Chamber and committees

I agree with that. The vaccination certification scheme is a proportionate measure that will contribute to reducing the risk of transmission and of serious illness and death. In doing so, it will help to alleviate the pressure on the healthcare system and allow higher-risk settings to continue to operate as I have just explained to Dr Gulhane. At the same time, we believe that it will help to increase vaccine uptake.

No single measure on its own will control the virus, so we need a range of targeted measures to keep transmission under control. The vaccines help to prevent transmission of the virus because vaccinated people are less likely than unvaccinated people to become infected and ill, and only infected people can transmit the virus.

We engage with the football clubs and the rugby authorities in relation to the application of the scheme at large events. From the information that I have seen, all the authorities are reporting very high levels of participation. In the consultation document, we said that we did not envisage 100 per cent certification, but we do place an obligation on the relevant authorities to take the appropriate steps to ensure adequate levels of certification. From the evidence that I have seen so far, I am confident that that obligation is being taken seriously by the football and rugby authorities. However, the point that the member has put on the record is an important one, as it reinforces the necessity of their so doing.

I am engaging actively with bereaved families in preparation of the inquiry’s remit. The families have had the opportunity to submit responses to the consultation that we undertook on its terms of reference, and I have had a number of meetings with different groups of bereaved families. We will continue that engagement as we progress towards agreement of the remit.

Once the inquiry is established, it will be for the chair of the inquiry to determine the role of particular relevant parties, and it would be wrong for ministers to prescribe that. That approach is set out in the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005, and any chair who is appointed will operate on that basis. My view, and what the Government will set out to the inquiry’s chair, is that we want the families who were bereaved during Covid to be central to the issues that are raised in the inquiry.

Part of the judgment is about ensuring that we have sufficient resilience in the measures that we have in place to protect the population against wider impacts that could be damaging to the public health of the country.

On many occasions, we have gone through the dilemmas that the Government faces. The principal dilemma is about the damage to health, and—[Interruption.] We have had countless demands, even from heckling Conservative members, for us to protect public health. When the Government comes forward with measures to protect public health, we are criticised for bringing forward those measures. Such are the dilemmas that we face.

Mr Simpson says that there is no evidence. If Mr Simpson wants to ask me a question, he is perfectly entitled to appeal to the Presiding Officer to be invited to ask a question. I am always here to answer questions. What evidence does Mr Simpson need? How much evidence of the harm to public health does he need for the Government to have to act? If Mr Simpson wants to stick his head in the sand, he is free to do so, but the Government has a duty to act proportionately to protect the health of the population.

Mr Rowley is correct to say that he and I have had exchanges on the issue. I know the seriousness that he brings to these exchanges.

The challenge that the Government, our local authority partners and service providers are facing up to relates to having adequate capacity to deliver the social care support that is required in the community. That is partly because there are few people around to do that because of the ending of free movement. Mr Rowley acknowledges that that is part of the problem, and I accept that it is part of the problem.

The Government has already taken steps to increase social care workers’ pay. I appreciate that Mr Rowley does not believe that that is sufficient, but we have taken steps to do it. We will continue to keep the matter under review, and we are in active dialogue with our local authority partners on what further steps we can take to improve the situation.

Mr Rowley is absolutely correct. If we do not address the fact that some people are currently in hospital who could be at home with an effective social care package, we will have greater congestion in our hospitals and will therefore weaken our resilience in dealing with winter pressures and Covid, as the months pass. I take seriously the points that Mr Rowley has raised and I assure him of our determination to address them—

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing a plan for how we will deliver and report on the actions set out in the Covid recovery strategy before the end of 2021, and for subsequent quarterly reporting of progress, thereafter. The plan will be agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure successful and collaborative delivery to support the people across Scotland who have been most affected by the pandemic.

The impact of Covid-19 on Scotland’s public services, people and places is well understood, and it has driven the Scottish Government’s response to tackling the wide-ranging harms that the pandemic has caused.

We continue to work closely with our partners across local government and service providers to monitor closely the impact of the pandemic on services across Scotland, particularly as we prepare for wider winter pressures. The “Scottish Government Health and Social Care Winter Overview 2021-2022” outlines a package of over £300 million of investment in national health service and care services this winter to help to address those pressures.

The recently published “Covid Recovery Strategy: For a fairer future”, in addition to specific proposals for the NHS, justice and education, was developed in recognition of the huge impact that the pandemic has had on services, workers and the people who use the services.

Obviously, I am not familiar with the evidence that the committee took this morning, but from my experience as education secretary, I am familiar with the volume of data that was available prior to the pandemic. I should point out that a lot of it was resisted by the Labour Party when it was first put in place; the Labour Party was completely hostile to the level of reporting on such measures that I put in place. That was before the pandemic.

We have taken a proportionate response in the education system to ensure that teachers are not being asked to provide information on the capacity of pupils when they have not had adequate opportunity to engage with pupils because of the disruption to learning.

One thing of which I am absolutely 100 per cent certain is that every teacher in the country is focused on ensuring that the learning needs of children are being met. That is something that the Parliament should applaud.

By the end of this year, the Scottish Government will establish, under the Inquiries Act 2005, an independent Scottish public inquiry to scrutinise decisions that were taken in the course of the pandemic and to learn lessons for the future. That will include a statement to the Scottish Parliament on the appointment of the chair and on the terms of reference for the inquiry, in accordance with the requirements of the 2005 act. The Scottish Government remains committed to working with the United Kingdom Government to develop the approach to the UK-wide inquiry, avoiding—where possible—duplication and overlap.

That issue will not be set out in the remit of the inquiry. Those are entirely separate functions. The Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are independently responsible for determining whether there is any criminal consideration to be borne in mind. The inquiry will have no involvement in, and no proximity to, those discussions and decisions, which are entirely the preserve of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office.