Chamber and committees

The changes that I have announced today will come into force from Monday 19 July. I know that that is difficult for those who have weddings planned over the coming weekend, but we have to take decisions based on all the factors that I have set out, and we have to act as proportionately and responsibly as possible. The attendance limit for weddings at level 0 goes up considerably. I will ask the relevant minister to write to Pauline McNeill shortly with all the details of the dos and don’ts that we are advising at weddings to try to get them to operate as normally as possible but within safe boundaries, or boundaries that are as safe as possible.

I know how difficult it is but I cannot emphasise enough what a critical juncture we are at right now—in common, increasingly, with other countries across the UK and Europe. We desperately want to get everybody back to normal but we will set back our efforts to do so if we cease to be responsible, careful and cautious about it. I will provide more granular detail on all those points to Pauline McNeill.

Although I accept that many people disagree with them, as I said earlier, my job is to take such decisions even if they are unpopular, and I hope that people will, at least, know that the decisions are being taken with the utmost care and thought.

To be clear, as I understand it, Wales is using the system that England is using. Because Scotland has a separate contact tracing app, like Northern Ireland, we are developing a different digital system, although it will no doubt operate in the same way. I do not have a date for when that system will be available, but I hope that it will be available later in the summer or into the autumn. I will provide more detail of the precise date as quickly as possible.

Until then, of course, it is possible for people to get a record of their vaccination status through the route that is already in place, and we will make sure that details of how to do that are very visible on our website and other platforms, so that people have an understanding of that.

Obviously, that is a vital part of how we support businesses for as long as they require to work under restrictions. Although we make regular, constant, frequent representations to the UK Government—publicly and privately—about the continuation of furlough, it appears to be adamant about bringing furlough to an end, which is a matter of serious concern. One—although not the only—concern about a divergence between the levels of restrictions that are in place in England and the other UK nations is whether the lifting of all restrictions in England leads to the lifting of all support for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, when all three of us are choosing to go at a slower space. It is one thing for the UK Government to say that it respects the rights of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments to take our own decisions, but if the UK Government holds the cards with regard to financial support and does not provide the financial support that is appropriate to the decisions that we take, it undermines our ability to fight the virus. Therefore, particularly over the next period, it is really important that the UK Government listens and provides furlough in each of the nations for as long as it is required, in line with the decisions that each nation is taking.

Yes, I stand by that. The release of information such as that and the timing of the release are matters for National Records of Scotland. It does not operate under political pressure, and I do not accept Craig Hoy’s characterisation of what happened. At the time, the cabinet secretary was taking steps to ensure that the correct engagement with the care home sector happened before the release of information, in order that it did not come as a surprise to, for example, bereaved families—it was to ensure that there was proper engagement, in line with guidance. The timing of the release and the fact of the release were matters for NRS.

We will continue to engage with the care home sector and, where necessary, with individual care homes about how more older people can have access to the contact and activities that are so important to their wellbeing. I am happy to ask the health secretary to look at particular cases where care homes are not offering those. I am sure that, in the homes where those are not being offered, that will be for good reasons, but we will continue that engagement. We want people to have as normal engagement with their loved ones and as normal access to activities as possible.

Two thousand is the standard limit for venues to operate without permission. There is a process to apply to stage larger events, which takes account of whether the right mitigations can be in place to make a larger event as safe as possible, and one of the factors is the size of the venue or stadium.

The situation is difficult for people who want to watch their football team or go to other leisure events, but we have to proceed safely and appropriately. Right now, there are countries across Europe that are stopping all large-scale events again—unless I am remembering wrongly, I think that the Netherlands is in that category. We do not want to get to that position, but we are more likely to do so if we take the brakes off too quickly and allow the situation to spiral out of control.

With the greatest of respect to Anas Sarwar—I will treat all his questions with the greatest of respect—there was quite a lot of glib soundbites in his questions, not a huge amount of substance and, to be frank, a little bit of irresponsibility. I will start with the latter. In Scotland, we take our advice on vaccination from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. In the entire lifetime of this Parliament, no devolved Government has gone against the JCVI’s recommendations on vaccination. The JCVI advice is that, in order to maximise the effectiveness of the vaccine and the longevity of its protection, the interval between the first and second doses should be eight weeks.

