COVID-19 Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, December 3, 2020

Official Report 710KB pdf

---

Covid-19 Restrictions (Winter)

We turn to agenda item 3. This morning’s evidence session forms part of the committee’s work on the Scottish Government’s preparedness for key issues that lie ahead in its response to Covid-19. Under this agenda item, we will consider the social and economic impact of possible restrictions on travel and social gatherings over the winter period. The committee launched a call for views on that topic, which closed on 18 November. We have taken evidence from stakeholders in the previous meeting.

We will now take evidence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, John Swinney MSP. He is joined, from the Scottish Government, by Professor Jason Leitch, who is the national clinical director, and Alison Irvine, who is director of transport strategy and analysis. I welcome you all to the meeting and invite the Deputy First Minister to make a brief opening statement before we turn to questions.

Thank you for the opportunity to update the committee on the Scottish Government’s plans for, and approach to, managing the disruptions that will be caused to celebrations over the winter period as a result of Covid-19, and on the protective measures that are in place to suppress transmission of the virus.

Winter is a challenging enough time of year for our citizens, businesses and public services without addressing a global pandemic. This year, the need to prepare our critical public services for winter disruption is more important than ever.

As part of preparing for a safe start to 2021, we have had to take difficult decisions to ensure that how we mark the events of the Christmas season does not set us back in our efforts to tackle the Covid virus. We are working with partners to develop guidance and regulations, supported by clear public communications that set out what we think is a fair and safe approach to celebrating Christmas and other winter festivals.

The committee will, because they have been discussed, be familiar with decisions on the restrictions and protective measures that are in place in local authority areas. Those will continue to be reviewed weekly.

We have reached an agreement across the four nations that will allow people to travel to and spend time with friends and family for a short period over Christmas. We have done so because we recognise that isolation and loneliness can hit people particularly hard over the Christmas period.

It is important that citizens consider carefully the risk that is associated with coming together for Christmas, in order to prevent significant spread of the virus.

The most important?thing that we need to do between now and Christmas is reduce the number of people in the population who have Covid, because getting prevalence of Covid down before Christmas will help to reduce the number of people who might be at risk of passing it on to loved ones.

We have set out arrangements in relation to travel. We ask people to plan ahead for journeys that they are considering, and to return home by 27 December. Transport Scotland is assessing pressures on the transport network, including demand and availability of public transport, with transport operators. There is a particular focus on ferry and cross-border transport. At this stage, we do not anticipate general availability problems, but that is being kept under active review.

We are not announcing a relaxation over the New Year period; we have had to take the difficult decision not to relax measures that are impacting on our lives. In all hospitality settings, people who have formed a Christmas bubble can socialise only with members of their own household.?We are looking at measures to permit people in Christmas bubbles to come together in self-catering accommodation, so we will shortly provide guidance on that. We have set out arrangements in relation to Christmas festivities and to students’ return home.

I take this opportunity to record my appreciation for Police Scotland for its assistance in enforcement of the regulations.

We continue to undertake regular engagement with our faith communities and leaders to keep them informed of guidance in connection with places of worship, of impacts that it might have on worship and religious festivals, and of how we might better support them in these unprecedented times.

We continue to undertake detailed engagement with local authorities on our levels approach, and we will keep that up as we enter the New Year. Our principles and our approach to the protection levels continue to be based on independent evidence and expert advice. That will continue throughout the festive period. I am very happy to answer questions from the committee.

Thank you, Deputy First Minister. We turn to questions. I will begin by asking for an update on the Government’s position on a possible extension to school holidays.

I have written this morning to the Education and Skills Committee to confirm that the Government intends to make no change to the school holiday arrangements.

I am grateful for that. My next question concerns the many religious organisations that have written to the committee about this period, which is obviously very special for many religious faiths. I ask both the Deputy First Minister and the national clinical director what advice they would give to people who wish to attend religious services, given such services’ importance during the period.

I acknowledge that that is immensely sensitive issue that is of huge importance for many of us in Scotland. It is extraordinarily difficult; participation in religious ceremony and worship is of even greater significance to many people at this time of the year than it is on any other days or weeks of the year, albeit that it is important for many of our fellow citizens during the rest of the year. I fully understand the challenges and the sensitivity of the issue. However, I regret to say that the hard and stark reality is that if religious worship were to take place in communities the length and breadth of the country in the fashion that it ordinarily would, that would provide an enormous opportunity for the virus to spread exponentially within our communities.

We currently have restrictions in place, as stated, and we look at elements of those in the run-up to scheduled reviews. There will be another review of the levels next week, which will be announced on Tuesday, and our decision making will be in accordance with requirements.

My colleague Aileen Campbell, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government, undertakes regular dialogue with faith communities on all such matters. We understand and are acutely sensitive to their concerns, but unfortunately find ourselves having to take decisions that are designed to protect public health. I am sure that the national clinical director will want to add to my remarks.

I had thought that I might be getting a week off, but it appears not. Here we are again!

That was an excellent question. I looked, while Mr Swinney was speaking, at my diary, where I see that I will meet the leaders of Scotland’s faith groups again next Wednesday. I have met them regularly during the pandemic and it has been a very constructive conversation, sometimes including the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government and sometimes not. They have, in the main, been hugely supportive, but they are, of course, full of questions, which we try to answer.

I have enormous sympathy for all the faith groups, some of whom, we should remember, have already been through their major religious ceremonies. We have had Eid, Diwali and Easter during the pandemic, and we are now heading to what is probably the biggest—numerically—religious and secular holiday in our society in the UK. It will be different.

