Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

Therefore, a range of data is available. I would be surprised if that were not available at a health board level.

It will be available at a health board level, so all that data about who is waiting and for how long is publicly available. Obviously, that data will show that today, in a number of different disciplines, people are waiting longer than they would have done pre-pandemic, but we are working hard to ensure that we address that and as quickly as we can.

It is perhaps not for me to discuss or question the motivations of media coverage. If we do that, we will be here a long time, I suspect.

I go back to the point that I made in answer to Mr Fraser, that individual companies have to assess how they take forward their working environment as a consequence of the pandemic. The substantive point that I was making is that some organisations have probably found that it is possible to undertake a lot more tasks outwith an office or workplace environment than they previously thought was possible. Obviously, that affects their way of working. There will be consequences of adopting that as a more permanent model, which will include some of the issues that Mr Whittle raises in relation to leasing costs of premises. However, individual companies will have to consider whether they can sustain that approach and whether it is the appropriate approach for them to take.

There is a set of events and arrangements that have not yet restarted. To take the example of Mr Whittle’s mother’s exercise class, obviously, we are trying to get all these arrangements back up and running as soon as possible. My father’s exercise class has been going for some time now, and he goes to it and it is great for him. I am delighted that he does that. We are trying to get some of these events back up and running, and we are now in a position where that is plausible, because of the improvement in the Covid situation generally.

There is another set of circumstances—to refer again to Mr Whittle’s question—whereby there are public facilities that stand locked up quite a lot for no good rational reason. We need to maximise the use of those public facilities. Of course, some of that might be tied up in the contractual arrangements that procured those facilities, and I encourage public authorities to stretch those arrangements and ensure that they are not an impediment to their use, because the activities that Mr Whittle talks about are possible in communities if there is access to appropriate facilities.

A third element is about the general messaging that tries to get to the point of principle that Professor Leitch was talking about, which is basically that, the healthier you are, the greater your ability to withstand the health adversities that might come your way. Therefore, encouraging public messaging about exercise and looking after individual health is critical as part of the preventative health interventions that we are able to take forward.

Lastly, there are good examples in the health service of interventions being designed—I say this for simplicity—not by the prescription of drugs but by the prescription of exercise. Increasingly, health professionals are trying to say to people, “Look, you’d be better off joining an exercise class than me prescribing you something.” That is important in winning hearts and minds about how we can individually take steps to strengthen our health and wellbeing.

Children in that age group who are clinically vulnerable or are in households where there is a clinically vulnerable adult are now the subject of the roll-out of the vaccination, and that is under way in different parts of the country.

Stage 2 consideration of the bill follows from the constructive stage 1 debate last week, which demonstrated broad support across the Parliament for the general principles of the bill. The debate highlighted a number of key considerations with regard to the bill, specifically the level of scrutiny that the Parliament is afforded when the made affirmative procedure is used. There were also contributions about the visibility and awareness of the support that is available for self-isolation, and there was a recognition of the importance of consulting health boards before implementing the measures that are set out in the bill.

I have considered the issues that were raised during stage 1, notably by this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and I have lodged three Government amendments at stage 2.

As a reminder, I note that the bill’s core purpose is to maintain the modification to the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 made by the United Kingdom Coronavirus Act 2020 that changed the obligation on health boards to pay compensation to those isolating as a result of an infectious disease to a discretionary power, for the purposes of Covid-19 isolation only.

Amendment 1 outlines the need for the Government to consult health boards before making regulations that would either prolong the modifications to the 2008 act or expire the modifications early. The amendment also includes a provision to consult

“other persons as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”

to ensure that important health stakeholders and others with a relevant interest are also informed.

Amendment 2 is a related amendment that has the effect that the consultation obligation does not apply when regulations prolonging the modifications are made urgently using the made affirmative procedure.

Taken together, the two amendments give effect to the commitment that I made to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to examine the matter, following its suggestion that consultation with health boards should be required before regulations altering the expiry date are made.

