 The next item of business is a debate on motion 3080 in the name of John Swinney on coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland Bill. As members will be aware, at this point in the proceedings I am required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in my view, no provision of the coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I would invite members who wish to participate in proceedings in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to remove the motion for around seven minutes. I am pleased to open this final debate on the coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland Bill. I am grateful to members of Parliament for a constructive and considered stage 1 debate. The Covid-19 recovery committee also heard this bill at stage 2, at which the Scottish Government lodged three amendments to the bill, which addressed all the points raised by the committee, along with other members and stakeholders at the stage 1 proceedings. No non-government amendments were lodged at either stage 2 or stage 3. The first amendment that was lodged at stage 2 introduced a requirement for the Scottish ministers to consult with health boards before making regulations that would either prolong the modification that the bill makes to the Public Health, etc. Scotland Act 2008, as it is referred to, or expire that modification early. This amendment also included a requirement to consult other persons that the Scottish ministers considered appropriate to ensure important health stakeholders and others with irrelevant interests are also informed and able to offer their views. The second amendment was a related amendment that provided that the consultation obligation does not apply where regulations prolonging the modifications are made urgently using the made affirmative procedure. The third amendment related to giving reasons for urgency and using the made affirmative procedure. In any circumstance where the modifications to the 2008 act are extended, the Scottish ministers will lay a statement of reasons explaining why we need to keep those modifications in place for a longer period. That requirement was in the bill at introduction. My third amendment at stage 2 introduced a requirement that should the made affirmative procedure be used, an explanation of why that procedure was used is included in the statement of reasons. I think that point addresses a number of the points that had been raised by various members during stage 1 with regard to ensuring the sufficient scrutiny of the regulation making provisions within the bill. The Government acknowledges the importance of appropriate and detailed scrutiny of all legislative instruments involved in handling a pandemic in the nature of the circumstances that we have faced. The amendments also address the suggestion of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that health boards should be consulted before the provisions in this bill are extended or expired early. The Law Society of Scotland also suggested that an explanation for urgent regulations be provided, which has also been addressed. At the stage 1 debate, various members raised concerns about the availability and, indeed, awareness of self-isolation support. There has been significant take-up of support for isolation. The Scottish Government has processed 63,527 successful applications, each resulting in a £500 payment through the self-isolation support grant, according to the most recent data that we have available. Self-isolation support services have been used 192,974 times since the start of the pandemic. That support has been promoted to the public in various ways, in televised briefings, in statements to Parliament and also in public campaigns. There is also comprehensive advice on self-isolation and the support that is available at the Scottish Government website, and, from personal experience, I have had text messages from the local authority when I have been contacted as a contact of somebody who is tested positive. There is very direct use of technology to ensure that we ensure that individuals are aware of the importance of access to self-isolation support grants. We have also undertaken significant research into compliance with self-isolation guidance to keep the messaging around the availability of self-isolation support under review. Should we need to expand or raise public awareness of the support, we will not hesitate to do so, recognising the importance that self-isolation support represents in trying to interrupt the circulation of the virus. As I set out in the stage 1 debate, the bill prolongs the modification to the Public Health Exeter Scotland Act 2008, made by the UK Coronavirus Act 2020. The 2008 act places an obligation on health boards to compensate people who are notified to isolate as a result of an infectious disease. That obligation was changed by the UK act to become a discretionary power. The bill would prolong that change with respect to Covid-19 isolation only until October 2022. The Scottish ministers are given a power to extend that change for a longer period by regulations that would require an affirmative vote of this Parliament or to expire the provisions early. The Scottish ministers would have to consult with health boards prior to making regulations to change the expiry date and, if extending the change would be required, they would have to set out their reasons for doing so in a statement laid before Parliament. If there were urgent or emergency circumstances that required the change to be extended, then Scottish ministers could do so by regulations under the made affirmative procedure, setting out the reasons for that urgency to Parliament. I would invite members of Parliament to consider what would happen if this bill were not to pass Parliament today. It may be a short and technical bill, but it is nevertheless one with important consequences. Should this bill not pass, the 2008 act duty would be reinstated by virtue of the expiry date of the UK coronavirus act. Every person asked to self-isolate would be able to claim full compensation for that isolation period, even if case numbers were to reduce. That would come at a significant cost to health boards, and it is clear that the 2008 act was never intended to provide financial support to the very large numbers of people who have been and continue to be asked to isolate due to Covid-19. The Scottish Government's indicative analysis demonstrates that that could cost as much as £320 million each year at a time when significant resources have been put into our pandemic response. That is not an efficient use of public funds. Health boards at a time when they are trying to reduce the backlogs in care caused by the pandemic would, in addition, have to find the staff and resources to process applications for compensation. I am grateful for the consideration that Parliament has given to the bill already. The Scottish Government submitted amendments that improved the bill as a result of that consideration. If Parliament passes the bill here today, we can make sure that health boards are protected from significant financial and administrative burdens, and they can focus on providing essential care, which is such a vital part of our work as we build our recovery from Covid. I therefore hope that Parliament will feel able to support the bill, and I move that the Parliament agrees to the coronavirus to stress the compensation for self-isolation Scotland bill this afternoon. I now call on Jackie Baillie to speak to and move amendment 3080.1, Ms Baillie, for around six minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I want to place on record my thanks to the committee, those who gave evidence, the bill team and indeed the Deputy First Minister for getting us to this stage. Scottish Labour will be supporting this bill today at stage 3, and, as I said during the stage 1 debate, I understand and agree with the need for this bill. It is important that legislation is passed to ensure that help continues