Chamber and committees

I think that Mr Whittle was on his feet first, so I will give way to him.

I will move on to some of those details for the benefit of Mr Whittle. We want the vaccine certification process to be as simple as possible. There are just a few steps involved. From 30 September, people will be able to use the NHS Scotland Covid status app, which also has a QR code. Anyone who is unable to use the app will be able to request a secure, uneditable paper record of vaccination. That will replace the current interim solution for accessing records of vaccination.

Staff in the affected venues will be able to download the NHS Scotland Covid check verifier app to a smartphone or device.

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate for the Government and I apologise for being unable to do so in person due to a requirement for Covid self-isolation.

The annual programme for government debate stirs up a series of positive and negative reactions. We have heard many positive remarks about the programme for government from Sarah Boyack, Pam Duncan-Glancy and SNP members, but we have also heard negative reactions from Douglas Ross, Anas Sarwar, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Jamie Greene and Oliver Mundell.

What those comments and negative reactions ignore is the outcome of the election, to which none of them referred. The outcome was that the SNP gained ground, the Green Party gained ground, the Labour Party lost ground, the Liberal Democrats lost ground and the Tories were as flat as a pancake. I encourage the commentators that I named to recognise that their strategy of endless negativity and of always talking down the genuine achievements of the Scottish Government is getting those three parties nowhere. It has not advanced their electoral cause.

The public have handsomely supported the SNP and the Green Party, which led to the positive discussions that we had over summer and the creation of the partnership agreement. Mark Ruskell gave a clear and strong explanation of the merits and strengths of sharing power across Parliament and with the public, which he cited as part of the foundation of this Parliament. Our partnership agreement is designed for that type of sharing.

Alex Cole-Hamilton made a fair point about international co-operation agreements in which green parties have been involved. He said that green parties had participated in progressive Governments around the world. I am glad that we have added Scotland to the list of areas of progressive co-operation.

The First Minister made it clear in her statement that the programme for government focuses on a number of key themes. The Government’s immediate and highest priority is the challenge of Covid. We will address deep-seated inequalities in society and confront the climate emergency. We will mitigate the consequences of Brexit—we heard absolutely nothing from the Conservative Party about the dire implications of Brexit. We also heard about the importance of shaping our choices about our economy and society by giving people in Scotland a choice about their constitutional future. I will return to that topic later.

The programme for government is focused on the immediate challenges of Covid recovery, but it is also about setting the direction of travel for Scotland to be able to take the decisions that matter about the future of our country.

In summing up for the Government, I want to comment on a number of specific issues, and the first is child poverty. That is an example of an area where the Government wants to act more and go further and faster than we have been able to go so far. Pam Duncan-Glancy said that the Government must do exactly that. Patrick Harvie made it clear in his intervention that there is a range of measures that the Government has taken and is taking—on school clothing grants, free school meals and the abolition of core curriculum charges, to name but three—where we are significantly reducing the cost of schooling and therefore family budgets, and making an impact on child poverty. That is in addition to the early steps that we have taken on the child payment.

However, as the First Minister said earlier, the question of doubling the child payment, which is an aspiration that the Government would wish to achieve at the earliest possible opportunity, is one of the decisions that we will have to take in a budget process, so the opportunity is there for the Labour Party to engage constructively with us on how we make the hard financial choices that will have to be made if we wish to progress on the agenda earlier and at a faster rate, which the Government is intent on doing.

The second issue is energy and climate change. Jenni Minto made a powerful speech about the renewables capacity of Argyll and the islands, and Mark Ruskell set out some of the elements of the programme for government that emerged from the partnership agreement with the Greens in order to ensure that we are able to deliver the investments in energy-efficient housing that will strengthen the country’s ability to meet the aspiration of achieving net zero, and to do that in a way that supports families in overcoming poverty into the bargain.

I am certain that the contributions of Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie to the Scottish Government and the partnership agreement that we have reached with the Scottish Green Party will help us significantly to advance on those questions and to ensure that the aspirations, which are broadly supported in Parliament, can be taken forward in an effective way across the whole of the current session of Parliament.

The third issue that I want to talk about is the proposed national care service, which I am certain will be the subject of a great deal of substantive debate. It represents a bold and significant reform to the way in which we deliver care services in Scotland. John Mason accurately highlighted the challenge that will lie at the heart of the debate. At times, there are demands in Parliament for there to be much greater consistency in the standards of care that are delivered around the country. Indeed, there has been enormous parliamentary pressure on ministers on many of these questions.

