Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will make a brief statement to place on record the detail of the regulations.

The regulations before the committee today were made to implement the first phase of lifting the face covering requirements at the beginning of April.

The regulations do three things. First, they remove the requirement for a person who enters or remains indoors within a place of worship to wear a face covering. Secondly, they remove requirements to wear face coverings at marriage ceremonies, civil partnership registrations, funerals and commemorative events related to the end of a person’s life. Finally, the regulations also remove a number of the exemptions from the requirement to wear a face covering that applied in places of worship or at the events I mentioned, because those are no longer required.

By the end of March, the latest wave of coronavirus infection had peaked, or was by then peaking. The Government was therefore able to announce a phased removal of the face covering requirements, with the first phase being put into effect by these regulations. Subsequently, we were able to confirm that the wider requirement for face coverings would be converted to guidance on 18 April.

Motion moved,

That the COVID-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 2022 (SSI 2022/123) be approved.—[John Swinney]

Motion agreed to.

Obviously, we speak to a variety of interested parties about their concerns and anxieties about changes of such a nature but, fundamentally, we need to take an approach that is based on the evidence and the clinical advice that is put to us. You make a valid point about the degree of risk to which individuals are exposed, given the degree of protection that is now in place through the vaccination programme, which will be at a greater degree of intensity for people who have been at higher risk than it will be for others in the general population.

In addition, ministers must wrestle constantly with the question of proportionality, to ensure that our actions can be justified as being proportionate. With any requirements, measures or mechanisms that we have in place, such as the measures for people who are at higher risk, we must be satisfied that they are proportionate to the risk that those individuals face. We must also be satisfied in relation to the degree to which any impact on the wider population is proportionate.

We wrestle with such questions constantly to ensure not only that we are taking the necessary steps, but that those steps are appropriate in the context that we face.

We have undertaken quite a significant amount of communication about the scheme but, from your anecdotal experience in your constituency, it is clear that we have not reached all parts of the community. The Government’s work has been supported by the work of a range of statutory organisations, including our health boards, voluntary sector organisations and local authorities, which have been heavily involved in the scheme’s promotion in localities.

Your question gets to the nub of a genuine difficulty that we face in the context of where we find ourselves in relation to Covid at the moment. In general, people are desperate to move on—they are desperate to think that Covid is all done and dusted. I completely understand that sentiment. However, for some members of the public, measures such as the distance aware scheme are an essential component in assuring them of their personal safety and security.

However good and effective public communication campaigns might be, we must be aware of the fact that we are swimming against a tide of opinion, whereby many people do not want to be troubled by some of the issues in question again. That is not an argument for not doing things such as the distance aware scheme; it is an argument for recognising that the scale of the challenge might be greater than it was before.

I will take away the feedback that you have shared and raise with the teams that are working on the messages on such matters the importance of ensuring that those messages are delivered effectively.

In all the available data, we see a declining prevalence of Covid. On the last data available, the estimated prevalence of Covid in Scotland in the Office for National Statistics infection survey was one in 19 in the population. I remind the committee that, on one of the previous occasions that I was here, we were at one in 11, so there is a significant improvement in that respect. Secondly, the waste-water sampling indicates a declining prevalence of Covid. Those are probably the two most reliable current mechanisms, given that there have been significant changes to the testing arrangements. Although the test numbers show a decline, those numbers are not as reliable as they were in the past when we had a more comprehensive testing regime in place.

I share that detail with the committee to indicate that we are in a stronger position in terms of population health than we have been over the past period, particularly the past three months. Therefore, that will have a beneficial effect on the availability of staff in the critical services to which you referred, convener. It is obvious that our public services have faced a range of challenges because of the availability of staff over the past few months but, with the improving position on the pandemic, there is an improvement in the availability of staff.

I understand the issues that Mr Rowley is raising, but I have to point out that the Government has been taking a number of steps to significantly increase remuneration in the social care sector. We have done that in a number of stages, and social care remuneration is now much higher than the level that we inherited. We are making sustained improvements in that regard.

However, we also have to deal with the financial circumstances that we currently face. I said in response to the convener that a great many of the financial decisions that we take are framed by the political context in which we must operate and the fact that our budget is significantly affected by the UK Government’s decisions on public expenditure. I think that Mr Rowley and I could probably agree that the profile of that is not great; we would like to see higher levels of public expenditure.

