Chamber and committees

We should all be worried about that. The level of vaccine uptake in the likes of East Dunbartonshire is, frankly, getting to maximum participation. We would like all local authorities to be at that level. We know that one of the challenges is that people in areas of deprivation are more reluctant to come forward for such interventions. Through the way in which we have deployed the vaccination programme, we are trying our best to reach as many people as possible. The continued communication from Government is about inviting and encouraging people to be double vaccinated. Absolutely anybody who is not yet vaccinated is welcome to come forward through the different approaches. We want to ensure that they can be vaccinated, and we encourage that higher level of participation.

Let us look at those three factors: confidence, convenience and complacency. The Government can do something about complacency and convenience. We can definitely do something about convenience, because we should be making the vaccine as readily available as possible. For example, if individuals in the communities that Mr Mason represents are required to use public transport to get to another part of the city, or to go outside the city, to get their vaccine, which involves cost, I can understand why that would be inconvenient for those on low incomes. Therefore, as far as possible, we have to ensure that vaccination facilities are available in communities.

Mr Mason raises a fair point. Perhaps we need to look afresh at the geographical distribution and whether there are certain areas that we need to put buses into or where we need to establish clinics in relevant public facilities such as church halls to try to reach those individuals. The Government and public authorities can do something about convenience. As for complacency, the Government’s public messaging and the steps that we are taking are designed to tackle any such issues in the population.

Confidence is the sticky and really difficult issue. If someone is anxious about different things in life or struggles with confidence in public authorities or their own wellbeing, it might be quite difficult for us to overcome that challenge. However, I think that we can do so through genuine engagement with individuals and communities to make it as practical as possible for people to be vaccinated.

I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to discuss a number of matters, including the Covid update to Parliament from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on Tuesday and the Covid recovery strategy.

As set out in the update to Parliament, we continue to work closely with health boards as they deal with pressures in the run-up to winter. We announced an additional package of winter support, backed by a further £10 million, for a range of measures to support accident and emergency systems and to ensure that patients have access to the correct care as quickly as possible.

We have implemented an approach that is intended to maintain the pace of the vaccination programme as we enter the flu season by maximising the availability of scheduled appointments and ensuring the efficient vaccination of people against both Covid-19 and seasonal flu. Vaccination remains one of our most effective public health interventions against the pandemic.

We have also announced changes to the rules on international travel, including the removal of the final seven countries from the international travel red list.

The Scottish Government has been working closely with the United Kingdom Government and partners in Scotland, including Glasgow City Council, Transport Scotland, NHS Scotland and Police Scotland, to deliver the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—successfully and safely. A comprehensive package of mitigation measures is in place, which is aimed at protecting the welfare of everyone involved and the wider community. In addition to an offer of vaccination to delegates, measures include a robust daily testing regime, contact tracing, hygiene measures that include distancing and the use of face coverings, and ventilation.

In relation to the regulations that we will discuss shortly, the Covid vaccination certification scheme continues to bed in well. Last weekend was the second weekend since enforcement began on 18 October. The Covid status app has played a part in the success of the scheme. The original contract cost of £600,000 for the development of an international travel app, which was awarded to Netcompany, was formally extended in October by up to an additional £600,000, in order to reflect the expansion of the original proposal to include new technical development work to support domestic use of the app.

On the statutory instruments that are before the committee, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Directions by Local Authorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 had been in place since 28 August 2020. They made provision for local authority enforcement powers in respect of businesses, premises, events and access to public outdoor places. The original regulations were due to expire on 30 September 2021, and the current regulations extend the original regulations to 25 March 2022. That ensures that, should local authorities require, in relation to coronavirus, to take local enforcement action regarding businesses, premises, events and public outdoor places, they will have the appropriate powers available to do so.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2021 provide for the Covid vaccination certification scheme. The Government recognises the concern that was expressed in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that regulations under the made affirmative procedure can come into force prior to any formal scrutiny by the Parliament, and about applying the procedure to those regulations.

Our decision to use that procedure for the certification regulations partly reflected considerations around implementation of the vaccination certification arrangement, including the need for businesses and the general public to familiarise themselves with the finalised legal requirements that underpin the scheme sufficiently in advance, in order to enable those who are affected by the scheme rules to take the necessary steps to prepare. I discussed some of that with the committee on 30 September.

More widely, the Minister for Parliamentary Business set out the considerations that we took into account in using the made affirmative instrument procedure. Case numbers remain high, and it is for that reason that urgent action was needed in introducing the important baseline measure of certification, given those factors and the need to take action without delay to address the harms that are posed by the virus.

Under the difficult circumstances that we still face, I ask the committee to recommend approval of the regulations. I offer my assurance that the measure will continue to be under review and will remain in place only for as long as is necessary.

