Chamber and committees

Those points have to be taken very seriously. They indicate the challenge that policymakers and decision makers face in enabling us to deal with a widespread public health emergency across our whole society, while taking approaches to address the specific circumstances of individuals with disabilities, as Pam Duncan-Glancy has highlighted.

The identification of targeted and focused support for individuals is, as part of the wider response to managing the pandemic, crucial in order to address people’s given circumstances. That will need to be at the heart of the response that public authorities take forward to address the issues that Pam Duncan-Glancy has fairly put to me.

We will continue to consider the needs of everyone in society—this relates to the point that Pam Duncan-Glancy made—in developing future adaptations, mitigations and protective measures, because there is clear evidence that harm has been felt unevenly across our society. The Government has published separately the detailed impact assessments that informed the content of the framework and that will inform our decision making.

We will ensure that any continuing or new measures do not exacerbate inequality, which is why equality, inclusion and human rights remain at the heart of our on-going response and, indeed, at the heart of our Covid recovery strategy. We know that an uncertain time lies ahead for those who remain at the highest risk and that not everybody in society welcomes the removal of protective measures. We will continue to provide advice and guidance, informed by our clinicians, as we support the people who are on the highest-risk list, while we get back to a more normal way of life. The strategic framework update therefore outlines a wide range of concrete actions that are designed to improve outcomes across society and that are consistent with our Covid-19 recovery strategy.

Before I bring my remarks to a conclusion, I wish to put into context the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) Scotland Bill, which supports the strategic framework and will ensure greater resilience against future public health threats. Although we intend to rely much less on legal requirements in response to Covid in the future, the framework is clear that our legislation must be kept up to date in order to support our ability to manage future outbreaks. We hope that that will not be needed in the future, but it is only right that Scotland has permanent public health protection powers, as have been available in England and Wales for more than a decade. There is a crucial distinction between having appropriate powers available to respond to public health threats and actually using them in given circumstances.

The strategic framework sets out what we must all do as we come to rely much more on positive behaviours and actions to manage Covid-19 effectively and sustainably. We have set out how we plan to respond effectively and proportionately, should the virus again pose an acute threat to our health, to enable people and organisations to plan for the future with greater confidence.

We will listen to the developing lessons and research, which can help us to navigate better through future pandemics and other emergencies, to protect our people and to ensure that we are able to build a fairer, resilient and more prosperous Scotland as a consequence of our response to the pandemic that we have faced.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the Strategic Framework Update on 22 February 2022; offers its condolences to everyone in Scotland who has suffered loss and its gratitude to all those who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much during the pandemic; notes that Scotland is now able to look forward to the rest of 2022 with increased optimism, made possible by the remarkable progress on vaccination and in new treatments; supports the new strategic intent to manage COVID-19 effectively, primarily through adaptations and health measures that strengthen resilience and recovery, as the country rebuilds for a better future; acknowledges that the threat from COVID-19 has not gone away and that the approach is to manage COVID-19 going forwards on the basis of four broad response categories that reflect the assessed threat; notes that the Scottish Government will aim to convert remaining COVID-19 regulations into guidance to promote good public health behaviours, while retaining the ability to regulate in future should the public health situation require it; agrees that there is a need for collaborative management of COVID-19 to be shared by central and local government, wider public services, businesses, the third sector, communities and individuals, and notes that the pandemic has also exacerbated inequalities, poverty and disadvantage and that the Strategic Framework outlines a wide range of concrete actions that are designed to improve outcomes across society, consistent with the COVID-19 Recovery Strategy.

No, I am not. I am saying that the Conservatives disregard the feelings and opinions of those individuals, and that they do so in a casual and unrelenting fashion. Earlier today, I sat in the chamber and listened to Douglas Ross, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, absolutely racing past that argument.

Ross Greer and Alex Rowley made a point about the pressure that national health service staff face. That is one of the realities with which the Government has wrestled in taking the decisions that we have announced to Parliament today, which we believe are proportionate, given the scale of the challenges that we face.

