Chamber and committees

I have a quick question on vaccination passports before we move on. The evidence that we received earlier from the expert witnesses was, by and large, that the paper that was published yesterday is fairly good. However, they said that setting a date for when the measures could perhaps end might backfire. They suggested setting an end criterion. Would the Government be interested in considering that?

I think so. I took from what was said that there would be criteria in which you would set out that hospital admissions because of Covid were down to zero or whatever. You would therefore have criteria to work towards rather than a specific date. It probably makes more sense to take that approach.

I have noticed that, in the past few weeks, the messaging from NHS Fife has been saying to people that, if they have any questions or are uncertain, there are people who they can discuss it with, so I will pick up on that point with Professor Reicher. Have you come across concrete evidence from places where such schemes have been introduced—for example, Israel, across Europe and in some states in America—that shows that they have led to an uptake in vaccination? The UK seems to have good uptake, and the Government in Scotland seems to be aiming its messaging particularly at young people. Is there best practice out there that we can build on, with regard to encouraging those who have not yet taken the vaccine to take it? That question goes to all of the witnesses, but perhaps Professor Reicher will want to answer first.

For me, the issue is not just bed blocking and people being able to get home care packages in order to get out of hospital. It is also about the number of older people who are living in the community and have been assessed as needing support to do so, but have been put on waiting lists that are growing and growing.

Yesterday, I visited Kinross-shire day centre, which, supported by Perth and Kinross Council, does a brilliant job of supporting older people in the community by bringing them in for lunch, getting lunch to them and so on. If that level of support is not available in the community, older people will end up at the doors of accident and emergency departments. That is my key point. The issue goes much wider than bed blocking; what we need to focus on is the fact that the whole social and community care system is falling apart at the seams.

I want to move on to a much more pressing issue for the public. The more I speak to people who work in our national health service and our health and community services, the more concerned I become about our ability to cope this winter. The pressure on staff and services is immense.

Last Tuesday, I raised with the First Minister the issue of home care and community care services. From what I can see, waiting times are growing for people who live in the community who need home care support and for people who have been assessed as needing care. Their numbers are going up. That will have a very clear impact on accident and emergency departments, because many of those people find A and E to be the only route forward. More widely, care services that support older people in the community are under pressure.

I want to ask you the question that I asked the First Minister. Last week, I met NHS Fife, which was keen to stress to me that the problem is not just a Fife problem but one that exists throughout the country. However, it is not clear to me where the solutions lie. Do we need a task force that can look at the extent of the problems that exist in community care and consider what we can do to address them in the here and now, given that, if we do not address them, they will become significantly greater as we get into the winter, and there will be massive pressure on our hospitals?

My next question is for Professor Montgomery. The Parliament has voted for the scheme to go ahead and it seems that it will. It is limited, as I said, but it will have a major impact on the businesses that are involved, and it will have a cost.

Given that there has been a lack of evidence when the case has been made for the scheme and that it is, I think, to be reviewed every three weeks, what evidence should the committee look for in reviewing the scheme so that we take a view on whether it should continue and perhaps be rolled out further, or cease?

The Government has not produced clear evidence to suggest that it will be able to achieve its main objective here, which seems to be to increase take-up of the vaccine. A report that the Scottish Human Rights Commission produced a few weeks ago and sent to us highlights the areas that concern people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and other specific groups. I am not sure that the evidence is there to show that. That said, I note that what is proposed is fairly limited compared with what I see in other countries around the world.

I suppose that one issue is whether there is a danger that we simply accept the measure and start to roll it out further. On the question of human rights, Murdo Fraser talked about people being ideologically opposed to the measures, but I have found that a growing amount of misinformation is being put out by anti-vaxxers, particularly through social media. Do you agree that the Government needs to tackle that?

Secondly, I saw a poll in The Courier this week that showed that two thirds of people believe that those who work in the care sector should be sacked if they do not get the vaccine. I have found anecdotally from speaking to people and asking them about vaccination passports that they raise questions about human rights. They will say, “What about my human rights? I have been vaccinated—do I not have a right to go to big venues and feel that there is some kind of protection in place?”

Do the rights of those who ideologically oppose vaccination and believe that it is all a conspiracy theory outstrip those of the majority of people, who have been vaccinated? That is the question that people raise, I find. What do you think about that, Judith?

Good morning. I will ask the question in a different way. Does the Government have a responsibility to do its best to protect the majority of people who have been vaccinated?

Are other panel members clear on what the Government expects to achieve? In the industries that you represent, which are football—I assume there are around four clubs in Scotland that get crowds of more than 10,000—and nightclubs, was there a problem in understanding what the Government is trying to achieve? Do you believe that its approach is supported by evidence that those specific sectors are large spreaders and that there is a clear risk?

My question is for Dr McMillan. With regard to how the legislation has been brought forward, are you satisfied that the Government has clearly set out the evidence and the science that sits behind what it proposes? When the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee at Westminster looked at the matter from the UK Government perspective, it concluded that the scientific evidence was not there and that such a major step should require primary legislation. Given that the legislation was rushed through and Parliament was divided along political lines, are you satisfied that the evidence has been provided?