Chamber and committees

We will endeavour to do that, convener. I cannot give a commitment on that, but I have heard you and the Government will reflect on that. If we can offer clarity within that timescale, we will offer it.

The key point here is that we must take decisions that are based on effective judgments. Let us take the model that Mr Mason has put to me of a variation that would reflect stadium size and facilities. If we had multiple options for outdoor venues, we would lose clarity of message. The rather blunt message—I make no apology for it being so blunt—is that we need, quite simply, to reduce the degree to which people are interacting. A maximum of 500 for outdoor events sends a clear signal to people in this country that we must reduce such interaction. A limit of a crowd of 500 at a Rangers game, when it would normally be in the order of 50,000, makes a clear, significant point that we have to reduce dramatically the level of social interaction if we want to interrupt the circulation of omicron. There is a simple clarity that is necessary in that respect.

The second point is that we must make judgments that will be effective in practically stopping or reducing the circulation of the virus. That is about recognising that there will be limitations on the degree to which venues can accommodate individuals, because of the necessity of having practical arrangements in place to stop the circulation of the virus. That is the reasoning for it.

As for the specific numbers, there is no perfect science here. I go back to my first point, which is that we must take clear and understandable decisions that are set in the context of the policy choices that we make, which are about reducing people’s social interaction.

That gets to the nub of the challenges that exist around public finances. Mr Whittle will appreciate that I am not being partisan in my comments here, but am simply reflecting reality. If the Scottish Government wants to allocate money to compensate businesses for the implications of Covid restrictions, we have to take that money from somewhere else that it is currently allocated to in the Scottish budget. We have to shift that money around, and we have taken the decision that we will shift about £200 million into the purposes of supporting funding in relation to the restrictions in the forthcoming period.

That will be uncomfortable—believe you me, it is uncomfortable for us to wrestle with that. We do it because we are in a fixed-budget environment now. The UK Government is able to borrow. It can borrow in the money markets, it can expand the money that it has available and it can redeploy that. That is why we are saying to the UK Government, “Look, in an endeavour to meet the challenges of today, let us allocate money that we can pay back over a period a number of years”. The UK Government has responded with a billion pounds of funding, which is not on the scale that I think would be commensurate with the challenges that we face.

We have to take decisions in the short term, to try to support individuals and organisations when they face these challenges. That is what the Scottish Government has opted to do within our fixed budget, and it is what I would urge the United Kingdom Government to do given the flexibilities that are available to it.

I can, convener. In essence, the United Kingdom Government has made three announcements on Covid funding in the recent period. The first announcement was to confirm that the Scottish Government would receive £220 million in consequential funding from the UK Government. That was not a new allocation; it was confirmation of allocations that we expected. It was not complete, because we had expected to receive £265 million. Therefore, the sum of £220 million was confirmed out of an expected £265 million, which left us £45 million short. Last weekend—it must have been last weekend—the UK Government confirmed that it was adding £220 million to that. Therefore, when you deduct the figure of £45 million from that second allocation of £220 million, you end up with £175 million of what I would call unanticipated funding to the Scottish Government for Covid purposes.

We have allocated that to the fund that I have talked about. Then, in two individual tranches, from within our resources, the Scottish Government has identified two blocks of £100 million that we are allocating to business support. We are also allocating £100 million to boost the funding that is available for the self-isolation support grant, given the demand for that grant.

Therefore, there is £375 million available for business support—£200 million from the Scottish Government’s fixed budget and £175 million from the UK Government—and we have added an extra £100 million to the self-isolation support grant.

Do you mean with regard to any change to the self-isolation position?

I will say a few words about it, for the record. Following a four-nations review of the international travel regulations, this instrument removed from the red list at 4 am on Wednesday 15 December the 11 countries that had been added temporarily. The rapid growth of omicron around the world meant that it was appropriate to do so at that point.

In addition, technical amendments were made to allow children travelling to Scotland who are aged 11 and under to leave self-isolation if their accompanying adult’s day 2 test comes back negative. That does not change the position in which the adult’s test is positive; in that case, children must remain in isolation. If one adult in the travelling group or family tests positive and another tests negative, the domestic isolation guidance applies; household contacts of any person who tests positive are asked to isolate for 10 days.

