Chamber and committees

I will be corrected if I am mixing this up with something else. There is guidance. I will look to see whether it can be published if that has not happened, but there is guidance on a phased return to offices. We will continue to work on that with businesses and sectors.

Although not everyone is desperate to get back to the office, many people are. Employers and, indeed, some workers will be keen to get back to the office, but we must ensure that we do that at the right pace. If we do not, we run the risk of setting back our progress and taking everything in the wrong direction. That is not responsible. My biggest responsibility here is to take the decisions that I think are necessary, regardless of how unpopular they are or of how unpopular they might make me. If I do not do that, I will not be doing a service to the country. We will continue to try to get that right.

I have had conversations with some businesses, and I know that most businesses are not planning a wholesale return to the office. Most businesses are thinking about a new normal. They would like to see more of their workers back in the office, but they recognise that the position might not be exactly as it was before Covid. That approach is to be encouraged. The Scottish Government is looking at a more hybrid model of home and office working, and it is not doing so only for the purpose of controlling Covid—there are issues of wellbeing and environmental issues that inform those debates.

At an earlier stage of the pandemic, we all talked about coming out the other end of the pandemic and not necessarily going back exactly to normal. Working in the office is one of those areas where it is appropriate to have a bit of a pause for thought and consideration of the best way of working in the future. There are other reasons to want to have people back in offices, such as the benefits that it brings to city centre economies. We cannot dismiss any of those reasons, but this is a moment to think seriously about the balance that we want to strike in the future.

The detail that I can give at the moment is the detail that is laid out in the interim advice from the JCVI, which we are using as part of our planning process. That recommends that, if the final recommendation is to have a booster programme, that should begin in early September, so that we maximise protection in those who are most vulnerable ahead of the winter months.

It is recommended that any booster programme would be offered in two stages. First, it would be offered to those who were prioritised by the JCVI as part of the vaccination roll-out, notably those with suppressed immune systems, those in care homes, the clinically vulnerable, front-line health and care workers and the over-70s. The second phase would involve it being offered to those over 50, those aged 16 to 49 and clinically vulnerable, unpaid carers, other adult carers and those who live in households with someone who has a suppressed immune system.

Planning work for the operationalising of that is under way, and, just as we have done with the initial vaccination programme, we would want to get any booster programme done as quickly as possible but also as accessibly as possible, so we will look carefully at the appropriate settings for jags to be offered and more detail on that will be set out in due course.

I will certainly consider that. I cannot, before I have considered it, give a guarantee that we will do it, but I take the point that fewer people will be required to self-isolate for 10 days, which may therefore enable us to look to extend the eligibility for that support. I certainly undertake to look at that.

Obviously, the number of people in the youngest age group—the 18 to 29-year-olds—who are double dosed will be rising daily. The low figure in that group is indicative not of low uptake but of the fact that their first doses came later; the eight-week interval for second doses means that not all young people are yet eligible for their second dose. That is obviously a moving picture with every day that passes. However, Gillian Mackay makes a reasonable suggestion, and I undertake to explore it further.

We continue to support expanded staffing across the national health service, and we look to support our NHS workers in various ways. I will not repeat everything that I have said about the work that we are doing on long Covid, but that work is important, and no doubt we will talk more about it in the weeks and months to come.

When people talk about long Covid, there is often a contradiction. In one breath, they talk about the risks of long Covid, as Alexander Stewart has just done, but in the next, as some of his colleagues have done, they call on us to be less cautious in our approach to the virus. We have to make sure that the services for long Covid are there, and that GPs and others are supported to deal with what they have to deal with, but we also need to continue to show caution in order to minimise the number of people who get Covid and, therefore, the number of people who will suffer from long Covid. Those aspects all hang together, and they are in the interests of GPs as well as everyone else.

I absolutely understand the importance of the issue, but I do not want to go much further on it just now. As I said, we are expecting JCVI advice, but I have to wait to see what the advice is. If the advice is that we should go beyond the current groups of young people in terms of vaccination, I will need to see what order the JCVI proposes. For the reasons that we understand, I hope that there will be priority for 16 and 17-year-olds, but the JCVI might recommend a different approach. Before getting into commitments on dates, we need to see what the advice is. However, I can say that we will move to operationalise and implement any new recommendations as quickly as we can.

In encouraging the JCVI to look at the matter again, and to do so as quickly as possible, we have been mindful of the fact that we have an earlier return-to-school date than other parts of the UK do and that the return of colleges and universities is looming for us all.

We must continue to support compliance, which has a number of different strands, in all ways. As we ease restrictions in some areas, it is all the more important that there is high compliance with the restrictions that we still think are required. I know very well how difficult it can be for people to be compliant with all the measures 100 per cent of the time. That is not easy for anybody, but it is really important that we all comply.

We will continue to communicate clearly with the public about why we are asking for certain things to be done, including the wearing of face coverings. We will also continue to engage with businesses, including ScotRail, to support them with enforcement and to encourage people to do the things that we consider to be necessary. We all have a part to play in that through our own compliance, through encouraging compliance on the part of others and by ensuring that we communicate widely on the need for compliance.

