Chamber and committees

The example that Tess White cites is vivid. We have a continuous data set on exam results up to 2019 and then we have two data sets for 2020 and 2021 that are constructed in a fundamentally different fashion. It is a challenge to reconcile one methodology that was used for umpteen years with a different methodology that is used for two years. There will need to be open dialogue on the analysis of the information to ensure that we have a proper understanding of whether we are making progress towards the long-term objectives or whether there has been a setback as a consequence of Covid.

One data set will not achieve that. It will take a rounded piece of work. The education recovery group looks at what all the information in the round tells us about where young people are and their achievements, given that the data sets that we would normally rely on have been interrupted by Covid. There is no easy answer, but some considered research that we can discuss and debate and that the Parliament’s committees can analyse and air would be an effective way to do that.

The short answer is yes. This is one attempt to show how we assess performance. If we were to look at that in rather a glib way, I could see how we could arrive at the challenge that Mr Greer poses. I remember that back in 2007, as an alternative, we had a variety of coloured arrows that were designed to help, but probably fell victim to exactly the same challenge that Ross Greer has put to me.

The key point is that a whole range of different actions have to be taken to try to improve performance in a particular area. It would be wrong to conclude that an “improving” performance on active travel journeys should determine our next steps on active travel overall. We have to take a whole range of other interventions to improve that performance.

That is correct.

That takes us into issues of local discretion and decision making; there certainly is not a check, because that would be an inappropriate level of interference by central Government in the legitimate scope for decision making by local authorities and community planning partnerships. Undoubtedly, there will be dialogue, but a check would be inappropriate, given our current statutory framework.

Given his local authority background, Mr Lumsden will be familiar with the fact that public authorities have a duty to have regard to the way that statute is constructed and to properly and fully consider and reflect that. I could not say that there is a 32-piece jigsaw puzzle that fits together to make a neat picture of each of those indicators of what will happen in each local authority or community planning partnership area, but there is an expectation that those partnerships will have due regard to and follow that direction. The leadership of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and, in particular, its president, is very resolute in its support of that direction of policy, and the Government appreciates that.

There is a likelihood that they will overlap, but we will have to make sure that there is a clear line of sight between the two. Given the timescale, the preparatory work on the wellbeing bill is likely to be undertaken at the same time as the review of the national outcomes, but I will confirm that to the committee in writing.

It is a fair observation that transport perhaps does not have the profile and focus that it should have. The description of the transport indicators as partly influencing a range of other factors is a fair assessment. To go back to what I said in response to Tess White, the review in 2023 might reasonably come to the conclusion that, to put it colloquially, the NPF needs to be an awful lot more net zero than it is now. Given the significance of the transport indicators, they might well reflect that change in emphasis. However, I assure Mr Greer that the impact and effect of transport on performance will be reflected in a number of areas. Obviously, there are ways in which we can revise and revisit that material.

A process of reflection goes on in the Cabinet. We look at the issues that the national performance framework identifies in relation to our policy agenda and consider taking different decisions to improve performance.

As the Deputy First Minister, part of my responsibility relates to delivering the Government’s agenda. Since the election, I have been looking at the delivery of our commitments that were made in the 100 days programme. I am now focusing my attention on delivering the programme for government and the partnership agreement, to ensure that arrangements are in place that will give us confidence that the programme can be delivered and will help us to achieve the ambitions that are set out in the NPF.

I agree 100 per cent about the importance of the matter, and I can reassure you that we are making efforts to pursue it.

The other day, I saw a social media message in which a clinician shared a photograph of himself dressed head to toe in personal protective equipment, wearing a heavy-duty clinical face mask. It looked unbearably uncomfortable. The message that he set alongside the picture was, essentially, “If all you’re moaning about is wearing a face mask to go to the shops, come and stand where I’ve been standing for a minute.” I think that that made the point perfectly. Wearing a face covering is the least that we can ask people to do to ensure that they are taking precautions to stop spread of the virus.

All the baseline measures—wearing a face covering, observing physical distancing where possible, coughing etiquette, hand-hygiene procedures and so on—will interrupt spread of the virus, so it is important that we reinforce the messages on them.

About three weeks ago, the Cabinet discussed the issue. General frustration was expressed that, after 9 August, there had been a sense that there could be relaxation of those baseline measures.

We therefore took a number of steps. We deputised cabinet secretaries to intensify stakeholder discussion—basically, to get on the phone to supermarkets, retailers, transport companies, universities and colleges. Members of the Cabinet did that, along with their officials, in order to have those conversations.

Then, two weeks ago, I convened a stakeholder discussion involving about 170 organisations, including representatives of the retail sector and all the supermarket chains, transport companies, education institutions, local authorities, business organisations and trade unions. The aim of that was to reinforce the importance of application of the baseline measures. Of course, in such a conversation involving a range of stakeholders, some will be pressing strong arguments that are supportive of what the Government is doing. For example, I was delighted with the degree to which the trade union representatives on the call reinforced the message. They are, understandably, concerned about the wellbeing of their members. It was a helpful call that strengthened the attitude to application of baseline measures.

On Tuesday, the First Minister and I convened a follow-up call that included much the same cast list. There was quite a bit of feedback from the retail sector that the messaging from the Government about turning up the heat on following baseline measures had helped in the retail environment. Ministers have undertaken specific communications to support retail workers and to encourage members of the public to be respectful of those workers by ensuring that they wear a face covering if they are asked to do so by a retail employee.

I hope that that reinforcement of the baseline measures is contributing in part to the tempering of the level of infection in society. As the First Minister reported to Parliament on Tuesday, we are in a better place than we were last week and the week before.

I assure Mr Rowley that we intend to have no let-up in encouraging and motivating organisations to follow the baseline measures. I think that most organisations accept the importance of that, because they can see that, if we do not do it, we might have to do other things that they will like even less.

The work is under way to do that. As Professor Leitch has said, individual circumstances might need a level of manual intervention to resolve the issue for individuals. At this stage, if people are in the situation that Mr Fraser has highlighted, whereby they have had a vaccine in a different jurisdiction and need to resolve the implications of that for their vaccination certification, I encourage them to engage in the practical mechanisms to resolve those issues. Obviously, as time goes on, we will be able refine further the systems in the common travel area so that they all speak to each other effectively, which will avoid the degree of manual intervention that we have highlighted. I reassure people that the steps that are required to resolve those issues are able to be taken.

It is vital that the scheme that we put in place is able to work effectively, and we are addressing the issues that you have fairly raised as part of the development of the necessary technology to enable that.

The basic position for implementing the scheme is very strong, as are the availability of the data in vaccination records and the relationship of those records to individuals. The demonstrations that I have seen of the technology give me a very high level of confidence about the platform on which we are operating. Of course, there will be occasions when the data do not correspond exactly and we have to work with the suppliers and technology companies that we are working with to address those issues as expeditiously as we can. We addressed those matters with Mr Mason at a previous meeting.

As for implementation, the Government takes the view that the scheme needs to be up and running on 1 October because of its necessity in contributing towards the efforts to suppress the virus. That is the rationale behind our urgency in this matter, but in our briefing document on the proposals we indicate that implementation will be founded on the application of “reasonable measures” to put that into effect. Obviously, our guidance will endeavour to address that point, too.

I am not sure whether Jason Leitch wishes to add anything to what I have said about the specific issue of vaccination records.