However, nobody can cancel Christmas. It will happen in a celebratory way in worship groups all over the country. I encourage them to do that as safely as they possibly can.

11:00  

We keep the guidance on such gatherings, in particular, under review all the time. The guidance will still apply. In level 3, 50 people can gather, but distanced and wearing face coverings. That will be the position for some local authorities during the period. Other areas will become slightly more relaxed over time.

I am hopeful that our faith communities will step up, and that they will be imaginative and innovative in how they gather, just as they have been during the past 11 months. Worship services have continued throughout the time—they have just looked different. There are particular nuances with regard to nativity plays, singing, carols and so on, and we are doing our best to give as much detailed guidance as we can. However, the fundamentals are as Mr Swinney said. I am afraid that if we allow people to meet without mitigation, the virus will spread and January and February will be more difficult than December.

My final question is on a matter that we covered earlier in this morning’s evidence session—namely, how the creation of the rules around holiday gatherings over the short holiday period interconnects with the strategic framework. There is real concern about communicating to the public what people are and are not allowed to do. Given that we have the national clinical director and the Deputy First Minister here, I would welcome their reflections on the difficulty of communicating to the public the message about Christmas.

The first thing that has to be said is that the public have generally followed closely the guidance and regulations, and people have been careful and attentive to the detail. Of course, in some circumstances, the impact is quite obvious, because some facilities are not accessible and cannot be utilised.

To use the point about religious worship as an example, I point out that churches are communicating with their parishioners about the numbers who will be able to participate in services—limiting numbers and taking contact details. In all such respects, there are practical implications for citizens, which they are generally following.

The communication around Christmas has been significant already, and it will be significant in the run-up to the period. Our messaging about travel, for example, says that people who propose to travel should plan ahead and ensure that the arrangements that they want to make are possible—that they can be made safely, sustainably and with the correct protection in place.

The committee will be familiar with messaging from Government in which we make it expressly clear that, although it is an option, people should not feel obliged to travel for Christmas. The messages will be intensified. I acknowledge that, by the time we get to Christmas, some local authority levels might have changed. There are reviews to be undertaken and announced to Parliament next week that might include changes.

There is a communications obligation on the Government to ensure that we put the message across; I think that, generally, that is happening. We are focused on ensuring that messages are heard, through public advertising or public communication by the First Minister, her ministers and public authorities. I am thinking about a number of examples of challenges that we face around the country, and, indeed, about where we do not face challenges because of good joint communication between the Government and local authorities to advance the important public messaging.

The convener’s was a very good question. Christmas interrupts the flow of what we could describe as the strategic framework. I did not hear Gregor Smith’s evidence, but I imagine that he said that there is a very fine balance to be struck in what to do—one that takes into account our culture, our society and our stage in the pandemic. The public health advice has been very finely balanced.

You can see in the communications by me, Gregor Smith and others that we are worried about Christmas. I make no bones about that. We are worried about people coming together, but we felt that the risk was worth taking in order to get reasonable guidance out in a way that allows people to come together safely. However, we have suggested that the aim is removal of social isolation and not that people will have a normal Christmas. That is absolutely crucial. We are still in a viral pandemic. I am not being flippant when I say that the virus does not know that it is Christmas—the virus will not take five days off—so we still have to be very careful.

I have faced two extremes in relation to the advice that I have had to give in the past week or so—from people who want intimate individual-based guidance for their Christmas dinner, and from others who think that the Government should stay out of Christmas and allow people to do as they please. The reality is that we have to give as much safety guidance as we can for the period, but January depends on Christmas, and Christmas depends on now. Behaviour now matters, and prevalence falling—as it is doing; the levels system is currently successful—is absolutely crucial for the next four weeks.

Deputy First Minister, what work has been undertaken to model the potential impact of the relaxation of the rules during the festive period? When that will be made public?

Modelling of such a change is incredibly difficult to undertake. We have tried to be pragmatic about the public’s appetite to experience connectedness with family and friends, by allowing that, in a very limited way, from 23 to 27 December. Essentially, during that period, there will be a slight relaxation of our strategic framework, which is focused on depressing the virus systematically. As the national clinical director has just said, the strategic framework is working, because we are seeing a sustained fall in the prevalence of coronavirus in our communities.

The approach to the period around Christmas addresses the aspiration of and appetite in families to be together. We have tried to make provision for that in a limited fashion; we have not required it or prescribed it of individuals, but have tried to make that available without undermining the strategic framework. However, the application of pressure in the strategic framework today is designed to create some suppression of the virus, which enables us to undertake that relaxation with more confidence that it will not have a significant effect on the prevalence of the virus than would be the case had virus levels been at a higher level before that period starting on 23 December.

It is very difficult to model, because we do not know the degree to which the public will decide to use the available flexibility, but the crucial thinking behind the approach has been to suppress the virus as significantly as we can before Christmas to avoid any significant impact on virus levels as a consequence of the interaction that will take place during that period.

I answered that question in some depth at last week’s committee meeting. Modelling something so complex is enormously challenging. We have two levels of modelling across the UK. First, we have the scientific pandemic influenza group on modelling, or SPI-M, which is the UK-wide modelling group, with the best modellers in the country, who are trying to model Christmas. Remember, however, that we need two things for modelling: data and assumptions. Data and assumptions are hard to come by when we do not know how a population will behave, but SPI-M is doing its best to model that.

