Chamber and committees

If Stephen Kerr took a bit more time to understand the situation, he would know that what he just said was not really accurate at all. The next review of all levels of protection happens on 21 June. Of course, there may be circumstances that require us to move more quickly than that, but I hope not. On 21 June, I will set out for every area of the country what we expect the level of protection to be from 28 June. That will cover those in level 1, which we hope will be able to go to level 0, and those in level 2, which we hope will go to level 1, but we need to assess the data nearer the time. That is the three-weekly review cycle that we have committed to, and that is what we will continue.

I wish that I could wave a magic wand and get every area of the country not just into level 0 but beyond level 0, but we have to do this carefully and in a way that protects our process and, of course, allows us to get as many people as possible vaccinated.

Yes, I broadly support the terms of the UNICEF letter and I hope to see coming out of the G7 an agreement that there is a responsibility on the part of the G7 to help speed up vaccination, not just in the G7 countries but globally. I will continue to add Scotland’s voice to that as loudly as I can.

In summary, we need to seek to do two things. First, we need to make sure that the supplies of the vaccine that are available in the world are distributed as equitably as possible. We have to avoid the risk of false choices being put before us. The supplies, through the very good procurement that the UK has done, mean that we should not see this as a choice between, for example, vaccinating children and playing our part in helping global vaccination. The second thing that we need to do is support efforts to ramp up production of vaccines in as many parts of the world as possible.

It is absolutely the case that, although we are of course really focused on vaccinating our own population as quickly as possible—because that is our first contribution to ending the global pandemic—we will not end the pandemic until the whole world manages to exit from it. The best chance that we have of exiting from it is through mass vaccination. We therefore all have a part to play in that, and the richest countries in the world have a real moral obligation to lead that effort.

I think that the EY Scotland attractiveness survey 2021, which was published yesterday, should be welcomed by all parties in the chamber. We should bring ourselves to come together to welcome it because it shows that, in the face of a global pandemic, Scotland has remained the top UK inward investment destination outside London, as has been the case in eight of the past 10 years. We have also managed to grow our inward investment at a time when it has shrunk across the UK as a whole. Whatever our different political viewpoints and ambitions for the country, surely, in the face of this really tough time, we can all come together to welcome some thoroughly good news for the Scottish economy.

An adequate testing regime is in place. All senior pupils can access tests, and many do. Although we cannot mandate and force young people to take a test, all of us—I include all members of Parliament—can, in our own constituencies or regions, encourage young people to do that.

Like many members, I have family members in the age cohort that Annie Wells mentioned. I know that taking a lateral flow test is not something that we—young people or anyone else—really want to do, but it is important because it helps to determine whether someone might have the virus even if they are not showing any symptoms, and all the other protections can flow in behind that.

As is the case in much of this situation, I do not have a magic wand. I cannot make 100 per cent of young people take the tests, but I will encourage them to do so. The tests are easily available and it really matters that people take them. I ask that Annie Wells and other members echo and add their voices to that so that we can get uptake as high as we possibly can.

We have always relied on a range of indicators and criteria, and we combine that information with clinical advice, local intelligence about the state of the epidemic and, of course, judgment, in order that we can construct a full, reliable and robust picture of the threat that Covid is posing across all four harms. We continue to monitor cases, obviously, but we also monitor numbers of hospital admissions, lengths of stay and deaths.

As and when we become increasingly confident, as I hope will be the case, that vaccinations are breaking the link between case numbers and serious illness, we will, although we will not ignore case numbers, be able to change the balance of factors that we take into account, and our response will perhaps, as I have said before, be driven less purely by case numbers—or, rather, it will be less driven by case numbers, because it is not driven purely by them.

However, we have to do that carefully; we have to allow the data to emerge so that we can properly assess it, and we have to not act prematurely in a way that would cause a significant burden of ill health and pressure on the NHS.

I will address most of those points.

I make this point sincerely. At First Minister’s questions last week Anas Sarwar—as he is entitled to—posed a series of questions in which he criticised me for a characterisation that I would not necessarily accept: he said that I was simply following what had happened south of the border during an earlier stage of the pandemic. Now he asks why I am not doing exactly the same as is happening south of the border.

We must take the decisions that we think are right, based on our own clinical advice. I recognise that people see perceived inconsistencies. Sometimes they will be right. We have amended things in the past, particularly where there seemed to be genuine inconsistencies for some premises. Sometimes the inconsistency will be perceived—for example, there is a good reason why soft play cannot open in level 2 areas while other things can. I absolutely accept that there is a need to communicate such things as clearly as possible but I also understand that running a business that has to remain closed will always be very difficult to accept. I appreciate that, but it is important that we try to navigate our way through this as safely as possible.

It has been the case at every stage that if we had simply opened everything up we would have overwhelmed our ability to cope. We sometimes have to limit what we do, recognising that we must work with people and compensate them, as Anas Sarwar said. I accept that, and we will continue to do it.

We are vaccinating people as quickly as our supplies allow. I would love us to do more, but supply is the constraining factor. The latest seven-day rolling total number of new first and second doses is 343,548. We will get above that number if supplies allow. Supply is what limits the speed of vaccination, but that speed is fast. If we look at first doses, we can see that people aged over 60 are pretty much 100 per cent done; those aged 50 to 54 are 93 per cent done; those aged 40 to 49 are at 86 per cent; and those who are 30 to 39 are at 58 per cent. Even in the 18 to 29-year-old group, 27 per cent have had their first dose. Among the over-50s, 50 per cent have had a second dose and are fully vaccinated. In the younger age groups, 29 per cent of those aged 40 to 49 have already had a second dose, as have 20 per cent of 30 to 39-year-olds and 14 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds. We will speed that up as quickly as supplies allow us to.

