Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. Professor de Londras’s suggestion is also pragmatic. Mr Fraser will probably know that, in parliamentary questions last week, Dr Gulhane made a suggestion to me in relation to this area. There is scope for us to explore how to satisfy legitimate parliamentary concern on being persuaded of the merits of a particular action by the production of, for example, a statement of urgency to justify actions, as Professor de Londras suggests. I am open to discussing how we can properly address that point.

I want the statute book to be equipped with powers that enable us to act swiftly but, in acting swiftly, we also have to act appropriately. If there are other ways to strengthen the provisions of the bill to address those issues, I am open to using them.

As Mr Rowley will have heard from my responses to Mr Fraser’s points, I am willing to discuss with members of the Parliament of all shades of opinion how we can address any issues that are causing concern. I rehearsed with Mr Fraser the issues around what might be put on the record in relation to the justification for the use of any of the powers in advance. I hope that that is interpreted as a welcome and positive step in that respect.

On the wider point that Mr Rowley raises with me about particular powers, I would make the point that they can only be exercised in relation to a specific and significant risk to public health. It cannot happen any day of the week; it can only happen where there is a significant risk to public health. That is trigger point number 1: there must be a justifiable case.

Secondly, if ministers were to utilise those powers, they would have to come to Parliament to exercise them, either through the affirmative process, whereby Parliament itself would be able to judge whether they were required or not, or through the made affirmative process, whereby Parliament gives its consent once the Government has taken its actions, although that is conditional on the Government taking those steps and Parliament giving its consent. Therefore, there are a number of safeguards on the exercise of any of those responsibilities.

I hope that that provides some reassurance to Mr Rowley. However, I reiterate what I said to him at the start of my answer: that I am happy to engage with other parties. As I have said, I will consider and engage with the recommendations that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee made. I do not want to pre-empt what the COVID-19 Recovery Committee as the lead committee will say but I will be very happy to engage with it on its stage 1 report and any recommendations that it makes.

It is not an either/or. We must ensure that we have arrangements in place to meet everybody’s needs. For some people, registering remotely will be much more convenient and straightforward and they will be happy to do so. Others might feel reticent and anxious about it and an in-person appointment might suit them better. The best way to approach that is by providing the options that enable us to better meet all individuals’ needs in recognition that those might differ from individual to individual.

I contend that there are adequate measures in the legislation that set out how that can be undertaken. I think that the question that the Parliament needs to consider is whether those powers are appropriate and whether they can be exercised in a proportionate and appropriate fashion. All those factors need to be considered, and I think that all of that is achieved by the terms of the bill, but if the committee or members make particular suggestions, I will, of course, engage on those questions.

I am certainly happy to consider that. The thrust of the legislation is to ensure that we have an appropriate way of making the process more efficient and minimising disruption. In doing my constituency work over the pandemic, I have been struck by how the use of technology has significantly enhanced my ability to conveniently engage with constituents. Instead of people having to drive from Rannoch station to Blairgowrie, because that is where I happen to be that day, a Zoom call can save them a round trip of about four hours to see their member of the Scottish Parliament. To my shame, that had never dawned on me until the pandemic.

There is a desire in that part of the bill to secure the opportunities for greater efficiency and effectiveness that arise from our experience of the pandemic. I think that we should be open to doing that, but not in a way that would make the process disadvantageous to individuals. Mr Fairlie’s point is that that approach might be disadvantageous to a licensing applicant.

An important point to add is that it is the responsibility of licensing boards and authorities to ensure that virtual meetings and hearings are conducted in a manner that meets the accessibility and engagement requirements of attendees. Therefore, the onus is on the body to make sure that its approach can meet the needs of the licence applicant. However, if there is a need for us to make that more explicit, I am happy to consider that.

I would. I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to discuss a number of matters, including updates to Parliament on Covid-19. As the First Minister set out yesterday, we are currently experiencing high numbers of cases in Scotland, and that reflects the impact of the BA.2 variant, which we know to be even more infectious than the original omicron variant.

Alongside infection levels, the high number of people in hospital with Covid, even if they were admitted for another condition, is putting the national health service under severe strain. There are, however, some grounds for optimism that the latest wave of the pandemic may now have peaked, and we will continue to assess the data closely to see whether those early signs are indeed indicative of a sustained fall in cases.

