The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
The Official Report search offers lots of different ways to find the information you’re looking for. The search is used as a professional tool by researchers and third-party organisations. It is also used by members of the public who may have less parliamentary awareness. This means it needs to provide the ability to run complex searches, and the ability to browse reports or perform a simple keyword search.
The web version of the Official Report has three different views:
Depending on the kind of search you want to do, one of these views will be the best option. The default view is to show the report for each meeting of Parliament or a committee. For a simple keyword search, the results will be shown by item of business.
When you choose to search by a particular MSP, the results returned will show each spoken contribution in Parliament or a committee, ordered by date with the most recent contributions first. This will usually return a lot of results, but you can refine your search by keyword, date and/or by meeting (committee or Chamber business).
We’ve chosen to display the entirety of each MSP’s contribution in the search results. This is intended to reduce the number of times that users need to click into an actual report to get the information that they’re looking for, but in some cases it can lead to very short contributions (“Yes.”) or very long ones (Ministerial statements, for example.) We’ll keep this under review and get feedback from users on whether this approach best meets their needs.
There are two types of keyword search:
If you select an MSP’s name from the dropdown menu, and add a phrase in quotation marks to the keyword field, then the search will return only examples of when the MSP said those exact words. You can further refine this search by adding a date range or selecting a particular committee or Meeting of the Parliament.
It’s also possible to run basic Boolean searches. For example:
There are two ways of searching by date.
You can either use the Start date and End date options to run a search across a particular date range. For example, you may know that a particular subject was discussed at some point in the last few weeks and choose a date range to reflect that.
Alternatively, you can use one of the pre-defined date ranges under “Select a time period”. These are:
If you search by an individual session, the list of 成人快手 and committees will automatically update to show only the 成人快手 and committees which were current during that session. For example, if you select Session 1 you will be show a list of 成人快手 and committees from Session 1.
If you add a custom date range which crosses more than one session of Parliament, the lists of 成人快手 and committees will update to show the information that was current at that time.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1467 contributions
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 23 December 2021
John Swinney
I appreciate the committee鈥檚 desire for clarity on that point, but I do not think that I can add much to what I said to Mr Fraser. The Government is considering a range of options. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy is giving the matter her attention at the moment. Beyond the decisions that have been announced already, it would be inappropriate for me to start defining which areas should or should not be looked at.
I hear the points that Mr Mason makes. I know that the finance secretary will be receiving representations from a broad range of sectors that have been affected. I reiterate the point that I made to Mr Fraser: it will be impossible for us to support every sector that is affected by the latest changes. That is why we have asked the United Kingdom Government to engage substantively in putting in place a set of measures that will be sufficient to support those sectors. I reiterate that call today.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 23 December 2021
John Swinney
I will bring in Professor Leitch on some of the details of the question. I encourage Mr Mason to continue to give the advice that prevention is better than cure. That is absolutely solid advice. Prevention, by getting the vaccine, is much better than someone hoping that they can be rescued by a cure.
We know that vaccination is very effective at reducing the severity of the virus. That has been true up until now with delta, and the booster is crucial in that process in relation to omicron, because some of the earlier vaccinations are now not as robust as they were. Prevention is absolutely central to the advice that we should be issuing, and Mr Mason is absolutely correct to maintain that position.
There are two drug treatments available. If my memory serves me right, one of them is at the test pilot stage鈥擯rofessor Leitch will give us the proper terminology for that. Coming back to the prevention versus cure point, it is important to stress that prevention is available to a large proportion of our population鈥攁s we speak, to varying degrees, all over-12s have access to a vaccination programme. In the short term, a drug will be available to only a very small proportion of the population, particularly if that is part of a pilot exercise. I would not have people holding out hope at an early stage for a drug intervention鈥攖aking part in the vaccination programme is a much more effective intervention for individuals to make. However, I invite Professor Leitch to add to my comments.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 23 December 2021
John Swinney
There is a mixed picture. I recognise John Mason鈥檚 earlier point about some of the check-in procedures not being followed as assiduously as they were. I hear and see anecdotal evidence of people not wearing face coverings where they should be doing so. I spend none of my time in the retail environment鈥擨 do not get near the shops very often鈥攂ut I hear anecdotal reports about the challenges for staff in ensuring that those are applied.
