Chamber and committees

We are already in discussions about that, as I set out last week in the chamber. First, drop-in clinics are the quickest and easiest ways for young people in the age group concerned to get vaccinated.

Secondly, any young person who does not take up that opportunity will be sent a letter next week with an appointment. Asking a young person to go to an appointment in a clinic is the quickest and easiest way to get informed consent, because it is easier for their parent or carer to go with them.

Thirdly, we will do school-based vaccination to ensure that anybody who has not managed to take up one of the other opportunities gets an opportunity in a school setting. That might be in a school or at a hub around school premises. All of that is part of the efforts that are under way and will intensify in the coming weeks to vaccinate as many 12 to 15-year-olds as possible.

I will come to NHS pressures in a moment.

On vaccine certification, Anas Sarwar is being deeply disingenuous and opportunistic, and he moves the goalposts at every turn. A few weeks ago, Anas Sarwar was not asking us to introduce a scheme involving either proof of vaccination or a negative lateral flow device test. He was asking only for a negative test, not for proof of vaccination.

At this stage, we do not intend to include a negative test, for all the reasons that have been set out. Although LFD tests are very important, they rely on self-reporting. At this stage, we consider that that would not be the best approach. It would also undermine one of the central objectives of the certification scheme, which is to drive up vaccination uptake rates. That is the only difference from the scheme that is being proposed in Wales. It applies to exactly the same venues and in exactly the same way.

Anas Sarwar does not want the people who are going to events or nightclubs to have the protection of such a certification scheme but, apparently, people who are going to attend the Labour Party conference are to have such a scheme, because it is important that their health gets protected. When Anas Sarwar decides to have a bit of principle or consistency on the matter, perhaps he will be able to come to the chamber and expect to be taken seriously in any way, shape or form.

On the very important issue of NHS pressures, I say to Anas Sarwar that, of course, there were significant pressures on our national health service before the pandemic but, again, anybody who stands in the chamber and suggests that the pandemic is not the most significant factor impacting on our NHS right now—the most significant factor that has impacted on it in years, if not decades—lacks credibility.

We need to support our NHS through all the ways that we are doing that, including increased funding, the work to increase capacity and the work to reform patient flows through our NHS so that we reduce the pressure on A and E and on our Ambulance Service. All that is the work that we are focusing on, with real action, real solutions and real dedication. We will continue to do that each and every day to support those working on the front line.

Uptake rates across all groups in society are high—much higher than we anticipated at the start of the programme. That said, uptake rates vary among groups and we have known all along that we need to target particular groups if we are to get uptake levels as high as we want them to be. People in our ethnic minority communities are certainly in that category.

A range of steps are being taken, including outreach to ethnic minority communities and vaccination clinics in places of worship. Glasgow central mosque, in my constituency, has been a vaccination site for some time; I know that that has helped to get overall uptake rates across Glasgow high, especially in certain communities.

We will continue, even with uptake levels being as high as they are, to make sure that we go after everybody we can go after, and we will continue to encourage people who have not already taken up the opportunity for vaccination to do so as soon as possible.

I and the Government will continue to do everything that is possible and appropriate to support the hard-working staff of test and protect.

We see a system that has been under pressure, but in which performance is improving. For example, the finalised data for the week up to 5 September show that 83 per cent of cases were completed—the provisional data had suggested that the rate was just 55 per cent. I think that we will see data for the most recent week tomorrow. More than 70 per cent of cases were closed within 72 hours, which is the proxy for the WHO standard. We need to get that amount higher; I hope that it will be higher in the figures that will be published later this week and finalised next week.

The service is delivering well for people across the country and is one of the measures that mean that we are now seeing case numbers declining—and declining quite rapidly. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the people who are working in test and protect across the country.

There have been discussions with licensed trade representatives, football organisations and particular football clubs. The feedback from all those discussions has been very helpful in finalising definitions. Although I do not expect that everybody will be satisfied with the fine definitions, it is important that we achieve broad consensus on as many of the issues as possible. We will continue with that up to the introduction of the scheme and—of course—after its introduction. As I said earlier, we will be prepared to adapt, should experience suggest that that is necessary.

As I said in my statement, we aim to make the decision over the next day or so because we understand how important it is for the travel industry and for people who are travelling. It is a really difficult decision. I will be frank: my preference would be for the requirement not to be dropped—at least not immediately—by any of the Governments in the UK. However, the UK Government—as is its right—has decided to drop the requirement for England, which inevitably raises questions for us.

That does not take away the health concerns that we have about increasing the risk of importing new variants. The testing requirement for people coming into the country is our best line of defence against that. However, the changing of requirements for England raises all the issues that arise when we do not have a four-nations, aligned approach. Some travellers to and from Scotland will choose to use airports elsewhere in the UK, which will have implications while perhaps taking away the public health benefit that such testing offers.

