Contents
- Attendance
- Covid-19 Vaccination Programme
- Subordinate Legislation
Subordinate Legislation
Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) Amendment (No 5) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/400)
Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) Amendment (No 6) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/415)
Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) Amendment (No 7) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/427)
Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 [Draft]
Item 2 is evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs, Michael Russell MSP, and Professor Jason Leitch, who is the national clinical director with the Scottish Government.
We will cover a lot of matters this morning, including the latest ministerial statement on Covid-19 and the two-monthly report to Parliament under the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 and the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020. The committee will also consider three made affirmative instruments and the draft regulations arising from this week’s review.
I welcome the cabinet secretary to the meeting and invite him to make a brief opening statement.
Thank you, convener. I am sorry that there is so much for us to consider today, but I will be as brief as I can.
[Inaudible.]—the sixth review of the allocation of levels. That review again followed a cautious approach, especially in advance of the festive arrangements, with the majority of local authorities remaining at their current level. However, that is against the background of rises in the past week across a number of local authorities in several of the indicators that the framework uses.
Three local authorities—Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and East Lothian—will move from level 2 to level 3 from tomorrow. We also confirmed, in recognition of the low incidence of Covid and as a means to combat social isolation, that we have decided to relax restrictions on in-home socialising on a number of Argyll and Bute islands. Those islands will now be able to follow the six-two rule that currently applies to many islands in level 1 areas.
However, we had concerns about an increase in case numbers in some other local authority areas, and we are continuing to keep those situations under review. We have already confirmed that there will be a review next week, but our general aim, from this week’s allocation, remains that the levels should be in place until the first review point in January. However, should changes be needed during the next period, which is not our intention or wish, I have offered to make myself available to the committee, were it to decide to meet during the recess.
I turn to the three sets of regulations. The first set—the amendment (No 5) regulations—ensures that students are able to leave their current place of residence at the end of term. The amendment (No 6) regulations and the amendment (No 7) regulations make provision for the festive bubble arrangements and allow holiday accommodation to be used in level 4 areas for some specific reasons. They also make adjustments to the level allocations in 16 areas of Scotland, as set out in the First Minister’s statement last week. They also allow in-home socialising to take place on certain islands, and they adjust travel restrictions to Jersey and the Republic of Ireland.
The draft amendment regulations implement the changes that were announced in the First Minister’s statement on Tuesday and make a tweak to the rules regarding marriage receptions and funeral wakes in level 0 and level 1. They also adjust the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (Scotland) Regulations 2020. They set out that the period in which a social housing eviction order decree for rent arrears must be executed is extended by the duration of the eviction ban.
All the regulations will come into force at 6pm tomorrow.
The fourth report to the Parliament was published last week—along with a statement from myself—and covers the period to 30 November. Over and above the reporting requirements set out in the coronavirus acts, we have reported in more detail on a set of 22 statutory provisions, which we judge at this time to be of most impact and of interest to the Parliament for other reasons.
We are also reporting on a total of 60 Scottish statutory instruments with a main purpose that relates to coronavirus, as required under section 14 of the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020. We are, I hope, demonstrating that accountability is integral to our efforts to suppress the virus.
Our reports include the third report to Parliament on freedom of information, which I am happy to discuss.
Finally—I am sure that the convener will be pleased to hear that this is my final point—looking ahead to the new year, I am very mindful that only one further review of the statutory provisions is possible under the terms of the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 and that, if the act was renewed, it would expire at the end of September 2021. As I said in response to Donald Cameron in Parliament last week, I think that the appropriate time to take a view on whether any further extension is required will be when we come to the next two-monthly reporting process at the end of January.
I emphasise that it absolutely remains the Government’s intention to have these exceptional provisions in place for no longer than is necessary. Equally, however, it is essential that we continue to have the tools that we need to deal with the consequences of the Covid pandemic. As we have seen this week, that is a difficult balancing act, and we will all need to think carefully about what we should do in the run-up to the expiry of the provisions at the end of March. Of course, Parliament will have the final say on any extension.
I hope that all that was helpful, if a little lengthy.
Before we turn to questions, I remind members that there is a lot to cover today and that we have approximately eight minutes each for questions and answers. It would therefore be really helpful if we could all be as concise as possible. As with the previous item of business, if there is time for supplementary questions, I will try to take them at the end. Members should indicate in the chat function if they have a supplementary question.
The cabinet secretary touched on the two-monthly reports, the latest of which we are considering this morning. The end of the next reporting period will be close to the expiry date for coronavirus acts. Reflecting on the use of the powers over the past two months and their on-going necessity, will the cabinet secretary say a little bit more about the plans that Government is currently making for extending the acts beyond 31 March 2021?
Given the significance of the next extension period covering a dissolution or pre-election recess period, will the Government ensure that Parliament has 40 days to consider an extension of the legislation, if an extension is, indeed, requested by the Scottish Government?
It is certainly my hope that we can stick to all the regulations that we have in place in relation to consideration. I have made it crystal clear that Parliament will have the final say, which is absolutely the correct approach. We will have to balance the situation as it exists at the time with our expectation of what will take place.
On the positive side, the roll-out of the vaccine is taking place, which the committee has just taken evidence on. That is an important step and will be helpful. On the downside, we are in a more difficult position this Christmas than many of us had hoped to be, even three months ago. We have to be mindful of the fact that many of the things in the regulations are needed and will remain needed.
I would like to have a full and open discussion about the issue. The committee might want to have an evidence session in which we discuss that, and only that, to look at the details. A good time to do so would be the end of January.
Of course, we cannot pick and choose from the legislation. We can switch provisions off, but we cannot put new things into it or make things permanent, which is good. Therefore, we have a series of decisions to make. As you said, at the end of March, we will go into an election period, for which we are making special arrangements in other legislation, so we will need to be mindful of what we can and cannot do. I hope that we can approach that together as parliamentarians and find a way forward.
10:45
That is helpful. Thank you.
You mentioned the roll-out of the vaccine, on which we had a very useful session earlier. Does the Scottish Government have any concerns about the potential impact of Brexit on the vaccine supply chain? Can you give us an update on the discussions that are taking place between the Scottish and UK Governments in that regard?