My final point is that, as we lift restrictions, people should understand that, if we are still mandating things in law, there must be a good reason for that. That is the case with face coverings. If you wear one, you protect others, and if others wear one, they protect you. That is one of the remaining things that we can all do to protect one another, and I encourage everybody—no matter who they are—to ensure that they do that.

We do not want any suspension or delay to be any longer than is necessary. I absolutely share the view that we should not have people in unsuitable accommodation. Although Covid has caused unavoidable disruption and difficulties for local authorities, we need to ensure that they do not last any longer than is necessary. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government has been looking closely at that issue, and I will ask her to write to Miles Briggs with an update on the current situation as soon as possible.

We are not planning anything by stealth. Today, in front of Parliament, I have been frank about the options that we are leaving open and I have given an undertaking to Parliament that we will be full and up front and will consult it in making any decision. I am sorry, but that is not doing something by stealth—it is actually quite the opposite.

I will come back to vaccine passports, because the issue is important. As I said to Patrick Harvie, and as I have said before, I am far from convinced that they are the right thing to do, but I will explain in a moment why we are not simply ruling them out for every possibility at this stage.

Before doing so, I will return to the first part of the question, about test and protect. Test and protect came under pressure in July, as it will always do when cases are surging, but it did not buckle under that pressure—it adapted and coped, and it is performing well. I thank everybody involved in test and protect. The work that they have done has played a part in getting us from a point where we had some of the highest case rates—even, at one point, the highest case rate—in Europe to a point where we have a much lower case rate. We are certainly there or thereabouts. I think that Wales might still be just below us, but we have the second lowest—and we may be heading towards the lowest—case rate in the UK.

These trends come and go, and it is what we do to try to stop cases surging—and, when they do surge, to get them under control—that matters. In the past few weeks, people working across our public health teams have done an excellent job, as has the public, to get us into the much stronger position that we are in today.

Finally, why do I not just rule out vaccine passports? I will not repeat everything that I have said about my scepticism and the need for a healthy degree of caution about them, because people have heard me say it. However, if there is one thing that I have learned—I like to think that I have learned more than one thing over the past 18 months, which have been grim, challenging and difficult for everybody—it is that, in the face of an infectious virus that keeps learning to run faster than us and that is changing itself to make the challenge ever more difficult, and after 18 months of having to ask people to live their lives in the most restricted and unnatural manner imaginable, it is not sensible just to rule things out for ideological or other reasons. I think that we have a duty to properly consider every possible step that we could take to get our lives back to normal and to keep them normal while protecting people from the virus.

Does that mean that we will take every possible step? No—there will be things that we decide are not the right things to do, and vaccine passports, in total or in part, may be one of those things. However, I do not think that it is responsible for me, as a politician, in the face of everything that we have lived through and what we are still having to deal with, to blithely rule these things out. I will continue to keep an open mind on anything that keeps this country safe while also allowing it to get back to normal.

Those questions are all perfectly reasonable. I will try to go through them all; I think that I noted them all down. If I miss any points of detail, I will either return to them later or write to Anas Sarwar afterwards. Most of the questions were are about vaccination, so I will spend most of my time responding on that.

The only thing that I take issue with in Anas Sarwar’s questioning is a turn of phrase that I do not think was reasonable, whereby some young people were described as “still awaiting” a first dose. All over-18s have been offered a first dose. Some have not taken up the offer; however, use of the word “awaiting” makes it sound as though they have not been offered it. We will continue to work to get uptake rates as high as possible. Uptake rates are high—higher than I might have anticipated in the younger age groups—but not as high as we want them to be.

Overall, our vaccination programme is going extremely well. We are above England and Northern Ireland for numbers of first and now, possibly, second doses of the vaccine having been administered, in terms of percentage of the total population. However, all four nations are doing well on that. Our vaccination programme is a success; everybody should recognise that, because it is down to the hard work of those to whom Anas Sarwar rightly paid tribute.

On the first question about whether we will have more pop-up vaccination clinics or sites, the answer is yes. We are looking at all possible ways to access young people where they are, as opposed to expecting young people to go to clinics. We cannot get to everywhere that young people spend their time. I had a conversation this morning—at the moment, it is just a conversation and not necessarily something that will happen—about the night-time industry and whether, as nightclubs reopen, there are ways to use them to increase vaccination of young people. We are also looking at sporting sites and other places where young people go regularly. We are looking to get vaccine promotion material into those places and, where it is possible and practical, to offer vaccination in or near those places.

Although I would never rule anything out, I have more scepticism about door-to-door vaccination, simply because of the labour-intensive nature of that approach, given that the vast majority of eligible people have been vaccinated. It would involve a lot of effort to go to a lot of doors where everybody has already been vaccinated. Therefore, I am sceptical about whether that would be the best approach to take, but we do not rule anything out. We want to get to as many people as possible.

