Chamber and committees

Today’s statement contains several important updates. First, as I indicated last week, I can confirm that no part of the country will change Covid level next week. Apart from some minor amendments that I will cover later, from Monday, restrictions in all parts of the country will be unchanged. I will also provide an update on vaccination milestones and set out indicative dates for the further lifting of restrictions as we hope to move into and beyond level 0 and back to normality.

I turn first to today’s statistics, which demonstrate why, at this stage, caution is still required. Yesterday, 2,167 positive cases were reported, which represents a positivity rate of 9.1 per cent. The total number of confirmed cases is now 257,742; 171 people are currently in hospital, which is 12 more than yesterday; and 18 people are receiving intensive care, which is three more than yesterday. Sadly, four deaths were reported yesterday, and the total number of deaths under the daily definition is now 7,696. Again, I send my condolences to those who have lost a loved one.

On vaccination, I can report that, as at 7.30 this morning, 3,664,571 people have received a first dose, which is an increase of 17,134 since yesterday. In addition, 15,783 people received a second dose yesterday, so the total number of second doses that have now been administered is 2,602,753.

The news on vaccination continues to be extremely positive, but that must be balanced against the continued rise in cases. The number of new cases recorded over the past week increased by almost 40 per cent on the week before. That total is seven times higher than it was in early May, and it is higher than it has been at any point since late January.

That reflects the fact that the faster-transmitting delta variant is now dominant. Obviously, we cannot be complacent about that. However, we have evidence that the link between new cases and serious health harm is weakening. The number of people who are being admitted to hospital with Covid has fallen from around 10 per cent of reported positive cases at the start of the year to around 5 per cent now and, on average, Covid patients are spending less time in hospital, although we should remember that even if they do not need hospital treatment, some people will suffer significant health harms, including long Covid.

However, overall, the evidence that vaccination is helping to protect people from serious health harms is allowing us to change how we respond to the virus. Today’s total of new positive tests is the largest that we have seen since the peak in January. The numbers still shock. The virus is still with us, but the vaccines are protecting more of us.

I will never regard any single death from this virus as other than a human tragedy, and as cases rise, we can expect to see more deaths in the coming weeks. Back in January, however, we were seeing daily figures of more than 50 people dying. I expect, and profoundly hope, that the link between cases, hospital admissions and deaths will continue to weaken as more and more of us are fully vaccinated.

In making decisions about when we lift restrictions further, progress with vaccination is a significant factor, so I will now set out the milestones that we will reach in the coming weeks—assuming, of course, that supplies are as expected. By this Sunday, we will have vaccinated with two doses everyone in the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation’s top nine priority groups. Of course, some people might not be able to attend an appointment this week and so will get their second dose a bit later; further, some people—very few, I hope—might not attend their scheduled appointment. Those caveats apply to the other vaccination milestones that I am about to set out.

Essentially, by the end of this week, we will have completed vaccination for priority groups 1 to 9. Those groups include everyone over the age of 50 and all unpaid carers and people with underlying health conditions, and they account for well over half the adult population. It is also estimated that, prior to the vaccination programme, those groups accounted for 99 per cent of all Covid deaths, so the fact that virtually all of them will be fully vaccinated by the end of this week is hugely significant.

The next milestone will be 18 July. By then, all adults will have had the first dose of vaccine, which is significantly ahead of schedule. By 26 July, we expect to have given second doses to all 40 to 49-year-olds, and by 20 August, all 30 to 39-year-olds will have had a second dose. Finally, we expect to have completed second doses for all adults by 12 September. We are also planning for possible future vaccination programmes. Depending on the advice that we get from the JCVI, those programmes could include booster jags this autumn and the potential vaccination of 12 to 17-year-olds.

Vaccination offers us the route out of this pandemic. We know that getting both doses provides good protection, including against the delta variant, so the milestones are important and inform the decisions that I will set out today.

We are publishing two substantive new papers today that underpin those decisions, too, and provide more context for them.

