Chamber and committees

It is important that we continue to take actions to support those who are very vulnerable. I understand why some people want the removal of the requirement for face coverings, although I have to say that, in my own humble opinion, it is hardly the most inconvenient thing that we have ever been asked to do as citizens, and it is something that can be done to help and protect those within our society who are much more vulnerable. The Government will certainly be encouraging people to continue to wear face coverings voluntarily in appropriate locations.

The Government has spent significant amounts of time promoting the distance aware scheme. It needs to continue to be promoted, and we will do that over the course of the forthcoming period to ensure that there is as wide awareness as possible about the merits of the scheme, which is critical in providing reassurance to and promoting understanding among members of the public.

On the first question, the exam diet will go ahead—that is the approach that has been taken. On a situation where a young person is unable to sit an exam because of Covid, there are routine arrangements in place to address the implications of that on a pupil-by-pupil basis. No pupil will be disadvantaged by those arrangements, and it will be a matter of engaging with individual schools to ensure that arrangements can be put in place to support young people who might find themselves in that situation. The Scottish Qualifications Authority will work with individual schools to ensure that no pupil is disadvantaged in that respect.

The difficulty will not be solved by putting travel arrangements in place. Professor Leitch might contradict me, but I do not think that I am wrong to say that the difficulty is caused by the fact that it is the Pfizer vaccine that is being administered. The Pfizer dose comes in a larger block than other vaccines and therefore cannot be broken down for use in GP practices. That is why individuals may have to go to centres such as Pitlochry, which I appreciate is some distance for people living in the Rannoch area. I have dealt with constituency concerns about that. It is because of the nature of the vaccine. Professor Leitch may want to add to what I have said.

I will invite Professor Leitch to add to my remarks in a moment. It is important that people present for healthcare in the appropriate context and at the appropriate time. For some people, that will mean presenting very early when they have emerging symptoms of a potentially acute and challenging condition. Throughout the pandemic, we have maintained cancer care, and the message has been that the health service remains open for people should they require it. However, I accept that that does not fully address the reluctance that Mr Whittle mentions. I think that people are nervous about going to hospital because of the risk of contracting Covid.

Fundamentally, the matter can be addressed only by the forum in which we deliver healthcare. It is about ensuring that we meet each individual’s needs in their own communities as much as we possibly can. Measures such as hospital at home are designed to ensure that we provide care literally as close to home as we possibly can for individuals.

Professor Leitch might want to add to what I have said.

I understand that the position is that masks will not be obligatory in communal areas but that wearing them will be recommended as beneficial for maintaining some protection.

Convener, thank you for the opportunity to give evidence on the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill. First of all, I would like to thank the many individuals and organisations that have submitted views at the committee scrutiny stage in response to the call for evidence.

Last week, the Parliament voted to extend key provisions of the Scottish and United Kingdom coronavirus acts to September 2022. The bill that we are considering is about what should happen thereafter and proposes to carry forward around 30 important temporary measures. In line with the Government’s commitment to expire or suspend temporary provisions that are no longer necessary, and the need to report on them every two months, I can confirm that more than 45 temporary measures that were previously enacted have now expired.

The measures in the bill fall into three broad categories: powers to counter future public health threats; the embedding of practical public service reforms that have demonstrated their value, irrespective of the public health position; and extended temporary measures to manage the impact of Covid, specifically on the Scottish justice system.

Provisions in the first two categories fall within the committee’s scrutiny remit, and I have followed the stakeholder evidence with interest. It has, of course, been put to ministers that it would have been better to have split the bill, but there is a good reason for the Government being minded to progress with a single piece of legislation. For the most part, measures in the bill across all categories exist in temporary legislation that is now confirmed to expire in September. They all update and equip the statute book in sensible ways, as part of learning lessons from the pandemic. They were all consulted on as a coherent package in a full 12-week public consultation that took place between August and November last year, and the measures in the bill collectively support the Government’s Covid recovery strategy and the recently updated Covid strategic framework.

