Chamber and committees

The issue is important and Gillian Martin’s question gets to the heart of it. To be fair to the JCVI, it is constituted with expertise to allow it to consider the health benefits and health risks of vaccination. That is what the JCVI has done, and such consideration is the basis for its recommendation.

It is worth reiterating that the JCVI concluded that the benefits of vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds outweighed the risks, but, overall, it did not think that that was sufficient to recommend vaccination for all. However, crucially, the JCVI recognised that there are wider considerations—not considerations that it could properly take into account, but ones that Governments could appropriately and properly take into account. The four Governments have asked their chief medical officers to do exactly that and look at the wider benefits of possible vaccination. That will include the possible minimisation of disruption to education. It is important that the CMOs are allowed to do the work that they are undertaking independently, taking account of all the advice and wider factors that they think are relevant.

As I said earlier, we expect to receive the advice quickly—I am hoping that that will be in a matter of days. As soon as we do, Parliament will be informed.

I will undertake to provide an update. Dental services, which the member referred to, continue to struggle, as many sectors do, with increased transmission, but they are operating much more normally. For podiatry services and a lot of other NHS services, the constraint on moving back to face-to-face appointments is the continued requirement for distancing, in order to reduce the risk of transmission. The health service is progressively getting more services back to normal, which includes providing more face-to-face consultations. I will ask the health secretary to give an update on podiatry, in particular, and follow up his previous correspondence with the member in June.

More generally, we have set out our commitment to NHS resourcing, and we will continue to keep that under review. We have record numbers of staff in the national health service, and we have committed to increasing the NHS’s staffing complement.

I must be frank: as is the case with many sectors of our economy, the health service and other public services are struggling with staff shortages, which are largely to do with Brexit impacts and the reduction in labour supplies. We need to grapple with such issues, which affect our health service as well as food supply and other parts of our economy.

In short, yes, we are considering all possible delivery options to make it as easy as possible for people who are being vaccinated and for the NHS in administering vaccination programmes. As I have indicated, the JCVI is still considering evidence on the benefits of booster vaccines for the wider population. We await its final advice.

The interim advice has allowed us to do some initial planning, and we are trying to ensure that that operates in as much synergy with the flu vaccination programme as possible. We are working with health boards to plan the seasonal flu vaccination programme and to ensure that we align the two programmes as much as possible. That will depend, in part, on the timing and detail of the JCVI’s advice on Covid booster vaccinations. We will continue to update the Parliament as regularly as possible.

It actually is, because the one thing that cannot be changed—the thing that matters—is the QR code. I do not pretend to be a technical expert on all of that, but we clearly set that point out last week. I advise the member not to seek to travel on the forged document that he just admitted to having, because the QR code and his identity documents will probably find him out.

I do not have a figure for how many people might have their information incorrectly recorded—I would not expect there to be a significant proportion—and I will check to see whether the information can be made available. More important, if any data on anyone’s vaccination status record is incorrect, they can phone the Covid-19 status helpline and the matter will be investigated and rectified as quickly as possible. The helpline number is 0808 196 8565.

Let me take test and protect, accident and emergency and vaccine certification in turn.

First, on test and protect, Douglas Ross has quoted figures today—as was done by others last week—in a way that does a real disservice to those working in test and protect. The publication that he has quoted, which cites provisional figures, actually tells us why it is not reliable to quote provisional figures, because the contact tracing is on-going. Therefore, it is the figures from the following week, when they are finalised, that matter.

To take the provisional figures—I think it was Jackie Baillie who quoted them last week—the provisional figure for completed cases was 43 per cent; it is up to 55 per cent this week, I think. The 43 per cent figure that was quoted last week to do down test and protect is, in the finalised figure this week, 82 per cent. Politicians who, perfectly legitimately, want to have a go at me and the Government, do a real disservice if, in doing so, they do down the efforts of those working in test and protect.

In this week’s provisional figures for test and protect, which, again, I stress are provisional figures that will be updated and finalised next week, 89 per cent of cases closed within the 72-hour target—the World Health Organization’s target of 80 per cent within 72 hours—which is up from 85.5 per cent in the provisional figures last week.

Yes, the organisation is under pressure. How could it be otherwise with the pandemic and the level of infection right now? However, it is an organisation that is working hard every single day, it is playing a valuable and vital part in helping to get this country through, and I think it is wrong for figures to be quoted in way that unfairly undermines the efforts that test and protect staff are making. This Government is supporting the NHS through the recovery plan and through the resources that have been identified to back it, in addition to the overall commitment to increase NHS funding.

This is interesting, and it will be relevant to the point that I am about to make on Covid certification. Regarding the plan that Douglas Ross derides, which is the Scottish Government plan to increase NHS capacity by 10 per cent, backed by investment, he says here that that is insufficient, and yet yesterday the Conservative Government at Westminster announced its own plan, and guess what that plan was? I do not know whether Douglas Ross is at Westminster right now, but I suspect he will support it in that context, because that plan was to increase NHS capacity by—guess what?—10 per cent.

Again, we have Douglas Ross backing things that are done by the Conservative Government in Westminster while criticising exactly the same things when they are done here in Scotland.

That takes me on to vaccine certification. We will set out the work to which I have alluded today in advance of the debate tomorrow. Parliament has, rightly and properly, been asked to endorse the principle, and it is absolutely right and proper that—just like the UK Government for England—we continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that we take account of their views and concerns as we finalise the detail. In fact, we would be criticised if we were not to do that.

