Chamber and committees

Obviously, the data will vary from area to area. I am absolutely satisfied that the Government and health boards have put in place adequate opportunities for individuals to secure the booster jag. The level of performance has been very high. We have had surplus capacity, so there has been absolutely no difficulty in getting an appointment for people.

In some circumstances, there will obviously be a time lag. If individuals were slower in coming forward for their first and second doses, they will be delayed in getting their booster dose, because of the time limits that have to be applied. We are not at the end of the booster programme by any stretch of the imagination. It is continuing to vaccinate people on an on-going basis with the appropriate 12-week gap between the second dose and the booster dose. The best way to explain it is that the booster vaccination programme is still a work in progress. I therefore expect those rates of coverage to increase.

We have to continue to intensify the message. One point that concerns me a little is that, if there is a sense that omicron is a less acute variant, that might suggest to people that they do not need to come forward to get their vaccination. However, as Professor Leitch has just explained, there is an absolute necessity for individuals to have the booster vaccination, because it will give them a level of protection that is absolutely critical in dealing with the virus. The Government’s messages will therefore remain resolute about the importance of rolling out that booster vaccination programme in all circumstances and all geographies.

I am in a slightly difficult position on that, because I am not the one making the big song and dance about that data. Mr Fraser set out to the committee that he has been demanding that information for a considerable time. The Government has to respond to demands for information and has an obligation to address issues that members of the Parliament raise. Ministers have made it clear that we take the view, which Mr Fairlie expressed, that there is no particular significance in the difference between people being in hospital because of or with Covid.

We have a massive Covid challenge in our healthcare system, and the more that we can do to tackle the prevalence of Covid, the more we will relieve the pressure on that system. The Government’s messages have been crystal clear about the dangers of Covid. We have ensured that there is an understanding of the severity of the virus, whether omicron or not, because we cannot have a relaxed attitude prevail that omicron is somehow not a big threat. Omicron is a massive threat to our healthcare system and to public health. We have to get that across to people. That is why the Government has taken strong action to protect the public.

We are not in control of all the questions that we are asked, but we are certainly in control of the key messages about the importance of tackling Covid. Your points about the advice from the clinician are correct, Mr Fairlie. If somebody has an underlying condition and Covid, their ability to deal with the underlying condition will be severely compromised by the presence of Covid. We know that clearly from the clinical advice that we have had.

Obviously, a huge amount of effort is put into securing the take-up of vaccination and boosters. I do not have in front of me the breakdown in the over-70s category—

Yes—in whatever circumstance we look at, the Government accepts that argument. We have accepted it for many years and we have taken a number of steps to address it. Some of the available data and detail shows that the challenges that individuals face as a consequence of Covid will be made worse by other weaknesses in their health and fitness.

Mr Whittle makes a strong argument, which the Government accepts, for people to pursue a healthy living approach. Many of our public messages are supportive of such an approach: we encourage people to exercise, look after their health and take preventative action, so that they are in the strongest possible position to withstand the effects of conditions such as Covid or, for that matter, other challenging health conditions that people face in our society. The emphasis on preventative interventions is a core part of the Government’s health strategy and will remain so in the future.

The Cabinet will consider the steps that we will take on any future expansion of the vaccination certification scheme. That scheme works well. I fail to understand what the fuss is about. I think that it is a completely reasonable request for us to make. The arrangements are in place, and it functions well.

As I indicated in my response to oral questions in Parliament yesterday, in a system that involves more than 10 million individual vaccinations, there are bound to be teething issues on certain vaccination certificates. I have made it clear that ministers will help to resolve any issues. Indeed, I got an email last night from a gentleman who is not a constituent of mine who was looking for my help to solve a vaccination certification issue. That is under way. We will resolve such minor issues when they arise, but the vaccination certification scheme works perfectly well.

In our discussions on Tuesday, the Cabinet will consider any future expansion. We have put in place steps that enable negative lateral flow device tests to be an alternative to vaccination certification. That would remain an option for us to use in any future expansion and the Government will, of course, consider that.

To be blunt, I do not recognise the problem, and I completely, utterly and unreservedly reject the ludicrous narrative that Graham Simpson has just put on the record. He said that the made affirmative procedure had been used nine times before 20 March 2020, and 132 times afterwards. That might have something to do with the fact that, prior to 20 March 2020, during the lifetime of the Scottish Parliament, we had never faced a global pandemic. Yes, there have been a lot of made affirmative instruments, but they have been required because of the necessity of acting swiftly in a public health emergency.

Mr Simpson is one of a number of members of the Scottish Parliament who regularly criticise me and my colleagues for bringing a Westminster or United Kingdom perspective to the debate, but he has just done that himself because it suited him to do so.

Mr Simpson’s question ignores the reality of a public health pandemic. When we look at the list of made affirmative instruments, it is clear that a vast number of them were brought forward to put in place measures that were necessary to protect the public health of individuals in Scotland. Some of them related to measures on international travel, which—again—were about trying to protect the public health of people in Scotland. Indeed, the nine occasions on which the made affirmative procedure was used prior to 20 March 2020 were, in a large number of circumstances, also to do with public health requirements. I totally reject Mr Simpson’s characterisation of the situation.

