week—is beginning to show a reduction. I was going to say that it is tailing off. I do not think that I could justify saying that, but it is certainly reducing on a weekly basis. That indicates to me that we appear to be getting over the peak of the challenge that we face from BA.2.

On that justification, I think that we are in an appropriate place to undertake the relaxations that will take place on Monday. However, I also note that the Government has taken the difficult decision, which I recognise is not universally popular, that one of the relaxations that was proposed for Monday will not be permitted. That is the relaxation of the legal obligation to wear face coverings in public spaces. We judged that, given where we are in this challenge, it is appropriate and proportionate to extend that measure for a further two-week period, and then to review it. By that time, we should have clearer evidence that we are over the peak of BA.2 and we will be able to more confidently take that step. I appreciate that that position is not universally supported, but I judge the decision that the Government has made to be the right one.

We are looking carefully at the issues around self-isolation grant support. Fundamentally, we need to recognise the interaction between individuals’ practical circumstances and the necessity of interrupting the circulation of the virus. The advice that will be available will encourage people to remain at home, in the same way that we would advise people with other conditions who might run the risk of spreading illness to other members of society.

We are looking carefully at the arrangements around self-isolation, because I recognise the challenge that Mr Mason raises. It might not be financially practical and possible for individuals to be able to self-isolate without loss of income. The points that Mr Rowley put to me about the cost of living crisis that people are facing is another dimension of it, and we are looking carefully at what other arrangements can be put in place.

I stress that the arrangements under the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 are designed for very limited outbreak purposes, and are not really suitable for the much wider proposition regarding the scenario that Mr Mason puts to me.

We have to persist with the message about the importance of vaccination. As I said in my answers to Murdo Fraser, I am concerned by an attitude of mind that says that omicron is much softer than previous variants. That view is allowed to prevail precisely because of the robustness of vaccination. If we do not have robust vaccination, we will be exposed to much more serious illness.

That brings me back to Mr Mason’s first question, about hospital admissions. If people are more seriously ill and spend more time in hospital, those numbers will not come down, and our hospitals will face a problem. I come back to the point that I have reiterated to the committee on a number of occasions: our national health service came closer to being overtopped during omicron than during any other part of the experience of Covid.