COVID-19 Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, February 18, 2021

Official Report 704KB pdf

---

Citizens Panel

Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting in 2021 of the COVID-19 Committee. We have received apologies from Monica Lennon. I welcome Alex Rowley, who joins us as her substitute.

At its meeting on 26 November 2020, the committee agreed to convene a citizens panel in January 2021. As a result, the Covid-19 citizens panel was established to discuss and respond to the following question:

“What priorities should shape the Scottish Government’s approach to COVID-19 restrictions and strategy in 2021?”

The panel comprised 19 individuals who were broadly representative of Scotland’s population. It met virtually, over four Saturdays in January and February 2021, and its report was published this morning.

We will take evidence from representatives of the panel on its recommendations. I welcome to our meeting Jo Eismont, Neil Hunter, Allan Perris, Roland Reid and Christine Watkins. I thank them for the great work that the panel has produced. The committee understands that you have all given up a lot of time to take part in the panel’s work and to produce its recommendations, which will be useful in informing our scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s response to Covid-19. We intend to use the panel’s report and your evidence in a future session with the Scottish Government. The committee’s clerks will provide you with details of that in due course.

We will start by hearing short opening remarks from each panellist.

Thank you for having us here. Being part of the panel has been rewarding and also fascinating. I am really proud of the recommendations that we have agreed and the report that has been submitted.

We have all lived through the past year, which has been so difficult. At times, certainly on my part, it has felt as though the public has been powerless and voiceless in the face of the decisions that have come to rule our day-to-day existence. Being part of the panel gave us an opportunity to have a deeper understanding of the data behind the decision making and a window into the range of opinions that the Government has had to deal with. I think that we all came away with a solid understanding of why the Government has made the decisions that it has had to make so far and of the issues that all members of the Parliament grapple with so regularly.

Seeing how the pandemic has affected everyone on the panel was moving. We have all had different experiences, such as furlough, redundancy and the loss of loved ones. Having been separate from other people for so long, coming together meant that we could share our stories a little bit. That was very sobering, but it brought the group together and gave us a strong sense of purpose.

It is so important that people like us are given access to our Government and that platforms such as the citizens panel exist so that we can play an active part in democracy. I want to be really clear, especially for people who might consider doing something similar in the future, that it never felt like a tick-box exercise. At every single step we felt listened to and respected, and our opinions were never set aside—they were central to everything that the panel did. I really felt as though the recommendations in our report might be a key part of what happens next. I am sure that I can speak for the rest of the panel when I say that that is how we felt.

I feel as though we are now at a key point in the pandemic. The roll-out of the vaccination programme is moving forward at pace. For some people, though, the issue will be battling against our human nature to want to be with our families, friends and colleagues again after so long. That is why how the Government communicates what happens next is so important. It is also why our report makes recommendations that will seek to eliminate Covid from our society as much as possible, so that we can address the other elements of it that have had to take a back seat for now.

Thank you for having me here.

I agree with everything that Jo Eismont has said. The main thing that I came away from the panel with was our shared experiences. Our members were drawn from across the population. We all had different experiences, which helped in producing our report. Discussing our shared experiences got us to the crux of the matter when we were producing our recommendations. They brought home to us how difficult the decisions have been for the politicians and Governments involved. Every one of us had had different life experiences with Covid, but we had all experienced lockdown. We brought all that into the preparation of our report and the making of its recommendations.

I thank Jo Eismont and Neil Hunter for what they have said, which has summed up a lot of our views.

I found it intriguing to take on information from the various witnesses that we heard. We were given ample time to study and debate all the issues that were brought to us. I know that it is a hard job for the Government to put everything together, but I think that it has done so in a good way. I hope that our panel’s recommendations will have helped us to make progress during the pandemic.

I thank Alistair Stoddart and his team for the way in which they facilitated the panel. They were so helpful.

In working with the panel, I was amazed by the passion of our younger members, who were so knowledgeable about different topics and subjects. To be quite honest, they were a breath of fresh air.

I also found it interesting to get the honest views of some of the witnesses, such as Professor Raj Bhopal, the immunologist; he was so honest about his opinions. It was also interesting to hear about the study on the new variants and that sort of thing—I thank all the witnesses for their time.

09:45  

I will make a few points.

I have not been directly affected by Covid, but my first conversation with another panel member was quite salutary. He had lost a very close family member and all of his family had suffered from Covid. That brought home to me the impact of the pandemic. One of our other panel members is a cancer nurse, and she told us about the impact of the pandemic on patients, which was also very moving.