to go to the people who are most in need of it. I understand that failing to continue with the temporary modifications could have crippling financial implications for our health boards at a time when they are already struggling. There is a great deal of cross-party consensus about the need for the bill. Scottish Labour's reasoned amendment is about ensuring that the self-isolation grant is at an appropriate level to support people, given what we know about the cost of living crisis. I thank the member for giving way. I just wondered if she could explain the figures in her amendment, because the £500 would be like 50 hours at £10 an hour. If you let me develop the point, you will see where we have the calculations from. Scottish Labour's reasoned amendment is a recognition that the financial implications of the pandemic have been devastating for both families and businesses. Having to self-isolate rather than going to work and earning a salary would have been a very difficult and worrying prospect for many people, not least for those who have a family to support, and even more so in the context of the worst cost of living crisis in my memory. That is why the self-isolation support grants are welcome and very much needed if people are to comply with the stay-at-home rules. However, it is no good having the grants if they are not actually getting into the pockets of those who need them the most. The latest figures show that fewer than half of the people who applied for the grant were successful in their applications. During the stage 1 debate, MSPs from across the chamber told their own stories of people who had been in touch to say that they were unaware that the grants existed or that the process for applying was lengthy and complicated and that many thought that they had no choice but to abandon their applications. I acknowledge the Deputy First Minister's comments about public awareness, but we should do as much as we can to better advertise the details and eligibility criteria for the grants to ensure that, as many people as possible get the help that they need. In addition to the fact that those grants are not always getting into the pockets of everyone who is eligible, there is also the worrying fact that, even when the grants are being paid out, there is not always as much financial help as there could be. The grant is currently capped at £500. For workers who usually work full-time on the national living wage, they would come out of a 10-day self-isolation period out of pocket. That is despite being successful in their grant application. Scottish Labour believes that there should be an increase in the amount paid out in the self-isolation grant so that it at least matches the living wage of £9.50 per hour from April. That will ensure that people who are low paid are not left worse off because they followed the rules. I hope that the Deputy First Minister will accept the amendment and recognise that the request to review the amount is not unreasonable. Only last week in this chamber, we all agreed that we are living in the midst of a cost of living crisis of an unprecedented scale. We know all too well that energy prices are skyrocketing. People will be paying £700 more for their energy. At a time when Shell and BP announced eye-watering profits that equate to a profit of £44,710 every single minute. The cost of the weekly food shop is going up. Inflation is rising. Interest rates are going up. National insurance will increase by 10 per cent in April. It is undoubtedly the case that whether we like it or not, the value of the self-isolation grant is being eroded. It was agreed almost two years ago and the £500 grant was and remains undoubtedly helpful. Given what we now know about household expenses increasing exponentially, we should act and reflect those new realities. The self-isolation grant provides the incentive needed for people to stay at home and protect public health when they are infected with Covid-19. It is our job to ensure that no one is left at a financial disadvantage, especially when they are acting in the public interest. I note that the UK Government appears to be set to scrap self-isolation. I would be grateful for the Deputy First Minister's view on that and what implications it has for the Scottish Government's approach. Finally, I want to raise a practical problem with implementation. During stage 1, I raised the delays that my constituents experience in receiving funds. One of them waited as long as 11 weeks to receive the funds that they needed immediately to avoid financial hardship. I understand that local authorities make the payments, and I thank all those who are working so hard to process the grants, but they did not have adequate resources to respond quickly, especially when significant numbers of applications were coming in. In my local area of western Bartshire, a total of £718,500 was paid out between October 2020 and November 2021, but more than half of it was paid out to successful applicants in October 2021 alone. There was a clear backlog in applications, and ensuring that local authorities build in that surge capacity is critical for the future. I reiterate my support for the bill and ask the Deputy First Minister and the chamber to support the very reasonable amendment in my name to ensure that grant payments keep pace with the cost of living. I move amendment in my name. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Billy, and I call on Mordor Fraser for around six minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start by reminding members of my register of interests in that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland. This is the final point in the legislative process of what has been an uncontroversial, at least so far, if important piece of legislation. I should put on my record as others have my thanks to all those who assisted in the legislative process, particularly the clerks and advisers to the Covid-19 recovery committee, to all those who gave evidence to the committee in relation to our scrutiny of the bill and to the Scottish Government for their co-operation in relation to the way that the bill was handled at stage 2. As we have already heard, the bill is necessary because without it there would be a substantial burden on the public purse. There is a duty on health boards under the 2008 Public Health Scotland Act to provide compensation to any person who has been quarantined because of an infectious disease. A global pandemic such as Covid-19 was not in anticipation when this law was passed. Given the large numbers that have had to self-isolate following Covid infection, there would have been a substantial financial burden if the measures in the 2008 act had continued to apply. The bill before us, therefore, is estimated to save £380 million in the financial year 2021-22 and is an important measure of the effort to protect NHS resources. In this stage 1 debate a few weeks ago, I outlined some of the evidence that the committee had heard around the question of access to the self-isolation support grant. There were concerns that there was not enough publicity around how the grant might be accessed and there was concern among some applicants that their benefits might be affected if they were to apply for it. Jackie Baillie and her contribution made reference to other issues about people facing substantial delays in accessing funds that they would be required. Those are on-going issues but we would hope that, with the instance of Covid, we are swiftly reducing and, with the need for self-isolation, there should be less demand for the support grant in future months and, hopefully, those issues will no longer be so prevalent. Jackie Baillie introduced a reason amendment to the motion before us, proposing that the subs page should match at least the national living wage of £9.50 per hour. I have some sympathy for the position that she outlined. I think that she made a reasonable case. I am concerned, however, at the timing of that particular