However, one person’s demand for there to be less variability and, therefore, more consistency is another person’s rush to centralisation. If Parliament wishes there to be more consistency or much less variability so that our citizens in every part of the country can be assured of the quality of care and the standards that they should be entitled to expect, what will come with that is some requirements being inherent in the national care service in the same way we experience in our national health service.

We cannot duck that issue or that sensitivity about the importance of what will lie at the heart of the decision making around a national care service, because it is integral to the decisions that we will take about consistency of service provision around the country. The Government will, of course, engage constructively with our local authority partners on all those questions, but if Parliament wishes to see progress on consistency of care services around the country, it has to be prepared to will the means by which that will come about. That is the rationale behind a national care service.

Finally, I want to talk about the question of the independence referendum, which dominated a number of speeches from members across the political spectrum. I very much agree with a point that Annie Wells made about the question. She said that how we address the challenges of Covid will define us for years to come. I think that that is absolutely correct, and I do not want the response to Covid to be defined for my country by Boris Johnson and the people he surrounds himself with in the UK Government, because I do not agree with the direction of travel that that UK Government represents. What I agree with is the right of the people of Scotland to make their own choices and decisions, and to define how they wish to take forward the steps that Scotland makes in recovering from Covid.

The decisions that we take now will affect the economic opportunities in our society and the way—and the extent to which—we tackle inequality. I certainly do not want to be in a situation whereby we do not do everything in our power to tackle the fundamental inequalities that have bedevilled Scottish society and which have been exacerbated by Covid. I want the Scottish Parliament and the people of our country to have the powers to determine those issues. They can do that by taking the power into their own hands, through a referendum on independence. That is the promise of this programme for government, alongside a range of other significant priorities, not least of which is protecting the country from the effects of Covid. That is the mission to which the Government is committed, and we look forward to doing that in the spirit of the partnership that we have constructed with the Scottish Green Party, and which we are determined to sustain for the years to come.

I am familiar with that issue. There have been many discussions about that point. Much of that is driven by the systems of which we are a part, through operating on a UK-wide basis. The ability to have some flexibility is being assessed as part of addressing the concerns raised by the airline industry.

I will have to look in detail at the point that Murdo Fraser has raised. The regulations will have been framed in an attempt to provide the greatest degree of clarity and certainty about their policy purpose. The intention will have been to draft on that basis. Elizabeth Blair may want to add to my comments.

Thank you, convener, and good morning. I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee for the first time since my appointment as portfolio minister for Covid recovery. This is a vital part of the process of parliamentary accountability, which will undoubtedly strengthen our approach to recovery.

I will be happy to respond to any line of inquiry that the committee wishes to pursue. I would like to take some time to first set out our developing approach to Covid recovery, before turning to the First Minister’s recent announcement about the public inquiry, then to the current public consultation on Covid recovery legislation. Finally, I will update the committee on our on-going activity to respond to the pandemic, which unfortunately is still very much with us.

In reappointing me as Deputy First Minister, the First Minister also asked me to lead the cross-Government and cross-Parliament work necessary to guide the country through the pandemic and into a recovery that supports the national health service, protects and creates jobs, supports our young people and contributes to Scotland’s ambition to be a net zero nation. Moreover, I am determined that our approach to recovery should take us closer to the kind of Scotland that we all want to see: a country that is more equal and addresses the inequalities that have been exacerbated by the pandemic; a country in which the economy guides us towards a more sustainable future, with good, green jobs and fair work for all; and a country in which public services are supported to recover from the pandemic and to put person-centred design and delivery at their heart.

In the past 100 days, we have seen a real cross-Government effort to support key actions covering Covid recovery. The safe and effective remobilisation of the NHS is one of our top priorities. On 25 August, we published our national recovery plan, which sets out key commitments that will support recovery over the next five years, supported by the implementation of sustainable improvements and new models of care.

I recognise that achieving our ambition for recovery will require more than the efforts of national Government—wider collaboration and partnership is essential. To that end, I have used part of the summer to engage with a wide range of stakeholders, across the private, public and third sectors, on their priorities for Covid recovery. Just over 60 organisations have been involved in that exercise.

I have met regularly with the presidential team from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, recognising the crucial role that local government has played throughout our response to the pandemic, from assisting the roll-out of walk-in test centres to delivering self-isolation support and business grants. Our local authorities have provided vital support to individuals, organisations and businesses through close partnership with the Scottish Government.