The first is our revised strategic framework for tackling Covid. Central to the framework is an updated strategic aim for our pandemic response. Up until now, the Scottish Government’s strategic intention has been to

“suppress the virus to the lowest possible level and keep it there”.

From now, our aim will be to

“suppress the virus to a level consistent with alleviating its harms while we recover and rebuild for a better future”.

That change reflects the fact that vaccination is reducing—significantly, we hope—the harm that the virus causes. Vaccination means that it is now possible, and perhaps necessary, to shift our strategic aim and reduce the wider health, social and economic harms that strict lockdown measures cause.

The second paper that we are publishing today is our review of physical distancing. Physical distancing has been an important mitigation against the virus but it is also burdensome for individuals and costly for businesses. Therefore, as vaccinations bear more of the load of controlling the virus, we need to consider when and to what extent we can reduce the legal requirement for physical distancing. Ultimately, we hope to remove the legal requirement for it, even though we might continue, for a period, to advise people to think about safe distancing when interacting with people outside their close contact groups.

I turn to the changes that we hope to make in the weeks ahead. At the moment, the high number of new Covid cases that are being recorded is a significant consideration. To use the race analogy that many have used previously, we must not allow the virus to get too far ahead of the vaccines. Therefore, as we indicated last week, we intend to maintain the current restrictions that are applicable in each part of Scotland for the next three weeks.

Within those levels, though, we will make some minor but important changes to the rules on weddings and funerals, which will take effect from Monday 28 June. For example, suppliers of wedding services and other people who are employed by a couple who are getting married will no longer count towards the cap on numbers; those who accompany a wedding couple down the aisle will no longer need to wear face coverings; and live entertainment at receptions will be possible, although people will still need to be seated at tables.

We will also change the guidance for funerals so that people from more than one household can help carry a coffin and take a cord when lowering it.

We expect those changes to have a relatively minor impact on transmission—they are relatively minor changes—but I hope that they will make some difference to the people organising and attending weddings and funerals, ahead of the more substantive changes that we hope to see at level 0 next month. With the exception of those changes, our assumption, based on recent case numbers, is that current levels will remain in force until 19 July, although we continue to keep that under review.

Let me turn now to when we hope to lift remaining restrictions. I want to be clear that what I am about to set out represents our best judgment at this stage of what is likely to strike a sensible balance. It is intended to give as much clarity as possible. However, it is contingent on meeting our vaccination milestones and, of course, the revised strategic aim of alleviating the harms of the virus.

If the data in the coming weeks suggests that we can go faster, we will do so. Conversely, if the data says that we need to slow down, we will do that, too, although I very much hope that that will not be necessary. The next scheduled review point will be 19 July, but we will confirm the position a week in advance, as usual. By 19 July, three weeks will have elapsed since the completion of the vaccination programme for over-50s, which means that the vaccine will be giving everyone in that age group a significant level of protection.

Therefore, assuming that we are meeting the revised strategic aim, we hope that all parts of Scotland that are not currently in that level can move to level 0 on 19 July. That means, for example, that the limits for household gatherings indoors will increase from that date and that up to 200 people will be able to attend weddings and funerals. We also hope—assuming that the data supports this—that the general indoor physical distancing requirement can be reduced from 2m to 1m from that date and we also hope to lift altogether the outdoor requirement to physically distance.

In addition, in recognition of the reduced risk of outdoor transmission and the desire, therefore, to encourage people to stay outdoors as much as possible, especially over the summer, we hope that limits on informal outdoor social gatherings—in private gardens, for example—will be removed at that stage and that, rather than retaining the current rules for level 0, which state that up to 15 people from 15 households can meet outdoors, informal social gatherings of any size will be allowed. We will, however, keep in place temporarily the rules and processes that are currently applicable at level 0 for organised outdoor events, given that those can attract much larger crowds.

