 The next item of business is a debate on motion 2792, in the name of John Swinney, on coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland bill at stage 1. I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now, and I call on John Swinney, cabinet secretary, to speak to and to move the motion. I am pleased to present the coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland bill, and to set out the rationale for bringing this bill forward. I am grateful to the Covid-19 recovery committee for their consideration of the bill, as well as the opportunity to discuss it with the committee and to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their assessment and their valuable contributions. I am also grateful to the various stakeholders and members of the public who have provided their views. This bill relates to the provisions in the Public Health, etc. Scotland Act 2008, which confers a duty on health boards to provide compensation to people notified to isolate as a result of an infectious disease and to carers of such people. This power was intended to apply to small-scale outbreaks such as E. coli, where a small number of households may be isolated for a short period of time and may lose out on income as a result. This was never intended to apply in a global pandemic such as Covid-19. Had this duty not been suspended at the start of the pandemic, health boards would have faced a significant financial and administrative burden instead of 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 to pay compensation. Health boards now have the option to provide compensation to those who are isolating and their carers if they wish, but they are not under an obligation to do so. The bill would maintain that position until the end of October 2022 for coronavirus isolation only, with regulation-making powers included for Scottish ministers to either expire this modification early or prolong it as required. Should we want to keep the modification beyond the expiry date provided in the bill on 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 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, a one-off payment of £500 for those who are isolating as a result of Covid-19, earning 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, there have been 56,317 grants provided to people in low incomes who have been asked to self-isolate of £500 each. That means that over £28 million has been awarded in self-isolation support grants. That established support for isolation as a result of Covid-19 will continue as long as necessary. That bill relates purely to whether the current suspension of the compensation duty within the 2008 act should remain in place. The Scottish Government has conducted an indicative analysis of what the cost of health boards would be should that bill not pass 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, there would be a significant administrative resource required by health boards, too, from processing and evaluating each claim. Those are not additional challenges health boards who are rightly focused on managing pandemic pressures and providing essential care should be required to meet. Nor is it financial support that the Scottish Government could provide from within our fixed budget without substantial impact upon public services and 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 that bill. A full consultation analysis and response is available on the Scottish Government's website. We have also ensured that any requirement to extend the modifications of the 2008 act under this bill is subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Should those modifications still be required after October 2022, an affirmative vote of the Parliament would be required, the Scottish ministers will also need to lay a statement of reasons before the Parliament explaining why the modifications are being retained for a further period of time. John Mason. Sorry, Deputy First Minister. On the question of the 2008 act, the point has been made that it was not intended for pandemics. Going forward, does he think that it would be good to have one act that covered both pandemics and minor outbreaks? Deputy First Minister. I am not sure that the provisions would be necessary in one act, because I think that the provisions of the 2008 act for the purposes of a small, localised outbreak is a perfectly sustainable and effective set of provisions. I think that the gap is in relation to pandemic provisions, where there is a more extensive requirement. I think that the longer-term issue that Mr Mason raises is an entirely fair and appropriate issue to be raised. In drawing my remarks to a close, this bill ensures that health boards are protected from the significant financial and administrative burdens that they would face if this modification were not to continue. I therefore hope that the Parliament will agree to the general principles of this bill, and I accordingly move the coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland bill that stands in my name. I now call John Brown to speak on behalf of the Covid-19 recovery committee. It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Covid-19 recovery committee on our stage 1 report on the coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland bill. I thank all those that gave evidence to the committee, which informed our stage 1 report and led us to support the general principles of the bill. I also would like to thank the Scottish Government for providing its response to our report so quickly and in time for this debate today. As the Deputy First Minister has outlined, this bill is needed to extend temporary modifications to the Public Health Scotland Act 2008 so that health boards have the discretion as to whether to pay compensation for self-isolation in connection with Covid-19 rather than a duty. The bill is needed as a consequence of previous temporary modifications made to the 2008 act by the UK coronavirus act 2020 expiring or ceasing to have effect. In light of Omicron and the increasing number of people being asked to isolate and the fact that the existing modifications are due to expire in March, the committee understands why the Scottish Government has introduced the bill now and we agree that this legislation is needed. That said, in undertaking our stage 1 scrutiny, we became aware of some issues relating to the availability to support those asked to isolate, including the self-isolation support grant, and I will talk briefly about some of those issues today. So what did the committee hear? We were told by the Scottish Women's Convention that following a consultation exercise that was sent over to over 4,000 women, it found that none of the 100 women who responded had been successful in accessing the self-isolation support grant or local self-isolation assistance service, even though they had been required to self-isolate. That is a real concern, particularly when we were told that some did not know that support existed and others said that they did not know how it would affect their benefits. We also heard concerns about the eligibility for the grant, particularly for those just above the low income bracket, who do not currently qualify