That said, since the First Minister asked people a week past Tuesday to reduce their social interactions because of omicron, people have generally done that. There is pretty tangible evidence of that being the case. That has manifested itself in significant implications for the hospitality sector because lots of people have decided not to go out for the Christmas lunch that they thought they would be going out for or not to go out for an event. I acknowledge that that has had implications for others and for businesses, but people have taken those decisions. The evidence about the increase in the utilisation of lateral flow tests is also very encouraging.
There is a mixed picture. We should be optimistic that members of the public recognise the seriousness of the situation that we face and are responding accordingly.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 23 December 2021
John Swinney
That is a very difficult question to answer, because there is a huge number of variables. The first is a question of sustainability and survivability. The purpose of our interventions so far has, in essence, been to help businesses to get through to the other side of Covid. Therefore, at the various stages of the pandemic, there have been periods in which businesses have been closed, periods in which they have been restricted and periods in which they have been able to trade fully. During those different periods, different financial support has been in place, to the extent that, when businesses have been able to operate fully, no financial support has been available because they have been able to trade in the marketplace as we would expect. The question of survivability will vary from business to business, depending on the trading environment.
The second point is that some businesses will still be able to operate to some extent during this period, and they have been able to do so over recent weeks, albeit that they might not have been able to realise the revenues that they might have hoped for in this period. There is a difference between what one might have hoped for and what one needs to get to the other side of this period. For those reasons, it is difficult for the Government to come to a definitive conclusion on that estimate.
10:15However, I assure Mr Fairlie that the Scottish Government has gone through an exercise of looking in a very challenging way at the amount of money that we can make available to help people in this context. That exercise has involved us considering the remaining public expenditure between now and the end of the financial year. Members of the committee will be familiar with the point that a large proportion of the Government鈥檚 expenditure, once it is set in a budget, is very firmly committed. We have a health service to run, which is the largest single element of the Scottish Government鈥檚 budget鈥攊t is of the order of 40 per cent of the budget. A large part of the budget is locked into the running of the health service, and a large part of the budget is locked into the running of other public services鈥攕chools, care facilities and a variety of other items.
The degree of manoeuvrability and flexibility that exists within a fixed budget is very limited. Therefore, the 拢200 million for business support and the 拢100 million for self-isolation support that the Government has found will cause us discomfort. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy has considered that and she is managing that at the present moment.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 23 December 2021
John Swinney
That would be an option, but the Government is trying to be as pragmatic as we can be about the implications of our decisions. Nobody wants to take such decisions鈥擨 take no pleasure at all in taking them鈥攂ut we are trying to strike a balance that enables people, to some extent, to continue to enjoy particular events, albeit with very limited crowds in attendance, while at the same time taking the effective action that is necessary to suppress circulation of the virus. The Government is trying to arrive at that balanced judgment.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
John Swinney
The central point of and necessity for the bill is that the provisions of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 were designed for isolated requirements of self-isolation. Those were envisaged for an E coli outbreak in a small locality or a case of that nature.
In general, over the years, about 30 payments have been made under the terms of the 2008 act in those circumstances. The act was not designed for a pandemic. It requires each case to be assessed. The provisions of the act not only provide for a much larger cost to the public purse but would be administratively overwhelming for the national health service. The NHS is absolutely focused on dealing with the pandemic and the wider delivery of healthcare services. For it to then have to deploy massive administrative resources on the evaluation of cases consistent with the 2008 act would, to be frank, overwhelm it.
We have had to make a pragmatic decision to make payment available to those who require it in a way that is sustainable financially and administratively for the NHS. That is why the bill is a necessity.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
John Swinney
The First Minister has brought up that issue with the United Kingdom Government and has tried to make progress on the legitimate issues that Mr Mason has put to me. It is right that effort is being made and measures are being put in place across the globe to protect all populations.
The disparity between developed countries and developing countries is, frankly, indefensible. There must be a combined global effort to enable progress, and the First Minister has certainly given her support to those endeavours. She has engaged with those organisations and made representations to the UK Government, and we will continue to do so.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
John Swinney
It is critical that we handle the matter with a dispassionate, evidence-based approach. Throughout the pandemic, we have listened with care to expert opinion. Mr Whittle is correct to say that experts will debate some elements, but I am satisfied that our chief medical officers and other senior advisers have produced a body of well-considered, thoughtful and accurate advice on the nature of the pandemic.