Of course, vaccine certification is already being used in many countries across Europe and around the world, and what we are proposing is also being proposed by the UK Government for England. I suspect that we are hearing from Douglas Ross a justification for the ridiculous position that he is going to end up in, where the scheme that he opposes in Scotland is exactly the same one that he supports when a Conservative Government introduces it in England.

By all means—[Interruption.] By all means, scrutinise this Government, but—for goodness’ sake—try to have a single ounce of consistency as you do it.

Those who have not yet had the vaccine who are either eligible for a first dose or have passed the eight-week interval for the second dose have all been written to. We continue to make efforts to encourage and persuade those who have not been vaccinated to come forward, but the vaccination programme is not mandatory. Anas Sarwar appears, again, to be getting himself into a position—I will come back to this point shortly—in which he is setting his face against Covid certification without, as far as I can tell, looking at any of the detail or considering any of the evidence elsewhere in the world, while also suggesting that we should have mandatory vaccination. The programme is voluntary, and we continue to encourage people to come forward.

Uptake rates of the vaccine programme are incredibly high, but we continue to try to get to anybody who has not come forward for vaccination, so that we can encourage then to come forward, and we will continue to do so.

With regard to the JCVI, the issue of who is included in a booster programme and the issue of 12 to 15-year-olds, I am a politician, not a clinician or public health expert, so it is important that all our policy decisions on vaccination are rooted in evidence, either from the JCVI or, in the case of 12 to 15-year-olds, possibly from our chief medical officer. If I were to second-guess or ignore any evidential base and say that we were going to vaccinate people without that, Anas Sarwar and others—with much legitimacy, I hasten to add—would criticise us for doing that. We stand ready to implement recommendations but, for the sake of overall confidence in the programme, it is important that decisions on who we vaccinate are rooted in that clinical and expert evidence. Anas Sarwar previously suggested that the Scottish Government should act unilaterally to reduce the interval between doses in spite of the fact that we see evidence, for example from Israel, that that is not and would not have been the right thing to do, because it would have reduced the effectiveness of the protection from vaccination.

Secondly, the test and protect system is working extremely well under significant pressure. To repeat the point that I made to Douglas Ross, I think that it was Anas Sarwar’s colleague Jackie Baillie who said last week that only 43 per cent of cases had been completed, knowing that she was citing provisional information. This week, the final figure for that week is 82 per cent. We can already see that, last week, Jackie Baillie was talking down the performance and achievements of test and predict. The provisional figures for this week will be finalised next week and we will see the comparison then. In terms of that WHO standard, last week the provisional figure was 85.5 per cent and this week it is 89 per cent. Again, test and protect is working exceptionally well and we have a duty to continue to support it.

For Anas Sarwar to say that test and protect is not working in our schools suggests a lack of understanding of what is going on in our schools. Contact tracing is being done appropriately and in a proportionate way in our schools, so that we do not have the situation that we had before the summer holidays, when lots of children were required to self-isolate when there was no need for them to do so. We now have a situation that helps to protect the population while minimising disruption to education.

Finally, on vaccine certification, I will not pre-empt tomorrow’s debate, but Anas Sarwar says that he is not taking a position of opposition for opposition’s sake. I am sorry, but anybody who, on the weekend four or five days before a debate in Parliament, decides—without considering the evidence or detail—that, come what may, they will vote against the motion is indulging in opposition for opposition’s sake.

Ferry operators continue to reinforce the messages on complying with current legislation regarding face coverings. They also have in place enhanced cleaning measures and are promoting the guidance on travelling safely on public transport. Transport Scotland continues to engage with all lifeline ferry operators on the efforts that they are making in that regard and also on the wider resilience of the network.

The recent spate of Covid-related incidents on some ferry routes and vessels is concerning, but we need to remember that, even though most restrictions have been lifted, the virus is circulating, and we all need to continue to take care, as I have set out again today, and think about our own behaviours, whether at work, at home or while travelling. If we all comply with the measures, whether on public transport or elsewhere, we will continue to bear down on the number of cases that we are seeing.

Face coverings play an important part in stopping the spread of Covid, even as vaccination is rolled out. Scientific evidence shows that fabric face coverings of two or, preferably, three layers, help to reduce transmission.

Face coverings are, of course, most effective when they are fitted correctly over someone’s mouth, nose and chin. The mandatory requirement to continue to wear face coverings is subject to regular review and will continue to take account of scientific, social and economic factors, as well as the latest clinical evidence.

Emma Harper mentioned FFP2 masks. In clinical settings, we continue to consider the most appropriate personal protective equipment to be used.

We will continue to keep all the requirements under review. We are legally required to ensure that any requirement is necessary and proportionate. Any changes to legal restrictions will, of course, always be scrutinised by the Parliament.

I am obviously unable to comment on that particular case. However, on Mr Greer’s first point, about contact tracing in schools, test and protect is taking a much more proportionate approach to identify the circumstances in which a young person is considered to be a close contact. We know that, prior to the summer holidays, many young people had quite lengthy periods of isolation and therefore disruption to their education, and that, on reflection, those periods of isolation were possibly unnecessary with regard to risk reduction.

It is important that we keep the matter under review. In the past couple of weeks, I have asked for a review of that process and for an update of the advice. The advice that I have is that it continues to be appropriate to have the guidance that is currently in place, but we will keep all the guidance under review as the situation changes.

On the issue of ventilation and CO2 monitors, work is on-going with local authorities to ensure that the funding that has been provided for CO2 monitors is being used and that those monitors are used in all school and education settings. That work crucially supports the process of assessment that we have set out previously, which we have asked to be completed before the October break, to decide whether any longer-term changes to the ventilation systems in schools are required. The work is under way with local authorities to ensure that the assessment is done, and we will report on it as regularly as possible.