measure being introduced in the very final debate on the bill. It is an issue that Jackie Baillie could have raised at stage 1 in the debate or, indeed, she could have brought forward an amendment at stage 2, and she did not. I am curious as to why, and I am sure that she will explain in a moment why she has left it until the very last moment to raise this important topic, but no doubt she will tell me. Jackie Baillie. I am sure that she would agree that the scale of the cost of living crisis is laid bare. It is absolutely right for us to consider and keep under review the amount that is paid in the self-isolation grant. I think that she would recognise herself that off-gem lifting the cap by £700 is a new and significant thing that we should take into consideration. Murdo Fraser. I hear what Jackie Baillie says. Of course, she could have brought forward an amendment at stage 3 to seek to implement this change instead of simply bringing in a reasoned amendment to the original motion. I listened with great interest as well to her explanation around costings. Mr Mason did intervene earlier to try and seek some clarity on this, and I am not sure. We quite got answers to that particular point, so perhaps if she is contributing later, she might take us through in some more detail her calculations as to how much this particular proposal might... Yes, of course. I thank the member for giving way. I was doing some calculations in a bit of paper myself. I reckon that if it was 10 days, two days for weekends, for somebody who is working eight days, that is 56 hours, they would get £560 under Jackie Baillie's scheme instead of 500. Murdo Fraser. Mr Mason, of course, is an accountant. I bow to his mastery of figures in such a short notice, and I am sure that Ms Baillie will have a chance to respond to that in due course. Moving on to other matters, the Law Society of Scotland raised one issue in relation to the bill when we took evidence asking that a statement of reasons be provided by the Scottish Government when making regulations under section 3. I referred to that in the stage 1 debate. It was covered in the committee's report. The point was accepted by the Scottish Government and the amendment was brought forward by the Cabinet Secretary at stage 2. It was meant to change and that was a welcome concession by the Scottish Government. Presiding Officer, you have appeared. I am about to demote you there, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, there is very little really more to say about this bill. We look forward to becoming law in due course. I suspect that the next piece of Covid-19 legislation coming before us, the coronavirus recovery and reform bill, might not enjoy such a smooth and uncontroversial parliamentary passage as the one before us, but that is a matter for another day. In the meantime, we are pleased to support this bill at stage 3. I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I feel that there is going to be a little bit of repetition from the stage 1 debate, given that very little has changed in the time since then. The stage 2 amendments were minimal, as was laid out by the Deputy Presiding Officer, and were completely accepted by all members of the committee, including myself. Despite the general consensus on the bill and lack of controversy, I would still argue that this is an important bill, and not just a technical one, as some have suggested. If we do not pass this bill, the NHS will be facing additional costs of some £360 million, which is quite a substantial amount, and very clearly other services would suffer. The background to the bill was explained at stage 1 and already again today. It specifically deals with Covid-19, rather than a blanket modification of the 2008 act, which was the approach of the UK legislation that we are now replacing. Therefore, if someone has to self-isolate because of an infectious disease other than Covid, they would become entitled to the full compensation regime once again. Another issue that I mentioned previously, but which I think is worth repeating, is the difference between how many people said that they had followed the self-isolation rules compared with those who actually did self-isolate properly when they were told to do so. In fact, it is reckoned that 94 per cent claimed to have followed the rules, but when that was studied in more detail, it was found that only 74 per cent actually did. In particular, the Government's detailed literature review indicated that there were lower rates of compliance among men, younger age groups, key workers, people from poorer backgrounds and those with a dependent child in the household. One conclusion was that, quote, rates of compliance were heavily influenced by financial constraints and depend on income support, job protection and support with accommodation. The economic risks of self-isolating are often perceived as more significant than the risk to health, particularly for people from more disadvantaged backgrounds. One of the factors in that is almost certainly the availability and level of compensation available for many people in low incomes being off work for even a few days is a serious step and clearly some employers are more supportive than others. Some people did not know about the compensation available, as has been highlighted earlier by Jackie Baillie and others, while others thought that it would impact on their benefits and some found it difficult to access and were apparently knocked back without reasons being made clear. Going forward, the level of compensation needs to be carefully considered, and the Labour amendment touches on that, although the level of compensation is not part of the bill. As we have been discussing in my interventions, £500 is a reasonable level. That would equate to £50 at £10 per hour or £35 at £14 per hour. I understand that the Labour amendment would roughly mean for many people £560 an hour, and, if that is the case, I could certainly live with that amendment. However, clearly the essential weekly expenditure of different households can vary considerably. For future pandemics, a Government might want to look at tailoring support more according to need, but we also know from experience over the last two years that the more targeted support is to be, the longer it takes to design the system and to make the payments. The Law Society had 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, so I am very glad that the Government took that point on at stage 2 and brought forward an appropriate amendment. Overall, I am happy to support this bill, to fully compensate everyone in the country for all their losses because of self-isolation or for other aspects of this pandemic has not been and is not affordable or possible. A more limited and targeted support scheme has been required and the bill seeks to continue that. The last two years have been incredibly difficult for our country. Covid has been the most challenging test to our public services, our economy and our way of life that many of us have ever experienced. At times it has been all-consuming and we have all questioned whether a return to normality in full would ever be possible. However, the situation that we face today is, in all likelihood, the most optimistic since the pandemic began. Over 3.3 million Scots have received their booster-jag. While the dominant Omicron variant is more transmissible, it is proving to be less severe than other strains of the virus. I am sure that all members are pleased, even relieved, that the Scottish Government forecasts on the likely impact Omicron were way off the mark, set against the reality that we have today. As we seek to develop a strategy to go beyond Covid, it is indeed timely and important that we start dealing with some of the legislative details that have underpinned our country's pandemic response. The Coronavirus Act 2020 let health boards decide whether people who are self-isolating because of Covid-19 received compensation, plus allowing health boards to pay