Chamber and committees

I would contend that that is precisely what we have done. The 2008 act provides for dealing with public health incidents of a local nature and character.

I do not think that that act could be described as providing for the arrangements that need to be put in place for a national pandemic. Indeed, that distinction has been made in the evidence, or comments, to the committee by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which generally welcomes the provisions in the bill. It recognises that although the provisions of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 might deal with a localised issue or outbreak, they are not sufficient for the type of national pandemic that we have faced, as they do not have sufficient scope and reach of powers to enable that to be the case.

The steps that the Government is taking at this stage are designed to address exactly the point that the convener raised with me. However, we remain open to considering whether any further changes need to be made, and we will consider that point as the bill progresses through its further stages of parliamentary scrutiny and before its final enactment.

We think that £5,000 is a reasonable threshold, but Mr Mason makes the entirely fair point that we must be careful to set the threshold at an appropriate level. On cost of living challenges, we have had pretty low inflation for the past 30 years, and we are now dealing with a very different situation. That is the best judgment that the Government can come to, but I am happy to listen to representations from stakeholders and members of the Parliament on that question.

I am open to considering those points. The Government’s policy intention here is, I hope, crystal clear. It is to enable us to take the necessary actions swiftly and with urgency should we face a pandemic threat of the type that we have faced over the past two years.

Although we had a great deal of parliamentary co-operation in the formulation of the legislation in spring 2020, for which I am grateful to members of all parties, we made a lot of changes to primary legislation in a short space of time. Generally, Parliament does not think that that is a good thing to be doing. Generally, Parliament wants to take time and care—as we are doing now—to consider what the contents of primary legislation should be. Some of Mr Fraser’s suggestions are entirely practical and pragmatic, and they could strengthen the approach in the bill.

The Government has no desire to be able to exercise powers in any unwarranted or unnecessary fashion, but we want to be able to act when we have to act because of a threat to public health. I am certainly happy to explore some of these questions further. I think that they take the form of points made in the stage 1 committee report, and I will of course reflect on them.

It is a matter for Parliament to consider, but the Government has worked to address that question in the bill. A number of the provisions in the early part of the bill amend the 2008 act. That is about using the foundation of the 2008 act as a basis for trying to address the wider issues that arise out of the pandemic.

As I said in response to the convener, that point was made well by the representative of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities who submitted material to the committee and gave evidence. COSLA recognised that the 2008 act works when there is an outbreak of an infectious disease in a locality and you have to take particular measures—Mr Rowley will be familiar with those arrangements from his leadership of Fife Council. The director of public health has statutory roles and responsibilities to act. However, COSLA indicated that it was generally supportive of the bill because, when it comes to a national pandemic, the 2008 act just does not get there.

If the 2008 act had been fine, we would probably not have had to make as many changes as we did in 2020. I contend that the Government is amending the 2008 act to make it appropriate for the challenges that we face now but, if members of the Parliament believe that we have to make further changes, I am open to that.

Yes, that is the case. However, members might wish to come back to the point to provide a degree of further legislative constraint if the bill is not felt to be sufficiently strong on that.

Let us do it this way. An example of a direct restriction would be for us to apply a particular constraint on people leaving their houses. I would say that that is a direct consequence of the measures that we are taking. An indirect provision might be that we have to ask people to observe a particular form of behaviour that is less specific than a direct provision, as in the example that I have just cited. We are trying to find ways that we can address the limitations that would be necessary to be applied that may not be ostensibly obvious as part of the original justification.

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.