for the grant. On the evidence that we heard, and although it is not directly related to the bill's provision, we asked the Scottish Government to review both the level of support currently being provided and the eligibility criteria for those who qualify for support. We also urged it to consider how best to increase public awareness of the support available to those being asked to self-isolate. I am pleased that the Scottish Government's response confirmed that these issues were kept under regular review and that it will also continue to review its public communications around self-isolation support. That is to be welcomed. Turning briefly to another matter, the committee routinely considers regulations that put in place the on-going changes to health protection and travel restriction measures. It is no surprise, therefore, that we were interested in the powers in the bill to change the expiry date of the provisions by regulation. In light of the evidence heard by the committee, we recommended that, in the interests of effective parliamentary scrutiny, when making emergency regulations, the statement of reasons as required by the bill should explain clearly why it is necessary to make the regulations urgently. I am pleased to note that the Scottish Government has taken this on board and its response to our report and will provide that information in such circumstances. I look forward to hearing the other members' views on the bill and to considering any amendments to the bill as outlined in our report to Parliament agrees today that, if it should, it should progress to stage 2. I now call on Murdo Fraser on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I start by reminding members of my register of interests in that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland. I join with the committee convener in thanking the bill team, our committee clerks, advisers and SPICE and all those who gave evidence to the committee in relation to our consideration of the bill at stage 1. As we have already heard, the bill before us may appear to be technical and modest, but nevertheless it deals with an important issue. The Public Health and Safety Scotland Act 2008 puts a duty on health boards to provide compensation to a person who has been asked by a board to be quarantined or otherwise restricted for the periods from which they have to isolate. This is an important measure to deal with outbreaks of contagious diseases. It is important that people affected by this do have financial compensation so that they are not put in a difficult situation, but, of course, in the context of Covid-19, had those provisions continued, they could have led to a substantial financial burden on the public purse. Accordingly, in the original coronavirus emergency legislation, the obligation to provide compensation was replaced with a discretionary power, and what the bill before us does is it ensures that that discretionary power will continue even if the emergency coronavirus powers lapse. The bill before us is about saving money to the NHS. The financial memorandum estimates that the cost of the public purse in 2021-22 would be £380 million if it were not to be passed. We recognise that those who have to self-isolate due to Covid-19 should receive financial assistance. Presently, that is done through the Scottish Government's self-isolation support grant, which is administered by local authorities using the Scottish welfare fund statutory guidance. However, there needs to be a protection to the public purse to ensure that the total costs do not rise exponentially. Given that, as the cabinet secretary fairly said a moment ago, the 2008 act was predicated on small outbreaks of diseases such as E. coli, where it was only expected that very limited numbers of the public would be asked to quarantine. What the bill before us does is provide that protection. The committee's consultation showed general support for the principles of the bill. We did hear some comments in relation to the issue of accessibility to the self-isolation support grant. We heard concerns that the numbers of people on low incomes were not accessing those payments for a variety of reasons. Sarah McLeod, who gave us evidence on behalf of the Aberdeen City Health and Social Care Partnership, told the committee about experiences in Aberdeen where there had been some concerns from recipients that there was stigma and discrimination attached to claiming benefits and that there was not enough publicity around access to the SISG. The committee also heard views that there needed to be better transparency around the reasons for claims being rejected as reasons for those were not always being provided. The convener referred to one technical issue that was raised by the Law Society of Scotland in relation to the bill, namely that there should be a statement of reasons provided by the Scottish Government when making regulations under section 3 subsection 2 to extend the expiry date of section 1 or when making emergency regulations under section 3. I raised that in the evidence sessions and I was pleased that the call was supported by the committee. I was also pleased that the Scottish Government and its response have accepted that the issue will be addressed at stage 2 in an amendment that the committee will be addressing next Thursday. To conclude, this is an important bill, which, although it might appear modest in scope, actually has very significant financial implications. We need to keep supporting people, particularly those who are in a financially vulnerable situation, who have to self-isolate due to Covid. The bill will ensure that it is affordable for us to do that in future. For all those reasons, the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the bill at stage 1. Thank you. I now call on Jackie Baillie to open for Scottish Labour up to four minutes please, Ms Baillie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Scottish Labour too supports the general principles of the bill and I want to add my thanks to the committee for their work and all who gave evidence to them. We agree with the Scottish Government that separate legislation is required to ensure that help continues to go to those who are most in need of it and I understand that not continuing this temporary modification could have crippling financial implications for our health boards at a time when they are already struggling. In March 2020, Covid-19 was a public health crisis of the magnitude that we had not seen before, certainly not in my generation. It was also an economic crisis, the consequences of which I think we will continue to live with for a period after the immediate threat to our health has been brought under control, but the financial implications for both individuals and businesses have been devastating. As with most things, it is those on the lowest incomes who have been hit the hardest. Self-isolation grants are not only key to ensuring that people are not left struggling when they are required to self-isolate, but they are also absolutely vital in ensuring a greater and more widespread adherence to self-isolation guidance. If you are a worker on a low wage with a family to support and you had to choose