Seòmar agus comataidhean

The committee may well have to consider SSIs on the issue. Obviously, the purpose of a plenary debate is to seek parliamentary approval in principle for the approach that the Government is taking, in recognition of the very different and distinctive character of the decision, but any other requirements for legislative provision or enforcement will require to come to the committee and to the Delegated Powers and Legislative Reform Committee. The Government will fulfil all requirements in that respect.

I cannot answer today as to whether the emergency procedure will be required, but I will answer when we have come to conclusions on that point, and we will advise the committee of that.

It is important that we constantly revisit the messaging on the whole issue of Covid to ensure that it is achieving its purpose. I think that, in general, over the course of the pandemic, Government communications have been very effective and very focused in getting the message across. Particularly for younger people, we must ensure that good, strong evidence is available to them about the dangers to which they are exposed as a consequence of Covid. The committee has discussed and Parliament has extensively discussed long Covid, which could be a very serious factor in younger people’s lives.

The most important thing is that we have to ensure that we properly and fully address the issues and perspectives of young people in identifying how we can most effectively communicate such a message and ensure that young people are persuaded that they are as much at risk from Covid as other members of our society are. It is important that we do not have a message that suggests anything other than that young people face significant risks as a consequence of the virus.

Thank you.

Mr Fairlie’s latter point is an important one that gets to the heart of a point that I made in my opening statement. The Government has changed its approach to the handling of the pandemic. I said earlier that we are no longer seeking to suppress Covid to the lowest possible level and that, now that we have vaccinations, the restrictions required to suppress Covid could not be justified, given that they cause serious harms of their own. We are trying to operate within a context in which vaccination is available to us and, if we maximise the uptake of vaccinations, we will provide the greatest amount of protection against the prevalence of the virus.

The best way to explain that is to go back to the situation that we faced in January. In January, the Government got advice that basically said to us that, unless we applied a further, immediate lockdown, there would be a very serious risk—if not an inevitability—that our health service would be unable to meet its central purpose and commitment to members of the public. We had to follow that advice because such a low level of the population—a tiny proportion—had been vaccinated at that time, and even then, only one dose had been given.

Today, we find ourselves in a very different situation with a very successful vaccination programme for the over-40s and a vaccination programme for the under-40s that still has some way to go. We are trying to take steps, essentially, to enable us to maximise the protection that we can achieve from the vaccination programme. That is the strategy that the Government is pursuing. We are trying to utilise vaccination as the means of resisting the pressure that the virus can put on us and to avoid having to take any further restrictive measures.

We knew from the four harms analysis—on which the previous committee questioned me before the election in May, and which dominated our thinking and planning as we took steps to relax restrictions over the past 12 months or so—that we had to take steps that would adapt and change, given the presence of the vaccination programme in our society and its effectiveness. There has been a change in the way that the Government is handling such issues. It recognises that Covid causes multiple harms that we need to avoid. The best way to do that is by having very high participation rates in the vaccination programme and by following the baseline measures that I discussed earlier with Mr Rowley.

Mr Fairlie asked whether there are any plans to extend the need for certification beyond the very limited number of groupings that we have highlighted. The Government has no plans to do that.

I do not know whether Professor Leitch wants to add to anything that I have said.

The primary purpose of the policy proposal that the First Minister set out yesterday is to strengthen resistance to the virus by maximising compliance with the measures that we know will have the greatest impact in stemming the prevalence of serious illness as a consequence of people contracting it.

We face a very difficult situation just now. Members will be familiar with the fact that the number of cases has risen sharply in recent weeks, since the relaxation of restrictions on 9 August. Earlier in the summer, there was a very sharp rise and then a very sharp fall in the number of infections. At this stage, the Government is concerned that the rise in the number of infections needs to be tackled with measures to try to reduce its significance.

As the First Minister set out to Parliament yesterday, even if 2 to 3 per cent of individuals who test positive for Covid have to be admitted to hospital, 2 to 3 per cent of a very large number is a lot of people, and that equates to the levels of hospitalisation at previous stages in the pandemic, which we wish to avoid. We are trying to take steps within the measures that are available to us, without reintroducing restrictions, to maximise the capacity of the population to resist the spread of coronavirus. The purpose of the move is to maximise resistance within the population and reduce the danger that we will have to impose further restrictions in the future. It is clear that the Government is keen to ensure that that does not happen.

Thank you, convener, and good morning. I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee for the first time since my appointment as portfolio minister for Covid recovery. This is a vital part of the process of parliamentary accountability, which will undoubtedly strengthen our approach to recovery.

I will be happy to respond to any line of inquiry that the committee wishes to pursue. I would like to take some time to first set out our developing approach to Covid recovery, before turning to the First Minister’s recent announcement about the public inquiry, then to the current public consultation on Covid recovery legislation. Finally, I will update the committee on our on-going activity to respond to the pandemic, which unfortunately is still very much with us.

