Hansard

I start by expressing my gratitude to all those who are working so hard to keep us safe during the pandemic, not least those who work in our front-line health and care services. The roll-out of the vaccines, in particular, is a remarkable effort in every corner of these islands, and the daily vaccine numbers show that the race between the virus and the vaccine is starting to be won.

However, it would be a mistake to see that race as an end game in a battle against a severe acute respiratory syndrome virus that is constantly mutating and probing our weaknesses. As Professor Sridhar put it recently, the vaccine is

“not a strategy in ... itself and relying on it alone is highly, highly risky”.

A well-functioning test, trace and isolate system must form the foundation of our approach to dealing with this and future pandemics.

At last week’s COVID-19 Committee meeting, the national clinical director stated:

“It looks as though we will have to live with Covid in some form for years to come, probably with routine vaccination over time.”—[Official Report, COVID-19 Committee, 28 January 2021; c 11.]

If that is to be the case, developing a strong self-isolation package now will serve us well into the future.

Such a system will be successful only if people are actually isolating, and studies have consistently shown that many are struggling to. United Kingdom-wide research that was published by University College London on 13 January shows that 38 per cent of respondents were not isolating for the recommended number of days, and 13 per cent were not isolating at all. That is extremely concerning, and it emphasises the barriers that many people face when attempting to isolate. The same research shows that those from higher-income households are far less likely to not isolate at all. With one in three not fully isolating when requested, we need to do much more to support people.

There are concerning signs that the Scottish Government’s £500 self-isolation support grant is not getting to everyone who needs it. I warmly welcome the First Minister’s announcement yesterday that the grant will be extended to those earning the accredited living wage and below. That was another step in the right direction, which came after conditions were slightly widened last year to include those who meet criteria for the receipt of universal credit.

However, statistics from November show that just 1,200 of almost 4,000 applications for the grant were accepted—only 30 per cent. The Scottish Government suggested that that might be because of a high number of speculative applications, but we urgently need more clarity on that as the criteria have been widened again. Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that applicants are not being wrongly refused? After years of complaints from councils that the administration costs for the Scottish welfare fund are not being met by Government, are councils being fully supported to administer the grant? Even if speculative applications are the main reason for such a high rate of rejections, does that in itself not indicate that there might be significant unmet need?

The grant is means tested, and means-tested social security payments almost always have a lower uptake than universal ones. Has the Scottish Government estimated how many people are entitled to the grant but have not claimed it? If not, why not?

Countries with a far better track record of managing Covid are not scrimping on support. New Zealand offers the equivalent of about £315 a week, regardless of income. Similar amounts are paid on the same basis in Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea, whereas Finland guarantees 100 per cent of the person’s lost income, again regardless of individual circumstances.

Last month, it emerged that a universal payment is the preferred option of England’s Department for Health and Social Care. I strongly encourage the Scottish Government to consider making the grant universal or, at the very least, increasing eligibility further.

In the words of Dr Çevik, who is a member of the new and emerging respiratory virus threats advisory group,

“You can’t just expect people to sit at home with no money, no income, and then get £500 two weeks later, or four months later. The majority of people with Covid have mild symptoms and they will continue going to work if the alternative is that they lose their income.”

As the motion states, there are practical barriers to self-isolation. The self-isolation advice on NHS Inform advises those isolating to

“Separate yourself from other people in your home and keep the door closed. If you can’t stay in a separate room, try to stay 2 metres away from the other people ... If you can, use a separate bathroom from the rest of the household.”

That is easy if you live in a four-bedroom house with plenty of space, but it will prove difficult for many—not just those in temporary unsuitable accommodation but people in multigenerational households and small flats. Hotel accommodation must be offered to everyone who cannot practically follow the self-isolation guidelines in their own home.

In May, my colleague Alison Johnstone asked the First Minister:

“will accommodation such as hotel rooms be offered free to those who need them?”

The First Minister replied:

“The short answer to that question is yes.” —[Official Report, 27 May 2020; c 10.]

However, a freedom of information request that was submitted by the Greens has revealed that, of the 20 councils that have responded so far, only three have provided hotel accommodation for self-isolation—to a total of seven people. That begs the question whether councils are receiving the support that they need to offer isolation accommodation and whether that is being publicised widely enough.

In New York City, a supported isolation package, which includes voluntary, free-of-charge stays at hotels with transport provided, food, medication, pet care and social care, is offered. Other countries that have had considerable success in tackling the virus have introduced similar packages. In South Korea, quarantined individuals are provided with daily necessities and sanitary kits. In Taiwan, individuals are offered financial compensation and support services, including daily follow-up calls, medical care, household services, accommodation and meal delivery.

I note the reference in the Scottish Government’s amendment to the national assistance helpline and the local self-isolation assistance service. I would very much welcome more reporting from Government on the reach and effectiveness of those services, which I know council staff are working hard to deliver in partnership with the third sector. However, given the accommodation figures that I have quoted, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will understand my concern that we need to do everything that we can to proactively support people to isolate.

The Scottish Greens have repeatedly called for an elimination strategy for the virus. I think that that is still achievable, despite the widespread community transmission that has taken place. The challenge will be keeping the virus pinned down. That can happen only through a robust contact tracing system, a supported isolation package, and a very dynamic vaccination programme. If we let any of those elements slip, we will fail, and we cannot afford to fail ever again.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the COVID-19 vaccination programme and extends its thanks to all NHS workers and others delivering it; understands that an effective test, trace and isolate regime will be needed now and in the future; considers that there are many barriers to adhering to self-isolation, including financial concerns, insecure employment, unsuitable accommodation and caring responsibilities; believes that proactive support is needed to reach the most vulnerable people and to enable compliance with self-isolation, and calls on the Scottish and the UK governments to make the Self-Isolation Support Grant universal and offer a supported isolation package that will provide accommodation, food, and any other essential services that might be required to allow people to self-isolate, free of charge.