I want to address a number of points that have been made in the debate. Murdo Fraser overstated—not for the first time—the case that he made to Parliament, in two respects. The first relates to the effect of precautionary measures that the Scottish Government has taken. Mr Fraser asked what the evidence was for the performance of those measures. As one example of evidence, I cite the ONS infection survey, which showed that from 31 October 2021 to 5 February 2022—the period to which Mr Fraser referred in taking exception to the different positions of the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government in their application of restrictions in Scotland and in England—around 26 per cent of people in Scotland were infected with Covid, while the figure for England was 34 per cent.

I use that data to illustrate my point to Mr Fraser. I could go on to talk about the differences in deaths within 28 days of a positive test by area. The survey shows that, over the duration of the pandemic, the figure for Scotland was 200 deaths per 100,000 of the population, whereas in England it was 250 per 100,000. I use that data simply to illustrate that these decisions are not easy for any Government, in any part of the United Kingdom. However, we have tried to take measured and appropriate steps to protect the population, and I believe that the announcements that the Government has made today, and the contents of the strategic framework, are consistent with that position.

I am producing a strategic framework that is relevant and appropriate for every citizen of our country, regardless of where they live. I am proud to represent a rural area in the Parliament, and I take no lessons from Finlay Carson about how to represent rural Scotland.

The second way in which Murdo Fraser overstates his case is in relation to the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) Scotland Bill—and he was, of course, echoed by numerous others, such as Mr Whittle, into the bargain. For the sake of clarity, let me reassure Mr Balfour on the issue that he raised about the possibility of undertaking the registration of deaths in person: the bill provides for that. That removes one reason why Mr Balfour could be opposed to the bill, so I look forward to his support for it as a consequence of my directly addressing the issue about which he was concerned.

One of the familiar points that is raised with us is the importance of learning lessons from things. The Government is learning the lessons of the pandemic and wants to ensure that the Parliament and the country have in place law that enables us to react as quickly as we need to react to the challenges that we might face. We have all agreed, and everybody has accepted, that Covid is still around. It may reappear with much greater virulence than has been the case, and we must have the legislative arrangements in place to deal with that.

On any other day, the Conservatives would be coming here and telling us, “You should have learned the lessons. You should have prepared the statute book for all of this.” We now find ourselves here preparing the statute book for all of that—not for the Government to have automatic powers, but to have powers that will be able to be used only with parliamentary consent and with appropriate evidence of the gravity of the situation, as provided by the chief medical officer.

Some of the language that we have heard from the Conservatives today is completely over the top.

Murdo Fraser rose—

Brian Whittle rose—

I am spoilt for choice between Mr Fraser and Mr Whittle. Since I have mentioned Mr Fraser, I will give way to him.

For all the years that he has been here, Mr Fraser has displayed the most appalling ignorance of parliamentary procedure. The made affirmative procedure is an accepted statutory mechanism that involves parliamentary scrutiny, so there is no bypassing of Parliament whatever involved in the Government’s legislation. If we are at the stage when I am having to lecture Mr Fraser on elementary parliamentary procedure, it is no wonder that the Conservatives are in the sorry state that they are in.

The Scottish Government is taking the necessary and proportionate steps to respond to the challenges that we face. We have done that throughout the pandemic. I am profoundly grateful to members of the public for the way in which they have supported the measures that the Government has taken, for the way in which they have embraced those measures and for the way in which they have acted responsibly to protect other members of our society. The Government intends to provide the leadership to enable that to continue in the period to come.

I cannot tell the member that. However, I can say that, when one looks at the data on compliance where there is a legal requirement for face coverings to be worn and the data on where there is a voluntary approach, the difference in the numbers can be quite considerable. Where there are legal measures in place, compliance tends to reach a high of 80 per cent, whereas with voluntary measures it tends to be about 60 per cent.

