Chamber and committees

I want to place on the record that the SSI amended the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2021, which came into force on Monday 9 August 2021. The regulations that we are discussing, which came into force on 3 September, made a minor amendment to enable performers to perform or rehearse for a performance without face coverings in situations where distancing or partitioning are not possible. For clarity, that exemption will apply for as long as there is either a partition or a distance of at least 1m between performers and other people, including the audience, but that does not include people who are performing or rehearsing with the performers or assisting with the performance or rehearsal.

The point that Mr Fraser raises—which Neil Doncaster expressed this morning—is entirely reasonable. We are aware of the labour market challenges, which are visible to all of us, and the challenges around the availability of stewards are well documented. I do not in any way, shape or form dispute that point—I accept it, hence the rationale in the Government’s paper that we published last week, in which we indicated that there was a necessity for organisers to take reasonable measures and that there was likely to be a proportionate approach in different settings such as a crowd of 200 versus a crowd of 60,000. We envisage that there will have to be different approaches, and we are working through the issues in detail with football authorities in order to have that proportionate approach—principally because they will be the ones with the big crowds that will be affected, although other events and sectors will also be affected.

We are trying to encourage a climate in which vaccination uptake is understood to be a significant protection for the country against the spread of the virus. Even though there may not be a check of absolutely everybody who attends a football game, the more that we can do, the more we can make these events safer and less likely to be places in which the virus is transmitted and the more we contribute to the suppression of the virus.

We are actively involved in discussions with the football authorities and other players on these questions, and a proportionate approach is likely to be taken, as we highlighted in last week’s paper. As we also indicated, guidance supporting that information will be available to relevant parties.

There are two issues to address in that question. First, the question whether the lady in question should be vaccinated is an exclusively clinical matter, so I will say nothing that would intrude on such decision making. These are, in some circumstances, very difficult judgments. It is estimated that fewer than one in 1,000 people—or 0.1 per cent—cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. We are therefore talking about a very small number of people, which I think demonstrates the difficulty of the clinical judgment that has to be applied. As I have said, I would not seek to intrude on that.

Secondly, on the implications of non-vaccination for a vaccination certification scheme, we have to ensure that the scheme does not disadvantage people in accessing venues if they choose, as an unvaccinated person, to do so. In other words, someone who is unvaccinated for entirely legitimate and proper clinically assessed medical reasons should not be disadvantaged if they want to see their favourite football club playing. Obviously that will have implications for other members of society, but there is a limited risk of exposure. Fundamentally, though, that is a judgment for the individual, so we have to ensure that the vaccination certification scheme in no way disadvantages or discriminates against them.

There are two elements to that question; the first is about engagement and the second is about what reasonable measures are. On engagement, I appreciate that this is being done quickly, but a lot of stuff around Covid has had to be done quickly because of the nature of the situation that we face. The rationale for us acting quickly in that respect is twofold.

First, we face a very high level of cases. The point has been made to Parliament that, if we had had case numbers a year ago of the type that we have now—although they are slightly lower than they have been—we would have been in lockdown. Thankfully, the vaccine provides us with a huge amount of protection against that, but we still have very high levels of case load, which flows through into levels of hospitalisation that are resulting in well-documented pressures on the national health service and all its constituent parts. There is a need to act swiftly to suppress the virus. That is the nature of the urgency around engagement.

The second point in relation to engagement is that we have had a range of discussions. The First Minister and I were involved in a session the other day with a variety of stakeholders, and representatives of hospitality sectors were involved. I cannot recall off the top of my head whether Mr Stevenson was involved as there was a large number of participants. Jason Leitch and the finance secretary have had similar discussions with other sectors, and our officials are involved in dialogue to understand the practical issues. We are actively involved in those discussions in order to make sure that we hear the practical issues so that we can shape the guidance to ensure that there is a clear understanding of what is envisaged in the process.