My second point is that the panel members who are here this morning very much reflect the population of Scotland. I knew that we were an ageing population, but I did not realise how significant that was. My group—the over-65s—probably represents 66 per cent of the Scottish population. Our area of interest is probably our own health and the roll-out of the vaccination.

Nevertheless, I stress that the panel was very aware of the impact of the pandemic on younger people. We specifically asked for a representative from the Scottish Youth Parliament to attend. That person was Maya Tams-Gray, and her being there was helpful for us.

I will reiterate what other witnesses said by saying that it was a privilege to be involved in the panel. We heard from about 26 speakers and they all seemed keen to give their time—in fact, they often went over their time—to answer all our questions. I appreciated that.

I also want to thank the parliamentary staff who seemed to work day and night to put together presentations and reports between sessions. I am grateful for their commitment and, as Neil Hunter said, passion.

[Inaudible.]—from the panel has said; they have covered it well.

It was a privilege to be involved. I found it invigorating to be involved in discussions, given that we hear so much on the TV. It was invigorating to be part of the discussion and feel involved.

As everybody else said, there were excellent speakers. Allan Perris mentioned younger people who brought fresh air into the process and came up with probing questions. Some of them are perhaps working and are not able to be here. However, we were not all of the demographic that you see on the screen; there were some younger people. There was a wide range of opinions from a wide demographic.

I am looking forward to hearing more about what will happen next.

I would also like to thank the facilitators, particularly given that we had to do the meetings on Zoom. They were creative in being able to achieve a good discussion despite the limitations of Zoom and us not all being together.

Although there are only five panel members here, I would like to say that I feel as though I became part of a team. I enjoyed that team work, and I am going to miss them. Thank you for inviting us to be involved.

I thank everyone for their observations and reflections. Chris Watkins’s point was about doing the work virtually. That was a real challenge, and credit is due to the organisers and everyone on the citizens panel for making it work and for producing the report.

We will now move to questions. Committee members will have about five minutes each, so we should try to keep questions and answers concise. We have about 45 minutes remaining—we started late—and I would like to allow some time at the end to allow members of the panel to ask questions of the committee. To assist our broadcasting colleagues, members should indicate who their questions are for, and wait a moment for the microphone to be switched on before speaking.

My question is probably directed to Neil Hunter, given that he wanted to cover the direct harms of Covid. One of the central recommendations in the report published today is that

“the Scottish Government should clearly state its aims, including what it considers to be an acceptable level of infection”

in order for its strategy to be taken forward. Do you want to add to that, or do you have any reflections on what that means to you? What might an acceptable level of infection be?

That relates mostly to the Government’s strategy for suppression or elimination. The panel agreed that an elimination strategy would be the far better strategy to go for, but we also saw that the reality of the situation was that there would need to be a combination of the two—suppression followed by work towards elimination overall. However, during the suppression phase, after achieving a good test and trace system and a good ability to close our borders, everyone would have to accept that there would have to be a level of virus transmission at which we could free the population. Everybody was talking about the R number. If that could be lowered sufficiently, there was an acceptable level of infection, at which point we could allow the population to gradually come out of the lockdown process, still using suppression techniques and aiming for a strategy to eliminate the virus altogether.

I will build on what Neil Hunter said. Some of that came from a discussion about communication strategy, and we talked about how, initially, a year ago, we were all on board with protecting the national health service. However, it feels as though the Scottish Government strategy might have evolved over the year to more of a strategy to save lives by getting case numbers down as low as possible. There has been a bit of a disconnect, so, now, people do not understand that that is what is required of them. They think, “Hang on. They said to protect the NHS. Case numbers are low enough, so we can open up again.” The strategy has had to change to respond to the new variant, and I am not sure that that has been communicated as effectively as the previous message.

I will now turn to Alex Rowley MSP for his questions.

I would like to focus on the action to mitigate the societal impacts of the virus. First, I congratulate the panel on its work. As we try to bring democracy closer to the people, one approach that has been favoured is citizens panels and involvement. The panel’s input will be important.

The panel supported a green recovery. We all keep saying that we need to bounce back better with a green recovery, but what does a green recovery mean to the panel, and what discussion did the panel have about that?

It would be helpful if Roland Reid could start, and then others can come in.

That was an interesting discussion. We were aware that the way that the panel was operating, through BlueJeans, demonstrated that there is different way of functioning. There is the opportunity to work from home, which perhaps means less travelling. We were also aware of the impact that the pandemic has had on retail, which might change forever. For panel members living in urban areas, one of our discussions was about what will happen to city centres, perhaps including some of the things that were happening anyway.

