 Gweld dweud y gyrfaith 11 o'r Ffodol 19 ymddangos cymdeithasig yng ngyfodol yw ym 2022. O'r awdurdod, dych yn ysgrifennu gyda'r Ffodol 1 o ddiwedd y frontie o blynyddiadau i'r Ffodol ymddangos cymdeithasig gyda'r Ffodol 12, yn gweithio gyda'r ffodol. Ffodol 1 ymddangos cymdeithasig gyda'r Ffodol 12, iddiw i'r Ffodol 10 o'r ffodol ymddangos cymdeithasig ymddangos cymdeithasig gyda'r Ffodol? Professor Jason Leitch, national clinical director. Greg Walker, coronavirus recovery and reform build team leader. Nicola Guild, solicitor. Laura McGlynn, apologies. A head of health protection and screening. And Simon Stockwell, head of family law unit. Thank you all for your attendance this morning. Deputy First Minister, would you like to make any remarks before we move to questions? Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence on the coronavirus recovery and reform Scotland Bill. I'd like to thank the many individuals and organisations who have submitted views to the stage 1 scrutiny from the committee's call for evidence. Last week, the Parliament voted to extend key provisions of the Scottish and UK coronavirus acts to September 2022. This bill is about what should happen thereafter and proposes to carry forward around 30 important temporary measures. In line with the Government's commitment to expire or suspend temporary provisions that are no longer necessary and reporting on them every two months, I can confirm that over 45 temporary measures that previously enacted have now expired. Convener, the measures in the bill fall into three broad categories, powers to counter future public health threats, the embedding of practical public service reforms that have demonstrated their value irrespective of the public health position, and extended temporary measures to manage the impact of Covid specifically on the Scottish justice system. Provisions in the first two of those three categories are within the committee's scrutiny remit, and I have followed stakeholder evidence with interest. It has of course been put to ministers that it would have been better to split the bill, and there's a good reason why the Government was minded to progress with one single bill. For the most part, measures in the bill across all categories exist in temporary legislation now confirmed to expire in September. They all update and equip the statute with consensible ways as part of learning lessons from the pandemic. They were all consulted on together as a coherent package in a full 12-week public consultation, which took place between August and November last year, and the measures in the bill collectively support the Government's Covid recovery strategy and recent updated Covid strategic framework. In particular, in the particular case of public health protection proposals, it has been put to the Government that these future powers are not needed now that Scotland is transitioning from basing Covid requirements in law to guidance. I disagree. That brings into sharper focus the important distinction between having appropriate powers to hand to respond to future public health threats, which I consider to be in the public interest and the difference of using them. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has taken a close interest in the bill and in its stage 1 report, which was published on Tuesday. I will consider the detail of its recommendations closely, but I am happy to signal, as I did when I appeared before it to give evidence, that I will look to work constructively with the committee on issues such as the made affirmative procedure, and I am happy to consider where constructive improvements can be made to the proposals that the Government has put forward. I look forward to the committee's questions. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to outline which provisions have been included in the bill that were not contained in the temporary emergency legislation, and why have they been included in this legislation? The Government has looked carefully at all the temporary measures that were put in place. Of course, some of those measures were of a particular time limit, and some have expired. The Government has operated on the principle that we do not want to keep in place temporary measures for any longer than is required. There are a range of temporary provisions that were put in place for the pandemic, which we judge are no longer necessary to be taken forward as part of the permanent legislation that we are putting forward. We have identified in the proposed legislation a number of provisions that have arisen in the pandemic, particularly in the administration of public services, which we judge to be of practical benefit to the public and therefore in the public interest. We have advanced the nature of that. Lastly, the legislation proposes to take particular steps to ensure that we are in a position to manage, for a longer period, the implications of the disruption caused to the justice system by the pandemic. As a consequence, we have a range of temporary justice provisions, which are there purely and simply to ensure that we can support the recovery of the justice system after the huge amount of disruption that was caused by the pandemic. The committee had submissions from Dr Andrew Tickle and Professor Alison Britton, both from Glasgow Caledonia University, and they concluded that the main provisions in part one of the bill are generally in keeping with the law already applying in England and in Wales, but there was one concern regarding the power to modify and amend the enactment, which I think is known as the Henry VIII power. Can I ask how the public health powers in the bill compare to the equivalent powers in England and Wales, and also why the inclusion of the Henry VIII clause was thought necessary? The provisions are broadly comparable to the provisions that are available in England and Wales, and those provisions have been in place, I think, if my memory serves me right, for the best part of a decade or more than a decade. Essentially, that gets to the nub of the bill, which is the necessity of ensuring that the legislative framework that we have in place is appropriate to deal with the emergence of a major national public health issue of the type of a pandemic. If we look at the legislation that has been considered by Parliament in this respect in the past, we have the two coronavirus acts, where it is fair to say that, taken through Parliament at great speed, there was significant parliamentary co-operation to enable that to be the case. However, of course, the level of scrutiny that was available for those provisions at that time was very limited indeed. What essentially we are doing in this bill is taking a calm period to consider, with full parliamentary scrutiny, the type of measures that could be put into place should we face a further pandemic and to enable us to ensure that we have the necessary statutory force in place to provide for that. Obviously, with sufficient parliamentary scrutiny about the Government taking any steps within the framework of the legislation, the point to be convened and the point that has been made by the legal academics is that it is important that we have a structure of legislation in place to enable us to handle a future pandemic but that we consider that in slow time to enable us to ensure that we have the right arrangements in place. As I indicated earlier in my answer, those provisions are broadly comparable to the provisions that are available in England and Wales. There is a 2008 act and it is in section 94 regarding international travel restrictions, where we do have the Henry VIII clause. Has that ever been used? I would have to defer to my officials to give me further guidance on whether that has been used or we can write to you, convener, to clarify whether those provisions have been used. Unless my officials can add detail at this stage, I would propose to write to you on that question. Thank you. I am not sure if anybody would like to come in. Maybe just raise your hand because I cannot see the screen. That would be great if you could write to me. Why are the current procedural rules allowing for emergency bills to be progressed through the Parliament thought to be inadequate in those circumstances? This is an issue that I think is at the heart of the discussion around the bill. It is a question of whether it is appropriate to put in place legislative change at very fast pace when a pandemic scenario arises. That is what Parliament had to do on two occasions in the spring of 2020. The legislation was handled in a very swift timescale. In a matter of days, a very complex legislation was put forward. What the Government has reflected on as a lesson to learn from the pandemic is a point that has also been made to the committee by legal academics. There is a well-expressed view from the World Health Organization that countries should have in place appropriate measures and mechanisms to enable them to respond swiftly and appropriately to a pandemic. Therefore, the opportunity is there for us to consider in slower time what that range of powers could look like and could be enacted should we face that situation. The number of the consideration of the principle of the bill from my perspective, particularly around the early parts of the bill, is about ensuring that we have a legislative framework in place that enables us to think in advance about what might be the type of legislative changes that we may need to make and how we can make those. That is essentially what the bill proposes to do. Can the cabinet secretary explain the meaning of proportionate response and who makes those decisions and what are the challenges of doing so? That is a theme that has been the subject of extensive discussion with the committee during the course of the pandemic and has been very much at the heart of the Government's decision making around the handling of the pandemic. Indeed, it has been very much central to the decision making around the four harms framework and the strategic framework. The question of proportionality is fundamental, because it is a legal test of whether or not any measures that the Government puts in place are appropriate in a certain set of circumstances. In terms of who makes those decisions, ministers will make those decisions, and ministers must be satisfied that, on the basis of the evidence available to them, there is a proportionate case for applying any restrictions. We have wrestled with the question on countless occasions in the