between self-isolating, going without an income, especially when you might be asymptomatic, or continuing to go into work so that you can get paid, I know that many would be forced into making the wrong choice. The provision of self-isolation grants undoubtedly helps those who are low paid, but they also protect public health. Up to September 2021, I understand that the Scottish Government awarded something in the order of 43,000 self-isolation support grants coming to a total spend of £22 million, and while I welcome the fact that people have been able to access that support, I fear that many more who have been eligible and in need of financial assistance have simply not known about it. I echo the Covid-19 Committee's recommendations that there must be a serious increase in public awareness campaigns surrounding the availability and eligibility for self-isolation support, and indeed a review of the level of support provided. I would hope to see details from the Scottish Government on how it plans to actively do this ahead of stage 2. I have also previously raised concerns with the First Minister about the speed with which self-isolation support grants are paid out. I raised in this chamber the case of one constituent for whom it took 11 weeks for them to receive the funds. Funds that I am sure that we would all agree are required almost immediately to allow individuals and families to survive and meet their financial commitments. I understand that payments are made by local authorities, and I want to thank all those processing payments, but they did not have adequate resources to respond quickly, especially when significant numbers of applications were coming in. Ensuring that local authorities build in that surge capacity is critically important so that they can cope with the volume and so there are no further delays in when payments are received. Before I conclude, I would like to touch on the need for ensuring levels of transparency within Government that has already been raised by other speakers. I agree with both the recommendations of the committee and the views of the Law Society of Scotland, that the Government should produce a statement of reasons when making regulations to extend the expiry date or when making emergency regulations. Without the agreed definition of emergency, it is essential to allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny and ensure that that statement is provided and is necessary. I welcome the fact that the Deputy First Minister has acknowledged that. In my final sentence, the pandemic is not yet over, so it is only right to allow for an extension of those particular provisions, and Scottish Labour is therefore happy to support the bill at stage 1. Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the bill at stage 1. For the time being, we support the retention of compensation for self-isolation as a discretionary policy. During the strictest lockdown measures, there was not a great difference between self-isolating and staying at home. Other financial measures ensured that there was support for those who could not go to work, but for the small pool of people without financial support, during the requirement to self-isolate, discretionary payments were a possibility. Thankfully, we have moved on from those early days of 2020, and as we continue through the pandemic, we may wish to return to the model that we had before Covid. However, I am pleased that the duty on the health boards to provide compensation for isolation for reasons other than Covid will return. As we interact and travel more, there may be more cases of these isolation requirements for other reasons. The policy that the bill extends has not been perfect, but we recognise that the balance has to be struck. That is not an easy balance, and as we know, that has been a theme throughout the pandemic. Although it would have been ideal to provide compensation to every case of requested self-isolation, it was less necessary at the start of the pandemic for reasons that I have alluded to, and it would also have been a great financial and administrative burden on health boards, especially at the peak of infections. Covid-19 and lockdown measures were considered by some as the great leveller, but that was simply not the case. Inequality and poverty have been laid bare during all that we have been through these past two years. Those working in front-line roles with lots of one-on-one interactions are often paid less than those in jobs that could be done from home, yet, through the volume and proximity of contact with others, they are more likely to be exposed to the virus. Ensuring support to those with less means that are required to self-isolate is critical for those individuals and anyone that they happen to support. There are issues with the available financial self-isolation support, and I hope that the Scottish Government will look at the limited financial criteria, lack of awareness of the grant among the public, delays in receiving support and the practical barriers leaving claim rates low. Here, I will give an example of one of my constituents who tried to get support. Her son had a positive Covid test. My constituent and her partner did not, but nevertheless the household self-isolated. The self-employed beauty therapist working from home was unable to have clients in her house and consequently had no income for 10 days. She applied for the self-isolation grant but was told that she did not qualify for several reasons. She herself did not test positive. Her son is an adult and her partner's income rendered her ineligible, but the latter criteria has a somewhat patriarchal feel to it. Despite the impact on her business and losing client bookings, my constituent did the right thing in terms of isolating. Before I conclude, I would like to thank all those who, when asked to do so, have self-isolated over the past two years, ensuring that they did not infect others. Compliance rates with all Covid restrictions have been high and we must thank the public for the great sacrifices to protect each other. We must also ensure that when financial support is needed, it is there. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am sure that we could all make an effort to spin it out, if you want. Mr Mason, that was not what I was seeking. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. As a member of the Covid recovery committee, we have been through the bill fairly thoroughly and, as others have said, there has not really been anything very contentious in it. There was some suggestion that the bill was a technical bill, but I would suggest that it is a little bit more than that. If we did not pass the bill, as Murdo Fraser spelled out, the NHS would be facing substantial costs of some £360 million more, which is quite a substantial amount of money. If we had a bill before us and were planning to spend £360 million, that would not be considered just a technical bill. The convener has explained the background of the bill and that the subject was previously covered by UK legislation, but now will be handled by us. The Law Society was positive that one improvement because of that is that the legislation specifically deals with Covid-19, rather than a blanket modification of the 2008 act. Therefore, at least theoretically, if someone gets Ebola or some other similar minor or rare illness in the next few months and has to self-isolate, they would be entitled to the full compensation regime. However, there were a number of points made during our work on the bill, and it is worth spending just a little time considering some of them. The Law Society was asked about the Public Health Scotland Act 2008, and it considered that the whole vista of emergency legislation needs some revision in relation to whatever emergencies there might be. I think that the committee broadly agreed with that point, as the 2008 clearly was aimed at small numbers having to self-isolate and not at the possibility of a pandemic. The Government comment was that the 2008 act was fit for purpose, but that the intended purpose had been more limited. I feel that it would be better to have legislation in place, which dealt with both the smaller cases and the pandemics. Another issue that came up was how many people actually self-isolated when told to do so. Many said that they did self-isolate—in fact, 94 per cent of people said that. However, when that was studied in more detail, it was found that a lower proportion actually did, namely 74 per cent. Some people did not know about the compensation available, while others thought that it would impact on their benefits. Again, some found it difficult to access and some were apparently knocked back without reasons being made clear. For people in low incomes, being off work, as we have just heard from Beatrice Wishart and others, for even a few days is a serious step, and clearly some employers are more supportive than others. Going forward, the level of compensation needs to be carefully considered. Although the bill is not about the specific support of £500, that figure was one of the points raised in the consultation process. Household incomes and circumstances vary greatly around the country, not least because the cost of living varies. Some households already face fuel poverty and food insecurity, so, although £500 is a nice round simple figure, maybe it could be more nuanced. Practical support such as health and social care were also raised, and I understand that the Government is committed to considering those points. In the committee's own consultation, the Law Society pointed out that there was no definition of emergency, and the Government should be proactive in setting out why regulations need to be made urgently. In one sense, that issue is perhaps less important at this point in time, as we are hopefully coming out of the pandemic, and that legislation is of a temporary nature. However, the committee is also thinking ahead to future pandemics, and it would be good if we can have the best structures already in place when that happens. I think that the Government is accepting that point. Overall, I am happy to support this bill, to fully compensate everyone in the country for all their losses because of self-isolation or other aspects of this pandemic, has not been and is not and just cannot be afforded or possible. So, a more limited and targeted support scheme has been required, and this bill seeks to continue that. Thank you. I now call Sandesh Gohani, who is joining us remotely, to be followed by Jim Fairlie. Dr Gohani. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I wish to remind members of my register of interest as a practicing NHS doctor. In honesty, there is not a huge amount to say about this stage 1 bill, because basically the public have done the right thing. They have isolated as appropriate and taken their vaccines. Modo Fraser has eloquently expressed the concern from a law society over a technical point, so I do not wish to go over this again. The bill seeks to reinstate the duty on health boards to pay compensation requests for self-isolation for reasons other than Covid 19. Understandably, that was put at the discretion of health boards during Covid. The act was, as has been said already, intended to be used for people isolating from diseases such as TB and was never intended to be used in a pandemic. The bill looks to save some £360 million and potentially that is something that we should be welcoming. We need to be clear that there is help available for people who currently need to isolate, and they can get that help through the Scottish Government self-isolation support grant. Although, I must say, having seen the papers in the application process myself, it is a rather daunting prospect to go through, and it would be good to streamline this that, as some people may give up on the paperwork. I also agree with Jackie Baillie that those payments are required quickly by those applying. The scope of the bill is narrow and it is aimed at doing what is required. For this reason, I and the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the bill at stage 1. I now call Jim Fairlie, to be followed by Pam Duncan-Lancy. Others who have spoken before me, and particularly my fellow members of the Covid 19 recovery committee, have dealt with the intentions and implications of the bill in a more specific and detailed manner. I hope to avoid going over all ground in my speeches this afternoon. A consideration of the bill at this stage, I believe that the committee took a sufficiently wide-ranging selection of evidence from health and social care partnership, the Law Society of Scotland, the Resolution Foundation and the Scottish Women's Convention. From the Scottish Government themselves, we are the Deputy First Minister, we are the Scottish Government legal directorates, we are the team leader for Covid 19 legislation and daily contact testing, as well as the head of contact tracing and supporting isolation policy. In essence, the bill is a consequence of Covid still being with us and the desire to extend some of the unusual provisions relating to the way in which we are responding to the pandemic for a further six months and the acknowledgement of that fact. Instead of expiring in March, the provision allows it to run until October. By doing so, we are protecting the public purse from a 20-fold increase in potential costs to the public sector, which we have already heard is worth £360 million in the year 1. Covid has wreaked havoc on our economy and our social interactions and on our day-to-day lives in so many ways that, before March 2020, were almost unimaginable to us. The need to insist that such vast numbers of people isolate themselves for over a week at a time is a very big part of those previously unimaginable consequences. That was a decision that was felt prudent to take in 2020, and I am certainly not convinced that we are sufficiently free of the threat posed by the on-going pandemic to cast that protection aside just yet. This is a short-term legislative bill to prevent a long-term financial bill, because it is essential that we bear in mind that the requirement to compensate containing the 2008 act was not introduced with a worldwide pandemic in mind as it already had been articulated. It was intended to respond to the outbreaks of far more limited in terms of geography and scale, but that is not the position that we