That brings me to what reasonable measures are. Clearly, we can help organisations only by providing the necessary context, detail and information that allows them to form their view about reasonable measures. Having listened to the evidence that the stakeholders on the first panel provided, I note that there is willingness to do that and to be engaged in the implementation of such a scheme. They appealed for an understanding that there may be steps that they have to take to get more reasonable measures in place, and I certainly give an assurance that the Government is listening to that message and argument as we formulate the guidance.

I appreciate that crowd sizes vary significantly around the country, but some venues simply cannot accommodate more than 10,000 supporters. It does not matter how many supporters Rangers or Celtic bring along, because only a certain number of people can get into the ground. There are limiting factors. Before I came here today, the Minister for Parliamentary Business was telling me that St Mirren can accommodate only 8,000.

Spot checks are a valid issue. As I indicated in my answer to Mr Fraser a moment ago, in the paper that we published last Thursday, the Government envisages a proportionate approach in larger crowd settings. There is undoubtedly the possibility of that approach being taken.

There you are.

We are obviously working to address a number of practical issues to ensure that the steps that we take are effective. However, fundamentally, we come back to the core motivation behind this move, which is to try to reduce the level of transmission, which is possible because of the protection of double vaccination, and to make higher-risk settings safer as a consequence of the vaccination certification approach. That is the policy objective that we are trying to secure. I appreciate that that will mean that some people will be unable to access nightclubs because they will not have in place adequate vaccination certification. However, the purpose of the approach is to try to reduce transmission by maximising the level of protection that is in place in the population.

My first point is that Mr Simpson—I apologise to him for not addressing this point when he made it earlier, which I should have done—suggested that the possibility of spot checks at football grounds was a new development. It was conceived of in the document that we lodged with the Parliament last Thursday, so it should not have been a surprise when the health secretary talked about it on radio at the start the week.

On Stephen Kerr’s question, the Government often gets criticised for not engaging enough—in the eyes of some critics—with external sectors. Now we are getting criticised for engaging too much with sectors.

As I explained in my response to Douglas Ross last week, essentially we want to make sure that we do not have a definition that creates any uncertainty or disadvantage in the marketplace around the grey area between night-time pubs and nightclubs. We just have to make sure that all those details are thought through, in consultation with industry, and we will publish that information as soon as we have completed those discussions.

It is interesting that Mr Simpson moved on from his first question, rather than press me for further detail on the United Kingdom Government’s position. He might have done so because the UK Government has just confirmed to the House of Commons that it intends to take forward a vaccination-only certification scheme in nightclubs; indoor crowded settings with 500 or more attendees; outdoor crowded settings with 4,000 or more attendees; and in any settings with 10,000 or more attendees, should the circumstances arise due to the level of the pandemic. That is exactly the situation that we face. We have been open with the Parliament, and it is obvious that we have significant case load levels just now. That is putting huge pressure on the national health service, hence our rationale for introducing a mandatory vaccination-only Covid status certification scheme, which is exactly the same arrangement that the United Kingdom Government is taking forward.

I understand why Mr Simpson is skating past the question; it has been a very confused 48 hours for the UK Government on the issue. [Interruption.] Mr Kerr says that this is the Scottish Parliament. I have been asked a question by one of his back benchers about the United Kingdom Government, and I am just trying to be as fabulously helpful as I always am when I am answering questions.

On Mr Simpson’s question about the information that will show up when a QR code is analysed, the data that he talked about will not show up. He is right—that would be a clear breach of data protection legislation. There is no harvesting of data involved here. The scheme involves a simple check of information that is contained in a QR code to verify that somebody has been double vaccinated, in order to keep us all safe.

One of the many points of similarity with the UK Government is that our decision making is based on the circumstances. We have a very high prevalence of Covid, which is driving hospital admissions. Today, there are 1,064 people in hospital with Covid-related illness. Comparatively, that is a very high level. We are having to take the action to the timescale that we are setting out because of the circumstances that have arisen.

On the question of the definition of nightclubs, the Scottish Government is working with the Night Time Industries Association to be certain about the details of that definition. We are working through individual questions with the association to ensure that we address any possible unintended consequences of the definition. We will publish that when we come to the conclusion of that exercise.