With regard to parliamentary scrutiny, we have come to agreements with the Parliament and with committees about how added scrutiny can be undertaken. There is always the opportunity for business managers from different parties to ask for more debating time or more questions. I was not handling all the legislation from 20 March 2020 until the election, but I have handled it since the election, and I would be happy to consider any request for a debate about legislation if members wished to have one in addition to what is provided. However, the starting point in all this has to be an acceptance that there is a public health emergency that has to be addressed.

I recognise that, in any legislative process, whether slow or quick, there is always the potential for errors to be made. Sometimes, provisions can be put in place in a stage 1 draft of a bill but, during its passage, we find—I use “we” in the generic sense of Government ministers over all time—that there is an error with it or that a mistake has been made, and we have opportunities to remedy that, as it has to be remedied, at stage 2 or 3. Errors can be made. I do not think that the process or the people involved in it are infallible.

Generally, we are fortunate in having very high levels of quality in the drafting of legislation, and we are also served well by the Parliament and by parliamentary officials in the way in which they scrutinise and highlight any issues that arise around legislation. That interaction between Government and Parliament is helpful and welcome, and it adds to the process. Obviously, the scrutiny by members of Parliament assists in that process. However, nobody is infallible. When people move at such a pace, the risk of error increases, but we have minimised that in our use of the made affirmative procedure, which has been a necessary but not habitual part of our actions as a Government.

First, I note that the current situation is not my ideal model for how we should legislate. We should always take care and time over legislation, and the Parliament has in place very good procedures for ensuring that that is the case. However, as Mr Sweeney acknowledged, we are dealing with the necessity of acting swiftly, so we are required, in undertaking the process, to act in that fashion.

On the accessibility of legislation, I am conscious of the challenge that that has presented to various individuals and groups, and I would be happy to consider whether there is a way in which we could improve and enhance any of the current arrangements so that the marshalling of the legislation is more accessible and more visible.

The legislation.gov.uk website has been ensuring that Covid-19 regulations are updated as soon as possible after they are amended, so it provides a place where the consolidated legislation is available. I accept that the website, although it is helpful, is by its nature complex, but legislation itself is complex. Nevertheless, I am willing to consider further the points that witnesses have raised, which Mr Sweeney put to me, as that may well help us in taking the issue forward.

This has been an incredibly challenging period. In essence, it revolves around wrestling with that question. I have wrestled with it on countless occasions. I will give an example from around this time last year.

If my memory serves me right, the Parliament rose on 22 December 2020. A group of ministers met that evening, at the end of the meeting of the Parliament, and our judgment was that the state of the pandemic was reasonably stable. A week later, we reconvened to deal with the emergency Brexit legislation. My dates might not be absolutely correct, but it was round about 29 or 30 December. Once we had dealt with the Brexit legislation, we gathered again to discuss where things were at. We were slightly more concerned about the situation, but we still felt that we had the right measures in place.

By the end of new year’s day, 1 January 2021, I was on conference calls with other ministers being briefed about a rapidly deteriorating situation. It was deteriorating so rapidly that the Presiding Officer recalled the Parliament on 4 January 2021 to hear from the First Minister and for us to enact very restrictive measures on people’s freedom of movement and activity with immediate effect, which were subject to the made affirmative procedure. That is an example in which, in the space of 48 hours, the situation deteriorated dramatically and necessitated urgent intervention.

I will give another example, which has been vividly in my mind recently. The Cabinet met on 23 November 2021 and our view was that the situation was relatively stable. We felt that we had a reasonably sustainable pathway through the Christmas and new year period.

On 25 November, we were called to a briefing to be advised of early findings of the research in South Africa on omicron. By that night, my colleague Mr Matheson was on a United Kingdom call that was putting in place travel restrictions around South Africa and various southern African states. We had quite literally gone from thinking on a Tuesday morning that we were in a relatively stable position—indeed, Parliament was advised by the First Minister of that view on the Tuesday afternoon—to a position of acute concern by the Thursday.

In my book, that is why urgent action is required—because the situation has changed before our eyes in a very dramatic order and fashion. I think that that necessitates action of the speed and the pace that the Government has taken.

I am glad that I asked for clarification, because I had misheard the word “skeleton”.

That is a question that must be considered on a case-by-case basis in relation to individual legislative instruments. Obviously, there can be arguments for skeleton primary legislation that requires to be completed by delegated legislation.

I can give Mr Hoy a real, live example. In the previous session, Parliament legislated for the redress scheme in relation to historical abuse. That was pretty detailed legislation, but certain elements were left to be followed up by regulation. One of the points of detail that I wrestled with recently in the secondary legislation was about remedying errors that had been made. I balked when I saw the immense amount of detail in that secondary legislation, and I wrestled with how Parliament would react to that, after having had extensive discussions about the redress legislation, so I looked at it, thought about it and discussed it with my legal advisers and officials. So much detail was required in that secondary legislation that including it in the primary legislation would have made for an act with a colossal amount of detail—more than would ordinarily be on the face of primary legislation.

Therefore, it is important that we wrestle with those questions on a case-by-case basis. When legislation is being considered, it is an absolute requirement that, for anything that might be described as skeleton legislation to be put in place, a clear argument must be made, and clear justification provided, to satisfy the test of parliamentary scrutiny.