People’s interest in cycling and walking could be encouraged. One of our panel members, Audrey, lives in Dumfries, which was cited as an example of a place where the local community is looking to take over some old empty properties to revitalise the town centre. Community involvement in the move towards a green economy is really important. The panel demonstrated, across the spectrum of people involved, that there is a great deal of talent in the community. It is a matter of encouraging and supporting that community to become active and to work with others to move forward with a green recovery.

Following on from what Roland said, we were looking at how there are many sectors in which a number of people will not be able to get work again. We therefore need to look at what kind of new areas they can work in. Investing in and promoting the green recovery gives opportunities for that, perhaps around new technologies and research in tidal power, for example.

For any economic development, it is also important that the green recovery be incorporated into all sectors. For example, if we are developing new ideas about giving people loans or getting businesses back on their feet, perhaps we need to look at sustainable standards and requirements around that and encourage looking at green aspects.

It is also about further involvement in areas such as Government private partnerships in green technologies and using the green investment bank. There are lots of opportunities. Although nobody wanted to be in the crisis, coming out of it could be a time for opportunities and for really taking on board some of those green issues.

I have one more question, then I will allow other people to come in.

Roland Reid mentioned town centres, which—as he said—were certainly a part of the economy that was moving in a different direction. Did the panel hear any evidence that we might be able to rebuild safe social spaces or create new social spaces, either specifically in town centres or more generally? As we open up, will we be able to go back to crowded bars and theatres and so on, or did the panel take any evidence that said that we need to look at how we interact with other people and what that will mean for town centres and the economy?

10:00  

I do not have a lot to add to what Roland said. However, one of the things that came out of a group discussion I was part of was that maybe town centres will never again look as they did previously. If we are considering that, we need to go much wider than retail and be more creative in what we use our town centres for. That could mean more cultural things and community involvement. We should discuss with communities how they would like to see their town centres used.

I will put my first question to Roland Reid and Christine Watkins, given their opening comments. Was there any discussion about the timescales for the reopening of society and the economy, bearing in mind what happened last year? Were any lessons learned from last year? Do you have any suggestions and for going forward?

We learned that things probably opened—[Inaudible.] Professor Devi Sridhar made that point, citing that, last July and August, Scotland was doing well and we were on a trajectory towards elimination. However, the problem was the return of people from holiday reseeding the pandemic. The premature reopening of hospitality premises also probably had an impact. The great achievement during last summer was then lost as the pandemic spread again. Therefore, the lesson is to be very cautious. It might be unwise to give dates as such. As Neil Hunter or Allan Perris said, the approach needs to be governed by the R number rather than on achieving a specific date. The other witnesses might correct me, but I do not think that we discussed dates at all.

We did not discuss dates. I do not know that I can add much to what Roland Reid said. One thing that became clear was that we were concerned to ensure that the health harm caused by Covid has to be the priority before anything opens. We have to be cautious in that regard.

The only other thing that I will add is that we perhaps need to lock down faster if the cases are going up. We cannot be too overcautious when it comes to saying that we have to lock down. We should consider a regional approach to that, so that we do not close economies in places where there is not much Covid; we should try to keep lockdowns to smaller areas as much as possible.

Do you mean that we should potentially reintroduce the five tiers, or do you think that the approach should apply to smaller areas?

We did not speak specifically about that; we spoke about the need for the approach to be regional so that the whole country’s economy was not shut down if it did not need to be.

I have one other question on the issue of harms, which you just touched on. In the report, there is a recommendation to put more resource into the national health service. One of the four harms relates to the economy. Not working or being furloughed can have a negative effect on people’s mental health. Obviously, that has a knock-on effect on the first of the harms—that is, the direct health impacts. Was there any discussion about that? I genuinely understand the point that is made in the report about the need to focus on health, but the economy is also important as a prevention mechanism.

One of my colleagues was preparing to look at that area a bit more, so perhaps they could speak about it before me. I have been speaking quite a bit.

Okay. Does anyone want to respond to that?

I will bring in Allan Perris and Jo Eismont.

I am sorry, but could you go through the question again, so that I get the main points?

Sure; no problem. Part of the report discussed putting more finance into the NHS to help with the harm on health. However, if the economy is not working—if people have been furloughed or made redundant—that has a knock-on effect on people’s mental health and on the main aim of protecting the NHS. Did the citizens panel discuss that?

