Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much, convener. I appreciate the offer to allow me to come and sit with the committees today.

I have a couple of questions on ADPs and MAT standards, but I would like to start immediately with deaths among young people. It is a topical issue, as there was a death in my constituency a couple of weeks ago, at a festival, as a result of someone taking drugs. I have had meetings with the festival organisers, whom I had met beforehand, and they are exemplars in providing a safe space, with a state-of-the-art medical facility on site, security and healthcare staff.

Very sadly, the young lady died having ingested substances before she attended the festival, so there was nothing that a zero-tolerance approach could have done to protect her. However, there is a perverse reality in the way that we are policing our festivals in Scotland at the moment, as opposed to the approach in England. We have a zero-tolerance approach to drug use at festivals, and I understand that, on paper, that sounds compelling. In England, there is pill testing, with a recognition that some people will just get high at festivals; we want them to be able to do so in safety.

Have you considered having discussions with the Lord Advocate around the policing of such events, so that we can allow young people, or people of any age, to attend festivals as safely as possible, with a recognition that we will just not stop people choosing to take substances on occasion and that we need to allow them to do so in safety, as is done in England and Wales?

I am grateful.

Despite some success in the recent implementation of the MAT standards, it is still proving difficult to access same-day services in rural areas, in which clinics are few and far between. What are your plans to increase the provision of same-day services in rural and harder-to-reach areas?

Thank you very much for bringing me back in, convener. The minister knows about my party’s long-held support for safe consumption rooms. That speaks to the approach that we discussed in our earlier exchange, which is about understanding that people will always consume; that zero tolerance does not work; and that we need to help people to consume as safely as possible if that is their choice.

The matter now rests with the Lord Advocate. We know from yesterday’s events that she has been very busy. Is the Lord Advocate working to a timeline? Do you have an expectation of when she will come back to you on the matter? With every week that goes by, lives are potentially not being saved.

May I have a final question, convener?

Good morning, panel. I have just one question that I hope will be pretty straightforward.

Section 5.1 of the Government’s evidence paper, which was produced last night, states that the scheme first and foremost

“aims to ... Reduce the risk of transmission”.

Driving vaccine uptake is in fact ancillary to that, as it is the fourth bullet point. That chimes, I think, with the theme that the Government is trying to set out in its case, which is that Covid ID cards and vaccination certification are in and of themselves tools of infection control. When I asked the First Minister to respond to the fact that 5,000 cases occurred at an event that had required vaccination passports, she stated as indisputable fact that, without those passports, transmission would have been worse. As Professor Stephen Reicher is leaving, I will start with him. Do you think that that is fact? Would the situation at that event have been worse had there been no vaccination certification?

I want to bring in Professor Drury, who has spoken extensively about behavioural science in this area. Given the significant coverage that vaccination already enjoys across the UK, is there a tipping point—I am thinking of an event such as the Boardmasters event in Cornwall, where there were 5,000 infections—at which the benefits of people evidencing their vaccinated status versus the risks of them dispensing with some of the precautions and indulging in riskier behaviour because of that means that it is more of a liability than an asset to ask for Covid certification?

Thank you, convener. I have no relevant interests.

Of course. I am happy to concede that point. My anxiety is that, as we have heard from eminent academics this morning, vaccination certification could drive down uptake in hesitant—or, rather, vaccine-sceptical—groups. If they feel browbeaten, they might not take up vaccination.

Thank you for that. My final area of questioning is about proportionality.

Last week, we heard from the Scottish Human Rights Commission that there is anxiety that the scheme will roll back our application of human rights, including statutory ones. Judith Robertson, the chair, made it clear that it is acceptable for states to do that in times of pressing need—obviously, coronavirus is a pressing need—but only if the scheme that is being introduced and the rollback of rights that goes with it can demonstrably impact on pushing down against that need. She also talked about proportionality, as did you.

My question is on the evidence of proportionality. Meeting the test that was set to us by the Scottish Human Rights Commission requires the Government to evidence that it has considered alternatives to the scheme. Are you satisfied that you have considered the use of testing as an alternative to vaccination certification to an extent that would satisfy the Scottish Human Rights Commission?

I put the same question to Professor Dye.