³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Lesley Fraser or Ian Mitchell will set out the process that is being undertaken to recruit the panel of five independent adjudicators and five independent investigators. Perhaps Ian can provide some detail on that.

Yes—of course.

That has to be part of our approach to ensuring, on an on-going basis, that we are a good employer, and that we follow best practice and put in place the arrangements that we have set out for all staff and ministers.

If a minister has concerns about the quality of a member of staff, they are clearly encouraged to raise those with the civil service contacts that ministers all have so that those questions can be considered.

There is a very clear, well-exercised delineation between, on one hand, the engagement between ministers and civil servants on policy matters and the business of government and, on the other, the employment status or performance of civil servants. If a minister has concerns about the conduct or performance of a member of staff, those need to be raised appropriately with the minister’s civil service contacts, who will have line management responsibility for addressing those issues.

I think that that issue is addressed. It is addressed at all stages of the procedure, but it is addressed at stage 4 in particular.

As a serving minister, I would be horrified and mortified—there are various other words that I would use—if I were to be involved in the procedure. Therefore, there is a necessity for ministers to operate in a respectful fashion at all times.

Stage 4 of the procedure clearly delineates the relationship between an outcome of the process, whereby a report finds fault with the conduct of a minister, and the ministerial code. At the moment, there is a lot of debate about the conduct of ministers and how that relates to the ministerial code, but as a serving minister, I constantly consider the necessity of my acting in a way that is consistent with the requirements of the ministerial code, because I know that that is the standard against which I will be judged. That is why the procedure that we are discussing must establish a relationship with the ministerial code.

I do not want to get into all the other debates that are going on elsewhere, but—this goes back to the point that Liz Smith made—there has to be accountability around the conduct of ministers, and that is driven by the ministerial code. Therefore, a complaints-handling process must have a relationship with the ministerial code when it comes to the conduct of ministers.

Professor Leitch can provide some of the epidemiological information. A huge amount of surveillance data is still available to Government. Substantial numbers of PCR tests are still being undertaken, there are wider studies, and scientific information is exchanged across a number of jurisdictions, all of which enables us to create a commanding picture of the available information. The detection of the omicron variant was made far more practical by the correlation with the S-gene dropout element of the assessment.

There will be a range of scientific interventions that we can make to ensure that that situation continues. Professor Leitch can provide more data.

I recognise the significance and sensitivity of the points that Jackie Baillie is raising with me. I will draw on input from Professor Leitch in addition to what I say, but first I will try to provide some reassurance.

The advice that emerged from clinicians—I stress that it was clinical advice that led to the decision to pause fertility treatment—was based on what was overwhelming evidence that indicated that the necessity for vaccination was critical in those circumstances. That was certainly my reading of it. I do not have all the details in front of me, but research was undertaken on the proportion of pregnant women who were admitted to critical care as a consequence of Covid. From my recollection, well over 90 per cent of those cases were women who were unvaccinated. The clinical evidence was overwhelming in that respect, which led to the pause. I quite recognise the distress and upset that that would have caused to the individuals who were affected.

There should be good explanation of the rationale. I have looked at the material and I have seen very clear and well-expressed clinical opinion and evidence on the subject. That should be shared with individuals in all circumstances.

The second question that Jackie Baillie asked was on the resumption of fertility treatment. That will happen as soon as the vaccination programme has delivered the degree of protection that we consider necessary in the context of the omicron wave.

I will seek clarification from Jason Leitch but, on the last question, I think that the Government has made it clear that there will be no disadvantage to any women who were going through fertility treatment. They will not in any way lose out on the opportunity to pursue that fertility treatment because of the pause in arrangements that has been put in place. I would be grateful for Professor Leitch’s input on that question.

The Government’s position is that we will not mandate people to have a vaccination. It is a voluntary programme. An individual organisation is free to take such an approach, but I would counsel that it needs to engage constructively with its employees on such questions, because the issues around approaches of that type will undoubtedly have an effect on who would be eligible and available for employment in such a context. It is up to individual employers to undertake those discussions.

The four harms framework to which Mr Mason refers, which we put in place in the summer of 2020, has been an essential guide in ministers’ decision making. It has enabled there to be a transparent and open conversation with the public and a range of interested parties about the nature of the decisions that have had to be considered.

In March and April 2020, direct Covid health harms were exclusively determining the decision making, because we were in such an acute moment of crisis. From the summer of 2020 onwards, we have sought to strike a balance across the four harms. That is reflected in the strategic purpose of the Government’s agenda, which is to try to manage the Covid pandemic in a way that enables people to appreciate and enjoy as many aspects of normal life as possible, and it remains the rational and considered approach that the Government should take.

If we disregarded direct health harm, the health service would be overwhelmed before we knew it. That would have been the case in December with omicron. If the Government had ignored the direct health harm, the health service would have been overwhelmed—there is no doubt about that in my mind—and the degree of direct health suffering would have been much greater for members of the public. Not many people in society would think that that was a rational approach for the Government to have taken.

The strategy that we have adopted has been to take difficult but evidenced and considered decisions on the balance of the four harms in order to protect public health while enabling people to appreciate and enjoy as much of normal life as we could hope to achieve in the context of a global pandemic.

There should not be an issue there. Individuals who are required to self-isolate, which is the case if someone tests positive with a lateral flow device test, should be eligible for a self-isolation support grant. If there is an issue with that, I will look into it carefully with local authorities to ensure that people who require such support are able to obtain it, given the requirement for them to self-isolate due to the arrangements that we now have in place.