Yes. We discussed the knock-on effect. Basically, we were concerned with trying to protect the NHS. We were really concerned that, initially, people who contracted the virus were not using the track and trace system, and they were scared of being furloughed or sent home. I can give the example of my son, who caught Covid the week before last. He generally earns £600 a week, but he was told that he had to be furloughed and that he could claim only statutory sick pay of £98 a week, which does not cover, for example, his food, electricity and mortgage bills. Obviously, for large numbers of the population, being in such a situation would have knock-on effects. The fear was that people would not self-isolate, which would put a bigger burden on the NHS. We discussed topics such as that.

We wrestled with that issue a bit. However, it was not an all-or-nothing focus on the first harm; it was more of a balance. We wanted to focus on Covid directly, because that is the way that everything else can reopen, but the other three harms came hot on its heels. It was not the case that we did not want to put any focus on the economy; it was simply a recognition that dealing with Covid has to come first, because we will struggle to open anything else if we do not.

This is fantastic work. We will only scratch its surface this morning, but we will keep referring back to it—it is great.

Mr Perris just referred to self-isolation and some of the difficulties that some people face. Do the witnesses—particularly Chris Watkins—have any more thoughts on that?

I am sorry, but please could you repeat what you said about self-isolation?

Do you have anything to add on the challenges of self-isolation?

We recognised that that has been incredibly challenging for some people on two fronts: their mental health and financially. We talked about the need to support people with their mental health issues, and there are creative ways in which that can be, and is being, done. We discussed the mental health aspect more than the financial aspect.

There had been some discussion in Government and on the news about the demand for a payment for people who have to self-isolate. We discussed the issue. My memory of that is that there were lots of pros and cons to doing that. There are challenges, but the matter should be explored more. There should be a particular focus on enabling employers to allow employees to be away from work without employers losing their business. There is also a problem with employers forcing employees to come into work. We should therefore be looking at employers taking responsibility and at how the Government can support them to do so.

This is perhaps a question for Allan Perris, and possibly also for Jo Eismont. One of your recommendations is about the need to have in place a ready-made plan if—or, I guess, when—we have another pandemic. I am interested in who you think should maintain that plan. Do you have thoughts to expand on in relation to that, Allan?

Not really—I am sorry. Perhaps Jo can expand on that a little.

We talked about the need for an independent oversight committee, so that we can prepare for a future pandemic and really quickly implement the lessons that we have been learning since last year.

We do not really want to have a long period of inquiry, at the end of which, in a couple of years, lessons are learned. We know things now that we did not know last March, and we want an independent committee to be able to implement the lessons quickly, such as ensuring that we have enough appropriate personal protective equipment.

We recommended that the oversight committee is independent in order to lift it out of politics, and we want to make sure that it exists while being nothing to do with parliamentary terms.

I do not think that we had any further discussion about what the ready-made plan would consist of—that probably goes beyond our remit—but the discussion came out of a desire to have an independent body that could take on the work and lift the matter out of politics.

Should the body have a remit in relation to wider pandemics due to any future severe acute respiratory syndrome—SARS—virus or flu? Should it be like a resilience committee?

Yes. We heard from Jason Leitch, who said that a pandemic is a number 1 or number 2 issue for every Government, and so we should always be in a pandemic-ready state. That is probably where that discussion came from.

I echo what other colleagues have said and I, too, thank you for all your time and input into the citizens panel.

I think that this question is probably for Chris Watkins. I represent an island community. I noticed that all the participants lived in mainland Scotland. There are issues, such as travel, in relation to which islands are distinctly different, but, of course, there are also common issues across rural areas. You recommended that

“The Scottish Government should improve connectivity (Broadband), in particular for tackling isolation for young people in islands and rural communities.”

Will you give a bit more background to that recommendation?

I am struggling to remember exactly some of that discussion. I live in a rural area where we struggle with public transport, and I know that some communities really struggle with broadband. We were lucky in the community where I live because we ended up being a pilot project with BT and a lot of money was put into getting us well connected. However, I hear of other communities where that is a real struggle. Therefore, if we want people to be able to work at home and keep young people in our communities, we need to look at that issue much more.

I cannot really think of much more; I do not think that I was in the group that suggested that specific recommendation towards the end of the process. Perhaps one of my colleagues can add a bit more.

On the back of what Chris Watkins said, on the final day, day 4, of the citizens panel, we had witnesses join us, and we had asked for people from islands to be among them. There was a student who had come from one of the islands and is now at university in Dundee and another islander. They talked us through their experience—the social isolation and how blended learning was difficult because connectivity was an issue. That is where the recommendation came from.

10:15  

That is helpful. For my final question, I will stay on the theme of what we can do for young people in recovery. You recommended investment in skills development and education. Can you give examples of what you have in mind and expand on those?