I answered a question on that from Pauline McNeill in the chamber yesterday. We are all concerned about the situation, but there is a strong determination by all the Governments of these islands to prioritise the delivery of the vaccine. You will have seen press coverage of the arrangements that are being made to directly ship it by air, if necessary, by military aircraft into various airports. It will be a category 1 product and prioritised in that way.
It will not be a surprise to anybody on the committee that there are strong tensions between the Governments of these islands on a range of issues. However, on the roll-out of the vaccine, as on many issues, there has been a strong attempt to work closely together and to benefit from one another’s experience, knowledge and determination. Therefore, I am as confident as I can be, as is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, that the vaccine roll-out will continue according to plan, as indeed it must.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. We move on to questions from members.
I will ask Professor Leitch about the situation in Edinburgh. The figures over the past week completely vindicate the Government’s position that Edinburgh needed to stay at level 3 and not drop to level 2. What do you see as the wider trends in our larger conurbations? A few areas have moved from level 4 to level 3, but the indicators then appear quite sticky. What is influencing that? Is it shopping? Is it relaxation of restrictions? What should we be mindful of?
Hello again, everybody, and thank you for having me.
You asked an excellent question—it is one that the world is finding tricky. Every mainstream country, if I can put it that way, that has developed a levels structure—I am thinking of the Republic of Ireland, France and Germany, or even Australia—is struggling with exactly where that balance sits, and the balance appears to be different in urban and rural areas, as we discussed last week. The balance also seems to be different depending on where an area is when it comes into and leaves a level.
We have created a slightly artificial argument about the range of data at which an area should enter and leave a level, but the reality is more dynamic than that. Should we wait until an area is near the bottom of level 2 before it gets into level 2? Should it not move out of level 2 until it is sustainably in level 1? That is the kind of thing that we are learning.
We have been doing this for only a few weeks. Over the next few weeks, the plan is not only to have reviews, as we have had, but to review the processes and the nature of those reviews. Should we add other elements of data? Should we add something about the dynamic nature of the data, rather than having a fixed point. People are obviously attached to having fixed points—for example, if an area gets under 100, it becomes level X. Of course, however, it is not as simple as that, because a local authority the size of Edinburgh, with X hundred thousand residents, does not behave as simply as that. We will try and refine that with advice for the decision makers, who will choose whether to take that advice.
The second part of the question about what drives the stickiness is very difficult to answer. As you and I have discussed many times, I do not think that it is driven by one thing.
As we move down through our levels or the English tiers—whatever you want to call them—we bring people together. There is no question but that, when we bring people together, particularly when prevalence is still at a relatively high level, the virus accelerates. All the global curves show that prevalence goes up quickly and comes down slowly. The incubation period means that reducing the prevalence of the virus happens slowly, but that it is easy to get exponential growth—we see from the R number that one person can infect many others. That is what this horrid virus does. I wish it were not like that, but that is the nature of the infectious agent.
The protection levels are a relatively blunt tool—we have discussed that many times. Level 3 reduces interaction more than in level 2, and level 2 reduces interaction more than at level 1. The levels try to tackle all the elements: hospitality, retail, gyms—wherever people come together. The balance will not be completely correct, but it is our best attempt and we are getting better at it.
I turn to the modelling of the Christmas relaxation rules that have been brought to the committee in the amendment (No 6) regulations. I am still trying to understand what modelling has been done. The other day, Chris Whitty said that there has been a lot of modelling of the impact of different numbers of people mixing in different settings. I do not see that evidence being brought to the committee, nor do I see any assessment of the four harms.
What evidence, risk assessment or modelling has been used to look at the impact of the Christmas relaxation regulations?
Jason Leitch should address that, but part of it is evidential and based on past experience. We have seen what happens when people get together, when the virus can spread between them. Some of it is axiomatic: we have stopped people gathering in one another’s homes because we know that that is a factor; ergo, if people gather in one another’s homes, even in limited numbers and in bubbles, that will have an effect.
Jason Leitch will want to say more about the detail, and about the science and the experience behind it, but the regulations are based on nine months’ experience of the virus. That is not a long time, but that is the experience that we based the regulations on.
The blunt answer to Mr Ruskell’s question is that it is difficult to model. There are two UK-wide scientific pandemic insight groups—SPI-B, which is the group for behavioural science, and SPI-M, which is the modelling committee—that feed into SAGE, the scientific advisory group for emergencies, and we have equivalents that feed into our scientific advisory group.
Chris Whitty is right to say that there is a lot of modelling. The modelling that the Scottish Government publishes every week is an attempt to look at bed usage and the impact on intensive care units, for example.
It is tricky to model what will happen over the five-day Christmas period. We know from polling that between 50 and 60 per cent of people say that they will not do anything that is different from what is permitted in the regulations for the level that their area is in, and that 25 per cent are pretty convinced that we should let people do as they please.
It is difficult to work out the present prevalence in each area. Mixing in a house in Orkney will be different if a lot of Londoners arrive; it will not be so bad if no Londoners arrive. It is difficult to make the presumptions that feed into the modelling black box. We have tried to do that as best we can. Fundamentally, the more that people mix, the higher the prevalence; the less that people mix, the lower the prevalence. I do not have to tell you that—everybody knows it.
It is difficult to be accurate. As the First Minister said again yesterday, and as you have heard the leaders of the four nations say, a judgment was made that it is better to have some relaxation and some advice, rather than none.
I want to pick up—[Inaudible.]—some weeks ago. Professor Leith can add his comments if he wishes.
We are looking at Christmas, but Hogmanay will come along soon after. I suppose that the message will be, “Don’t do Hogmanay.” I recall that specific guidance was issued for Halloween, for example. What is the Scottish Government planning for Hogmanay? Even in Scotland, a lot of stuff happens outdoors but, equally, the kind of stuff that happens outdoors is probably not the kind of stuff that the Government would encourage.
Do not do Hogmanay—that is the advice. Obviously, people are permitted to meet outdoors, and they might wish to meet outdoors at midnight, but they should not, in any sense, do that if they do not feel that they should. If people meet outdoors, the rules where they live, including social distancing rules, have to be applied to the letter.
