Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am certainly convinced by that argument, and I think that the committee probably is, too. However, does that mean that the 2008 act is not entirely fit for purpose? Do we need to revisit that legislation?

One of our aims is to better prepare ourselves for the next pandemic. I am not suggesting that we do this immediately but, once we get through Covid, would it be worth while looking at the 2008 act to ensure that it can deal with isolated cases and future pandemics?

We received evidence that women especially were not aware of how or when to get hold of the grant. As more people might have to self-isolate over the next two or three months, might the Government make an effort to re-emphasise and reiterate the grant’s availability?

That is helpful.

My next question is for John Swinney. Finance is an issue because we do not have the money to compensate businesses if we close them. Can we do more with other measures?

For example, we previously talked about rolling out the vaccination certification scheme more widely. I mentioned the other day that I was at the theatre on Saturday night. There were only 1,500 people there, so it was not covered by the certification scheme, but the theatre group insisted on people providing proof of a negative test or of vaccinations, which I thought was great. The whole thing went very smoothly. We were checked in the line, and people had time to then get their tickets on their phones so that they could get in the door. I saw no negative reaction to that. Would a useful measure be to roll out the certification scheme more widely?

The second measure relates to mask wearing. Whether people wear masks has varied a lot. Some places have been good on that. At the theatre, virtually everybody wore a mask, but train companies have been poor at asking people—not telling people—to wear masks. The railway companies just say that it is up to the British Transport Police and they cannot do anything. Are there other companies that could be encouraged to push mask wearing a bit more?

My first question is for Jason Leitch. We have been advised that February will be the crunch month for infections, hospitalisations and so on. Is that what we currently expect?

I realise that my final point touches on a reserved matter. We had a briefing from Oxfam and Christian Aid, among others, about the vaccines getting to poorer countries around the world. One of the figures that they gave was that only 7.1 per cent of people in low-income countries have received even one dose. The gap between them and us is huge. Those organisations argue that it is not just about the existing companies producing more vaccines; developing countries should be allowed to produce them themselves through intellectual property rights being waived. Can the Scottish Government do anything to push that agenda along?

Thank you—that is helpful. The Deputy First Minister shows exemplary behaviour in the number of tests that he does. Sadly, however, not everybody in society is taking as many tests and getting the same feedback. Nevertheless, I appreciate your answer.

More generally, is it fair to say that the bill is about saving money? Most legislation leads to money being spent. The key point is that the NHS would be severely damaged if it had to pay full compensation for people’s loss of wages and all the rest of it. The bill will ensure that £500 is paid only to those people who need it most.

I will follow up on that point. I will not ask you whether we are sending too many young people to university, but am I right in saying that, if we sent fewer of them to university and had more working, and maybe doing apprenticeships, that would—although it might have a more damaging effect in the long term—boost the economy in the short term?

I take that point, but it seems to me that the issue is having an effect on our budget in the short term, although I accept that it will all come out in the wash in the long term. Previously, we had the Scottish-specific economic shock—I hope that I have got those words right—which was really a timing issue between your forecasts and those of the OBR. I simply wonder whether we are seeing the situation in reverse at the moment, with the OBR having made, in October, an optimistic forecast for the UK of 6 per cent, and you predicting, in December, growth of 3.8 per cent. Is this just a timing thing, or is it a mixture of timing and reality?

I have a question for David Eiser that follows on from some of the issues that have already been touched on. I do not know whether you heard the previous session, but I quoted a SPICe report about GDP growth rates in the calendar years that are coming up. The Fraser of Allander Institute’s prediction, which I think it made in September, is that growth will be 4.8 per cent, whereas, in December, the Scottish Fiscal Commission predicted growth of 3.8 per cent. Those figures are just within Scotland. The OBR has predicted growth of 6 per cent, which appears to be at the highest end at the UK level. It is higher than the Bank of England’s prediction, for example. Do you have any further thoughts on that?