I do not have any examples. I was not part of that discussion. Perhaps if any of my colleagues were, they will jump in.

Does anybody have anything to add?

We had a very interesting speaker—a headmaster from a rural school in Aberdeenshire. What he stressed was not so much the educational aspect of schools in rural areas, but the importance for the children to come together and—[Inaudible.]—of isolation, particularly in rural areas. Therefore, school has two roles: the educational one and the aspect of socialising for young people.

Maybe this is not directly related to your question, but the young speaker from Orkney, Ms Gray, said something interesting. She said that, in Orkney, the students can normally rely on getting a summer job in hospitality, which just did not happen this year. That really impacts financially on young people, who are reliant on those part-time jobs; it perhaps also impacts on their health and wellbeing and their ability to socialise.

Thank you, Roland. That was a very helpful point.

I thank the witnesses for all the work that you have done. It helps us greatly in thinking about how we try to manage the problem.

Somebody mentioned self-isolation sick pay. I am sure that other members have, like me, had lots of constituents coming forward to say that they are still ill with Covid, many months after having picked it up, but are having to go back to work. Did you get a wee chance to chat about that wider issue and whether that is a fair thing to ask people to do? I know of teachers, and other people, who are still feeling the effects of Covid, but feel compelled to go back to work. Was there any thinking around that issue and whether we should ask the Governments to set up or think about some other sick pay arrangement for people who are suffering long term from Covid? Any thoughts on that would be very welcome.

I do not think that we discussed long Covid in particular, but we did talk about self-isolation and how people should not be punished for that. People who have to self-isolate are not necessarily sick and they cannot always handle their mortgage and other payments on statutory sick pay. It is really difficult for someone who is off work for a long period. However, we did not really stray into long Covid in the group that I was part of.

Who mentioned a moment ago that their son—or was it their nephew?—had lost quite a lot of pay because he had to self-isolate?

That was Allan Perris.

Can you tell us a wee bit more about the circumstance? That will be common, I am sure, across Scotland.

My son generally takes home £600 a week. When he contracted Covid, he was told that he had to self-isolate, that he would have to go on to statutory sick pay and that he could possibly claim the £500 allowance that is available to everybody. Since then, colleagues who he has worked with have also gone off with Covid. Luckily, his employer has put them on furlough and decided to give them 80 per cent of their wages. However, not every employer can afford to do that. Under the grant scheme—or is it the IBA scheme?—people would get a proportion of their wages. That is what we discussed at the meeting.

Could the two Governments do a little more in that area to assist people?

I think so. My son told me that he cannot afford to stay off work and was questioning whether he should tell his boss that he had Covid. If that was what he was thinking, and if his two work colleagues were thinking the same thing, and they went back to work, that would increase the spread. People are not going to self-isolate if they cannot afford to feed themselves or pay the bills and the mortgage. It was a big fear for him. Luckily, there are parents like me who can say, “Don’t worry about it; we will help you out.” However, should we be doing that? Supporting people in self-isolation should be a Government task.

I guess that we are probably not collecting that information nationally, in order to gauge the extent that that is happening. It is probably much more widespread than we think.

Yes. He said something that I thought was quite strange. He said, “If I go to work, who would know? If I don’t mention it, who is going to police it? I need to work.” He was thinking that, and so many others are, too.

Okay. Thank you very much for that, Allan. Thank you, everybody.

I thank panel members for their work on the report, which is most interesting.

My first question is for Jo Eismont and is on communications throughout the pandemic. Obviously, that has been important. In the report’s conclusions, you commented:

“The Scottish Government should explain their strategies and the evidence that informs their decision-making ... ‘letting the scientists take centre stage’”.

Did you determine in your group that that was a priority?

I think so. We felt that the daily briefings are an excellent communication tool, but that they are very short term. Every day involves the daily numbers and the difficult and bad news. We felt that, as the situation goes on and on, people lack an end point in their minds and an understanding of where we are heading together. The daily briefings are great, but they do not give anyone an overarching sense of what everything is for.

As I said, my perception is that the Government’s strategy has evolved from protecting the NHS—where we were last March—towards saving lives more as an essential rather than just as a way to protect the NHS, and that has not really been communicated as the new plan. We are missing the big picture. We are always focused on the short term of whether today’s numbers are higher than yesterday’s, and that becomes the media narrative. We need some sort of big and engaging piece that we can all hang on to and that will help us to get through the final months of what is, I hope, the final lockdown.

Did you see how that was going to be done? Did you come up with any ideas on how it might be dealt with?