The other level of modelling is Scottish modelling, which we publish every Thursday. That includes the best attempt to look forward at what we know now and what we will know in the future. To model something as complex as removing travel restrictions for five days and not knowing how populations will behave across all four UK countries is enormously difficult.

We know that family household mixing potentially increases the prevalence of the virus. We do not need modelling for that; we just need to know about the virus. That is why we are cautious.

What will happen after 27 December? When will the levels be reviewed in each area? Will they be reviewed? Parliament will be in recess, so how will it be communicated if there is a need to tighten restrictions?

We do not want to think about a worst-case scenario, but how is the potential for a surge in cases in January being planned for in the NHS? I am keen to hear from Professor Leitch on that.

I will answer first. I want to reassure Monica Lennon and the committee that the Government, in its decision making a few weeks ago, carefully considered what I would call the medium term of Covid. We did not just take decisions about the next week or so; we were taking decisions about the remaining period of this year, Christmas and into the first two months of 2021.

As Monica Lennon has quite rightly indicated, the period of greatest pressure on the NHS is the period of acute winter pressures in January and February. Putting this in shorthand, our planning has essentially been to suppress the virus as aggressively as we can before Christmas, so that we are in a position to cope should there be a rise in the prevalence of the virus after Christmas and into the new year, combined with the normal winter pressures that we would experience. There has been a deliberate strategy of suppression before Christmas to enable us to do that.

Looking at the numbers that I have in front of me, I see that, on Sunday 15 November, the number of cases in Scotland was 142 per 100,000. On Sunday 29 November, it was 103. That is a 28 per cent fall in two weeks. Those numbers will be beginning to reflect some of the effect of the level 4 restrictions that were put in place, but not a lot of it. I am optimistic that the numbers will continue to fall in the period that lies ahead, which will get us into a position of embarking on the Christmas period with virus levels that will be much lower than they were in the middle of November. That was a deliberate strategy by the Government to suppress the virus and to try to depress any demand that would fall on the health service at the start of 2021.

In that modelling, on health service planning in particular, we looked at the normal, run-of-the-mill winter pressures on the health service, if I can call them that, and the demand for beds in the health service during that period, recognising that we would have to provide for that, and we then put Covid on top of that. We believe that our planning is adequate and appropriate to cope with that period. Of course, there are some uncertainties around that.

11:15  

The amount of hand washing that now goes on in society is a great deal higher and more regular than it normally would be. I think that that will be sustained, and we hope that will suppress some of the routine fuelling of winter pressures.

If older people are not out and about as much—I am being in no way disrespectful here—the propensity for falls on slippery surfaces is reduced. That may reduce demand on the health service in January and February, when falls can be a factor.

Such mitigating circumstances may affect our assumptions about normal winter pressures in January and February. We have not taken that into account in our planning, but it may well be a factor in suppressing demand on the health service during that period, which will potentially create more capacity to deal with any Covid implications.

I assure the committee that the Government looked well ahead to the end of February in making its judgments a few weeks ago, at a time when we knew that we were going to be making decisions about relaxing the strategic framework during Christmas, in order to create a balanced approach to the level of demand that we think will materialise.

Of course, those are best estimates. I cannot, in all honesty, predict what the weather will be like or how slippery the ground will be. As a Government—I am leading this work on the Government’s behalf—we are looking at concurrent risks, and our resilience planning for the next three months is based on an assessment of three concurrent risks: the weather, Brexit and Covid.

I ask the committee to conceive of three circles: one for Covid, one for Brexit and one for the weather. If we put those together, we see that there could be areas of overlap where issues come together. For example, there could be a Brexit interruption, bad weather and the necessity to get clinical supplies together. There could be some perfect storms, and the Government is looking at that. I chair a regular call with senior ministers and our resilience partners—indeed, I have a call with the Scottish resilience partnership this afternoon to consider those sharp areas of concentric activity.

That was a long answer, but I felt that the committee would benefit from the detail.

From a blunt national health service perspective, we have been planning for winter since June, as we do every year, and this year we have had to take into account a new infectious agent. We have between 2,000 and 3,000 beds available for Covid patients, depending on the time of year and disease prevalence.

We are also ready for flu—we are very hopeful that the flu season will follow the southern hemisphere flu season, which has not been as severe as usual, but we cannot rely on that. We have seen very high numbers getting flu vaccinations, in particular among our at-risk groups, which we hope will also help us.

We are ready, unfortunately, for more admissions and more intensive care admissions, if we have to have them, but we would much rather avoid them. We should remember that those admissions would come three to six weeks later than the viral infection, so if there is an increase of infections at Christmas time, it will be some weeks before that feeds through to pressures inside our NHS. We are ready for that, but we want the population to help us not to have that spike, or peak, in January and February.

My first question follows a running theme throughout the meeting, which is messaging and communication around the festive bubble.

I know that the inboxes of many MSPs are full of lots of questions. I will read out one email, which is typical.

“I have a question about the visiting guidelines ... During Christmas can we continue the permitted level 1 (isles) indoor visits as?well as forming a bubble, or if forming a bubble overtakes this rule and means you can only socialise indoors with those in your bubble for the period it is in operation”.

As I see it, the issue is around the communication of the message. Will the cabinet secretary comment on whether the communication needs to be altered in any way so that people are able to pick out exactly what they need when they go through the guidance?

My first point is that the fact that a member of the public is raising that question with Beatrice Wishart is indicative of the fact that members of the public want to do the right thing. It is helpful that members of the public air all those specific questions, because the desire to do the right thing lies at the heart of it.