compensation for other reasons. As we know, the provision of the 2020 act expires in March 2022. It will apply until 31 October 2022, and the bill allows for the Scottish Government to reduce or extend that period if required. The Scottish Conservatives are comfortable with this bill. It provides sufficient flexibility for the Government to act if required, whilst putting down a marker that we are moving beyond Covid. I look forward very much to the Scottish Government presenting its strategy for living with Covid, which I hope we will be able to see before March. As members may be aware, as part of the cross-party consultation on the strategy, the Scottish Conservatives have already published its plan. We seek a progressive and ambitious change in direction to move away from blanket legal restrictions to instead use public health advice to protect vulnerable groups. Just as today's bill provides health boards and the Government with a level of flexibility, I believe that we should be open-minded and have a real rethink about whether we are now handling Covid correctly. This is essential because restrictions are not without cost. We must balance restrictions against the impact on people's livelihoods and their mental and physical health. We must also think about the signals we give to people and to businesses. To pass a law that retains the power for government to shut down schools and businesses, release prisoners early and force other lockdowns without any scrutiny sends the wrong signal society and investors. Those who know how corporate investment decisions are taken will understand that this is plain wrong. I would also think that the Green Party members and the Government, if they are true to their principles, would also find such a law objectionable. Some might even say that this is a thin end of an over-controlling Government's door wedge. It is certainly not the kind of law I would expect to see in the 21st century. Regarding the bill before us today, I wish to congratulate John Swinney and the Members of the Code Recovery Committee on steering the bill through Parliament, which the Scottish Conservatives will support. Since March 2020, so many have made sacrifices in exchange for the protection of our national health service and our fellow citizens. Taking action like self-isolating and following the rules has undoubtedly saved lives. As well as being a public health crisis, we know that Covid has also contributed to an unprecedented economic crisis, one that is making people choose between heating their home or putting food on the table. Even when the immediate threats to public health begin to abate, we must not forget about those on the lowest incomes, who, as is too often the case, suffer the greatest impact. As I heard time and time again in the early days of the pandemic, we may all be in the same storm, but we are not always in the same boat. That is why the Scottish Labour Party broadly supports the bill, but we must ensure that this agreed legislation addresses the wider issues of inequality and hardships that are faced by low-paid workers, our creative sector, women, unpaid carers and disabled people. For low-income households who are already struggling to make ends meet without sufficient Government support, the choice between continuing to work or self-isolating without any income may cause them to forgo public health advice. To combat that in its widest sense, the bill is vitally important. As we have heard already from Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour's recent amendment calls on the Government to raise the self-isolation support grant to ensure that it matches at least the national living wage, which will rise to £9.50 this April. At least matching the national living wage will ensure that support for those who are required to self-isolate is directed to those who need it most. In doing so, we can ensure that those living on the margins do not have to choose between making ends meet and protecting other people. I am sure that colleagues across the chamber will agree with me that the national living wage is the bare minimum that Scots should be receiving. I urge the minister to ensure that there is equal access to the grant to ensure that we can protect as many people as possible. Indeed, as colleagues have already noted, there is currently disparity across local authorities in access to the vital support. The rates of approval for self-isolation support grants fall low as 32 per cent and 35 per cent in Moray and North Lanarkshire respectively, whereas in Dumfries and Galloway and Unde City approval rates are above 70 per cent. It is concerning that the extent of support available is guided by something of a postcode lottery, demonstrating some of the issues around the need for clear and standardised guidance for local authorities who are tasked with delivering those grants. I do hope that the cabinet secretary will look into that further and perhaps say something in his concluding, because it is vitally important that money is getting into people's pockets, no matter where they live in Scotland. I hope that the cabinet secretary will work towards finding solutions to the current issues that people are experiencing in terms of self-isolation support grant applications, indeed that have been raised by myself and other colleagues in this chamber. As long as we continue to call upon the Scottish public to do their part in containing the spread of the virus, we in this Parliament must also do our part in safeguarding them from falling through the gap and into more financial distress. As has been noted by others, the Public Health Scotland Act 2008 was written long before the Covid pandemic and was not intended to meet the challenges that we have faced over the past two years. The bill therefore serves an essential purpose as it will protect health boards from facing unaffordable self-isolation payments when they are already under immense pressure and the Scottish Greens will be pleased to support it at decision time. As in my speech at stage 1, I want to emphasise the importance of ensuring sufficient self-isolation support is in place, while recognising that the 2008 act is not the appropriate vehicle for that. In my stage 1 speech, I highlighted concerns raised by Shetland Council about the targeted nature of the support provided by the self-isolation support grant. The response to the Covid recovery committee's calls for views highlighted the socioeconomic impact of a failure to review the existing self-isolation support grant scheme on people on lower incomes or who live in areas with a higher cost of living. That is an important point. We are two years into the pandemic and the cost of living is rising. Soaring energy prices, the cut to universal credit and the rising national insurance are creating a perfect storm and there will be severe consequences for people across Scotland. Many people in their families are not in the financial position they were in March 2020. Although, as I have said, 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 regularly reviewed to ensure that it continues to be adequate. We must recognise that, as rising costs hit people's incomes, it will become harder and harder for them to self-isolate without support. The Scottish Greens have consistently called for comprehensive financial and practical support for people who are self-isolating. We are clear that there are financial and practical barriers to self-isolation and that addressing those will help to boost compliance. That will become more pressing as the cost of living crisis continues to unfold. Can I thank Gillian Mackay for taking the intervention? She said that it was appropriate, given the cost of living crisis, to regularly review the amount paid. Does that mean that she will be supporting the reasoned amendment at decision time? I think that that would be Jackie Baillie's question and yes, I will be. Alongside ensuring that adequate support is available, we must also publicise it so that