Chamber and committees

I would not characterise the situation in that fashion. We are taking a set of carefully targeted interventions to try to secure our objectives. Our strategic intent, which was revised in the summer, is to suppress the virus to a level that is consistent with alleviating its harms while we recover and rebuild for a better future. That is very different from our previous strategic intent, which was about maximum virus suppression.

We are trying to manage the impact of the virus through tools including vaccination, and I agree with Mr Whittle’s point that vaccination is a significant factor in making venues and circumstances as safe as possible. It reduces the risk of transmission and provides greater protection for anybody who happens to contract the virus after they have been double vaccinated. We are trying to take proportionate measures, as we are required to by law, that enable us to achieve the strategic intent that I have just put on the record again.

I make no attempt to make the following point more precisely than I have several times already, this morning and on previous occasions: I cannot ascribe a direct relationship between one intervention and the strategic intent. However, every three weeks, we have to look at the strategic intent and the prevalence of the virus and ask whether the measures that are currently in place are appropriate, suitable and proportionate. The Government believes that to be the case, but we are now preparing for the next three-weekly review on 16 November, when we will have to satisfy ourselves on all those issues and report to Parliament accordingly.

I refer to the data that I put on the record in response to Mr Fraser’s question. As of 1 September—before the vaccination certification scheme was put in place—53 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds had received two doses of the vaccine. By 1 November, the figure had risen by 15 per cent to 68 per cent. That is a pretty substantial increase; it is close to a third.

The scheme supports the Government’s objectives. We will continue to review it, because we have to be satisfied that the action is proportionate. I confirm to the committee that the Government will do exactly that.

I will say a few words and then I will bring in Professor Leitch. The Government has wider messaging about the risks that the population faces from being unvaccinated and the significance and seriousness of the impact of the virus on people who are not vaccinated. That messaging includes some of the difficult but necessary information that needs to be shared with members of the public. People who are unvaccinated run the risk of having a more serious condition as a consequence of contracting the virus. For that reason and many others, we share that clinical information with members of the public. The chief medical officer, the national clinical director and others support the Government in providing that communication.

Every three weeks, we have to consider whether it remains proportionate to have the scheme. We retain the issue under active review, and we will consider it again before 16 November.

We are not dealing with a fixed situation; we are dealing with the fact that the case load changes frequently. As I said in one of my earlier answers, yesterday’s numbers are very unsettling to ministers. I have not seen today’s numbers—it is a bit early for that—but we will be watching closely. The briefing that the chief medical officer gave to the Cabinet on Tuesday showed that we have been at a high stable level for a few weeks, but the numbers have begun to tick up again over the past seven days, compared with the numbers over the previous seven days. We will be mindful of that when considering whether we have the right measures in place.

Obviously, the COP26 summit is taking place and there are a lot of people there. A lot of people have come into the country for the summit. Therefore, as we have flagged up to Parliament already, there is the possibility of a rise in infection rates over the autumn or winter—whatever we are in just now—which might put further strain on the system. We have to be mindful of the fact that we are dealing with a moving picture on the data.

Mr Rowley makes an absolutely fair point, and I have not in any way tried to dismiss it. Indeed, going back to what I said in response to Mr Whittle and Mr Mason, if we find ourselves in the next few weeks with a rising prevalence of the virus and greater pressure on the national health service than we are already experiencing—it is under colossal pressure just now, as Mr Rowley and I have had exchanges about in the chamber—we might have to take stronger measures, which might apply greater mandatory force.

We are saying to business organisations, transport providers, various public authorities and all sorts of organisations: “You need to get folk to wear face coverings and observe social distancing. You need to do the baseline stuff, because, if you do not, we will end up with more significant restrictions.”

I do not want the committee to take from me any message other than that the Government is wrestling with that dilemma. We want to avoid having to put in place more restrictions but, if we have to do that, we will, because we have a public duty to protect members of the public.

I acknowledge that the whole system is under pressure. I am not sitting here trying to deny that. Ultimately, it comes back to the fact that, in a variety of different settings, while the Government is trying to do as much as it can, we do not have enough people available to deliver the healthcare that we require.

I will come back to talk about the availability of people because of free movement of the population. We have lost that. We have lost people who have left our country who were offering social care services. They have gone, because of Brexit and the loss of free movement. The workforce has been thinned down because of that—it is a hard reality. We are trying to recruit more people, which is why the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport has announced enhancements to social care remuneration, and it is why we have expanded the resources available for social care services.

