Chamber and committees

The reason why we are taking time to gather evidence and consult is that we would rather put in place a strategic framework with significant longevity to give people confidence and certainty about how we intend to position ourselves to manage the pandemic. We think—we hope—that we have the opportunity to do that. Now that we are in a slightly becalmed situation, we can set out our assessment of the current situation, our view of what approaches might be necessary to manage the pandemic on an on-going basis, and the steps that we would need to take should we have to intensify any of our actions for dealing with the pandemic.

We therefore hope that the framework will have a longer perspective than we were perhaps able to give during the pandemic, when, of necessity, we had to change some of the foundations of our framework approach to reflect the fact that the course of the pandemic had changed significantly right in front of us.

It might be helpful if I place on the record some remarks about the various regulations.

Before the committee are motions to approve two emergency health protection instruments. The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2022 implement the second phase of the lifting of the omicron response measures, removing indoor capacity limits for live events as well as physical distancing and table service requirements, and allowing nightclubs to reopen. On the reopening of nightclubs, the regulations also make a small change to the definition of “late night premises” in relation to the certification requirements.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 3) Regulations 2022 amend the face covering requirements so that, in the circumstances that are set out in the principal regulations in which a person is permitted not to wear a face covering because they are at least 2m away from other people, that distance is reduced to at least 1m.

Also before the committee is a motion on the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel and Operator Liability) (Scotland) Amendment (No 2) Regulations 2022, which add the Dynamic New Athletics event to the list of specified competitions in the principal regulations. That indoor athletics event is due to take place on 5 February 2022 at the Emirates arena in Glasgow. The amendment is being made to allow international sportspeople and ancillary staff who are coming to Scotland to compete in the event to be eligible for the elite sportsperson exemption.

Finally, there are the regulations on the early expiry of provisions in paragraphs 18(1) and (3) of schedule 4 to the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020. The provisions in question allowed the Parole Board for Scotland to make use of a live link for the entirety of parole proceedings during the Covid pandemic, rather than conducting face-to-face hearings. The Parole Board (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2022, which were laid on 24 January 2022, make equivalent permanent provision in the rules that will take effect from the point of expiry. That will avoid any gap in the Parole Board’s ability to conduct remote hearings and will future proof its proceedings in case there is a future pandemic or another reason why face-to-face hearings would not be advisable.

Motions moved,

That the COVID-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2022 (SSI 2022/13) be approved.

That the COVID-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (International Travel and Operator Liability) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2022 (SSI 2022/25) be approved.

That the COVID-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 2022 (SSI 2022/29) be approved.—[John Swinney]

Motions agreed to.

A number of points have to be made in response to that question. First of all, we have had a global pandemic that has affected the delivery of healthcare for the past two years. The committee must be careful that it does not forget about the fact that we have had a very disruptive global pandemic that has put enormous pressure on our health service. I make the point bluntly to the committee that we cannot just wish away the past two years, because they have been hugely disruptive to the health service.

Secondly, throughout the pandemic, the health service has maintained as large a range of core services as possible. Some treatments—for example, for cancer—have been sustained throughout the pandemic. There has been less capacity to provide elective treatments, because we have had to allocate capacity to deal with the pandemic. Indeed, I am reminded that there has been significant resistance to some of the Government’s measures to protect capacity in the health service by putting restrictions on the general population. Some of these measures have been resisted in Parliament. However, if the Government had not done that, even more hospital capacity would have been used up dealing with Covid rather than other cases. Therefore, hard choices have had to be made. I regret the fact that, as a consequence of that, some members of the public are waiting longer for treatment than they should have to.

Thirdly, there is a recovery programme under way to ensure that people can receive the treatment to which they are entitled. That work is under way now, and elective treatment is being expanded. The more that we can suppress Covid numbers and Covid hospital admissions, the more scope there is for other treatments to be taken forward.

Finally, in relation to the publication of data on those who are waiting for treatment, waiting times data is made available on, I think, a monthly basis. Is that correct?

I would contest a bit of what Mr Fairlie has put to me. Thinking back over my time in Parliament, I came in here—my goodness, what is it?—23 years ago, when death rates from cancer, heart disease and stroke were significantly worse than they are today. Successive Governments concentrated their messaging and measures on proactive interventions to try to address that. For example, screening programmes were introduced, which raised awareness about the degree of risk that individuals faced in relation to particular conditions. Messaging campaigns were undertaken to raise public awareness about symptoms and signs, and the availability of screening programmes, in order to try to reduce the number of deaths.

Those programmes have, by and large, delivered better outcomes. Obviously, they have not taken away the risks entirely—sadly, people still die from those conditions. Nonetheless, as a consequence of the investments that were made in messaging to raise awareness, fewer people are dying from those causes.

I say to Mr Fairlie that, just now, we have to focus public attention on Covid because of the threat that it continues to pose to our population. Nevertheless, there are other threats out there, and we absolutely need to raise awareness of them and to get the public to comply in their behaviour to ensure that those threats can be properly addressed.