My second point is that the Government’s message—which we reiterate frequently—is generally that the best way for people to deal with coronavirus is to minimise their social interaction. I completely understand the perspective of Beatrice Wishart’s constituent in relation to their aspiration to undertake in-house visiting—to which the Government responded positively—because of the issues of isolation, weather and the spread of the population in the island communities. Although I understand how important that is, the Government is generally saying to the public that they should keep their social interactions to a minimum as the best measure that they can take to avoid the spread of the virus. Those two general messages are important.

On the specifics of the question, my response is that, although the Government is saying that people should minimise their social interaction, it is still possible for them to undertake household visiting—where it is permitted to a limited extent in the island communities—and to form Christmas bubbles. However, we generally encourage people to minimise their social interaction.

I will make two quick points. The fundamental answer to Beatrice Wishart’s question, and therefore to her constituent, is that we would like people to choose between those two things. If people form a Christmas bubble, that is their social interaction. They will already have taken that risk and hardwired it into their five days, and we would therefore ask them to be very cautious about meeting other individuals outwith their Christmas bubble. If people choose not to form a Christmas bubble, they are taking the risk in a different way. Depending on which level they are in—if they are in an island community, for example—they could keep the in-home socialising and not form a Christmas bubble. It is all about reducing risk.

The point about communication is absolutely right. It is a complex landscape, and we have lots of workplace guidance and lots of individual guidance. We try to make ourselves available—in fact, some people are irritated with quite how accessible I am for phone-ins and for being on local and island radio stations to answer questions from the public as much as I possibly can in order to get across that message.

Of course, we also rely on Beatrice Wishart and her colleagues to help us with that. If the guidance is not clear in any way, I am accessible and others are accessible, and members should feel free to ask us.

My next question is around education. In evidence to the committee, the Educational Institute of Scotland shared concerns about the Christmas break being followed by an even higher infection rate. It also had concerns about the current numbers of teachers and pupils who are self-isolating. When I asked the cabinet secretary about the matter on Tuesday, you indicated that

“75 per cent of secondary 4 to S6 pupils have experienced no interruption to their learning”.—[Official Report, 1 December 2020; c 6.]

However, that means that 25 per cent have had their learning interrupted, and some have had to self-isolate more than once. Given the impact that that has on equity in education, how is that being monitored and recorded?

There are two aspects to how it is being monitored and recorded. One is the routine EMIS monitoring of pupils’ attendance at school. That provides me with daily information, which generally indicates that pupil attendance at schools is at about 90 per cent, compared with the annual picture for last year—for which numbers are available—of about 93 per cent, so the comparative level of attendance is high.

I am particularly interested in another level of monitoring, which I have established through direct dialogue with directors of education. I have asked them for more detail on the degree to which the education of senior phase pupils is being disrupted by periods of self-isolation, which touches on exactly the point that Beatrice Wishart raises with me. There is limited disruption in relation to Covid infections among senior phase pupils, but disruption is slightly more widespread in relation to pupils who are self-isolating. That is a material factor in the judgment that I must make around questions of equity in relation to access to education and therefore access to fair assessment under the certification process.

I look regularly at that information, which is being gathered by Education Scotland through directors of education, and it is obviously having an effect on the formulation of my view on equity in relation to preparation of the exam diet for 2021.

Finally, is there an update on plans for the safe return of students in January 2021, to ensure that there is not a repeat of what was seen in September?

We have widespread dialogue with the university community on that question. I can say that there will be a staggered return of students after the Christmas and new year break—they will not be returning in the congested period right after Christmas and new year.

There will be testing. Obviously, we have already embarked on testing in all institutions. That is taking its course, and is being well participated in by students. I pay warm tribute to the institutions for their co-operation and for putting in place those arrangements. They will also be in place for returning students in the new year. We are still discussing the precise nature of that staggered return with universities, and we will set out details as soon as we possibly can.

I will pick up on the point that the cabinet secretary referenced a wee while back about the three-month resilience planning and related issues, during which he mentioned, inter alia, Brexit. As far as that resilience planning is concerned, what issues related to Brexit does he see?

The principal issues are probably best summed up as those relating to food supplies and medical supplies. In the current context, those are the two issues of greatest concern that we would need to be assured about. As Annabelle Ewing will be familiar with, in our relationship with Europe, a vast amount of the transfer of goods is done through the short straits. Obviously, we are anxious that, if the proper and free-flowing arrangements that we rely on today are not in place after the end of the transition period, there will be at least the potential for delay in the supply of foods and particular medical supplies.

We are examining those issues closely, and are in discussion with the UK Government about all those questions, because we need to be assured that the supply route can operate effectively and functionally, and that any delays are—ideally—eradicated or, at worse, kept to a minimum.

11:30  

I recall an evidence session three weeks ago at the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee with Rod McKenzie, the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association. He was forthright and said that the whole Brexit process was a complete and utter shambles with regard to planning. Three weeks later, I wonder whether we have any clarity, because people will obviously be concerned about our position, particularly with regard to the potential impact on supplies of medicines. People want to be assured that, come the new year, they will get the medicines that they need.

I understand those concerns, which are legitimate. I think back to the no-deal planning that the Government undertook and the various no-deal Brexit scenarios that we faced. I am trying to get clear in my mind when we faced those issues, because it has all merged into one, but it was probably in 2018. One of our principal concerns was about medical supplies. We have undertaken some work on that, and a vast amount of stockpiling of medical supplies went on at the time.