course of the last two years and have come to the conclusions about when we judge the measures to be proportionate and when we have withdrawn measures because we did not believe that they were proportionate at that particular time. Ultimately, decisions are made by ministers. As with all decisions of ministers, they are justiciable. We have had two legal challenges to the provisions that we have had in place. Obviously, at the heart of those questions, which the courts have wrestled with, have been the question of proportionality. Proportionality is not a tabulated concept, but it is a concept based on the availability of evidence to enable ministers to take rational decisions that could be defended within the courts, if necessary. Do you believe that a wider review should be undertaken to ensure that the 2008 act remains fit for purpose? I would contend that that is precisely what we have done. The 2008 act provides for public health incidents of a local nature and character. I do not think that the 2008 act could be described as an act that provides for the arrangements that need to be put in place for a national pandemic. Indeed, that distinction has been made in the evidence of the comments that have been made available to the committee by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which generally welcome the provisions in the bill, because they recognise that, although the public health act provisions of 2008 might deal with a localised issue or outbreak, the type of national pandemic that we have faced in the 2008 act is not sufficient and does not have sufficient scope and reach of powers to enable that to be the case. The steps that the Government is taking at this stage are designed to address exactly the point that you raised with me, convener, but, of course, we remain open to considering whether there are any further changes that need to be made and we will consider that point as the bill progresses through its further stages of parliamentary scrutiny before its final enactment. I will move on to members now, Murdo Fraser. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Deputy First Minister, and I hope that you are feeling a bit better. I want to ask some questions around the exercise of ministerial powers, but, before I do that, seeing as you referenced earlier in your comments the issue of public consultation, it is fair to say that the Government, when it ran its own consultation on this, found a wide degree of public concern and opposition to what is being proposed. The committee ran its own survey with the public with a call for views. We received just short of 4,000 responses from the public of which 90 per cent were in opposition to the bill, with people expressing concerns about the impact on personal liberty and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny over what is proposed. I cannot remember, in two decades, a piece of legislation in this Parliament attracting that level of public concern. Can you? I suspect that there have been other pieces of legislation that have attracted public concern. I suspect that the degree of public concern may have had something to do with the way in which some members of Parliament characterised the legislation. I am sure that Mr Fraser knows the point that I am making in that remark. What is important is that members of Parliament concentrate in their deliberations on the substance of the issue. For me, the substance of the issue is whether we have the right legislative framework in place to deal with the possibility of a pandemic. Clearly, we did not have in March 2020 because we had to rush through two pieces of legislation in a matter of days to provide the legislative force to handle a pandemic. Clearly, our statute was not sufficient or not appropriate in March 2020 to deal with the circumstances that we faced. What the Government is now doing is learning a lesson from that experience and putting in place legislation that we consider to be proportionate and appropriate for those circumstances, only to be used in those circumstances in relation to the public health provisions. For that to be appropriate and effective parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of those functions by the Government, that is the justification for the bill and why, in that wider appreciation of it, it would be clearly understood by members of the public. Thank you for that response. The issue of the level of parliamentary scrutiny and ministerial accountability goes to the heart of our scrutiny of the bill. I follow up the line of questioning from the convener on the use of Henry VIII powers that are contained in the bill. Professor Britain and Dr Tickell, in their evidence to the committee, said that there was a highly problematic element that had not been adequately explained or justified by the Scottish Government, that the lack of comment in the policy memorandum on this was remarkable and that this aspect of the proposals required clear justification and anxious scrutiny. Can I ask you why it is appropriate for ministers to have the sweeping Henry VIII powers when we do have a clear alternative route which is the use of emergency legislation, which, as you have already accepted, was used to put through the coronavirus legislation very quickly when it was required two years ago? I think it depends which way we look at these questions. Do we look at the experience of the pandemic and think that there are no lessons to be learned and that we should be quite happy to put through significant elements of primary legislation in a matter of days? On other occasions, members of Parliament would rail against significant changes in primary legislation in a matter of days. Generally, in my experience in Parliament, that would be viewed not to be a desirable approach to take. Nobody foresaw the pandemic coming, although we had enough awareness that there was the likelihood of some form of pandemic coming, but it did not prompt us to review our statute book. We have had the pandemic, but we are still going through it. Believe you me, some of us are still going through it. We are now trying to adapt the statute book to learn the lessons from that so that we can put in place proportionate powers that can be scrutinised by Parliament in a normal legislative process, which is what we are going through just now. Parliament can decide whether it wishes to change its statute book to enable those provisions. That is the type of thinking that has gone into the legislation to make sure that we are not having to rush significant primary legislation through Parliament in a matter of days. We take stock, we learn the lessons from the pandemic, and we put in place powers with sufficient parliamentary scrutiny that enable us to act accordingly when a situation arises. Okay, thank you. We are trying to pursue parliamentary scrutiny now. Professor Britton and Dr Tekel said that there was no explanation or justification of the provision for Henry VIII powers and the policy memorandum provided no justification for it. Can you tell us, in the absence of a policy memorandum explanation, why those Henry VIII powers are required? The power has been included to address potential situations where regulations are needed to respond to a public health threat that might conflict with existing legislation. That is the justification for that. However, as all regulations made under the legislation that was put in place, it could only be used where it was necessary to respond to a threat posed through a significant risk to public health by the pandemic. There are very significant regulatory constraints and limits in place around what the Government would be able to do, but fundamentally there would have to be a significant risk to public health to justify the use of any of those powers. That is the rationale for why those powers are in place, to have that trigger mechanism of the threat to public health and then the possibility that there may be a conflict with existing legislation that needs to be resolved. Okay, thank you. I am going to move on a little bit and ask you about the made affirmative procedure. You will know that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has commented on this. In evidence to us, Professor De Laundras said that the made affirmative procedure is inherently problematic and should only be employed in exceptional circumstances. She suggested in her evidence that if regulations were made under part 1 under the made affirmative procedure, a ministerial statement of the reasons for using that procedure explaining the alleged urgency should be provided. Would you accept that as a proposal for a way forward? There is a lot in this area that we need to look at further. I welcome the report from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I had a thoughtful discussion with the committee when I appeared there a few weeks ago. The committee, quite pragmatically, was understanding of the challenge for the Government that the made affirmative procedure generally takes about 40 days. The made affirmative procedure can be utilised with greater urgency, subject to parliamentary scrutiny at a later stage, or parliamentary consent at a later stage. Between those and the committee was exploring, is there some other approach that we could take that might be a half-way house or a part-way house in all that? I am very happy to explore that. I think that the point that Mr Fraser made to me, I did not quite catch the academic name that Mr Fraser raised with me. Professor De Laundras' suggestion is, again, another pragmatic suggestion. Mr Fraser will probably know that some suggestion was made to me in oral questions last week by Dr Gilhane about some of this area. I think that there is scope for us to explore satisfying legitimate parliamentary concern to be persuaded about the merits of a particular action being taken by the production of, for example, Professor De Laundras suggests, a statement of urgency to justify action. I think that I am very open to how we can properly address that point. I want the statute book to be equipped with powers that enable us to act swiftly, but, in acting swiftly, we have to act appropriately. If there are other ways that we can strengthen the provisions of the bill to address those issues, I am very open to doing so. One follow-up on the issue of made affirmative procedure has been suggested that the bill could be strengthened in terms of effective parliamentary scrutiny by requiring, for example, a duty on Scottish