Chamber and committees

I will ensure that contact is made with the outdoor residential sector as soon as possible—today or tomorrow—to discuss in detail what today’s changes mean for it. Although we tried to support the sector—if my memory serves me correctly, we did so not only by providing additional money but by allowing as much of its activity to take place as possible—the absence of residential stays has been very difficult, and we want to get the position in that regard back to normal as quickly as possible.

Yes, I give that assurance. It is a strong assurance. I, too, convey my condolences to Jim Fairlie’s constituent.

Just before Parliament broke up for the election, I met the Covid bereaved families group. I believe—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that Jim Fairlie’s constituent was part of that discussion. The group impressed on me—it did not take much to persuade me—the importance to families of being properly and fully consulted in all aspects of establishing a public inquiry, and on the remit in particular, and of being front and centre to any public inquiry as it undertakes its work. I give that commitment.

I repeat my commitment to a human-rights-based inquiry, which is exceptionally important, and I give the commitment, as requested by Jim Fairlie, to liaise with not just the groups of bereaved families but other organisations that give assistance to families that are suffering bereavement. Cruse was mentioned, but no doubt there are others. I strongly commit to all those things.

I do not favour the use of vaccine passports for access to care homes. There might be arguments that could be made for that, but I do not know whether Monica Lennon heard me say—certainly not in my statement, but possibly in answer to a question from Patrick Harvie or Liam McArthur—that I would be strongly opposed to using vaccine or Covid certification for access to public services or places to which people have no option but to go, which obviously includes visiting people in care homes.

We have to take the most stringent measures to protect vulnerable people in care homes, but we also have to make sure that people have access to care homes. I will not elaborate too much further on that, because we have not yet taken those decisions and it is important that Parliament is properly and fully consulted.

Obviously, nightclubs are the kind of setting that has most often been talked about. Because nightclubs are places where many—not all—young people like to go and they have higher risks of transmission, there is an argument for us to introduce certification, not as a substitute for other precautions, but as an additional measure. I am not yet convinced that that is definitely the case and no decision has been taken, which is why I continue to voice caution and give a commitment to fully involve Parliament in those decisions.

As Murdo Fraser knows—or certainly should know—we are waiting on JCVI advice. When I say “we”, I am obviously referring to the Scottish Government, but the UK, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments are in the same position. In a press briefing last week, I indicated from the platform behind me that the four chief medical officers had asked the JCVI to look again at its advice on vaccination for young people, and our chief medical officer has also written to the JCVI. I am hoping for—possibly veering towards expecting—updated advice from the JCVI in the next day or so, and I very much hope that that expectation will be realised. It is for the JCVI to advise, but I hope that it will recommend further vaccination of people in the 12 to 17-year-old age group. Assuming that it is safe and that the risk benefit analysis bears it out, in the fullness of time, I would like us to be able to offer vaccination to all people in that age group. Obviously, informed consent would determine uptake, but first, as a priority, I am particularly hopeful that we will see updated recommendations for 16 and 17-year-olds. You can probably hear in my voice that I am as anxious as anybody—perhaps more than many—to get that updated advice as quickly as possible and to see whether the committee advises what I hope it will. I am sure that the JCVI will make its advice known however it chooses; depending on what the advice turns out to be, I will set out the steps that the Government will take to implement it as soon as possible.

It is important that we give people who are being offered vaccination the confidence and ability to come forward and get it. As Collette Stevenson is aware, the most recent JCVI advice recommends that children and young people aged 12 to 17 with certain underlying health conditions, including severe learning disabilities, be offered the vaccine.

There is information to assist those who might face particular challenges or who might be anxious about visiting a vaccination centre, which will include some individuals with autism—I recognise that. Information is available on the NHS Inform website, and we will continue to do everything that we can to make the process of vaccination as easy and straightforward as possible, particularly for those who will find it most challenging.

As I indicated in my statement, we will issue guidance that advises people of the basic things that we can all do, and that we all should still do, to try to minimise the risk of transmission. I set out why it is no longer, in our judgment, necessary or proportionate—if we cannot satisfy those tests, we cannot always satisfy that these things are lawful—to keep legal restrictions in place on all those issues. However, we will still advise people that when they are with people whom they do not know, keeping a safe distance is a sensible mitigation, and that if they are going somewhere that is very crowded—particularly indoors—perhaps they should not go. Hand washing is really important. Personally, I am not sure that I will immediately start shaking hands with people, because there are other ways to reduce the risks. Those are all things that we all have to think about in terms of our own risk approach and trying to operate in a way that reduces the risk.

