���˿���

It was chosen basically because the pandemic is still very much with us just now. We are still taking decisions about the handling of it, and we will be doing that well into 2022. We decided on that timescale because we wanted to define a structure for the period. The period of scrutiny cannot be unending; if it was, the inquiry would just never report. Therefore, there must be a defined timeframe, and we did not want to limit that to too great an extent without providing the scope for the inquiry to look at the overall handling of the pandemic.

Ensuring that we have in place the appropriate long-term arrangements is a reasonable point for us to consider. None of us wants to have another pandemic—this one is absolutely overwhelming as it is—but we have to look at the issue of Covid recovery and the questions that arise from that, which, of course, is the committee’s purpose.

We certainly need to make sure that individuals are aware of the provision. After I did my lateral flow test this morning before I left the house, I received an email from the NHS to confirm that it was negative, thankfully. That email also gives a link to information on self-isolation support, so there is a direct connection that promotes the information regularly.

I accept that there are other avenues for us to communicate the messages. Members will hear from the advice that the First Minister gives in parliamentary and media briefings that there is a significant emphasis and attention on the provision of the self-isolation grant. However, I will certainly take away Mr Mason’s point that there might be a case for us to look in greater depth at how we can further promote the availability of the grant, and I will endeavour to do that.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss a number of matters, including updates to Parliament this week and last week on Covid-19. As the First Minister set out on Tuesday, omicron is spreading rapidly and presents a significant challenge. We know that omicron is significantly more transmissible than delta. As it becomes the dominant strain, its much higher reproduction number, or R number, will also dominate, which will drive a steeper increase in cases.

It is important to be clear that, even if omicron proves to be milder than delta in terms of severe illness, a much more transmissible infection is likely to place a significant burden on the national health service. More people infected will result in more serious illness and, tragically, more people will die as a consequence.

A significant rise in cases will also result in many more people being off work due to mild illness and isolation. The impact on the economy and our ability to deliver critical services will also be severe. That is why we must take omicron extremely seriously and respond appropriately to mitigate its impacts on our society and economy.

Our vaccination programme is central to our response. Getting fully vaccinated is the best thing that we can do to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Scotland remains the most vaccinated part of the United Kingdom, and we are taking steps to deliver boosters even faster. That is the Scottish Government’s top priority. Everyone aged over 18 can now book their booster through the online portal; our aim is that everyone who is eligible will be able to book an appointment by 31 December.

In addition to vaccination, the Scottish Government has introduced further proportionate protective measures that are necessary to slow the spread of omicron. We are requiring businesses, service providers and places of worship to take reasonable measures to minimise the incidence and spread of coronavirus. Guidance will be issued this week to make clear what that means for different sectors, but it will include physical distancing and other protective measures, and enabling staff to work from home wherever possible. The First Minister outlined the additional support that is being made available for businesses—particularly in hospitality and food supply—that are affected by advice regarding work Christmas parties. We will work to make that support available as soon as possible.

We are also asking everyone to reduce their interactions with others as much as possible and limit the number of households meeting together to a maximum of three. Omicron has a very high attack rate, which means that if just one person in a gathering is infectious, they are likely to infect many more people in the group than was the case with the delta variant. Reducing the numbers of people and households gathering together will help to limit the extent of its spread.

The First Minister made clear that Christmas is not in any way cancelled and that we are not asking people to change their plans for Christmas day—or Christmas eve or boxing day, if that is when they celebrate. We want people to be able to celebrate with their loved ones as safely as possible. That means that we all need to limit the number of people and households we meet indoors, take a lateral flow test regularly, wear face coverings properly where required, maintain good hygiene, work from home wherever possible, and ventilate indoor spaces.

I am very happy to answer any questions that the committee may have.

Unlike me, Mr Fraser is a lawyer, but, as a legislator, I would say that the phrase “have regard to” places an obligation on those organisations to heed the contents of the guidance. In the spirit of our whole approach to the management of Covid, I invite organisations to follow up that obligation—which I consider to be a legal obligation—to have regard to the guidance.

Yes, they should have that capacity and should be able to address the situation in all parts of the country. Our fellow citizens require the provision of such services, and people should exercise management roles in the organisation of those services only if they are fit to do so and capable of doing so.

We have set the grant as payable to individuals who earn the real living wage or less. We judge that to be appropriate, given the fragility of income of individuals at that level.

The grant’s adequacy is an important question. We feel confident that, combined with the other financial support that is available for individuals in such circumstances, the self-isolation support grant provides an adequate and appropriate level of financial support for the 10-day period. However, we have to continue to consider and be mindful of the issue.