ministers to regularly appear before a relevant parliamentary committee, provision for creating a bespoke parliamentary committee in charge of scrutinising the emergency response, or a duty on ministers to provide to Parliament a draft instrument in advance of the Government laying an SSI. Those are, in effect, practices that the Government has already followed, but would you be open to those being put in legislation? I am very open to considering those points. The Government's policy intention here, I hope, is crystal clear. It is to enable us to be able to take the necessary action should we face a pandemic threat of the type that we have faced over the past two years and to be able to act swiftly and with urgency in that respect. My reflection is that although we had a great deal of parliamentary co-operation for which I am very grateful to members of all parties in the formulation of the legislation last spring, we did make a lot of primary legislation changes in a very short space in time, and generally Parliament does not think that that is a good thing to be doing. Parliament generally wants to take time and care, as we are doing now, to consider what should be the contents of primary legislation. Some of the suggestions that Mr Fraser makes to me are entirely practical and pragmatic suggestions that can strengthen the approach in the bill. The Government has no desire to be able to exercise powers in any unwarranted or unnecessary fashion, but we want to go to act where we have to act because of the threat to public health. I am certainly very happy to explore some of those questions. If they take the form of the points that are made in the stage 1 committee report, I will reflect on those. Good morning, best wishes. Could I ask, overall, how do the public health powers in this bill compare to the equivalent powers in England and Wales? In my answer to the convener, they are broadly comparable. The provisions in England and Wales have been in place, as I said, in my answer to the convener, for an excess of 10 years. They have enabled situations of this type when visiting the legislation that was considered by the United Kingdom Parliament, and the United Kingdom Government has been able to operate under many of those provisions, although it has supplemented them in terms of the emergency legislation that itself has brought forward. On the evidence that we have taken so far, I would say that there is general support through the evidence that we have taken for much of the measures and proposals in this bill. In fact, I think that to oppose many of those would be to do so for the sake of it rather than because it does make sense. I get that, but one area that is clearly causing difficulties in causing problems is Henry VIII's clause. As I understand it, what it says is that it is a statutory power given by the legislator to the executive to alter or repeal primary legislation without reference to ordinary parliamentary processes of scrutiny and amendment required for bills. While powers of this kind have been used by the UK Government to adapt the statute book to the UK's departure from the European Union, Henry VIII's powers are rightly controversial as they infringe upon the separation of powers, give legislative functions to the executive, and can be imposed with modest opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in circumstances when they are used on an emergency basis. You can see that there is genuine and sincere concern. Now, along with your partners, the Greens, you have a majority in this Parliament, so there is no doubt that you can ram this through regardless. My question would be, given that there are genuine and serious concerns, particularly about this part of the bill, for those of us who certainly believe that most of this bill actually makes sense, are you willing to sit down with other parties and have a discussion and look again at the genuine concerns that are being expressed? I would take from my responses to the points that Mr Fraser has just put to me that I am willing to discuss with members of the Parliament of all shades of opinion how we can address any issues that are causing concern. I rehearse with Mr Fraser the issues in relation to what might be put on the record in relation to the justification for use of any of those powers in advance of them being used. I hope that that may well be interpreted as a welcome and positive step in that respect. In the wider point that Mr Rowley raises with me about the particular powers, I think that the point that I would make is that the exercise of those powers could only happen in relation to a specific and significant risk to public health, so it cannot happen any day of the week. It can only happen when there is a significant risk to public health. That is the trigger point number one. There has to be a justifiable case. Secondly, if ministers were to utilise those powers, they would have to come to Parliament to exercise those powers, either through the affirmative process whereby Parliament itself would be able to judge whether that was required or not, or through the affirmative process whereby Parliament gives its consent once the Government has taken those actions, but it is obviously conditional on the Government taking those steps and Parliament giving its consent. There are a number of safeguards in the exercise of any of those responsibilities, should that be the case. I hope that that provides some reassurance to Mr Rowley, but I would make the point that I reiterate what I said to Mr Rowley at the start of my answer. I am very happy to engage with other parties. I will consider and engage with the recommendations that have been made by the Delegated Powers Committee. I would not want to pre-empt what the Covid-19 committee will consider, but I will be very happy to engage with the committee on its report and any recommendations that it could make in its stage 1 report. I certainly look forward to having a further discussion with the Deputy First Minister on specifically the Senedd powers. The point is made in the evidence that we have heard also that the Coronavirus Act 2020, which is part of this bill, on effect levels up public health in Scotland to make it comparable with those public health control acts of England and Wales Westminster. However, it points out that wide-ranging powers sit within the English and Welsh regulations under the Public Health Control Disease Act 1984, as amended by the Health and Social Care Act of 2008. Should there be a wider review undertaking of the Scottish Act of 2008, and does it remain fit for purpose? The question here is one that I think the Government has worked to address. I think that it is a matter for Parliament to consider this. The Government has worked to address this in relation to the contents of the bill, where a number of the provisions in the early part of the bill are amendments to the act of 2008. It is about using the foundation of the act of 2008 as a basis of trying to address the wider issues that arise out of the pandemic. I think that I made this point earlier in my response to the convener. I think that this point was made very well by the representative of COSLA, who submitted material to the committee and gave evidence. That was that COSLA recognised that the 2008 act works when you have a problem in a locality, where you have an outbreak of an infectious disease in a locality and you have to take particular measures. Mr Rowley will be very familiar with those arrangements for his leadership of the five council, but the director of public health has statutory roles and responsibilities to act. However, the point that COSLA was making, which is why it indicated that it was generally supportive of the legislation, is that when it comes to a national pandemic, the 2008 act just does not get there. If the 2008 act had been fine, we probably would not have had to make so many of the changes that were made back in 2020. I would contend that what the Government is doing is amending the 2008 act to make it appropriate for the challenges that we faced just now, but I am open to areas where members of Parliament believe that there is perhaps for the change that we have to make. To move on to some of the other specifics in the bill, if I can, as you have just been saying, Deputy First Minister, a lot of the amendments are linked to the 2008 act, and a couple of them are in section 86B and section 86C, where the first talks about directly imposing restrictions or requirements and the second about indirectly imposing restrictions or requirements. I am toiling a little bit myself to understand the difference, and I wonder if you could explain why there are those differences between those two parts? The difference essentially is about, and I suspect that I am going to roll out heavily on the words direct and indirect in that answer, but essentially what we are trying to do is to cover all bases so that we have the ability to intervene where there is a direct and explicit necessity to do so. The indirect provision is where we are trying to find every other possible avenue that needs to be closed off to ensure that we have a system that is appropriate for the challenges that we face. I suppose that it is trying to get to that level of completeness, how I would best describe the provisions in 86B, the changes to 86B and 86C. Will you give me an example of regulations that would indirectly impose restrictions? Let's do it this way. An example of a direct restriction would be for us to apply a particular constraint on people leaving their houses, for example, so that is a direct consequence of the measures that we are taking. An indirect provision might be that we have to ask people to observe a particular form of behaviour that is less specific than the example that I have just cited. We are trying to find ways in which we can address the limitations that would be necessary to be applied that might not be ostensibly obvious as part of the original justification. I don't know about other members. I'm still struggling. I'm afraid. I wonder if the indirect would be a geographical thing, although there is a national everybody should stay at home. However, as we found with the pandemic, different parts of the country were affected differently. To some extent, individual health boards or local authority education departments would then have a bit of freedom to have restrictions. Would that be covered by that? It may be that the direct and indirect comparison might relate to