Chamber and committees

Good morning, Professor Leitch and cabinet secretary. I have various queries on subjects that keep popping up as we go through the meeting. Please wait two seconds while I write this final point down. [Laughter.]

People who have had Covid might have some natural immunity, but they do not have immunity for the time that vaccination provides. I am emphasising the point that you made: despite a person’s having had Covid, it is essential that they get vaccinated to help to protect society as a whole.

To go back to the issue of groups that have a natural tendency to not want to be vaccinated, we have spoken in the committee about the fact that a good chunk of those groups will not necessarily go to the football or whatever. We have regularly discussed the messaging that is being targeted at those groups. Will that messaging increase uptake of the vaccine, so that we know that the messaging is getting through?

We are now getting a good response from the younger generation, but do you have any figures that show that the introduction of vaccination passports has increased vaccine uptake? Moreover, although I am delighted to hear that you are working with ethnic communities to address vaccine hesitancy, is any monitoring and measuring being done to show whether that messaging, as it is being developed, is increasing uptake, why there was hesitancy in the first place and whether we are overcoming it?

On the issue of misinformation, people are entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. Do we need legislation to stop people putting out information that is factually incorrect and dangerous to public health?

We are still getting inquiries from people who had their first vaccination somewhere else in the UK and are getting their second one in Scotland. Are we any closer to a solution for that issue?

As Jenni Minto said, it is a huge panel. However, I see that as a positive, given the disparity of the populations that we are talking about and the range of challenges that island communities face.

I will focus my questions on job opportunities in fishing, agriculture and tourism. Those sectors are clearly big economic drivers in the communities, but how will they be affected by Brexit?

I will not go round the panel on that question. I just wanted to get a brief overview and, unfortunately, there are too many witnesses. Although that is good, it is also bad in terms of our time.

I was interested to see that there is a perception of low opportunity in low-carbon and renewable energies in the islands. I have always imagined that the islands are a low-carbon and renewables powerhouse—perhaps I am wrong and you can tell me differently—so why is there not a perception that the opportunities in that industry are greater?

I do not know who is best placed to answer that.

I want to quickly touch on that. The Highlands and Islands has a massive opportunity right now, but I am not sure that we are tapping into that opportunity properly. One of the questions in the report was whether, in general, tourism has a positive impact. Seventy-six per cent of respondents said that it had a positive impact in their area, but 67 per cent said that there was not enough adequate provision for the tourism industry so that people can come and get the benefit of the islands. Such areas have natural resources such as wind, tidal, solar and all the other things that can be pulled together. If such resources were community owned, the money from that could be invested in the community so that the tourism sector could get the provision to allow it to flourish. I see that as a massive opportunity, and I am interested in what the witnesses think about that.

I take your point about the attitude to jobs in the hospitality sector. We need to address that across society, not just on the islands. The hospitality sector is a fantastic sector to work in, and we need to make such jobs far more professional so that they are seen as an opportunity, rather than as just being for students or people who cannot get work elsewhere.

I welcome the witnesses. First, I would like to know how to pronounce Stephen Reicher’s last name, because we have heard it pronounced in different ways.

I have listened carefully to what has been said today and I have read the committee papers. I have to say that this is a hugely confusing and conflicting conversation, but I have drawn some conclusions, which I will quickly run through. We know that the virus is endemic in the population and we know that it kills people; the target scheme is working, which we know because we are getting an uptick in the number of people who are getting vaccinated at the moment; the vaccine reduces infection by up to 50 per cent, as we heard in a previous meeting; the virulence of the delta variant is much higher, as we have also heard previously; the post-vaccination passport messaging requires a strong focus on continuing with hand washing and mask wearing, because of the false sense of reassurance that you have spoken about today; and, largely, the Scottish Government is trusted on what it has done so far, which is helped by the fact that the scheme that we are discussing is subject to a sunset clause—I know that there is a debate in relation to time and data.

To me, events and venues do not transmit the virus—people do. By and large, the nightclub industry has worked incredibly hard to make the venues as safe as possible. I take the point that you are making about venues and events, but I would argue that it is the people who transfer the virus, not the events, so I have a couple of questions.

Conscientious objectors have a choice: you are right to say that they absolutely can choose not to take the vaccine. The scheme is a targeted one. People do not have to go to the events that they will be excluded from if they do not have the vaccine. However, following on from what Professor Reicher has said, by allowing conscientious objectors access to events, are we taking away the rights of the people who are in the venue and also discriminating against the business owners, because having those conscientious objectors in the venue could put other people at risk and cause the business owners a problem?

My second question is one that I have asked on numerous occasions. Care home workers in my constituency have been sacked by a care home owner because they will not take a double vaccine. The owners have taken the view that, on balance, the rights of the residents are more important than the rights of the workers. We have discussed that at length and it is something that we need to delve into. The question is, whose rights are more important: the conscientious objectors or the people on the other side who want to see a vaccinated population?

I want to make a point about the backfire effect, which I will leave open for further discussion. If the backfire effect occurs, events cannot open and businesses cannot trade. If there are people who simply refuse to get vaccinated and continue to spread the virus and put pressure on our NHS by blocking beds and preventing other people getting various treatments—all the stuff that we know is already happening—how does the rest of the community react to that demographic, whether the reason for their not getting the vaccine involves a hesitancy or a failure to believe that it will work? How does that affect the majority of the community who are saying that those people are stopping everyone else from getting on with their lives? I know that is controversial, but I would like to discuss it.