On promotion of the self-isolation support grant, whenever an individual tests positive, they are pointed in the direction of the grant to ensure that they are aware of its provision. Some people will not be eligible, because of the level of remuneration that they receive, but anybody who tests positive is pointed towards it. As I indicated, a range of other measures are in place that can provide assistance to families who face difficulties. However, I accept the principle of the point that Mr Rowley puts to me that the payment must be adequate to enable individuals to be prepared to comply with the requirements of self-isolation.

We are trying to engage the public in a communal effort to reduce the level of social interaction that they undertake. We all know that social interaction is the route by which the virus spreads. We are all involved in some degree of social interaction, and the Government’s plea is that we should reduce that.

We are trying to do that in a way that is consistent with a context in which, quite clearly, the wellbeing of individuals in our society is suffering. During Covid, the loss of opportunities to go to significant events has been a big loss to individuals.

Yesterday, I was questioned on the radio about people going to the pantomime. The pantomime is a landmark occasion in the annual calendar for a lot of families. Essentially, I would say to people that if they are going to the pantomime, where they will be sitting alongside other people, they should get a lateral flow test before they go, to make sure that they do not have Covid; ensure that they have been vaccinated; wear a face covering and stay safe; and limit and reduce their other social interactions. In that way, people can attend the events in their family calendar that we all cherish while reducing their other social interaction to ensure that their conduct does not potentially contribute to the spread of the virus.

It is a necessity that individuals limit their social interaction, as that has an effect. That is why we are not saying to people in a blanket way, “Return to your houses and don’t come out.” We are trying to recognise the damage that has been done to wellbeing by 20 months of the pandemic, and to be as pragmatic as we can.

You asked me specifically about the education system. The Government has taken a decision in principle that we want to protect the sustainability of education for as long as we possibly can. Education will be the last part of our public services to be restricted under any measures, because of the importance of supporting the education of young people.

With regard to individuals and young people socialising outside the home, I would say that individuals should limit numbers as much as they can, given the prevalence of omicron.

The Cabinet considered whether we should extend vaccination certification to a wider range of settings, but our judgment was that, as the vaccinations that individuals have received need to be boosted by the booster vaccination for them to be effective against omicron, that would not be a justifiable move because it would be difficult to demonstrate that that requirement provided robust protection with the advent of omicron, which is a development of the past two weeks. There might be a moment at which that becomes relevant, but the Cabinet decided that it was not at this stage.

Mr Mason’s point on mask wearing is fundamental and completely justified. Wearing a mask is, frankly, the least that anyone should be perturbed about. I appreciate that some people have health issues that mean that they cannot wear one, but there should be no question about it for everybody else. Global research has demonstrated, as have the policies and advice of the World Health Organization, that mask wearing is a significant deterrent to the circulation of the virus. People wearing face coverings is therefore fundamental.

On the basis of what Mr Mason has said to me, I will certainly take away from this meeting the need to reinforce to transport providers the need to remind people of the necessity of wearing face coverings on public transport. It cannot just be left to the British Transport Police to enforce that; there should be constant messaging to that effect. I will take that issue to the Cabinet, which has reflected on it previously. It believes that face coverings are an important part of the protection that is in place.

The circumstances in which we may have to move at pace are demonstrated by the experience that we have had with omicron. I have rehearsed some of this with the committee previously and in various media interviews. Three weeks past Tuesday, the Cabinet concluded that the coronavirus situation was in what I would describe as a reasonably steady state. Cases were high but stable and the vaccination programme was performing extremely well, so we considered the pandemic to be in a reasonably stable position. Within 48 hours, we were being briefed about the emergence of omicron in South Africa. It is three weeks today since we got that first briefing, so you can see the scale and pace of change that has happened. I use that sequence of events to illustrate why we have to be able to move swiftly with legislative change if required.

Having said that, it is important that we handle any issues about the making of legislation with great care and maximise the availability of scrutiny. The Law Society makes a reasonable proposition in relation to the statement of reasons, and I have asked my officials to explore that point. I suspect that the committee might well reflect on the issue in its stage 1 report. I will read with care what the committee says in the report and respond accordingly. I am asking for the Law Society’s point to be considered. Events are moving quickly in relation to the pandemic and we may have to act swiftly.

I remain available to appear before the committee at literally any moment that the committee would want to take evidence from me on the development of the pandemic. The committee has scheduled meetings on a Thursday morning. If it wishes to meet at any other moment in the week, with reasonable practical notice, I will appear before it for scrutiny. I appreciate the need for scrutiny—I am a parliamentarian—but, equally, I think that the committee appreciates the need for the Government to move quickly. If that requires an urgent meeting of the committee, I will be only too happy to appear before it.