Despite the infectiousness of the BA.2 variant, vaccination continues to provide good protection against serious illness, and our programme of booster jags for certain groups is now under way. The programme started three weeks ago in older people’s care homes and, from last week, appointments are being offered to everyone aged 75 and over. People with suppressed immune systems will have appointments scheduled during spring and summer. In line with the advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, vaccination of the wider five to 11-year-old age group started on 19 March and will continue over coming weeks.

Vaccination remains the most important thing that any of us can do to protect ourselves and others, and the Scottish Government is continuing to ensure that as many people as possible are vaccinated.

As I mentioned, our NHS is facing very significant pressure and, in tackling the virus, we must be attentive to its needs. For the period up until Easter, we are continuing to ask everyone to take a lateral flow test twice a week. People should take a test daily for seven days if they are a close contact of a positive case, and they should take a test before visiting someone who is vulnerable. Someone who has symptoms should get a polymerase chain reaction—PCR—test and, if they test positive, they should isolate and follow advice from test and protect.

Using the approach set out in our revised strategic framework, and based on clinical advice, our assessment is that the virus continues to present a medium threat, although we remain optimistic that it will move to being a low threat during the spring and summer.

We have largely moved away from using legally imposed protective measures to control the virus; instead, we are relying on vaccines, treatments and sensible public health behaviours and adaptations. When most legal requirements were lifted earlier in March, we retained in law the requirement to wear face coverings on public transport and in certain indoor settings. Cabinet has now agreed to convert the legal requirement to guidance in a phased approach. From 4 April, it will no longer be a legal requirement to wear a face covering in places of worship or while attending a marriage ceremony, a civil partnership registration or a funeral service or commemorative event. From 18 April, the wider legal requirement that applies to shops, certain other indoor settings and public transport will be converted to guidance. Through guidance, we will continue to encourage the wearing of face coverings where appropriate.

I am happy to answer questions from the committee.

I will address the last point first because it is a gateway to the whole question. All things being equal, I would like us to maintain a pretty significant level of lateral flow testing. That would be beneficial. It provides a lot of intelligence and assurance. However, I have to look at the hard financial realities in the wake of the United Kingdom Government’s decision on what it is prepared to fund, because of its direct effect on the consequential funding that is available to the Scottish Government. Because the decision limits that funding, it is difficult for us to sustain more than the larger proposition that we are already putting in place.

A testing environment will still be in place for health and social care staff, and it will continue to be free. As for school staff, I am obviously aware of the EIS campaign, and I am very familiar with the strength of opinion in the EIS and among school staff with regard to the importance of testing arrangements remaining in place. We are maintaining those arrangements for longer than in other parts of the UK but, unfortunately, the decisions of the UK Government are placing limitations on us.

The Government has looked carefully at all the temporary measures that were put in place, some of which had a particular time limit and have expired. The Government has operated on the principle that we do not want to keep in place temporary measures for any longer than is required.

A range of temporary provisions were put in place for the pandemic that we judge are no longer necessary and do not need to be included in the permanent legislation that we are proposing. We have identified in the proposed legislation a number of provisions that have arisen out of our experience of the pandemic, particularly with regard to the administration of public services, and which we judge to be of practical benefit to the public and, therefore, in the public interest. We have advanced proposals of that nature.

The bill proposes to take steps to ensure that we are in a position to manage for a longer period the disruption caused to the justice system by the pandemic. As a consequence, it includes a range of temporary justice provisions that purely and simply ensure that we can support the recovery of the justice system after the huge amount of disruption that the pandemic caused.

Essentially, I do not view that as being particularly different from the review process that ministers regularly undertake of the restrictions that we have found it necessary to put in place. Ministers have reviewed the measures that we have had in place every 21 days. We have had to consider whether the restrictions remain proportionate and we have had to report to Parliament about those provisions. My predecessors and I have appeared in front of the committee on a regular basis to consider those points.

What we have done until now in relation to scrutiny has generally been agreed with the parliamentary authorities. If members wish to advance specific amendments to the provisions as to what the review might look like or entail, we could consider that as part of the bill process. Fundamentally, the willingness to be open and accountable in relation to the explanation of any of the provisions lies at the heart of what the Government intends to do.