We talked about it. I think that the Government has done a great job, and every piece of its evidence is always referred to as being on the website. All that information is available, but that relies on people being engaged enough to go to the website, dig it out and keep on top of things. Some panel members felt that it would be really reassuring for people to have scientists take some of the briefings to answer some of the more probing questions on the data.

My next question is for Roland Reid. The report’s conclusions refer a lot to the mental health and social care aspects. On balance, was the panel’s priority mental health or social care? It is a hard question, and you might say that the two go together, but can you drill down into that and say which of those the panel felt was more important?

That is a difficult question. The fact that the Scottish Government had commissioned a review of social care allowed us to focus more on the mental health issues, because we realised that something was being done about social care. However, we were concerned that social care staff were being sidelined, in comparison with front-line NHS workers. It was evident that the situation in nursing homes and care for the elderly are important aspects. We were also aware of mental health issues and the importance of exercise and the careful reopening of gyms and swimming pools to help people to remain fit, because that also impacts on mental health. We were aware that that will have to be done carefully, because it involves people travelling more, which increases the risk of transmission.

Is it the case that social care is probably more fixable more quickly?

Yes, that might be the case. Work is already being done on that. The mental health aspect is challenging. Services are underfunded, and needs are being addressed by a great number of charities. It is possible for people to fall through the net, and work to address that has yet to start.

Chris Watkins wants to come in on that.

I raised my hand to speak about the question on letting scientists take centre stage. I will add to what Jo Eismont said. We spent one day listening to lots of different, mostly scientific, speakers, and we found it to be enlightening and helpful. That is where some of us were coming from on that. We were thinking, “Gosh, the public should hear these people speak,” because it really helped us.

We did not really decide whether mental health or social care was more important, but I have a question on that. We now know that there has been a review of adult social care. We have not heard much about that on the news. It would be interesting for people to hear what is happening with that—what the recommendations are and how they are being taken forward. It is important for the public to hear that the Government is responding to their concerns about social care.

There was a debate in the Scottish Parliament on the report this week, on 16 February, but that is a fair point. I am sure that it will continue to play an important role in political discourse.

Yes, but the public should hear about it. The public are not hearing about what is happening. Everybody is concerned about social care, and we need to hear about that.

I hear you loud and clear, and I will take that point away.

I, too, thank all our witnesses for the time that you have made available for the project. It is heartening to hear that you have found it to be a useful, productive and enjoyable process, and you are all very welcome to the committee. I appreciate that we are pressed for time, so I will ask just two questions, which will pick up on issues in your interesting report.

10:30  

I am not sure to whom I should direct my first question. In relation to the comment about the need to be aware of and follow, where appropriate, international best practice, it struck me that, over the past days, it is as though we are living in a little bubble. I do not recall hearing very much about what other countries are doing and what stage they are at, with a few exceptions relating to minor outbreaks in countries where there is very low or no transmission. There is obviously a role for Government in ensuring that we can all be informed by international best practice, but does the broadcast and print media have a role in that regard? That might be a question for Jo Eismont.

We had a discussion about how we quickly learn and implement the lessons. We know that it is too late to follow an exclusion strategy, which is why we settled on an elimination strategy. We are not in a position to close borders before cases get in; cases got in a year ago, so we are too late.

However, we felt that there are elements that we can piece together. Some countries have more effective test and trace systems. Some countries have been able to close their borders. Even though there has been community transmission, those countries have controlled their borders in a way that we have not, entirely, so they have been able to stop mutations leading to vaccine escape. We would like to know more about some elements so that we can piece them together into something a little stronger.

It would be wonderful if the media covered such issues. Sometimes, the daily briefing format feeds into a narrative that is narrower in focus, as though we exist by ourselves, as you said.

That is interesting, because I recall a time not so long ago when we heard about the situation in France and what was happening in Germany. People are rightly thinking that they would love a summer holiday somewhere in the sun, but that does not look likely at the moment. However, the other part of the equation is the position in the other country concerned, and we do not seem to be getting that information.

I suspect that my next question might be for Roland Reid. The report recognises that social distancing and face coverings are probably here for some time to come. Notwithstanding the successful roll-out of the vaccination programme thus far, there is more work to be done, and we await to see the impact of vaccination on transmissibility and a host of other things. The point was made that messaging will be really important, so that people do not have the false expectation that, the minute they are vaccinated—even with the second dose—that is it, everything is fine and we all go back to where we were. You are smiling, Roland.