The advice in the briefing last night by the United Kingdom chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty, and in the evidence presented by our own chief medical officer and national clinical director and their teams, is absolutely consistent. I do not accept the idea that there is a lack of clarity or consistency in the messaging about the severity of the threat that we face, because the advice is clearly marshalled for the public to see.
The question, then, is what we should do in the light of that advice. That is where there are some genuine difficulties. The First Minister was clear on Tuesday that she would have liked us to have gone further, but we are constrained from going further because of our inability to adequately compensate people who would be affected by certain decisions.
That is not me in any way making a partisan remark; it is a recognition of the reality that the measures that we consider to be appropriate, given the gravity of the circumstances, are not reflected in the United Kingdom Government鈥檚 decision making. That is despite the fact that the clinical and epidemiological advice that we and the UK Government are receiving is absolutely consistent about the severity of the threat that we face.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
John Swinney
It might help if I place on the record some detail.
Following the clinical concerns about the levels of the omicron variant being reported across Africa, the international travel instruments that are before the committee reintroduced restrictions to allow the joint biosecurity centre more time to engage with African authorities and access richer data to inform its risk assessment.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel and Operator Liability) (Scotland) Amendment (No 8) Regulations 2021, the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel and Operator Liability) (Scotland) Amendment (No 9) Regulations 2021 and the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel and Operator Liability) (Scotland) Amendment (No 11) Regulations 2021 added 11 countries to the red list in line with the latest UK Health Security Agency risk assessment, with changes being agreed on a four-nation basis. Travellers from those countries are required to enter managed quarantine hotels on arrival into Scotland and take tests on day 2 and day 8 after their arrival.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel and Operator Liability) (Scotland) Amendment (No 10) Regulations 2021 removed the option for travellers to take an LFD test and required that they must take a PCR test within the first two days of arriving into Scotland and self-isolate until the result of the test is known.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel and Operator Liability) (Scotland) Amendment (No 12) Regulations 2021 reintroduced pre-departure testing for all travellers regardless of vaccination status and extended it to new groups, including some children, that were previously not included. They also reduced the period within which a test can be taken before travel from three days to two.
As the committee is aware, the international travel rules are subject to regular review on a four-nations basis. That review took place at the start of this week. The temporary additions to the red list were proportionate as an immediate response to limit importation of the new variant, but the rapid growth of omicron cases across the world meant that it was appropriate at this point to remove the 11 countries from the red list from 4 am on Wednesday 15 December.
Following clinical advice from senior clinical advisers, it was also considered appropriate that individuals in managed quarantine with a negative day 2 test and no subsequent positive test should be eligible for release from 4 pm on Wednesday 15 December.
COVID-19 Recovery Committee
Meeting date: 16 December 2021
John Swinney
Those are among the central dilemmas that ministers wrestle with at all times. I have been open with the committee about the fact that the Scottish Government would like to take more substantive measures, but we must be mindful of our obligations across all the various harms that are associated with Covid. If we take action to address the direct health harm of Covid, as Mr Rowley reasonably suggests that we should, that may result in social and economic harm to members of society, which the Government must be in a position to defend as proportionate or to ameliorate through some form of compensatory intervention.
We are trying to maximise the compensatory interventions that we can make through the resources that we have allocated, but we would be in a stronger position if the approach that we believe is necessary, which the Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments also believe is necessary, was shared by the UK Government. Candidly, the challenge that we face here is that we cannot align the scale of intervention.
I have said to the committee that there might be circumstances in which the Government has to take further action. We might well have to do so because of the gravity of the situation, but we must be cognisant of the various harms that people might suffer.
My final point echoes what I said in response to the questions that Mr Fairlie raised with Professor Leitch. I am increasingly concerned about the notion that is being put about that omicron is a less severe variant than delta and other previous variants. That is a complete misnomer, because鈥攖his was the central point of my opening remarks鈥攖he transmissibility of omicron will result in a discernibly higher level of cases in Scotland and other countries than has been the case before. We are seeing that in the daily numbers, and I am sure that we will see that again today. Even a small proportion of that much, much larger number of people with the virus ending up in hospital will give us a severe challenge in our hospital system and in the delivery of public and private services in the period to come.