Chamber and committees

I have time for one more question. This morning, I was looking at statistics from the Office for National Statistics that suggest that, although there is a downward trend for infections across the rest of the UK, that is not the case in Scotland. The latest figures seem to show that we have an infection rate in Scotland of one in 20, whereas it is one in 25 in England and one in 30 in Wales. That would seem to suggest that, despite the fact that we have had more legal restrictions in Scotland over the past few months in comparison with other parts of the UK, in particular England, that has not had a beneficial impact on the case rate.

As I am sure that you have seen, there was a study in the Financial Times two weeks ago that analysed the figures for the past six months. It suggested that, again, despite the fact that there were more restrictions in place in Scotland, including a requirement to wear face masks in certain settings, there was in fact no beneficial outcome. In fact, the Financial Times suggested that the rate of death in Scotland from coronavirus was higher than in the rest of the UK. Does that not suggest that the Scottish Government’s approach of having more restrictions has not delivered better outcomes than elsewhere?

I would love to pursue those issues further but I fear that we are out of time.

I will comment briefly, given the time and given that we have already rehearsed these arguments in the committee.

The draft regulations before us seek to extend the extraordinary and emergency powers for a period of six months. As I outlined earlier, I think that we are now in a place—as I think the Scottish Government has more or less conceded at this point—where, in future, we will increasingly rely on the good sense of people to follow public health guidance, rather than being required to act in particular ways by the law. I believe that the experience that we have had over the past two years shows that people respond very well to public health guidance. I suggest that it is not appropriate for the powers to be extended. I believe that we should test the good judgment of the Scottish people, who have thus far demonstrated in spades their willingness to comply with public health guidance. For those reasons, I oppose the motion that is before us.

I suspect that we may have to agree to disagree on that particular point.

I will start by picking up on the convener’s last point, about a return to office working. It is fair to say that many employers will be moving to a hybrid model. What are the Scottish Government’s own plans in that regard?

You would expect more than 5 per cent of staff to come to the office.

I will ask Professor Leitch a separate question. We have heard a lot in the past week or so about the BA.2 subvariant of omicron. How worried should we be about it?

Thank you. That is helpful. If somebody has had BA.1, can they then be infected with BA.2?

Thanks. That is very helpful.

I have one more question for the cabinet secretary on a slightly different topic. We have heard from hospitality businesses that have still not received financial support. They were told in mid or early December that they would be restricted for the Christmas and Hogmanay period and they suffered significant financial losses. We are now at the beginning of February and they have not received payments. Will you give us an update as to when businesses can expect the payout?

Earlier in the week, I spotted a press story that suggested that fewer than 5 per cent of the Government’s staff at Victoria Quay were turning up for work. Is that correct? Is that the level that you would expect? Would you not expect it to be higher?