Amendment 3 relates to giving reasons for urgency and using the made affirmative procedure. In any circumstances in which the modifications to the 2008 act are extended, the Scottish ministers will lay a statement of reasons explaining why we need to keep the modifications in place a bit longer. That is covered by the text of the bill as drafted. The amendment ensures that, should the made affirmative procedure be needed in urgent circumstances, an explanation of that urgency will be included in the statement of reasons. The committee will recall that, in its evidence in December, the Law Society of Scotland called for the statement of reasons to include such an explanation. That point was highlighted in the committee’s recommendations and by various members in the stage 1 debate as an important consideration.

I move amendment 1.

I have no further comments to add.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[John Swinney]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 to 7 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issue and explain the detail of the affirmative instrument that is before the committee.

As the committee will be aware, at the end of last year, we passed a significant milestone with the launch of Scotland’s redress scheme, which opened for applications on 8 December. I am pleased to inform the committee that we have received more than 2,000 calls to the scheme since its launch and that more than 250 application forms have been received. That represents a significant step towards facing up to the wrongs of the past and the harm caused to society’s most vulnerable children.

As we move to deliver redress to survivors, we must ensure that the scheme operates fairly for all. Part of that is providing mechanisms to be able to reconsider, and deal with, any determinations under the scheme that are made in error, including those relating to the outcome of a redress application. The draft regulations before the committee seek to achieve that clear goal.

Section 75 of the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a reconsideration process, whereby a Redress Scotland panel can revisit a determination already made under part 4 of the act, should a concern arise that the determination was materially affected by error. That includes where a mistake might have been made in making the determination, or where it is thought that a determination was made on the basis of incorrect or misleading information.

Where the panel determines that an error has occurred, it must put that right. Importantly, where an applicant is not satisfied when they are told of the outcome of a determination, they can request a review. Safeguards are included in the act so that an applicant cannot be prejudiced by exercising their review right when the review is linked to the determination of a redress application.

In practice, we hope and anticipate that we will very rarely require to use the reconsideration and review processes, because robust measures have been embedded throughout the application process and wider scheme to reduce the opportunity for error and potential fraud. However, the draft regulations aim to ensure that we have suitable mechanisms in place to support people through the reconsideration and review processes if required. They also allow us to respond in a fair and effective manner to all possible outcomes of the processes that are linked to the determination of a redress application.

Although the range of possible outcomes is complex, the principle underpinning the proposed amendments to the act is simple: as far as possible, we wish to put an applicant back in the position that they would have been in, had no error occurred.

That may mean that an applicant is offered a different redress payment than the sum that they have been offered or have accepted previously, or that they may benefit from a fresh offer where an error has led to them not being given one before. In those scenarios, we intend that applicants will be given the option to do what is right for them, with the benefit of legal advice, by either accepting or rejecting the new offer.

The waiver is a key, and much debated, aspect of the act. It is essential that the way in which the waiver operates is fair. The draft regulations therefore seek to amend section 46 of the act on waiver. The effect of the proposed amendments is that, where an applicant is issued with an updated or fresh offer of a redress payment following a reconsideration or review, the waiver linked to that offer will reflect the contributor list at the time when the offer should have been made, rather than at the date of the offer itself. That will ensure that, where the offer is accepted, survivors do not miss out on any opportunity that they would otherwise have had to raise civil proceedings.

When a person has already signed a waiver to accept a redress payment offer that has changed following the reconsideration or review process, we consider that it is only fair that they have the opportunity to reconsider their choice and receive legal advice at that critical stage in the process.

We have therefore made provision for that and have ensured that, if a person is content to accept a new offer, the waiver that was signed to accept their original offer will remain in place. If they decide that accepting the new offer is not the right option for them, they will be able to reject it, and any waiver that was signed to accept the original offer will be rendered of no effect.

In the interests of fairness, we have also made provision for a waiver to be rendered of no effect where it is determined that a person ought not to have been offered an award under the scheme.

As I have stressed, the draft regulations ensure that people have access to support and advice, along with the provision for the payment of legal fees and the reimbursement of costs and expenses. That will allow them to fully understand and engage with the reconsideration and review processes and to make the choices that are right for them.

The draft instrument is the final one in a package for the implementation of the redress scheme, and I welcome and appreciate the cross-party support that has ensured that we have delivered the scheme that survivors deserve. I hope that I have provided members with a sufficient overview of the instrument, and my officials and I welcome any questions that the committee may have.