We will issue guidance—that is the first thing that we will do to try to help people with that—and information continues to be available through all the usual Scottish Government sources. As I said, the chief medical officer will write directly, as he has done on previous occasions, to people who have been at the highest risk and who previously shielded with bespoke advice about how risk can be mitigated, so that people in that category can, like the rest of us, responsibly enjoy the greater easing of restrictions that we are looking forward to.

We have listened to teachers all along, but we also follow the expert advice of the JCVI on the order of vaccination. As I have said many times before, the people who call on me to do something different from the expert advice would probably be the first to criticise me if I, as a politician, chose to second guess and overturn the advice of the experts.

Vaccination has not made the virus a different beast; it is the same beast that it has always been, although it has mutated a little. The vaccine is helping us to combat the beast that is the virus. It is therefore absolutely right to talk about the need to get the vaccine to everybody in eligible groups as quickly as possible.

Teachers have been vaccinated in line with the priority set out by the JCVI. For example, every teacher over 40 will already have had the offer of their second dose. Any teacher over 18 will have the offer of their first dose, and second doses will be under way, as of now, for the eight weeks after the offers of first doses were completed. That has been done quickly and in line with the JCVI recommendations. With every day that passes, more and more teachers will be getting the protection of full vaccination.

Where we think the UK Government is taking the right approach, we continue to try to co-ordinate and take a four-nations approach. Broadly speaking, our approach on international travel at this point is consistent across the four nations. That has not always been the case, as there have been times when we have thought that a more rigorous approach was required.

We are working hard—I think that all four Governments are working hard—to co-ordinate both the substance of our policy approaches and the announcements. We do not always succeed in getting that four-nations co-operation, and there were some frustrations in the past couple of weeks about announcements that were made ahead of four-nations agreement to make them, but we will continue to pursue that.

I do not want travel restrictions to be in place any more than I want any other forms of restrictions to be in place. However, again, we would be irresponsible if we did not have them, given that perhaps the biggest risk that we face in the next phase of the pandemic is the possibility of a new variant that may start to challenge the efficacy of our vaccine. Although I hope that that never happens, we have to keep in the toolbox the tools to deal with that as effectively as possible.

Given that we live on an island, the more consistency there is across the different Governments, the better. However, my first and most important responsibility is to take the decisions that I think are right for Scotland, and I will continue to seek to do that.

Again, that is a really important issue. I am happy to give that assurance in general terms. Before I give a bit more detail, I want to say how grateful I am to everybody who has volunteered for vaccine trials in Scotland. Every one of them has made a tremendous contribution in helping us to tackle the pandemic and offering us a way out of it through vaccination.

We are determined to make sure that volunteers who have participated in the Novavax trials are not disadvantaged in any way. Work is on-going to ensure that their vaccine status is correctly shown on NHS systems, so that that can be relied on.

We are working to support the opening of travel when it is safe to do so, and with other UK nations and the WHO to agree on any potential Covid certification requirements for international travel.

We have previously touched on the ethical considerations that we must bear in mind. As of yet, we have no plans to make vaccine certification a requirement of access to services more generally. It is important that we think through all the issues properly, but I gave the assurance that we will continue to do everything that we can to make sure that those who have participated in the Novavax trials are not disadvantaged.

That is a really important issue and I will address the detail of the question. Although immunosuppressive therapies, such as certain cancer treatments, might reduce the effectiveness of the Covid vaccines, it is still recommended that all patients with cancer should consider getting the vaccine, and I encourage them to do so. For those who are already receiving immunosuppressive treatment, second doses—again, in line with clinical advice—are being brought forward to three or four weeks after the first dose to provide maximum benefit. We have also prioritised the vaccination of adult household members of those with suppressed immune systems, to minimise the risk to vulnerable individuals.

Over the past 16 months, we have learned that, as we unlock society, we will inevitably again see a rise in Covid cases. As I said, guidance for those on the shielding list will be provided, and we will continue to update that guidance as necessary.

I repeat the central point that I made earlier: nobody will be abandoned so that the majority can live freely while a minority—those who have particular health conditions or those who are receiving particular treatment—effectively have to continue to shield. We will take a balanced approach to ensure maximum protection for everyone.