Seòmar agus comataidhean

Obviously, we have judgments to make about the nature of the testing programme that we can take forward. That is informed by the decisions that are taken by the United Kingdom Government. Clearly, the financial arrangements that support an expansive testing programme will, if they are curtailed, have an effect on our ability to deliver such a programme.

We have to pursue the detail of the UK Government’s announcement that was made earlier this week. It was pretty obvious that there had been a tense set of discussions within the UK Government—some might call it chaotic—which led to the announcements on Monday. That has not provided us with particular clarity about its intentions. We are now seeking that clarity, and that will inform the testing programme. I assure Mr Mason and the committee that the points that Professor Leitch and I put on the record in our responses to the convener will very much inform the formulation of the plan that the Government puts in place.

That will be our general assumption in relation to the management of the pandemic, but we have to ensure that we have the legal and statutory capacity in place to respond to a deteriorating situation, should that be the situation that we face.

I suspect that, on that particular theme, we may just have to.

I acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion among members on the issue. There is a duty on the Government to have in place a statute book that enables us to respond to the circumstances that we face. Colleagues have indicated that there are likely to be challenges ahead for us. The measures that are in place have appropriate safeguards and there is no obligation to use them. The obligation for us as parliamentarians is to have in place a statute book that can respond to the challenges that we face.

To respond to Mr Whittle’s point, I have heard the criticism of Parliament that we did not have the necessary legislation in place to deal with a pandemic. If we are going to prepare properly for pandemics, we must ensure that we have the legislation in place with appropriate safeguards. I reiterate the point that, although the provisions will extend the regulatory infrastructure that is in place, they do not oblige the Government to use it in all circumstances.

On the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 4) Regulations 2022, if we want to continue the legal obligation to wear face coverings on public transport and in public places to 21 March, it must be put into place today or it will fall on 28 February. Therefore, in that short term, I appeal to colleagues to support the regulations, which will be the subject of a vote. There are two other instruments that will be subject to discussion in due course.

I invite Professor Leitch to come in on that point, or we might have to write to the committee on it.

Mr Mason will understand that, although I try my best to keep abreast of newspaper articles, I do not read every one of them. If that was the case, I would do nothing else in life. If the committee will forgive me, we will write to the convener with a response on that point.

My officials will provide further detail on that, but that is a material issue. An on-going level of testing infrastructure will be involved, and that is the key point that I want to reassure committee members about.

We cannot simply turn off testing, and it would be a mistake to do so. There has to be a mix between measures such as the Office for National Statistics infection survey, which is absolutely critical for intelligence purposes on the prevalence of the virus, and levels of testing that enable us to reliably gather the basic information that enables genomic sequencing to be undertaken so that we can identify any new strains or variants. We will consider that as part of the testing plan.

There has to be a degree of on-going intelligence about the prevalence of the virus in our society to enable judgments to be made about what stage we are at, and more detailed testing will be required to enable us to form a picture of what, if any, new strains are emerging in our society. There are almost two different elements and requirements that are necessary in that process to inform our judgments about the state of the pandemic and for us to be able to contribute to the international effort to identify any new strains or variants, which it is our absolute duty and obligation to participate in. If there had not been good international co-operation with the authorities in South Africa and good testing infrastructure, we would have had less early warning of the omicron variant than we had.

I invite Professor Leitch and Dominic Munro to add anything on the judgments that will be made.

That is a vital issue. I quite understand the appetite on the part of individuals to return to something like normal life, although there are some in our society who are frankly terrified by that prospect in the light of Covid. The first thing that we must do is be respectful of their views and concerns, and we must understand the anxiety that they face. That is why we have taken a gradual approach. We have tried to respond in a measured way to build as much resilience as we can within the population. Vaccination is critical to help us on that journey. Some people are vulnerable and cannot get vaccinated, for entirely understandable clinical reasons, which increases their anxiety further. Vaccination is critical to building resilience.

There are routine measures and, although we may remove the legal obligation to wear face coverings on public transport on 21 March, we will still be saying to people that it would be advantageous to wear them, and that it would a good civic gesture to protect other people.

We want to ensure that those who are very vulnerable have access to the clinical support that they will require. For example, individuals who are immunosuppressed have had communication from the chief medical officer that antivirals will be available to them because of their clinical vulnerability, which they should access. There is mental health support that we would want to make available to people to support them with their anxiety. In general, we want to work to ensure that people have the support that they require, recognising that the relaxation of restrictions is not universally welcomed within our society. We ignore the anxieties and fears of individuals in our society at our peril.

The first observation that I would make on Mr Whittle’s question is that, in a sense, he has just echoed one of the fundamental points that I made in my response to Mr Fraser. It is important that we deduce lessons from the pandemic and, if they are important, that we learn from them and apply them. I happen to take that view about the statutory framework and Mr Whittle has put to me an entirely legitimate point about data and IT.

Scotland has been very well served by some critical decisions that were made a long time ago on the unique identifier—the community health index or CHI number—which has acted as the foundation for the administration of healthcare in Scotland based on the individual. It enables information on and records for an individual to be accessed appropriately to ensure that high-quality healthcare is delivered for that individual. That has been a strong foundation of our system but, of course, every development that comes along puts extra pressures on the core system. Covid has put many data demands on the system, particularly with regard to vaccination records and all that comes with such issues.

The Government has been taking active steps to ensure a strong approach to the delivery of digital care, and I think that it has got ever stronger over the course of the pandemic. What lies at the heart of the system is appropriate information technology capability to ensure that we can identify and meet the needs of individuals, and the Government will be working closely on that with health boards to keep the foundations of our IT system up to date and ensure that we meet the needs of individuals.

I would want to look at exactly what circumstances the clinicians were raising with the committee this morning, but my understanding is that, throughout the health service, the capacity and capability exists to access critical information about the healthcare of each individual. That is why I referred to the CHI number, which underpins and drives the system. I want to understand a bit better some of the deficiencies that have been highlighted but, in principle, I agree with Mr Whittle’s points about the availability of data and the necessity of collecting the appropriate data in our healthcare systems. I think it important to have a system that can be accessed in all different spheres of the health service. I am very happy to look at those issues and the particular points raised by the clinicians this morning, and I will encourage the health secretary to look at these questions and determine what further action requires to be taken.