Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do I have time for one more question, convener?

Thank you.

Yesterday, in the Court of Session, James Mure appeared for the Scottish Government. According to reporting by the BBC’s Philip Sim, who is an excellent court reporter, Mr Mure told the court:

“there is ample time for the government’s evidence paper ... to be considered by all parties before the vaccine passport scheme is actually ‘enforced’, on 18 October, rather than when the regulations come into force on Friday”,

which is tomorrow. I do not understand what that comment is supposed to mean, because the regulations have been made and come into force tomorrow. Did he intend to mean that the Scottish Government might review the matter before 18 October or withdraw the regulations? What did he mean?

I have a lot more questions that I would like to ask, but I am afraid that we do not have time.

I will try to be brief. I have some specific questions about the terms of the regulations. I will ask one and see how we get on.

There is a new power of entry contained in regulation 16A of the draft instrument that we saw yesterday afternoon, which gives power to enter a property without warrant where permission to enter is refused, to ensure that an offence is not committed under the regulations. That power can be exercised by a police officer or a local authority officer. How does the Scottish Government foresee those regulations being enforced? For example, do you see there being a role for the police in that regard?

There is much more that I could ask, but I think that we are out of time.

Thank you. In view of the time, I will leave it at that.

I have one more question about the draft regulations. There is a provision in new regulation 7E that sets out the list of exempt events. Subparagraph (c) of regulation 7E exempts

“an event designated by the Scottish Ministers as a flagship event according to criteria, and in a list, published by the Scottish Ministers”.

That gives a very wide power to the Scottish ministers. We have no definition of what “a flagship event” is. Will you explain what is envisaged there? What would fall under that list?

Thank you, convener, and apologies for my late arrival, which was due to a train being cancelled.

Picking up on Professor Drury’s interesting comments about backfire effects, I think that one would have expected the introduction of vaccination passports to encourage take-up of vaccinations, but your argument is that, according to some evidence, it might be having the opposite effect on some groups. That seems counterintuitive, and it would be worth exploring that further with Professor Drury and the other panellists.

I have two questions that might help to form the discussion. First, would it assist with the groups that you mentioned if the vaccination passport had an end date? Would that make any difference? Secondly, as an alternative exclusively to vaccination passports, would it make a difference if, as has happened in other countries, there were an alternative to testing at venues? For example, people could either be double vaccinated or produce negative test results.

Perhaps we could start with Professor Drury.

Good morning. I have a large number of questions that I would like to ask, but time constraints will allow me to ask only a fraction of them. However, we will see how we get on. My questions relate to the draft regulations and evidence paper that we got yesterday afternoon.

On the issue of allowing negative polymerase chain reaction tests as an alternative to proof of double vaccination, at paragraph 5.1 of your evidence paper, you say:

“Scotland will be the only European country that will adopt a vaccine only certification scheme with no option to provide a negative PCR or antigen test result or proof of recovery from a previous COVID-19 infection within a predetermined time period.”

In evidence this morning, we heard from experts, including Professor Drury, who talked about the backfire effects of requiring vaccination certification, and how it might depress vaccine take-up among those who are already vaccine hesitant. On that basis, and given that every other European country allows testing as an alternative, why was that not considered by the Scottish Government?

Do I have time for one more quick question, convener?