Chamber and committees

I agree very much with the point that you made about the technology, Mr Mason. It is routine technology that is widely available through free downloadable apps for individuals and for those who undertake checking. It has been designed to be within the firmament of the technology that we are all accustomed to using nowadays.

The winter preparations started some time ago in order to ensure that we are ready for the pressures that are inevitably put on the health service during autumn and winter. Frankly, that is why the Government is taking some of the steps that we are taking. I accept that they are not the most popular measures that we have ever taken, but they have to be taken in order to try to suppress the prevalence of the virus.

I do not have today’s numbers in front of me, but on Tuesday we had 1,064 people in hospital with Covid, which is a very high number of admissions to hospital because of Covid. The Cabinet regularly sees modelling of what might happen if we do not suppress levels of the virus. Those levels translate into levels of hospitalisation.

There might now be a different ratio. Back in the early part of the pandemic, about 13 per cent of people who had positive tests for Covid were hospitalised; now, it is about 2 per cent to 3 per cent. The difference is that the level of positive tests is much higher today than it was 12 months ago, which translates into more people, which puts more pressure on the national health service.

In addition to that, the national health service is undertaking two other aspects of work. It is providing the normal emergency care that is necessary—Mr Rowley mentioned news articles about very alarming and totally unacceptable circumstances—and it is dealing with routine elective work, which had been slowed up or paused entirely because of Covid. Therefore, the national health service is under phenomenal pressure. What we can do in advance of the winter is suppress levels of Covid in order to reduce the number of hospitalisations and to relieve some of the pressure. That will work across all aspects of the health service, whether it is ambulance services, acute admissions or elective care.

There are huge pressures on the national health service. Winter preparations have been and continue to be made—we have more people available to work in our national health service—but there will be challenges resulting from the level of Covid in our society.

The general picture on vaccination is therefore encouraging. The numbers relating to 16 and 17-year-olds, which Professor Leitch has shared, are an indication of real enthusiasm to come forward. I pay tribute to the school community, which has done tremendous work to encourage young people, and to young people themselves, who have exercised tremendous leadership. For example, I saw senior pupils from all the Perth city schools, who were involved in a venture in my constituency at the Dewars ice rink vaccination centre, promoting that to their peers. That was very successful. That is probably the best communication that there can be to encourage uptake.

The general position is encouraging but, comparatively speaking, we have weaknesses among younger people—the under-30s—and we have challenges in some areas of the country that suffer from socioeconomic deprivation, and in black and minority ethnic communities. The Government has looked carefully with health boards at the practical deployment of services and vaccination opportunities in order to ensure that we try to counter those. Mr Rowley will be familiar with the situation in his locality. His health board will have been offering various drop-in opportunities at different places to try to address that.

A lot of the approach is focused on localities in which we know that there are weaknesses. However, we cannot oblige people to take up the opportunities in a voluntary vaccination programme. We can maximise the possibilities and availability, but we cannot oblige people.

I assure the committee of two things. The first is that we should be pleased by how much progress has been made. It is a tribute to the vaccinators around the country, who have worked incredibly hard. The second is that we are taking focused measures to boost uptake where we possibly can.

I want to place on the record that the SSI amended the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2021, which came into force on Monday 9 August 2021. The regulations that we are discussing, which came into force on 3 September, made a minor amendment to enable performers to perform or rehearse for a performance without face coverings in situations where distancing or partitioning are not possible. For clarity, that exemption will apply for as long as there is either a partition or a distance of at least 1m between performers and other people, including the audience, but that does not include people who are performing or rehearsing with the performers or assisting with the performance or rehearsal.

The point that Mr Fraser raises—which Neil Doncaster expressed this morning—is entirely reasonable. We are aware of the labour market challenges, which are visible to all of us, and the challenges around the availability of stewards are well documented. I do not in any way, shape or form dispute that point—I accept it, hence the rationale in the Government’s paper that we published last week, in which we indicated that there was a necessity for organisers to take reasonable measures and that there was likely to be a proportionate approach in different settings such as a crowd of 200 versus a crowd of 60,000. We envisage that there will have to be different approaches, and we are working through the issues in detail with football authorities in order to have that proportionate approach—principally because they will be the ones with the big crowds that will be affected, although other events and sectors will also be affected.

