³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Given the centrality of vaccination as the most effective protection against the virus, we are constantly looking at ways of intensifying the focus on vaccination uptake. The vaccination programme, as a whole, has been phenomenally successful in reaching high levels of uptake, but that very strong national position masks a not-so-strong position in some categories, groups and geographical areas.

We are therefore constantly looking for practical ways of ensuring that vaccination take-up is more accessible through, for example, our public campaigns and the availability of accessible and convenient venues. In my own locality, NHS Tayside has gone to considerable lengths to try to find locations and areas where it can boost vaccination uptake, and some of the areas in question are exactly those that Mr Rowley has highlighted to me. It has had some success in that respect, but we must continue to pursue that approach to ensure that we maximise vaccination uptake. After all, it is the biggest protection that individuals can get.

During my time as education secretary, I listened to a significant number of experienced educators who were keen to ensure that we did not disparage online learning, because there is a really strong place for online and digital learning for young people in our education system. Digital learning broadens choice and deepens the opportunities for understanding and appreciation of subjects, and many educationalists have been trying to make advances with it for a considerable time. Therefore, I think that it is a really important asset for us.

Ironically, by merit of the involvement of teachers around the country during the pandemic and measures such as the e-Sgoil and the west of Scotland learning partnership, a strong digital learning proposition is now available to young people in Scotland that they can dip into in their own time. A whole range of examples of digital learning have been taken forward by individual schools. We should celebrate that.

My second point relates to the impact of the pandemic on young people’s learning. Individual schools are concentrating on making sure that the needs of young people are met through the education system and that they can secure the necessary engagement in their learning, and a variety of approaches have been taken to ensure that that is the case.

Obviously, there will be an impact on learning as a consequence of the pandemic—that is an inevitability of the disruption to the education system. However, teachers are working hard to ensure that the impact on young people is minimised where possible.

I would contend that that is precisely what we have done. The 2008 act provides for dealing with public health incidents of a local nature and character.

I do not think that that act could be described as providing for the arrangements that need to be put in place for a national pandemic. Indeed, that distinction has been made in the evidence, or comments, to the committee by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which generally welcomes the provisions in the bill. It recognises that although the provisions of the Public Health etc (Scotland) Act 2008 might deal with a localised issue or outbreak, they are not sufficient for the type of national pandemic that we have faced, as they do not have sufficient scope and reach of powers to enable that to be the case.

The steps that the Government is taking at this stage are designed to address exactly the point that the convener raised with me. However, we remain open to considering whether any further changes need to be made, and we will consider that point as the bill progresses through its further stages of parliamentary scrutiny and before its final enactment.

We think that £5,000 is a reasonable threshold, but Mr Mason makes the entirely fair point that we must be careful to set the threshold at an appropriate level. On cost of living challenges, we have had pretty low inflation for the past 30 years, and we are now dealing with a very different situation. That is the best judgment that the Government can come to, but I am happy to listen to representations from stakeholders and members of the Parliament on that question.

I am open to considering those points. The Government’s policy intention here is, I hope, crystal clear. It is to enable us to take the necessary actions swiftly and with urgency should we face a pandemic threat of the type that we have faced over the past two years.

Although we had a great deal of parliamentary co-operation in the formulation of the legislation in spring 2020, for which I am grateful to members of all parties, we made a lot of changes to primary legislation in a short space of time. Generally, Parliament does not think that that is a good thing to be doing. Generally, Parliament wants to take time and care—as we are doing now—to consider what the contents of primary legislation should be. Some of Mr Fraser’s suggestions are entirely practical and pragmatic, and they could strengthen the approach in the bill.

The Government has no desire to be able to exercise powers in any unwarranted or unnecessary fashion, but we want to be able to act when we have to act because of a threat to public health. I am certainly happy to explore some of these questions further. I think that they take the form of points made in the stage 1 committee report, and I will of course reflect on them.

It is a matter for Parliament to consider, but the Government has worked to address that question in the bill. A number of the provisions in the early part of the bill amend the 2008 act. That is about using the foundation of the 2008 act as a basis for trying to address the wider issues that arise out of the pandemic.

As I said in response to the convener, that point was made well by the representative of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities who submitted material to the committee and gave evidence. COSLA recognised that the 2008 act works when there is an outbreak of an infectious disease in a locality and you have to take particular measures—Mr Rowley will be familiar with those arrangements from his leadership of Fife Council. The director of public health has statutory roles and responsibilities to act. However, COSLA indicated that it was generally supportive of the bill because, when it comes to a national pandemic, the 2008 act just does not get there.

If the 2008 act had been fine, we would probably not have had to make as many changes as we did in 2020. I contend that the Government is amending the 2008 act to make it appropriate for the challenges that we face now but, if members of the Parliament believe that we have to make further changes, I am open to that.

Yes, that is the case. However, members might wish to come back to the point to provide a degree of further legislative constraint if the bill is not felt to be sufficiently strong on that.

Let us do it this way. An example of a direct restriction would be for us to apply a particular constraint on people leaving their houses. I would say that that is a direct consequence of the measures that we are taking. An indirect provision might be that we have to ask people to observe a particular form of behaviour that is less specific than a direct provision, as in the example that I have just cited. We are trying to find ways that we can address the limitations that would be necessary to be applied that may not be ostensibly obvious as part of the original justification.

It may be that the direct and indirect comparison could relate to different levels of intensity of restrictions, for example. However, the best way to look at that is to take the view that we are trying to cover all bases as part of the exercise, rather than to look at specific measures within each category.

We certainly do not bypass Parliament—not in any shape or form. The bill will come into effect only if Parliament approves it. That is the first layer of parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament has to agree to put in place whatever proposals emerge out of the bill.

The second layer of scrutiny is that Parliament makes provision for the exercise of the affirmative and made affirmative procedures. For some time, it has directed that regulations of that nature may be introduced. Those procedures are two other levels of parliamentary scrutiny. The affirmative procedure requires an order to be placed before Parliament, for it to be discussed and considered and for Parliament to vote on it before it can be brought into effect. The made affirmative procedure allows ministers to bring an order into effect, but it can remain in effect only if Parliament consents to it.

Primary legislation and the regulation-making power fully satisfy parliamentary scrutiny. As I signalled in my answers to Mr Fraser, I am open to considering whether any additional safeguards could address the concerns that Mr Whittle puts to me. There must be agreement that we need to have a statute book that is fit for purpose, because Mr Whittle and his colleagues supported the two coronavirus acts in 2020. They obviously saw the need for there to be legislation in that respect, so there is no disputing the fact that that is necessary. The point of dispute is the mechanism for going about it. If we can make progress in that respect, I am happy to engage on that point.