³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I appreciate that crowd sizes vary significantly around the country, but some venues simply cannot accommodate more than 10,000 supporters. It does not matter how many supporters Rangers or Celtic bring along, because only a certain number of people can get into the ground. There are limiting factors. Before I came here today, the Minister for Parliamentary Business was telling me that St Mirren can accommodate only 8,000.

Spot checks are a valid issue. As I indicated in my answer to Mr Fraser a moment ago, in the paper that we published last Thursday, the Government envisages a proportionate approach in larger crowd settings. There is undoubtedly the possibility of that approach being taken.

There you are.

I want to place on the record that the SSI amended the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2021, which came into force on Monday 9 August 2021. The regulations that we are discussing, which came into force on 3 September, made a minor amendment to enable performers to perform or rehearse for a performance without face coverings in situations where distancing or partitioning are not possible. For clarity, that exemption will apply for as long as there is either a partition or a distance of at least 1m between performers and other people, including the audience, but that does not include people who are performing or rehearsing with the performers or assisting with the performance or rehearsal.

I understand that, but all those organisations will to some extent, at an organised event or venue, be carrying out some form of checking of individuals who are coming in, whether that is through ticket checks, purchases or whatever. We are asking that another element be introduced—which, with the assistance of technology, should not add a significant burden to the process—in order to provide an extra layer of public safety and security regarding the spread of the virus. We will provide the necessary guidance that will set out what we consider to be reasonable measures to undertake such an endeavour, and in formulating that we will continue to have discussions with the relevant sectors.

I recognise that point, which is material to the definition of a nightclub and which relates to a point that representatives of the nightclub sector have put to me. If we look at venue A, which, for argument’s sake, we will say closes at midnight, and venue B, which closes at 3 o’clock, we can see that there are two very different propositions, even if both venues involve music, dancing and the availability of alcohol. If someone has been out since the early evening, going to a venue that closes at midnight could make for a long night, but if they are out until 3 o’clock in the morning, it is a very different proposition. However, there might not be an awful lot to distinguish the two venues, and that is one of the issues that we are wrestling with.

We are discussing that with the sector to make sure that we do not create a situation where there is disadvantage because of the way in which the definition is constructed. We are looking at that issue very carefully in order to try to resolve it.

Those are all significant issues. I will talk through some of the points on vaccine uptake and the headline direction and I will perhaps rely on Professor Leitch to add specific details. I will go on to address some of the points that Mr Rowley has legitimately raised about particular groups and the efforts that are taken to try to increase uptake.

Uptake of the vaccine has been very high. The uptake level in a routine flu vaccine programme pre-Covid, for example, would be of the order of perhaps 65 to 70 per cent. In the over-40s cohort, the level of double vaccination is significantly in excess of 65 per cent; indeed, it is over 80 per cent now.

Compared with the uptakes in normal vaccination programmes, that is a really high uptake for the over-40s. The figures for the 30-to-39 and 18-to-29 cohorts have been at lower levels. Professor Leitch can give the specifics on where those figures are now.

Thank you, convener. I would like to make a brief opening statement in advance of the committee’s questions.

I welcome this opportunity to update the committee on the measures that are being taken to ensure the necessary parliamentary oversight of the on-going response to the pandemic with regard to the updates that the First Minister recently gave to Parliament and the report that I highlighted to the committee on my previous appearance.

As the First Minister set out in her statement to Parliament on Tuesday, we have not made any change to the current Covid regulations, although work is continuing on preparing legislation for Covid certification. The figures that the First Minister set out clearly indicate that the surge in cases that we saw in the summer has caused a sharp rise in the number of people in hospital and is also leading to a significant number of deaths.

However, there are signs that the surge has been levelling off and that the number of cases may even be falling slightly. Although the number of cases in older age groups—that is, people above the age of 45—is still rising slightly, the rate at which cases have grown in all those age groups has slowed during the past week. That context helps to explain why the Cabinet decided not to impose any further restrictions. I am grateful to everyone—all organisations, businesses and individuals—who has taken extra care in recent weeks to try to stop the current spike in infection. Cabinet secretaries are continuing to engage with representatives from business, the public sector and wider civic society to reinforce those messages.

As the university and college term begins, we have been working closely with universities, colleges and the wider sector to make the return as safe as possible, and we continue to work with local authorities to make schools, childcare centres and early learning premises as safe as possible, too. We will continue to require secondary school pupils to wear face coverings as well as maintaining other current mitigations in schools at least until the October holidays. As was set out earlier in the week by the Government, we will amend some of our guidance on contact tracing in schools to ensure that everyone has a clear understanding of the process.

On vaccinations for young people, the First Minister announced that the chief medical officers have taken a broad view of the benefits and risks of vaccination and have recommended that 12 to 15-year-olds be offered one dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Their advice has since been broadly endorsed by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The Government will implement that recommendation as soon as possible and will shortly provide further information to health boards as well as, of course, to parents, carers and young people.

The First Minister also set out our approach to booster vaccinations, which will be offered to all adults over 50, to front-line health and care workers, to younger adults with certain health conditions or with health conditions that put them at higher risk and to adult household contacts of people with suppressed immune systems.

The final point about vaccination that I want to highlight—I know that members have heard from stakeholders on this point this morning—relates to Covid certification. Last week, Parliament voted in favour of the proposal to require eligible people to show proof of vaccination before they enter certain specified venues such as nightclubs or attend certain large-scale events. We are now working with businesses, events organisers and sports governing bodies to finalise the detail of that proposal and to publish sector-specific guidance. We believe that this is a proportionate measure that can reduce transmission in some settings, can encourage take-up of the vaccine and might help certain events and venues to continue to operate even when Covid rates are high.

I will move on to matters of legislation. I explained at my previous appearance before the committee that the Scottish Government’s report on the Coronavirus (Extension and Expiry) (Scotland) Act 2021 was to be laid before Parliament on Friday 3 September. That report fulfils our requirement in sections 5 and 7 of the 2021 act to lay a one-off report before the Scottish Parliament one month after the act received royal assent. It gives effect to duties in the act for Scottish ministers to report on the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, including measures relating to the holding of marriage ceremonies and civil partnerships, support for businesses and a range of other policy areas including social security support available to carers, support available to persons who are required to self-isolate for a reason relating to coronavirus, social care services and fiscal fines.

There is also a statutory instrument to discuss, but we will come to that later in the agenda. I am happy to answer the committee’s questions.

I accept that it is possible for somebody to change names and text in a PDF document. However, if one was to change one’s QR code, one would not get into the football match, because the QR code would not work—it would not scan or be valid. Somebody might want to play around with the shading or detail of the QR code but it would be pointless, as it would not get them into the game because it would not work. That question therefore mystifies me a little bit. The QR code—which is the element that has to be absolutely robust—cannot be tampered with to give it a different effect.

We have learned that vaccination certification can fuel vaccination uptake. In the short period since we announced that the introduction of vaccination certificates was likely, there has been an increase in uptake in certain groups, so we have learned from that. There is obviously a debate to be had about how extensively vaccination certificates should be applied. The Government is crystal clear in its view that we will never use them for eligibility for public services. That will just not be considered.

However, there is a legitimate argument, which we are not pursuing at this stage, for extending vaccination certificates across a wider range of facilities. We want to avoid that, but my response to that flows from my response to Mr Rowley a moment ago, which was that we must take all reasonable steps to suppress the virus, to protect the national health service and, ideally, to enable us to avoid further restrictions that could have a greater impact on society as a whole. We want to avoid that if possible.