If we can, as hoped, move to level 0 on 19 July, that will be a significant step back to normality, but we have always been clear that level 0 cannot be an end point. Some of the restrictions that it entails are still significant—for example, the household limit for indoor gatherings—so we want to move beyond level 0 as quickly as it is prudent to do so.

The updated strategic framework sets out what that means. In short, while we are still likely to need some baseline measures, it means the lifting of the remaining major legal restrictions. In reaching a view on when that can be done, we have considered the harm to health and the strain on the national health service that could be caused if Covid cases continue to rise. I must stress to Parliament that, even with a reduced ratio of cases to hospitalisation, case numbers at the level that is being recorded just now could still put significant pressure on the NHS. We must be mindful of that.

However, we have also considered the wider harms that restrictions cause and how reasonable and proportionate it is to require people to comply with those legal restrictions as we meet vaccine milestones and if evidence continues to show, as we hope that it will, that vaccination is protecting more and more people from serious health impacts. I mentioned earlier that we expect to have completed second doses for all over-40s by 26 July. We know that the protective effect of the second dose takes a bit of time to build up, but within two weeks, by 9 August, we would expect the vast majority of over-40s to have a significant level of protection.

We need to remember that vaccination does not provide 100 per cent protection and that it will not be until later in September that all adults will have the protection of full vaccination. However, our assessment, on balance and assuming that we meet the necessary conditions on vaccination and harm reduction, is that it would be possible and proportionate to lift the major remaining legal restrictions on 9 August. Nearer the time we will consider and make a final assessment of whether, as we hope, that could include the lifting of the legal requirement to physically distance indoors, as well as outdoors.

The move beyond level 0 will be a major milestone and it will signal a return to almost complete normality in our day-to-day lives. Of course, although that is a longed-for moment, it is important to recognise that we still have a difficult path to navigate over the next few weeks to meet those milestones and that, even assuming that we do so—we hope that we will—the pandemic will not be completely over at that stage. As our strategic framework update paper sets out, basic mitigations will still be required as we move through summer and into the autumn, when we face the risk of a further resurgence in cases. Measures such as rigorous and regular hand washing, cleaning surfaces and good ventilation will continue to be vital.

Even if we lift the legal requirement, as we hope to do, we may still advise keeping a careful distance from people outside our close contact groups, especially if they are not fully vaccinated. At least for a period, we are also likely to require the continued wearing of face coverings in certain settings—for example, shops and public transport. Test and protect will remain a vital part of our approach. Regular testing will still be advised for a period at least and, while we are considering the impact of vaccination on self-isolation, isolation will continue to be necessary in certain circumstances, especially for those who test positive.

There will also be a need to manage outbreaks as and when they arise. The levels system will still be available to help us to do that if necessary. We all hope that we will not see a further variant against which our vaccines are less effective, but we need to retain the ability to respond if that happens with updated vaccines and, if necessary, other measures.

We will not advise an immediate return to full office working on 9 August. Instead, we will continue to work with business to agree an appropriate phasing of that, beginning when we enter level 0 on 19 July, we hope. However, I think that many would agree that, as a general principle, home working should be more possible post-Covid than it was before. Therefore, although we recognise that a return to the workplace will be right for many, we will encourage continued support for home working where that is possible and appropriate. That will not just assist with control of the virus; it will help to promote wellbeing more generally.

We will continue to keep the need for travel restrictions under review, but it is likely that some targeted restrictions will be needed after 9 August, as new variants continue to pose the biggest threat to our progress.

We will work over the summer to plan for the return of schools, colleges and universities. For the moment, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to everyone in education. Most schools and many early learning and childcare settings are about to break for the summer holidays. Colleges and universities are also nearing the end of term. For everyone working in education, this year will have been the toughest and most distressing of their professional career. I am grateful for everything that they have done to keep nurseries and childcare facilities, schools, colleges and universities going in such difficult circumstances. We will work to do everything possible to minimise any further Covid disruption in the next academic term.