We entirely accept the point that Mr Rowley is making: that, if somebody cannot be supported in their home, they will end up in some form of healthcare setting. It might not be necessary for them to be there, because they could be perfectly well supported at home. However, if they do not have a care package at home, they cannot be properly supported at home.

I think we are in violent agreement here.

I do not think it is both; I think it is one or the other—but it applies to a broader range of venues than our scheme. Ours applies to quite a limited range of venues, but in Wales, from my recollection, theatres and cinemas are included, and some hospitality as well.

That is for the simple reason that Professor Leitch gave, which is that immunity does not last forever whether you get it because you have contracted Covid or because you have had the vaccine. When we look at the serious health implications of Covid for individuals, the Government has a duty to do all that it can in the circumstances to protect the health of the public. That requires us to take the steps that we take.

If Mr Fairlie’s constituent is suggesting that we should let people get Covid, as I think he is, does that mean that we have learned nothing from the past 18 months? Have we literally learned absolutely nothing? On Tuesday afternoon, I sat with the families who have lost loved ones in care homes who are contributing to the thinking that the Government is putting into the terms of reference for the Covid inquiry and literally, literally—

Actually, the best thing to do on vaccine hesitancy is probably to get the people who are vaccine hesitant to have a conversation with the bereaved relatives who have lost loved ones in care homes. In my role as a minister, I sit through many tough conversations and that was a tough one on Tuesday, believe you me. Perhaps folk should listen to that.

I will take away the point about data on children and long Covid, and I will advise the committee on whether there is any data that could be shared in that respect. Obviously, we will have to consider issues around data protection in that respect, but I will consider that and write to the committee on that point.

I recognise the significance of the point about ventilation. That is an issue that I wrestled with extensively when I was Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, and my successor has been working with the Covid-19 education recovery group to ensure that there is an appropriate approach to the delivery of ventilation interventions by local authorities in schools around the country.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has written to the Education, Children and Young People Committee with an update on the extent of the measures that have been taken to improve ventilation in schools and on the inspection regime that has been put in place. We have required local authorities to undertake extensive assessments of ventilation interventions, and that work has been reported on to that committee.

Much of the emphasis has been on two things: first, on ensuring that we have all the necessary and appropriate data on the assessments that have been made; and secondly, on ensuring that changes can be made to the school estate to enable appropriate ventilation arrangements to be put in place. The Government has, of course, funded the approaches that are being taken by local authorities.

We have to consider a whole range of different measures. The member of the public who raised the question is concerned about the wellbeing of children in schools. That concern is shared by ministers—hence the decision that ministers took, which has not been universally supported, to maintain use of face coverings by pupils in certain circumstances. That has been an important protection to maintain in trying to suppress spread of the virus within the school estate. Ventilation is another aspect of the baseline measures that we can all take to tackle the situation.

No, it is not a disaster in any shape or form. Mr Fraser is completely wrong to characterise the scheme as being just about boosting vaccination levels. That is just one of its purposes.

Perhaps I can provide Mr Fraser with some data. As of 1 September, 53 per cent of the 18 to 29 population group, which I think we would all accept is the most important as far as the Night Time Industries Association is concerned, had had both doses of the vaccine. Shortly thereafter, the Government announced that it would embark on the approach. Then, on 1 October, the figure for both doses had risen to 64 per cent, and on 1 November, to 68 per cent. There has been a sizeable increase in the level of vaccination.

The scheme’s other objectives include reducing the risk of transmission, reducing the risk of serious illness and death, allowing high-risk settings to continue to operate as an alternative to closure, and increasing vaccination uptake. Those are the four bullet points with regard to the scheme. Taking each measure in turn, I point out that the Government’s priorities are to suppress transmission; reduce the risk of serious illness and death, which is one of the scheme’s objectives; allow high-risk settings to continue to operate as an alternative to closure, which, again, is sustained by the scheme; and increase vaccination uptake, evidence of which I have already put on the record. As I have said to the convener, what I cannot do is compartmentalise something or ascribe everything; the scheme is part of the mix that we have in place. I think that the scheme is delivering a positive benefit in suppressing the virus.

On errors in vaccination certification, I have accepted all along that, in administering something of the order of 8 million or 9 million doses of vaccine, you are bound to have errors. However, even with the data that the BBC has reported this morning, we are talking about a very, very small proportion of the number of vaccinations. In Scotland, as in many other countries, the vaccination certification scheme is contributing to the basket of measures that are necessary to deal with a pandemic that continues to pose a serious threat to the population’s wellbeing.