There is no relaxation at Hogmanay. We are being clear in saying to people that they should meet at Christmas only if they feel that they have to do that because of the other harms. Yesterday, the First Minister was clear about how restrained the contact should be. Please try to avoid staying in other people’s houses. Do not feel that you have to meet up. Keep the numbers even lower than are permitted.
There is no relaxation of the requirements where people live at Hogmanay—no ifs, no buts. As you said, people can mix outdoors, but the numbers should be very limited. If people feel that they should not do that, and if there is any risk at all—there will be risk—they should be very careful about the decisions that they make.
There is a great element of common sense to this. The vaccine is becoming available. We are in the midst of a very difficult period. The relaxation at Christmas was much discussed and debated—even then, new guidance indicates how limited the relaxation should be.
There are no arrangements for Hogmanay—no ifs, no buts. The rules pertaining to that time are what should be followed. This morning, many members will have seen the BBC’s reporting on parties. The vast majority of people are observing the rules, but the people who are not are putting themselves and others at serious risk, including risk of death. They need to be reminded of that constantly. Legal sanctions are available, and they are applied.
That is very clear: do not do Hogmanay.
My next question is for Professor Leitch, but if the cabinet secretary wishes to comment, too, that would be welcome. What is the current thinking on how long the roll-out of the flu vaccine should be pursued? We hope that further supplies of the Pfizer vaccine and other duly approved vaccines will arrive. At what point should we switch resource, if that would be beneficial with respect to potential harms?
Let me add a sentence or two to Mr Russell’s answer on Hogmanay. I underline his very clear advice. Hogmanay is not cancelled, but gatherings at Hogmanay are cancelled. People should still celebrate. We did not cancel mothers day, Easter or Halloween. We cannot cancel wonderful, systematic annual events such as Eid, Hanukkah and Christmas, but they are different this year. Hogmanay will be very different. Our challenge was that, given the potential increase in prevalence as a result of the Christmas relaxation, adding another relaxation six or seven days later could have resulted in that positivity being spread further around. That is why our strong advice was that there should not be the same relaxation for Hogmanay.
You make an excellent point about flu and Covid vaccines. The first good news is that, on 17 December, the number of flu cases remains unseasonably low. That is excellent news, but it is not entirely unexpected. The southern hemisphere had a good flu season, and we are all washing our hands, keeping distant and cleaning our surfaces, which will help with other infectious diseases. Flu is not not here, but the number of cases is quite low.
As we always say, the flu vaccination continues through the winter. It is therefore not too late to get your flu vaccine. Although a lot of the flu vaccination has been done and it tails off into December and January, you should still get it if you are invited to go or if you have been invited to go but have not yet gone, because it will still protect you into February and March when flu could still be around and could cause you serious harm, particularly if you are in a senior group.
11:00The difference with the Covid vaccine just now is that we do not have hundreds of thousands of doses and it is a relatively niche market. We have people doing Covid vaccination specifically in hospitals and care homes; we are not yet doing it in GP practices or in mass vaccination centres. However, we will do that, and that is when we will begin to think about the workforce—we are planning for exactly that. As flu vaccination falls away, we will be able to replace it with Covid vaccination.
The Pfizer vaccine is not really suitable for GP practices just now, because there are 975 doses, so you need to find 975 people to vaccinate and you need to do that fast. That works if you have a big centre, but not if you have a small centre. However, once we get all the regulations, we are hopeful that the AstraZeneca one will be able to be in GP practices and dental surgeries and all over the country much faster. However, it is all dependent on supply.
I thank Professor Leitch for that. I did not note the time that I started, but I suspect that that might be my time up, so I will stop there.
I will be happy to return to Annabelle if we have more time at the end.
I will start off, if I may, with my usual question about Ayrshire, which is probably for Professor Leitch. We noticed that test positivity rates for East Ayrshire and South Ayrshire have dropped below the Scottish average, which is very welcome. However, North Ayrshire seems to have exceed it by quite a bit between 4 and 11 December. Are we worried at all about Ayrshire, or parts of Ayrshire, or about the spiking that we see between 4 and 11 December?
Yes, we are. Over Sunday and Monday, the Deputy First Minister and Ms Campbell had a series of local authority calls supported by clinical advisers, including me. Most of them were conversations about areas that were moving up or down—you could make up that list yourself; there were about 11 of them. We spoke to Edinburgh, as you would expect, and to Midlothian and East Lothian. However, we also had a number of watch-list local authorities, one of which was North Ayrshire. We therefore had a call with it on exactly that point.
We were not at the stage of thinking that we wanted it to go up a level; it was just a conversation to say to both the political leaders and the local authority officials, including the chief executive, that we see the numbers and that we know that they see them as well, and to ask whether there is anything that we could do. That could be about local messaging or about sending environmental health out around the clubs—whatever it has to be. It was about getting reassurance from the local authority that not only are we giving it all the support that it requires but it is doing everything that it can.
As we learn in local authorities around the country, we are able to share best practice. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is able to help us with that and with what it means in North Ayrshire.
The fundamental answer to Willie Coffey’s question is that yes, we do see a rise, particularly in North Ayrshire, which is translating into both prevalence and positivity. We are keeping a very close eye on those numbers. We should remember that the secret here is that, whatever level you are in, it is about interaction. If something is allowed, it does not mean that you should do it; it means that you should think very carefully before you do it and be safe when you do so. Mr Coffey is right and is clearly paying attention.
Thank you for that. As you know, North Ayrshire residents use Crosshouse hospital in Kilmarnock, which is in East Ayrshire. There is a bit of a concern that, although parts of the county were split into different tiers, they are still mixing and mingling pretty much, particularly in coming to Crosshouse hospital. Are you keeping an eye on that to see whether there is any further impact?
Yes. Hospital or healthcare-type infections are pretty much following community prevalence. If Covid is in the community, it is almost impossible to keep it out of institutions, whether they are call centres, hospitals, prisons or police cells. We try hard to keep it out of them by building protective barriers around them but, in reality, community prevalence often leads to outbreaks of some description in institutions.
We know that it is still safe to access healthcare if you need it. We have green and red pathways and so on, so people should not avoid healthcare. We have also hugely increased the number of videoconference appointments that people can access from their home or workplace. That has been a huge revolution across the health service that I think we will hold on to in the future, because it is much more convenient for people and saves them travelling.
