Chamber and committees

I expect that to be the case, convener, although we are in a period where I would hope that we are not in the position of applying any further restrictions. I hope that, in the future, there will be fewer occasions when it will be necessary to come to the committee for regulatory change of that type. However, I want to maintain the protocols that were in place before. Dominic Munro, who is online with me, might want to add to that.

The difference and distinction are in the greater degree of physical participation beyond what would be considered routine elements of everyday human function, such as walking.

I am certainly happy to provide the committee with the range of measures that we have taken to strengthen the vaccination programme. A pretty established part of the discussion about the suppression of Covid is that vaccination is a critical and absolutely fundamental element of our strategy.

We need only look at where we are today and the current level of cases. If we had had anything approaching a proportion of those cases at a prior stage of the pandemic, we would, as we know, have been applying lockdown measures. We had to do that in January, when case levels were much lower than they are currently, but at that time we did not have the protection of the vaccination programme. Vaccination is absolutely central to the Government’s response to the pandemic. I am very happy to marshal that evidence and to set out to the committee what steps the Government has taken to reach the extraordinarily high levels of vaccination in the country.

That said, we have some challenges with uptake in lower age groups. Although the uptake among the over-40s is extraordinarily high, we still have some way to go in the 18 to 40-year age groups, and we are taking steps to maximise vaccination levels. That is our clear strategy, because with such an approach, we are taking steps to try to avoid applying any further restrictions later.

As I have said, I am happy to marshal that evidence and information for the committee. There will be a parliamentary debate on the wider question of vaccine certification next week, and the Government will make the necessary information available to enable Parliament to make an informed decision on that question.

More than 4 million people have been vaccinated in Scotland, and I am confident that, for the overwhelming majority of those individuals, vaccine records will be strong and robust. Because of what John Mason has just put to me, I have to accept that there are instances where there are issues with the accuracy of the information.

Any suspected errors in a person’s Covid vaccination record should be reported to the national helpline; there is a telephone number available on the NHS Inform website. In general, however, the quality and strength of health records in Scotland are very good, fundamentally because they are anchored in the community health index number that every citizen has. That provides us with a robust footing and foundation for the delivery of information about the vaccination records of individuals. However, I accept that there will be a limited number of cases in which that information may not be entirely complete.

I agree with Mr Whittle’s description of Covid as a moving feast. We are facing a constantly moving challenge. If we are to be realistic about addressing the implications of Covid, the Government has to be prepared to adapt and change our position should we need to do so, and that is precisely the approach that the Government has taken throughout the pandemic. We have not sat and been oblivious to the changing circumstances or prevalence of the virus. If we had done that, we would have had a much more serious situation on our hands than the very serious situation that we have faced. The Government has to adapt to changing circumstances, which is exactly what we have done.

We try to discuss issues with business sectors on an on-going basis. We have a huge amount of dialogue with all sectors of society, and we take on board the practical feedback that we get. Ultimately, however, the Government has to make choices, and sometimes it is difficult to make choices in a way that involves as much open prior dialogue and consultation as we would ordinarily like.

Yesterday, Mr Fraser raised a point of order with the Presiding Officer about the fact that, prior to the First Minister standing up to give a statement, there had been some media commentary about the Covid certification issue. I understand exactly why Mr Fraser said that, but I think that the time difference between the First Minister standing up and that point appearing in the media was maybe 20 to 30 minutes. It is pretty clear that, if the Government had had open consultation with sectors beforehand, that information would have been out before Parliament heard it and Parliament would understandably have been pretty aggrieved about that.

In response to earlier questions, I said that the Government will of course engage with the sectors to ensure that we hear all the issues before Parliament comes to a conclusion on these points, and I give that assurance to Mr Whittle today. It is important to have that dialogue. As I have said, I had a very constructive discussion yesterday with more than 150 sectoral representatives about the importance of applying the baseline measures, and among all those organisations I detected a willingness to be part of that journey with us. If we are all part of that journey, we can reach a good and positive outcome.