We must remember that it is a global pandemic. It will not be completely over here until it is over across the world and, unfortunately, the world is still some way from that. However, in Scotland, although transmission is causing concern at the moment, vaccination is giving us much of the protection that only harsh restrictions have been able to give us so far. That means that we can now plan to move much more firmly and with much greater confidence from the need to control the virus through tough restrictions to being able to live much more freely. That is good news. We must still be careful but, from 19 July and then more substantially from 9 August, assuming that we are meeting our revised strategic aim of alleviating the harm of the virus, life should feel much less restricted for all of us. A very significant degree of normality will be restored for individuals and businesses.

As I said earlier, the dates are indicative, but they allow us to plan ahead with more clarity. As always, we all have a part to play in keeping us on track. I will end with a reminder of the key asks of everyone across the country.

The first key ask is vaccination. Please get vaccinated when invited to do so, and please attend for both doses. If you need to rearrange or if you think that you should have had an invitation by now, please go to the vaccinations section of the NHS Inform website. If you had your first dose of the vaccine eight weeks or more ago, check on the website to see whether you can bring forward your second dose.

Secondly, please test yourself regularly. Free lateral flow tests are available through NHS Inform. They can be ordered through the post or collected from local and regional test sites, and also now, of course, from community pharmacies. If you test positive, please self-isolate and get the result confirmed through a polymerase chain reaction test.

Finally, please continue to stick to the rules where you live and follow all the public health advice. That is still really important. The virus is still out there and spreading, so please continue to follow advice on physical distancing, hand washing and face coverings.

Try to meet others outdoors as much as possible. No environment is entirely risk free, but being outdoors is much less risky than being indoors. If you meet indoors, please stick to the limits for now and make sure that the room is well ventilated.

That applies when watching the football, too. We all know that tonight’s game is absolutely massive. On behalf of all of us, I am sure, I wish Steve Clarke and the Scotland team well. We will all cheer Scotland on this evening, but please do it safely and within the rules.

When I confirmed to Parliament that tough restrictions were being reimposed six months ago, it was the day after the winter solstice—the shortest day of the year. That was one of the darkest moments in the pandemic. For the past 15 months, we have endured restrictions that would have been considered impossible just two years ago. The pain that has been suffered and the people who have been lost along the way must never and will never be forgotten.

In a global pandemic, we cannot be certain that there will not be difficult moments to come, but I hope and believe that today’s statement—made a day after the summer solstice—marks a positive turning point. We live in more hopeful times. We can now see a route to lifting restrictions and to enjoying again the simple but precious pleasures that we have all missed so much.

I do not pretend that the path ahead is obstacle free, but it is clearer now than at any point so far. Thanks to vaccines, normal life is much closer and is within sight. Let us all stick with it and do whatever is required to get us there.

I will try, as briefly as I can, to address and engage with those points in substance, because they are important. However, I ask Douglas Ross to do similarly. Repeatedly, he stands up and puts into my mouth words that I have not said. That is okay for politics, but if we are genuinely—as I sincerely am—trying to find consensus on matters that are so serious, we all have a duty to try to put some of the politics to one side.

People are working across the country, including at grass-roots level, to deliver excellent services for people who have problems with drug misuse. I see it in my constituency. That is why it would not be fair for me to say that the system is “broken”; to do so does a disservice to their work.

However, that does not mean that I am denying that we have much more to do and that often in the past—I am being very frank—our response has not matched the response of the people at the grass roots. I am trying genuinely to engage on the issue.

In that spirit, I note that I understand that the Conservatives have raised the idea of a right to recovery bill. I met Annie Wells to discuss it a couple weeks ago. I said at the outset of this session that we would look at it in detail; we are doing so. Many of what I understand to be the key strands in the proposed right to recovery bill are being taken forward as recommendations of the residential rehabilitation working group. We can go into that in more detail.