In the particular case of public health protection proposals, it has been put to the Government that those future powers are not needed, now that Scotland is transitioning from baseline Covid requirements in law to guidance. I disagree. The move brings into sharper focus the important distinction between having appropriate powers to hand to respond to future public health threats, which I consider to be in the public interest, and using those powers.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which has taken a close interest in the bill, published its stage 1 report on Tuesday. I will consider the detail of its recommendations closely, but I am happy to signal, as I did when I appeared before that committee to give evidence, that I will look to work constructively with the committee on issues such as the made affirmative procedure. I am happy to consider where constructive improvements can be made to the Government’s proposals and I look forward to the committee’s questions.

Again, that issue is at the heart of the discussion on the bill. The question is whether we think it appropriate to put legislative change in place at a very fast pace when a pandemic arises, as the Parliament had to do on two occasions in the spring of 2020. The legislation was handled on a very swift timescale; indeed, complex legislation was put forward in a matter of days.

It is a well-expressed view of the World Health Organization that countries should have appropriate measures and mechanisms in place to enable them to respond swiftly and appropriately to a pandemic. The Government has reflected on that as a lesson from the pandemic, and I think that that point has also been made to the committee by legal academics. Therefore, there is an opportunity for us to consider in a slower timeframe what that range of powers could look like and what powers could be enacted, should we face that situation.

Essentially, from my perspective, the nub of the matter with regard to the bill’s principles—especially in its early parts—is ensuring that we have a legislative framework in place that enables us to think in advance about the types of legislative changes that we might need to make and how we can make them. That is essentially what the bill proposes to do.

Thank you. Professor de Londras’s suggestion is also pragmatic. Mr Fraser will probably know that, in parliamentary questions last week, Dr Gulhane made a suggestion to me in relation to this area. There is scope for us to explore how to satisfy legitimate parliamentary concern on being persuaded of the merits of a particular action by the production of, for example, a statement of urgency to justify actions, as Professor de Londras suggests. I am open to discussing how we can properly address that point.

I want the statute book to be equipped with powers that enable us to act swiftly but, in acting swiftly, we also have to act appropriately. If there are other ways to strengthen the provisions of the bill to address those issues, I am open to using them.

As Mr Rowley will have heard from my responses to Mr Fraser’s points, I am willing to discuss with members of the Parliament of all shades of opinion how we can address any issues that are causing concern. I rehearsed with Mr Fraser the issues around what might be put on the record in relation to the justification for the use of any of the powers in advance. I hope that that is interpreted as a welcome and positive step in that respect.

On the wider point that Mr Rowley raises with me about particular powers, I would make the point that they can only be exercised in relation to a specific and significant risk to public health. It cannot happen any day of the week; it can only happen where there is a significant risk to public health. That is trigger point number 1: there must be a justifiable case.

Secondly, if ministers were to utilise those powers, they would have to come to Parliament to exercise them, either through the affirmative process, whereby Parliament itself would be able to judge whether they were required or not, or through the made affirmative process, whereby Parliament gives its consent once the Government has taken its actions, although that is conditional on the Government taking those steps and Parliament giving its consent. Therefore, there are a number of safeguards on the exercise of any of those responsibilities.

I hope that that provides some reassurance to Mr Rowley. However, I reiterate what I said to him at the start of my answer: that I am happy to engage with other parties. As I have said, I will consider and engage with the recommendations that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee made. I do not want to pre-empt what the COVID-19 Recovery Committee as the lead committee will say but I will be very happy to engage with it on its stage 1 report and any recommendations that it makes.

It is not an either/or. We must ensure that we have arrangements in place to meet everybody’s needs. For some people, registering remotely will be much more convenient and straightforward and they will be happy to do so. Others might feel reticent and anxious about it and an in-person appointment might suit them better. The best way to approach that is by providing the options that enable us to better meet all individuals’ needs in recognition that those might differ from individual to individual.