 Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting of the COVID-19 recovery committee in 2021, and a warm welcome to Graham Simpson, MSP, who is joining the committee this morning. The first agenda item this morning is a decision to take item number five in private. The committee is also being asked to consider the evidence that we hear in future meetings in private. Are members of the committee agreed? Yes. We are agreed to take agenda item number five and all future consideration of evidence in private. We shall now move to agenda item number two. The committee will take evidence from the Scottish Government on the ministerial statement of COVID-19, subordinate legislation and the other matters noted in the agenda. I welcome to the meeting our witnesses from the Scottish Government, John Swinney, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for COVID Recovery, Professor Jason Leitch, National Clinical Director, Elizabeth Sadler, Deputy Director of COVID Ready Society and Graham Fisher, Deputy Director of the Scottish Government Legal Directorate. Thank you for attending this morning. Deputy First Minister, would you like to make any remarks before we move to questions? I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to discuss a number of matters, including the Covid update to Parliament from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on Tuesday and the Covid recovery strategy and other issues. I set out in the update to Parliament, we continue to work closely with health boards as they deal with pressures in the next winter. We announced an additional package of winter support backed by a further £10 million for a range of measures to support A&E systems and to ensure that patients have access to the correct care as quickly as possible. We have implemented an approach intended to maintain the pace of the vaccination programme as we enter the flu season by maximising the availability of scheduled appointments and ensuring the efficient vaccination of people against both COVID-19 and seasonal flu. Vaccination remains one of our most effective public health interventions against the pandemic. We also announced changes to the rules around international travel, including the removal of the final seven countries from the international travel red list. Turning now to the 26th conference of the parties, the Scottish Government has been working closely with the United Kingdom Government and Partners in Scotland, including Glasgow City Council, Transport Scotland, NHS Scotland and Police Scotland to deliver the COP26 summit successfully and safely. A comprehensive package of mitigation measures is in place, aimed at protecting the welfare of everyone involved and the wider community. In addition to an offer of vaccination to delegates, measures include a robust daily testing regime, contact tracing, hygiene measures that include distancing and face coverings and ventilation. In relation to the regulations that we will shortly be discussing, the Covid certification scheme continues to bed in well. Last weekend was the second weekend since enforcement began on 18 October. The Covid status app has played a part in the success of the scheme. I would update the committee that the original contract cost of £600,000 for the development of an international travel app awarded to net company was formally extended in October. By up to an additional £600,000 to reflect the expansion of the original proposal to include new technical development work to support the domestic status of the app. On the statutory instruments before the committee in relation to the first, the health protection coronavirus restrictions, directions by local authorities Scotland regulations had been in place since 28 August 2020. Those regulations make provision for local authority enforcement powers in respect of businesses, premises, events and access to public outdoor places. The original regulations were due to expire on 30 September 2021 and the current regulations extend the original regulations to 25 March 2022. That ensures that, should local authorities require to take local enforcement action in relation to coronavirus regarding businesses, premises, events and public outdoor places, they will have appropriate powers available to do so. On the second instrument, the health protection coronavirus requirements Scotland amendment 2 regulations 2021, which provides for the Covid certification scheme, the Government recognises the concerns expressed at the delegated powers and law reform committee that regulations under the made affirmative procedure can come into force prior to any formal scrutiny by the Parliament and about the procedure applied to these regulations. Our decision to use this procedure for the certification regulations partly reflected considerations around implementation of the vaccine certification arrangement, including the need for businesses and the general public to familiarise themselves with finalised legal requirements, underpinning the scheme sufficiently in advance to enable those affected by the scheme rules to take the necessary steps to prepare. I discussed some of that with the committee on 30 September. More widely, the Minister for Parliamentary Business set out the considerations that we took into account in using the made affirmative procedure. Case numbers remain high and it is for this reason that urgent action was needed in introducing this important baseline measure of certification given these factors and the need to take action without delay to address the harms posed by the virus. Under the difficult circumstances that we still face, I would ask the committee to recommend approval of the regulations and offer my assurance that this measure will continue to be under review and will only remain in place for as long as is necessary. I am very happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. If I may turn to questions and if I may ask a few questions. Thank you for your response to our letter on the vaccine passport regulations. In the letter you state that it is not possible to establish the individual impact of the scheme on changes in transmission of the virus. Given that reducing transmission is one of the aims of the scheme, could you please clarify how you are monitoring the impact of the scheme on reducing transmission? The point that I am trying to make in my response to the committee convener is that it is impossible to segment the headline data that we have access to about the prevalence of the virus and ascribe the prevalence of the virus to particular factors. The flipside of that is that it is impossible to ascribe to a particular mitigation measure an avoidance of a situation that has prevailed. The point that ministers look at is that we look at the overall prevalence of the virus, we look at the pressures on the national health service and we make a judgment based on that headline data as to whether it is proportionate and appropriate for mitigation measures to remain enforced. That is the three-weekly assessment that ministers undertake. We have to complete that again for the 16 November, which will be the next three-weekly point at which we consider those issues. We do that by looking at all the available evidence that we have to hand and to make a judgment about the extent to which the virus continues to present a significant threat to the wider population and crucially to the sustainability of national health services. Just for transparency to members, the committee requested in its recent letter that certain information would be provided to Parliament alongside the three-week review and that this information to be laid in SPICE. Some of the information that we requested goes beyond the information provided in the weekly state of the epidemic report. Your letter noted that only some of the information requested is held by the Scottish