My mind is not closed to there being a statutory underpinning. However, we have to be cautious about waiting as long as it takes to pass legislation before getting on with the work. Work is already under way on each strand that would be in the proposed bill; I want to take that work forward as quickly as possible. That does not rule out there being a statutory underpinning, but we all know how long it takes—rightly and for good reason—to get legislation through Parliament. Therefore, for goodness’ sake let us not put other things on hold while we talk about legislation.

I am serious about wanting to engage in good faith across the chamber. I hope that others will join us in doing exactly that.

We continue to consider—on a four nations basis but also with regard to global considerations—what role vaccination might play in future in easing international travel. The impact on the tourism industry is understood, and we will continue to do everything that we can, within the resources that we have available, to provide support for affected sectors, including tour operators and tourism businesses. As I said in response to an earlier question, we will continue to urge the United Kingdom Government to make more support available.

The situation around international travel is really difficult. Unfortunately, that difficulty inescapable if we want to avoid in future what we have not been able to avoid now, which is the importation of new variants. I understand how difficult it is for those in the sector, and we will continue to do everything that we can to support them to get back to normal. Vaccination might have a role to play, but we have been clear that we have to be careful about some of the considerations around that.

It will give me great pleasure to move the motion seeking Parliament’s agreement to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen the appointment of a new Lord Advocate and a new Solicitor General for Scotland. Those posts have a very long history indeed. The position of Lord Advocate was established long before the 1707 union of Parliaments. Today, those roles remain crucial to the rule of law in Scotland.

The current combined prosecution and Government advisory functions of the law officers have endured since the establishment of this Parliament, under all Administrations. However, as members will be aware, the Government made a commitment at the recent election to consult on whether those dual functions should, in future, be separated. I believe that there is a strong prima facie case to be made for that. However, it is important that Parliament considers carefully the precise detail of any reform. Depending on the nature of it, change may require primary legislation, including possible amendment to the Scotland Act 1998. There are complex issues involved, but I can confirm that the Government will take forward a consultation in due course. Whatever the outcome of such a consultation, it will remain hugely important that Scotland has law officers of the very highest calibre. I have no doubt whatsoever that the individuals whom I am nominating today fulfil that requirement. Before I turn to the nominations, I take the opportunity, on behalf of Parliament, to pay tribute to and thank the departing Lord Advocate and Solicitor General.

James Wolffe has served as Lord Advocate in extraordinary times. The issues thrown up by Brexit and then the emergency legislation necessitated by the Covid pandemic have been complex and largely unprecedented. During this time, the Government has benefited enormously from his intellect and from the clarity, expertise and—at all times—scrupulous independence of his advice. James Wolffe has also represented the Government at several important hearings, including the Supreme Court cases on article 50, the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill and the prorogation of the United Kingdom Parliament. Those are among the most significant constitutional cases of recent times and will surely take their place in the history books.

I also pay tribute to the way in which James Wolffe represented the Scottish Government when he was defending, in the Supreme Court, this Parliament’s legislation on minimum unit pricing for alcohol. In addition, he has worked to reduce the amount of time that it takes for the Crown Office to investigate deaths, and he has continued its work to improve the handling of cases relating to domestic abuse and violence against women. Any of those challenges and achievements in isolation would be significant; taken together, they represent a remarkable achievement and legacy.

For Alison Di Rollo, her time as Solicitor General has marked the end of 35 years as a first-class public prosecutor, including a spell as head of the national sexual crimes unit. For the past five years, she has served with distinction as Solicitor General. Her role, during that time, in establishing the expert group on preventing sexual offending involving children and young people will, I am sure, contribute to further improvements in the prevention and handling of such cases. She also represented the Crown Office in the Supreme Court, in the highly significant Sutherland case, which concerned evidence that was used to convict paedophiles.

For all that and so much more, Alison Di Rollo and James Wolffe have my thanks. They have both been outstanding public servants, and I am sure that they leave office with the very best wishes of members on all sides of the chamber.

