Chamber and committees

Those are two very important questions. On the first one, which was about the hesitancy that there is in some communities, a great deal of work has been done to tailor communication with those communities, with trusted voices speaking about the vaccination programme in those communities.

Mr Rowley raised the example of the Polish community. We are very grateful to representatives of the Catholic Church who have been very active in promoting the message on the importance of vaccination. That message has been relayed strongly and powerfully by the Catholic community in Scotland and has reached members of the Polish community. I would be absolutely staggered if there were not members of the Polish community who are actively involved in the vaccination programme, because members of the Polish community are very valued and significant members of the community that I represent, and are very much involved in the delivery of public services in our communities.

Various other steps have been taken to increase take-up in the black and minority ethnic communities, with trusted voices again being involved in that communication.

Having said all that, I have to accept that we must continue to do more to reach the levels of trust and confidence that will enable people to take up vaccination. To go back to the convener’s example of her constituent Angela, the consequences of not so doing can be acute and very dangerous. Therefore, the Government will constantly revisit the importance of ensuring that we get the messages for such communities correct. We are very grateful to the trusted voices in those communities who have worked with us on that messaging, and I give the committee the assurance that we will continue to do that.

On Mr Rowley’s second question—which, again, is a very important one—he is fundamentally correct. We live in a global society. We must remember that, when omicron first reared its head, it did so in a province of South Africa. The travel patterns of the world are such that it did not take long before a case emerged in Hong Kong. Cases then emerged in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the world that we live in nowadays. A hundred years ago, a major excursion for people in Coupar Angus—which is near where I live—would have been to go to Blairgowrie, which is a grand total of 5 miles away. The world has changed immeasurably since then and, as a consequence, the ability of viruses to spread is colossal, unless we get a comprehensive vaccination solution in place that provides much greater protection for all of us.

The Scottish Government has made such representations to the United Kingdom Government, and we will continue to do so, so that the UK plays an important and influential role in the international discussions about vaccine equity and makes a contribution to that process. Mr Rowley is fundamentally correct—we can have as effective a booster programme as we like, but we remain vulnerable to the development of a new variant, which could undermine the strong efforts that we are making to keep our population safe.

It is absolutely vital. We reiterated that in the First Minister’s statement on Tuesday. We have also reiterated that in the obligations that we are placing on businesses and venues to ensure that the check-in arrangements are visible and complied with, and that businesses “have regard to” the measure. The whole check-in arrangement is absolutely crucial to enabling us to interrupt the transmission of the virus.

It is encouraging news that more lateral flow tests are being used. It is such a straightforward process and it is so crucial in giving people information—I know of numerous cases where people have stumbled across the fact that they are Covid positive by doing regular lateral flow tests. They had absolutely no symptoms whatsoever and then got a positive test result. As a consequence of undertaking that lateral flow test, they were able to change their behaviour and actions. That is a significant strengthening of our ability to resist the challenges that we face.0

Professor Leitch has given the clinical and epidemiological underpinnings of this, but let me give the policy perspective as well, because Mr Whittle is absolutely correct in having the aspiration to be able to secure a recovery from Covid.

After consultation in the summer, the Government proceeded to formulate the Covid recovery strategy, which was published on 5 October. It is the subject of implementation, so despite the challenges that we face with omicron, various steps since 5 October have been taken to implement that strategy. As colleagues will know, we have focused on ensuring that we tackle the inequalities that became more severe during Covid—although they existed before it—and principally on eradicating child poverty.

The joint programme board that is leading the implementation of the recovery strategy, which is jointly chaired by the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and by me, has now met. It has formulated its approach to developing and delivering the programme, and that will now become an on-going theme. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that we have had this three-week aberration during which we have had to focus on omicron, and that restrictions are obviously going to be with us for a few weeks to come, I assure Mr Whittle that on-going, sustained activity is under way to implement the Covid recovery strategy. Even while we continue to deal with a pandemic that has a different character—because Professor Leitch is absolutely right that just a few weeks ago, Scotland was open; we were wearing face coverings and watching what we were doing, and there is nothing wrong with that, but certain measures have had to be put in place—steps have also been taken to implement the Covid recovery strategy.

That brings us back to the questions that Mr Rowley asked earlier in the meeting. This is a global pandemic. We can do a lot here, and we will, but the solutions lie around the globe. We need global resilience. If we want the interconnected world that we have, and if we want to be able to move people and goods around the world, there must be global resilience to enable that.

The sorts of global vaccination programmes that Mr Rowley spoke about are important in providing that resilience so that we can be confident that the barriers that we have set up are sufficiently robust to protect us from a variant that might emerge from a jurisdiction on the other side of the planet and be with us in a matter of days. That is what has happened. A variant emerged in one part of the world and spread like wildfire.

First, convener, I am pleased to hear that Mr Fairlie senior is making a recovery. He is a man for whom I have the greatest respect and regard. I have known him for a very large part of my life. I wish him well and am glad to hear that he is home.

In relation to Mr Fairlie’s second point, I would have to consider things carefully, but my initial reaction is that the ability to exercise such powers strikes me as being outwith the competence of the Scottish Government, because, in essence, it would involve us in intervening in areas of policy on corporate activities over which we do not have competence.

However, the Scottish Government has given to businesses the clearest possible signals, encouragement and motivation to enable staff to work from home. That is for two reasons. First, the more people work from home, the more we reduce social interaction and the ability of the virus to spread. Secondly, it enables us to ensure the continued operation of business models, albeit in a different format, that sustain the on-going performance of the Scottish economy. We have tried to maintain a working environment, albeit that it is different from the fashion in which many of us have worked in the past, that will sustain economic activity in our society as effectively and sustainably as possible.

