Seòmar agus comataidhean

With regard to people on lower incomes, the data that I have looked at shows a stark reduction in vaccination take-up in the under-40 age group. I have to say that the situation is not unique to Scotland—it goes across the UK—but there has definitely been a stark reduction in take-up of the third dose. Likewise, when the Office for National Statistics compared vaccination take-up and free school meals data, it found a clear correlation between lower socioeconomic status, deprivation and poverty and vaccination uptake, particularly with regard to the third dose. That was in England, but there is no reason why the same should not apply to Scotland. Have you found that to be the case? Does the Scottish Government need to consider further action to encourage vaccination uptake, particularly in those areas and amongst those groups where it is lowest?

On the basis of the evidence that we have taken so far, I would say that there is general support for many of the measures and proposals in the bill. To oppose many of them would be to do so for the sake of it, because they make sense—I get that. One area that is clearly causing problems, however, is the Henry VIII clause, as it is called. As I understand it, it is basically

“a statutory power given by the legislature to the executive to alter or repeal primary legislation, without reference to the ordinary parliamentary processes of scrutiny and amendment required for Bills. While powers of this kind have been used by the UK government to adapt the statute book to the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, Henry VIII powers are rightly controversial, as they infringe upon the separation of powers, give legislative functions to the executive, and can be imposed with modest opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in circumstances when they are used on an emergency basis.”

You can see that there is genuine and sincere concern. Along with your partners, the Greens, you have a majority in the Parliament, so there is no doubt that you could ram the legislation through regardless. Given that there are genuine and serious concerns, particularly about that part of the bill, among those of us who believe that most of the bill makes sense, are you willing to sit down with other parties, have a discussion and reconsider the genuine concerns that are being expressed?

Good morning, and best wishes, cabinet secretary.

How do the public health powers in the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill compare with the equivalent powers in England and Wales?

I will come to David McNeill next. When universal credit was being rolled out, I visited a number of third sector and local authority projects that put in place a lot of intensive support because, as you know, people had to use online tools to register, search and so on. That was difficult for a lot of people but, among the local authorities and third sector organisations that I met, there was a real attempt to provide support. Does such support need to accompany the bill? Does there need to be recognition that greater support will be needed at community level? Should funding be made available for that?

Mairi Millar, you said that the systems that were brought in were brought in out of necessity. Has any local authority carried out an evaluation of the experience so far? You said that there was room for improvement in systems, so has there been an evaluation? For example, do local authorities know where those improvements are needed? What are the barriers to that?

Thank you.

I will pick up where Murdo Fraser left off with Adam Stachura. From what I am picking up, it seems as though the witnesses broadly welcome part 3 of the bill and see it as a positive. However, given the concerns that exist, should there be something in the bill that says that the public can access services face to face? Should some kind of protections be built in? If so, what should they be?

My question is for Adam Stachura. Has good practice been developed on the digital agenda for older people? Could any amendments be made to that part of the bill to improve access to digital services, particularly for older people?

My next question is for Douglas Hendry. Under sections 18 and 20 of the bill, local registration offices are given quite a lot of discretion on the extent to which they offer remote registrations of births, deaths and so on, and on the methods. Is there a danger that we will end up with 32 different set-ups, with only some local authorities providing face-to-face services? Should clearer guidance be given to local authorities, so that we do not exclude people, but encourage greater take-up of online tools?

John Mason has made the point that the virus is not over. I hope and pray that we do not have other variants that mean that we have to go backwards again, but there is no certainty in any of that. I think that, given where we are, given where we have been and given the level of Covid just now, the majority of people in Scotland believe that the restrictions are not unreasonable. In fact, somebody said to me the other day that everybody knows somebody with Covid, so I do not think it unreasonable for us to have some protections, such as face coverings.

In a BBC television interview last night, somebody said that if, after all the suffering that there has been in Scotland, the worst that we had to suffer was having to wear a mask for a few more weeks just to have those protections, such a proposal would be perfectly reasonable. This debate is more about playing party politics than anything else. It is trying to create division where we should be creating unity, so I will certainly support the motions today.