If a child under the age of 11 arrives unaccompanied, they are no longer required to self-isolate.

Motion moved,

That the COVID-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the Public Health (Coronavirus) (International Travel and Operator Liability) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 13) Regulations 2021 (SSI 2021/470) be approved.—[John Swinney]

Motion agreed to.

That is a very important question. We have to proceed with enormous care when considering such issues. Last night, and again on the radio this morning, I listened to Professor Aziz Sheikh, who is the principal author of the University of Edinburgh study. Although Mr Fraser is absolutely correct in saying that the study indicates that, at this early stage, omicron might result in a lower proportion of cases resulting in hospitalisation, Professor Sheikh pressed the point that ministers and other clinicians have made, which is that, even if a lower proportion of cases result in hospitalisation, if that lower proportion is of a much larger number of cases—which is apparent with the omicron variant, because it is spreading like wildfire through the country—that will put serious pressures on the national health service.

When Professor Sheikh was asked what steps we should take in the light of his study, he said that we should roll out the booster vaccination programme and limit our social interaction, and that is precisely what the Scottish Government is doing. We are rolling out the booster vaccination programme, and we are encouraging people—in some cases, we are requiring people—to reduce their social interaction. That appears to me to be the proportionate and prudent approach to take at this stage.

Mr Fraser asked how the studies should affect decision making in due course. The Government will look with care at such studies and consider how they affect, as I have rehearsed with the committee on a number of occasions, the judgment on the proportionate steps that we should take to deal with the significance of omicron. The dilemma that ministers face is that, if we do not take early enough action to suppress the circulation of the virus within our society, we will find that we have a problem that is too big to arrest, that we are too late and that our health service is overwhelmed.

The ministers in the Scottish Government have consistently taken the attitude and view that we need to intervene early to take preventative action and avoid the situation running away from us. Obviously, we have to make a careful judgment about how long the restrictions that we have set out, which come into effect on 26 and 27 December, need to be in place to ensure that we are taking sufficient action to suppress this variant of the virus.

Lastly, ministers are always cognisant of the need to take proportionate decisions in relation to the state of the pandemic, and this study will be one factor to be added into that judgment.

The finance secretary is engaging in dialogue with various sectors on this question and, as I said in my previous answer, she will make announcements in due course. All that I can give you is the candid reflection that we will not be able to support everybody who has been affected by the restrictions that have had to be put in place. We have taken significant steps using our own resources to ensure that we have been able to put some funding in place, and the Government has explicitly said that it would help us enormously if the UK Government would put in place a targeted extension of the furlough scheme, because of the challenges that we face. That has not been forthcoming so far. I welcome the funding support that has come from the UK Government, but we would be in a better position to respond to the situation if we had access to a broader range of options, including furlough. Had that been available, the resources at our disposal—our own resources—could have been deployed to tackle other challenges and priorities. As I have said, the finance secretary will make announcements on this in due course.

The issues are being actively considered just now. The finance secretary will update the Parliament and the wider public at the earliest possible opportunity.

That issue has to be treated with significant care. At the core of the challenge that we face in relation to Covid in general, but especially omicron, is the need to break the chains of transmission. That is critical. It is nothing new—it has been the consistent challenge throughout Covid—and self-isolation is a critical element in that process. It is especially critical in relation to omicron, because of the degree of transmissibility of omicron. That puts added emphasis on ensuring that our self-isolation arrangements are appropriate.

It follows from that that, if we do not apply the right self-isolation approach, we run the risk of enabling people who may still be able to transmit the virus to be released from self-isolation, which defeats its purpose. Therefore, fine judgment has to be applied on that question. There is obviously a lot of anxiety—in the business community, for example—about the availability of key workers. We have exemptions for critical workers in the arrangements that are in place. That process is managed very efficiently and carefully in Government to ensure that, where it can be justified, individuals can be released from self-isolation to make a contribution to the—[Inaudible.]—in our society. The exemption exists, so some of that business anxiety is addressed by measures that we have in place.

The Government is considering the issues that are raised by the change in the policy approach that has been adopted by the UK Government, but we will consider the issues that I raised at the beginning of my answer carefully in that process. Professor Leitch might want to add a clinical perspective.