³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Fundamentally, those are issues for the Parliament, although I recognise that the Government has a significant contribution to make to that discussion. The Government would therefore engage willingly and positively in that discussion.

I have been a parliamentarian for just short of a quarter of a century, and I have always recognised the importance of effective parliamentary scrutiny of all the business of Government, whether that is in questioning or in respect of regulations or legislation. However, our parliamentary system has been tested by a very serious public health threat that required us to move in this fashion.

In the debate last week, comments were made—I am paraphrasing here—about the fact that the made affirmative procedure had hardly been used at all before 2020 and was then used a bit like number 9 buses: there were something like 130 of those instruments at one time. My simple point about that is that we had not had a pandemic before 2020. The Parliament’s procedures were tested by the need to move quickly and sharply.

Having said that, there are a lot of days between zero and 40 days. To put it rather crudely, if there is a way of getting us closer to zero days that gives the Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise legislation and equally allows the Government to get on with the measures that are necessary to protect public health, the Government would be very happy to engage in a discussion about that.

There is space for that to happen, but the procedure is perhaps difficult to pilot because we all need to know the basis on which we are bringing forward regulations. As things stand, we have the made affirmative procedure, the affirmative procedure and negative instruments. If we are going to consider expedited procedures, I would be very happy to engage in that process.

Thank you, convener, and good morning. I welcome the opportunity to address any points that the committee may have on the two sets of regulations on the agenda.

The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Alteration of Expiry Date) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 will amend the date on which five provisions in the United Kingdom Coronavirus Act 2020 would automatically expire, from 24 March 2022 to 24 September 2022. Changing the expiry date of those powers will ensure that ministers have those powers available if—and only if—their use is needed in relation to coronavirus over the coming months.

Similarly, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Directions by Local Authorities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022 will amend the date on which the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Directions by Local Authorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 would automatically expire, from 25 March 2022 to 24 September 2022. Again, changing the expiry date of the regulations will ensure that we keep in place important powers for local authorities to be able to make directions to control local outbreaks of coronavirus.

The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Alteration of Expiry Date) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 were made using the made affirmative procedure. I am aware that that is one of the issues that the committee has raised. I have emphasised previously that the made affirmative procedure is an unusual power granted by the Parliament in situations when action may need to be taken more quickly than the normal affirmative procedure allows for. If that procedure were not available, there would be a risk that necessary measures could not be brought in quickly enough. In this instance, the regulations use the made affirmative procedure because, at the time of laying, our understanding was that that was the only procedure available to us. As the committee is aware, it has since come to our attention that it would, in fact, have been possible to use the affirmative procedure. However, I want to be clear that, even though the made affirmative procedure has been used, we have nevertheless ensured that the Parliament has 40 days for scrutiny of the regulations prior to their coming into force on 24 March 2022, as would have been the case under the affirmative procedure.

The regulations to extend the expiry date of the local authority directions regulations, were laid in draft and follow the affirmative procedure, with an expedited timetable.

Both sets of regulations put back the date on which the key coronavirus provisions would have expired by default. Thus, the regulations protect our ability to put in place any measures that might be considered necessary. We cannot let that ability expire by default, because we might still need such measures.

It is our intention and expectation that we will lift the face-covering requirements and the other remaining baseline measures with effect from 21 March. However, that is dependent on the course of the pandemic between now and then. Even after baseline measures are lifted, Covid will not have gone away and it may have further surprises in store for us. As the strategic framework update states, we cannot rule out the possibility that it might be necessary to impose legal measures once more. Therefore, we must be ready and able to respond effectively, and it is essential that we have the powers to enable us to do so.

In conclusion, both sets of regulations are essential to ensure that the right powers are available to manage Covid in this next phase of the pandemic, should that be required.

I am happy to address any points from the committee.

We are obviously working closely with the long-standing relationships that we have with those countries to play our part responsibly to support the vaccination programmes that are under way there. As a Government, we accept the importance of fulfilling our international obligations to ensure that the whole world is protected from Covid, because only by the whole world being protected from Covid do we have as much assurance and security as it is possible to have. Our co-operation will be to that end.

We have had discussions in this committee and across Parliament on countless occasions, and Mr Rowley has consistently questioned me on the impact on people of non-Covid health harms. Those questions are absolutely legitimate, and I would be the first to acknowledge that waiting lists are larger and longer than they were before the pandemic, but that is a direct result of the pandemic.

No health board in the country wants to put off tackling those waiting lists—they want to get into a position to be able to do so as early as possible. However, we have to be mindful of the presence and prevalence of Covid. Although we have seen a fall in Covid admissions to hospitals in general over the past few weeks, Covid admissions are unfortunately rising again, to our unease, as is the number of people in hospital with Covid.