I am very happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

I would not characterise the situation in that fashion. We are taking a set of carefully targeted interventions to try to secure our objectives. Our strategic intent, which was revised in the summer, is to suppress the virus to a level that is consistent with alleviating its harms while we recover and rebuild for a better future. That is very different from our previous strategic intent, which was about maximum virus suppression.

We are trying to manage the impact of the virus through tools including vaccination, and I agree with Mr Whittle’s point that vaccination is a significant factor in making venues and circumstances as safe as possible. It reduces the risk of transmission and provides greater protection for anybody who happens to contract the virus after they have been double vaccinated. We are trying to take proportionate measures, as we are required to by law, that enable us to achieve the strategic intent that I have just put on the record again.

I make no attempt to make the following point more precisely than I have several times already, this morning and on previous occasions: I cannot ascribe a direct relationship between one intervention and the strategic intent. However, every three weeks, we have to look at the strategic intent and the prevalence of the virus and ask whether the measures that are currently in place are appropriate, suitable and proportionate. The Government believes that to be the case, but we are now preparing for the next three-weekly review on 16 November, when we will have to satisfy ourselves on all those issues and report to Parliament accordingly.

I refer to the data that I put on the record in response to Mr Fraser’s question. As of 1 September—before the vaccination certification scheme was put in place—53 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds had received two doses of the vaccine. By 1 November, the figure had risen by 15 per cent to 68 per cent. That is a pretty substantial increase; it is close to a third.

The scheme supports the Government’s objectives. We will continue to review it, because we have to be satisfied that the action is proportionate. I confirm to the committee that the Government will do exactly that.

I will say a few words and then I will bring in Professor Leitch. The Government has wider messaging about the risks that the population faces from being unvaccinated and the significance and seriousness of the impact of the virus on people who are not vaccinated. That messaging includes some of the difficult but necessary information that needs to be shared with members of the public. People who are unvaccinated run the risk of having a more serious condition as a consequence of contracting the virus. For that reason and many others, we share that clinical information with members of the public. The chief medical officer, the national clinical director and others support the Government in providing that communication.

Every three weeks, we have to consider whether it remains proportionate to have the scheme. We retain the issue under active review, and we will consider it again before 16 November.

We are not dealing with a fixed situation; we are dealing with the fact that the case load changes frequently. As I said in one of my earlier answers, yesterday’s numbers are very unsettling to ministers. I have not seen today’s numbers—it is a bit early for that—but we will be watching closely. The briefing that the chief medical officer gave to the Cabinet on Tuesday showed that we have been at a high stable level for a few weeks, but the numbers have begun to tick up again over the past seven days, compared with the numbers over the previous seven days. We will be mindful of that when considering whether we have the right measures in place.

Obviously, the COP26 summit is taking place and there are a lot of people there. A lot of people have come into the country for the summit. Therefore, as we have flagged up to Parliament already, there is the possibility of a rise in infection rates over the autumn or winter—whatever we are in just now—which might put further strain on the system. We have to be mindful of the fact that we are dealing with a moving picture on the data.

Mr Rowley makes an absolutely fair point, and I have not in any way tried to dismiss it. Indeed, going back to what I said in response to Mr Whittle and Mr Mason, if we find ourselves in the next few weeks with a rising prevalence of the virus and greater pressure on the national health service than we are already experiencing—it is under colossal pressure just now, as Mr Rowley and I have had exchanges about in the chamber—we might have to take stronger measures, which might apply greater mandatory force.

We are saying to business organisations, transport providers, various public authorities and all sorts of organisations: “You need to get folk to wear face coverings and observe social distancing. You need to do the baseline stuff, because, if you do not, we will end up with more significant restrictions.”

I do not want the committee to take from me any message other than that the Government is wrestling with that dilemma. We want to avoid having to put in place more restrictions but, if we have to do that, we will, because we have a public duty to protect members of the public.

I acknowledge that the whole system is under pressure. I am not sitting here trying to deny that. Ultimately, it comes back to the fact that, in a variety of different settings, while the Government is trying to do as much as it can, we do not have enough people available to deliver the healthcare that we require.

I will come back to talk about the availability of people because of free movement of the population. We have lost that. We have lost people who have left our country who were offering social care services. They have gone, because of Brexit and the loss of free movement. The workforce has been thinned down because of that—it is a hard reality. We are trying to recruit more people, which is why the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport has announced enhancements to social care remuneration, and it is why we have expanded the resources available for social care services.

We entirely accept the point that Mr Rowley is making: that, if somebody cannot be supported in their home, they will end up in some form of healthcare setting. It might not be necessary for them to be there, because they could be perfectly well supported at home. However, if they do not have a care package at home, they cannot be properly supported at home.

I think we are in violent agreement here.

I do not think it is both; I think it is one or the other—but it applies to a broader range of venues than our scheme. Ours applies to quite a limited range of venues, but in Wales, from my recollection, theatres and cinemas are included, and some hospitality as well.