The next review of easing will be on 28 June. I know that Anas Sarwar simply made a slip but, to be clear, the date is 28 June. On 21 June, I will set out in Parliament our expectations in relation to going ahead or not, or the extent to which we will go ahead. That will be informed by the latest data. Between now and then, as far and as quickly as supplies allow, we will get as many people as possible vaccinated, with not just one but two doses.

I will. In our use of the Scottish Government’s resources, we are maximising our investment in the actions that are needed to support a green recovery and to transition to net zero. In the previous session of Parliament, we established the Scottish National Investment Bank, which takes that transition as its primary mission. We should continue to be challenged to do everything that we can with the powers, responsibilities and resources that we have.

It is not my choice, but there is no doubt that much of what we can do is determined by the spending decisions of the UK Government. This afternoon, as well as asking for public health to be kept to the fore and for furlough to be extended for as long as necessary, I will also ask for commitments on public spending so that we have certainty and clarity about future public spending and clarity that we will not see austerity cuts imposed by the UK Government. That is important for green recovery, and for many other reasons.

I am glad for Anas Sarwar that he has the time to do timelines. There is nothing that he has just told me that I do not know, and there is nothing that I have sought to shy away from. I lived through that period as the lead decision maker in the Scottish Government. I take responsibility for all the decisions and I have never tried to shy away from that. I will live with the consequences of those decisions for as long as I live, and those decisions will be subject to serious scrutiny. That is right and proper.

We sought, all along, to do the right thing, based on the knowledge and the understanding that we had. In the light of developing knowledge, if we could turn the clock back, we would do some of these things differently. In addition, as I have said all along, we will have made straightforward mistakes, and I will forever regret any mistakes that we made.

I do not know what point Anas Sarwar is seeking to prove. I have taken responsibility and will continue to take responsibility. Every single day of the pandemic, I have done my level best to get the decisions right.

If I could turn the clock back, would we go into lockdown earlier than we did? Yes, I think that we would. We moved on mass gatherings and we announced the position on schools slightly before the UK Government did. When we look at the different pandemic curves, we see that, although we went into lockdown on the same day as the rest of the UK, it was slightly ahead of the pandemic curve for Scotland.

If I could turn the clock back, there are many things that I would love to have the opportunity to do differently. Of course, the irony is that many of the same people who criticised me—perfectly legitimately—for not acting quickly enough or for not being cautious enough at an earlier stage often criticise me now for being too cautious and going too slowly in lifting lockdown restrictions. That is what comes with the responsibilities of this job. I am not complaining about that, but this is not an easy situation for anybody to be in. I will continue, as I have done from day 1, to take the best decisions that I can, and I will never shy away from the responsibility for that.

People can make up their own minds whether what they hear from me is an inability to face up to mistakes or Scottish exceptionalism. What people hear from me is a candid admission that, like many other Governments across the world, we have not got everything right, and they hear a willingness and a desire to face up to that and to learn from it.

I could paper the walls with timelines, but my focus now as First Minister is on delivering the vaccination programme to keep people safe in future and on ensuring that we take the right decisions, although we are criticised by many for being too cautious and too slow, to keep people safe because we could be at the start of a third wave of the virus. That is my responsibility as First Minister. Of course we have lessons to learn—I have never said otherwise. Perhaps Anas Sarwar is saying that, if he had been standing here back then, he would have got everything right. Who knows? Perhaps he would have done, but I suspect that, like everyone else, he would have grappled with those difficult decisions.

I have given a commitment to a judge-led public inquiry. That commitment stands. I want to see the inquiry up and running before the end of this year. The UK Government has announced plans for a public inquiry and has asked for four-nations discussion about its remit and about where there might be overlaps. I usually get encouraged by Labour members to take part in constructive four-nations discussions. We have agreed to do that. The commitment to a public inquiry is there and is firm and strong. I think that I was the first of the UK First Ministers to make that commitment.

I have led the country to the best of my ability—far from perfectly—through the pandemic. I, as much as anyone, want to ensure that we learn the right lessons. It is very easy when you are not the one taking the decisions and when you have the benefit of hindsight—if I was in opposition, I would no doubt do the same—to tell us what we should have done. When you are taking decisions in the moment, you have to act on the basis of the best information and advice that you have. That is what we have done. We will learn lessons. We will be judged. We have just been judged on our leadership of this so far in the election. We will be judged with full scrutiny, but my focus now is on continuing to lead the country as best I can through an on-going pandemic.

We will continue to keep all such matters under review. Earlier in FMQs, we heard perfectly legitimate questioning and criticism of the decisions that we took at an early stage, and suggestions that such decisions might not have been cautious enough. First and foremost, we need to make sure that we are protecting people as much as possible against the spread of the virus. That is particularly important when it comes to international travel, because, right now, the key risk of international travel is the importation of new variants. The issues that Liam Kerr mentioned are difficult for anybody who is having to quarantine in a hotel; however, public safety and public health are paramount here, and I hope that the Tories would accept that.