Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Swinney, I hope that you will get a wee rest on this question, because I am targeting it to Jason Leitch.

We spoke before about a constituent of mine who is very concerned about getting the vaccine. She is going through various medical issues because of cancer. She had an adverse reaction to a flu jag, and she is very concerned about getting any form of vaccine that has to do with coronavirus. There are still venues that require a vaccine passport, which she will obviously not be able to get. She has put to me that there is a panel of four people who decide what the exemptions should be, but she will not be allowed to give her own voice on the issue that she has. Is she correct that there is a panel of four people who make that decision? What are the criteria for not getting the vaccine? Can anything be done to allow her to have her voice heard so that she can put her point across?

My final point is one that has been raised again and again with me by the same constituent. Apparently, somewhere in the media or on television, Professor Linda Bauld made the statement that, if you have an adverse reaction to the flu jab, you should not get the Covid jab. I do not know whether that is verified, but it is a position that keeps being put to me. Is it correct?

That is grand. Thank you very much.

I wish you well in your recovery, Mr Swinney—it has clearly been a tough morning for you.

I have a couple of quick questions. Why were the public health powers not included in the Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill when the legislation for England and Wales was updated to include them in 2008?

Should provisions on the process for applying special restrictions and any subsequent appeals be included the bill? You said that you would be happy to look at the issues that Mr Fraser raised with you. Should the process for applying such restrictions be included in the bill?

We also took evidence on digital and remote service delivery. We heard from local authority witnesses that online delivery of services had to happen at speed at the beginning of the pandemic. Mairi Millar from Glasgow City Council accepted that a lot could be done to reconfigure those services to make them more accessible. Significant work needs to be done to ensure that remote services that were developed at speed during the pandemic meet the needs of users. Will the Scottish Government be able to make funding available to support that work?

There was also specific concern about what the option to provide remote services might mean for licence applicants. Where a meeting was to be held remotely, the emergency legislation gave applicants and objectors the right to decide how they wanted to participate. However, the bill will give licensing bodies complete discretion as to the format of hearings. Should the bill be amended to give those who are entitled to participate in hearings more of a say? I must say that, if you are in dispute, it is much harder to get your point across in remote meetings.

On a point of order, deputy convener. In the exchange between the convener and me on 12 January, the convener said:

“We wrote to George Eustice and got a response. Unfortunately, he was unable to attend on the date that we asked, but I am confident that we will have him in front of us at some time in the near future.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 12 January 2022; c 31.]

Can you or the clerks advise whether the committee was subsequently able to reach Mr Eustice to ask him to give evidence? Is there any explanation of why the committee has been unable to hear from Mr Eustice, and is there any update on when we can expect to do so?

So, Mr Eustice will be appearing in front of this committee on 18 May.

I will press you a wee bit on that. You say that the local authority should still have discretion. That is regardless of whether someone lives in a remote area—I live in a remote area myself. I may be dissatisfied, for instance, with the decision that a local authority has taken on how a meeting or application is going to be conducted, as there is nothing more frustrating than not being able to speak to someone face to face. If the local authority has the final say on that discretion, where does that leave the person who feels dissatisfied with the fact that they cannot have a sit-down, face-to-face conversation? Surely there should be some provision in the bill that allows people to say, “Sorry, but I’m not happy with that. I want to sit down with somebody.” Is that not something that you would consider?