I am determined to do all that I can to support that close partnership working as an essential element in our approach to recovery. I know that it is only by harnessing the collective work of both democratic spheres of government and involving as many of our partners as possible that we will be able to achieve the recovery that we want to see. I intend to set out more detail about the partnership that we will take forward with local government when the Covid recovery strategy is published in due course.

I am sure that members will be interested in how we intend to take forward the establishment of a public inquiry into the Covid response. The Scottish Government has always been committed to the establishment of a public inquiry into the pandemic, and it will be established by the end of this year, as was promised. We have published draft aims and principles for the inquiry, which, following consultation between now and the end of September with interested parties, including bereaved families, will become the formal terms of reference. Anybody who wants to can and should contribute to the consultation process.

The inquiry will look at all matters related to the handling of the pandemic that were within our devolved competence, which will include, of course, the situation in care homes. The consultation will close on 30 September, and the Lord Advocate has begun discussions with the Lord President about appointing a member of the judiciary to head the inquiry.

It is worth stressing that we will still co-operate closely with other Governments, including the UK Government, on their inquiries into Covid. Apart from anything else, we recognise that, by doing that, we might lessen the burden on organisations and individuals who are making submissions to our inquiry. That will, of course, include people who have lost loved ones to Covid.

The need for discussion and co-operation cannot become a reason for delay. I believe that an inquiry into the handling of Covid in Scotland potentially has an important role to play in scrutinising the decisions that have been made in the past and in highlighting lessons for the future. I therefore believe that it is appropriate to establish the inquiry as soon as possible. The consultation that we have launched is an important early step towards doing that.

In addition to progressing the establishment of the inquiry, we have taken early steps to consult on how we recover from the crisis and ensure that we are prepared for any future ones, reflecting on the lessons that we have all learned over the past 18 months. As part of that, we must ensure that we review the impact of Covid on the Scottish statute book and carefully consider any benefits of legislative reforms that might be worth retaining.

Our 12-week consultation has been publicised widely, and members of the public are already contributing their views. The consultation invites views on 30 specific legislative proposals that have the potential to support Covid recovery, such as greater public health resilience to protect against future threats, and the possible retention of improvements and modernisations to public services and the justice system. The consultation paper outlines our ambitions for Covid recovery and ends with an open question, inviting comments on the action that respondents think is required to support a fair, safe and secure recovery.

During the pandemic, the power to make public health regulations has been instrumental to managing the public health threat through a range of measures, at each point based on expert advice. The public health regulations proposal is not intended to make lockdown measures permanent, but is rather designed to ensure that Scotland continues to be able to respond proportionately and appropriately to a variety of public health threats.

A successful recovery will be unfeasible if we do not effectively respond to the immediate risks that the virus continues to pose. An effective and sustainable response to the pandemic will lay the foundation for the sort of recovery that we want to see. As the First Minister set out yesterday, we have a steady and on-going increase in cases that has caused us real concern. However, it is important to note that vaccination is significantly weakening the link between high numbers of cases and serious harm to people’s health. That is why the Scottish Government’s aim in controlling Covid at this stage in the pandemic is different from its aim in previous stages.

We are no longer seeking to suppress Covid to the lowest possible level. Now that we have vaccinations, the restrictions required to suppress Covid could not be justified, given that those restrictions cause serious harms of their own. Instead, we are seeking to suppress the virus in a way that alleviates its harms but allows us to recover and rebuild for the future.

We need children to go to school, businesses to operate more normally and all of us to be able to socialise and live more freely. That is why so many restrictions—except for key baseline measures—were lifted on 9 August, and it is why, in many ways, we should not be too surprised by the recent rise in case numbers.

However, we cannot be relaxed about the figures. The link between new cases and serious health harms has been weakened, but it has not been broken. The surge that we have seen might well result in more people going to hospital and, sadly, more people losing their lives. That is why the Scottish Government is engaging with businesses and organisations in different sectors of the economy to enhance compliance with existing regulations and maximise the impact of baseline measures. It is vital that we all follow the baseline measures that remain in place. For example, we are asking people to continue to wear face coverings in indoor public places, which is a reasonably simple and straightforward way in which we can protect each other and reduce the risk of transmission. We are also asking people to be mindful of the basic steps that we should continue to take, such as washing hands and surfaces and, even though it is not the law anymore, keeping a safe distance from people in other households if you can.

