Chamber and committees

NHS staffing in Scotland is at a record high level and has increased by more than 25,000 under this Government. We have more staff working in the NHS and, according to Mr Ross, we have a successful and effective vaccination programme. I hope that that might give Mr Halcro Johnston some reassurance that the Scottish Government is doing everything that it can to roll out the vaccination programme as quickly and significantly as possible. The evidence demonstrates that that is the case.

I am aware that many such cases have been resolved. In a programme of around 10 million vaccinations, I think that we all accept that there will be challenges with absolute accuracy in all circumstances. I assure Mr McArthur that those issues are being resolved.

If members wish to contact ministers about any area where there is a need for further steps, we will do all that we can to resolve those issues as quickly as possible and to ensure that individuals are in no way disadvantaged by a lack of access to Covid certification.

In all honesty, Mr Fraser does neither himself nor his arguments any credit with the overblown hyperbole that he brings to the Parliament about the question.

Mr Fraser said that we had provided no evidence that the application of the scheme had driven up vaccination rates. I put on the record at committee, in response to a question from him, the fact that, on 1 September, 53 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds had been vaccinated; by 1 October, that was 64 per cent and, by 1 November, it was 68 per cent. That is a sizeable increase in the vaccination rates in the target population in which we were interested.

The Scottish Government has proposed a mandatory domestic certification scheme that is proportionate and appropriate at this point in the pandemic. Recent data is a stark reminder of the challenges that the nation continues to face. We have a strategic intent in relation to the management of Covid to suppress the virus to a level that is consistent with alleviating its harms while we recover and rebuild for a better future.

The scheme is limited. It continues to contribute to meeting the aims of reducing the risk of transmission, reducing the risk of serious illness and death and, in doing so, alleviating pressure on the healthcare system. It also continues to contribute to allowing high-risk settings to operate as an alternative to closure or more restrictive measures and to increasing vaccine uptake.

Earlier today, members of the Parliament pressed me about the pressure on our national health service. That is a real pressure and we have to take measures, however uncomfortable, and however reluctant we are to take them, to ensure that we do all we can to suppress the increase in pressure on our national health service.

Some of the scenario that Mr Coffey puts to me can be addressed by the fact that we invited young people who were 17 to come forward for vaccination before their 18th birthdays, which would have preceded the introduction of the certification scheme. However, I am happy to explore in further detail some of the issues that Mr Coffey raises, to identify whether there are practical steps that we can take to address the situation. Nobody wants to see anybody disadvantaged, but we are trying to maximise the protection that is in place for the wider population by ensuring that individuals are double vaccinated. If Mr Coffey wishes to write to me with further details about that scenario, I will happily consider it.

It is difficult for me to give a specific answer to the general but legitimate proposition that Gillian Mackay puts. The best advice that I can give to individuals who find themselves in such circumstances is that they contact the helpline for advice or secure alternative clinical advice, which will enable us to judge the best course of action, individual by individual.

Even in the scenarios that Gillian Mackay describes, the circumstances might have accelerated or delayed someone’s access to the programme. An individual assessment of circumstances through engagement with the helpline is the best way forward, potentially with the pursuit of other clinical advice.

In a sense, the detail that Pam Duncan-Glancy puts on the record reinforces the fundamental argument that I have a making this afternoon, which is that the national health service is under extraordinary pressure. I do not think that it is overwhelmed, but it is under extraordinary pressure. The fine balance that the Government is trying to strike is about enabling as much of our economy and our society as possible to function without interruption or restriction at this moment while not allowing so much of that to happen that the national health service becomes overwhelmed. Pam Duncan-Glancy is absolutely right in saying that that would help nobody.

When I am under pressure to relax the restrictions that we have in place—as I have been this afternoon—I simply say to members of Parliament that there is a fine balance to be struck. The points that Pam Duncan-Glancy puts to me are completely legitimate worries about the prospects for the national health service, so we have to take certain precautions and apply certain restrictions to make sure that we avoid the scenario that she paints.

So far this year, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has received additional funding of more than £130 million to meet Covid-related costs, and it will continue to receive all the necessary support throughout the pandemic.

Further support for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde will come from the £300 million fund for winter funding pressures, which was announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care some weeks ago. That support will be the subject of discussion with the health board and will be deployed in due course.

I am concerned about that information from Christine Grahame. Certainly, the vaccination booster programme should be completed for people in the over-70s group well before the end of December. I ask that the member shares specific information with the health secretary on those issues, which we will explore.

As I said, the booster programme should be delivered at an earlier stage to that age group. As I said in my statement, we are beginning to issue letters to those in the 60 to 69 age group, so the older categories should be satisfactorily resolved by then. I would appreciate it if Christine Grahame could write to the health secretary.

I have stressed in the remarks that I have made to Parliament today that the Government has to be open with the public about what steps we are considering. Mr Johnson will know that there is a three-weekly review that we will undertake next week and those issues will be part of that consideration.

At this stage, I cannot say to Parliament whether those discussions will be concluded by then because, fundamentally, the judgment on whether the Covid certification scheme needs to be extended any further has to be driven by the evidence of the pandemic—the prevalence of the virus in the community, the level of pressure on the national health service and the level of vaccination that is under way. The Government has to make a proportionate judgment on those questions.

Daniel Johnson asked whether a negative LFD test would be a possible alternative to vaccination certification, and I confirm that the Government is considering that question as part of its deliberations.

On the question of enforcement by proprietors and operators of hospitality venues, there is, obviously, still a requirement for contact tracing data to be retained by many of those venues. We encourage people to participate in that. Therefore, there are opportunities for operators of venues to have such exchanges and to undertake discussions to satisfy themselves on that point.

On the booster programme, I have heard and am aware of points that have been raised about the accessibility of certain venues for individuals and the waiting times that have been involved. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has been discussing those issues with individual health boards. Obviously, a huge volume of activity is being undertaken and, as a consequence, there may well be congestion at individual facilities at times. However, I give Mr Johnson the assurance that the health secretary and officials are in active, on-going dialogue with health boards to offer support where it is necessary to do so, and to enable health boards to deliver the joint programme for the flu vaccination and the booster jags with the inconvenience to members of the public kept to a minimum as they participate in those important programmes.

I do not see how Mr Cole-Hamilton can possibly expect me to give a positive response to his question given what I have just put on the record in my parliamentary statement. There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of his question. He marshalled the dangers that the national health service faces over the next few months. I could not have said it better myself: that was an accurate reflection of the challenges that are faced. We have to ensure that we have sufficient protection in place to reduce any impact on the national health service. We know that people who are double vaccinated have less-worse symptoms than people who are not vaccinated, which naturally answers Mr Cole-Hamilton’s question. If people are double vaccinated and therefore have a Covid certificate as a consequence, they are likely to be exposed to less danger, and we will be able to sustain more aspects of our social and economic activity. It all follows. The only problem is that Mr Cole-Hamilton missed a fundamental step of logic in his question. [Interruption.]