Chamber and committees

Those points are absolutely valid. Does Paul Sweeney then not accept the absurdity of the Labour Party’s position? It will vote against the budget that includes the doubling of the child payment, which puts resources directly into the hands of some of the poorest families in our country. The Scottish Labour Party will turn its back on those self-same families this afternoon.

Mr Johnson completely misses the point that we have reached in the budget process. The finance secretary has allocated the budget in its entirety, including the supposed £3 billion about which Mr Johnson is talking just now. If he wishes to allocate money to some other purpose, he has to serve Parliament well by telling us where in the proposals that have been put forward by the cabinet secretary he is going to move the money from. It is just incredible for him to come here and say that he wants to spend £1.5 billion on this side without saying where in the allocated budget the money will come from. That is the credibility problem that the Labour Party has failed today and it is why there is no justification for Labour turning its back on the young people and children of Scotland by not supporting the doubling of the child payment.

I am very grateful to Liz Smith for giving way. Would she enlighten the Parliament on what changes she would make to the Budget (Scotland) Bill that the finance secretary has put to the Parliament that would support her additional resources for local government? Where would the money come from and how much would it be?

Will the member take an intervention?

That is an issue that we will have to chew over in the bill process—whether we should have a statute book that can deal with emergencies. The Conservatives could quite easily muster up an argument to say, “Oh my goodness, you have been sitting in government for 15 years and have not yet got the statute book ready for emergency situations.” They could put forward that argument, and I would not put it past them to do so. We will leave that argument there and come back to pursue it on another, unhappy day.

In relation to the bill, I welcome the comments that colleagues have made. A number of colleagues have made points about the importance of ensuring that the self-isolation grant is available to people who require it. I have put on record the steps that we have taken to improve awareness of it. We will continue to do that, because it is vital that individuals receive the support that is necessary.

Jackie Baillie asked me about the United Kingdom Government’s decisions—well, not even decisions, but statements that were made by the Prime Minister earlier today about the removal of any requirement for self-isolation. I will just say to her that I have no clinical advice that would suggest to me that that is a good idea on the timescale that is presented. I shall leave it to Jackie Baillie to judge whether that announcement at Prime Minister’s questions had anything to do with clinical judgment or whether it had more to do with the survivability in office of the current Prime Minister. I think that that is no way to take decisions on an important question of that type.

Moving on to the debate, I confirm that the Government will support the reasoned amendment that Jackie Baillie has moved. However, I want to say a couple of things about it.

First, the Government’s approach to self-isolation support has been very mindful of the importance of ensuring that the self-isolation support grant delivers the national living wage. Obviously, we are putting a different obligation on people for the duration of self-isolation now than we did at earlier stages of the pandemic. The requirement today would be for individuals to self-isolate for seven days and then, with satisfactory clearance from lateral flow tests, to return to work. With £500, they would receive a sum of money that is in excess of the national living wage. That is obviously different from where we started. I accept the terms of the amendment, which asks the Government to review the amount that is paid. We will do that. Our objective is to ensure that that amount at least matches the national living wage, and that has been our position throughout the pandemic.

My second point about the reasoned amendment is that I hope that I do not find myself in the situation, which only a handful of us in Parliament will recall—Liz Smith will recall it—that occurred on the occasion of my first budget to the Parliament, in 2007 or 2008, when I accepted a reasoned amendment from the Labour Party at the conclusion of the stage 3 debate and the Labour Party proceeded to vote against the budget and its reasoned amendment. A few of us have been here long enough to remember that; my dear friend Christine Grahame was here, and she remembers it as well. I hope that I do not find myself in that situation at decision time and find that, after I have generously accepted the reasoned amendment, the Labour Party does the unthinkable on me and does not support the bill.

This is a very practical bill. It is designed to protect the finances of our health boards but also to put in place the support that is required by members of the public who we ask to self-isolate. I invite Parliament to support the bill, along with the reasoned amendment at decision time.

Hear, hear.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to close the debate. I will address the one and only discordant issue first, before I get on to my usual generous way of drawing such matters to a close.

The discordant note is the Conservatives’ persistent line of argument warning me of the troublesome journey of the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill, which is before Parliament. Of course, that is not the subject of today’s debate, so I hope that the Presiding Officer will allow me one moment to continue. I always follow the direction of the Presiding Officer, unlike Mr Whittle.

One of the issues—the point was made by the convener of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, Siobhian Brown, and Mr Mason has made it repeatedly in earlier debates—is that we must have a statute book that is appropriate to deal with the circumstances that we face. Siobhian Brown made the point that, in 2020, we did not have a statute book that was capable of allowing us to take the measures that we had to take to address the impact of the pandemic. We did not have the power to undertake the closure of educational facilities that was required in March 2020—that is beyond dispute.

The point of the legislation that I am bringing to Parliament is to enable Parliament to have a statute book that is fit for purpose when there are utterly exceptional circumstances. I hope that the Conservative members will engage constructively on that point. This is, perhaps, the start of either the constructive engagement or the dogged opposition of the Conservative Party.

I am pleased to open the final debate on the Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill.

