Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 09 February 2022
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Presiding Officer. I fear that there will be a bit of repetition from the stage 1 debate, given that little has changed in the time since then. Stage 2 amendments were minimal, as the Deputy First Minister said, and were completely accepted by all members of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, including me.
However, despite the general consensus on the bill and the lack of controversy, I argue that this is an important bill and not just a technical one, as some members have suggested. If we do not pass the bill, the NHS will face additional costs of some £360 million, which is a substantial amount, and it is clear that other services will suffer.
The background to the bill was explained at stage 1 and has been explained again today. The bill deals with Covid-19; it does not provide for the blanket modification of the 2008 act that was the approach of the United Kingdom legislation that we are replacing. Therefore, if someone has to self-isolate because of an infectious disease other than Covid, they will become entitled to the full compensation regime.
An issue that I mentioned previously but which I think is worth repeating is the difference between the number of people who said that they followed the self-isolation rules and the number who self-isolated properly when they were told to do so. 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 so. In particular, the Government’s detailed literature review indicated that there were lower rates of compliance among men, people in younger age groups, key workers, people from poorer backgrounds and people who had a dependent child in the household. The reviewers said:
“Rates of compliance are 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 risks to health, particularly for people from more disadvantaged backgrounds.”
One factor in that regard is almost certainly the availability and level of compensation. For many people on low incomes, being off work for even a few days is a serious step, and some employers are more supportive than others.
Some people did not know about the compensation that was available, as Jackie Baillie and others said, while others thought that it would impact on their benefits. Some people found it difficult to access compensation and appear to have been knocked back without the reasons for that being made clear.
The level of compensation needs to be carefully considered. The Labour amendment touches on that, although the level of compensation is not part of the bill. As I said during an intervention, I think that £500 is a reasonable amount, equating to 50 hours at £10 per hour or 35 hours at £14 per hour, and I understand that the Labour amendment would mean roughly £560 for many people. If that is the case, I can certainly live with the approach that Labour proposes.
However, households’ essential weekly expenditure varies considerably. For future pandemics, a Government might want to look at tailoring support according to need, although we know from experience over the past two years that the more targeted the support is to be, the longer it takes to design the system and make the payments.
The Law Society had pointed out that there was no definition of “emergency”, and said that the Government should be proactive in setting out why regulations need to be made urgently, so I am glad that the Government took that point on at stage 2 and lodged an appropriate amendment.
Overall, I am happy to support the bill. Full compensation for everyone in the country who has suffered loss because of self-isolation or other aspects of the pandemic has not been and is not affordable or possible, so a more limited and targeted support scheme has been required. The bill seeks to continue that approach.
16:13