people know what they are entitled to. As I highlighted during the stage 1 debate, the Scottish Women's Convention said in its submission to the committee that, of the women to whom it had spoken, none had successfully accessed the self-isolation support grant or the local self-isolation assistance service. Many women 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. That must be addressed urgently so that people can access the support that they are entitled to. We know that the bill is a starting point. It aims to address a very specific issue and further pandemic-related legislation is undoubtedly needed. Like many other countries, we were unprepared for a global pandemic. We did not have appropriate legislation in place to help us respond to an unprecedented situation. We must learn from that experience and ensure that we are better prepared in future. The Law Society of Scotland has recommended revision of the whole vista of emergency legislation as well as a law for emergencies that are flexible enough to meet every contingency. That is important work that this Parliament must undertake. As hard as it may be to look to the next pandemic, given that we are still facing daily challenges related to Covid, we must. We must take the learning from the past two years and ensure that we are better able to respond in future, without the need for emergency legislation wherever possible. I want to end by once again thanking the public for self-isolating and for all the sacrifices that they have made to keep others safe. As a convener of the Covid-19 recovery committee, I thank my fellow committee members and our highly professional clerking team, as we have considered and scrutinised this bill through the different stages. As we already know, when the Public Health Scotland Act 2008 was introduced, the current global Covid crisis, which we have been battling since March 2020, was not a consideration. The act simply put a duty on health boards to compensate any employee asked to isolate or quarantine. Given the magnitude of the pandemic and the need for so many to self-isolate at different stages of the pandemic through the different variants, it would not be reasonable to expect the health boards to financially compensate through the crisis. The coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland Bill allows payment to those who need it and who need it most if they need to self-isolate. Workers should not experience financial hardship as a result of doing the right thing. At stage 1 of the debate on this bill, there was general broad support across a parliament for the principles of the bill to be extended. The debate did highlight a number of key considerations with regard to the bill, one being the level of scrutiny the parliament has afforded when the made affirmative procedure is used. Other issues which were highlighted was awareness of the support that is available for self-isolation and the recognition of the importance of consulting with the health boards before implementing the measures that are set out in the bill. The Covid-19 recovery committee did make a recommendation contained in paragraph 68 of the committee stage 1 report that the Scottish Government should produce a statement of reasons when making emergency regulations. The Scottish Government responded positively to the committee's suggestion and recommendation and brought forward as an amendment at stage 2, which improved Scottish Government accountability under the bill, and we thank the Scottish ministers for making this improvement to the bill. I also note that the Law Society of Scotland also commends this amendment. In our committee, we did take evidence from the Scottish Women's Convention, who sent out a consultation exercise to more than 4,000 women. Only 100 women responded, and none of those women had successfully accessed the self-isolation grant or the local self-isolation assistance services. Those figures were from the very early days of the payment and I am aware that there has been an improvement in promoting the self-isolation grant and that most people who receive a positive test result on their mobile phone are quickly sent a link to apply for the self-isolation grant. I appreciate that not everybody has a mobile phone and there will be the difficult to access groups. The committee also urged the Government to consider how best to increase public awareness of the support that is available to people who are asked to self-isolate. I am pleased that the Scottish Government response confirmed that those issues are kept under regular review and that it will continue to review its public communications on self-isolation support. That is to be welcomed. I welcome that the Scottish Government has listened and considered the issues that were lodged and raised in stage 1 and the three amendments at stage 2 last week. As we emerge from this pandemic, I do believe that reform is needed on the Public Health Scotland Act 2008 to ensure that, moving forward, permanent support is in place in the event of another global pandemic. There has been no country worldwide who has had a solid, foolproof, mistake-free guidebook on how to guide a country through a pandemic, and lessons must be learned and measures put in place so that we are never in the position that the world found itself in March 2020. I will be supporting this bill at stage 3, as the Scottish Government continues to put measures in place to support people that need to self-isolate and not financially burden our health boards as we continue to navigate our way out of the global pandemic. In closing for Scottish Labour and in our support for the principles and intentions of this bill, I encourage Parliament to support Scottish Labour's recent amendment, which Jackie Baillie set out and put in the context of the cost of living crisis correctly. I also note the mathematics that went on in the chamber while we did that, and I thank you for that. I also thank the clarity from the Greens in supporting this recent amendment. As we have all said in the chamber, the Covid-19 pandemic has had implications that we could never have imagined 22 months ago when initial restrictions were introduced. As a result, it requires an unprecedented response, targeted at those who have been hardest hit and those who are most vulnerable as we continue to move forward from the pandemic, and everybody has recognised that point. We know how important self-isolation has been during this pandemic. It has served to stop the spread of the virus, to protect the most vulnerable and ultimately it has saved many lives. However, we also know that there are significant downsides from a health perspective such as the impact that isolation can have on individuals' mental health and, of course, from an economic viewpoint. For the thousands of Scots for whom working from home is simply not an option, the loss of income that comes with self-isolation can be and has been devastating for many individuals and their families. In cases where isolation has been as long as 10 days, that represents for some 10 days without pay, followed by real worry and concern about whether or not they will be able to put food on the table, followed by serious difficulty to pay for bills then after, and that is only increased amidst the cost of living crisis. This pandemic has had impacts that go far beyond public health. It has impacted people's lives, it has left them out of pocket and it has brought further uncertainty to those already struggling to get by. Of course, as we have all spoken about in the chamber this afternoon, the self-isolation compensation payment is absolutely required to assist those individuals and it has been of value to hear everyone come together on this point. Indeed, if this Parliament backs Scottish Labour's amendment this evening, we can not only agree the bill but make a comment to deliver a payment for those who have lost income due to self-isolation but that payment will match the national living wage and reduce the