are in and far from it right now. However, that does not mean that the Scottish Government does not recognise the importance of providing financial support to those most in need, which requires to self-isolate as a consequence of the virus. I welcome that fact that, in the year of—from September 2021, the Government made awards of self-isolation support grants costing nearly £28 million. As a committee, we were not without questions or concerns about the contents of the bill, but I am satisfied that responses from the Scottish Government to those concerns were properly addressed and that any of the misgivings that we had were dealt with. We recommended that the Scottish Government, separately from the bill, reviewed the level of support that is currently being provided and the eligibility criteria for all those who qualify for that support. We were assured that the Scottish Government will keep that eligibility criteria and the level of support under constant review, and I welcome that. We recommend that the Scottish Government considers how best to increase public awareness of the support available to those being asked to self-isolate. We received an assurance on this, too, and that is what we kept under review. I would have to say that messaging is probably one of the biggest things that we have taken out of the Covid recovery committee. Probably the most complex of our recommendations was one of the perhaps inevitable, and I apologise to the lawyers who are sitting in the room. It came from the Law Society, which led to the concession from the Scottish Government that should a statement of reasons be required in relation to regulations requiring urgent circumstances. That statement will contain an explanation of that urgency, as well as the proposed extension that is required, which I welcome. I would like to say about those regulations, because it is really nice to know why we are doing them. Finally, we recommend that, at an appropriate time when the emergency nature of these deliberations is behind us, the compensation provisions that are contained in the 2008 act should be revisited to ensure that they are and remain sufficient for a purpose for which they were intended. That alludes to what my colleague John Mason was saying. For isolated examples of self-isolation, I for one certainly hope that we are never again in our lifetime in a position of having to distribute the large-scale levels of financial support as a consequence of a global pandemic, but we just never know. The bill allows for support for those required to self-isolate to be targeted at those who need it most. There may very well be a case for the level and the scope of that targeted assistance to be amended, upgraded and improved, but that is for another day. The compliance of the self-isolation requirements has in the main been very high, and I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion by paying tribute to all of those of the public who, over the course of the nearly past two years, have told the impositions put upon them with a remarkable stoicism, fortitude and community of spirit and understanding. For the past 22 months, the requirements to stay at home or self-isolate have sought all of us temporarily give up our freedoms and some of our human rights, a right to liberty, to education, to work, to health, to free assembly and the right to respect for private family life to name a few. However, while we have all experienced the same restrictions, the impacts have not been shared equally. I believe that it is incumbent on all of us to work tirelessly to do all that we can to ensure that no one's human rights are disproportionately restricted during a pandemic or after it. That means that we have to do everything in our power to ensure that, where we do restrict rights, it is proportionate, justified and managed in a way that, as far as possible, protects people from hardship and inequality. Self-isolation is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to protect lives, but that does not make the curtailment of rights any nicer or easier for those who are forced to do so. It is also crucial that we remember that some find self-isolation harder than others, and that is why, when we restrict rights, we must do so with regard for the disproportionate impact on some groups, particularly on low-paid workers, women, unpaid carers and disabled people. For many, self-isolation means more than just a curb on their freedom to leave the house or see other people. Without proper government intervention, for them it can be a choice between self-isolating or being able to pay the bills, and there are some groups who find it harder than others because of structural inequality. The equality and human rights civil justice committee heard evidence of the significant and disproportionate impact that the pandemic has had on low-paid workers, and specifically on women, who are more likely to work on the front line and risk Covid-19, and who are more likely to work in insecure jobs and on zero-hour contracts. The Covid Recovery Committee, as we have also heard today, found that women working in those conditions and sectors are concerned about the impact that self-isolation may have on their ability to get shifts following their isolation period. Many people cannot afford to self-isolate without jeopardising their ability to feed their families, pay their rent, or cover the cost of rising energy bills. The self-isolation support grant is available to those earning below the living wage, but many people do not access it or are not awarded it. The latest figure suggests that only 49 per cent of people who applied for the grant were actually successful in getting it, and the amount provided to those who do get it is often very low. As it stands, the grant is capped at £500. To put that in perspective, a worker earning £8.91 an hour, the minimum wage, working 35 hours a week, self-isolation, even with the grant, would have meant losing out on almost £130 over 10 days of isolation. For people already on the cusp of poverty, that could be the difference between making ends meet or not. We must ensure that available support is sufficient and reaches the people who need it most. To prevent entrenching inequality further, the Government must also listen to people impacted and act to identify and then mitigate any unequal consequences of restrictions taken. Deputy Presiding Officer, with more than 1 million Covid cases in Scotland, uptake of the self-isolation support grant was only around 6 per cent of that number. The support does not just need to be increased and improved, but it does also need to be promoted, and I welcome the committee's suggestion of that in their report. People cannot claim support that they do not know is there. We have adverts on TV promoting the importance of self-isolation, but they do not highlight the self-isolation support grant. That could be a key opportunity to remind people of the help that is out there. The Government, we believe, should promote the grants to people where they know they are negatively impacted the most, such as women, those working in care, hospitality and the creative sector, too. We have asked the Government to do that, and