Chamber and committees

That issue will not be set out in the remit of the inquiry. Those are entirely separate functions. The Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are independently responsible for determining whether there is any criminal consideration to be borne in mind. The inquiry will have no involvement in, and no proximity to, those discussions and decisions, which are entirely the preserve of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.

No decisions have been taken about extension of the vaccination certification scheme. That will be the subject of discussion at the Cabinet on Tuesday, and Parliament will be advised in the First Minister’s statement on Tuesday afternoon. Any suggestion by Mr Smyth that decisions have been taken is not correct.

Mr Smyth asked whether measures were proportionate. That is the test that ministers must satisfy in relation to any measures that they intend to take—such measures must be proportionate to the scale of the pandemic and the threat to public health. That is a very material issue, on which ministers have been challenged in the courts. In the most recent case, the courts did not support those who challenged the Government’s decision to apply a limited certification scheme to nightclubs and other limited venues, with which Mr Smyth is familiar.

The Government will give consideration to the issue at the Cabinet on Tuesday. Any question of financial support must be considered in the context of the resources that the Government has available to it. Mr Smyth will be familiar with the fact that, over the course of the past 18 months, the Government has provided in excess of £4 billion of support as part of its Covid-related activities to deal with the challenges that businesses and other organisations have faced.

I recognise the findings of the article that The Lancet published, which found that vaccination did not prevent transmission of Covid-19 in those who are infected with the virus.

A number of studies have highlighted the fact that vaccines have some effect in reducing transmission, but more data is required to confirm the magnitude of that effect. It is likely that it varies with different viral variants and hence is lower with the current delta variant.

However, it is clear from the paper that the vaccine reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates clearance of the virus. Furthermore, it is also clear from the evidence to date that a significant vaccine effect exists in relation to reducing the risk of serious harm from Covid. It is therefore critical that those who are unvaccinated come forward and receive both doses and that those who are eligible get their booster.

The study also highlights the importance of mitigation measures such as certification to protecting individuals and managing the spread of the virus.

In line with our legal duty, statutory measures are reviewed every three weeks. We consider the necessity, proportionality and targeted nature of the regulations, taking into account a range of evidence across the four harms. Covid vaccination certification is part of that package of measures, and considering whether the impact on the business sector, including hospitality, and society at large remains proportionate is part of the review.

Ministers always consider whether our measures could be relaxed or ended, but, given the state of the pandemic, we have also been clear that we are considering whether it would be necessary and proportionate to expand certification.

The consultation closed on 9 November, and I am pleased to report that almost 3,000 responses were submitted by individuals and organisations. Those responses will be considered fully as part of the development of the Covid recovery bill, which Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise when it is introduced, later in this parliamentary year.

A range of developments have taken place during the pandemic, with an increased emphasis on the delivery of services through digital means. Collette Stevenson’s points about the importance of the delivery of efficient services through digital means and of individuals being able to access those digital resources without impediment are valid.

The Government has a commitment to improving connectivity. The work on the R100 contract, the 4G mobile infrastructure, mobile hotspots and the voucher schemes that are available to support people on low incomes to access devices are all part of the Government’s response, to ensure that those services are in place and that no obstacles exist to individuals accessing them.

As the First Minister set out yesterday, the Government will produce an evidence paper on some of those questions later this week. The Government must consider a range of factors in assessing the proportionality of the actions that we propose to take, should we decide to take those actions. As I explained to Mr Smyth, that is the legal obligation in relation to which we must satisfy ourselves, and it is one that ministers take very seriously.

A range of measures in the bill are the subject of consultation. As Mr Greene knows, the Government had to take difficult decisions around the question of early release in order to provide a response to the pandemic.

We will obviously consider those matters that were the subject of consultation, and the Parliament will have the opportunity to decide whether it wants to legislate on them. Full parliamentary scrutiny will be available for members—a process in which, I am sure, Mr Greene will take every opportunity to make his voice heard.

No, it will not. The First Minister set out to Parliament yesterday the rationale for why that is the case. The Government is interested in navigating a careful course through the dangerous circumstances that we face. We are intent on ensuring that businesses are able to continue to operate—a matter that members of the Conservative Party are forever mentioning.

Dr Gulhane knows as well as I do that the settings in which the vaccination certification scheme is applied are comparatively higher-risk settings than others, hence the justification for the application of the certification scheme. The rationale for our taking that stance is our intention to sustain those venues for as long as possible, because the alternative is to apply greater restrictions, which the Government does not wish to do. We have seen that the vaccination certification scheme has contributed to an improvement in vaccination levels in the critical age group of 18 to 29-year-olds.

I agree with that. The vaccination certification scheme is a proportionate measure that will contribute to reducing the risk of transmission and of serious illness and death. In doing so, it will help to alleviate the pressure on the healthcare system and allow higher-risk settings to continue to operate as I have just explained to Dr Gulhane. At the same time, we believe that it will help to increase vaccine uptake.

No single measure on its own will control the virus, so we need a range of targeted measures to keep transmission under control. The vaccines help to prevent transmission of the virus because vaccinated people are less likely than unvaccinated people to become infected and ill, and only infected people can transmit the virus.