Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. I assumed that the Law Society would want to ensure that the legislation that is going through Parliament is first of all clear; secondly, that it is supported by evidence; and thirdly, that it is going through the most appropriate route.

If the Government comes back in two weeks and says that the scheme will be extended to attendances of more than 8,000 or 6,000 or 4,000 at a football game, would we be satisfied that it has gone through the correct measures? Was the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee correct when it said that the scientific evidence for that step is not there and that it should come through primary legislation so that it can be properly scrutinised and understood by the public?

My question is for Dr McMillan. With regard to how the legislation has been brought forward, are you satisfied that the Government has clearly set out the evidence and the science that sits behind what it proposes? When the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee at Westminster looked at the matter from the UK Government perspective, it concluded that the scientific evidence was not there and that such a major step should require primary legislation. Given that the legislation was rushed through and Parliament was divided along political lines, are you satisfied that the evidence has been provided?

Do you believe that the objective of the legislation, as well as what the Government thinks it will achieve, is clear to the public? Is it clear how the Government will measure the outcomes that it is trying to achieve? Has the Government brought forward the scientific evidence to back that up and to demonstrate that the scheme is the best way to achieve those outcomes?

Do you accept that there is evidence that football matches are a serious risk? The First Minister said that it was considering vaccination passports or much more restrictive measures such as cancelling games. Do you accept that?

Misinformation is a big concern. I speak out against it, and was glad to hear the First Minister speak out against it last week. We need to be less namby-pamby with such people, and to confront the misinformation that they are spreading.

How are discussions about the current laws going with the retail and transport sectors? I have raised this point before; shop workers tell me that their managers do not see it being the role of shops to enforce anything to do with wearing face coverings. That means that we can go into some Scottish chain shops and see the staff wearing masks but fewer and fewer other people doing so. Do you agree that it is the case that, over time, as fewer people abide by the rules, the rules will become pretty pointless? I once mentioned Aldi’s green-light system to you. Other retailers have good systems in place and they approach people about wearing masks. However, some do not, so shop workers are being left vulnerable.

Has Scottish football had the opportunity to contribute to this? We talked earlier about footballers acting as role models, but have clubs been able to discuss this matter? You accept that the law has been passed, but other clubs could be affected by these measures next week, or the limit beyond which these measures would apply could be reduced to 6,000 or even 4,000 fans. Is there a better way that can be found? Have the clubs discussed this among themselves? Surely we should not just always accept such moves, especially if there are questions about the evidence. Are there better ways of reaching young people, and does football have a role to play in that respect?

Mr Stevenson, are we any closer to having a clear definition of “nightclub”? How are the preparations going and what discussions are you having with the Government on introducing this measure?

This morning, the front pages of the Daily Record and The Scotsman carried horror stories about people not getting ambulances. They are real-life stories. How prepared are we for this winter? Even before Covid, the NHS struggled in winter—we all know that, and I have dealt with it in various forums. How prepared are we, given that we are in a pandemic and that people will be out and about so we can expect issues with things such as flu? Should the public be concerned about getting through the winter?

Is there clarity across the licensing trade about the measures that are already in place? A few weeks ago, I was in a restaurant and the rules were clear: when you went in, you had to have a mask on—there were signs telling you that—and you were able to use the app on your phone to clock in and register for test and protect. However, I have been in a couple of bars where there was none of that whatsoever. There seem to be similar differences on public transport and in other areas, so it is not just an issue for the licensed trade. My concern is that a lot of the measures that we have in place, such as social distancing and face coverings, seem to be on the wane. Do you find that? Is clear guidance and support available for publicans to ensure that the laws that are in place are able to help in the way they are meant to?

You are right to continue to make the arguments that you put forward, just as the Scottish Football Association is doing. This should not be a question of just accepting things.

How is the licensed trade recovering? Are we getting back to pre-Covid levels of jobs? I assume that you will overcome the passport stuff quite easily, but are there bigger challenges for the trade in the post-Covid period?