On the points about the JCVI, we are trying to reach eligible 12 to 17-year-olds as much as possible before the schools go back. I have said that we will, given the nature of that group, build in a bit of flexibility and offer first doses by the end of August, but we want to do it as quickly as possible between now and the schools returning. Of course, the schools do not all return on the same day—some go back later in August than others.

As I said in my statement, we hope to get updated advice from the JCVI over the next day or so. The JCVI is our advisory body, so it has to give us the advice that it thinks is right, and I respect that. I hope that it will recommend going further on vaccination of young people. I am particularly concerned with being able to offer vaccinations to 16 and 17-year-olds, if possible, which will obviously be important for those who will, for example, be going to college or university and mingling with older young people who have been vaccinated. We will see what the advice is, and we stand ready to implement it as quickly as possible.

We await the final position on booster vaccinations. My expectation is that there will be some form of booster programme, but we are making that assumption in order to get preparations under way. We will seek to notify people over the next few weeks and, certainly, into September.

Finally, I think, the most important thing that we can do for businesses is not just to get them open again—as of Monday, no business will legally be required to close under Covid regulations—but to build the confidence of their customers to start using their services again. That is one of the reasons why a cautious and careful approach is required. If people do not feel safe in venues, they will be less likely to go to them. We will work with businesses to encourage them to think carefully about the environment that they offer their customers.

We will continue to consider financial support for as long as is necessary, but, of course, we want to get businesses trading and making money again, because we do not have infinite sums of money to spend on business support. I again encourage the United Kingdom Government to extend the furlough scheme for longer, so that we do not have to cut that support to businesses earlier than would be appropriate for many of them.

I think that I have covered most of Anas Sarwar’s questions, but if I have missed any I will come back to them later.

On that last point, Angela Constance, the Minister for Drugs Policy, will make a statement on Scotland’s drugs deaths statistics as soon as I have finished taking questions on my statement. Angela was appointed by me, as all ministers are, and she reports directly to me. I will continue to ensure that the Government addresses that challenge and takes the necessary action. Angela will say more about that later.

As I listened to Douglas Ross, I struggled to understand whether the statement that he listened to was the same as the one that I delivered. I have spent every day since March last year trying to communicate clearly. I am sure that I have not always succeeded—I readily concede that. Sometimes it feels as if Douglas Ross and his colleagues have spent many of those days trying to undermine that clear communication; I caught a whiff of that again today. I will try to take him through it again.

First, Douglas Ross is right to say that the Tories have called for most of the changes that I announced today. The difference is that they called for those changes to be made at a time when it would not have been safe to do so. Those changes would have put people at risk. That is why we have continued to take a safe, cautious and steady pace towards our exit from lockdown. That is right and proper and I will continue to do that, whatever brickbats I get as a result.

My fundamental duty as First Minister is to act in a way that keeps the country as safe as possible. Douglas Ross called the statement a “mixed bag”; I call it sensible and cautious. It will keep people as safe as possible. Keeping the virus under control and keeping people as safe as possible is also the best thing that this Government can do for our economic recovery.

With the exception of the rules on face coverings, most legal restrictions will be lifted from Monday. That is exactly what we said would happen. I do not know many people—Douglas Ross may be one of them—who think that continuing to wear a face covering while the virus continues to circulate is a significant hardship. Most of the people I speak to and most of those who contact me, although not all of them, think that that is a reasonable price to pay, not so much to keep ourselves safe but to keep others safe, in the hope that others will do likewise to keep us safe. That is part of the collective solidarity that most of us feel as we go through the pandemic.

Douglas Ross asked whether I am seriously suggesting that I might impose local restrictions or travel restrictions in the future. I say clearly to him that I fervently hope that that will not be necessary. If we all continue to exercise the care and caution that everyone has exercised for the past year and a half, we will minimise the risk of that becoming necessary. I am sure that every leader of every Government in the world would say this: the responsibility to keep people safe has weighed heavily on my shoulders every day for the past year and a half.

In direct answer to the question, I say that if I thought that such action was necessary to restrict and curb an outbreak or spread of the virus or of a new variant that would put lives and our national health service at risk, then, no matter how difficult or unpopular it would be, I would take that decision. I am elected to take the tough decisions to keep people safe. If Douglas Ross does not understand that, he should never want to be in this position. Leaders must be prepared to take those decisions, however much we hope that they will not be necessary.

We have taken a route that has been cautious, careful and steady—sometimes too cautious for some people. Monday will be perhaps the most significant date so far. That is positive, but I am not going to shout that we are free from the virus, because that would mislead people. The virus is circulating and the risk of new variants is there. It is no longer proportionate to have legal restrictions in place in every respect. The Government must act lawfully. We will continue to advise people to be sensible and cautious and to follow the routine mitigations that minimise the risk. Anyone who thinks that that is wrong is not acting responsibly. I will continue to do my duty as First Minister to the very best of my ability.