In reappointing me as Deputy First Minister, the First Minister also asked me to lead the cross-Government and cross-Parliament work necessary to guide the country through the pandemic and into a recovery that supports the national health service, protects and creates jobs, supports our young people and contributes to Scotland’s ambition to be a net zero nation. Moreover, I am determined that our approach to recovery should take us closer to the kind of Scotland that we all want to see: a country that is more equal and addresses the inequalities that have been exacerbated by the pandemic; a country in which the economy guides us towards a more sustainable future, with good, green jobs and fair work for all; and a country in which public services are supported to recover from the pandemic and to put person-centred design and delivery at their heart.

In the past 100 days, we have seen a real cross-Government effort to support key actions covering Covid recovery. The safe and effective remobilisation of the NHS is one of our top priorities. On 25 August, we published our national recovery plan, which sets out key commitments that will support recovery over the next five years, supported by the implementation of sustainable improvements and new models of care.

I recognise that achieving our ambition for recovery will require more than the efforts of national Government—wider collaboration and partnership is essential. To that end, I have used part of the summer to engage with a wide range of stakeholders, across the private, public and third sectors, on their priorities for Covid recovery. Just over 60 organisations have been involved in that exercise.

I have met regularly with the presidential team from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, recognising the crucial role that local government has played throughout our response to the pandemic, from assisting the roll-out of walk-in test centres to delivering self-isolation support and business grants. Our local authorities have provided vital support to individuals, organisations and businesses through close partnership with the Scottish Government.

I am determined to do all that I can to support that close partnership working as an essential element in our approach to recovery. I know that it is only by harnessing the collective work of both democratic spheres of government and involving as many of our partners as possible that we will be able to achieve the recovery that we want to see. I intend to set out more detail about the partnership that we will take forward with local government when the Covid recovery strategy is published in due course.

I am sure that members will be interested in how we intend to take forward the establishment of a public inquiry into the Covid response. The Scottish Government has always been committed to the establishment of a public inquiry into the pandemic, and it will be established by the end of this year, as was promised. We have published draft aims and principles for the inquiry, which, following consultation between now and the end of September with interested parties, including bereaved families, will become the formal terms of reference. Anybody who wants to can and should contribute to the consultation process.

The inquiry will look at all matters related to the handling of the pandemic that were within our devolved competence, which will include, of course, the situation in care homes. The consultation will close on 30 September, and the Lord Advocate has begun discussions with the Lord President about appointing a member of the judiciary to head the inquiry.

It is worth stressing that we will still co-operate closely with other Governments, including the UK Government, on their inquiries into Covid. Apart from anything else, we recognise that, by doing that, we might lessen the burden on organisations and individuals who are making submissions to our inquiry. That will, of course, include people who have lost loved ones to Covid.

The need for discussion and co-operation cannot become a reason for delay. I believe that an inquiry into the handling of Covid in Scotland potentially has an important role to play in scrutinising the decisions that have been made in the past and in highlighting lessons for the future. I therefore believe that it is appropriate to establish the inquiry as soon as possible. The consultation that we have launched is an important early step towards doing that.

In addition to progressing the establishment of the inquiry, we have taken early steps to consult on how we recover from the crisis and ensure that we are prepared for any future ones, reflecting on the lessons that we have all learned over the past 18 months. As part of that, we must ensure that we review the impact of Covid on the Scottish statute book and carefully consider any benefits of legislative reforms that might be worth retaining.

Our 12-week consultation has been publicised widely, and members of the public are already contributing their views. The consultation invites views on 30 specific legislative proposals that have the potential to support Covid recovery, such as greater public health resilience to protect against future threats, and the possible retention of improvements and modernisations to public services and the justice system. The consultation paper outlines our ambitions for Covid recovery and ends with an open question, inviting comments on the action that respondents think is required to support a fair, safe and secure recovery.

During the pandemic, the power to make public health regulations has been instrumental to managing the public health threat through a range of measures, at each point based on expert advice. The public health regulations proposal is not intended to make lockdown measures permanent, but is rather designed to ensure that Scotland continues to be able to respond proportionately and appropriately to a variety of public health threats.

A successful recovery will be unfeasible if we do not effectively respond to the immediate risks that the virus continues to pose. An effective and sustainable response to the pandemic will lay the foundation for the sort of recovery that we want to see. As the First Minister set out yesterday, we have a steady and on-going increase in cases that has caused us real concern. However, it is important to note that vaccination is significantly weakening the link between high numbers of cases and serious harm to people’s health. That is why the Scottish Government’s aim in controlling Covid at this stage in the pandemic is different from its aim in previous stages.

We are no longer seeking to suppress Covid to the lowest possible level. Now that we have vaccinations, the restrictions required to suppress Covid could not be justified, given that those restrictions cause serious harms of their own. Instead, we are seeking to suppress the virus in a way that alleviates its harms but allows us to recover and rebuild for the future.

We need children to go to school, businesses to operate more normally and all of us to be able to socialise and live more freely. That is why so many restrictions—except for key baseline measures—were lifted on 9 August, and it is why, in many ways, we should not be too surprised by the recent rise in case numbers.

