���˿���

I agree with that.

I will say a few words before I turn to Professor Leitch.

It is critical that our healthcare system is able to meet the needs of all individuals, regardless of the health condition that they face, recognising the necessity of interventions where they are appropriate. That is one of the reasons why we have to manage and suppress the prevalence of Covid—the more Covid cases there are in our hospitals, the less space there is for other conditions to be addressed. That is the central argument that ministers have set out to the committee, the Parliament and the public on the steps that we have taken to tackle Covid. We have taken appropriate and proportionate action in order to enable our health service to timeously meet the needs of all constituents, such as the person Mr Whittle mentioned, while also dealing with the pressures that come from Covid.

Those are fundamental questions about the capacity of the health service, on which I invite Professor Leitch to give some more detail.

Those messages are communicated by Government. Our clinical advisers have been at the forefront of arguing for the rationale for vaccination and the booster programme, and ministers likewise. At the heart of many of the interventions that we have made—whether on public communication or policy interventions such as vaccine certification—the purpose has been to increase the level of vaccination in the population because it is a compelling protection against the virus. I can assure Mr Fraser that those messages have been and will be communicated by ministers.

Some of the endless speculation about these matters sometimes muddies the waters. It has been crystal clear for a long time now that vaccination is critical as an obstacle to circulation and to protect people against the virus. When we go through all the issues about extra bits of data, it almost leaves the public thinking that there is something that they or the Government are missing about the data, whereas it is actually crystal clear: if you get vaccinated, you have more protection against Covid.

Mr Whittle raises legitimate points, which come back to points that I made in my previous answer. We must ensure that the needs of the population are met by the national health service. It is the fundamental founding commitment of the NHS that free treatment be provided at the point of need when individuals experience that need. Covid poses a threat to that, because it takes up capacity in our hospitals. More than 1,500 patients are in hospital with Covid. If Covid was not a problem for us, those 1,500 beds could be used for other purposes.

Therefore, the more we can get on top of Covid and reduce the circulation of the virus, the better, because that creates space for patients, such as the people on whose behalf Mr Whittle argues today and, for that matter, has argued consistently for some considerable time.

The Government has tried to take all the necessary steps to sustain the engagement of critical services for people with conditions that have a life-threatening impact. Along with clinicians and health services, we have worked hard to sustain cancer services. Obviously, for acute presentations of life-threatening conditions, the health service is there to meet people’s needs. That is why we look very carefully at the numbers of people who are in ICU with Covid, because we need space in ICU for people who come in because of heart attacks, brain haemorrhages or whatever it happens to be.

Mr Whittle is right to raise those issues, and I assure him and the public that the Government, in its management of Covid, has the patient group that Mr Whittle raises very much in our minds. We want to ensure that their interests are protected.

Good morning, convener. I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to discuss a number of matters, including updates to Parliament on Covid-19, and to make some opening remarks before taking questions.

As the First Minister set out on Tuesday, although omicron is continuing to cause extremely high levels of new cases and we must remain careful, there are grounds for cautious optimism that our current additional measures and the efforts that are being made by people across Scotland are having an impact. Last month, our central projection was that new infections could reach 50,000 a day by early January. So far, that has not materialised, and we estimate that the total number of daily infections may be around 30,000. We are also seeing that the numbers of cases confirmed by a polymerase chain reaction test have fallen in all age groups, except the over-85s. That is encouraging, and it gives us some hope that cases might be at or close to the peak. Further, although the number of people in hospital with Covid has continued to increase over the past week, there are signs that the rate of increase may be starting to slow.

In line with our guidance that was set out last week, people without symptoms who test positive with a lateral flow test no longer need to secure a confirmatory PCR test. That means that the current daily numbers are capturing fewer positive cases than before. To address that, Public Health Scotland will, from today, augment its daily reports to include the combined figure for the number of people who have recorded a first positive PCR or lateral flow test. That additional data will allow us to assess the trend in cases more accurately. I encourage members of the public to continue to record their lateral flow results, whether they are positive or negative. That can be done very easily through the United Kingdom Government website, by searching for “report a lateral flow test”.

Although we must remain careful and cautious, the Cabinet agreed on Tuesday to begin lifting the additional protective measures that were introduced before Christmas. We will do so in a phased manner, and further dates will be announced in due course. From Monday 17 January, the attendance limits on large-scale outdoor events will be removed. Certification will remain in place for events and venues that were previously covered by the scheme, and we are asking event organisers to check the certification status of more people attending events. From Monday, for the purposes of certification, the requirement to be fully vaccinated will include having a booster if the second dose was more than four months ago.

For the time being, baseline measures that were in place before the emergence of omicron, such as wearing face coverings in indoor places and working from home where possible, will remain in place. For the immediate period ahead, our advice remains that people should limit their contact with other households and, in particular, not meet indoors with more than three households. We are not asking people to cut all social interaction, but reducing contacts and prioritising who we meet will help to reduce the risk. Our advice remains to take a lateral flow test and report the result when meeting others.

Finally, the First Minister confirmed that the Scottish Government intends to publish a revised strategic framework in the next few weeks. I will update the committee further once that has been published.

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

Obviously, in relation to primary legislation, Parliament is at liberty to apply sunset provisions if it judges them to be appropriate. By their nature, many of the statutory instruments in relation to the handling of Covid that have been introduced through the made affirmative procedure have sunset provisions in them already. Indeed, a large number of those instruments have expired as a result of such provision. There is a role for sunset provisions. There is sunsetting provision implicit in the made affirmative procedure, in that if the Parliament does not vote for the legislation within 28 days, it lapses. There is a role for sunset provisions and the Government would be happy to consider those measures and possibilities as part of the legislative process.

I will be happy to supply any information required.

No. There is nothing intemperate about me, Mr Hoy. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of the point that you and Mr Simpson are putting to me this morning. There is endless opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of all these issues. For example, there is the statement that the First Minister gives, and I—or one of my ministerial colleagues—have consistently been in front of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee every week. Other committees are also interrogating ministers. There has also been extensive coronavirus legislation. Although I appreciate that Mr Hoy was not in Parliament when it was put through in 2020, two very extensive pieces of legislation were put through Parliament and were scrutinised by members of Parliament. I am not in any way concerned about scrutiny. I submit myself to parliamentary scrutiny on a constant basis. The argument that Mr Hoy is putting to me this morning is—frankly—ludicrous.

In relation to the suggested alternative of a 15-minute debate on the floor of Parliament, to be honest, I think that that would attract the charge of tokenism. Mr Hoy himself just made the point that such a debate might be satisfactory because most of the material is non-contentious—I think that that is the word that he used. If it is non-contentious, it undermines the argument that Mr Hoy has put to me. If members of Parliament generally see this as non-contentious legislation that has to happen to protect public health, that surely makes my argument for me that the made affirmative procedure is the appropriate procedure for it. If issues of a cumulative nature arise out of the legislation, those can of course be resolved by further scrutiny. However, that indicates that a mountain is being made out of a molehill in relation to some of these issues.

I think that we are all agreed on the need to make sure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any legislative instruments that come forward. That is vitally important in all scenarios. However, I am simply making the argument that, if we look dispassionately at what has happened in relation to legislation since March 2020, we see that most of what has been brought forward under the made affirmative procedure has been essential and non-contentious material that has been required to protect the public in a public health emergency.

I appreciate that there is a philosophical difference of view among members of Parliament about vaccination certification. I understand that. However, countless other measures have gone through with unanimity across the political spectrum. I take from that that there is an acceptance by members of Parliament of all political persuasions of the validity and necessity of individual pieces of legislation.

I am happy to consider that point. I view myself very much as the servant of Parliament and, if the Parliament wishes to exercise more scrutiny by asking me to be available to answer more questions on measures that are going through under the made affirmative procedure, I will do that. If the Parliament asks me to do something, provided that it is within the law, I will do it. I am a servant of Parliament. I have made it clear to the COVID-19 Recovery Committee that, provided that there is reasonable notice, I will appear before it at any time, because I view that to be my primary channel for parliamentary accountability.

Mr Sweeney is putting fair and reasonable issues to me. If the Parliamentary Bureau were to consider them in relation to the parliamentary timetable or if committees were to decide to act in a particular way, I am a servant of the Parliament in that respect, so I would be entirely happy to participate in such an approach.