Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 09 February 2022
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland.
This is the final point in the legislative process for what has been an uncontroversial—at least, so far—if important piece of legislation. Like others, I put on record my thanks to all those who assisted in the legislative process, particularly the clerks and advisers to the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, all those who gave evidence to the committee in relation to our scrutiny of the bill, and the Scottish Government for its co-operation in relation to the way that the bill was handled at stage 2.
As we have heard, the bill is necessary because without it there will be a substantial burden on the public purse. Under the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008, there is a duty on health boards 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 that law was passed, and given the large numbers who have had to self-isolate following Covid infection, there would be a substantial financial burden if the measures in the 2008 act continued to apply. The bill before us is estimated to save £380 million in the financial year 2021-22, and it is therefore important to protecting national health service resources.
In the stage 1 debate a few weeks ago, I outlined some of the evidence that the COVID-19 Recovery Committee heard on access to the self-isolation support grant. There were concerns that there was not enough publicity around how the grant could be accessed, and there was concern among some applicants that their benefits might be affected if they were to apply for it. In her speech, Jackie Baillie referenced other issues about people facing substantial delays in accessing the sums that are required. Those are on-going issues, but we hope that, with the incidence of Covid swiftly reducing and, with it, the need for self-isolation, there will be less demand for the support grant in future months and those issues will no longer be so prevalent.
Jackie Baillie introduced a reasoned amendment to the motion, proposing that the sums paid should match the national living wage of £9.50. I have some sympathy for the position that she outlined; I think that she made a reasonable case. I am concerned, however, about the timing of the introduction of the measure—in the final debate on the bill. Jackie Baillie should have raised the issue in the stage 1 debate, or she could have lodged an amendment at stage 2. She did neither, and I am curious as to why. No doubt she will explain why she has left it until the very last moment to raise this important topic.