Chamber and committees

It might help if I were to provide Mr Simpson and the committee with the opportunity to have a more detailed briefing from the officials and teams who have developed the app. I would be happy to arrange that, if that would help to reassure members about the issues and practicalities.

In some circumstances, that happens in other environments. If I show my passport at an airport, I am showing it to a complete stranger who will know my name, date of birth and passport number.

I do not for one moment trivialise the significance of the issues raised.

I contend that that is exactly what the Government has done by recognising that, as I confirmed again to the committee this morning, the Government can sustain the regulations only if there is a proportionate justification for doing so. That is, in essence, the answer to the question that the witnesses expressed to the committee and the point that Mr Rowley fairly puts to me in his question. I cannot sit here and say that the regulations will be in place until a given date, because the state of the pandemic could improve to an extent to which I do not have the justification for that. I cannot say to Mr Rowley that the regulations will be here until X date, because that would in essence be to prejudge the three-weekly review that we have to undertake.

We expect cases to be high and hospitalisation to remain high, and that will put great pressure on the system. That is why we need to take steps to suppress the prevalence of the virus, and the best way to do that is to increase vaccination uptake.

I hope that that helps to address Mr Rowley’s question.

I do not want to sound as if I am disagreeing with Mr Rowley in any way, because that is the approach that we are taking, but we express it slightly differently in the legal test of proportionality. If we find ourselves in a situation in which there is not a sustainable legal case to be made for the proportionality of the regulations, the Government will have to deal with that.

There was a lot in that question; Mr Rowley has acutely summarised the dangers and challenges.

As of yesterday, there were 1,581 delayed discharge patients in our hospitals. I know that it is a very controversial issue, but sustained efforts were made to ensure that patients who did not require to be in hospital in spring 2020 were discharged to other settings. If my memory serves me right—Dr Smith might help me out—that number went down to about 700, at its lowest.

Mr Cole-Hamilton and I know what we are debating here.

I want to reflect on that point, in the light of the evidence that the committee has heard this morning. The witnesses added another important element, which was to do with the question whether vaccination certification is being introduced in an environment of trust in society. I think that the evidence generally suggests that there is a high level of trust in Scotland on the way in which Covid-related issues have been handled. It is important that we acknowledge that that backdrop enables such a scheme to be applied in the fashion that I have suggested to the committee.

Obviously, I cannot speak for the Scottish Human Rights Commission, but I absolutely accept the tests that it would place upon us. Such tests matter to the Government.

Mr Cole-Hamilton will be familiar with the Government’s position on the significance of human rights in all our activities. He knows about the legislation that the Government has taken through Parliament—for example, on the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is an illustration of the Government’s commitment to a human rights-based approach. The Covid recovery strategy that the Government is working on focuses on a human rights-based approach, and it will be material to the public inquiry that takes place on Covid issues. I do not in any way dispute the importance and significance of human rights questions.

I agree with Judith Robertson that those questions fundamentally hinge on the question of proportionality. The Government must be able to satisfy itself on the question of proportionality in relation to any measures that it takes forward. As Mr Cole-Hamilton will well know, we also have to satisfy ourselves that we could withstand legal challenge on any of those questions. The Government considers that issue very carefully on all occasions.

In answer to the question about alternatives, the Government considers a range of possible approaches that we might take. Mr Mason invited me to speculate on some of those as alternative measures on the restriction side. There are other arguments in relation to testing approaches, which, I would contend, the Government is using to the best of our ability in order to ensure that those devices are being used. We judge that a Covid certification scheme is a proportionate measure, in addition to the range of other interventions that we are taking to suppress the virus, increase vaccination uptake and protect the public.

There is a fair point to be addressed there, so I will take the issue away and put that into motion.