I think that the experience of the pandemic, and the fact that many thousands of our fellow citizens have had to work from home, has demonstrated the potential for different models of working. For some people, working from home has been beneficial—they have been able to organise their lives in a way that has enabled them to sustain their lives and undertake all the rest of what various people have to fit into their days, so they may have a slightly less congested life as a consequence.

For others, it has not been successful; it has been a challenge. Many people have missed social interaction in an office or other working environment. There are obviously economic implications for town centres in terms of footfall—as you say, convener—but there are benefits from a reduction in traffic movement. In my anecdotal experience, I have found that the journey into Edinburgh by car, which I make reasonably frequently, is a good deal more straightforward than it has been for most of the past 10 years of my life. There are ups and downs.

Part of the response has to come at an individual business level. Businesses have to work out their way of working, and they should do so in dialogue with their staff. The Government is certainly not going to prescribe a model that must prevail; it would be inappropriate for us to do so. Nonetheless, we encourage hybrid working in the context of the pandemic, and we encourage employers to discuss the subject with their teams.

Equally, as public authorities—both Government and local authorities—we have to look at the appropriate future strategies for town centres. They have been facing challenges for many years—what is happening now is not a new phenomenon. The upsurge in online trading has changed much of the approach to town centres. Nevertheless, there has been a number of imaginative redevelopments and repurposing of town centres as places of leisure and residence as opposed to exclusively retail environments. Such repurposing is possible, and the Government is engaging with a range of local authorities and communities on what that might look like. We will work with public authorities as effectively as we can to try to address those issues.

We have gone to a model of hybrid working. We have more civil servants back in the formal office environment this week, in line with the guidance that the Government has set out. The permanent secretary made it clear that the approach to hybrid working should take its course, and staff are working on that basis as we speak. The Government has followed the guidance that we have issued for others, and that is being applied across the working environment.

Well, where do I start with that one? There were moments in my tenure as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills when—believe you me—I would have loved to exercise more control over local authorities on their performance on education.

The scenario that Mr Rowley puts to me is that the Government should empower local authorities. The Government has no need to empower local authorities to do those things, because they have the statutory responsibility for the delivery of education and the maintenance of the education estate.

Some months ago, local authorities were invited by the Government to set out what steps they were taking to improve ventilation. All the responsibility and scope lies exclusively in the hands of local government. The Scottish Government has made resources available to local authorities to help them to fulfil their statutory obligations in maintaining the school estate and ensuring that good ventilation is available.

There is no centralised control on ventilation. There is guidance that is formulated having taken expert advice. That will be signed off by the Covid-19 education recovery group, which of course includes local authorities—they are heavily represented on that group and will be heavily involved in the formulation of the guidance. The education secretary has previously reported to the Parliament on the feedback that she has received from local authorities about the steps that they are taking in relation to the improvement of ventilation.

Mr Rowley also put to me the issue of face coverings in schools. There is a different set of circumstances in that regard. The school-age population, whom we are continuing to require to wear face coverings, is less vaccinated than the rest of the population, because of the timing of the advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Looking at the infection levels, we can clearly see a higher preponderance of omicron infection among younger people in general—that is a summary position, but it is generally the case—and in the absence of high enough levels of vaccination, because of the JCVI advice, we have judged it proportionate to maintain the wearing of face coverings in schools. Of course, the Government will review the issue regularly, but we consider such a move to be proportionate in protecting young people and staff in the school environment.

In formulating any guidance, the Government draws on evidence from a range of sources, considers that evidence and makes appropriate judgments. I know from chairing the education recovery group for a sustained period over the past few years that we engage significantly with local authorities on all aspects of the formulation of that guidance. Local authorities will be involved in the development of this thinking.

As I said in my earlier answer to Mr Rowley, the Government has sought from local authorities an assurance that they are taking all the necessary steps to configure their estate and ensure appropriate ventilation. That will vary from classroom to classroom and from school to school. I accept Mr Rowley’s point that, fundamentally, this issue has to be handled at local level, but that is exactly what the Government has done.

I would certainly be very much against that, as I do not think that it is fair work practice to lean on one’s employees, to use the terminology that Mr Whittle used—that is not the way to think about the world at all. Many business organisations now realise that it is possible to operate in a different fashion and to perhaps have a more productive working environment. Certainly, given some of the challenges that people face in relation to their travel time to work and all the rest of it, some of that time could be saved and could be put to more productive use. In essence, the best way to ensure that the correct approach is taken is by having dialogue between employers and employees.

We should certainly not be relaxed about it, and we should not resign ourselves to that being the case. That is why every possible attempt is being made to invite people to get the booster vaccination. For example, in the run-up to the turn of the year, the volume of messaging and communication to encourage people to come forward for the booster was colossal, and we made significant progress in that respect. We were within clipping distance of 80 per cent of the eligible population being reached by 31 December.

We are now deploying a range of other interventions, including writing directly to everybody who has been vaccinated with the first and second doses but has not yet had the booster dose to encourage them to get it and provide them with the means of doing so. Extensive walk-in facilities are still available all around the country, particularly in our cities, to make sure that people have ready access to opportunities of that type. A variety of steps have been taken in relation to communication and practical availability to make sure that people have access to vaccination, and that is not something that we should give up on.