I hope today that they can set out that they intend to. People must be offered the grant at any and every opportunity, starting with when they are told that they should self-isolate. Lastly, Deputy Presiding Officer, I know that many have concerns around the fact that support is available in its promotion vary across the country, and it cannot be left up to a postcode lottery. There must be proper standards and guidance issued by the Scottish Government. For as long as self-isolation is used as a mechanism to keep the spread of the virus low, we must provide adequate and relentlessly promote all financial support available and seek to mitigate unequal impacts of restrictions at every turn. The Scottish Government must do all it can to encourage and empower people to comply with its guidance and ensure that no one has to choose between protecting themselves and others or paying their bills. I now call Gillian Mackay, who is joining us remotely, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. The bill is a vital piece of legislation that will protect health boards from facing unaffordable self-isolation payments. As has been observed, the 2008 Public Health Scotland act was not written with a global pandemic in mind, and health boards would be severely financially impacted if the mandatory compensation power in the 2008 act was to resume. The Scottish Greens therefore support the general principles of the bill and agree with its intention. I agree that it is not financially sustainable for the power contained within the 2008 act to resume. However, I would like to make some points regarding eligibility for the self-isolation support grant. During the Covid-19 recovery committee's consideration of the bill at stage 1, issues around eligibility were raised, and in its response to the calls for reviews, Shetland Islands Council said that it acknowledged the targeted nature of the support provided by the self-isolation support grant, but that it, and I quote, would like to highlight the potential socioeconomic impact on those with lower incomes or in areas where there is a significantly higher cost of living if the bill is passed and no consideration is given to reviewing the self-isolation support grant scheme, qualifying criteria and financial support. The Scottish Greens have long made the case for comprehensive financial and practical support for people who are self-isolating. There are financial and practical barriers to self-isolation, and addressing those will certainly help to boost compliance. The Scottish Government's own literature review of the evidence on compliance with self-isolation and quarantine measures found that, and I quote, rates of compliance are heavily influenced by financial constraints and are dependent on income support, job protection and support with accommodation. We are two years into this pandemic and the cost of living is rising. This has had serious financial consequences for individuals and their families, and undoubtedly many people are worse off than before the pandemic started. While I recognise that the 2008 act is not the appropriate means of providing financial support for those who are self-isolating, support must be on-going and should be reviewed regularly to ensure that it continues to be adequate. The need for better communication of what support is available has also been highlighted. In response to the Government's consultation on the bill, the Scottish Women's Convention said that, of the women that it has spoken to, none of them had successfully accessed the self-isolation support grant or the local self-isolation assistance service. Many said that they had not heard of the scheme and those who had heard of it did not think that they would be eligible. They also said that the application process could be daunting and confusing. The point was made by, during the pandemic, many people have had to apply for benefits for the first time in their lives and were unfamiliar with the process. While many public and third sector services that could previously have assisted them have been closed or reduced, I would therefore be grateful to hear from the cabinet secretary what steps could be taken to better publicise the grant and simplify the application process. I would now like to finish by focusing on the need for further pandemic-related legislation. While the bill is intended to address a very specific issue, we must consider the on-going relevance of the 2008 act. It was highlighted to the committee that, if the act was not drafted with a global pandemic in mind and is not suitable to be invoked in that context, there needs to be a review of all pandemic-related legislation. In an evidence session on the bill, the law society said that, we have recommended that the whole vista of emergency legislation needs some revision in relation to whatever emergencies there might be. We need to consider a law for emergencies and make sure that that is fit for purpose and flexible enough to meet every contingency. We need to consider what further legislation is required to prepare us for future pandemics and ensure that we are ready to respond as far as possible without the need for emergency legislation. As many others have, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the public for their efforts in self-isolating and keeping each other safe. I thank everyone who has contributed to the necessary debate and for all the contributions. I thank Siobhan Brown on behalf of the Covid Recovery Committee. I hope that she can take back just how we have progressed through the debate and that everyone wants to get stage 1 through so that we can offer support to people. As has been noted by all members, the evidence received tells us that Covid is quite simply the greatest shift in our health service, economy and indeed our society for generations. I thank Jim Fairlie for raising in the chamber who contributed to that. Few other things have reaped the sort of damage that the virus has. We require significant legislation, both now and well into the future, to deal with it. I know that Murdo Fraser's points about the legislation and Gillian McKay came in on that as well, but we all agree that we are glad that we are getting on with this job and passing the stage 1 part of the bill. As many of us have continued to say throughout the pandemic and have been remarked upon in this debate, this is not only a health crisis but an economic one, too. The startling effects of multiple lockdowns, limits on travel and unpredictable self-isolation rules have had on businesses and workers is truly incredible. Nearly two years into the pandemic, we still cannot fully grasp the extent of that damage and it will be felt for many years to come. Damage that has been mentioned has always felt very hardly by those in Scotland who bear the brunt of many things, people who are perhaps underpaid, overworked and often underappreciated. For a minimum wage worker to have to self-isolate and take on all that is necessary and what all that entails, it continues to be a harrowing experience. Those people desperately need our support then and still need it now, but far too few people even knew about such grants. I think that they have onraised