Hansard

Most of the indicators in the new level 4 council areas have not been breached. In fact, all but one has infection rates in decline. The infection rates and projected rates all fall below the indicators. Only two councils breach the test positivity rate. The indicators were supposed to give people fairness, hope and clarity that, if they did the right thing, measures would be eased. Through their sacrifices, the virus has gone down, but the level of restrictions is going up, and it is going up through the lack of adequate hospital capacity. That capacity is under threat, even when the infection rate in the community is lower than was expected in the strategic framework.

Advances in medicine and care have helped to secure better outcomes for those who catch the virus. One would expect that to ease the pressure on the NHS, but that is not happening. I would like an explanation of why the strategic framework is flawed. Its indicators are not in alignment with each other. Why has the NHS not built up the capacity to be able to cope? Why have the new treatments not helped to ease the pressure? We need clarity on those important questions. There are big questions about why we are moving council areas into level 4 when the rate of infection in most of them is going down.

As Liberals, we prefer encouragement, rather than the heavy hand of the law. The new travel ban makes us concerned, but we appreciate the police’s light-touch approach to the pandemic laws and the indication that they will adopt the same approach to the travel restrictions.

Putting restrictions in law makes it clear what people are expected to do, so I am concerned about the message that we would send if we supported Labour’s amendment. We have not proposed a travel ban in law, but rejecting it might indicate that people can travel freely around the country again. It is important to recognise that how we vote in the Parliament sends a message across the country. We will not vote for Labour’s amendment. [Interruption.] I will not take an intervention just now. However, we want a clear indication that the travel ban will come to an end on 11 December.

We also need urgent clarity on international travel. I heard what the minister said earlier, but I would like more detail, perhaps in the summing-up speech. It is a nonsense to ban travel to airports, but permit travel abroad. That really matters. Despite the advice on holidays, people have been permitted to go on them, and those with long-booked holidays will have no route to secure repayment from airlines unless that restriction is changed. That has been managed in England, so why can we not manage it here?

From Friday, most people here will be in lockdown, just like people in England. Unlike others, I will not misuse the words of Dr Nabarro of the World Health Organization. He said:

“We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus. The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

We in Scotland have had that time already. In the summer we had a respite as a result of the additional sacrifices that people in this country made. However, we did not use that time well. The Government opposed—I use that word wisely—mass asymptomatic testing. It believed that a negative test would make people relax and ignore the rules, so it felt no need to accelerate the growth of testing and lab capacity.

Thankfully, that belief now seems to have been abandoned. The Government has accepted the value of mass asymptomatic testing and is rushing to catch up. For many weeks, the tracing programme was operating well below the level that the Government believed that it was, and the quarantine spot checks were not meeting the target, so the virus outbreaks were not snuffed out before they could spread, and we are now in a second wave.

Although I have made some criticisms today, I have sought to help and support the Government throughout the pandemic. A national emergency demands that. However, I am concerned that the measures outlined this week might not work and that the infection rates will not go down sufficiently to ease the pressure on the NHS. We might be shutting down parts of the economy and society for which we have little evidence that they are causing the spread. Test and protect cannot tell us where the spread is coming from. To a certain extent, we are working in the dark.

The First Minister has told us that too many people are ignoring the advice and are meeting inside homes. I have one suggestion. I want the Government to consider whether regulated pubs, cafes and restaurants may be safer places to meet in than unregulated homes. If people are going to meet, let us make it as safe as possible for them to do so. I want the Government to take that suggestion away and consider it with its advisers.

I make that suggestion in line with the cautious approach that I have adopted throughout the pandemic. I want people to be safe. Five thousand deaths—that is among the highest death rates in the world—are a sobering reminder of how important the issue is.

I will support the Government motion, but not the Labour amendment. I hope that the Government has listened carefully to what I have said on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.