I assure the committee—this is part of the NHS recovery plan, and it is inherent in the Government’s investment in elective treatment centres—that we are anxious to expand the capacity to enable us to address the very issue that Mr Rowley fairly puts to me, so that members of the public who are suffering with pain and need a hip replacement, for example, can expect to have that treatment within a reasonable timescale.

I contend that that is what the NHS recovery plan does. It focuses entirely on the issue of making up for the treatment that has been lost because of Covid. Each health board is under an obligation, in respect of the plan that it has had to submit to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, as to how it is going to go about doing that. We are keen to ensure that we make progress as swiftly and as early as possible on advancing that treatment.

My officials will provide further detail on that, but that is a material issue. An on-going level of testing infrastructure will be involved, and that is the key point that I want to reassure committee members about.

We cannot simply turn off testing, and it would be a mistake to do so. There has to be a mix between measures such as the Office for National Statistics infection survey, which is absolutely critical for intelligence purposes on the prevalence of the virus, and levels of testing that enable us to reliably gather the basic information that enables genomic sequencing to be undertaken so that we can identify any new strains or variants. We will consider that as part of the testing plan.

There has to be a degree of on-going intelligence about the prevalence of the virus in our society to enable judgments to be made about what stage we are at, and more detailed testing will be required to enable us to form a picture of what, if any, new strains are emerging in our society. There are almost two different elements and requirements that are necessary in that process to inform our judgments about the state of the pandemic and for us to be able to contribute to the international effort to identify any new strains or variants, which it is our absolute duty and obligation to participate in. If there had not been good international co-operation with the authorities in South Africa and good testing infrastructure, we would have had less early warning of the omicron variant than we had.

I invite Professor Leitch and Dominic Munro to add anything on the judgments that will be made.

That is a vital issue. I quite understand the appetite on the part of individuals to return to something like normal life, although there are some in our society who are frankly terrified by that prospect in the light of Covid. The first thing that we must do is be respectful of their views and concerns, and we must understand the anxiety that they face. That is why we have taken a gradual approach. We have tried to respond in a measured way to build as much resilience as we can within the population. Vaccination is critical to help us on that journey. Some people are vulnerable and cannot get vaccinated, for entirely understandable clinical reasons, which increases their anxiety further. Vaccination is critical to building resilience.

There are routine measures and, although we may remove the legal obligation to wear face coverings on public transport on 21 March, we will still be saying to people that it would be advantageous to wear them, and that it would a good civic gesture to protect other people.

We want to ensure that those who are very vulnerable have access to the clinical support that they will require. For example, individuals who are immunosuppressed have had communication from the chief medical officer that antivirals will be available to them because of their clinical vulnerability, which they should access. There is mental health support that we would want to make available to people to support them with their anxiety. In general, we want to work to ensure that people have the support that they require, recognising that the relaxation of restrictions is not universally welcomed within our society. We ignore the anxieties and fears of individuals in our society at our peril.

The first observation that I would make on Mr Whittle’s question is that, in a sense, he has just echoed one of the fundamental points that I made in my response to Mr Fraser. It is important that we deduce lessons from the pandemic and, if they are important, that we learn from them and apply them. I happen to take that view about the statutory framework and Mr Whittle has put to me an entirely legitimate point about data and IT.

Scotland has been very well served by some critical decisions that were made a long time ago on the unique identifier—the community health index or CHI number—which has acted as the foundation for the administration of healthcare in Scotland based on the individual. It enables information on and records for an individual to be accessed appropriately to ensure that high-quality healthcare is delivered for that individual. That has been a strong foundation of our system but, of course, every development that comes along puts extra pressures on the core system. Covid has put many data demands on the system, particularly with regard to vaccination records and all that comes with such issues.

The Government has been taking active steps to ensure a strong approach to the delivery of digital care, and I think that it has got ever stronger over the course of the pandemic. What lies at the heart of the system is appropriate information technology capability to ensure that we can identify and meet the needs of individuals, and the Government will be working closely on that with health boards to keep the foundations of our IT system up to date and ensure that we meet the needs of individuals.

I would want to look at exactly what circumstances the clinicians were raising with the committee this morning, but my understanding is that, throughout the health service, the capacity and capability exists to access critical information about the healthcare of each individual. That is why I referred to the CHI number, which underpins and drives the system. I want to understand a bit better some of the deficiencies that have been highlighted but, in principle, I agree with Mr Whittle’s points about the availability of data and the necessity of collecting the appropriate data in our healthcare systems. I think it important to have a system that can be accessed in all different spheres of the health service. I am very happy to look at those issues and the particular points raised by the clinicians this morning, and I will encourage the health secretary to look at these questions and determine what further action requires to be taken.

It is always like that. It is part of our relationship.