Chamber and committees

First of all, I think that it would be helpful if I put on the record that the number of modern apprenticeships fell in the years that Pam Gosal mentioned because of the pandemic and the fact that the country was in lockdown. It was very difficult to enable those opportunities to be taken up in that context.

Of course, over the preceding four years, we had seen steady, incremental growth in modern apprenticeship numbers. The Government would have achieved the target of 30,000 modern apprenticeships for the financial year 2020-21 had it not been for the pandemic. We had reached more than 29,000 apprenticeships in the previous year.

That explains the situation. However, the Government is committed to sustained investment in the sector because—Pam Gosal’s point to me is a fair one—SMEs need access to a reliable stream of new entrants, with appropriate skills, and that is very much the focus of the apprenticeship programme. We are taking that forward with Skills Development Scotland and the college sector, which do superb work in making sure that every young person is able to fulfil their potential. That is our objective.

I certainly hope that that last point is not the case. My answer to the question might help to address some of those issues. I want members of the public who wish to take part in public worship to feel confident about doing so, which brings me to Mr Fraser’s first point. The matter cannot really be left to individual choice, because we are trying to create an environment in which it is safe for people who wish to take part in public worship to do so. As I said in my answer to Mr Mason, I acknowledge that to be a significant commitment of individuals in our society. I assure Mr Fraser that these issues are looked at carefully and that we engage closely with the faith communities.

The faith communities have been marvellous at working with us to apply the regulations in places of worship around the country. I thank them warmly for doing so and assure them that the restrictions will not be in place for any longer than is necessary.

If Sarah Boyack would like to drop me a note with the details of that particular case, I will have it specifically looked into. The logic of my answer is that, if people have had vaccinations in other parts of the United Kingdom, they can have that confirmed on their Covid status app in Scotland.

The NHS Inform system should enable that to be uploaded. If that is creating a difficulty in those circumstances, I will have it explored and remedied at the earliest possible opportunity. If Sarah Boyack will be so good as to give me that information, I will pursue that.

I think that the only caveat that I need to put into my answer to that is that it will be subject to the nature and approval of the vaccine that the individual has had. Providing that the vaccine has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, I do not see there being an issue with that.

First, I express my thanks to Mr Lumsden and people like him who have volunteered for such programmes. Frankly, we would not be where we are today without their generosity of spirit in doing that. It is therefore imperative that individuals who have made that commitment should be properly certificated for this purpose. I give Mr Lumsden the commitment that I will seek information on the issue and resolve it as quickly as possible.

I will make two points in response to that question. First, we have worked very closely with local authorities on the formulation of the Covid recovery strategy. Essentially, the strategy has been developed between the Government and local authorities. A programme board, which I co-chair with the president of COSLA, monitors the progress on the plan. I hope that that reassures Mr McLennan and Parliament that the Government is working closely with local authorities in that regard.

Secondly, in the strategic framework, we hope to achieve a document that lasts for a sustained period. We hope to be moving into a period in which the handling of the Covid pandemic is more consistent, so the document will require limited revision. Obviously, however, we will have to keep that point under review, and it will be the subject of updates to Parliament.

Miserable.

Stage 2 consideration of the bill follows from the constructive stage 1 debate last week, which demonstrated broad support across the Parliament for the general principles of the bill. The debate highlighted a number of key considerations with regard to the bill, specifically the level of scrutiny that the Parliament is afforded when the made affirmative procedure is used. There were also contributions about the visibility and awareness of the support that is available for self-isolation, and there was a recognition of the importance of consulting health boards before implementing the measures that are set out in the bill.

I have considered the issues that were raised during stage 1, notably by this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I have lodged three Government amendments at stage 2.

As a reminder, I note that the bill’s core purpose is to maintain the modification to the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 made by the United Kingdom Coronavirus Act 2020 that changed the obligation on health boards to pay compensation to those isolating as a result of an infectious disease to a discretionary power, for the purposes of Covid-19 isolation only.

Amendment 1 outlines the need for the Government to consult health boards before making regulations that would either prolong the modifications to the 2008 act or expire the modifications early. The amendment also includes a provision to consult

“other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”

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

Amendment 2 is a related amendment that has the effect that the consultation obligation does not apply when regulations prolonging the modifications are made urgently using the made affirmative procedure.

Taken together, the two amendments give effect to the commitment that I made to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to examine the matter, following its suggestion that consultation with health boards should be required before regulations altering the expiry date are made.