I turn to my nominations for their replacements. My formal recommendation for Scotland’s new Lord Advocate is Dorothy Bain QC. Dorothy is, without doubt—I think that I can say this without fear of contradiction—one of Scotland’s most senior and highly respected lawyers. She has extensive experience in both civil and criminal law and has appeared in cases at all levels, including in the Court of Session, the High Court, the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. Dorothy is currently counsel to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in Scotland and chair of the police appeals tribunal. She also spent nine years, from 2002 to 2011, as an advocate depute at the Crown Office. During that time, she made history by becoming the first woman to be appointed as principal advocate depute. She has conducted many complex prosecutions and appeals, including the first prosecution of Peter Tobin and the prosecutions relating to the operation algebra investigation, which resulted in the conviction of eight men for offences relating to the sexual abuse of children. From the comments that have been made since news of her nomination became known, it is very clear that Dorothy Bain is also highly respected, rightly, for her determination to speak up for the rights and the interests of the victims of crime. I believe that she will be a Lord Advocate of the very highest calibre.

My nomination for Solicitor General for Scotland is Ruth Charteris QC. Ruth is also a lawyer who commands respect, rightly, across the legal profession. She has been an advocate for more than 20 years. For eight of those years, she was a standing junior counsel for the Scottish Government, advising and representing the Government in a number of cases.

For the past year, she has served as advocate depute at the Crown Office. She also chairs the fitness to practise panel of the Scottish Social Services Council. Ruth will bring to the role of Solicitor General a valuable combination of public law and prosecution experience, and I am absolutely delighted to nominate her today.

Dorothy Bain and Ruth Charteris are both individuals of the highest ability and integrity and I believe that, together, they will make an outstanding and formidable team. It is worth noting that, if these appointments are approved by Parliament today, it will mark the first occasion on which the roles of Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland have both been held by women at the same time. That would represent a further welcome step towards more equal representation at the most senior levels in the legal profession and in public life more generally.

However, while that may be a welcome additional benefit of their appointments—and I think it is—it is not the reason for their appointments. Fundamentally, I am nominating Dorothy Bain and Ruth Charteris because they are both supremely well qualified for the roles that they are being asked to do. They have a wealth of professional experience that I am sure will benefit the Scottish Government, the Crown Office and the justice system in Scotland more generally.

It is with great pleasure, therefore, that I move,

That the Parliament agrees that it be recommended to Her Majesty that Dorothy Bain QC be appointed as the Lord Advocate and that Ruth Charteris QC be appointed as Solicitor General for Scotland.

Yes, I think that how we use land is an important part of how we meet our targets for the future, and we need to support our farming community—and not undermine it as the UK Government is doing right now in trade deals—to make the changes that will allow them to deal with that. There is a great appetite and willingness across the farming sector, and we will continue to support it through funding mechanisms and in other ways.

This week’s figures include a major technical change to the reporting of our emissions from peatlands, which is part of the report that was published. Agriculture is a central part of the process. I am not suggesting that Patrick Harvie is saying that we can do so, but we cannot just wish all the changes into being—hard work is under way and there is more hard work to be done to bring them about.

I am not simply comparing us with the rest of the UK—I want us to lead by example, and we are ahead of most other countries in the world. Is it going far enough, fast enough? No, but it is important in motivating us all to go further that we do not lose sight of the significant progress that we have already made.

One of the reasons why I hope that my party can reach a co-operation agreement with Patrick Harvie’s party is that it is important that we are all challenged to go further and faster on the issue. The determination is there, which I am sure is shared across the chamber, so let us celebrate the progress that we have made but also use it to motivate us all to go further. That is what we owe to the generations that will come after us.

I have said previously and have repeated today—at least, I have given a strong indication, but am happy to say it more expressly—that I will look with an open mind at any proposals, including proposals for legislation. Douglas Ross has said that he has not yet published the draft bill. When it is published, we will look at it.

If there is consensus in Parliament about introducing legislation quickly and putting it through the process on an accelerated timescale, we will also consider that. However, we all know that even when there is consensus on the principle of legislation, there is often not—for good reasons—sufficient agreement on the detail to allow that. It is therefore important that we look closely at such things.

