Chamber and committees

My second question is on an entirely separate matter, concerning vaccinations.

Over-75s are currently being called for their second booster. I have been contacted by someone living in the Rannoch area, which you know well. At present, residents are being directed to travel to the vaccination centre in Pitlochry, which is a substantial round trip and difficult for people who rely on public transport. Could rural GP practices be authorised to deliver vaccinations for people who have transport difficulties? Is the Scottish Government considering that?

I would like some clarification on an issue that has been discussed over the past day in relation to education. Following yesterday’s announcement about lifting the requirement to wear face masks from 18 April, there seems to be some confusion about what situation will apply in schools, where face masks are still being worn in communal areas. Yesterday, a Scottish Government spokesman said that face coverings would still

“be required in communal areas for staff and secondary school pupils”

after 18 April, but that seems to have been reined back on this morning. Will you clarify exactly what the position is, Deputy First Minister?

Good morning, Deputy First Minister. I hope that you are feeling a bit better.

I will ask some questions about the exercise of ministerial powers. However, before I do that, as you referred to public consultation earlier in your comments, I will ask about that first.

It is fair to say that, when it ran its own consultation, the Government found a wide degree of public concern about and opposition to what is being proposed. The committee ran its own survey with the public with a call for views. We received just short of 4,000 responses from the public, of which 90 per cent were in opposition to the bill, with people expressing concerns about the impact on personal liberty and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny over what is proposed. In two decades, I cannot remember a piece of legislation in this Parliament attracting that level of public concern. Can you?

It is de Londras.

I ask Douglas Hendry for a local authority perspective on that.

Good morning, panel. I want to follow up on some of the points about digital exclusion that the convener raised. When reading the submissions, I was taken by the fact that there is a clear difference between the approach of professional organisations and bodies, which are, in the main, very relaxed—indeed, enthusiastic—about a move towards more digital engagement and that of members of the public, some of whom will have concerns. We have already talked about how that might widen inequalities in society.

I want to pick up the last point that David McNeill made, which was about the need to try to provide support for people who might already be digitally excluded. I put my question to Fiona Blair, who is here on behalf of the Association of Registrars of Scotland. What thinking has your organisation done about how a move towards online working will impact on people who are digitally excluded? What specific measures can you put in place to try to assist those who might have some difficulty?

Thank you. That is helpful.

Sections 18 and 20 of the bill give registration officers quite a degree of discretion in how they offer the remote registration of births and deaths. Do you have any thoughts about how they are drafted? Do they strike the right approach?

I go back to Adam Stachura from Age Scotland. We have had positive feedback there on what is being proposed. Are you generally satisfied with what is in the bill around the issue, or do additional measures need to be put in?

Consistent with the view that we have taken on other occasions, I oppose the motions. We have been round the houses on this issue a number of times, so I will not tire the committee by going over all the arguments again.

The instruments seek to extend by another six months the emergency powers that were taken by the Scottish Government to deal with the coronavirus pandemic. We had some discussion earlier around the paper in last week’s Lancet, which, as the first peer-reviewed global estimate of excess deaths, observes no clear relationship between levels of excess mortality and different levels of restrictions. In addition to that, given that we know that the public adhere quite strictly to public health guidance, my view is that we should proceed to address Covid through public health guidance rather than through extending those extraordinary and emergency powers by another six months, as the instruments seek to do.

I recognise that some aspects of the instruments are beneficial, such as the provisions to allow nurses, rather than doctors, to administer vaccines. As ever, the classic challenge for an Opposition party is that we cannot amend the statutory instruments before us; we must either accept them as a whole or reject them as a whole. Given the extent of the emergency powers that they seek to extend, we must, in this case, reject them as a whole.