likelihood of the compensation payment still equating to a loss for those individuals. It is an important point that we have debated this evening. However, as mentioned by my colleague Jackie Baillie and others during the stage 1 of the debate, it is crucial that those payments are made in a timely fashion and get to people's pockets straight away. It is welcome that the Scottish Government is supporting the extension of provision for Covid-19 self-isolation, as we know only too well the crippling financial impacts of not doing so for the health boards. We are already under significant pressure due to the demands placed on them by the pandemic. However, as our thanks go to all those who are helping with the processing of the payments, in many cases people cannot wait lengthy periods of time to receive the payments. As has been mentioned in the chamber tonight, we have heard from Paul O'Kane about the fact that some local authorities seem to have done better than others in processing the payments. It is important that we make sure that we get the payments to people as timely as we can. That brings me to another concern that has been raised at stage 1. As we come back to the chamber, it is about public awareness of the compensation fund and its uptake, particularly by low-income families. It is also mentioned by some other groups in the population. It is important that we get that information out to people. I recognise the Deputy First Minister referring to that and the fact that the significant uptake has continued and that it will continue to push that forward and make sure that we get the right promotional material out there for people. We should be making sure that we have targeted social media messaging and other ways of doing that. Only by doing so will we make the choice of self-isolation and we are a comfortable one for those who may have feared previously that self-isolation would lead to significant financial difficulty. I reiterate my party's support for the bill and I encourage members to vote in favour of the recent amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie, which ensures that the payment does not fall short for individuals and ensures that it meets the national living wage. It is an important factor. It is right that we introduce a separate legislation to help the most impacted during the most unpredictable of times. People should not be punished for following the rules for keeping themselves and others safe. We will continue to hold the Scottish Government to account in its delivery of the legislation, ensuring that it supports those who are suffered financially due to self-isolation, increases uptake and offers support to those processing payments. To all who have spoken tonight, I hope that we can pass the legislation. I am happy to close the stage C debate on the coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland bill on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. As has been mentioned by other speakers, the legislation, although important, has largely been uncontroversial as it has passed through its various stages. You will be pleased to hear that, therefore, I do not intend to take up much of the chamber's time. I would also like to put on record—thank you—an intervention from the cabinet secretary. I would also like to put on record at this stage my thanks to all those who have helped with this process, especially the clerks and advisers in the Covid recovery committee and those who gave evidence to the committee at stage 1. As Murdoff Fraser pointed out, in opening without the bill, there would have been a significant financial implication to health boards, some estimated at £380 million in the financial year 2021-22, because health boards have that duty under the 2008 Public Health Scotland Act to compensate those who have had to quarantine because of any infectious disease. Of course, the law was not set up to deal with the global pandemic, such as the one that we have been living with over the past two years, as the cabinet secretary highlighted in his opening remarks. There was a concern at stage 1 as to the publicity of and access to the self-isolation grant, but we heard in committee of instances of those who should be eligible from the grant, who actually did not realise that. I noted then that the cabinet secretary recognised that and suggested that the Scottish Government will look at ways to ensure that the grant reached those who it was targeted to help. I also note that the issue raised by the Law Society of Scotland is asking for a statement of reasons to be provided by the Scottish Government when making regulations under section 3 was accepted by the cabinet secretary at stage 2. Jackie Baillie, with her late amendment, has given us something to consider in this bill, although I have to say that it is rather unusual for an amendment to be tabled and accepted for consideration at this late stage of the bill, having not even been discussed and scrutinised at stage 2. Jackie Baillie, I am sure that the member would recognise entirely that it is in the gift of the Presiding Officer, and I am sure that he does not intend to challenge her ruling. Would he also like to reflect that it would be inappropriate to amend the bill itself? A reasoned amendment provides more flexibility and it is not prescriptive, it asks the Scottish Government to review. I hope that he and his party will not be alone and might just find it in their hearts to pass the reasoned amendment too. Brian Whittle We are, of course, a very reasoned party, as you are well aware, Jackie Baillie, but, of course, I would never criticise the Presiding Officer. I would never do that. However, what I would suggest to Jackie Baillie is that she has had stage 1 on stage 2 to bring this forward. The issue for me is that it is not allowing appropriate parliamentary time to properly scrutinise the implications of the amendment. It makes it difficult for us to consider. I do not think that that is the way that we create good legislation. I want to highlight a contribution from a colleague, Sandesh Ghulhane, when he discussed living with Covid. Something that the Covid Recovery Committee has wrestled with. One of the key things that he said in his speech was that restrictions are not without cost and that there is a balance for restrictions against the impact on people's livelihood and their mental health and physical health. One of the most interesting things that he mentioned was about the signals that we give to people and to businesses and to pass a law that retains the power for Government to shut down schools and businesses and release prisoners early and force another lockdown without any scrutiny is the wrong signal. As Murdo Fraser suggested, the upcoming coronavirus recovery bill might not be afforded the same easy passage as the current bill. With that said, I would just close by stating that Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at this stage and we look forward to seeing this bill becoming law. I now call on the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate up to six minutes or so. I am delighted to have the opportunity to close this debate and I will address the one and only discordant issue first before I get on to my usual generous way of drawing those matters to a close. The discordant note is the persistent line of argument from the Conservatives warning me of the troublesome journey of the coronavirus recovery and reform bill that is before Parliament. Of course, that is not the subject of debate. If the Presiding Officer will allow me one moment since I always follow the direction of the Presiding Officer, unlike Mr Whittle, one of the issues that the convener of the Covid Recovery Committee, Siobhan Brown, has made repeatedly in earlier debates is that we must have a statute book that is appropriate to deal with the circumstances that we face. Siobhan Brown made the point that in 2020 we did not have a statute book that was capable of allowing us to take the measures