Yes, they should have that capacity and should be able to address the situation in all parts of the country. Our fellow citizens require the provision of such services, and people should exercise management roles in the organisation of those services only if they are fit to do so and capable of doing so.

We have set the grant as payable to individuals who earn the real living wage or less. We judge that to be appropriate, given the fragility of income of individuals at that level.

The grant’s adequacy is an important question. We feel confident that, combined with the other financial support that is available for individuals in such circumstances, the self-isolation support grant provides an adequate and appropriate level of financial support for the 10-day period. However, we have to continue to consider and be mindful of the issue.

On promotion of the self-isolation support grant, whenever an individual tests positive, they are pointed in the direction of the grant to ensure that they are aware of its provision. Some people will not be eligible, because of the level of remuneration that they receive, but anybody who tests positive is pointed towards it. As I indicated, a range of other measures are in place that can provide assistance to families who face difficulties. However, I accept the principle of the point that Mr Rowley puts to me that the payment must be adequate to enable individuals to be prepared to comply with the requirements of self-isolation.

We are trying to engage the public in a communal effort to reduce the level of social interaction that they undertake. We all know that social interaction is the route by which the virus spreads. We are all involved in some degree of social interaction, and the Government’s plea is that we should reduce that.

We are trying to do that in a way that is consistent with a context in which, quite clearly, the wellbeing of individuals in our society is suffering. During Covid, the loss of opportunities to go to significant events has been a big loss to individuals.

Yesterday, I was questioned on the radio about people going to the pantomime. The pantomime is a landmark occasion in the annual calendar for a lot of families. Essentially, I would say to people that if they are going to the pantomime, where they will be sitting alongside other people, they should get a lateral flow test before they go, to make sure that they do not have Covid; ensure that they have been vaccinated; wear a face covering and stay safe; and limit and reduce their other social interactions. In that way, people can attend the events in their family calendar that we all cherish while reducing their other social interaction to ensure that their conduct does not potentially contribute to the spread of the virus.

It is a necessity that individuals limit their social interaction, as that has an effect. That is why we are not saying to people in a blanket way, “Return to your houses and don’t come out.” We are trying to recognise the damage that has been done to wellbeing by 20 months of the pandemic, and to be as pragmatic as we can.

You asked me specifically about the education system. The Government has taken a decision in principle that we want to protect the sustainability of education for as long as we possibly can. Education will be the last part of our public services to be restricted under any measures, because of the importance of supporting the education of young people.

With regard to individuals and young people socialising outside the home, I would say that individuals should limit numbers as much as they can, given the prevalence of omicron.

Those measures are actively being pursued. The committee will be familiar with the fact that the Government has already recruited 350 full-time-equivalent additional vaccinators. As a consequence of the decisions that we took at the weekend and on Tuesday, we are accelerating the vaccination programme, which means that we need to ensure that more vaccinators are available to deliver vaccinations. That will, of necessity, require us to prioritise vaccination over other aspects of activity in the health service.

That capacity is increasing. The data shows that, on Tuesday, about 77,000 vaccinations were undertaken, 18,000 of which were flu vaccinations. The Government has taken the decision to deprioritise the flu vaccination programme, because we have got to very high levels of flu vaccination in the most vulnerable categories. We believe that deprioritising the remainder of the flu vaccination programme is a clinically safe risk to take. That frees up capacity within the Covid vaccination programme.

Basically, we need to get to about 75,000 to 80,000 Covid vaccinations a day to fulfil our objectives. On the combination of Covid and flu vaccinations, we were at 77,000 on Tuesday. We need to increase the tempo of that. There will obviously be days when it is difficult for us to deliver that volume, with the Christmas break and all that goes with it. We are expanding capacity and the vaccination programme. Derek Grieve is operational director of the vaccination programme. He is on the line, and he may wish to add to what I have said.

On delayed discharge, there is an intense focus on supporting individuals who do not need to be in hospital to be released and to be supported at home. I have to be candid with the committee that the availability of social care staff is challenging in that respect. Some people simply cannot be released from hospital to be sent home without a care package. Just last night, I discussed with local authority leaders the steps to be taken to expand at-home care capacity, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has been doing that, too. That work is under way, although I have to be open with the committee that there are challenges in relation to the availability of social care staff to support packages at local level.

Derek Grieve may wish to add to my comments on the vaccination programme.

There are strong elements. There is strong collaboration, joint purpose and consistent messaging on the vaccination programme, for example. If you are over 18, book a booster jag pronto. We are expanding capacity and all that goes with that. The Scottish and United Kingdom Governments take an absolutely consistent approach on that issue.

On the advice that we are receiving, I heard nothing from Chris Whitty last night that I am not hearing with the same gravity from the chief medical officer or the national clinical director in Scotland.

Unfortunately, however, there is a difference of opinion about the scale of the required policy response. It would be fair to say that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments share a common position that we should be going further than we have gone so far, but that is not shared by the United Kingdom Government. There is dialogue about that. The First Minister was involved in a four-nations call last night and has been involved in four-nations calls on several occasions in the past few days—on Sunday and earlier last week—but those calls are not producing a meeting of minds about the scale of the response that is required, other than on issues such as vaccination. That is welcome but, given the gravity of the situation that we face, we could benefit from further alignment and a greater set of measures.