I am grateful to members of Parliament for a constructive and considered stage 1 debate. The COVID-19 Recovery Committee dealt with the bill at stage 2, at which point the Scottish Government lodged three amendments, which addressed all the points raised by the committee and other members and stakeholders at stage 1. No non-Government amendments were lodged at either stage 2 or stage 3.

The first amendment that was lodged at stage 2 introduced a requirement for the Scottish ministers to consult health boards before making regulations that would either prolong the modifications that the bill makes to the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 or expire them early. The amendment also included a requirement to consult

“such other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”

to ensure that important health stakeholders and others with a relevant interest are also informed and able to offer views.

The second, related amendment provided that the consultation obligation does not apply when regulations prolonging the modifications are made urgently, using the made affirmative procedure.

The third amendment related to giving reasons for urgency and using the made affirmative procedure.

In any circumstance in which the modifications to the 2008 act are extended, the Scottish ministers will lay a statement of reasons explaining why we need to keep the modifications in place for a longer period. That requirement was in the bill at introduction.

My third amendment at stage 2 introduced a requirement that, should the made affirmative procedure be used, an explanation of why that procedure was used be included in the statement of reasons. That addresses a number of the points that were raised by various members during stage 1 about ensuring that there is sufficient scrutiny of the regulation-making provisions in the bill. The Government acknowledges the importance of appropriate and detailed scrutiny of all legislation involved in handling a pandemic of the nature and circumstances that we have faced.

The amendments also address the suggestion of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that health boards should be consulted before the provisions in the bill are extended or expired early. The Law Society of Scotland also suggested that an explanation for urgent regulations be provided, which has also been addressed.

In the stage 1 debate, various members raised concerns about the availability and, indeed, awareness of self-isolation support. There has been significant take-up of support for isolation. According to the most recent data available, the Scottish Government has processed 63,527 successful applications, each resulting in a £500 payment, through the self-isolation support grant. Self-isolation support services have been used 192,974 times since the start of the pandemic. Support has been promoted to the public in various ways, such as in televised briefings, in Parliament and in public campaigns. There is also comprehensive advice on self-isolation and the support available on the Scottish Government website. I have personal experience of receiving text messages from the local authority as a contact of someone who tested positive. There is direct use of technology so that we can ensure that individuals are aware of the importance of access to self-isolation support grants.

We have also undertaken significant research into compliance with self-isolation guidance, and we are keeping the messaging around availability of self-isolation support under review. Should we need to expand or raise public awareness of the support, we will not hesitate to do so, as we recognise the importance of self-isolation support in interrupting the circulation of the virus.

As I set out in the stage 1 debate, the bill prolongs the modification to the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 that was made by the United Kingdom Coronavirus Act 2020. The 2008 act places an obligation on health boards to compensate people who are notified to isolate as a result of their having an infectious disease. That obligation was changed by the UK act to become a discretionary power. The bill prolongs that change, with respect to Covid-19 isolation only, until October 2022. The Scottish ministers are given a power to extend that change for a longer period by regulations, which would require an affirmative vote of this Parliament, or to expire the provisions early.

The Scottish ministers would have to consult health boards prior to making regulations to change the expiry date, and if an extension of the change was required, they would have to set out their reasons for making it in a statement laid before Parliament. If there were urgent or emergency circumstances that required the change to be extended, the Scottish ministers could extend it by regulations under the made affirmative procedure, setting out the reasons for that urgency to Parliament.

I invite members to consider what would happen if Parliament were not to pass the bill today. It may be a short and technical bill, but it is nevertheless one with important consequences. Should the bill not be passed, the 2008 act duty would be reinstated by virtue of the expiry of the UK Coronavirus Act 2020. Every person who was asked to self-isolate would be able to claim full compensation for that isolation period. Even if case numbers were to reduce, that would come at a significant cost to health boards.

It is clear that the 2008 act was never intended to provide financial support to the very large numbers of people who have been, and continue to be, asked to isolate because of Covid-19. The Scottish Government’s indicative analysis demonstrates that that could cost as much as £320 million a year. At a time when significant resources have been put into our pandemic response, that would not be an efficient use of public funds.

In addition, at a time when they are trying to reduce the backlogs in care that have been caused by the pandemic, health boards would have to find the staff and resources to process applications for compensation.

I am grateful to Parliament for its consideration of the bill. As a result of that consideration, the Scottish Government submitted amendments that improved the bill. If Parliament passes the bill today, we can make sure that health boards are protected from significant financial and administrative burdens, and can focus on providing essential care. As that is such a vital part of our work as we build our recovery from Covid, I hope that Parliament will feel able to support the bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Obviously, a process is gone through to verify that payments are appropriate, but all local authorities are now making the payments. The system is active, working and making payments in all parts of the country.

Obviously, individual local authorities will work to their own pace, but we encourage them to move as quickly as possible, given that the resources are available to be distributed. I am certainly keen to encourage all local authorities to resolve any payments as quickly as possible. It is important that businesses receive payment, but it is equally important that it is appropriate for them to receive payment, so the necessary checks must be made to ensure that we are confident about the spending of public money.

There is a significant opportunity. As Mr Whittle has said, this is a moment to reset many of our attitudes in that respect.

In a moment, Professor Leitch will give a much more substantive clinical opinion than the one that I am about to give to the committee—