different levels of intensity of restrictions, for example, but essentially the purpose—I think that the best way to look at it is to try to not particularly look at it as specific measures in each of those categories, but to take the view that what we're trying to do is to cover all bases as part of this exercise. I'll leave it at that just now. Another of the new sections is 86G, which is about review of regulations. I think that we had some evidence that it was a bit vague at the moment. It says that Scottish ministers must review the regulations and then it goes into more detail about 21 days and so on, but it doesn't really say what the review would entail. I just wonder if you think that we do need to be a bit more specific, for example the review being published. Should a committee be looking at it, how would you see the review going? Essentially, I don't view this as being particularly different from the review process that ministers undertake on a regular basis about the restrictions that we have found that necessary to put in place. We have had the situation where ministers have reviewed every 21 days the measures that we have had in place. We have had to consider the question of whether those restrictions remain proportionate. We have had to report to Parliament about those provisions. I and my predecessors have appeared in front of the committee on a regular basis to consider those points. I think that the possibility of what we have done up until now has generally been agreed with the parliamentary authorities in relation to scrutiny. If members wish to advance specific amendments to those provisions as to what the review might look like or what it might entail, those are issues that we can consider as part of the process of the bill. Fundamentally, I think that the willingness to be open and accountable in relation to the explanation of any of those provisions lies at the heart of what the Government intends to do. Moving on to bankruptcy, there has been a fair bit of discussion around the threshold as to when someone becomes bankrupt. £5,000, I think, is quite a lot of support for that level, although, as we look at inflation, if inflation is 10 per cent, after a year, that £5,000 effectively is worth £4,500 and after another year it is worth £4,000. I do not know if that the cost of living challenges at the moment makes any difference to the Government's thinking, or do you think that £5,000 is the best? We think that £5,000 is a reasonable threshold, but Mr Mason makes an entirely fair point that we have to be careful to ensure that we have that set at an appropriate level. The cost of living challenges, we have been, for most of the last 30 years, we have had pretty low inflation, and we are dealing with a situation that is very different from that. I think that that is the best judgment that the Government can come to, but I am very happy to listen to representations from stakeholders and members of the panel. We have done that question. Sticking with bankruptcy, the question of electronic communications—we have all moved on in that during the pandemic—was made by ICAS, which I should say I am a member of, that, perhaps, creditors are more ready and able and willing to be operating in the electronic environment, whereas debtors might not be so much. The suggestion is that we should be looking at creditors and debtors differently from that point of view, and even debtors who might have been able to communicate electronically might not be as their financial situation gets worse. I think that we have got to be careful here. I think that Mr Mason will recognise the benefits of that digital interaction, and we can see those benefits in all walks of life. Indeed, what we are trying to do with this section of the bill is to take a set of pragmatic moves that will enable us to reform our public services in the light of the experience of the pandemic where the technology enables us to do so. We have always got to be mindful of can everyone participate in that platform? If not, there is the need to make sure that we have alternative arrangements in place that will ensure that all parties can participate effectively in the administrative process that is involved. Whilst the digital approach suits many people, we have to make sure that all individuals are able to access services accordingly. That leads me on to the final area that I would like to look at, which is remote registration of births and deaths. We did not have remote registration of births in the temporary legislation, but that is now being brought in. You could say something about that, but we did have some evidence that, for the registrars and the local authority folk, seeing people face-to-face can make a real difference. For example, you might have a mother registering the birth of a baby who is unsure whether to have the father's name on or not. I think that sometimes we are talking about vulnerable people, we are talking about people who need help and guidance, and that can be better face to face. I wonder how you see the balance being struck between continuing in-person services and encouraging or allowing remote registration? I do not think that it is an either or. We have to make sure that we have arrangements in place for everybody's needs to be met. For some people, registering remotely will be entirely convenient, much more straightforward and not be happy to do so. For others, they might feel reticent and anxious about it and an in-person appointment may suit them better. The best way to look at that is by providing the options that enable us to better meet the needs of all individuals, recognising that that may be different from individual to individual. Do you think that there are enough safeguards in the bill that, if a local authority was withdrawing in-person service, it would still have to provide it to some extent? Yes, I think that that is the case, but that may well be a point that members wish to come back to to provide some degree of further legislative constraint if that is felt not to be sufficiently strong. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary and to the panel, and I hope that you are on the mend, Mr Swinney. I think that you probably recognise that we do not necessarily agree in some of this. I just want to go back to the word proportionality, which is the bit that exercises me on this one. As you said, it is ministers who will decide what proportionality is. You would recognise that there is a level of subjectiveness to that, and in terms of safeguard and balances, I just feel that it is Parliament's scrutiny that is the main safeguard in these kinds of decisions. I do not know if you recognise that by passing the bill, you basically bypass that safeguard, that scrutiny. We certainly do not bypass Parliament, not in any shape or form. This legislation will only come into effect if Parliament approves it, so that is the first bit of Parliament's scrutiny. Parliament has got to agree to put it in place whatever proposals emerge out of the bill. That is the first layer of Parliament's scrutiny. The second is that Parliament makes provision for the exercise of the affirmative and the made affirmative process of regulation. Parliament has, for some time, directed that regulations of that nature may be taken forward. Those are two other levels of parliamentary scrutiny. The affirmative requires an order to be placed before Parliament to be discussed and considered, and for Parliament to vote on it before it can be brought into effect. The made affirmative procedure allows ministers to bring that into effect, but it can only remain in effect if it is consented to by Parliament. I think that primary legislation, the regulation making power, fully satisfies parliamentary scrutiny. As a signal to Mr Fraser, I am open to seeing whether there are any further additional safegabs that could address the type of concerns that Mr Whittle is putting to me. There must be agreement that we need to have a statute book that is fit for purpose, because Mr Whittle and his colleagues supported the legislation that was put forward by the two coronavirus bills in 2020. They saw the need for legislation to act in that respect, so there is no disputing the fact that that is necessary. The point of dispute is the mechanism for going about it. If there is some progress that we can make in that respect, as I indicated in my earlier answers, I am very happy to engage on that point. Thank you, Mr Smith. That is very helpful. I think that the quantity to perhaps what my colleague Mr Rowley said that the driving force here is to make sure that we are prepared should this ever happen again. I think that it is preparedness that I want to focus on here. As you have said, you did not fail to have the appropriate legislation in March 2020 when it came before Parliament the first time. My view, Mr Swinney, is that the Scottish Government should be focusing on preparedness for future health emergencies. For an example, I would say that if you remember the Silver Swan initiative, which was run to test preparedness for such eventualities such as Covid and the recommendations that that made, we discovered that it had actually been allowed to lapse. Having had that experience, would it not be more relevant to ensure those recommendations and any further updated recommendations following the pandemic? What I adhere to is that it is not the direction of travel that we should be going in. For me, it was that lack of preparedness that caused the main issues at the start. It is both that I have to be proceeded with. We can do nothing to update the statute book. We will find ourselves if we have another pandemic that is having to rush through Parliamential legislation. In heaven for them, Mr Whittle might be one of the people who says that this is ridiculous and that it has been rushed through in a few days. I do not know that out as a possibility. Then there is the logistical preparation for pandemics. Those are all issues that will be looked at by the public inquiry. It is one of the elements that Lady Po will look at about the preparedness for a pandemic. The Government is obviously reviewing the preparations that we have in place for a whole range of emergency arrangements. We regularly review the potential threats that we face and consider the degree to which we are equipped for those threats. We will continue to do that for the foreseeable future. I want to push that a little bit. Again, I am looking back at Mr Swinney's response and what