People should not be scared of Crosshouse hospital, but they should be careful when they go there. They should take face coverings, they should wash their hands, they should use hand sanitiser when they go back to their car and so on.
I want to ask a question that I do not think is been asked so far in this process. It is about the IT and data management of the vaccine roll-out programme. Who is doing that? Who is communicating with people? Who is recording that someone has been for a vaccine, if it is not the GP surgery’s data management services?
Fortunately—actually, by design—the director in charge of vaccination is Caroline Lamb, who was the finance director, and then chief executive, of NHS Education for Scotland. She entered the Government a number of months ago to run digital services in health and social care. At the emergence of Covid, she was redirected to testing, and she has now been redirected to vaccination. Her heart, would you believe, is in digital. Along with the vaccination roll-out, she has been involved in a parallel workstream of apps, data management and everything else that you would expect.
Relatively recently, I met her team, which is based in NHS Education for Scotland and has designed the vaccination data collection processes that will be embedded in the NHS. Those processes are really good—I was very impressed. It is the same group—with different individuals—who designed the Protect Scotland app and have handled a lot of the testing data for us.
There is a dashboard—that is confidential, of course—that monitors who is being vaccinated, when they will need their appointment for the second dose and whether those people are care home residents, health and social care workers and so on. We are grateful for the fact that we have community health index numbers, which means that the health service has a long history of individual identification numbers for every person in Scotland. Not every country has that, and it is hugely valuable at points such as the one that we are at now, when we need to have a register of who has had a certain intervention and when they have had it. Those numbers allow us to incorporate that information into this digital exercise.
The digital approach is one of our key workstreams, and it is working well. There will be blips, as there have been in the past 24 hours around Protect Scotland. Of course that will happen—the digital side is not perfect, but it is good.
That is encouraging.
My last query is probably for the cabinet secretary. Last week, I met the directors of Kilmarnock Football Club. Like others, they are asking about what a road map for getting football supporters—and other sports fans—back into stadiums might look like. They were not asking for dates and other specifics; they were simply asking whether we are working on what a potential road map might look like. Are we doing any work on that at the moment? Can we give them any assurance that we are thinking about that?
The system of levels that is in place indicates the route map whereby restrictions are eased all the way down to a position of near normality. That is the route map that is in existence. Sports clubs should be assured that there is a way forward.
Secondly, as can be seen from the work that Joe FitzPatrick has done on support for football, a great deal of work is going on to ensure that there is support for clubs and spectators, so that we can move towards some form of normality. In every sector, ministers will be involved with every part of their portfolio to see whether they can fully understand what things will look like and how they will be laid out. I am sure that Joe FitzPatrick can reassure football clubs of that and I encourage you to engage with him.
According to the National Audit Office this week, NHS England and NHS Improvement are planning on the assumption that they will vaccinate up to 25 million people with two doses throughout 2021; do you have the figures for Scotland?
Professor Leitch is the right person to answer that question.
We have tried not to set targets for very good reasons—we simply do not know enough about vaccine supply. We are encouraged by the early stages and the relationship with the companies and how that is working on a four-country level. The procurement is good and we have invested correctly in the vaccines that seem to be coming.
We have said publicly that we want to vaccinate 4.5 million people, which would take roughly 9 million doses, but we do not, and cannot, know where those 9 million doses will come from yet. We are hopeful that the AstraZeneca vaccine will be a big bulk of that, because at a four-country level we have invested in 100 million doses of that vaccine, but that needs regulation approval and approval to distribute and it needs to be manufactured in huge numbers. It also needs to go to, for example, Belgium, Senegal and Austria. We need to be careful not to set unrealistic targets, but we are aiming in 2021 to vaccinate 4.5 million people twice.
I understand that it is not wise to set unrealistic targets. I will ask about vaccinating priority groups. The JCVI recommends vaccinating all individuals aged 16 to 64 with underlying health conditions that put them at a higher risk of serious disease and mortality; that group would be the sixth priority after all those aged 65 years and over. How will it be decided who those people are and what priority they will be given?
Nine groups were announced by the JCVI. We have to be slightly careful here, because that is the existing JCVI advice, which is based on what we know now about vaccines, so do not be entirely surprised if the JCVI changes its advice over time, as you would expect it to do for the measles or yellow fever vaccines. For now, with what we know about vaccination, immunity and risk from Covid, it has listed nine groups with a tenth group at the bottom, which is everybody left under 50.
Everybody who was previously shielding—what we now call the clinically extremely vulnerable group—will be vaccinated with the over-70s. Once the over-65s group has been vaccinated, on the risk-of-death graph—it is a horrible name, but that it what we use—we move down to the over-60s and to that group we add the high-risk group, which is basically those who get the flu vaccine. That is roughly how we do that, although there may be some nuance around the edges of that based on Covid risk rather than flu risk. However, we do not need to do that group tomorrow; that will be some months ahead, and we will know more about the disease and the nature of the vaccine by then. In rough terms, those who get the flu vaccine who are 16 and above will get the vaccine with the over-60s. The idea is that their general risk is about the same as the over-60s’ risk; that is not completely accurate—of course it is not—but in rough terms that is where they fit into the scheme. I am drawing a graph like the one in the paper that decided this—it shows very high risk for the over-80s, which falls as your age falls, and you add in disease as you go up the graph.
That is helpful for people who have had the flu vaccine; they will have a pretty good idea of where they might fall in that list. My final question is to ask whether there is an update on recent figures of the number of people who have been fined for breaching travel restrictions, bearing in mind the importance of adhering to travel restrictions, especially in light of what the cabinet secretary said about Hogmanay?
11:15
I have no detail on the travel restrictions part of that question. However, I can give you the update on the policing figures to 9 December, which are important overall.
Between 27 March and 9 December, 6,126 fixed-penalty notices were issued. The figure for those who dispersed when informed is 67,262; the number who dispersed, but only when instructed, is 18,819; and the figure for those who were dispersed using reasonable force is 636. There were 6,126 fixed-penalty notices issued, and 486 people were arrested. A subset of that will be those who received notices about travel, and it would be an operational matter for Police Scotland to break those figures down even further.