We know—this is well-established information from the World Health Organization and various other clinical advisers—that the wearing of face coverings is a significant impediment to circulation of the virus. Just now, as members will know, we are currently seeing significant spreading of the virus. That provides the rationale that has led the Government to take the decision that we have taken, and which the First Minister set out to Parliament today.

It is important, as we look at adaptations and health measures, to understand that the approach that we are taking in the strategic framework does not mean that we will allow the virus a free hand, regardless of the harm that it might cause. Instead, the framework will help us to ensure that our overall approach, and any future use of protective measures should we face a significant new threat, is, as always, proportionate and consistent with our broader purpose of protecting public health and creating a more successful, sustainable and inclusive Scotland.

I make it clear that the Government will aim to convert the remaining domestic legal requirements for wearing of face coverings into guidance as soon as it is safe for us to do so. That will help us to promote good public health behaviours, while retaining the ability to regulate in the future, should the public health situation require that. Despite the planned shift away from legal requirements, we will still need to manage Covid-19 effectively, because the virus remains a threat. We are likely to continue to see outbreaks in Scotland over the coming years, and we can expect new variants to appear globally.

We have, therefore, set out in the framework a system of threat levels and potential responses that enables us to provide as much clarity as we can for planning purposes, while retaining the crucial flexibility to ensure that responses are both effective and proportionate to the threat level.

We do not believe that an approach that relies on predetermined automatic triggers for a response would be appropriate. We have seen, throughout the pandemic, that clinical and scientific advice and data, legal and equalities considerations and many other factors need to be combined to inform our decision making, and that all that must be overlaid by experience and judgment on the right steps to take. As we go forward, we will manage Covid-19 on the basis of measures that are commensurate with the assessed threat.

At this point, it is right to note the need for collaborative management of Covid-19 to be shared by central Government, local government, wider public services, the third sector, communities and individuals. We have achieved remarkable levels of co-operation in managing the harms of the pandemic; that will be essential for managing the challenges that lie ahead.

In her contribution to the debate, Beatrice Wishart said that, while legal requirements will become guidance, Covid is still very much around and not everyone will be comfortable with the relaxation of restrictions. With that, she summed up the reality of the dilemmas that exist—dilemmas that have been studiously ignored in the contributions from Conservative members—and the fact that some members of our society are profoundly uneasy about the circumstances that they now face. Those points were also made by my dear and respected colleague, Christine Grahame, who spoke about the situation that is faced by people who have vulnerabilities and are anxious about re-emerging into society.

Given the casual dismissal of those concerns by Conservative members today, and the very aggressive dismissal of them by the Conservatives’ social media feeds over the past 24 hours, in the face of overwhelming evidence that justifies the decisions that the Government has arrived at today, those points should be a stunning wake-up call for the Conservatives.

No. Essentially, the matter of necessity kicks in on those questions. For example, we had to face the necessity to move to a situation in which our schools did not function in the way to which we were accustomed. We would want to avoid the necessity of releasing prisoners early, because courts have decided that prisoners must serve particular sentences. No particular rationale exists as to why that provision should be there in perpetuity, because it conflicts with fundamental elements of our legislative framework and the expectations of members of the public about the nature of those circumstances and how we handle them.

Ultimately, the Parliament has to satisfy itself that it has the right legislative arrangements in place to deal with any given scenario. The statute book includes a number of strong characteristics, not least of which is the ability of the chief medical officer, for example, to offer his view on the situation that we face. That has influenced the judgment that was made on the construction of the bill. It is a matter for the Parliament to scrutinise and consider whether it believes that appropriate descriptions and explanations are in place in the legislation, and the Government will then consider that further.

Some of that discussion could be influenced by the first question that Mr Sweeney put to me, which was about the nature of any undertaking and explanation that the Government gives about the use of the made affirmative procedure, for example, which can have certain characteristics that give a demonstrable reason why that procedure should be used in a particular circumstance.