Fundamentally, the impact on supplies is dependent on what the arrangements will be after the end of the transition period and, at this stage, I cannot confirm to Annabelle Ewing what those arrangements will be. I wish that we could remove some of that uncertainty and anxiety for her.

However, I assure members of the public that the Scottish Government and our health service are acutely focused on ensuring that we maintain the availability of medical supplies in all circumstances and that those goods can have the highest priority for transportation through the short strait. In that respect, they have priority, but we have to ensure that that priority can deliver the supplies that we require. We are making every effort to ensure that that is the case but, in the absence of knowledge about what the arrangements will be, a degree of uncertainty exists.

I hope that clarity arrives from the UK Government sooner rather than later.

I turn to another issue, which is the impact of the restrictions on downstream businesses outwith hospitality. A hairdressing business recently contacted me in my constituency of Fife, which is at level 3. Generations of the family are in the business, which is often the case with hairdressers. Their footfall has decreased considerably because of travel restrictions. What is the Scottish Government’s thinking on what help might be provided? It appears that the restriction grant that was announced the other week would not apply in those circumstances. We are still trying to seek clarification on that.

We have taken a range of decisions about the availability of financial support for business and I recognise that to be a significant issue for business. When we design the schemes, we try to ensure that they have as much reach as possible but, inevitably, there will be limitations.

That is why we added the element of discretionary relief, which is available to local authorities to make decisions at a local level for organisations that might be ineligible for the support that the Government is putting in place through the schemes. I hope that it might be possible for those funds to reach businesses of the type that Annabelle Ewing raises so that they can be helped through this difficult period.

Fundamentally, in ordinary normal circumstances, those businesses are sound, but we are not in ordinary normal circumstances, unfortunately. The challenge is to ensure that we configure financial support to enable businesses to reach ordinary normal conditions again, when they can be the effectively performing businesses that we know them to be. That is the thinking that has gone into the business support that the Government has put in place.

I will look further into the area that the cabinet secretary mentioned to double check the position.

My last question is addressed first to Professor Leitch. It is good to see him again—where would I be every Thursday without him? The cabinet secretary can come in after Professor Leitch, if he wants to. The question is about summer holidays next year: should people be planning anything?

That question requires my crystal ball. I certainly would not book anything that cannot be cancelled and have the money refunded, but I am hopeful that next summer will look a lot more normal than the summer that we have just come through.

The key intervention here is vaccination, and we have seen the news on that over the past 24 hours. That news is about the very small green shoots. It is not population-level vaccination and it will not be that for some months but, by the summer, we will know a lot more. We hope, with a fair wind, to have vaccinated the vast majority of the at-risk community and to be into the less risky communities by then, and we will know whether the vaccine gives protection from transmission as well as disease.

The crucial unknown is what will happen in the rest of the world. Remember that the virus is a global problem, not a Scottish problem, and we have to vaccinate Indonesia and Nigeria as well as Scotland. I think that there will be international travel restrictions for some time to come. The World Health Organization holds the ball, in relation to 37 phase 3 trials and the advice about international travel to each continent. That will all play out in the next six months, but there is an encouraging start now with the vaccine.

It is important to put on the record that the virus might change. If the virus stays stable, that is all good news, but the virologists warn us all the time that there is a small chance that the virus will change. That does not look likely just now, but we have to sound a note of caution in all the enthusiasm for the vaccine. I think that we will be going on holiday next summer, but I am not sure that it will look quite like a normal summer. However, it will look a lot better than the summer that we have just had.

Perhaps the cabinet secretary could flag up the importance of looking to holiday at home and doing something for the Scottish tourism industry.

I certainly hope to have the opportunity to make my ferry booking with Caledonian MacBrayne next summer, as I always do, but it is a wee bit early for that to be a certainty.

Thank you, gentlemen.

The ferry journey to Tiree is among the favourites for many people.

Deputy First Minister, we now seem to have some clarity as to the Government’s intentions in relation to school closures—you have made the decision on that. I am disappointed that I seem to have learned more about the Government’s thinking on the matter on Twitter and in the media than I have in any answers to my questions in this committee over the past month, but we are where we are with that.

I have a question about the evidence behind that decision. I listened to what you said about the evidence relating to the impact on education, but what evidence have you considered in relation to transmission, particularly for young adults in high school where there is potentially more transmission? I am thinking in particular of the need to limit social interaction 14 days ahead of the Christmas relaxation coming into force. What consideration was given to that? Does keeping schools open lead to an increased risk of higher infection rates?

No, I do not think that it does—the evidence on that point is clear. There is a growing evidence base on the low transmission levels among young people and within schools. The overwhelming majority of the cases that present in schools are invariably a product of community transmission, through interaction that has taken place in the community.

It is a classic example of an area in which we have to draw together and reconcile the various harms that can be created around Covid. As we know—members will be familiar with this, as I have rehearsed it with the committee previously—a range of harms arise out of Covid. There is the direct health harm and the indirect health harm, and there are social and economic factors.

In weighing up the difficult judgments—I am not trying to pretend that they are anything other than difficult—on the Christmas break, I have been mindful of the advice that I have had from the scientific advisory group, which has looked at the potential for harm to young people: the relative harm from transmission of the virus if young people are in school in an organised environment with proper mitigation measures in place as against being out of school with much greater opportunity for social interaction and, therefore, greater transmissibility of the virus.

That is not to mention considerations of vulnerability that exist for large numbers of young people who rely on school for support and assistance in many respects. These are finely balanced judgments, and in coming to a conclusion on those questions, those have been the factors that I have reconciled in my mind.