I am committed to doing that, but whatever route we take on legislation I will not hang back on the work that is under way. The Minister for Drugs Policy will set out the many strands of that work and give an update to Parliament this afternoon. It covers residential rehabilitation, which is the main issue that the Conservatives have pushed, as is reasonable, but there are many other aspects. The work is also about the quality of community services and access to same-day treatment, which is why the standards that Douglas Ross talked about in his first question are so important. We have a range of things to do and to get right.

Legislation might have a part to play; I am open-minded about that. However, we have to get on with the work, for the reasons that have, rightly, been set out.

Both the Lord Advocate and the then Minister for Parliamentary Business made clear to Parliament on 10 February this year that the Scottish Government supports both parliamentary and wider public accountability when it comes to these cases. In February, the Parliament passed a motion in support of a judge-led inquiry. The Government supports and is committed to that. That inquiry can happen only when related legal proceedings are completed. Legal proceedings on the cases remain live, but there will be an inquiry once they have concluded.

Yes, I think that there is an argument for that. However, such decisions must be taken in the proper way and at the proper time. We are committed to this. Of course, in prosecution matters, the Crown Office acts entirely independently of ministers. It is important that there is a remit for the inquiry and that it is led by a judge who commands confidence. That is in the interests of everyone and we will take those decisions once the legal proceedings have concluded.

No, I do not think that that is the case, although there is much scrutiny still to come of the Government’s handling of the matter. I welcome that and think that it is important.

I pay tribute to everybody who worked in our national health service in the early days of the pandemic and everybody who has worked in it up until today. People are still working hard in the face of the pandemic.

On whether Scotland ran out of PPE, I accept that this sounds like a bit of an arid political debate to somebody who works on the front of our health service, but if Anas Sarwar does not want to take my word for a simple statement of fact, I will again refer him to what the Auditor General said on the radio this morning, which was that people worked really hard to ensure that we did not run out.

I know and accept that supply was low at times. I was centrally involved in our response at that time. The Audit Scotland report says that stocks were low, but there are two other points that have to be made. First, that is a reference to centrally held stocks. As the report recognises, additional stocks were held at that time in local health board areas. Secondly, the most fundamentally important point—again, I will quote directly from the Audit Scotland report—is that supplies did not run out. The report says:

“there were always incoming orders to help manage the supply, with stock arriving and being shipped out to NHS boards on the same day at some points.”

That is down to the work of NHS National Services Scotland and people throughout the country.

When Richard Leonard was in Anas Sarwar’s place, he, too, used to raise the point about expiry dates. At the heart of Anas Sarwar’s argument, which is not an illegitimate one, is the idea that we should have bigger stockpiles. However, in relation to the stockpiles that we did have, when material that has been in a stockpile for a while is taken out of it, it often has to be revalidated because it will have passed an expiry date. Richard Leonard described that as

“Palming off out-of-date PPE”,

but that is, basically, what happens when there is a stockpile. However, we had arrangements to ensure that PPE was available.

We will continue to take steps. We have made significant changes to the supply chain and the distribution routes.

I will make a final point. Mutual aid arrangements were in place across the United Kingdom. At no point did Scotland have to make use of those mutual aid arrangements, but we provided mutual aid to England and Wales, following requests. We did not have to ask anybody else for mutual aid, because we did not run out of PPE. [Applause.]

This is a really important commitment. Having committed to removing dental charges, our first step in doing that was to remove them for care-experienced young people under the age of 26. When we considered that, we decided that our first step should be removing charges for all young people under the age of 26. That was an important step and I am delighted that we could announce it this week. Approximately 600,000 people will benefit from that commitment.

As I said, our plans are to remove dental charges completely, because for some people they can be a barrier to getting the treatment that they need. For some people, that can lead to them needing emergency treatment. Removing that barrier helps individuals and helps the national health service make sure that people get the treatment that they need as early as possible, in the setting that is most appropriate for them.