would be an appropriate response. I would put it to you that we actually did see the pandemic coming. We watched it coming from China and moving across the world. It was actually the fact that we did not prepare properly. We did not respond quickly enough. Surely that experience would change the way in which we are prepared for the measures that we put in place? It would not actually be emergency legislation that would make the big change to outcomes? The first emergence of the Covid virus from China was in the latter days of 2019. It started having its effect in Scotland late February, early March, but around that period, I think that there is a limited window that was available for us to put in place the arrangements that Mr Wood might have envisaged. For my part, one of the most critical elements of looking back—we should be the foundation of our response—is our testing infrastructure. Testing infrastructure is absolutely critical to all that we are doing in this respect. We should have in place effective testing arrangements to enable us to be able to ratchet that up to a much greater level than there has been the case. There was the case back in there in part of 2020. There are practical preparations that we can and should be making, but we were only able to handle the pandemic because we were able to exercise legislative control of the measures that we put forward. That was the Government recognising the scale of the threat and putting them in place as quickly as we possibly could do. My argument would be that Mr Swinney took us too long. I am not a critic of what your Government or any Government in particular is. I think that it took us too long to respond to that. As you know, Mr Swinney, we are now reviewing that response and there will be a report on that. I suggest to you that perhaps that is the time that we should be considering how and if we should change the statute book. I think that there will be a lot of consideration of the pandemic. Lady Poole's inquiry will do that significantly, but we will have to wait some time before we get the conclusions of that. I recognise that there are differences of opinion in that respect, but from my perspective, the Government could be priced to learn the lessons of the pandemic, make sure that we have a house in order. That is essentially what the Government has done. We have looked at our legislation, at the fact that there are gaps, and we have brought forward a bill that aims to address those in relation to the public health measures. Obviously, there is a possibility that some stage in the future for the legislative change could be made, but that will be for the Government, for Parliament to consider in due course. Thank you very much, convener. I wish you well in your recovery, Mr Swinney. It has clearly been a tough morning for you. I am very quickly going to ask you a couple of quick questions. Why were the powers not included in the Public Health, Scotland bill on England and Wales legislation updated to include them in 2008? I have gone right back to the very first questions that you were asked by the convener. It says that the powers of Public Health, Scotland bill was not updated in 2008 when England and Wales already had those powers. I cannot honestly answer that question as to what was in the minds of ministers at that particular time. I would have to go and have a look at past papers to consider whether those issues had been looked at and what was the purpose of the Public Health legislation of that time. I suspect the Public Health legislation in 2008 was reviewed to update specific issues about localised incidents and to have the scope to look at a population-wide challenge of the nature that we have faced. That would be my first response, but I will consider that further. If there is any more information, I can share with the committee and I will write to the convener accordingly. There is no doubt in my mind that the fact that we had to make such a significant list of change in extremis twice in the spring of 2020 indicates to me that our statute book is not up to date. Okay, thank you. Very quickly, should the process for applying special restrictions on any subsequent appeals process be on the face of the bill? I get that you have accepted the fact that we are happy to look at stuff, the issues that Mr Fraser raised with you. Should the process for applying those restrictions be on the face of the bill? I would contain that we have adequate measures in the legislation that set out how that can be undertaken. I think that the question that Parliament needs to consider is, are those powers appropriate and can they be exercised in a proportionate and appropriate fashion? All those factors need to be considered, but I think that that is achieved by the terms of the bill. Obviously, if there are particular suggestions to be made by the committee or by members, I will, of course, engage on those questions. I will move on to mental health and the named person. We took evidence on that, and we are running short of time, so I will quickly go through the points that have been raised. How should people be informed about the role and responsibilities of being a named person? If additional guidance on the role and responsibilities of being a named person is needed, and whether a nominee should be required to declare that they understand the role and rights and responsibilities of being a named person? It is important that that is fully and properly understood. When it comes to understanding the role of a named person, there is a statutory code of practice that does that. It states that it would be best for the mental health officer or any other practitioner to discuss the role of a named person in a form that is helpful to them. It would be best practice to provide information to the nominee about their rights and the patient's rights. The process of checking and understanding is separate to the requirement for the nominated person's consent to be witnessed. A number of protections are in place to ensure that that concept of that role can be properly explained to individuals and understood by individuals. I will quickly move on to moratorium on diligence. The bill at stage 1 does not contain provision in relation to the moratorium. However, the Scottish Government has stated that amendments in the subject may be brought forward in stage 2. Does the Scottish Government intend to bring forward any amendments to the moratorium on diligence at stage 2? If so, has the Government reached a view on how long the moratorium should last? We are likely to bring forward an amendment to the moratorium at stage 2. In terms of the timescale, there are differing views on what the appropriate moratorium period should be on a permanent basis. We are taking time to consider what that timescale should be. During the pandemic, a temporary period of six months was put in place. In England and Wales, the period is 60 days. There is a range of differing views. We are in the process of essentially weighing up those differing views and setting out the provision that we will take the form of a stage 2 amendment. We also had evidence in digital and remote service delivery. We heard from local authority witnesses that online delivery of services had to happen at speed at the beginning of the pandemic. Mary Muller, Glasgow City Council accepted that a lot could be done to reconfigure those services and make them more accessible. However, significant work needs to be done to ensure that remote services developed at speed during the pandemic meet the needs of the users. Will the Scottish Government be able to make a funding available to support that? There are two aspects to this question. One is about the adaptability of public services and their ability to be used within the digital environment. I think that great improvements have been made, but I think that there is a way to go. I think that ministers are still very clear that we are too far behind the private sector on developments here. The availability of private sector provision is significant ahead of public sector provision. That is one priority. The second is about making sure that we overcome the digital divide, so that people are able to gain access to the ability to use technology to gain access to public services. The Connected Communities initiative is now making significant progress in this respect, and I welcome the steps that have been made. Through those two channels, different funding from the Scottish Government would be available to address those questions. The provision part 3 of the bill mainly enables public service providers to offer remote services rather than require them to local authority when it has highlighted the success of remote services delivered during the pandemic and the potential for resource saving. Will the Scottish Government consider amending the bill to include a requirement to continue to offer in-person services? I certainly will consider that point, because it has been interesting to deal with the constituency caseload around the recent census. For the first time, the census has been undertaken predominantly digitally, and some constituents of mine have been concerned about not being able to get paper copies. We have to be constantly mindful of the importance of ensuring that we have both options available to individuals. If there are adequate safeguards in the bill, we should be prepared to consider those. There was also specific concern about the option to provide remote services for licensed applicants. Currently, the bill gives licence and bodies complete discretion as to how a hearing is held. When a meeting was held remotely, emergency legislation gave applicants and objectors the right to decide how they want to participate. However, the bill will give licence and bodies complete discretion as to the format of licence and hearings. Should it be amended to give those entitled to participate in the hearings more of a say? I have to say that doing it remotely is a lot harder than trying to get your point across if you are in dispute. I am happy to consider that. The thrust of the legislation is to try to ensure that we have an appropriate way in which we can make the process more efficient and try to minimise disruption. I have been quite struck by my work over the course of the pandemic. My constituency work is how the use of technology has significantly enhanced the way in which I can conveniently engage with constituents. Instead of people having to drive from Rarich station