There are two aspects to that. We were all very concerned about people who have to go to work. One panel member said that he was very concerned because the train that he has to take is often overcrowded and people do not bother wearing a mask. There was a discussion about how mask wearing and social distancing should be enforced. We were aware that such measures will have to continue, as you said.

That relates to a topic that we have not really touched on, which is the way in which the press has raised people’s expectations through its reporting. There was certainly an understanding among panel members—maybe because we have been briefed by so many scientists—that it will be some time before people can return to normal.

In relation to people going on holiday this summer, we heard from an aviation expert who I thought would be really supportive of the airline industry but who was very critical of the way that it continues to sell holidays and get people to purchase tickets and is then telling them that they cannot travel.

I do not know whether this will answer your question, but the panel is much more cautious than politicians are, although we hopefully represent the wider public, and we are probably more cautious than what the press want to believe. They were interesting discussions.

I agree. In my experience, people are very realistic about the situation. They do not want overblown information; they want the facts, to the extent that we can come up with the facts. They do not want a lot of hyperbole and they will make their own judgments in their own minds.

There is another less positive aspect to learning from other nations. One speaker mentioned that, in one African country, there had been only 25 vaccinations. That really brought home to us that there cannot be vaccine nationalism; vaccines have to be rolled out worldwide and we will not be safe until the rest of the world is vaccinated. Maybe the press have not focused clearly on that, but it was very much brought home to us.

I absolutely agree, and the committee has focused on that issue quite a bit. My colleague John Mason, who is going to ask questions next, has raised that issue continuously. You are absolutely right that we live as a world and, if we do not vaccinate the world, we will not come out of this.

Before I turn to John Mason for the final set of questions, Neil Hunter wants to come back in.

I just want to reiterate what Roland said about this not being a nationalist strategy—it should be a global strategy. I think that it was Professor Jason Leitch who told us that we are not safe until everybody is safe. We have to look at the issue as a global incident and take it from there.

I appreciate that we have touched on the international aspect, which is good. Another aspect that I am interested in is taxation, which I think was in Chris Watkins’s section. Will you expand a little on what the thinking was? Do you think that the public are willing to pay a bit more tax to boost the NHS or to help the economic recovery?

Although we touched on that, it did not become an in-depth discussion that took us to any great conclusions beyond the statement that we made. The group that I was in talked about the need to look at corporation tax, which was cut a number of years ago, and at the whole tax structure. That was touched on, but we did not really come up with anything specific about what the public would be willing to accept.

One point that we discussed was the idea of universal basic income, although we could not come to a definite conclusion. We heard a bit about that and some members of the panel felt that perhaps it is time to be radical and do something totally different that would shake things up, and that also relates to taxes. Other people felt that we did not know or understand enough about that to be able to make a recommendation.

We would be interested to hear more on that. We heard that the Government has been discussing the issue and running pilot projects. We felt strongly that there is no point in introducing a universal basic income if it is only for unemployed people, which would make it just another benefit. It must be universal. We would love to have heard more about that, rather than looking at taxes alone.

That is a fair point. I can assure you that people at both Scottish and United Kingdom level are considering the idea of a universal basic income. There are practical difficulties, but other people will look at those.

In our conversations on tax, we initially wanted to look at which taxes could be raised to help to pay for the costs that the economy has suffered. We changed that, because we thought that the broad long-term goal should be to have a fairer and more equitable Scotland. That is why we have worded it as we have. It is not about raising taxes; it is about looking at the changes that we can make to the tax system overall so that those who are wealthier pay more.

We talked a little about having a ready-made plan and being better prepared for future pandemics. Were the possible costs of that considered? A huge supply of masks sitting in a warehouse would come at a cost.

We did not really discuss costs. We could see that the report on the Cygnus exercise from 2016 had more or less been put in a drawer, which was why we were so slow to react to the pandemic when it began. There was no PPE and there were no specialist teams. The Cygnus report said what should be done, but nothing was done.

We had learned those lessons already. We know what we did wrong then and we know what we have done wrong now. Someone could put all that together and make a plan that is ready for the next pandemic. We all know that there will be another one; that was made clear to us by the scientists. I think the estimate used to be that there would be a pandemic every 100 years, but we had severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2001 and we have had Ebola and other diseases. Now we have the Covid pandemic. We discussed the need to make a plan as soon as we have sorted the current pandemic so that we are ready for the next one.

We do not know what that will cost, but we have to balance that against the cost to life. Lives were lost when we were slow to respond because we did not have a plan, or because the plan that we had was not implemented.

I do not know whether you discussed this, but would the public be happy if we took a slice of money from the NHS and put it into planning for the next pandemic?

That is a difficult question. The NHS is always the golden goose.