a very good point about women accessing the grants and being unable to even know that they were available to us. I have heard that the lengthy process required to receive them has put many people off applying them. That inefficiency has to change. We have talked about that and I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that. It is important that no one feels that they have been penalised simply for doing the right thing. Self-isolation grants properly administered will give people the ability to self-isolate without having to worry. Equally, it will provide a great benefit to the rest of society, maintaining the number of people who will follow self-isolation rules because they know that they can afford it is essential for us all. Jackie Baillie and Dr Glhany spoke about how we all perhaps know someone who fell or were worried about self-isolating when they were required to do so. People who may not have had any desire to breach the rules, but the financial consequences of doing so were simply too much. Again, low-waged workers, the self-employed, the precarious workers, are just a few examples. That is an investment in us all and in public health. It is not a characterisation that can be had as a handout. As such, I would reiterate my party's position that we are broadly in support of this bill at stage 1. The Scottish Government is correcting its intention to introduce separate legislation so that we can distribute help to those who have faced the sharpest end of the problem. However, we must do so with full recognition of the extent of the financial penalty that so many have faced. We will continue to scrutinise the bill as it progresses to ensure that it is fit for purpose and in particular how the Government will raise awareness of those grants. Many people spoke about that in the chamber. If we cannot adequately inform people of what they are entitled to, we cannot be surprised when they fail to take on board what they require to do. I thank everybody for the debate, and I thank you, Presiding Officer. I now call Brian Whittle to wind up for the Scottish Conservatives. I am pleased to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. It is one of those debates that on the face of it seems more technical in its content, but as my colleague and fellow Covid recovery committee member, Murdo Fraser, suggested, covers some very important issues. As was mentioned by the Deputy First Minister in his opening remarks, the 2008 Public Health Scotland Act was not put in place with the current situation that we have with Covid. That pill put a duty on health boards to compensate any employee who has been asked to isolate or quarantine. As Jackie Baillie pointed out in her contribution, the Covid-19 pandemic could have put significant financial pressures on health boards in compensating those who have a need to isolate to the tune of some £360 million. Given that potentially financial pressure on our health boards in the Covid emergency legislation, the obligation to compensate for the requirement to isolate was replaced with a discretionary power, and that is the essence of the bill that we are considering, in that that support will continue even if the emergency coronavirus powers lapse. Murdo Fraser also mentioned that there was broad support in the Covid recovery committee for the bill, and there are a few amendments that will be required. I note that the Government's willingness to address those concerns at stage 2 of the bill, including the committee's conclusion that the Scottish Government needs to be more transparent in the eligibility for applications and also reasons for any rejection. The convener of the Covid recovery committee has highlighted that, in evidence that we did hear, some issues raised in relation to accessibility to the self-isolation support grant and numbers of people on low incomes were not accessing those payments as they should. The convener also highlighted the difficulties that some applicants had had in accessing the grant, despite having to self-isolate. None of the 100 applicants, for example, in the test group that we heard from, were successful. Pam Duncan Glancy pointed out that only 49 per cent of applicants had been successful. The Scottish Government does not need to ensure that those who require support can receive it intimuously. We heard that there was evidence from recipients that there was stigma and discrimination attacks to claiming benefits. As John Mason raised in his contribution, the issue that some potential claimants thought applying for the grant could impact on their current benefits. We heard that there was evidence—oh, sorry. We note that there was more to be done to highlight where those grants are targeted, to destigmatise those who need to access them, especially in the demographics that show that they are least likely to access those grants or where it is most needed. This may appear a technical bill with a narrow scope, but it is nonetheless an important bill with significant financial implications. It ensures support for those who need to isolate due to a positive Covid test, and it is right that we continue that support, especially for those in a financially vulnerable position. For all those reasons, the Scottish Government will be supporting the bill at stage 1. I thank colleagues for their contribution to the debate this afternoon and welcome the support that is clearly evident across the chamber for this practical and pragmatic bill to address an issue that could distract health boards from the central purpose and demands that are placed on them at this very challenging time. A number of members of Parliament have used the opportunity to highlight and pay tribute to members of the public for their willingness to self-isolate and to fulfil their obligations in relation to those provisions. I wish I particularly made this point, Jackie Baillie, likewise. Let me associate myself with the Government with those remarks. We are indebted to members of the public who have fully co-operated with the self-isolation requirements. It has helped to interrupt the circulation of the virus, and that is a commitment and a contribution that those individuals who have self-isolated have delivered for all the rest of us. However, as Pam Duncan Glancy made clear, the implications of that aspect of the pandemic, just like every other aspect of the pandemic, has not been felt equally across the population. Particularly, the impact on those who are low incomes and on women in our society has been particularly profound as a consequence of self-isolation. That is widely understood within Government. It is for those reasons that the Covid recovery strategy that I launched in Parliament in October is focused exclusively on the intensification of our efforts to tackle inequality. That is where so much of the Government's attention and thinking is focused to ensure that we use that Covid recovery strategy as a means of addressing some of the inequalities that existed in our society before Covid were highlighted and exacerbated by Covid and must be addressed in the aftermath of Covid. I give that commitment to Parliament today. The committee convener, along with Pam Duncan Glancy again and