to Blair Gallery to see me because I happened to be in Blair Gallery that day, a Zoom call can save them a round trip of about four hours to come and see their member of Parliament. To my shame, that had never dawned on me until the pandemic. I think that there is a desire in this section of the bill to try to secure the opportunities for greater efficiency and effectiveness arising out of our experience in the pandemic. I think that we should be open to doing that. However, not in a way that makes the process disadvantageous to individuals and the point that Mr Fairlie makes to me is that that approach may be disadvantageous to a licensing application. That would be my point. I absolutely get that we can make things far more streamlined than all the rest of it, but there will be times when people will want to have a sit-down conversation in a face-to-face environment. I think that that is something that we should possibly consider. I think that there is also an important point to add to that, convener. It is the responsibility of licensing boards and licensing authorities to ensure that virtual meetings and hearings are conducted in a manner that meets the accessibility and engagement requirements of attendees. The oris is on the body to make sure that they are doing it in a way that can meet the needs of the licensing application. However, if there is a need for us to perhaps make that more explicit, then I am happy to consider it. Many of the powers in 2008 act to require an application to the sheriff court in order to be applied. However, the bill does not appear to stipulate a specific process when applying the special restrictions and requirements, including the requirement for, for example, a person to submit a medical examination. In the absence of the requirement to obtain a sheriff's order, what will the process be when seeking to apply the special restrictions and requirements, and how will the human rights of the individual be adequately safeguarded? The first point is that there can be no debate or questioning about the protection of the human rights of applicants, so that must underpin the process that is put in place. What we have to then satisfy ourselves is that we have in place arrangements that will enable individuals to be able to engage with public authorities in a way that does exactly that, so that they can achieve their proper engagement in the process and their rights can be assured in the process. The bill is designed to give appropriate specification on that point if there are issues about whether or not sufficient specification has been given, and I am very happy to consider that as part of the bill process. Monitoring public health risks Clause 1 also inserts a new section 86H into the Public Health Act 2000 that will allow Scottish ministers to confer functions on bodies and persons' powers to monitor public health risks. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to explain how he expects those powers to be used going forward, and will those provisions support on-going preparedness for future public health threats, and if so, what types of health threats could be detected by those measures? I think that there is a difference here, convener. The measures to which you refer are within the bill during the course of a pandemic. That is a power that would enable ministers, through regulations, to put particular monitory responsibilities on public authorities. On the obligations for preparedness, that is something that public authorities will be taking forward as part of their routine work under existing statutory arrangements to ensure that we are prepared for all resilience challenges that we face. Those are issues that we revisit on a regular basis through the Scottish resilience partnership, which we also take forward as part of the wider work that we undertake with public authorities to ensure that they are prepared for such eventualities. That concludes our consideration of this agenda item. I thank the Deputy First Minister and his officials for their evidence today. If we move on to agenda item 2, which is the ministerial statement on Covid-19, the committee will take evidence from the Scottish Government on the latest ministerial statement on Covid-19. I welcome back to the meeting, Deputy First Minister and Professor Jason Leitch. Thank you for your attendance this morning. Would you like to make any remarks before we move on to questions? If I can make some opening remarks, convener, I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to discuss a number of matters, including updates to Parliament on Covid-19. As set out by the First Minister yesterday, we are currently experiencing high numbers of cases in Scotland, and that reflects the impact of the BATU variant, which we know to be even more infectious than the original Omicron variant. Alongside the infection levels, the high number of people in hospital with Covid, even if they were admitted from their condition, is putting the NHS under severe strain. However, there are some grounds for optimism that the latest wave of the pandemic may have peaked, and we will continue to assess the data closely to see whether those early signs are indeed indicative of a sustained falling cases. Despite the infections, this is the BATU variant. The vaccination continues to provide good protection against serious illness, and our programme of booster jags for certain groups is now in the way. The programme started three weeks ago in older people's care homes and from last week appointments have been offered to everyone aged 75 and over. People with suppressed immune systems will have appointments scheduled during spring and summer. In line with JCVI advice, vaccination of the wider five to 11-year-old age group started on 19 March and will continue over coming weeks. Vaccination remains the most important thing that any of us can do to protect ourselves and others, and the Scottish Government has continued to ensure that as many people as possible are vaccinated. As mentioned, our NHS is facing very significant pressure, and we must be attentive to the needs of the NHS in tackling the virus. For the period up until Easter, we are continuing to ask everyone to take a lateral flow test twice a week and to take a test daily for seven days if you are in close contact with a positive case and to take a test before visiting someone who is vulnerable. If you have symptoms, you should get a PCR test, and if you test positive, you should isolate and follow advice from test and protect. Using the approach that is set out in our revised strategic framework and based on clinical advice, our assessment is that the virus continues to present a medium threat, although we remain optimistic that it will move to being a low threat during the spring and summer. We have largely moved away from using legally imposed protective measures to control the virus instead relying on vaccines, treatments and sensible public health behaviours and adaptations. When most legal requirements were lifted in March, we retained in law the requirement to wear face coverings on public transport and in certain indoor settings. Cabinet have now agreed to convert the legal requirement to guidance in a phased approach. From the Fourth of April, it will no longer be a legal requirement to wear face covering in places of worship, upon attending a marriage ceremony, a civil partnership registration or a funeral service or commemorative event. From the 18th of April, the wider legal requirement applied to shops, certain indoor settings and public transport will be converted to guidance. Two guidance will continue to encourage the wearing of face coverings where appropriate. I am very happy to answer questions from the committee. With the removal of masks later this month, there are a lot of people, especially the clinically vulnerable, who are quite anxious regarding this as Covid is still prevalent. Guidance was published by the Scottish Government in January this year regarding the Distance Aware scheme. How can the Scottish Government raise more awareness of this scheme to protect our most vulnerable as we remove masks? It is important that we continue to take actions to support those who are very vulnerable. I understand why some people want the removal of face coverings, but I have to say that my humble opinion is the most inconvenient thing that we have ever been asked to do as citizens, but it is something that can be done to help and protect those who are much more vulnerable within our society. The Government will certainly be encouraging people to continue to voluntarily wear face coverings and to do so in appropriate locations. In relation to the Distance Aware scheme, the Government has spent significant amounts of time in promoting the Distance Aware scheme. I am certain that it needs to continue to be promoted and we will do so over the course of the forthcoming period to make sure that there is as wide awareness as possible about the merits of the scheme, because it is so critical that it provides reassurance and understanding to members of the public. Thank you, convener. I have a couple of very particular constituency issues that I would like to raise. I have had a number of constituents contact me who are parents of children in school in fifth year, who presently are studying for hires in a few weeks' time. Firstly, they are looking for an assurance that there is no prospect of the current exam diet being cancelled, because we do know that there are some schools with large staff absences, but also those wondering that should pupils contract Covid and not be able to sit the higher exams on the day required, what other arrangements will be in place for them. I wonder if you can help with that. On the first question, the exam diet will go ahead and that is the approach that has been taken. On a situation in which a young person is unable to sit an exam because of Covid, there are routine arrangements in place to address the implications of that on a pupil by pupil basis, and no pupil will be disadvantaged by those arrangements. Obviously, it will be the subject of engagement with individual schools to make sure that the arrangements can be put in place to support young people who might find themselves in that situation. However, the SQA will work with individual schools to ensure that no pupil is disadvantaged in that respect. On the second question, on an entirely separate matter about vaccinations, we currently have over 75 pupils who are being called