As we can see, not only is the four Es approach the underpinning guidance, it is also useful, because it shows that people are capable of being persuaded and informed, and that only at the very end will enforcement be needed.
Those are helpful answers. Thank you.
Professor Leitch, you said that we need 9 million doses of the vaccine. However, we heard during our previous committee meeting that the UK is ordering five doses per person, so it looks like we could have 25 million doses available. Will you comment on why the UK is ordering so much and whether doing so puts poorer countries at a disadvantage?
That is an excellent, well-made point, Mr Mason. The reason why we have, in effect, put our chips on different manufacturers is that we do not know which one will get there first or how many doses it will have. Initially, until we know what the virus does in the longer term—whether it will come back, whether we will have to keep vaccinating people over time, et cetera—we will need the first set of vaccines. Every country in the world needs that.
Let us imagine a world in which we got 2 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 2 million doses of AstraZeneca’s and a million of Pfizer’s. That would allow us to vaccinate half of our population. The vaccine procurement committee decided not to put all the chips on one vaccine because it could fail at any point—during manufacturing, regulation or trials. That is why there is a broad approach to procurement. In reality, we will probably not get 25 million doses. We will probably get somewhere between the 9 million and 25 million doses that we require.
In response to your other point, I have been very concerned about vaccine hoarding in western Europe and developed countries, but I am reassured by the World Health Organization’s engagement on that issue. It is doing a specific piece of work on global vaccination. It has sought donor countries, and my understanding is that the UK was the biggest donor to the fund. The UK will in effect buy doses of the vaccine at cost price from the main drug companies, and the WHO will then deal with supply, distribution and all the other, related things that we would expect to be required.
Pfizer and AstraZeneca have both said publicly that they will make extra portions of the vaccine available at cost price through that WHO procurement and provide it to the likes of Yemen, Ethiopia and Senegal, which simply would not be able to do what we have done, so I am reassured.
As I said at a previous meeting of the committee, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who is the director general of the WHO, said a few weeks ago when he launched the programme that we should vaccinate some people in all countries before we vaccinate all people in some countries. He is correct. This is a global problem, not a Scottish one. It is of course a Scottish problem, but it is much bigger than us.
I appreciate that answer, which was helpful. I will move on to a different subject. Recently, we had mass testing in certain areas, one of which was Dalmarnock, which is in my constituency. Can you tell us what we have learned from mass testing? Based on what I saw in the figures, there were not huge numbers of positive results.
It has been an interesting exercise. You will remember that, when we launched it, we discussed with the committee the fact that we had decided to do things slightly different from other parts of the world and not go for whole-population, mass testing in a city or region. We decided to go to particularly high-prevalence areas, which we chose from the public health dashboard that everyone can see: Dalmarnock, Pollokshields, Clackmannanshire and a couple of areas in Ayrshire.
That has proven to be a useful approach, particularly for the Clackmannanshire outbreak. The numbers there look high because we found quite a lot of asymptomatic cases. We also found some cases in Dalmarnock and Pollokshields. You are absolutely correct to say that there were not enormous numbers. However, tackling every positive case interrupts a chain of transmission, which is a good thing.
That is one of the reasons why we have been able to drive down the level 4 rating. Another is that we have been able to offer testing to specific, targeted areas of the population, particularly in areas where testing is easily accessible, local communication is good and local authority and community leaders can help us with it.
I do not particularly like the phrase “mass testing”, because it does not really describe the process. “Targeted testing” is better. Our approach in the areas that I have mentioned has been a good example of how we can use such testing. I think that we will continue to do that, particularly with polymerase chain reaction testing, which is our most reliable form of test. It is one of the reasons why we have seen Glasgow’s numbers fall pretty well over the past few weeks. It is not the only reason, though—there are others, which relate to people’s behaviour.
Were you happy with the number of people who came forward for testing?
I will always want there to be more. I would like to queue them all up in a big line and test them all. I would have to look up our most recent percentage, because I cannot remember it, but I recall that, compared with figures for the global city testing that has been done, it was much higher.
Please forgive the shorthand, but that approach also reached some of the harder-to-reach groups that we had been worried about. Those are people who are sometimes difficult to get to for various reasons, which might be factors in their lives or things to do with the design of our services, such as where people have to travel to in order to reach testing sites.
We tried to carry out testing as locally as we could. Community leaders in places such as mosques, churches and community centres and local authority politicians gave us a lot of help with communication. It was an encouraging set of circumstances, which brought us benefits. However, I would still rather have more people come forward—of course I would.
My third and final area of questioning is on the testing of students that is being carried out before they go home for Christmas. Has there been good uptake of that? How has it been going?
The uptake has been excellent. The big, headline news is that it has picked up very few positive cases. We know that lateral flow testing is not as sensitive as PCR testing, but that is not to say that it is not sensitive at all: it detects about 64 per cent of positive cases. The fact that we have found some positive cases but not many would suggest that the student population has been following the guidance and the rules, and that things are going well among students.
That gives us some assurance, although not 100 per cent, that when they go home they will be safer than they would otherwise have been. We will have broken the chains of transmission in those who tested positive with lateral flow, by retesting them with PCR and self-isolating them and their households. That is another layer of protection.
We will do the same lateral flow testing on the staggered re-entry of students after Christmas. We hope that one test can be carried out nearer their home and another when they get back to university. We are discussing and negotiating that with the student body and the institutions.
Good morning, gentlemen. I want to go back to the question of the submarine base at Faslane, which is near to my heart and in my area. There seems to be good news there in that the number of cases has gone down from 96 to 37. That clearly shows that the strategy for industrial sites is working. Would Professor Leitch like to comment on that?
As you can imagine, that has been a complex outbreak. There is a lot of hierarchical leadership there, which includes the local director of public health and the Scottish Government, but also Ministry of Defence representatives, who are the local leaders inside the base.
The outbreak has been dealt with very well. Those who tested positive were isolated. Of course, it is a slightly different environment because of the nature of that workplace. However, that is also true of a chicken processing plant, a call centre or a hospital. We adapted our instructions and guidance to the local environment. Fortunately, the last time that I got a report, nobody was seriously unwell, which is the most important thing. It is a relatively young and fit cohort, but that does not keep them entirely safe.