It is not an easy decision. We are trying to weigh up the considerations as carefully and frankly as possible. We will set out our decision in the next couple of days.

The evidence and data are clear and become clearer all the time. It is absolutely the case that vaccination does not eradicate the risk of transmission—of somebody getting the virus or passing on the virus—but it reduces that risk significantly. The data is very clear and the figures in relation to the weakened link between cases and hospitalisations show that being vaccinated significantly reduces somebody’s risk, if they get the virus, of becoming seriously ill or dying from it. On both those counts, vaccination is very important and worth while.

Vaccination is literally the most important thing that any of us can do to protect ourselves and those around us. For anybody who has not yet done it, please think again. Ask any questions and raise any concerns that you have, and then please get jagged, because it is really important for you and for others.

I think that most people understand that pragmatic and practical decisions have to be taken around the circumstances in which face coverings are worn and not worn, but the general rule is that we encourage people to wear face coverings in indoor places, and the law requires it in certain indoor places. For hospitality places, which would include student unions, for example, it is a requirement to wear a face covering while moving around.

One of the pragmatic decisions is that, for obvious reasons, it is not reasonable to expect somebody to wear a face covering when they are sitting down in hospitality premises and perhaps eating or drinking. However, when they are moving around—entering or leaving, or going to the toilet, for example—we then ask people to wear face coverings. I know that that is inconvenient for everybody, but it is one of the basic and relatively simple ways in which we can all protect ourselves and each other. I would appeal to all members to take the time and make the effort to encourage constituents to take every reasonable opportunity to do that as part of the overall protection against the virus. It is, we hope, one of the things that will help us to keep cases on a downward track.

Let me run through all those points in turn. Before I come to the position in the NHS, I note that the member raised issues to do with vaccination passports and testing, so I will address those briefly.

The situation with vaccination passports is as I have set out. We think that their introduction is a proportionate measure ahead of the winter period to try to help us to get transmission down and keep it down, to drive up even further the already high vaccination uptake rates, and to do all that while keeping businesses such as nightclubs and large events open for business rather than having them face again this winter the risk of closure that they faced last winter. I think that that is a reasonable thing to do.

We are working closely with business on the definitions that will apply, in order that we hear its concerns and can address them as far as possible. I think that that is the right, the proper and, indeed, the responsible thing to do. The position in England is not as planned as that. The Prime Minister said in terms last week that he reserves the right to come back and introduce such a scheme at any point. We think that it is better to give the clear intention and do the work now to support the businesses that will be required to implement the scheme.

On testing for those who travel to Scotland from other countries and testing when people arrive here from other countries, I have tried today to set out frankly the very difficult consideration that arises. On the one hand, we have real concerns—the chief medical officer has communicated to me very real concerns—about removing the requirement for pre-departure testing and the risk that that would create of us importing the variants. On the other hand, the travel industry has concerns about not having an aligned position across the UK. That is the very real consideration that we are trying to weigh up, and we will come to a decision on it, as I said, over the next two days.

On NHS pressures, I think that I said last week—and I say it again today—that the NHS is facing crisis conditions as a result of a global pandemic. It is facing crisis conditions here in Scotland and it is facing crisis conditions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The point that I will continue to make is that the people who are working hard across our NHS—people are working incredibly hard, including, I know, the member—do not need me to worry about what we call it; they need the Government to take the action and provide the support to those on the front line in order to help them to deal with that pressure.

That is exactly what we are doing through funding, increases in capacity and changes in how the NHS is seeing patients in order to free up capacity. The health secretary will set out later this afternoon the actions that we are taking to support the Scottish Ambulance Service with the difficult job that it is doing.

I believe that this winter will be the hardest that the NHS has faced in the memory of any of us. My job is therefore, each and every day, with my colleagues across the Government, to support those who are working at the front line—and that is exactly what we will do.

Yes, I agree with that. We saw a significant increase in demand for mental health services before the pandemic, and we have seen a significant increase during the pandemic. That is partly positive, because the stigma that is associated with mental health is much lower than it was previously, although that puts intense pressure on services.

Before the pandemic we were, of course, reforming and redesigning mental health services particularly for children and adolescents, with the creation of community wellbeing services and provision of counsellors in schools, for example, to ensure that services are available more quickly before crisis points are reached. That work continues.

There has been an increase in the number of people working in mental health services—in particular, in CAMHS—which has accompanied the rise in demand. However, I do not underestimate the recruitment pressures that exist in many parts of the national health service—and, indeed, in many parts of society and our economy. We have committed to increasing mental health funding over the current session of Parliament, but the initial increase in funding is partly to clear some of the historical waiting times, particularly for children and adolescents.

That is an important strand of work that has significant priority, because we know that the pandemic has intensified the impact on people’s mental health. That means that we are required to ensure that services are supported to respond appropriately.