for their second booster. I have been contacted by someone living in the Rannock area, which you will know well, where present residents are being directed to travel to Pitlockry to the vaccination centre, which is quite a substantial round trip, and is very difficult for people who rely on public transport. The question was whether or not rural GP practices could be authorised to deliver vaccines for those who have transport difficulties. Is that something that the Scottish Government is looking at? The difficulty here is not about putting in place travel arrangements, but the difficulty is caused by Professor Leitch to contradict me on that. I do not think that I am wrong here, because it is a Pfizer dose that is being administered. The Pfizer dose comes in a larger block than the other vaccines. Therefore, it cannot be broken down to be able to be undertaken in GP practices. That is why individuals might have to go to a centre such as Pitlockry, which I appreciate is a distance for people in the Rannock area, and I dealt with constituency concerns about that on my own behalf in that respect. However, it is because of the nature of the virus. Professor Leitch might want to add to what I have said. Good morning, everybody. I think that that is the quietest test that I have been at committee for an hour and a quarter. The Deputy First Minister is absolutely right. Each vaccine comes slightly differently packaged. Each has slightly different rules about freezing and cold storage and all of those things. There are some GP practices administering Covid vaccines. It is a local decision made by local vaccine coordinators and whatever is available in that area. However, it is much more efficient in terms of wastage and in terms of efficiency of delivery if you can do it certainly in medium-sized units—never mind the larger units such as the Hydro in the Exhibition Centre in Edinburgh. However, it is not impossible for some GPs to be able to give vaccines. It is a workforce challenge but also an equipment and vaccine challenge. The last time, Mr Swinney, you were at this committee and asked about the lateral flow test and costs. I think that we got mixed up between what I was asking and what you said, because you said that they would continue to be free. However, you meant up until the point where they stopped being given out, which is sometime in mid-April. There are three points to that. First, in terms of health and social care settings, will the lateral flow test continue to be available? The EIS is campaigning to keep lateral flow tests in school for all staff. It is making an argument as to why that is important. If you look at it just now, some schools are having to send year groups home, some schools have lots of kids sitting in assembly rooms half a day, so there is still a major problem in schools in terms of Covid and particularly staffing. How would you respond to the EIS request that staff in schools continue to get lateral flow tests access to them free? Thirdly, what would your answer be in terms of the cost to living crisis and the fact that, for many people, your ministers have already talked about people choosing between eating and eating, so lateral flow tests probably buying them is probably going to fall further down that list. Are you relaxed enough? I know that you say that you feel that you are optimistic that things that spread and the virus will be lower into the spring and summer, but what about those groups in particular? If I address the last point first, because it is a gateway into the whole question, I ordinarily, all things be equal, I would like us to be maintaining a pretty significant level of testing on lateral flow device testing. I think that it would be beneficial if it gives a lot of intelligence and assurance, but I have also got to look at the hard financial realities in the wake of the decision of the United Kingdom Government. Because the decision of the UK Government in relation to what it was prepared to fund, that has a direct effect on the consequential funding that is available to the Scottish Government, which limits it, which makes it difficult for us to sustain more than the larger proposition that we are already putting in place. In relation to health and social care staff, there will still be a testing environment in place for health and social care staff, and it will continue to be free. In relation to the situation of school staff, I am obviously aware of the EIS. My experience is very familiar with the strength of opinion within the EIS and within the school staff about the importance of testing arrangements being in place. We are maintaining those for a longer period than is the case in other parts of the United Kingdom, but unfortunately there are limitations placed on us by the decisions that the UK Government has taken. What about the whole question of the cost to living crisis and the fact that if I want to go and get a test, I can afford it, but for many people on lower incomes, that is just not going to be part of their budget? Yes, and I am very concerned about that because it gets to the heart of the wider challenges that we will face around the cost of living within our society and why the Scottish Government will do everything that we possibly can to try to maximise the support for and the resilience of people who face challenges and hardship in our society. However, it is a significant challenge to be able to try to do all those different measures as part of the financial constraints that we operate on. On that point to people in terms of lower income, in terms of vaccination take-up, the data that I have looked at shows that there has been a start reduction once we hit the under-40 age group. A situation that is not unique to Scotland, I would have to say, but across the UK, but there is definitely a start reduction in take-up at the third dose. Likewise, if I look at the socioeconomic status, there is no doubt that the ONS has looked at data on vaccination up to free school meals. This is England, but there is no reason why the same would not apply in Scotland. There is a clear correlation between lower socioeconomic status, deprivation, poverty, and uptake vaccine, particularly as we have to reach the third dose. Do you find that to be the case? Is there a need for the Scottish Government to consider further action in terms of trying to encourage vaccine uptake, particularly among those areas in groups where it is lowest? Given the centrality of vaccine as the most effective protection against the virus, I think that we are constantly looking at ways in which we can intensify the focus on vaccine uptake. The vaccine programme as a whole has been phenomenally successful in reaching high levels of uptake, but that strong position at a global and national level masks the position in some particular categories and groups and geographical areas, which is not as strong. We are constantly looking for practical ways in which we can try to ensure that the vaccine take-up is more accessible by the public campaigns that we have put out, by the availability of venues that are accessible and convenient. If I look at my locality, NHS Tayside has gone to considerable lengths to try to find locations in areas in which it can try to boost vaccine uptake into some areas that Mr Rowley put to me with some success, but it needs to be continuously pursued to ensure that we can maximise the uptake of the vaccine, because it is the biggest protection that individuals can have. Thank you, convener. Mr Swinney, I hope that you will get a wee rest on this question, because I am really targeting this one to Jason Leitch. We spoke before about a constituent of mine who is very concerned about getting the vaccine. She is going through various medical issues through cancer. She had an adverse reaction to a flu jag, and she is very, very concerned about getting any form of vaccine to do with coronavirus. There are still venues that will require a vaccine passport, which she will obviously not be able to get. Her question that she puts to me is, there is a panel of four people who decide what the exemption should be, but she will not be allowed to give her own voice to the issue that she has. Is that the case? Is that correct that there is a panel of four people who have made that decision? What are the criteria for not getting the vaccine? Is there anything that can be done to allow her to have her voice heard to put her point across? First, my advice is to get a vaccine and to go to a vaccination centre and have that conversation with a senior member of the vaccination team. It may not be the first person you meet in the vaccination team. It may be escalated up through the process and have a very, very serious conversation and make sure that that is absolutely the decision that you want to make and understand the implications of doing it, but also deeply understand the implications of not doing it. Never mind the fact that you will not be able to go to a London theatre probably for a little while, but the implications of catching the disease, particularly if you are immunocompromised because of cancer care, that strikes me, the limited knowledge that I have of this case, that strikes me as a much higher risk than the vaccine. That is point number one, go and talk about getting the vaccine. Point number two is that the exemptions are fairly limited for very good reason because there are very few diseases or conditions that contradict getting the vaccine, simply because the vaccine is safe and it is safe in almost everybody. This constituent, I imagine, does not fit into one of those categories. They can, of course, ask, they can make that case. I have no knowledge that there are four people in a quiet room somewhere who are making individual decisions about people's lives. That is not the system that I am familiar with. What we have done is categorised the highest risk individuals for a vaccine. That would be people who have absolute confirmed allergy to the constituents in the vaccine. We are not going to vaccinate them. End-of-life care people, who, unfortunately, have had very bad news and therefore the vaccine is inappropriate for those individuals. Some people with some immunosuppression of diseases in which the vaccine is contraindicated, but it is a very small group. I am afraid that exemption is not something that you can just request and get. However, if you want to send those details in, we will absolutely get the individuals involved to look at it and make sure that