���˿���

I will turn to Professor Leitch to answer that point, but the World Health Organization’s advice to us at this stage of the pandemic in general is to take care and not to think that everything is over and done with. The position that the Scottish Government has taken on, for example, the continued use of face coverings as a mandatory provision is in line with the guidance from the World Health Organization. The WHO will encourage us to maintain a testing infrastructure that enables us to identify what the prevalence of the virus is in our society and what we can contribute to international understanding of the virus by virtue of the information that we collect and the experience that we have.

In relation to specific measures and restrictions, the World Health Organization may set out what it thinks is desirable, but we as a Government have to judge whether that is proportionate, because we have to be satisfied that we could withstand legal challenge to any of the decisions that we take. Generally, however, the advice of the World Health Organisation at this pivotal moment of the pandemic is to take care. I turn to Professor Leitch to answer the specific question on the WHO’s testing advice.

I am again speculating, but the advice that we have received from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation will result in us issuing vaccination appointments to all five to 11-year-olds very shortly. We will start issuing them in mid-March and do most of them around the Easter holidays. Additional boosters will be provided to care home residents, people who are over 75 and people who are over 12 who are immunosuppressed. That activity will dominate the spring and the period towards the summer. That probably makes it likely that we are heading towards a booster programme in the autumn, but we will await JCVI advice on that particular question. Assuming that there is no substantive deterioration in the situation, I think that we will be moving into a period when we will be relying on vaccination to provide us with effective resilience.

That will be our general assumption in relation to the management of the pandemic, but we have to ensure that we have the legal and statutory capacity in place to respond to a deteriorating situation, should that be the situation that we face.

I suspect that, on that particular theme, we may just have to.

I acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion among members on the issue. There is a duty on the Government to have in place a statute book that enables us to respond to the circumstances that we face. Colleagues have indicated that there are likely to be challenges ahead for us. The measures that are in place have appropriate safeguards and there is no obligation to use them. The obligation for us as parliamentarians is to have in place a statute book that can respond to the challenges that we face.

To respond to Mr Whittle’s point, I have heard the criticism of Parliament that we did not have the necessary legislation in place to deal with a pandemic. If we are going to prepare properly for pandemics, we must ensure that we have the legislation in place with appropriate safeguards. I reiterate the point that, although the provisions will extend the regulatory infrastructure that is in place, they do not oblige the Government to use it in all circumstances.

On the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 4) Regulations 2022, if we want to continue the legal obligation to wear face coverings on public transport and in public places to 21 March, it must be put into place today or it will fall on 28 February. Therefore, in that short term, I appeal to colleagues to support the regulations, which will be the subject of a vote. There are two other instruments that will be subject to discussion in due course.

I invite Professor Leitch to come in on that point, or we might have to write to the committee on it.

Mr Mason will understand that, although I try my best to keep abreast of newspaper articles, I do not read every one of them. If that was the case, I would do nothing else in life. If the committee will forgive me, we will write to the convener with a response on that point.

Thank you, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to meet the committee, and I will make a brief opening statement.

On Tuesday, the First Minister set out to the Parliament the revised strategic framework. The “Scotland’s Strategic Framework Update” document details the Scottish Government’s approach to achieving a sustainable return to a more normal way of life while remaining prepared for potential future threats from Covid. That approach will support us to manage Covid effectively through sensible adaptations and public health measures that will strengthen our resilience and support our recovery as we build a better future. In time, we will seek to rely much less on legally imposed measures and instead rely more on vaccines, treatments and good public health behaviours.

We will continue to ensure the maximum possible availability and uptake of vaccination, in line with expert advice. Indeed, from mid-March, we will start issuing vaccination appointments to all five to 11-year-olds. We will also begin providing an additional booster to care home residents, those aged over 75 and those aged over 12 who are immunosuppressed.

Testing has been, and will continue to be, a vital part of our management of Covid. Over time, and in a careful and phased manner, it is reasonable to move away from mass population-wide asymptomatic testing toward a more targeted system that is focused on specific priorities. We will publish a detailed transition plan for test and protect in March, by which time we will hopefully have much-needed clarity from the United Kingdom Government on testing infrastructure and funding.

From Monday 28 February, the guidance on how often to take a lateral flow test will change. We will revert to the advice to test at least twice a week, particularly if going to a crowded place or meeting anyone who is clinically vulnerable.

The updated strategic framework sets out a number of additional proposed changes to public health protections during the coming weeks. First, from Monday 28 February, the Covid certification scheme— which requires certain venues to check vaccine status—will end. Although the app that supports the scheme will remain operational for businesses that want to use it voluntarily to reassure customers.

Secondly, from Monday 21 March—assuming that there are no significant adverse developments—the legal requirement to wear face coverings in certain indoor settings and on public transport will end. From 21 March, we also expect to lift the legal requirement for businesses, places of worship and service providers to have regard to Scottish Government guidance on Covid and end the requirement to retain customer contact details.

The strategic framework details the kinds of behaviours and adaptations that will be encouraged in different circumstances, which include: enhanced hygiene, improved ventilation, increased hybrid and flexible working and face coverings in some indoor places. It is now less likely that those measures will be legally imposed in the future, but we will advise their use for as long as they help to control the virus and protect those who are most vulnerable.

The approach that is set out in the strategic framework will support us all to return to normality and ensure a safe and sustainable recovery.

I am happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

It is because we may face a deteriorating situation and might have to take some more severe action. I hope that we do not have to, but we might.

As I have rehearsed with the committee previously, on one Tuesday morning in November, the Cabinet thought that the pandemic was pretty stable and that we could look forward to a pretty straightforward Christmas, but 48 hours later Michael Matheson was on a call with the United Kingdom Government about applying travel restrictions on South Africa and various other African countries because omicron had descended on us. To be blunt, omicron was the variant of the virus that came closest to tipping over Scotland’s national health service—it came very close.

That all happened in the space of 48 hours, so I cannot predict what lies ahead. However, I have sat in Parliaments for nearly 25 years, and I have listened to members of Parliament demand—rightly—that the statute book be capable of dealing with situations that we face. At this moment, given all the history of the past two years, I simply want to ensure that Scotland has a statute book that can be used, if it needs to be, to protect the public. I stress the word “can”—it can, not must or will, be used.

I suspect that I might be exposed to a good amount of criticism for not foreseeing this or that. In this particular situation, the Government has decided to try to foresee some of the difficulties that we might face and put in place a statute book that gives us the ability to respond in a way that we hope that we do not have to, but we may have to.

No. I am, obviously, aware of the ONS infection survey data from this morning. If my memory serves me right—I stand to be corrected on this—this is the first week of the survey, certainly since the onset of omicron, in which the incidence ratio in Scotland has been at a poorer level than elsewhere in the UK—that is certainly the case in comparison with England; the situation may well be different with regard to some parts of Wales, where there have been restrictions in place. This is the first occasion on which that has been the case.

The Financial Times assessment raises a lot of questions because, essentially, the death rate in Scotland—I hate to talk in this kind of language, but the question has been put to me, so I have to do so—has been comparatively lower than the death rate in England throughout the pandemic. I am not quite sure where the Financial Times gets its conclusions from.

It is important that we take measures that we consider to be proportionate and appropriate. The Scottish Government has done that throughout with the objective of protecting the public. If the position in Scotland had been any more serious than it was—and it has been serious—I am sure that many people would be queueing up to demand that the Scottish Government take even stronger action than it has done. Indeed, some people have demanded that.

People are free to make those arguments but we have to make balanced judgments. Protecting the public has been at the heart of those judgments.