I would put that question very much in the context of my answer to Monica Lennon a few moments ago, regarding the Government’s focus on sustained efforts to reduce the prevalence of the virus through the various interventions that we have made in terms of the level of restrictions. We are seeing the fruits of that approach as we speak in the reduction in the prevalence of the virus.

That position is clear now. However, if the priority is education—keeping the schools open, and keeping young people learning in the school environment—what is the case for saying that we should be vaccinating teachers sooner rather than later? We have around 51,000 teachers in Scotland. How is that being factored into your thinking? If education and schools remaining open is such a strong priority, how will we prioritise it in the vaccination programme?

There is a careful discussion to be had about the wider handling of the pandemic on a whole-population basis and the circumstances of individual sectors. The Government is taking advice—I suspect that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport will set out further details in her statement to the Parliament today. It will take advice from—I am sorry; the name of the institution has just escaped me. Jason Leitch will come to my assistance.

It is the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

I am grateful to Professor Leitch. We will take our guidance from that committee to provide us with the whole-population guidance on vaccination policy. That must be combined with our approach to suppressing community transmission of the virus, with which the committee is familiar and on which important progress is being achieved. Sustained efforts to reduce community transmission keep our schools safe.

I am trying not to separate out those two issues of whole-population vaccination policy and community transmission suppression, but there are subtle distinctions between the two, which, when combined, enable us to make progress on securing the health and wellbeing of the population as a whole.

11:45  

There is an important distinction to be made in describing the vaccination programme. Vaccination in the early stages is about individual protection and not population protection. It will eventually be about population protection.

The advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which was published in the past couple of days, is very clear: we should vaccinate those at risk of disease and death first. That is the number 1 priority. The principal way of doing that is to work our way down through the age groups. There are some nuances about health and social care workers, those who are treating Covid patients and those who are at particular risk of Covid but, fundamentally, we start with the oldest and work our way down.

In its advice, the joint committee suggests that, once we get to the over-50s, we will have at least attempted to remove 99 per cent of the mortality risk from the disease. It is a risk-based judgment. Whether we get 10 vials of vaccine or 10 million vials of vaccine, we work our way through the age groups logistically, and the only profession that the committee specifically recommends to be removed from that is health and care workers, who have direct access to a large number of Covid-positive patients. That is the advice that we and the whole of the UK will be following.

The British Medical Association put out a statement yesterday. Like many commentators, the BMA has raised significant concerns about how the five-day relaxation could impact on Covid infection rates. Clearly, things could go wrong, and you might need to move very fast to make decisions. How effective is the test, trace, isolate system now, as a way to quickly understand what is happening within the population and to take action on the back of that? What about the length of time between the case being created and the interview under the test and trace process? Is that operating more effectively now? Is the process effective enough to give you the data that you need to make the decisions that you may have to take if infection rates go up?

I will say a little about that, and Professor Leitch can provide more detail.

I think that the answer to the question is yes. We have a significantly greater testing capacity in Scotland in a variety of formats. We have all seen the queues that there have been at some testing facilities, for example in Johnstone, where new community testing opportunities are available. We have much greater testing capacity.

The data on contact tracing represents the efficient and comprehensive approach that is being taken to get around those cases and to put the necessary elements of self-isolation in place to avoid further spread.

That system is now working much more comprehensively at an individual level, but it is important—referring back to some of what we discussed with Monica Lennon—that some of the messaging tries to minimise social interaction within the population, which remains an important priority in order to avoid spread of the virus. In that respect, we will be able to avoid the circumstances that Mr Ruskell puts to us, which may arise out of greater social interaction.

Although the opportunity is there for people to have more social contact—albeit with significant constraints—people are not obliged to have it. Given the feedback that I have had from members of the public from talking to people and looking in my inbox, I think that a lot of people recognise that the opportunity for some social interaction is there, but they have decided not to take up that opportunity. Contact tracing enables us to get across any cases that emerge out of contact.

The Government is looking very closely, several times a day, at the data that emerges on all of the issues, so that we can take early and swift decisions, if necessary, to try to address circumstances as they arise around the country. That will be heavily informed by the work of the contact-tracing teams and the national and local incident management teams.

I have a couple of things to add. Yesterday, there was a joint statement from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland, which is made up of the medical and surgical royal colleges, and BMA Scotland. I agree with their statement, and in fact I expressed that support on social media. It advises “caution” over the Christmas period to the population. I think that that is absolutely the right message to advise.

If someone is socially isolated and lonely and has not seen their family for months, I am not telling them not to visit, but I am telling them to be very careful when they do. That is exactly the same message that the academy and the BMA have sent.

On Mr Ruskell’s point about test and protect, by global standards, the system is working well in Scotland. It is finding the index cases quickly, contacting enormous numbers of them—over 90 per cent—and getting the contact tracing done. Clearly, as prevalence falls, that becomes an easier job, because there are fewer people to contact—it is simple arithmetic.

Test and protect is very helpful at outbreak management. It is very good at an individual level, helping people to protect themselves and their families and isolating people out. It is very good at outbreak management in, for example, a workplace, a factory, a school or wherever a viral outbreak might be. It is not good for understanding broad community transmission and where that might be happening, because it is not designed to do that, and because the virus does not let us do that. I really wish it did.

