Chamber and committees

That would require us to configure the national health service around the circumstances of a few—I do not know how many; perhaps 1,000 or 10,000—individual patients, as opposed to trying to ensure that every patient gets the treatment that they require.

We have circumstances just now in which, unfortunately, individuals with complex healthcare needs have to have a range of different specialist interventions to meet their needs. I can only give a personal observation on this: I do not have healthcare issues, thankfully, but if I did, I would want to see a person who knows what they are doing. With all the greatest respect to Professor Leitch, I am not going to consult him on, say, open heart surgery.

There is a fine line to be walked. We want to retain as much of the really good strength and capabilities that have been built up in the testing infrastructure, but if we move away from that scale of testing infrastructure in the country, some people will undoubtedly become available for employment. We have to work with individuals to ensure that they are appropriately trained and skilled to remain in the labour market, albeit that they might be undertaking different tasks. The Government’s economic objectives are about maximising economic participation by those who are able to participate, hence the pilot projects that we are undertaking to tackle the levels of economic inactivity in Scotland. We want to reduce those levels and expand the size of the working-age population.

Based on the best measures that we have for the prevalence of the virus, we are in an improving position, with one in 19 of the population having the virus. I think further data on that will come from the ONS survey tomorrow.

I would rather address the question that Mr Nolan has raised through the route of rearrangement of the appointment on the basis of clinical advice, which I know from other experience is happening. The circumstances that Mr Nolan faces are not particularly different from the circumstances of many other people who have other clinical treatments and where the clinical advice is that they should continue with the treatment that they are getting—for whatever non-Covid issue it is—and get the benefit of the Covid booster vaccination at a different time. That is not an uncommon situation, so I am troubled to hear that, on the basis of that clinical advice, Mr Nolan was not able to readily rearrange his appointment.

That would be the more appropriate and reliable route, rather than having drop-in provision, which might or might not be available. I have previously gone over with the committee some of the challenges of drop-in provision. I would much rather that the circumstances of people such as Mr Nolan were addressed by rearrangement. If Mr Fraser would like to drop me some details about that, I will see what can be done to address the issues.

I ask Professor Leitch whether he would like to add anything.

I am not sure that I can subscribe to the argument that there is evidence of something better being done in England. I can subscribe to the argument that something different is being done with the establishment of long Covid clinics. However, I come back to the answer that I just gave Mr Mason, which is that our health service is founded on the principle that patients should get the treatment that they require and see the people who they need to see to ensure that interventions are appropriate. That founding principle must be honoured, and we must constantly explore whether there is a more effective approach that we could take. That is what the research projects that we have commissioned are all about.

Research work is under way to look at different models and approaches. If there is learning to be gained from examples in other parts of the United Kingdom and across the world, we will be open to that. Our health service is constantly engaged with other health systems to identify the most appropriate interventions to support individuals.

I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to provide a short update on Covid-19.

We have now reached a stage at which all legal restrictions relating to protective measures have been lifted. Although Covid has not gone away, that is a positive and welcome step in the right direction.

Through guidance, the Scottish Government will continue to recommend that people take a proportionate and risk-based approach to reducing the likelihood of getting or transmitting the virus. For example, our advice remains that it is sensible to continue to wear a face covering in some public indoor spaces and on public transport.

Getting vaccinated and receiving a booster vaccine remain the most important things that any of us can do to protect ourselves and others. The vaccination programme is continuing at pace.

In line with our test and protect transition plan, and informed by advice from public health officials and clinicians, we are adapting our testing programme to support the effective management of the virus as it becomes endemic. For example, although regular lateral flow testing is no longer recommended for the general public, some groups will remain eligible for free lateral flow testing. That includes unpaid carers and people who are visiting a hospital or care home.

The Scottish Government’s revised strategic framework will continue to inform our approach to managing the virus in the longer term. The framework of threat levels and potential responses provides as much clarity as possible for planning purposes while retaining crucial flexibility to ensure that any necessary responses are effective and proportionate. We will continue to monitor the prevalence and risk of new variants to ensure that we can respond to outbreaks and future health threats.

As we welcome the proportionate changes to our pandemic response, the Scottish Government continues to focus its efforts on supporting Scotland’s recovery and creating a fairer future for everyone—especially for those who have been most disproportionately affected during the pandemic. Our Covid recovery strategy sets out an ambitious vision for recovery that is shared by local government. Alongside the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I am overseeing a programme of activity that will increase the financial security of low-income households, enhance the wellbeing of children and young people, and create good, green jobs and fair work.

I am very happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

This is a disgrace.

The “Test and Protect Transition Plan”, which was published on 15 March, outlines the phased way in which test and protect will transition and support the effective management of Covid, primarily through adaptations and health measures that strengthen resilience and recovery, as we rebuild for a fairer future.

If my recollection is correct, Alpha Solway was providing supplies to the Scottish effort through the PPE network. I am very grateful to the employees and leadership of Alpha Solway for all that they contributed.

In all such circumstances, the development of the domestic supply chain is very important. That was a key priority for my ministerial colleague Ivan McKee, who did a tremendous amount of work in dialogue with the business community to enable us to manufacture more of the required PPE in Scotland, rather than relying on imports. Fundamentally, I agree with Mr Carson about the importance of that point.

I need to raise the issue of stockpiling. If we stockpile for the possibility of a pandemic and no pandemic arises, it is inevitable that there may well be stock that cannot be used within particular periods of time. However, efforts can be made to recondition stock to make sure that we maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of the arrangements. I assure Mr Carson that those arrangements are very much at the heart of the pandemic learning that we have undertaken, and that we certainly want to encourage the domestic supply chain to the maximum possible level.