We felt that, if you inform the public where you are taking money from and what it will be used for—especially during this pandemic when there have been more than 114,000 deaths—and can show them progress towards having a plan in place for the next pandemic, the public would go for that.

We are short of time. I can see that Chris Watkins wants to come in. After that, I will give members of the citizens panel the opportunity to question the committee. I do not want to pressurise people, but we have to move on. Anyone who would like to come in can indicate that by using the chat bar.

10:45  

On that last point, you cannot say that the money will be taken from the NHS—this goes much broader than that, and covers all sectors of society, the economy and so on. It is not just about the NHS.

The important thing is to have an emergency preparedness plan, so that we know what to do if something happens. The plan should be immediately ready to go into action, so that we do not have weeks of discussion and delays.

Are there any questions for the committee from any members of our citizens panel?

Do you have a strategy to inform or help the media to inform us better?

That is a good question. Given the committee’s role, it is difficult for us to influence the media directly, but we will use your report to inform our work. With the election coming in May, the lifespan of the committee will draw to a close at the end of March, but we will compile a legacy report, which will include this process. In that report, we will refer to the recommendations that you have made.

We will have further evidence sessions between now and then in which to address issues such as the strategy to come out of lockdown, and we hope to have an evidence session with the First Minister. There are a number of opportunities for the committee to reiterate points that you have made.

I see that everyone wants to come in. I ask you to be quick, please.

This is more a comment than a question. It was interesting to hear the immunologist Professor Eleanor Riley mention that David Cameron set up a standing committee on vaccination in 2011, which then continued. She felt that that was extremely helpful for rolling out the vaccination programme quickly here compared with other countries. It probably does not cost very much, but it has obviously had a great impact. Perhaps it would be useful to roll out standing committees for other aspects of pandemics.

We will now hear from Allan Perris and Chris Watkins, and I will then bring in a few of my committee colleagues.

Regarding the vaccine roll-out in my area, it has been mentioned that many over-70s have not taken up the offer of the vaccine because of their fear from false information or whatever. What can be done to encourage people to take the vaccine? We could use slogans such as, “Having the vaccine won’t kill you. Not having it might”, to put those ideas into people’s heads.

That is a live issue. The committee addressed the subject of vaccine hesitancy with witnesses last week. We are contemplating and discussing the issue as a committee.

Chris Watkins is next. Annabelle Ewing and Stuart McMillan may wish to make some points or answer the questions that have been posed. We will then have to draw the session to a close.

Since we finished our panel, we have heard in the past few days that the Scottish Government is announcing its new or developed strategy next Tuesday. Will our report or what we have been discussing today be fed into that, or is it now too late for all of that to be fed into what is happening with the strategy next Tuesday?

The report is being published today, and I am sure that the Government will take cognisance of it as we move forward. The committee will not be asking the Government about your report at this meeting, because the Government will need time to digest its contents, but at future evidence sessions we will certainly discuss the panel’s recommendations with the Government as we scrutinise its new strategy.

The Scottish Government will carefully consider the report that is being published today. I suspect that the plans for next Tuesday’s announcement are still being discussed, because the data changes every day, so the panel’s report absolutely will be an important contribution. A number of its points relate to longer-term issues, which will also be considered.

As for the issue of the press, which I raised in my line of questioning in the context of international comparisons and best practice, I believe that members of the press listen to the committee’s deliberations every Thursday—they will be listening at the moment. You have raised a good point about the need for more scientific information in the mainstream media. I hope that the press will take that on and that, at the next briefing, or perhaps even at today’s, other questions will be asked. Who knows?

Annabelle Ewing has stolen my thunder on one of the points that I was going to make. As I mentioned earlier in the chat bar, on Monday, I took part in a panel discussion with the Citizens Assembly of Scotland. This afternoon, the Parliament will debate a motion on the assembly’s report. Some of our discussion at this meeting has touched on the assembly’s work. It would be useful to put the two groups in touch with each other so that they can have further dialogue, which would be beneficial for both.

Thank you for raising that point, which I noticed in the chat bar.

That concludes that agenda item. I thank all the participants for their time and evidence. We have acknowledged our gratitude for the report’s publication, but it has been critical to bringing it to life to have you here to discuss your views with us and to represent what you have felt and your experience of the process. It has been hugely beneficial for me and for all of us on the committee to have members of the citizens panel with us. Thank you very much.

I suspend the meeting to allow for a change of witnesses. We will have a short break and will aim to reconvene at 11 am precisely.

10:53 Meeting suspended.  

11:00 On resuming—