Just before joining this meeting, I talked to the Federation of Small Businesses, and its key question was about where the transmission is happening. That is the really difficult question. If there are outbreaks, we can kind of know where it is happening. If one happens in a chicken factory or a call centre, we would know but, if there is broad community transmission, we cannot know—we just know that it is where people are meeting. That is why the restrictions are fairly blunt, and it is why the key thing is that, as prevalence comes down, we can remove those fairly blunt restrictions.

Convener—

We had better move on, given the time limits. I am sorry, but a couple of other members want to ask questions.

Jason Leitch talked about whole-population guidance from the JCVI. Does it say anything about ethnicity? We know that the evidence suggests that people from certain ethnic groups might be more susceptible to the virus, and there has been research into that. Is there anything in the guidance about prioritising people from certain ethnic groups?

The guidance is not silent on ethnicity. It adds ethnicity into the risk mix, along with profession, gender and everything else, and it comes to the same conclusion: that the principal risk factor is age. The second most important risk factor is disease, pre-existing or otherwise, no matter which ethnic group a person comes from. Therefore, whatever the ethnicity, you will get the highest risk in the oldest age group.

The guidance goes on to say—as all our individual country guidance will say too—that guidance and communications have to be culturally specific. If we are talking to the Traveller community or the care home community or the Bangladeshi community, we should use communication strategies that will reach those individuals in a way that is accessible to them. That is very important, because we need all those groups to come forward for vaccination. We need community leaders and voices, and others, to help us with that communication.

Fundamentally, the answer to your question is that the JCVI says—and I agree with it—that age is the most important distinguishing feature for this disease.

That is helpful.

For a while now, there has been advice to reduce social interaction, where possible, in the lead-up to the Christmas period. Is any practical guidance being issued on when and how people should do that, or are they just expected to use common sense and not go out as much? What is the advice?

The advice is communicated in the Government’s persistent messaging on those questions, through the briefings that it undertakes and the paid advertising and broadcasting activity in which it is involved. It seeks to encourage members of the public to minimise their social interaction. That message has been sustained throughout the whole period since lockdown began in March, but it has intensified in the past few weeks.

The changes that have been made in the levels and restrictions in different localities, with certain areas moving from level 2 to level 3 and others moving from level 3 to level 4, have brought with them some practical measures that remove opportunities for social interaction. In many areas, fewer facilities are open or accessible to enable social interaction to take place.

Those changes also bring with them a message to encourage people to reduce their social interaction voluntarily. That messaging from the Government has been pretty sustained and will continue to be so. It applies even in respect of the five days of relaxed restrictions between 23 and 27 December. The Government’s message to members of the public is, “Here is an opportunity that can be taken, but you’re not obliged to take it if you do not wish to do so.” That is part of our effort to get across to people that the best way to avoid spreading the virus is to minimise social interaction.

So, you are not saying to people that, 10 days out from the Christmas period, they should start to isolate. It is not as specific as that—it is more about asking people to try to reduce their social interaction in general.

It is not, in any way, a change of direction from the advice that the Government has previously given. I go back to the FACTS guidance, which said that people should avoid crowded places and keep 2m apart. Implicit in that guidance was the whole idea of minimising social interaction. That is completely alien to human beings, but we have to say it, because that is the way in which we interrupt the spread of the virus. That has been a consistent part of the Government’s messaging.

The evidence shows that members of the public have significantly reduced their social interaction in general. In addition, in response to some of the restrictions that are in place, they are doing so quite specifically in a number of areas, where the degree of social interaction is reducing considerably.

Earlier, Annabelle Ewing raised a point about support for small businesses. I was pleased to see Tesco’s announcement that it will pay back its rates relief money. From my recollection—I hope that I have got this right—the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Kate Forbes, mentioned targeting those resources at providing support for small businesses. Is there any more detail around that at this stage, or is the Scottish Government working through the detail?

First, I welcome and applaud the decision that Tesco has taken. It is a wise and appropriate decision, given that supermarkets have been able to operate throughout the whole pandemic period and have had more economic and business opportunities than many other organisations have had. We have all relied on supermarkets, and we are grateful to them for what they have done.

12:00  

The move by Tesco to repay its business rates relief is a real contribution to the common good and the common purpose of our society, and I welcome it. It is a not insignificant sum of money that it plans to return to the public purse. I would encourage others to follow the example of Tesco—a number of other organisations will have similarly benefited from the opportunity that Tesco has had.

We are focused on ensuring that that support can be added to the measures that are in place to support other organisations that have not had the economic opportunity that Tesco has had. That begins to address some of the difficult issues that Annabelle Ewing raised: some organisations are perfectly sustainable businesses, but the only problem is that members of the public cannot get through the door of those businesses in sufficient numbers. However, they will be able to do so when we get into calmer terrain. Our challenge is to get them there. Nobody wants to see damage and interruption to businesses just because we have some difficult terrain to get across just now. Initiatives such as the measures taken by Tesco help us to get more businesses there. There are limits on the public purse.

I would like a wee bit of clarification on the Christmas bubble that we have been talking about. On the three-family or three-household relaxation over the five days at Christmas, are the families who come together under that arrangement still restricted to be in one household—at one location—or can the same three families meet for lunch in one house on Christmas eve, for instance, and then have Christmas dinner in a restaurant, if a restaurant is open, on Christmas day? In other words, are they restricted to a single location, or can the same three households meet up in two or three different locations?

First, it is the one bubble that is being created. Once people decide who is in their bubble, that is the bubble.

