³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Mr Fairlie’s latter point is an important one that gets to the heart of a point that I made in my opening statement. The Government has changed its approach to the handling of the pandemic. I said earlier that we are no longer seeking to suppress Covid to the lowest possible level and that, now that we have vaccinations, the restrictions required to suppress Covid could not be justified, given that they cause serious harms of their own. We are trying to operate within a context in which vaccination is available to us and, if we maximise the uptake of vaccinations, we will provide the greatest amount of protection against the prevalence of the virus.

The best way to explain that is to go back to the situation that we faced in January. In January, the Government got advice that basically said to us that, unless we applied a further, immediate lockdown, there would be a very serious risk—if not an inevitability—that our health service would be unable to meet its central purpose and commitment to members of the public. We had to follow that advice because such a low level of the population—a tiny proportion—had been vaccinated at that time, and even then, only one dose had been given.

Today, we find ourselves in a very different situation with a very successful vaccination programme for the over-40s and a vaccination programme for the under-40s that still has some way to go. We are trying to take steps, essentially, to enable us to maximise the protection that we can achieve from the vaccination programme. That is the strategy that the Government is pursuing. We are trying to utilise vaccination as the means of resisting the pressure that the virus can put on us and to avoid having to take any further restrictive measures.

We knew from the four harms analysis—on which the previous committee questioned me before the election in May, and which dominated our thinking and planning as we took steps to relax restrictions over the past 12 months or so—that we had to take steps that would adapt and change, given the presence of the vaccination programme in our society and its effectiveness. There has been a change in the way that the Government is handling such issues. It recognises that Covid causes multiple harms that we need to avoid. The best way to do that is by having very high participation rates in the vaccination programme and by following the baseline measures that I discussed earlier with Mr Rowley.

Mr Fairlie asked whether there are any plans to extend the need for certification beyond the very limited number of groupings that we have highlighted. The Government has no plans to do that.

I do not know whether Professor Leitch wants to add to anything that I have said.

The primary purpose of the policy proposal that the First Minister set out yesterday is to strengthen resistance to the virus by maximising compliance with the measures that we know will have the greatest impact in stemming the prevalence of serious illness as a consequence of people contracting it.

We face a very difficult situation just now. Members will be familiar with the fact that the number of cases has risen sharply in recent weeks, since the relaxation of restrictions on 9 August. Earlier in the summer, there was a very sharp rise and then a very sharp fall in the number of infections. At this stage, the Government is concerned that the rise in the number of infections needs to be tackled with measures to try to reduce its significance.

As the First Minister set out to Parliament yesterday, even if 2 to 3 per cent of individuals who test positive for Covid have to be admitted to hospital, 2 to 3 per cent of a very large number is a lot of people, and that equates to the levels of hospitalisation at previous stages in the pandemic, which we wish to avoid. We are trying to take steps within the measures that are available to us, without reintroducing restrictions, to maximise the capacity of the population to resist the spread of coronavirus. The purpose of the move is to maximise resistance within the population and reduce the danger that we will have to impose further restrictions in the future. It is clear that the Government is keen to ensure that that does not happen.

I am certainly happy to provide the committee with the range of measures that we have taken to strengthen the vaccination programme. A pretty established part of the discussion about the suppression of Covid is that vaccination is a critical and absolutely fundamental element of our strategy.

We need only look at where we are today and the current level of cases. If we had had anything approaching a proportion of those cases at a prior stage of the pandemic, we would, as we know, have been applying lockdown measures. We had to do that in January, when case levels were much lower than they are currently, but at that time we did not have the protection of the vaccination programme. Vaccination is absolutely central to the Government’s response to the pandemic. I am very happy to marshal that evidence and to set out to the committee what steps the Government has taken to reach the extraordinarily high levels of vaccination in the country.

That said, we have some challenges with uptake in lower age groups. Although the uptake among the over-40s is extraordinarily high, we still have some way to go in the 18 to 40-year age groups, and we are taking steps to maximise vaccination levels. That is our clear strategy, because with such an approach, we are taking steps to try to avoid applying any further restrictions later.

As I have said, I am happy to marshal that evidence and information for the committee. There will be a parliamentary debate on the wider question of vaccine certification next week, and the Government will make the necessary information available to enable Parliament to make an informed decision on that question.

More than 4 million people have been vaccinated in Scotland, and I am confident that, for the overwhelming majority of those individuals, vaccine records will be strong and robust. Because of what John Mason has just put to me, I have to accept that there are instances where there are issues with the accuracy of the information.

Any suspected errors in a person’s Covid vaccination record should be reported to the national helpline; there is a telephone number available on the NHS Inform website. In general, however, the quality and strength of health records in Scotland are very good, fundamentally because they are anchored in the community health index number that every citizen has. That provides us with a robust footing and foundation for the delivery of information about the vaccination records of individuals. However, I accept that there will be a limited number of cases in which that information may not be entirely complete.

I agree with Mr Whittle’s description of Covid as a moving feast. We are facing a constantly moving challenge. If we are to be realistic about addressing the implications of Covid, the Government has to be prepared to adapt and change our position should we need to do so, and that is precisely the approach that the Government has taken throughout the pandemic. We have not sat and been oblivious to the changing circumstances or prevalence of the virus. If we had done that, we would have had a much more serious situation on our hands than the very serious situation that we have faced. The Government has to adapt to changing circumstances, which is exactly what we have done.

We try to discuss issues with business sectors on an on-going basis. We have a huge amount of dialogue with all sectors of society, and we take on board the practical feedback that we get. Ultimately, however, the Government has to make choices, and sometimes it is difficult to make choices in a way that involves as much open prior dialogue and consultation as we would ordinarily like.

Yesterday, Mr Fraser raised a point of order with the Presiding Officer about the fact that, prior to the First Minister standing up to give a statement, there had been some media commentary about the Covid certification issue. I understand exactly why Mr Fraser said that, but I think that the time difference between the First Minister standing up and that point appearing in the media was maybe 20 to 30 minutes. It is pretty clear that, if the Government had had open consultation with sectors beforehand, that information would have been out before Parliament heard it and Parliament would understandably have been pretty aggrieved about that.

In response to earlier questions, I said that the Government will of course engage with the sectors to ensure that we hear all the issues before Parliament comes to a conclusion on these points, and I give that assurance to Mr Whittle today. It is important to have that dialogue. As I have said, I had a very constructive discussion yesterday with more than 150 sectoral representatives about the importance of applying the baseline measures, and among all those organisations I detected a willingness to be part of that journey with us. If we are all part of that journey, we can reach a good and positive outcome.

Thank you.

That very material point was raised with me yesterday by some of the sectoral representatives, who said that there can be a pretty fine line between different venues. We will discuss those issues with the relevant sectors.

As the First Minister made clear yesterday, we do not want the measure to be applied to the hospitality sector as a whole and we want to avoid any steps that might take us into that territory. As for the point of distinction that Mr Whittle has raised, it is important that we get this right in the judgments that we make.