Chamber and committees

I am not sure that it would be necessary to have the provisions in one act. The provisions in the 2008 act for the purposes of a small localised outbreak are a perfectly sustainable and effective set of provisions. The gap relates to pandemic provisions, where there is a more extensive requirement. It is entirely fair and appropriate for Mr Mason to raise the longer-term issue.

The bill ensures that health boards are protected from the significant financial and administrative burdens that they would face if the modifications were not to be continued. I hope, therefore, that Parliament will agree to the general principles of the bill.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill.

I encourage Jackie Baillie to get over the difficulties that she had in the previous session of Parliament, because the Government was more than transparent and open with Parliament. I encourage her gently, in the nicest possible way, to move on. She will have a happier life if she does so.

I thank members of Parliament for their engagement on the issue. It is a substantial issue, because there was a danger that the important work of our health boards in focusing on and addressing management of the health emergency could have been diverted by the application of provisions that would have been an administrative and financial burden on them. I appreciate that members across the political spectrum have recognised the importance of that point and are committed to supporting the bill.

The Government will engage on the issues that arise at stages 2 and 3. I look forward to engaging on those points with Parliament, in due course.

I am pleased to present the Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill and to set out the rationale for introducing it.

I am grateful to the COVID-19 Recovery Committee for its consideration of the bill and for the opportunity to discuss the bill with it, and I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its assessment and valuable contributions. I am also grateful to the various stakeholders and members of the public who have provided their views.

The bill relates to provisions in the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008, which confers a duty on health boards to provide compensation to people who have been notified to isolate as a result of an infectious disease and to carers of such people. That power was intended to apply to small-scale outbreaks, such as E coli outbreaks, in which a small number of households may be isolated for a short period of time and may lose out on income as a result. It was never intended to apply in a global pandemic such as Covid-19. Had the duty not been suspended at the start of the pandemic, health boards would have faced the need to deal with a significant financial and administrative burden, rather than managing essential care and fighting a pandemic.

For that reason, in March 2020, the UK Coronavirus Act 2020 modified the duty on health boards to pay compensation so that it became a discretionary power. Health boards now have the option to provide compensation to those who are isolating, and to their carers, should they wish, but they are under no obligation to do so. The bill maintains that position until the end of October 2022 for coronavirus isolation only, with regulation-making powers included for Scottish ministers so that they can either enable the early expiration of the modifications or prolong them as required. Should we want to keep them beyond the expiry date for which the bill provides—31 October 2022—an affirmative vote of the Parliament would be required.

The Scottish Government recognises that people who are notified to self-isolate as a result of Covid-19, especially those on low incomes, may require support. That is why we have put in place financial and practical support for people who are self-isolating. That support includes the self-isolation support grant, which is a one-off payment of £500 for those who are isolating as a result of Covid-19 and earn the real living wage or less, and practical support such as the local self-isolation assistance service, which helps with food and essential medical deliveries, social support and practical advice. That support has been distributed to those in most need on low incomes.

As of the end of November 2021, the latest month for which we have data available, 56,317 grants of £500 each have been provided to people on low incomes who have been asked to self-isolate. That means that more than £28 million has been awarded in self-isolation support grants. That established support for isolation as a result of Covid-19 will continue for as long as necessary. The bill relates purely to whether the current suspension of the compensation duty in the 2008 act should remain in place.

The Scottish Government has conducted an indicative analysis of what the cost to health boards would be should the bill not be passed and the original 2008 act compensation duty be restored. According to that indicative analysis, the cost of reverting to the 2008 act would be approximately £320 million per year.

In addition to the cost of compensation, health boards would require significant administrative resource for processing and evaluating each claim. Those are not additional challenges that health boards, which are rightly focused on managing pandemic pressures and providing essential care, should be required to meet, nor could the Scottish Government provide that financial support from within our fixed budget without a substantial impact on public services and on the financial support that we have provided to business in response to the pandemic.

The Scottish Government has conducted a public consultation and engaged with key stakeholders on the bill. A full consultation analysis and response is available on the Scottish Government’s website. We have ensured that any requirement to extend the modifications of the 2008 act under the bill is subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Should the modifications still be required after October 2022, an affirmative vote of the Parliament would be required. Scottish ministers would also need to lay a statement of reasons before Parliament, explaining why the modifications were being retained for a further period of time.

I shall do so in a moment, given that I have thrown out such provocation. The Government has accepted in its response to the committee the importance of setting out the rationale for using an emergency procedure to extend the provisions in the bill. Obviously, the Government will introduce amendments to that effect at stage 2.

We have to look at all those issues. I dare say that we probably also have to consider carefully what comes out of the public inquiry into the Covid emergency in order to understand what issues we might need to consider in a wider review of the legislative framework. As I have announced to Parliament, Lady Poole will progress the inquiry on the Government’s behalf.