However, we cannot be relaxed about the figures. The link between new cases and serious health harms has been weakened, but it has not been broken. The surge that we have seen might well result in more people going to hospital and, sadly, more people losing their lives. That is why the Scottish Government is engaging with businesses and organisations in different sectors of the economy to enhance compliance with existing regulations and maximise the impact of baseline measures. It is vital that we all follow the baseline measures that remain in place. For example, we are asking people to continue to wear face coverings in indoor public places, which is a reasonably simple and straightforward way in which we can protect each other and reduce the risk of transmission. We are also asking people to be mindful of the basic steps that we should continue to take, such as washing hands and surfaces and, even though it is not the law anymore, keeping a safe distance from people in other households if you can.

The final step that we will take to protect individuals and the country as a whole in the short term and to reduce the risk of further restrictions being necessary is to propose vaccination certification, which is to be introduced later this month in certain limited settings, subject to parliamentary debate and a vote to signify approval.

The Scottish Government is pleased to see the establishment of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, which I know will play a crucial role in leading the country through the on-going pandemic and into a fair and just recovery. I welcome any questions that the committee might have, and I am grateful for the opportunity to make an extensive statement to open the committee’s proceedings.

I agree 100 per cent with Alex Rowley’s point about compliance with what I would describe as baseline measures, including the wearing of face coverings in the indoor settings that are specified in the regulations. No retail or transport employee around the country should get any stick from a member of the public if they are called on to wear a face covering, because that is what the law requires individuals to do.

On the action that we have taken, I reassure Mr Rowley that the Cabinet is actively engaged in supporting different sectors in ensuring the effective application of the baseline measures. I highlight three steps in particular. First, for the best part of the past 10 days, members of the Cabinet and our officials have been in regular discussion with all our sectoral contacts to encourage and support them in ensuring that they apply the baseline measures that are necessary. Yesterday, Professor Leitch, I, the chief medical officer and some members of the Cabinet met more than 150 representatives of different sectors of our society—from the operators of some of our transport companies to figures within the retail industry and to other business organisations, representatives of trade unions and the workforce—to reinforce the necessity of the application of the baseline measures. There has been very active dialogue between Cabinet members and our officials with all sectors to try to achieve the objectives that Mr Rowley has correctly highlighted as important.

Secondly, the Government has used public messaging to make sure that the application of baseline measures is clearly understood by members of the public. We have used countless opportunities to reinforce that message.

Thirdly, the Government’s public information and communications campaigns are being adapted to reinforce the message that Mr Rowley talks about. If we do not have a greater application of the baseline measures, we will not achieve the intervention that is required to depress the increasing levels of the virus; if we do not interrupt those increasing levels, more admissions to hospital will naturally flow; and if we have more admissions to hospital, we will have greater pressure on the national health service. Clearly, we are trying to avoid that, and to sustain the recovery in the national health service that is currently under way.

I am whole-heartedly in agreement with Mr Rowley about the importance of members of the public acknowledging and realising that, by applying the baseline measures, we can all play our part in suppressing the rise of Covid in our community and that, although it is not generating the degree of serious illness that it did at a previous stage, it still has the capacity to undermine the sustainability of the national health service.

The cross-party group and this committee have two very distinct roles. I see this committee fulfilling the role of parliamentary accountability, which is at the absolute heart of the operations of Parliament. The committee must be free to explore and examine any question that it considers to be appropriate in relation to Covid recovery.

The cross-party group that we established before the summer recess, which met on a number of occasions before the summer recess and will resume its meeting pattern next week, is designed to try to create a more informal sounding board, so that we can draw together parliamentary opinion on the difficult questions with which we still wrestle. We have a number of those questions on the handling of the pandemic and, given the current pattern of rising case numbers, that challenge remains obvious for members of Parliament for the foreseeable future. We view the cross-party group as providing an opportunity to bring together parliamentary opinion to address some of the difficult challenges that we face.

There is a moral and ethical dilemma in respect of that particular issue, which I suspect could keep us here for a long time debating its contents. We expect to receive advice fairly soon from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in relation to booster jags, and we will be ready to implement a deployment programme for those booster vaccinations when the JCVI gives us its strategic decision.

As the committee will be aware, we have, as our predecessors have, followed the JCVI advice on all questions in relation to vaccination, and we await the advice to come in relation to booster jags.

There is a moral dilemma here. We take part in official discussions with the United Kingdom Government, which takes part in international discussions about the necessity of ensuring fair and equitable access to vaccination around the globe. As Jason Leitch indicated in one of his answers, we know from the data that that remains a significant global problem. Until such time as there is effective vaccination around the world, we will still face significant and acute effects as a consequence of Covid.

That depends on the course of the pandemic and the degree to which it becomes less of a present and prevalent threat to us. The Government is not doing this because it has just decided to do it; we are doing it because we are considering what steps we have to take to protect the population and specifically to try to avoid having to apply further restrictions on the population. We want to avoid that if we possibly can. We consider the proposal to be another step to try to help us to avoid having to take a step of that nature.