that we had to take to address the impact of the pandemic. We did not have the pillar to undertake the necessary closure of educational facilities that were required at that time. That was beyond dispute in March 2020. The point of the legislation that I am bringing forward to Parliament is to enable Parliament to have a statute book that is fit for purpose in utterly exceptional circumstances. I hope that the Conservative members will engage, constructively, on that point. That is perhaps the start of either the constructive engagement or the dogged opposition of the Conservative party. Brian Whittle, I thank the cabinet secretary for taking intervention. In a reasonable way, should I gently suggest to him that the whole point, the issue that we have around the upcoming legislation is the fact that, as we exit the other side of Covid, what is going on in the statute books is not reasonable and it is not outwith the Government's possibility to bring any emergency legislation back into Parliament if it was needed. We do not need it on the statute books any more. That is an issue that we are going to have to chew over in the bill. We should have a statute book that can deal with emergencies or just know that the Conservatives quite easily could muster up an argument to say, oh my goodness, you have been sitting in Government for 15 years and not getting the statute book ready for emergency situations. They could put forward that argument and I would not put it past them to do that. We will leave that there and come back to that argument on another unhappy day to pursue that. In relation to the bill, I welcome the comments that have been made by colleagues. A number of colleagues have made points about the importance of ensuring that the self-isolation grant is available to people who require that. I have put on the record the steps that we have taken to try to improve awareness. We will continue to do that because it is vital that individuals receive the support that is necessary. Jackie Baillie asked me about the United Kingdom Government's decisions—well, not even decisions—statements that were made by the Prime Minister earlier today about the removal of any requirement for self-isolation. I have no clinical advice that would suggest to me that that is a good idea on the timescale that is presented at the present moment, so I suspect that I should leave it to Jackie Baillie to judge whether that announcement at Prime Minister's Questions had anything to do with clinical judgment or more to do with the survivability of the current Prime Minister in office, and I think that that is no way to be taking decisions on an important question of that type. To then move on to the issue of the debate, which has been the recent amendment that Jackie Baillie has put forward, I confirm that the Government will support the recent amendment that Jackie Baillie has put forward. However, I want to say a couple of things about it. The first is that the approach that the Government has taken to self-isolation support has been very mindful of the importance of ensuring that the national living wage is delivered as a consequence of the self-isolation support grant. Obviously, we are putting a different obligation on people for the duration of self-isolation now compared to earlier stages in the pandemic, so the requirement today would be seven days, and then, obviously, with satisfactory clearance from latter photos, individuals could return to work. That would give them, on £500, a sum of money that was in excess of the national living wage, and that is obviously different from where we started out. I accept the terms of the amendment that the Government asked to review the amount paid, and we will do that. Our objective is to ensure that it at least matches the national living wage that has been in our position throughout the course of the pandemic. I hope that I do not find myself in a situation that only a handful of us in this chamber will recall, but it was, of course, the subject of Liz Smith who will recall this, but this was the occasion of my first budget to this Parliament in 2007 and 2008, when I accepted a reasoned amendment from the Labour Party at the conclusion of the stage 3 debate, and the Labour Party then proceeded to vote against the budget and its reasoned amendments. I do hope that there are a few of us in the hear long enough to remember that. My dear friend Christine Grahame was here and she remembers that as well, so I do hope that I do not find myself in that situation at decision time, having generously accepted the reasoned amendment that the Labour Party does not do the unthinkable on me and not support the bill. That is a very practical bill that is designed to protect the finances of our health boards, but also to put in place the support that members of the public that we ask to self-isolate require to have in place and invite Parliament to support the bill at decision time, along with the reasoned amendment. That concludes the debate on coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland bill. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 3100, in the name of Maggie Chapman, on behalf of the Scottish parliamentary corporate body on reimbursement of members' expenses scheme local offices. To give the chamber a brief explanation of the motion, the reimbursement of members' expenses scheme requires that regional members for a party in any region share an office. Circumstances have arisen this session whereby some regional members have chosen not to have a local office, and this has impacted on the ability of the remaining regional members in that party to secure a local office within their pooled office cost provision limits. At our meeting on 2 December last year, the corporate body considered options around supporting the regional members who find themselves in such circumstances through no choice of their own. We agreed that the calculations for the allocation of office cost provision for regional members would remain as they are. However, where a regional member or members find themselves with reduced funds due to one or more members' decision not to participate, a recalculation process would be introduced and the scheme amended accordingly. Changes to the reimbursement of members' expenses scheme require agreement by Parliament, and I therefore move the motion in my name on behalf of the corporate body. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 3030 in the name of Martin Whitfield on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on Standing Order Rule Changes, Committee Name and Remit and Miscellaneous Changes, and I call on Martin Whitfield to speak to and move the motion. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer, and it's a pleasure to move this motion in my and Bob Doris' name. For those members who have been unable to digest our third report of this year, let me give you a short synopsis as to why supporting this motion would be beneficial. Indeed, to draw on the Deputy First Minister's speech only earlier, we need standing orders that are fit for purpose. The committee's report proposes an extension to a temporary rule 4 regarding the remit of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, as well as a number of other miscellaneous changes. The remit was altered in session 5 and would naturally have come to an end by the extension. We were approached by the convener of the committee to ask for the extension to be continued throughout this session so that, in principle, the committee can mirror the minister and cabinet secretary that it is their duty and obligation to do so. The changes that are proposed are a temporary change for the remaining period of this session so that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee can properly carry out their work and scrutinise the Scottish Government. The other amendments are a miscellaneous group of changes just to bring the standing orders back into fit and proper purpose. This has been occasioned by some drafting errors, errors in sections and changes and removal of certain statutes. I will continue to entertain you, I hope, throughout this session with various amendments to the standing orders. I urge members so that we can have full and proper debate to digest the eloquent reports for which I thank my clerks and my fellow members of the committee so that we have fit and proper standing orders for this chamber. I move a motion. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 3144, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion. The question is that motion 3144 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of 11 parliamentary bureau motions, and I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 3145 to 3150 on approval of SSIs, 3151 on committee meeting times, 3152 and 3153 on designation of a lead committee, 3154 on suspension and variation of standing orders, and 3155 on temporary amendments to standing orders. I will bring in Pam Duncan Glancy. I will not press the motion S6M-0348 to a vote, but I want to put my comments on record that none of the regulations in front of us today change some of the fundamental issues that exist with the current system of adult disability payment, who is eligible or for how much, and that they do not address problems with descriptors. They replicate the PIP rules, and most disappointingly of all, they miss an opportunity to properly address disabled people's poverty. In 2017, in response to Scottish Labour's… Jeremy Balfour? I am grateful to the member. Will the member agree with me that, if we had started where we ended up six years ago, the disability community, by and large, would have not accepted this and would be deeply disappointed at where we ended up? Pam Duncan Glancy. I thank the member for the intervention, and I do agree, and indeed we heard as much on committee. The PIP rules that the then cabinet secretary in 2017 replied to a question from Scottish Labour, asking whether or not assurances that the system would be ambitious and would not have the same effect as PIP rules, the cabinet secretary said that the Scottish Government does not intend to replicate the UK Government legislation in our social security. Five years later, we are asked to vote for underwhelming rules and trust that something better is coming. Disabled people have already waited years on a promise that those regulations do not deliver. I will. Will the member agree with me that, at this point in time, it is most important that we ensure the safe case transfer for all those people who are in receipt just now of disability living allowance and PIP, and that the independent review is the right time where we seek to reassess after a year's time? Pam Duncan Glancy. I thank the member for the intervention, and I acknowledge that the safe and secure transfer is crucial for disabled people to receive the money that they want, but they were promised this in 2017 and it is now 2022. Considerable time has passed and the cost of living crisis is biting. Despite our disappointment, Scottish Labour will vote for the regulations today, but I would like the record to show that we are voting for those regulations because disabled people have waited long enough, so they must proceed because we believe that the current PIP system is so appalling that we will not block an attempt to improve it, and because we will do all that we can to make sure that the promises that this Government made to disabled people will not be broken or delayed any longer. As always, I appreciate the input and contribution of Pam Duncan Glancy and Jeremy Balfour and all members on those regulations on bringing forward adult disability payment. There are votes in this Parliament that really make a difference for a lot of people, both now and in the future, and that is one of them because it will mark a significant milestone in the Scottish Government's delivery of a new social security system and doing so robustly, securely, ambitiously and compassionately. The introduction of adult disability payment will be the 12th benefit to be administered by Social Security Scotland and will be the biggest and most complex undertaking of the organisation to date. It is in the benefit of all of our constituents for us to support Social Security Scotland in that endeavour and the difference it will make in communities that we represent. Those regulations will enable the Scottish Government to take a very different approach to delivering disability assistance, developed around our principles of dignity, fairness and respect. I am grateful to the minister for that. Will the minister agree that, because we have not changed any of the criteria in the Scottish Parliament, that we may get a no, and it may be a nice no, but it will still be a no, and that that was not what the Parliament set out to do five years ago? We need to be conscious of the fact that, at the moment, we are in a situation where we are in a hybrid social security system and also in a process of two important streams of work. One is introducing new benefits and two is transferring people into Social Security Scotland. While we are doing that, we need to make sure that we do not create a two-tier system and we treat people with equality. That is part of the fairness principle that the Scottish Parliament voted for in the Social Security Scotland 2018. However, we are making some changes to the eligibility criteria and we are changing the way that we deliver benefits. We are putting an end to the anxiety of private sector assessments. There will be no undignified physical and mental examinations. We are removing the stressful cycle of unnecessary reassessments and the adversarial approach of the DWP. In contrast to elsewhere in the UK, we are introducing a system that is rooted in trust and supported by the input of in-house health and social care practitioners. In our system, only one piece of information from a formal source will be sought to support the general care mobility needs in a person's application. The onus will be on Social Security Scotland to collect that information. Overall, the experience of applying for and receiving adult disability payment will be fundamentally different from the current DWP system. We have focused on making changes that will have the greatest positive impact on how people experience accessing support while not risking safe and secure delivery. I have also announced an independent review of adult disability payment, which will be carried out in two stages. The initial stage will commence later this year and we will look at the mobility criteria first. The full adult disability payment framework will be considered during the second stage, beginning in the summer of 2023. I am confident and determined that, from day one, adult disability payment will deliver a new and much-improved experience for disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. I urge the Parliament to pass the regulations and together, together, let's keep building a better social security system for the people that we represent and the common good of Scotland. I urge the Parliament to support the regulations. The questions on the motions will be put at decision time. 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 to move the motion. The question is that decision time be brought forward to now. Are we all agreed? There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that amendment 3080.1, in the name of Jackie Baillie, seeks to amend motion 3080, in the name of John Swinney, on coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation. Scotland Bill be agreed. Are we all agreed? Can I just confirm are we all agreed? Thank you. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 3080, in the name of John Swinney, as amended, on coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation. Scotland Bill be agreed and members should cast their votes now. There will be a brief suspension until our members' time to access the digital voting system.