Chamber and committees

That is a vital issue. I quite understand the appetite on the part of individuals to return to something like normal life, although there are some in our society who are frankly terrified by that prospect in the light of Covid. The first thing that we must do is be respectful of their views and concerns, and we must understand the anxiety that they face. That is why we have taken a gradual approach. We have tried to respond in a measured way to build as much resilience as we can within the population. Vaccination is critical to help us on that journey. Some people are vulnerable and cannot get vaccinated, for entirely understandable clinical reasons, which increases their anxiety further. Vaccination is critical to building resilience.

There are routine measures and, although we may remove the legal obligation to wear face coverings on public transport on 21 March, we will still be saying to people that it would be advantageous to wear them, and that it would a good civic gesture to protect other people.

We want to ensure that those who are very vulnerable have access to the clinical support that they will require. For example, individuals who are immunosuppressed have had communication from the chief medical officer that antivirals will be available to them because of their clinical vulnerability, which they should access. There is mental health support that we would want to make available to people to support them with their anxiety. In general, we want to work to ensure that people have the support that they require, recognising that the relaxation of restrictions is not universally welcomed within our society. We ignore the anxieties and fears of individuals in our society at our peril.

The first observation that I would make on Mr Whittle’s question is that, in a sense, he has just echoed one of the fundamental points that I made in my response to Mr Fraser. It is important that we deduce lessons from the pandemic and, if they are important, that we learn from them and apply them. I happen to take that view about the statutory framework and Mr Whittle has put to me an entirely legitimate point about data and IT.

Scotland has been very well served by some critical decisions that were made a long time ago on the unique identifier—the community health index or CHI number—which has acted as the foundation for the administration of healthcare in Scotland based on the individual. It enables information on and records for an individual to be accessed appropriately to ensure that high-quality healthcare is delivered for that individual. That has been a strong foundation of our system but, of course, every development that comes along puts extra pressures on the core system. Covid has put many data demands on the system, particularly with regard to vaccination records and all that comes with such issues.

The Government has been taking active steps to ensure a strong approach to the delivery of digital care, and I think that it has got ever stronger over the course of the pandemic. What lies at the heart of the system is appropriate information technology capability to ensure that we can identify and meet the needs of individuals, and the Government will be working closely on that with health boards to keep the foundations of our IT system up to date and ensure that we meet the needs of individuals.

I would want to look at exactly what circumstances the clinicians were raising with the committee this morning, but my understanding is that, throughout the health service, the capacity and capability exists to access critical information about the healthcare of each individual. That is why I referred to the CHI number, which underpins and drives the system. I want to understand a bit better some of the deficiencies that have been highlighted but, in principle, I agree with Mr Whittle’s points about the availability of data and the necessity of collecting the appropriate data in our healthcare systems. I think it important to have a system that can be accessed in all different spheres of the health service. I am very happy to look at those issues and the particular points raised by the clinicians this morning, and I will encourage the health secretary to look at these questions and determine what further action requires to be taken.

It is always like that. It is part of our relationship.

I will turn to Professor Leitch to answer that point, but the World Health Organization’s advice to us at this stage of the pandemic in general is to take care and not to think that everything is over and done with. The position that the Scottish Government has taken on, for example, the continued use of face coverings as a mandatory provision is in line with the guidance from the World Health Organization. The WHO will encourage us to maintain a testing infrastructure that enables us to identify what the prevalence of the virus is in our society and what we can contribute to international understanding of the virus by virtue of the information that we collect and the experience that we have.

In relation to specific measures and restrictions, the World Health Organization may set out what it thinks is desirable, but we as a Government have to judge whether that is proportionate, because we have to be satisfied that we could withstand legal challenge to any of the decisions that we take. Generally, however, the advice of the World Health Organisation at this pivotal moment of the pandemic is to take care. I turn to Professor Leitch to answer the specific question on the WHO’s testing advice.

I am again speculating, but the advice that we have received from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation will result in us issuing vaccination appointments to all five to 11-year-olds very shortly. We will start issuing them in mid-March and do most of them around the Easter holidays. Additional boosters will be provided to care home residents, people who are over 75 and people who are over 12 who are immunosuppressed. That activity will dominate the spring and the period towards the summer. That probably makes it likely that we are heading towards a booster programme in the autumn, but we will await JCVI advice on that particular question. Assuming that there is no substantive deterioration in the situation, I think that we will be moving into a period when we will be relying on vaccination to provide us with effective resilience.

That will be our general assumption in relation to the management of the pandemic, but we have to ensure that we have the legal and statutory capacity in place to respond to a deteriorating situation, should that be the situation that we face.

I suspect that, on that particular theme, we may just have to.

I acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion among members on the issue. There is a duty on the Government to have in place a statute book that enables us to respond to the circumstances that we face. Colleagues have indicated that there are likely to be challenges ahead for us. The measures that are in place have appropriate safeguards and there is no obligation to use them. The obligation for us as parliamentarians is to have in place a statute book that can respond to the challenges that we face.

To respond to Mr Whittle’s point, I have heard the criticism of Parliament that we did not have the necessary legislation in place to deal with a pandemic. If we are going to prepare properly for pandemics, we must ensure that we have the legislation in place with appropriate safeguards. I reiterate the point that, although the provisions will extend the regulatory infrastructure that is in place, they do not oblige the Government to use it in all circumstances.

On the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 4) Regulations 2022, if we want to continue the legal obligation to wear face coverings on public transport and in public places to 21 March, it must be put into place today or it will fall on 28 February. Therefore, in that short term, I appeal to colleagues to support the regulations, which will be the subject of a vote. There are two other instruments that will be subject to discussion in due course.

I invite Professor Leitch to come in on that point, or we might have to write to the committee on it.