There are short-term steps that we can take, such as the bill that we are considering today, which the COVID-19 Recovery Committee and Parliament will consider at stages 2 and 3. However, there will be other deeper questions. I have more legislation to introduce; it will be the subject of more detailed consideration than is the case in the expedited process that we are going through for the Coronavirus (Discretionary Compensation for Self-isolation) (Scotland) Bill.

I have absolutely no idea why Jackie Baillie felt the need to raise issues of transparency relating to the Government. As she knows, as a result of voluminous amounts of parliamentary questions, freedom of information requests and letters that she submits to the Government, we are transparent about everything to Jackie Baillie.

Obviously, the data will vary from area to area. I am absolutely satisfied that the Government and health boards have put in place adequate opportunities for individuals to secure the booster jag. The level of performance has been very high. We have had surplus capacity, so there has been absolutely no difficulty in getting an appointment for people.

In some circumstances, there will obviously be a time lag. If individuals were slower in coming forward for their first and second doses, they will be delayed in getting their booster dose, because of the time limits that have to be applied. We are not at the end of the booster programme by any stretch of the imagination. It is continuing to vaccinate people on an on-going basis with the appropriate 12-week gap between the second dose and the booster dose. The best way to explain it is that the booster vaccination programme is still a work in progress. I therefore expect those rates of coverage to increase.

We have to continue to intensify the message. One point that concerns me a little is that, if there is a sense that omicron is a less acute variant, that might suggest to people that they do not need to come forward to get their vaccination. However, as Professor Leitch has just explained, there is an absolute necessity for individuals to have the booster vaccination, because it will give them a level of protection that is absolutely critical in dealing with the virus. The Government’s messages will therefore remain resolute about the importance of rolling out that booster vaccination programme in all circumstances and all geographies.

I am in a slightly difficult position on that, because I am not the one making the big song and dance about that data. Mr Fraser set out to the committee that he has been demanding that information for a considerable time. The Government has to respond to demands for information and has an obligation to address issues that members of the Parliament raise. Ministers have made it clear that we take the view, which Mr Fairlie expressed, that there is no particular significance in the difference between people being in hospital because of or with Covid.

We have a massive Covid challenge in our healthcare system, and the more that we can do to tackle the prevalence of Covid, the more we will relieve the pressure on that system. The Government’s messages have been crystal clear about the dangers of Covid. We have ensured that there is an understanding of the severity of the virus, whether omicron or not, because we cannot have a relaxed attitude prevail that omicron is somehow not a big threat. Omicron is a massive threat to our healthcare system and to public health. We have to get that across to people. That is why the Government has taken strong action to protect the public.

We are not in control of all the questions that we are asked, but we are certainly in control of the key messages about the importance of tackling Covid. Your points about the advice from the clinician are correct, Mr Fairlie. If somebody has an underlying condition and Covid, their ability to deal with the underlying condition will be severely compromised by the presence of Covid. We know that clearly from the clinical advice that we have had.

Obviously, a huge amount of effort is put into securing the take-up of vaccination and boosters. I do not have in front of me the breakdown in the over-70s category—

Yes—in whatever circumstance we look at, the Government accepts that argument. We have accepted it for many years and we have taken a number of steps to address it. Some of the available data and detail shows that the challenges that individuals face as a consequence of Covid will be made worse by other weaknesses in their health and fitness.

Mr Whittle makes a strong argument, which the Government accepts, for people to pursue a healthy living approach. Many of our public messages are supportive of such an approach: we encourage people to exercise, look after their health and take preventative action, so that they are in the strongest possible position to withstand the effects of conditions such as Covid or, for that matter, other challenging health conditions that people face in our society. The emphasis on preventative interventions is a core part of the Government’s health strategy and will remain so in the future.

The Cabinet will consider the steps that we will take on any future expansion of the vaccination certification scheme. That scheme works well. I fail to understand what the fuss is about. I think that it is a completely reasonable request for us to make. The arrangements are in place, and it functions well.

As I indicated in my response to oral questions in Parliament yesterday, in a system that involves more than 10 million individual vaccinations, there are bound to be teething issues on certain vaccination certificates. I have made it clear that ministers will help to resolve any issues. Indeed, I got an email last night from a gentleman who is not a constituent of mine who was looking for my help to solve a vaccination certification issue. That is under way. We will resolve such minor issues when they arise, but the vaccination certification scheme works perfectly well.

In our discussions on Tuesday, the Cabinet will consider any future expansion. We have put in place steps that enable negative lateral flow device tests to be an alternative to vaccination certification. That would remain an option for us to use in any future expansion and the Government will, of course, consider that.