If I were to say that, as a politician, I was going to disregard the advice from the statutory organisation that advises the Government on these issues and do something else, I am pretty certain that one of the first people in the queue to criticise me would be Anas Sarwar, along with his colleagues. It would be unthinkable for me to go against the JCVI’s advice.

I understand that the JCVI is looking at that question again. If it were to recommend reducing the dosage interval, nobody—or very few people—would be happier to do that than me. However, on these sensitive matters, in which one of the most important things is to maintain public confidence in vaccines, it is absolutely incumbent on politicians to follow that clinical advice. Any politician asking the Government to act differently is, I am sorry to say, being irresponsible. If the advice changes, the Government’s position will change, but we will prioritise maintaining confidence in the vaccine.

With regard to what I would describe as glib soundbites, such as references to “pandemic proofing” workplaces and schools, of course we want to make places as safe as possible from Covid, but to underplay the complexities and challenges of that does nobody any favours. We need to think carefully, particularly in the light of the changing and developing understanding of the virus. For example, one thing that has become much more apparent in terms of our thinking is the airborne transmission of the virus—although some scientists would say that that was always known. We are now working on what more we can do on ventilation, particularly in places such as schools, hospitals and key workplaces. However, again, we need to ensure that we are not stuck in rigid ways of thinking on these matters and that we are constantly updating and developing our approach. That takes time and it requires the best clinical approach, and we will continue to take that approach. We will issue guidance to schools well in advance of the new term, but we will do that when we have taken proper advice and come to proper decisions.

On testing capacity and vaccine roll-out, I keep being asked these questions—perfectly legitimately—and I will keep answering them as patiently as I possibly can. There is nobody in this country who needs a test who cannot get one. We have extended routine regular testing to the whole population through lateral flow devices. PCR testing levels are very much demand driven. The figures over the past few weeks have been high as case rates have risen. As case rates start to fall, the demand will start to fall, because, thankfully, there will be fewer people with symptoms coming forward for testing.

The pressure on the system, which occurs from time to time, is seen, first, with regard to turnaround times for test results—although those have stood up well—and, secondly, with regard to contact tracing. I have set out already the work that we are doing to ensure that the protect function of the test and protect system is operating as we need it to. That will continue to be a priority.

Lastly, I have covered the question on vaccine roll-out already, in response to questions from Douglas Ross. Vaccine roll-out is not slowing because, somehow, we are not managing to do the vaccine roll-out properly. The constraining factors in the vaccine roll-out are, as I have set out, supply and the dosing interval. We are vaccinating people as quickly as those constraints allow. The vaccination programme is a shining success right now, and it offers us the way out of the pandemic. For that reason, we will continue to do all that we can to accelerate the programme, including—if the JCVI recommends it—shortening the interval between the first and second doses.

The testing position on discharge has not changed recently, so the situation remains as it has been.

Work continues to ensure that appropriate care packages are in place to minimise delayed discharge from hospital. It is also important that we properly support those who are waiting longer for treatment because of the backlog. A lot of work is under way to deal with the consequences of the pressure on the health service but also to reduce that pressure and to recover as quickly as possible. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to write to Sarah Boyack with more detail on those issues.

Travellers who return from green or amber list countries must use NHS tests, which can be booked through the booking portal for international travel. The NHS provides home test PCR kits. The cost of the kits is set by the UK Government and the process is managed through its contract with a travel management company, so our ability to reduce costs unilaterally is limited.

Currently, we are not using private test providers for international travellers who arrive in Scotland because of concerns about the speed and reliability of the flow of data from private companies. We have on-going discussions about whether that situation can be improved. At the moment, we think that the safest thing to do is to rely on NHS tests. I think that the Welsh Government was criticised for the same thing the other day, but I think that that is the right thing to do. We will continue to keep the position under review so that we make testing for people who need it as accessible as possible.

Assuming that we move beyond level 0 in August, the changes that I have announced today will apply from then. As I said, we are separately considering whether there can be an earlier move to the system for particular groups of critical workers—that is under review. I will say again for clarity that only those returning to Scotland after being in a red-list country in the previous 10 days are required to enter managed isolation. If somebody is coming from an amber-list country, they must self-isolate at home instead, and that applies to offshore workers as well.

We need to continue to take proportionate action that helps to keep the country as safe as possible from new variants. We are currently dealing with the implications of a new and very fast-transmitting variant seeding into this country. I understand all the frustrations, but that underlines why we must take care to do everything that we can to prevent that from happening again.