Amendment 3 relates to giving reasons for urgency and using the made affirmative procedure. In any circumstances 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 a bit longer. That is covered by the text of the bill as drafted. The amendment ensures that, should the made affirmative procedure be needed in urgent circumstances, an explanation of that urgency will be included in the statement of reasons. The committee will recall that, in its evidence in December, the Law Society of Scotland called for the statement of reasons to include such an explanation. That point was highlighted in the committee’s recommendations and by various members in the stage 1 debate as an important consideration.

I move amendment 1.

I have no further comments to add.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 to 7 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issue and explain the detail of the affirmative instrument that is before the committee.

As the committee will be aware, at the end of last year, we passed a significant milestone with the launch of Scotland’s redress scheme, which opened for applications on 8 December. I am pleased to inform the committee that we have received more than 2,000 calls to the scheme since its launch and that more than 250 application forms have been received. That represents a significant step towards facing up to the wrongs of the past and the harm caused to society’s most vulnerable children.

As we move to deliver redress to survivors, we must ensure that the scheme operates fairly for all. Part of that is providing mechanisms to be able to reconsider, and deal with, any determinations under the scheme that are made in error, including those relating to the outcome of a redress application. The draft regulations before the committee seek to achieve that clear goal.

Section 75 of the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a reconsideration process, whereby a Redress Scotland panel can revisit a determination already made under part 4 of the act, should a concern arise that the determination was materially affected by error. That includes where a mistake might have been made in making the determination, or where it is thought that a determination was made on the basis of incorrect or misleading information.

Where the panel determines that an error has occurred, it must put that right. Importantly, where an applicant is not satisfied when they are told of the outcome of a determination, they can request a review. Safeguards are included in the act so that an applicant cannot be prejudiced by exercising their review right when the review is linked to the determination of a redress application.

In practice, we hope and anticipate that we will very rarely require to use the reconsideration and review processes, because robust measures have been embedded throughout the application process and wider scheme to reduce the opportunity for error and potential fraud. However, the draft regulations aim to ensure that we have suitable mechanisms in place to support people through the reconsideration and review processes if required. They also allow us to respond in a fair and effective manner to all possible outcomes of the processes that are linked to the determination of a redress application.

Although the range of possible outcomes is complex, the principle underpinning the proposed amendments to the act is simple: as far as possible, we wish to put an applicant back in the position that they would have been in, had no error occurred.

That may mean that an applicant is offered a different redress payment than the sum that they have been offered or have accepted previously, or that they may benefit from a fresh offer where an error has led to them not being given one before. In those scenarios, we intend that applicants will be given the option to do what is right for them, with the benefit of legal advice, by either accepting or rejecting the new offer.

The waiver is a key, and much debated, aspect of the act. It is essential that the way in which the waiver operates is fair. The draft regulations therefore seek to amend section 46 of the act on waiver. The effect of the proposed amendments is that, where an applicant is issued with an updated or fresh offer of a redress payment following a reconsideration or review, the waiver linked to that offer will reflect the contributor list at the time when the offer should have been made, rather than at the date of the offer itself. That will ensure that, where the offer is accepted, survivors do not miss out on any opportunity that they would otherwise have had to raise civil proceedings.

When a person has already signed a waiver to accept a redress payment offer that has changed following the reconsideration or review process, we consider that it is only fair that they have the opportunity to reconsider their choice and receive legal advice at that critical stage in the process.

We have therefore made provision for that and have ensured that, if a person is content to accept a new offer, the waiver that was signed to accept their original offer will remain in place. If they decide that accepting the new offer is not the right option for them, they will be able to reject it, and any waiver that was signed to accept the original offer will be rendered of no effect.

In the interests of fairness, we have also made provision for a waiver to be rendered of no effect where it is determined that a person ought not to have been offered an award under the scheme.

As I have stressed, the draft regulations ensure that people have access to support and advice, along with the provision for the payment of legal fees and the reimbursement of costs and expenses. That will allow them to fully understand and engage with the reconsideration and review processes and to make the choices that are right for them.

The draft instrument is the final one in a package for the implementation of the redress scheme, and I welcome and appreciate the cross-party support that has ensured that we have delivered the scheme that survivors deserve. I hope that I have provided members with a sufficient overview of the instrument, and my officials and I welcome any questions that the committee may have.