The crucial thing for Mr Corry’s constituents is that we have not seen onward community transmission of a meaningful size. The leadership managed to control the environment in the workplace and supported those who tested positive to self-isolate. The multiworker element of the environment has been well handled by UK and Scottish Government liaison, as well as by the local director of public health.
That is interesting and it is good to hear. My concern and that of my constituents is about onward transmission, particularly when a parent who is serving at or working in the base comes home, and their kids go to local schools. From what you say, however, that transmission has not followed through.
I am touching wood, although that will not get us out of trouble. So far, that appears to be the case. If we look at the published graph for Argyll and Bute, it is clear from the numbers that something happened—statistically, we call it a special cause. We know that that was a workplace outbreak, but the numbers have come down again. It appears that, as things stand, community transmission has not happened, because of self-isolation, household isolation and strong support for that isolation.
If we can enable people to self-isolate, that makes it easier. Whether it is through food parcels, phoning people up to ask how they are or peer group pressure to keep everybody isolating, that support appears to have worked well in that environment, as it did in the outbreak at the Coupar Angus chicken processing plant. That was a fairly severe workplace outbreak, but there was little community transmission from it.
The outbreak at Faslane also illustrates some of the issues that arise in the local authority context. Faslane is not in my constituency, but it is in the Argyll and Bute local authority area. This week, that context has led to us being able to have a slight relaxation for certain island groups that are distant, although still in the local authority area, but also to have important discussions about what happens in diverse or large local authority areas, and ones that include extreme rurality as well as urban or semi-urban areas. Big issues are raised by that and, as Professor Leitch indicated, they need to be discussed in the context of fine tuning the system.
Thank you for that comment, cabinet secretary. You pre-empted what was going to be my next question, which was on that.
Professor Leitch, I would like to drill down a little more on the issue of the Faslane base. Were the 96 cases predominantly among the younger members of that site—the non-marrieds with no families?
I do not have that level of granularity, but I have confidence that the local incident management team has it and makes judgments accordingly. If someone has a positive result, the whole household isolates, so if one of the workers in that workplace tested positive and they have school-age children, those kids will have isolated with them. That appears to have worked, because we have not seen onward transmission from schools, shops or wherever else those individuals go.
I thank you for that on behalf of our area. That is very good and I am glad to see that positive outcome.
I have a final question for the cabinet secretary, but Professor Leitch should jump in and comment as well, if he wants to. What further consideration should be given to the issue of students having to pay for unoccupied accommodation over the winter break?
It is a good question. We tackled that in one of the two pieces of coronavirus legislation, but it has recurred as an issue. If it is not covered in that legislation, which was designed to meet that situation, we need to do two things. The first is for members to raise individual cases, because it would be wrong if demands were still being made for money from people who are not there. The second thing is to consider whether there is anything that we can do in legislative or regulatory terms, as we have done in preventing evictions, to deal with the problem.
I have seen no evidence from individuals of the situation that you describe. If other members have seen such evidence, they should raise it with Richard Lochhead and Kevin Stewart, as the relevant ministers. I am sure that they will want to talk to me about whether we need to do something more in regulatory terms. We should certainly be doing our best to ensure that students are not disadvantaged at this time. What they are having to go through is hard enough.
11:30
Is there a plan in your file, as it were, in case the issue becomes more prevalent?
The plan in my file is always that, if something is required urgently, it will happen. If members are raising the issue with the relevant ministers, I am more than willing to consider what we can do with it.
My first question is for Professor Leitch. Earlier, Willie Coffey raised a point about North Ayrshire. Looking at the daily dashboard figures, it is clear that the figures in that area have gone up. Does that pose a risk to Inverclyde? We are in tier 2 and North Ayrshire is in tier 3. If North Ayrshire was to go up to tier 4, would it mean that Inverclyde might go up to tier 3 in order to restrict movement in the area?
That would not be the principal reason. Mr Russell might want to comment on the balanced nature of the conversations in Cabinet on such issues.
Previously in this committee, we have talked about how those decisions are made. I will deal quickly with how the advice is given. We start at local authority level, but that is not where we finish. We cannot finish there, because there are not barbed-wire fences around the borders of council areas. The reality is that we start with the numbers inside the geographical unit—that is how we have decided to measure the prevalence of the virus—and we work up from there.
The local public health lead says what the position in Inverclyde is, and we then have to think about issues such as the fact that the intensive care unit provision for Inverclyde is partly in Inverclyde and partly in Glasgow city, so we must consider what that means for our plans. We have to think about where people go to work, shop and access hospitality, and where the care homes are that people from Inverclyde visit. That takes us up a layer and makes things a little more inexact, and that leads us to the conversations about borders that you have just described.
South Lanarkshire is a rural area—the extreme south is very much so—but it is well connected to Glasgow city and other parts of the country. We have to take that into account in our advice. Subsequently, in the Cabinet, there are conversations about how such factors are taken into account in relation to travel regulations. If an area is surrounded by a group of areas that are in tier 3, is it possible to make that a tier 1 area? If so, how will we advise the people there to behave?
There is not a direct relationship between North Ayrshire’s number and Inverclyde’s number, but they are not completely disconnected. There has to be a conversation about that somewhere in the process. I have described what happens at the advice level, and Mr Russell might want to talk about what happens at the Cabinet level.
There is always a question about boundaries. Many years ago, I was a member of the Arbuthnott commission on voting systems and boundaries. In Scotland, boundaries are about natural populations. Sometimes, those boundaries cut across natural populations and how people live and move from one place to another. In this case, as Jason Leitch indicated, there is the added complication of what we might call an island effect—I am not talking about islands in relation to reducing the regulations; I mean areas that are islands among areas of higher incidence and prevalence.
Discussions around those issues are complex and difficult. As Jason Leitch says, there is not an automatic assumption that, if one area is in tier 3, another area must also be in tier 3. The question is: where does the population naturally look to? As an elected member, you will know that local authority wards are sometimes extremely unwieldy, that they do not address people’s movements from one place to another and that they can bring together people who have no natural affinity. Therefore, the knowledge that exists in the Cabinet about the various areas of Scotland and how people move to work, shop and socialise comes into play. However, as I said, there is no automatic assumption that one area being in tier 3 will mean that a neighbouring area will also be in tier 3.