all that has been done is appropriate. I will go back to my initial point. Vaccination is safer than Covid. Thank you very much. The final point that I am going to make, and this is one that has been raised with me again and again by the same constituent, is that apparently Professor Lindabald had made a statement somewhere on the media or on the television that if you have an adverse reaction to the flu jab, do not get the Covid jab. I do not know if that is verified or not, but it is a position that keeps getting put back to me. Is that correct? It is not blanket correct. Linda may certainly have said that in some context with a specific question. Lindabald's advice, I imagine, would be the same as mine. Go and discuss your case with a senior vaccinator, who understands both your challenge, of course, when we are not forcing anybody, but also the disease of Covid and the risk or otherwise of having that vaccination. An allergic adverse reaction to flu vaccine is very different from a side effect to the flu vaccine, so we need to understand exactly what happened and exactly which vaccine it was, and then we can make some choices about which vaccine to suggest, if any, for Covid. I want to go back to education, if I could. I have a vested interest in that, given that one of my daughters is a teacher and one of my other daughters is a pupil who has transitioned from primary seven and is now in second year, so through the whole Covid experience, has missed significant classroom time. Despite the greatest efforts of teachers, the online learning will not replace learning face-to-face for many, so I just wanted to ask the Deputy First Minister how the Scottish Government proposes to fill that gap in learning. The first thing that I say is that I have listened during my time as education secretary to a very significant number of experienced educators who were very keen to ensure that we did not disparage online learning because there is a strong place for online and digital learning for young people within our education system. It broadens choice and deepens the opportunities for understanding and appreciation of subjects. Many educators have been trying to make advances in digital learning for some considerable time, so I think that it is a really important asset for us. Ironically, during the pandemic, the merits of the involvement of teachers around the country, the measures such as the E-School and the West of Scotland learning partnership, there is now a very strong digital learning proposition available to young people in Scotland that they can dip into in their own time. There are also a whole range of different examples of digital learning that are taken forward by individual schools, so I think that that is something that we should celebrate. The second point is in relation to the impact of the pandemic on the learning of young people. Individual schools are concentrating very closely on ensuring that the needs of young people are met through the education system and that they can secure the necessary engagement in their learning. Indeed, a whole variety of different approaches have been taken to make sure that that is the case. There will obviously be an impact on learning as a consequence of the pandemic. It is a inevitability of the disruption to the education system, but teachers are working very hard to make sure that that is minimised to young people where it can possibly be minimised. Thank you, Mr Swin. I just know that I didn't say all said many. One of the issues that has been raised is the inequality, if you like, in learning. The pandemic has deepened that, and there are sections of society and sections of our pupils that there should be a focus on. Thank you for your response that is helpful. One other point that has been raised with me is that we know that if I could transition into health, we know that roughly half of Covid cases in hospital are with patients who come in for another condition. What has been raised with me is a worry that there is still this reluctance to seek medical help because of the concern around contracting Covid in hospitals. How is the Scottish Government managing to or what is it doing to make sure that that hesitation is overcome and get people to seek critical medical help as soon as it is required, because to not do so will in itself cause strain in NHS with later presentations? I will invite Professor Leitch to add to my remarks, but this is a very important issue that people present for healthcare in the appropriate context and at the appropriate time. For some people, that will be to present very early when they have emerging symptoms of a potentially more acute than challenging condition. Throughout the pandemic, we have maintained cancer care and maintained a message that the health service remained open for people should they require it. I accept however that that does not fully address the reluctance that Mr Whittle puts to me, because I think that people are nervous about going to hospital because of the risk of attracting Covid. Fundamentally, that can only be addressed by the form in which we deliver healthcare about making sure that we meet the needs of individuals in their own, as much as we possibly can do within their own communities. Some of the measures such as hospital at home are designed to ensure that we provide that care literally as close to home as we possibly can do for individuals, but Professor Leitch might want to add to what I have said there. It is a crucial issue, Mr Whittle, as we have talked before. We need to be slightly careful. There are three categories of positive patients in hospital. There are those who are in hospital principally because they are suffering from Covid. There are some who are in with other conditions who brought Covid in with them. On admission, they were tested and they were positive, but they have had a stroke or a heart attack or a broken leg. Covid will make their recovery harder, almost universally. There is a third small group who catch Covid in hospital from other staff members or patients who have Covid in the environment. That is a small group, and you should not be scared to go to healthcare because you might catch Covid. That is not a reason not to go. The other thing is that it is relatively unusual that hospital would be your first port of call with signs or symptoms of disease. Of course, there are some things when that is appropriate, if you are in emergency, if you are taken by ambulance, but the health service does not work like that. The health service works with you going to your pharmacy, or your dentist, or your GP, or NHS Inform, or NHS 24. Those systems remain open, they remain accessible. Of course, there are challenges in some places and on some days and in some hours, of course there are, but that is the way into the health service, with whatever it is that is troubling. Then hospitals will become part of your care if and when required. I welcome the fact that we do not have to wear masks in churches and other places of worship, as of Monday. I think that that will be very welcome. I think that the idea of gradually reducing the requirement for masks is a sensible one. I really just have one question and it is following on from what Professor Leitch just said about the three categories. We have 2,300 people in hospital with Covid and they span the three categories, as I understand it. Can we break down between those three categories on how many are in hospital because of Covid and how many would have been in hospital anyway, but they have Covid as well? Is that possible? I do not mind to answer. I was waiting for my microphone. It is partly possible. We know that in most developed countries at this point in their Omicron wave—I know that that is not a particularly satisfactory piece of analysis—it is about 50, 50, 60, 40, 40, 60, but let us, for the sake of argument, say that it is about half and half. Half have got serious problems with Covid and have been admitted for Covid. The other half, in approximate terms, are worse because of Covid, but, as you suggest, would probably have been in hospital pre-pandemic with a stroke, a heart attack or something else. As I have said many times in this committee, I wish healthcare were as binary as that. It, of course, is not. Most people do not end up in hospital with one thing, they end up in hospital with delirium, dementia, a hit replacement and Covid. It is not as neat as one or the other. There are a small number—I do not have it to hand—of healthcare-acquired infections of Covid, but it is nothing like half or 40 per cent of those big numbers. The first two categories occupy the vast majority, and then there are a small number of people who you can never be absolutely sure but would appear, because they have been in hospital for a prolonged period, have caught Covid during their hospital stay. Again, making their recovery usually more complicated, because it makes healing more difficult, it makes recovery more difficult in pretty much every disease that we have. I wonder if I could just go back to the question of education and just ask for some clarification on an issue that has been discussed over the last day. Following the announcement yesterday about lifting the requirement for wearing face masks from 18 April, there seems to be some confusion as to what the situation will apply in schools where face masks are still being worn in communal areas. Yesterday, a Scottish Government spokesman said that face coverings would still be required in communal areas for staff and secondary pupils after 18 April, but that seems to have rained back on this morning. Deputy First Minister, can you just clarify exactly what the position is now? The position that I understand is that masks will not be required in communal areas as an obligation from 18 April, but that wearing them will be recommended as something that would be beneficial for maintaining some protection in place. Okay, thank you very much. That concludes our consideration of this agenda item, and I'd like to thank the Deputy First Minister for your attendance today, despite being ill, and we wish you a very speedy recovery. I'd also like to thank all the supporting officials for their attendance this morning. The committee's next meeting will be on 21 April, when we will consider our stage 1 report on the coronavirus recovery and reform of Scotland Bill in private. That concludes a public part of our meeting this morning. I suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave.