³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I assure Mr Fairlie that the Government is doing so. It is important that every individual has their clinical needs properly addressed and supported as they wrestle with their circumstances. For some, Covid will be a relatively mild experience while, for others, it will have long and enduring effects, and we have to ensure that, whatever the circumstances, people are properly and fully supported.

There was a lot in there, but I will make two points. First, on the made affirmative procedure, the Government is dealing with a pandemic that requires us to take actions swiftly, but we have to be mindful of the question of proportionality in those actions.

We used the made affirmative procedure because we were concerned about the rise in the number of cases and the need to improve vaccination levels, but we had to be certain that the measures would be proportionate. We had to give warning that we were going to move in that direction, but ultimately the final detail could only be put in place with the swiftness that the made affirmative procedure allows.

Parliament considered that question on two occasions before the measures came into force—once on Government time and once on Conservative time—and on both occasions the Government’s position was supported by Parliament. We will of course engage with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on those questions.

On the use of vaccination certificates, Celtic Football Club reported that 75 per cent of the attendees at one of its games in the past week were checked, and initial reports from the rugby match on Saturday were that around 40 per cent of people were checked, which is much higher than was anticipated under the scheme.

I understand Mr Simpson’s concerns, but we cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, Mr Simpson and his colleagues suggest that the application of the scheme is so effective that it is disrupting the night-time economy, but on the other hand, we have heard the argument today that the scheme is not effective at all. They cannot have it both ways; it is either effective and is disrupting parts of the economy, or it is not effective. We cannot run those two arguments because they are totally contradictory. [Interruption.]

Yes, they are, Mr Fraser—they are completely contradictory arguments. The scheme is working well, as envisaged, in all the circumstances that it was intended for, and the Government believes the intervention to be proportionate.

I set out at the beginning my reflections on the instruments and I will not add any further comments.

We should all be worried about that. The level of vaccine uptake in the likes of East Dunbartonshire is, frankly, getting to maximum participation. We would like all local authorities to be at that level. We know that one of the challenges is that people in areas of deprivation are more reluctant to come forward for such interventions. Through the way in which we have deployed the vaccination programme, we are trying our best to reach as many people as possible. The continued communication from Government is about inviting and encouraging people to be double vaccinated. Absolutely anybody who is not yet vaccinated is welcome to come forward through the different approaches. We want to ensure that they can be vaccinated, and we encourage that higher level of participation.

Let us look at those three factors: confidence, convenience and complacency. The Government can do something about complacency and convenience. We can definitely do something about convenience, because we should be making the vaccine as readily available as possible. For example, if individuals in the communities that Mr Mason represents are required to use public transport to get to another part of the city, or to go outside the city, to get their vaccine, which involves cost, I can understand why that would be inconvenient for those on low incomes. Therefore, as far as possible, we have to ensure that vaccination facilities are available in communities.

Mr Mason raises a fair point. Perhaps we need to look afresh at the geographical distribution and whether there are certain areas that we need to put buses into or where we need to establish clinics in relevant public facilities such as church halls to try to reach those individuals. The Government and public authorities can do something about convenience. As for complacency, the Government’s public messaging and the steps that we are taking are designed to tackle any such issues in the population.

Confidence is the sticky and really difficult issue. If someone is anxious about different things in life or struggles with confidence in public authorities or their own wellbeing, it might be quite difficult for us to overcome that challenge. However, I think that we can do so through genuine engagement with individuals and communities to make it as practical as possible for people to be vaccinated.

The point that I was trying to make in my response to the committee was that it is impossible to segment the headline data about the prevalence of the virus to which we have access, and to ascribe levels of prevalence of the virus to particular factors. The flipside of that is that it is impossible to ascribe to a particular mitigation measure the avoidance of a situation that has prevailed.

Ministers look at the overall prevalence of the virus and the pressures on the national health service, and we make a judgment, based on the headline data, on whether it is proportionate and appropriate for mitigation measures to remain in force. Ministers undertake that assessment every three weeks. We have to complete our next assessment and consideration of such issues on 16 November. We look at all the evidence that we have to hand, and we make a judgment on the extent to which the virus continues to present a significant threat to the wider population and, crucially, to the sustainability of national health services.

I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to discuss a number of matters, including the Covid update to Parliament from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on Tuesday and the Covid recovery strategy.

As set out in the update to Parliament, we continue to work closely with health boards as they deal with pressures in the run-up to winter. We announced an additional package of winter support, backed by a further £10 million, for a range of measures to support accident and emergency systems and to ensure that patients have access to the correct care as quickly as possible.