Within a tight financial context, we have been boosting social care remuneration. We are not talking about taking action at some point in the future—we are doing that now and have been doing that for the past few years. However, the inescapable problem is that we are still short of people. Mr Rowley has said that he thinks that, at some point in the medium term, Scotland should have distinctive immigration powers but, as we have been saying for a considerable time, we face such challenges in the here and now because of the UK Government’s decisions, which have been dramatically damaging to Scotland’s interests.

We have historically low levels of unemployment in Scotland today. A number of measures are in place, whereby we are trying to expand the workforce by supporting more people who are economically inactive to move into the workforce. Social care is a particular target. With the right support in place, we can mobilise and motivate people in all parts of the country to join the workforce. Whether by taking action on employability, on remuneration for social care staff or on the longer-term developments on integration, we are trying to strengthen the provision that is available for older people and vulnerable individuals, but we must deal with the political realities of the significant constraints that have been placed on us by the UK Government’s decision making.

First, I acknowledge the seriousness and significance of the issue, which matters to many people in our community who lost loved ones in care homes. I express my deep regret and sympathy to everyone who has been affected by the loss of a loved one in a care home. That sense of loss is felt by us all. I acknowledge the issue’s significance and the need for an appropriate exploration of all these questions.

Secondly, as Mr Fraser has highlighted, we are talking about a judgment in an English court on English circumstances and regulations, so it is not directly comparable with the situation in Scotland.

Throughout the Covid pandemic, we have taken decisions that have been designed to protect the public, particularly people with vulnerabilities, to the greatest extent possible in the sphere of a pandemic. That sentiment and approach have guided our decision making in that respect. We will, of course, consider carefully the issues that are raised by the judgment. Beyond what I have said already, that will be the subject of further consideration.

However, consideration of the matter is already taking place. The committee will be aware that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is undertaking an inquiry on the question, and it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on any material that it might be considering. There is explicit provision to consider the matter within the remit of the Covid public inquiry that Lady Poole is convening. She will take evidence on that question as part of the inquiry.

I am not sure that the Scottish Government can say much about a decision in a different jurisdiction on a different basis. However, I reassure members of the public that the issues that lie at the heart of yesterday’s judgment in England will be scrutinised fully by both the Crown and Lady Poole in her inquiry. For completeness, I should say that, although the issue of transfer to care homes is part of Lady Poole’s inquiry, it is for Lady Poole to determine how the issue is pursued, given the inquiry’s independence.

Mr Fraser will appreciate that there is a hypothetical element to his question. Decisions relating to litigation would be taken in the context of that litigation. Wider consideration of such issues that might be relevant to the inquiry that is being conducted by Lady Poole would be a matter for her; it would definitely not be for ministers to take or express a view on that. In a sense, I would separate those questions entirely. If litigation comes, it will have to be addressed, but any implications of such a situation would be for Lady Poole to determine, as part of her independent judgment.

I would rather address the question that Mr Nolan has raised through the route of rearrangement of the appointment on the basis of clinical advice, which I know from other experience is happening. The circumstances that Mr Nolan faces are not particularly different from the circumstances of many other people who have other clinical treatments and where the clinical advice is that they should continue with the treatment that they are getting—for whatever non-Covid issue it is—and get the benefit of the Covid booster vaccination at a different time. That is not an uncommon situation, so I am troubled to hear that, on the basis of that clinical advice, Mr Nolan was not able to readily rearrange his appointment.

That would be the more appropriate and reliable route, rather than having drop-in provision, which might or might not be available. I have previously gone over with the committee some of the challenges of drop-in provision. I would much rather that the circumstances of people such as Mr Nolan were addressed by rearrangement. If Mr Fraser would like to drop me some details about that, I will see what can be done to address the issues.

I ask Professor Leitch whether he would like to add anything.

I am not sure that I can subscribe to the argument that there is evidence of something better being done in England. I can subscribe to the argument that something different is being done with the establishment of long Covid clinics. However, I come back to the answer that I just gave Mr Mason, which is that our health service is founded on the principle that patients should get the treatment that they require and see the people who they need to see to ensure that interventions are appropriate. That founding principle must be honoured, and we must constantly explore whether there is a more effective approach that we could take. That is what the research projects that we have commissioned are all about.

Research work is under way to look at different models and approaches. If there is learning to be gained from examples in other parts of the United Kingdom and across the world, we will be open to that. Our health service is constantly engaged with other health systems to identify the most appropriate interventions to support individuals.