I will ask Jason Leitch to help me out on one particular detail. I think it would be perfectly possible, for example, for people to gather in that bubble in one house on Christmas day and in a different house on boxing day. The issue of meeting in a hospitality setting might run up against the hospitality restrictions—and this is the point where I ask Jason Leitch to help me out.

That is absolutely correct, Mr Swinney; you remember correctly. The fundamental answer to your question, Mr Coffey, is yes. If you choose to have a bubble, think very carefully: you do not have to have three households—you could just have two. You could also not meet over the whole five days; you could just meet on Christmas day. If you reduce the numbers or the time, you reduce the risk.

If, however, you need to or want to meet for longer, you can meet in different locations, but you are obliged to follow the restrictions that have been set for the level that applies in the place where you are. That will involve pretty restrictive hospitality, wherever you are, and we do not anticipate removing much hospitality restriction over the next few weeks. Therefore, the hospitality bit of your scenario would probably not happen, but yes—you could meet on Christmas eve and on Christmas day in different houses.

Good. That is really clear—thank you so much for that.

My next question is about the hospitality situation at level 4. Here in East Ayrshire, we are hoping that we might move from level 4 to level 3 over the next week or so. One of the points that people in the hospitality sector have made to me on a number of occasions is that the 6 pm closure time for level 3 does not really give them any advantage in welcoming people to their facilities. Do you think that there is any scope here? Do the numbers that we are seeing at the moment allow us to relax the restrictions at all, to the extent that businesses in the hospitality sector in level 3 could perhaps remain open to 8 pm and therefore get a substantial portion of the likely business that could come to them but that is sadly being lost at the moment? Do the numbers give us an idea that that might be possible at all, when and if we get to level 3?

There are two points in Mr Coffey’s question, to which I will respond. The first relates to the East Ayrshire situation. Good progress has been made there but, according to the most recent data that I have available to me, East Ayrshire remains above the Scottish average for cases per 100,000—although I compliment the people of Ayrshire on the reductions: the levels look to have come down by about 30 per cent over the past two weeks. Good progress is being made, and I suspect that the numbers that I have in front of me do not yet do full justice to the application of the level 4 restrictions that are in place. I would be optimistic that the numbers will continue to come down.

We must still be cautious about what it will be possible to undertake, because we must get the baseline down in order to fulfil the points that I made in my earlier answer to Monica Lennon on the three-month horizon.

The second point relates to the composition of level 3 restrictions, particularly the 6 pm closing time. The hospitality sector has made representations to the Government about the importance of perhaps extending that to 8 pm to allow for an early-evening or mid-evening sitting. Those issues have been aired at the Cabinet, and we are examining those questions. I suspect that we will have some further examination of those questions to see whether we can in any way change those arrangements.

We are having to impose restrictions in some shape or other to reduce the prevalence of the virus. If we change the composition of a level, that is the flip side of the coin of taking an area out of a level and putting it into a different level—that is, reducing the level. We know that that is a difficult decision, because it potentially fuels the prevalence of the virus—in fact, it does fuel it.

We have to proceed with great care on those questions. The more we allow people to interact, the more the virus will spread. I am afraid it is as crude and as blunt as that.

This query is on behalf of sporting and equestrian people—there are many of them in Ayrshire. One question that they frequently ask me is why they continue to be closed when they really do not have any close contact within their sport whatsoever. They do get numbers of people attending equestrian events, but in no way are people coming close together. In fact, it involves single persons competing at a time.

I wonder, John or Jason, if you could explain the thinking behind why that kind of sport continues to be restricted at this stage, given the lack of one-to-one contact within those sports?

That is an example of where things can be tricky in specific areas. It may appear that those are isolated events, but there is a degree of interaction involved in people coming together to make them happen that can fuel the virus. We are trying to minimise the complexity of arrangements in how we proceed with some of our constraints. The more we make the regulations or exemptions bespoke for individual settings, the more difficult it is for us to apply a more general suppression of the virus. That is the challenge that we are trying to reconcile.

I am aware that First Minister’s question time is starting very soon. However, we have Alison Irvine with us to answer questions on travel and transport. As the committee will be hearing next week from stakeholders in the travel and transport sectors, I will ask her briefly about the Christmas period. What will be the impact on public transport, in terms of potential overcrowding, capacity issues and so on, as a result of the five-day relaxation period? Perhaps she can help us with that.

From a Transport Scotland perspective, we have set up a Christmas planning team, and we are looking at what levels of demand we expect.

As Mr Swinney and Professor Leitch touched on earlier, it is exceptionally hard to estimate the numbers of people who are likely to want to take part in social activity, and to travel to do so, over that period. Nonetheless, we are looking at the information that we have. We are also working with transport operators to keep an eye on their advance booking levels. At this point, we do not anticipate any problems in the transport network in Scotland, although we are obviously keeping the situation under constant review.

We are also working with the Department for Transport on cross-border services, in particular regarding the rail network. Travel on most of the cross-border rail services has to be booked, which gives us an element of control to help to manage demand. We are looking to manage demand on the transport network as safely as possible for those who choose to travel at that time.

I do not know whether the Deputy First Minister or Professor Leitch want to add to that.

I have nothing to add, convener.

As I said at the beginning of the meeting, we remain concerned about the Christmas period, and travel is one element of that. We ask people to follow the guidance, which has been in place for months now, around travelling safely if they choose to travel.

That concludes our business for this meeting. I thank the Deputy First Minister and his supporting officials for coming along to give evidence to us; it has been very helpful.

Our next meeting is on Thursday 10 December; the clerks will provide information on that.

Meeting closed at 12:12.