Chamber and committees

That is for the simple reason that Professor Leitch gave, which is that immunity does not last forever whether you get it because you have contracted Covid or because you have had the vaccine. When we look at the serious health implications of Covid for individuals, the Government has a duty to do all that it can in the circumstances to protect the health of the public. That requires us to take the steps that we take.

If Mr Fairlie’s constituent is suggesting that we should let people get Covid, as I think he is, does that mean that we have learned nothing from the past 18 months? Have we literally learned absolutely nothing? On Tuesday afternoon, I sat with the families who have lost loved ones in care homes who are contributing to the thinking that the Government is putting into the terms of reference for the Covid inquiry and literally, literally—

Actually, the best thing to do on vaccine hesitancy is probably to get the people who are vaccine hesitant to have a conversation with the bereaved relatives who have lost loved ones in care homes. In my role as a minister, I sit through many tough conversations and that was a tough one on Tuesday, believe you me. Perhaps folk should listen to that.

The point that I was trying to make in my response to the committee was that it is impossible to segment the headline data about the prevalence of the virus to which we have access, and to ascribe levels of prevalence of the virus to particular factors. The flipside of that is that it is impossible to ascribe to a particular mitigation measure the avoidance of a situation that has prevailed.

Ministers look at the overall prevalence of the virus and the pressures on the national health service, and we make a judgment, based on the headline data, on whether it is proportionate and appropriate for mitigation measures to remain in force. Ministers undertake that assessment every three weeks. We have to complete our next assessment and consideration of such issues on 16 November. We look at all the evidence that we have to hand, and we make a judgment on the extent to which the virus continues to present a significant threat to the wider population and, crucially, to the sustainability of national health services.

I will certainly look at that point, convener. As I have said to the committee on a number of occasions, the Government publishes a vast amount of information about prevalence of the virus, with the associated data sets on management of the challenges that we face.

The committee wrote to me about a range of requests and, if there is more information, we will endeavour to provide as much information as we possibly can. The weekly state of the epidemic report already contains a huge amount of information, but if members believe that it would be helpful for more information to be made available, we will certainly consider that.

I assure Mr Fairlie that the Government is doing so. It is important that every individual has their clinical needs properly addressed and supported as they wrestle with their circumstances. For some, Covid will be a relatively mild experience while, for others, it will have long and enduring effects, and we have to ensure that, whatever the circumstances, people are properly and fully supported.

There was a lot in there, but I will make two points. First, on the made affirmative procedure, the Government is dealing with a pandemic that requires us to take actions swiftly, but we have to be mindful of the question of proportionality in those actions.

We used the made affirmative procedure because we were concerned about the rise in the number of cases and the need to improve vaccination levels, but we had to be certain that the measures would be proportionate. We had to give warning that we were going to move in that direction, but ultimately the final detail could only be put in place with the swiftness that the made affirmative procedure allows.

Parliament considered that question on two occasions before the measures came into force—once on Government time and once on Conservative time—and on both occasions the Government’s position was supported by Parliament. We will of course engage with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on those questions.

On the use of vaccination certificates, Celtic Football Club reported that 75 per cent of the attendees at one of its games in the past week were checked, and initial reports from the rugby match on Saturday were that around 40 per cent of people were checked, which is much higher than was anticipated under the scheme.

I understand Mr Simpson’s concerns, but we cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, Mr Simpson and his colleagues suggest that the application of the scheme is so effective that it is disrupting the night-time economy, but on the other hand, we have heard the argument today that the scheme is not effective at all. They cannot have it both ways; it is either effective and is disrupting parts of the economy, or it is not effective. We cannot run those two arguments because they are totally contradictory. [Interruption.]

Yes, they are, Mr Fraser—they are completely contradictory arguments. The scheme is working well, as envisaged, in all the circumstances that it was intended for, and the Government believes the intervention to be proportionate.

I set out at the beginning my reflections on the instruments and I will not add any further comments.

Mr Fraser has concentrated on a number of points of definitive evidence. I have been candid with the committee, in all my correspondence and in oral evidence, that we cannot ascribe a direct relationship between one particular measure and one particular outcome. It would be misleading to try to do so. There is a basket of measures and interventions that we have to take to suppress the virus and achieve our objective of increasing vaccination.

The principal issue that we have to wrestle with is that the virus remains a significant threat to the health and wellbeing of the population. In my judgment, the Government’s judgment and, I think, the judgment of Parliament as a whole, we have to take measures to tackle that situation and the seriousness of the impact that it could have on the population.

When we take particular measures, we are weighing up, in all those judgments, what is the proportionate action to take. With the exception of yesterday’s data, cases are stable. Yesterday’s data was very high and of great concern. We should not look at one particular day’s data, but yesterday’s data was of deep concern to ministers. Cases are at too high a level, so we are trying to take measures that are proportionate to our objective of enabling as much of the economy and society as possible to recover from Covid and, at the same time, to our objective of suppressing the virus. The decision on what measures to take involves arriving at a fine judgment.

We know from the experience of the pandemic that the night-time economy is an area of higher risk. We are trying to take measures, consistent with the strategic objective that I have just set out, to enable the night-time economy to continue but in as safe a fashion as possible, which is the justification for the scheme.

Obviously, there may well be an impact on night-time industries as a consequence, but there could be the even greater impact of closure. That is what we are trying to avoid in the measures that we are taking. It is about weighing up what we can enable to happen that does not jeopardise our ability to suppress the virus and the ability of sectors to thrive.

That option is still under active consideration by ministers.

We have been using a number of means of communication. Some of it has been through public information and campaigns to encourage vaccinations. We have also been working closely with what I call trusted voices in such communities. We have been working with a number of representative organisations in the black and minority ethnic community and with various religious figures and faith representatives who have been able to articulate the message to a population that might be sceptical about some aspects of vaccination.

We judge the combination of wider Government messaging on the importance of vaccination and specific input from trusted voices in such communities to be the most effective way of taking the steps that are necessary.

There will be circumstances in which employers wish to exercise as much influence as they can to stop the spread of the virus, to enable them to sustain their activities. Employers have to make that judgment.