There is also recognition of the boundary effect. There will be bleeding across boundaries simply because of where people live. Some local authority boundaries run across communities. It is a sensitive and complex area that needs a lot of thinking.
People might ask why we use local authority areas. We have to use something, and using local authority areas is better than using health board boundaries, because they are even less logical in that sense. We think about the matter a lot.
I should perhaps start my answer to Mr McMillan with a single sentence to say that Inverclyde’s numbers are encouraging—and remain encouraging—but fragile, as is the case in the rest of the country. At level 2, Inverclyde has managed to maintain a relatively slow but sustained reduction. The situation is stable. The numbers are not plummeting, but nor are they rising. Whatever is going on with travel and everything else among the people of Inverclyde, things are going relatively well there compared with the situation in other parts of the country.
My next question is about the vaccine. It will not be mandatory for anyone to have the vaccine, but a couple of individuals who work in the care home sector contacted my office this week to indicate that they are not prepared to take the vaccine. Those in care homes are the first group of individuals to get the vaccine. It would probably be an issue for the human resources department if staff were not prepared to take the vaccine, because they could be putting at risk care home residents as well as others. Is there anything that Professor Leitch or the cabinet secretary can say to encourage anyone who works in a care home—whether it is in Inverclyde or across Scotland—to take the vaccine?
We have to take an inclusive and open approach that is based on evidence and information. As politicians and community leaders, we should show by example that we regard the vaccination programme as extremely important and that the risks that are being talked about do not exist in the way that some people view them. We should definitely try to persuade people to take the vaccine. Therefore, I do not think that we are at the stage at which we should be talking about HR issues. We should be talking about how we reach out by leading by example, by persuasion and by providing information. We should say that the vaccine is desirable, safe and important, and that we should move in that direction.
I would be reluctant to enter into a speculative discussion about HR issues and other such issues, because I hope that they will not become issues of importance. The issues of importance are about saving lives. The vaccines are a remarkable testament to the hard work, ingenuity, inventiveness and dedication of those who have worked on them. Nobody is being asked to do things that are dangerous; they are being asked to do things that will, in the end, result in a good outcome.
Jason Leitch might want to say more. I certainly think that it is a matter of persuasion and discussion at the moment. I do not think that we should speculate on other matters.
I agree. Forgive me if I have the numbers slightly wrong, but I saw data yesterday that suggest that 27 million people across the United Kingdom are not hesitant in any way. They will rush towards the vaccine when they are offered it. Another 27 million people are hesitant but are not anti-vax. They are not suggesting that vaccines are a bad thing, but they want more information. They want to know that the vaccine is safe and that the regulator has done all the right things. They might want to hear from clinical advisers and—forgive me, folks—not always from politicians that it is safe to have the vaccine.
We have not started our mass information campaign, which will include TV adverts and door drops. We do not think that it is the right point to do that, because we are not providing mass vaccination yet. There will be a UK-wide campaign and a Scottish campaign. There will be a door drop to provide every household with information on vaccination. We will use clinical advisers and some famous faces to help with the campaign. I am hopeful that that will get through to most of the people who are hesitant.
To be completely honest, I am not sure that there is much that I can do to communicate with people at the extreme edge, who think that we are microchipping the vaccine so that we can follow people around the country. There are things that we can do for the hesitant group. We can explain the science, the regulations and the process that the vaccine has been through. I hope that that will be enough for your constituents and for everybody else, particularly for those who might put others in care homes at risk.
My final question is about domestic abuse during the five-day festive period from 23 to 27 December. Reports indicate that there has been a 7 per cent increase in the number of domestic abuse incidents over the past year. The Scottish Government has undertaken two-monthly reporting of those figures. Has that helped to shape the thinking about the festive period and beyond? Will it inform the provision of additional resources or assistance to help to deal with domestic abuse incidents?
The figures are distressing, but they are important in how we shape policy. I indicated in my response to questions on the report last week that the police have taken a number of initiatives and will continue to do so. Regrettably, holiday periods can bring additional difficulties. I am sure that the police are aware of that and are taking forward strategies that will help.
I would like some clarity on an issue that has emerged in the media today. Professor Leitch might be best placed to answer this. How does the six-week rule relate to the rules about self-isolation? The Scottish Government has confirmed to The Ferret that there has been
“no change to national guidance”
and that there is no six-week exemption. However, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has told councils that people who have been identified as having been in contact with Covid-19 do not have to self-isolate if they have been infected with Covid in the previous six weeks.
It would be helpful to know why the advice in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area is different from that in the rest of Scotland.
We will take that away and respond in writing. That would be the most sensible approach, as I have not seen the article in The Ferret.
If an intensive care doctor tests positive and self-isolates, there is no point in retesting that doctor for about 90 days, because people can shed inactive and non-infectious genetic material of the virus. There is no risk to anybody, but that doctor would still test positive if they were retested and we would lose that intensive care doctor from work for a much longer period.
We have often talked about testing. The test cannot distinguish between the live virus and its remnants. We know that a person who has had a positive test and self-isolates, particularly if they have had symptoms and have recovered, will not be shedding the live virus a month later. That is not biologically plausible. There are some occasions when the 90-day point is true, but I am not sure whether it is true on this occasion. I am not aware of a change in the guidance about contact tracing and whether people should isolate, and I would probably be in that loop.
I will get back to you in writing on the specifics of that, if that is all right with Mr Russell.
That is fine; it is the right thing to do.
I appreciate that offer.
I have a question about something that came up at a meeting with elected representatives and NHS Fife last Friday. I am getting inquiries from over-80s who are not in care homes and who need reassurance that they are on the vaccination list. There might be a communication issue. Until I reassured them, members of one family had spent 24 hours worrying about whether a grandmother or elderly aunt in her nineties would be left behind. I was able to reassure them, but it is a shame that they had any worries. Could we reflect on the way that that group of people is being communicated with? They may not use social media every day.