also Gillian Mackay and Jim Fairlie, made a number of comments about the awareness and accessibility of the self-isolation support grant. That is an issue of concern to the Government. There is research that was undertaken on the Government's behalf by Scott Senn, which indicates that over 80 per cent of participants in the study who had contact with their local authority indicated that they were satisfied that their support needs had been met. There have been many opportunities taken in the briefings that have been undertaken by ministers, by statements in Parliament to raise and also in promotional campaigns, indeed in relation to text messages sent to individuals when they have come forward in the testing infrastructure to raise awareness about the schemes that are available. However, there are two observations that I would have about all of that. The first is that I do not put those points on the record to say that that is perfect because I hear members of Parliament and if there is feedback that those have not been adequate, then we have to look at that again. However, the second point, which was made by a number of members of Parliament in the debate this afternoon, as well as getting across awareness about such grants, we have to make it clear to people in fragile low-income situations that they can safely take up those grants without jeopardising their wider financial positions. It is all very well to have awareness, but it has to be awareness of a certain depth of understanding to realise that there is not jeopardy going to be caused to individuals' financial circumstances if they take up those grants. I will take those points away from the debate this afternoon. A number of colleagues led principally by John Mason and Jim Fairlie and Gillian Mackay raised the issues of the wider legislative framework. I think that that raises a number of issues. As with any emergency of the nature that we have experienced in the past two years, we have to review what is the experience and the impact of that emergency and whether or not we had all of the arrangements in place to deal with it when it happened upon us. Obviously, a huge amount of new legislation has had to be put on the statute book, both here in Scotland and in the United Kingdom Parliament, to deal with the practical issues of this emergency. We have to look in retrospect at whether or not the statute book needs to be revised and strengthened to ensure that we have all of the arrangements in place. Indeed, the Government was consulting on some of those provisions. I see that they have not gone down perfectly with all sides of opinion within this Parliament, but we will hopefully navigate ourselves through that with the usual persuasive style that I bring to those discussions to try to assure members of Parliament about the importance—I have not come to Ms Bailey's remarks yet, and I shall do. However, I think that there is a substantive issue that we have to examine as to whether or not the legislative framework is adequate for all those circumstances. John Mason, in his intervention to me earlier on, made the point or asked a question about whether or not all of those provisions of self-isolation support in a small compartmentalised local outbreak versus a pandemic needed to be in the same legislative framework. We need to look at all of those questions. I am very grateful for him giving way again. I think that the law society is really pushing for a wider review of the law in relation to pandemics and so on going forward. Is he open to that and who would carry that out? I think that we have to look at all of those questions, and I dare say also that we probably have to consider carefully what comes from the public inquiry into the Covid emergency, which, as I have announced to the Parliament, Lady Poole, will be taking forward on the Government's behalf to understand some of the issues that we may need to consider as a wider review of the legislative framework. I think that there are short-term steps that we can take, such as the one that we are considering today, in which the committee and Parliament will consider stages 2 and 3, but there will be other deeper questions. I have further legislation to bring back to Parliament, which will be the subject of more detailed consideration than the expedited process that we are going through here. Jackie Baillie found cause. I have absolutely no idea why she felt the need to raise issues of transparency about the Government, because, as Jackie Baillie knows from the voluminous parliamentary questions, Fyre requests and letters that she writes to the Government, we are transparent about everything to Jackie Baillie. I shall, in a moment, since I have thrown out such provocation, but I do accept—we have accepted this in our response to the committee—the importance of setting out the rationale for using an emergency procedure to advance some of the extension of the provisions of the bill, and, obviously, the Government will bring forward amendments to that effective stage 2. I happily give way to Jackie Baillie. Far be it for me to remind the Deputy First Minister that some people in this chamber served in a committee in the last Parliament where information was actively withheld from that committee, but I welcome any recent conversions by the Deputy First Minister to transparency. I encourage Jackie Baillie to get over the difficulties that she had in the last Parliament, because I think that the Government was more than transparent and more than open with the Parliament, and I encourage her to gently move along, as would be in the nicest possible way she will have a happier life if she does so. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I thank members of Parliament for their engagement on this issue. It is a substantial issue, because there was a danger that the important work of our health boards in focusing on the management and addressing of the health emergency could have been diverted by the application of provisions that would have been administrative and financial burden to health boards. I appreciate the fact that members across the parliamentary 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 stage 2 and stage 3, and I look forward to engaging on those points with Parliament in due course. That concludes the stage 1 debate on coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland Bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. That is consideration of motion 2771 on a financial resolution for the coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation. I call on Kate Forbes to move the motion. The question on this motion will be put at decision time, and I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders that decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 2792, in the name of John Swinney, on coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland Bill at stage 1 be agreed? Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 2771, in the name of Kate Forbes, on a financial resolution for the coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Bill be agreed? Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed, and that concludes decision time. I close this meeting.