We are trying to encourage a climate in which vaccination uptake is understood to be a significant protection for the country against the spread of the virus. Even though there may not be a check of absolutely everybody who attends a football game, the more that we can do, the more we can make these events safer and less likely to be places in which the virus is transmitted and the more we contribute to the suppression of the virus.

We are actively involved in discussions with the football authorities and other players on these questions, and a proportionate approach is likely to be taken, as we highlighted in last week’s paper. As we also indicated, guidance supporting that information will be available to relevant parties.

There are two issues to address in that question. First, the question whether the lady in question should be vaccinated is an exclusively clinical matter, so I will say nothing that would intrude on such decision making. These are, in some circumstances, very difficult judgments. It is estimated that fewer than one in 1,000 people—or 0.1 per cent—cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. We are therefore talking about a very small number of people, which I think demonstrates the difficulty of the clinical judgment that has to be applied. As I have said, I would not seek to intrude on that.

Secondly, on the implications of non-vaccination for a vaccination certification scheme, we have to ensure that the scheme does not disadvantage people in accessing venues if they choose, as an unvaccinated person, to do so. In other words, someone who is unvaccinated for entirely legitimate and proper clinically assessed medical reasons should not be disadvantaged if they want to see their favourite football club playing. Obviously that will have implications for other members of society, but there is a limited risk of exposure. Fundamentally, though, that is a judgment for the individual, so we have to ensure that the vaccination certification scheme in no way disadvantages or discriminates against them.

There are two elements to that question; the first is about engagement and the second is about what reasonable measures are. On engagement, I appreciate that this is being done quickly, but a lot of stuff around Covid has had to be done quickly because of the nature of the situation that we face. The rationale for us acting quickly in that respect is twofold.

First, we face a very high level of cases. The point has been made to Parliament that, if we had had case numbers a year ago of the type that we have now—although they are slightly lower than they have been—we would have been in lockdown. Thankfully, the vaccine provides us with a huge amount of protection against that, but we still have very high levels of case load, which flows through into levels of hospitalisation that are resulting in well-documented pressures on the national health service and all its constituent parts. There is a need to act swiftly to suppress the virus. That is the nature of the urgency around engagement.

The second point in relation to engagement is that we have had a range of discussions. The First Minister and I were involved in a session the other day with a variety of stakeholders, and representatives of hospitality sectors were involved. I cannot recall off the top of my head whether Mr Stevenson was involved as there was a large number of participants. Jason Leitch and the finance secretary have had similar discussions with other sectors, and our officials are involved in dialogue to understand the practical issues. We are actively involved in those discussions in order to make sure that we hear the practical issues so that we can shape the guidance to ensure that there is a clear understanding of what is envisaged in the process.

That brings me to what reasonable measures are. Clearly, we can help organisations only by providing the necessary context, detail and information that allows them to form their view about reasonable measures. Having listened to the evidence that the stakeholders on the first panel provided, I note that there is willingness to do that and to be engaged in the implementation of such a scheme. They appealed for an understanding that there may be steps that they have to take to get more reasonable measures in place, and I certainly give an assurance that the Government is listening to that message and argument as we formulate the guidance.

I appreciate that crowd sizes vary significantly around the country, but some venues simply cannot accommodate more than 10,000 supporters. It does not matter how many supporters Rangers or Celtic bring along, because only a certain number of people can get into the ground. There are limiting factors. Before I came here today, the Minister for Parliamentary Business was telling me that St Mirren can accommodate only 8,000.

Spot checks are a valid issue. As I indicated in my answer to Mr Fraser a moment ago, in the paper that we published last Thursday, the Government envisages a proportionate approach in larger crowd settings. There is undoubtedly the possibility of that approach being taken.

There you are.

In the immediate term, we have to ensure that we take the necessary steps in relation to international travel that are appropriate to tackling Covid. These issues are the subject of controversy; I have read a lot of commentary from people who tell us that we have been far too restrictive on international travel at different stages of the pandemic. I do not think that the United Kingdom has been strict enough, but these are difficult issues to wrestle with.

We will have to address the whole question of the scale and nature of air travel and the environmental issues that come with it as part of the measures to tackle climate change. That will be a wider policy process in which Government is involved, and it will be at the heart of the decisions around COP26 in Glasgow later this year.

All societies will have to wrestle with that question, but the immediate challenge that we face is to ensure that we take the correct approach on international travel in a way that is commensurate with the steps that we need to take to suppress Covid within the population as effectively as we can.