11:45
I will ask Jason Leitch to comment on that in a minute, but I saw material on this last week, and it was very clear—and I hope that it is being widely distributed. People are not to worry if they have not been contacted yet. We are at the start of the programme, and they will be contacted. Jason has made it clear that a very careful and rigorous programme is under way.
I take the point that we do not want anybody to worry about the issue. There is an assurance that they will be contacted, and that they have not been and will not be forgotten. If we can reassure people further on that, we should do so. Perhaps Jason Leitch can confirm that nobody will be forgotten, and that everybody will be included.
We are at the start of a programme, and it has started well. The figures for the percentage of the population covered so far are higher than those elsewhere. However, the programme has a long way to go.
It is an excellent question. I should say that one of the people who is probably watching this meeting will be my mother, and she has a very special birthday today that puts her in the relevant category. I should wish her many happy returns.
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday!
She, too, is asking when they will come for her and hoping that she will not be forgotten. I reassure her and your constituents, Ms Ewing, that we know who all the over-80s are and we will get to them just as soon as we have a vaccine that we can take to people or that can be made available at a place to which they can come.
We will of course not be able to do everybody on the same day. This is perhaps not right, but I think that there are 280,000 over-80s, or just over 300,000. The simple equation is that that is more than we have vaccine, but we hope that we will get that level of vaccine in January. That will allow us to reach that group.
People will be split into two groups: those who can travel to the vaccine and, slightly more complicatedly, those we will have to take the vaccine to. That is a little bit more tricky, but we will get to them. To reassure people further, the system will not be foolproof, so there will be mechanisms by which people who feel that they have been forgotten will be able to reach out to us to ask whether they have fallen through the net or there has been a mistake. That is what we do with the flu vaccine, and it is what we will do with the Covid vaccine.
I am not naive enough to think that this will be a completely smooth process. Of course there will be challenges with people’s addresses, phone numbers or names, but we will get to them. We know who they all are, because everybody has a CHI number and a GP. We can therefore get to that register of people, including my mum and your constituents.
Thank you, and happy birthday to Professor Leitch’s mother—enjoy your day.
I think that this is the COVID-19 Committee’s first birthday shout-out—happy birthday!
A lot of parents are still writing to me. They are feeling cautious and do not want to send their children to school on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week. Are they right?
No. We have said repeatedly at the committee that we are doing everything that we can to preserve normal schooling, and that is what we should continue to do. I hope that we are all of one mind on that. The advice that John Swinney has operated on is public health advice, and he has been very clear about it.
That concludes our evidence session under item 2. I thank the cabinet secretary and Professor Leitch for their evidence.
We move to item 3, which is consideration of the motions on the subordinate legislation on which we have just taken evidence under the previous agenda item.
Does the cabinet secretary wish to make any further remarks on the Scottish statutory instruments before we deal with the motions?
No, thank you.
Are members content for motions S5M-23534, S5M-23603 and S5M-23683 to be moved en bloc? Any member who is not content with that approach should type N in the chat box.
I see that Mark Ruskell is not content with that. In the interests of time, I ask Mark to indicate what his objection relates to.
It relates to SSI 2020/415—the amendment (No 6) regulations.
Thank you.
As the cabinet secretary does not wish to make any further remarks, I invite him to move motion S5M-23534.
Motion moved,
That the COVID-19 Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 5) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/400) be approved.—[Michael Russell]
Motion agreed to.
I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S5M-23603.
Motion moved,
That the COVID-19 Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 6) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/415) be approved.—[Michael Russell]
Mark Ruskell wishes to speak in the debate on the motion.
I find it difficult to ignore the chorus of concern that we have heard from the medical community over the past few weeks about the regulations and the potential for a surge of cases as a result. I welcome the Scottish Government’s cautious overlay of additional guidance yesterday, but I am still concerned that we have had a lack of clear modelling and a lack of clear evidence presented to the committee to back up the change in the regulations. That leaves me in an uncomfortable position. At the same time, I realise that we sit here on 17 December and that time is running out before Christmas.
I would like to hear from the Scottish Government that, if cases go up in the days to come, the regulations will be reconsidered, even at the last minute. I am concerned about the messages that we are getting from the medical community on the potential for a surge in cases in Scotland. As I said, that leaves me in a very uncomfortable position in respect of voting to approve the regulations today.
I understand the concerns that Mr Ruskell expresses. Concerns clearly exist—he has heard from Professor Leitch, for example, about how difficult the modelling is.
The four countries have worked hard to try to come to an understanding on the matter. We would have been criticised if we had not done so, and we have been criticised for having done so, so we are in an unfortunate set of circumstances. We clearly want to ensure that everybody is as safe as possible, and we have therefore put in place for next week an additional review—which we had said might not take place—to look at the figures.
All that I can say to Mr Ruskell is that we look, and will continue to look, at the figures daily. The Cabinet will have the opportunity to review the figures again on Tuesday, and of course the Cabinet can be called into session at any time. We have to balance that against the—[Inaudible.]—to take advantage of the Christmas relaxation in the most limited way possible. I stress yet again that it should be limited; the guidance in that regard is much stronger.
I understand Mr Ruskell’s reservations, but we have to accept that we are currently in a situation in which a Christmas relaxation will take place. We are asking people to be very restrained and careful, and we will of course continue to look at the figures. I do not want to create panic, uncertainty or fear in people’s minds, so we will act responsibly and carefully, alongside the other Administrations.
The question is, that motion S5M-23603 be agreed to. If any member disagrees, they should type N in the chat bar now.
Members are not agreed, so there will be a division.
For
Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Maurice Corry (West Scotland) (Con)
Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Stuart McMillan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Motion agreed to,
That the COVID-19 Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 6) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/415) be approved.
I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S5M-23683.
Motion moved,
That the COVID-19 Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Amendment (No 7) Regulations 2020 (SSI 2020/427) be approved.—[Michael Russell]
Motion agreed to.
In the coming days, the committee will publish a report to the Parliament, setting out our decisions on the statutory instruments that have been considered at this meeting.
I thank the cabinet secretary and the national clinical director for their attendance and time this morning. We had quite a lot to get through, so I thank committee members for their patience.
Meeting closed at 12:01.Previous
Covid-19 Vaccination Programme