The final step that we will take to protect individuals and the country as a whole in the short term and to reduce the risk of further restrictions being necessary is to propose vaccination certification, which is to be introduced later this month in certain limited settings, subject to parliamentary debate and a vote to signify approval.

The Scottish Government is pleased to see the establishment of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, which I know will play a crucial role in leading the country through the on-going pandemic and into a fair and just recovery. I welcome any questions that the committee might have, and I am grateful for the opportunity to make an extensive statement to open the committee’s proceedings.

I agree 100 per cent with Alex Rowley’s point about compliance with what I would describe as baseline measures, including the wearing of face coverings in the indoor settings that are specified in the regulations. No retail or transport employee around the country should get any stick from a member of the public if they are called on to wear a face covering, because that is what the law requires individuals to do.

On the action that we have taken, I reassure Mr Rowley that the Cabinet is actively engaged in supporting different sectors in ensuring the effective application of the baseline measures. I highlight three steps in particular. First, for the best part of the past 10 days, members of the Cabinet and our officials have been in regular discussion with all our sectoral contacts to encourage and support them in ensuring that they apply the baseline measures that are necessary. Yesterday, Professor Leitch, I, the chief medical officer and some members of the Cabinet met more than 150 representatives of different sectors of our society—from the operators of some of our transport companies to figures within the retail industry and to other business organisations, representatives of trade unions and the workforce—to reinforce the necessity of the application of the baseline measures. There has been very active dialogue between Cabinet members and our officials with all sectors to try to achieve the objectives that Mr Rowley has correctly highlighted as important.

Secondly, the Government has used public messaging to make sure that the application of baseline measures is clearly understood by members of the public. We have used countless opportunities to reinforce that message.

Thirdly, the Government’s public information and communications campaigns are being adapted to reinforce the message that Mr Rowley talks about. If we do not have a greater application of the baseline measures, we will not achieve the intervention that is required to depress the increasing levels of the virus; if we do not interrupt those increasing levels, more admissions to hospital will naturally flow; and if we have more admissions to hospital, we will have greater pressure on the national health service. Clearly, we are trying to avoid that, and to sustain the recovery in the national health service that is currently under way.

I am whole-heartedly in agreement with Mr Rowley about the importance of members of the public acknowledging and realising that, by applying the baseline measures, we can all play our part in suppressing the rise of Covid in our community and that, although it is not generating the degree of serious illness that it did at a previous stage, it still has the capacity to undermine the sustainability of the national health service.

The cross-party group and this committee have two very distinct roles. I see this committee fulfilling the role of parliamentary accountability, which is at the absolute heart of the operations of Parliament. The committee must be free to explore and examine any question that it considers to be appropriate in relation to Covid recovery.

The cross-party group that we established before the summer recess, which met on a number of occasions before the summer recess and will resume its meeting pattern next week, is designed to try to create a more informal sounding board, so that we can draw together parliamentary opinion on the difficult questions with which we still wrestle. We have a number of those questions on the handling of the pandemic and, given the current pattern of rising case numbers, that challenge remains obvious for members of Parliament for the foreseeable future. We view the cross-party group as providing an opportunity to bring together parliamentary opinion to address some of the difficult challenges that we face.

There is a moral and ethical dilemma in respect of that particular issue, which I suspect could keep us here for a long time debating its contents. We expect to receive advice fairly soon from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in relation to booster jags, and we will be ready to implement a deployment programme for those booster vaccinations when the JCVI gives us its strategic decision.

As the committee will be aware, we have, as our predecessors have, followed the JCVI advice on all questions in relation to vaccination, and we await the advice to come in relation to booster jags.

There is a moral dilemma here. We take part in official discussions with the United Kingdom Government, which takes part in international discussions about the necessity of ensuring fair and equitable access to vaccination around the globe. As Jason Leitch indicated in one of his answers, we know from the data that that remains a significant global problem. Until such time as there is effective vaccination around the world, we will still face significant and acute effects as a consequence of Covid.

That depends on the course of the pandemic and the degree to which it becomes less of a present and prevalent threat to us. The Government is not doing this because it has just decided to do it; we are doing it because we are considering what steps we have to take to protect the population and specifically to try to avoid having to apply further restrictions on the population. We want to avoid that if we possibly can. We consider the proposal to be another step to try to help us to avoid having to take a step of that nature.