Thank you.

That very material point was raised with me yesterday by some of the sectoral representatives, who said that there can be a pretty fine line between different venues. We will discuss those issues with the relevant sectors.

As the First Minister made clear yesterday, we do not want the measure to be applied to the hospitality sector as a whole and we want to avoid any steps that might take us into that territory. As for the point of distinction that Mr Whittle has raised, it is important that we get this right in the judgments that we make.

No, convener.

There are discussions under way with the United Kingdom Government and the United Nations about the arrangements for accessing COP26. Many of these issues are the subject of active discussion with the authorities who are running COP26 to ensure that we have the appropriate arrangements in place.

I will make some remarks on the Scottish statutory instruments, six of which amended the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/344). The six instruments made various adjustments to the levels rules that were in place at the time and were then removed when we moved beyond level 0 on 9 August. In order to assist the committee, I will run through the changes made by the regulations.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 27) Regulations 2021, which came into force on 11 June, made provision for local authority officers to have a power of entry in relation to restrictions on stadia and events. The regulations also adjusted the physical distancing requirements in place at Hampden stadium and at Glasgow Green during the Union of European Football Associations championship.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 28) Regulations 2021 removed travel restrictions in relation to the Republic of Ireland and Bedford in England, and introduced travel restrictions in relation to travel to and from Manchester and Salford. Those regulations came into force on 18 June.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 29) Regulations 2021 came into force on 26 and 28 June and made a number of changes including adjusting physical distancing requirements at funerals and for an event at Murrayfield, extending hospitality opening hours for the knockout stages of the Euros and adjusting the face covering rules at weddings and civil partnerships.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 30) Regulations 2021 removed all travel restrictions in relation to Bolton, Manchester and Salford on 30 June.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 31) Regulations 2021 adjusted the physical distancing requirements at the Scottish Open golf championship and removed travel restrictions in relation to Blackburn and Darwen. Those regulations came into force on 8 July.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 32) Regulations 2021 came into force on 19 July. The regulations moved all of Scotland into level 0 and made various adjustments to the levels regulations. Physical distancing requirements were reduced to 1m indoors and outdoors. The regulations also removed the requirement for physical distancing between people in a gathering of up to 15 people outdoors. They provided that children under the age of 12 years did not count for the purpose of calculating the number of households permitted for gatherings indoors, and altered hospitality trading times at level 0.

As the committee knows, we were able to move beyond level 0 on 9 August. At that point, baseline measures were put in place in the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2021, which set out four sets of legal requirements as baseline measures.

First, relevant hospitality and entertainment premises are required to obtain and record customer information for a period of at least 21 days for the purpose of preventing the spread of coronavirus or monitoring the spread of infection and the incidence of coronavirus disease.

Secondly, the regulations require persons responsible for places of worship, carrying on a business or providing a service to have regard to relevant guidance issued by the Scottish ministers and available on the Scottish Government website about measures to minimise risk of exposure to coronavirus.

Thirdly, the regulations also provide that people in specified indoor places and on public transport must wear a face covering unless a specific exemption applies.

Finally, the regulations cap numbers at live events at 5,000 people for events held outdoors and at 2,000 people for events held indoors, subject to local authority approval of higher attendance limits. The Scottish ministers are also provided with powers to call in applications for exemption from capacity.

The new regulations, like the previous levels regulations, provide for enforcement of the requirements. The new regulations also provide that the requirements must be reviewed at least once every 21 days and that the Scottish ministers must revoke any requirement as soon as it is no longer necessary. The first review had to take place by 30 August. The regulations remain in force, but we are keeping the requirements under review.

Finally, I inform the committee that the Scottish Government’s report on the Coronavirus (Extension and Expiry) (Scotland) Act 2021 will be laid before the Parliament tomorrow. That will fulfil the requirement in sections 5 and 7 of the act to lay a one-off report before the Scottish Parliament one month after the act has received royal assent.

I am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have about the regulations.