Chamber and committees

Good morning, panel. I am interested in the potential impact of the bill. I want to look back on the way in which legislation was initially introduced in the Parliament two years ago, and the way in which we responded to coronavirus over the period of the pandemic. I note that it was an extended period—the pandemic did not happen to us suddenly. We watched coronavirus move around the world: from China, across Europe and into the UK and Scotland.

If it had existed back then, what difference would the legislation that is before us have made to the way in which we responded to coronavirus? The Parliament legislated quickly once a decision had been made, and I am struggling to understand what difference it would have made had the legislation existed in the first place. I ask Professor Hunter to answer that in the first instance.

My question, though, is: what difference would the bill have made to the impact of Covid and the decisions made during that time?

I will be brief. My interest lies in the impact of Covid. Before the pandemic, business debt and personal debt were being managed, but the impact of Covid has put a lot of strain on that. I know that we are talking about having a moratorium that would enable people to get back on to an even keel. However, at the end of the day, bankruptcy is about trading while insolvent, so how do we square that circle? How do we enable people to get back on an even keel if that means that they might potentially be trading while insolvent during that period?

Finally, on that point, leaving aside the £5,000 threshold, which it has been suggested is perhaps too low, should the bill contain anything to do with the issue that I spoke about with regard to the time to address the way in which Covid has impacted on debt?

Perhaps I can move to Professor de Londras for my next question. Now that we understand what legislation is required to address the pandemic, would it not be more appropriate for it to lie dormant now and give the Parliament the potential to resurrect it quickly, as we have done in the past, should such a pandemic come along?

I turn to Anthony Smith for my final question. One of the concerns is that the impact of Covid restrictions on non-Covid health issues is still being collated. What are your views on the impact of bringing in this legislation before we can make any judgments in that respect? The use of the word “proportionate” with regard to the restrictions that the Scottish ministers might be required to bring in is, I suggest, subjective, and I feel that, under such a provision, they would not have to seek any advice. For example, with any requirement to submit to certain medical interventions, such a judgment will be subjective—albeit that the threshold might be higher—and the Scottish ministers will be able to make those decisions on their own.

I am happy to leave it there, convener.

Good morning, Deputy First Minister and colleagues. I will take this opportunity to extend the conversation that we had with our previous panel about lessons learned and what we can do in the future. In most of the submissions that we had from experts, the word “anecdotal” appears a lot regarding the collection of data and what is happening, especially on what is happening with non-Covid-related conditions, and I note from the written evidence that

“deaths from other conditions may have increased”,

although the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh is

“not aware of any published data to support this.”

This is an extension of work that was done by the Health and Sport Committee in the previous session of the Parliament on collection of data. Fortunately, one of the experts speaking to us this morning raised the issue of the IT system that is currently available in the NHS, and words such as “clunky” came out. There are three different systems that the NHS works with just now. Looking ahead, I think that it would be beneficial if one of the investments that are made is to deliver an IT system that allows the proper collection and deployment of appropriate data. Covid has taught us that data is incredibly important.

I know that the Government was considering this in the previous session; I wonder where we are with the potential development of a new IT system for the NHS.

That is very helpful, as it sets up the direction of travel in which we were wanting to go. That concerns the collection and analysis of data. We did a lot of work on the Health and Sport Committee in the previous session, before Covid, on Scotland possibly behind the curve in our ability to collect data. When approaching a challenge, we must be able to quantify what the challenge is in the first place.

Is the Scottish Government collecting data or setting up indicators that are adequate to establish the extent of the health impacts that are not directly related to Covid-19? Is one of the points of learning that we need to take from Covid that we need to be better at gathering and quantifying data?

In the evidence to the committee, I was struck by the suggestion that patients are now presenting with more acute conditions than they were pre-pandemic. I suppose that I could ask any of the witnesses about that, but I will start with Dr Miles.