We have implemented an approach that is intended to maintain the pace of the vaccination programme as we enter the flu season by maximising the availability of scheduled appointments and ensuring the efficient vaccination of people against both Covid-19 and seasonal flu. Vaccination remains one of our most effective public health interventions against the pandemic.

We have also announced changes to the rules on international travel, including the removal of the final seven countries from the international travel red list.

The Scottish Government has been working closely with the United Kingdom Government and partners in Scotland, including Glasgow City Council, Transport Scotland, NHS Scotland and Police Scotland, to deliver the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—successfully and safely. A comprehensive package of mitigation measures is in place, which is aimed at protecting the welfare of everyone involved and the wider community. In addition to an offer of vaccination to delegates, measures include a robust daily testing regime, contact tracing, hygiene measures that include distancing and the use of face coverings, and ventilation.

In relation to the regulations that we will discuss shortly, the Covid vaccination certification scheme continues to bed in well. Last weekend was the second weekend since enforcement began on 18 October. The Covid status app has played a part in the success of the scheme. The original contract cost of £600,000 for the development of an international travel app, which was awarded to Netcompany, was formally extended in October by up to an additional £600,000, in order to reflect the expansion of the original proposal to include new technical development work to support domestic use of the app.

On the statutory instruments that are before the committee, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Directions by Local Authorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 had been in place since 28 August 2020. They made provision for local authority enforcement powers in respect of businesses, premises, events and access to public outdoor places. The original regulations were due to expire on 30 September 2021, and the current regulations extend the original regulations to 25 March 2022. That ensures that, should local authorities require, in relation to coronavirus, to take local enforcement action regarding businesses, premises, events and public outdoor places, they will have the appropriate powers available to do so.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2021 provide for the Covid vaccination certification scheme. The Government recognises the concern that was expressed in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that regulations under the made affirmative procedure can come into force prior to any formal scrutiny by the Parliament, and about applying the procedure to those regulations.

Our decision to use that procedure for the certification regulations partly reflected considerations around implementation of the vaccination certification arrangement, including the need for businesses and the general public to familiarise themselves with the finalised legal requirements that underpin the scheme sufficiently in advance, in order to enable those who are affected by the scheme rules to take the necessary steps to prepare. I discussed some of that with the committee on 30 September.

More widely, the Minister for Parliamentary Business set out the considerations that we took into account in using the made affirmative instrument procedure. Case numbers remain high, and it is for that reason that urgent action was needed in introducing the important baseline measure of certification, given those factors and the need to take action without delay to address the harms that are posed by the virus.

Under the difficult circumstances that we still face, I ask the committee to recommend approval of the regulations. I offer my assurance that the measure will continue to be under review and will remain in place only for as long as is necessary.

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

I would not characterise the situation in that fashion. We are taking a set of carefully targeted interventions to try to secure our objectives. Our strategic intent, which was revised in the summer, is to suppress the virus to a level that is consistent with alleviating its harms while we recover and rebuild for a better future. That is very different from our previous strategic intent, which was about maximum virus suppression.

We are trying to manage the impact of the virus through tools including vaccination, and I agree with Mr Whittle’s point that vaccination is a significant factor in making venues and circumstances as safe as possible. It reduces the risk of transmission and provides greater protection for anybody who happens to contract the virus after they have been double vaccinated. We are trying to take proportionate measures, as we are required to by law, that enable us to achieve the strategic intent that I have just put on the record again.

I make no attempt to make the following point more precisely than I have several times already, this morning and on previous occasions: I cannot ascribe a direct relationship between one intervention and the strategic intent. However, every three weeks, we have to look at the strategic intent and the prevalence of the virus and ask whether the measures that are currently in place are appropriate, suitable and proportionate. The Government believes that to be the case, but we are now preparing for the next three-weekly review on 16 November, when we will have to satisfy ourselves on all those issues and report to Parliament accordingly.

I refer to the data that I put on the record in response to Mr Fraser’s question. As of 1 September—before the vaccination certification scheme was put in place—53 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds had received two doses of the vaccine. By 1 November, the figure had risen by 15 per cent to 68 per cent. That is a pretty substantial increase; it is close to a third.

The scheme supports the Government’s objectives. We will continue to review it, because we have to be satisfied that the action is proportionate. I confirm to the committee that the Government will do exactly that.

I will say a few words and then I will bring in Professor Leitch. The Government has wider messaging about the risks that the population faces from being unvaccinated and the significance and seriousness of the impact of the virus on people who are not vaccinated. That messaging includes some of the difficult but necessary information that needs to be shared with members of the public. People who are unvaccinated run the risk of having a more serious condition as a consequence of contracting the virus. For that reason and many others, we share that clinical information with members of the public. The chief medical officer, the national clinical director and others support the Government in providing that communication.