Chamber and committees

The issue is a challenging and sensitive one, and I will invite Professor Leitch to add some comments to my initial remarks.

To ensure that we have knowledge of the emerging situation, we must have adequate surveillance measures in place at two levels. First, we must have such measures in place at a population-wide level. It would be difficult to justify on a persistent, long-term basis the type of intense testing arrangements that we have had in place at a population-wide level, but we need to have some population-wide information. We believe that a high-quality Office for National Statistics infection survey, combined with the data that we collect from waste water, for example, gives us a sufficiently strong base of information at a population-wide level to be able to assess what I might describe as the generality of the position on the prevalence of Covid in our society.

The second important element is our contribution—which is the same as the contribution of other countries around the globe—to developing the detection, understanding and appreciation of any new variants that may emerge. We must be able to continue to do a sufficient level of testing in the population to enable us to identify any variants that are emerging, in the way that the testing approach that was taken in southern Africa identified the omicron variant, which was then identified in a number of other jurisdictions very quickly. We were alerted to that and were able to respond swiftly.

That matters because, as I have rehearsed with the committee before, we took decisions very quickly to tackle the situation that we faced in relation to omicron. I am pretty certain that, if we had not done so, the national health service would have got into very deep difficulties. We averted that because of the speed of our actions. I know that our actions were controversial and that they did not command universal support, but the alternative would have been seeing our national health service overtopped. Intelligence about new variants is critical in enabling Governments to respond appropriately.

I do not know whether Professor Leitch wants to add to that.

I will make some comments on the contents of these sets of regulations.

The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Alteration of Expiry Date) (Scotland) Regulations 2022 extend the expiry date of temporary provisions in the UK Coronavirus Act 2020 by a further six months, thus ensuring that specific powers in the UK act will continue to be available to ministers until 24 September 2022.

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Directions by Local Authorities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2022 change the expiry date of the local authority direction regulations and will ensure that the powers given to local authorities in those regulations continue to be available to manage local outbreaks of coronavirus.

The Coronavirus (Scotland) Acts (Amendment of Expiry Dates) Regulations 2022 extend all the provisions in part 1 of each of the two Scottish coronavirus acts from 31 March 2022 to 30 September 2022, except for four provisions that will be expired by a further statutory instrument, the Coronavirus (Scotland) Acts (Early Expiry of Provisions) Regulations 2022.

Finally, the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment (No 5) Regulations 2022 remove from the principal regulations of the Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Requirements) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 the provisions in relation to the Covid-19 vaccination certification scheme.

There will always be judgments to be made about the longevity of the testing arrangements. Obviously, there is financial provision in the budget for 2022-23 that enables some testing activity to be undertaken. I would have to clarify what specific guidance on that point was previously given to health boards, because that relates to an internal health portfolio transaction and advice, so I had better write to the committee about that specific point.

That said, I would not imagine that it was likely that commitments were given to that extent or to that degree of specificity. There might have been a commitment in respect of, say, the need for on-going testing—I would not be at all surprised by that—but I will check and write back to you to provide clarity on the point.

I am happy to look at that to see exactly how that can be resolved. We sometimes face competing medical opinions about the right thing to do. I will not give clinical advice, but I will ensure that the issue can be addressed.

Ministers have made clear to the Parliament on countless occasions that you can write to me about certification issues. Mr Fraser is welcome to write to me, and I will see that there is a resolution to that particular issue.

I unreservedly accept that there is a danger that people will become complacent about Covid. However, I want to assure the committee that the Government does not take that view. We have insisted on undertaking population-wide surveillance activity so that we are able to assess the general position on infection. Waste water sampling allows us to narrow that down to parts of the country and see where levels of infection are perhaps more intense. That can then inform outbreak management. We will still be active in that field. Some of the regulations that the committee will consider today are all about enabling us to undertake outbreak management. Without the regulations, we would not be able to do that as well as we should.

In addition, the risk-based approach to testing is part of the plan that the Government has issued.

For the absolute avoidance of doubt, lateral flow tests will remain free of charge.

Yes.

We think that that is the case because, as I said in my previous answers, we believe that we have passed the peak of the BA.2 variant. We see that in a number of respects, including in cases and hospital admissions. Although the numbers in hospital are high, they are not being added to with the same vigour as was the case previously. Provided that that pattern continues, I would content, in the face of the evidence that Mr Fairlie puts to me—I know that this is a contested proposition and not everyone agrees with us—that the Government has taken prudent steps to deal with that.

If, for example, we had gone ahead and removed the legal obligation for face coverings on Monday, I think that Mr Fairlie would have had legitimate additional questions to put to me. However, we took the decision that we did. It caused some controversy—a number of people are kicking off about it—but, in my view, it was the responsible thing for us to do in order to provide a bit more protection and to try to get the situation under control.

You have exaggerated by 50 per cent.