Chamber and committees

That will happen where possible. I know some people who are already in that category and will get their booster vaccine and their flu jag in the same visit.

There is a recommended time gap between the second vaccine and the booster, which the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation set out in its advice. If memory serves me correctly, the gap should be six months. That will guide the timing of booster vaccinations, which is why someone in my age group will wait longer for the booster vaccination than someone in my parents’ age group.

Those vaccinations are under way. Health and care staff, those over 70 and those in the highest-risk group are being given booster vaccinations first and we will then work through the rest of the recommended population in the order in which they got their initial vaccination, in order to take account of the recommended time gap.

Those are important issues, but I stress that, as we get to the very high uptake levels that we are seeing now, decisions that individual health boards take about the best way to deliver vaccinations are not driven by staff shortages, but driven by consideration of the most effective use of resources. When we reach a point, as we have with many age groups, where relatively small numbers of people are not yet vaccinated, drop-in clinics that are open all day may not be the most effective way to reach those people. Offering appointments can be more effective. In bigger health board areas, there will be a different consideration. The issue is about recognising the progress that has been made, the current situation and how health boards are best placed to reach those who are not yet vaccinated.

The percentages are small, but within those percentages there are still lots of people whom we want to reach. Given their different geographies, it is therefore important that we allow health boards to exercise some judgment and discretion about how best to reach those people. The health secretary stays close to those discussions with all health boards.

It would be good if, occasionally, the Scottish Conservatives raised any of those concerns with their counterparts in London. I am not convinced that their counterparts in London pay any attention to them, incidentally, but that is another matter altogether.

There is a serious issue at the heart of this. The Tories are, right now, raising taxes for businesses and individuals at a really difficult time for the economy, as we try to recover from the pandemic. As we know, Brexit has also caused acute labour shortages across our economy, which are making it difficult to get certain foodstuffs to supermarket shelves and for people to access fuel reliably.

Those problems will simply increase and get worse over the winter unless the UK Government really stops and thinks about the impact of its actions and comes up with solutions. All of us should be demanding that it comes up with those solutions—and quickly.

The police are not routinely filling in for the Scottish Ambulance Service. [Interruption.] It has not asked the police to take patients to hospital. It may well be the case that, if a police officer comes across somebody who needs to go to hospital, they will opt to transfer them to hospital. I am not sure whether Alexander Stewart is suggesting that that should not be the case. However, that is not the result of a request from the Scottish Ambulance Service.

We face big challenges across our Ambulance Service and our national health service, just as do England, Wales, Northern Ireland and many countries around the world. We are taking action to respond to those challenges, and we are rightly and properly being robustly scrutinised on that, which I am sure will continue throughout the winter. However, let us not claim that things are happening across the country that are not happening.

I am very happy to get back to the member with the date—if we have set a date—on which that will be published. I will ask the relevant minister to write to the member as soon as possible.

The Minister for Transport has engaged on the issues, which are important. There are plans to develop two new freight vessels, which will address the issue in the long-term. The minister has also given an assurance that work is under way to explore potential short-term actions to alleviate some of the pressures on the busiest sailings.

I will ask the transport minister to write directly to Beatrice Wishart. If she wishes to provide details of the particular case that she cited, those will be passed on. I will ask Graeme Day to provide more detail about the work that is under way to resolve the issue in the short term as well as in the longer term.

It is interesting that in the course of that ramble Douglas Ross appears to have completely changed the basis for his opposition to Covid certification—Anas Sarwar changed the basis of his about a week ago. Up until now, I understood that, for Douglas Ross, the objection was that it was far too difficult for businesses to comply with the scheme, but now it is because we are requiring proof of vaccination only, not proof of a negative test. I have set out clearly why we are not doing that at this point and the fact that we will keep that under review.

The principal reason why we are taking that approach right now is because we are trying to drive up vaccination rates. We set out the rationale, the reasons and the detail, a court has looked at that over the past 24 hours—I have already summarised the judgment of the court, which was delivered this very morning—and the committee has scrutinised it again this morning. We have listened to businesses, which is why we have delayed enforcement to allow businesses a grace period to test their arrangements in practice.

I come back to the central point. I am left wondering what exactly Douglas Ross would support us doing to keep Covid under control, to protect people’s health, to protect our economy and to save lives. The position that he is taking right now is to oppose everything that the Government does, simply for the sake of opposition. That is irresponsible at any time, but in the face of a deadly virus that is particularly irresponsible from the Conservatives.

Far too many. With apologies to Anas Sarwar, I do not have the precise figures in front of me right now, but I know that it is too many. The Government is, of course, taking action to help people on the lowest incomes with the cost of living crisis, because I absolutely agree that that is what we are facing. For example, by the end of October, we will make a £130 support payment to every household that receives council tax reduction—an investment of up to £65 million that will benefit more than 500,000 households—and we have introduced the Scottish child payment, which is also intended to help those who are living in poverty.

I suspect that Anas Sarwar’s next question will be to ask us to make additional payments to people who are living in fuel poverty. I hope that we can agree between us that, if the Government had the wherewithal to do that, we would do it, because we all want to help those on the lowest incomes. However, we come again to the nub of a matter. The Scottish Government—any Government in the Scottish Parliament—is simply unable to continue, week after week, month after month and year after year, mitigating the impact of reserved policies from within a limited and finite devolved budget. It is simply not possible to do that without hitting our devolved responsibilities hard.

I come back to this point: if we want, as I do, the Parliament to be able to do all the things that no doubt Anas Sarwar is going to ask me to do, we cannot just wish the ends; we have to give the Parliament the means. We have to give the Parliament the powers, and we have to ensure that it is this Parliament that holds the resources. Anything short of that from Anas Sarwar is, I am afraid, just an empty sound bite, and what we face now is far too serious for that.

People who are watching this will have heard me say that every penny of the £41 million will go directly to help low-income families.

Anas Sarwar said that that is where the funding for his proposal should come from, but he announced his proposal before we knew about the £41 million. Maybe I am getting his proposal wrong, but I assume that the £70 increase that he wants is over and above that. All that I am saying to him is that he should tell us where the money should come from.

Sometimes, consequentials do not turn out to be what they appeared to be, but, on the assumption that the £41 million does come from the UK Government, every single penny of it will go to help low-income families. That will be in addition to the other sources of support that I have just outlined, such as the £130 support payment and all the other steps that we are taking: the doubling of the carers allowance and the seven benefits that do not exist anywhere else in the UK that Social Security Scotland is already delivering.

We act to use our powers and our resources, but the cost of living crisis is caused by the decisions that the UK Government is taking within its reserved powers. We cannot go on raiding a finite devolved budget to mitigate the impact of those decisions. We need to get those powers out of the hands of UK Governments and into the hands of this Parliament. As long as Anas Sarwar prefers to leave those powers in Boris Johnson’s hands, he will not have the credibility that he wants to have before this chamber.

As we have made clear, weddings are exempt from the vaccination certification scheme.