Government. Notwithstanding that, it appears that the available information requested was not laid in SPICE and the most recent review point on 26 October. Will the Scottish Government commit to providing the information requested by the committee at the next review point and all the subsequent review points? I certainly look at that point, convener. The Government does publish, as I have said to the committee on a number of occasions, a vast amount of information about the prevalence of the virus and the associated data sets that we have in relation to the management of the challenges that we face. If there is more information, the committee wrote to me about a range of requests. We will endeavour to provide as much information as we possibly can do. The state of the epidemic report already contains a huge amount of information already, but if there is more information that members believe it would be helpful to be available, then we will certainly consider that. As I mentioned last week, the Covid-19 recovery committee is trialling an online public platform to allow members of the public to ask questions. Helen Goss has got in touch this week and she has said that there is a distinct lack of protections for children in education settings. Schools are having to rely on natural ventilation without supplemental ventilation technologies which will pose a problem going into winter. The latest data from the clock study suggests that up to one in seven infected children will develop long Covid. Why isn't the Scottish Government prepared to protect the younger age groups? If I could just personally add on top of that, do we have any evidence or data on children developing long Covid? On the point about data about children and long Covid, I will take that point away and advise the committee as to whether there is any data that can be shared in that respect. Obviously, there will be issues around data protection that we will have to consider in that respect, but I will look at that and write to the committee on that point. In relation to ventilation, I recognise the significance of that point. It is an issue that I wrestled with extensively when I was the education secretary and my successor has been working with the education recovery group to ensure that there is an appropriate approach to the delivery of ventilation interventions by local authorities in schools around the country. The education secretary has written to the education committee with an update on the extent of the measures taken to improve ventilation in schools and about the inspection regime that has been put in place. We have required local authorities to undertake extensive assessments of ventilation interventions. That work has been reported on to the committee. A lot of that emphasis has focused on two things. One has been about ensuring that we have all of the necessary and appropriate data about the assessments that have been made. Secondly, there can be changes made to the school of state to enable appropriate ventilation arrangements to be put in place. The Government has funded the approaches that have been taken by local authorities. I think that we have to look at a whole range of different measures. The member of the public who raised the question is concerned about the wellbeing of children in schools. That is a concern that is shared by ministers. Hence, the decision that ministers took, which has not been universally supported to maintain the use of face coverings in certain circumstances by pupils, has been an important protection to be maintained to try to suppress the spread of the virus within the school of state. Ventilation is another aspect of the baseline measures that we can all take to try to ensure that we tackle the situation. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary and colleagues. Can I go back to the question of the vaccine certification scheme that the convener touched on in our first question? Last week, one of the purposes of the scheme that was set out by the Scottish Government is to encourage an increase in uptake of vaccinations. Last week, a meeting of the committee, Mr Mason asked Professor Leitch if there was evidence that that had been successful. Mr Leitch came a very straightforward and honest response, which we would expect. He said, I simply do not know. Indeed, Cabinet Secretary, you have confirmed this morning that it is not possible to disaggregate from the general data whether the scheme is actually delivering on the objective set out. We do not know whether there are positive outcomes from the scheme. What we do know is that there are negative outcomes from the scheme. The BBC is reporting this morning that more than 42,000 people have reported errors in their vaccination records. This is causing difficulties for them. We want to access vaccine certification. We also know from the night-time industries that they are seeing a major drop-off in terms of the business coming to their premises up to 40 per cent of the drop-off having a major negative economic impact. Is this policy turning into something of a disaster? Is it not? No, it is not in no shape or form. Mr Fraser is completely wrong to characterise the scheme as just being about boosting vaccination levels. That is one of the purposes. If I provide Mr Fraser with some data, as of 1 September, 53 per cent of the 18 to 29 population group, which I think we would all accept is probably the most important group in relation to the night-time industries association, 53 per cent of that group had both doses of the vaccine. Shortly thereafter, the Government announced that we were going to embark on this approach. Shortly thereafter, on 1 October, that figure had risen from 53 per cent to 64. On 1 November, that figure had reached 68 per cent, so there is a sizable increase in the level of vaccination. The second point that I would make is that the scheme also has, as part of its objectives, the importance of reducing the risk of transmission, of reducing the risk of serious illness and death, of allowing high-risk settings to continue to operate as an alternative to closure and to increase vaccine uptake. Those are the four bullet points that surround the scheme. On each of those measures, reducing the risk of transmission is a priority of the Government to try to suppress the risk of transmission. To reduce the risk of serious illness and death, that is part of the objectives of the scheme. To allow high-risk settings to continue to operate again as an alternative to closure is being sustained by the scheme and the increased vaccine uptake is part of the evidence that I have just put on the record. As I said to the convener, I cannot compartmentalise it, I cannot ascribe it all, but it is part of the mix that we have in place. I think that the scheme is delivering a positive benefit to the suppression of the virus. In relation to errors in vaccine certification, I have accepted all along that when you are administering something of the order of 8 million, 9 million doses of the vaccine, you are bound to have errors. Even on the data that the BBC is talking about this morning, that is a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very small proportion of the amount of vaccination that is being undertaken. I think that the vaccine certification scheme is in Scotland, as it is in many other countries, contributing to the basket of measures that are necessary to deal with a pandemic that continues to pose a serious threat to the wellbeing of the population. Thank you, cabinet secretary. You have given us your opinion that you believe is having a positive impact. You have not given us any evidence that that is the case. In fact, you say in your letter to us as a committee of 28 October that it is not possible to establish the individual impact of this scheme on changes in transmission of the virus. As I said earlier, Professor Leitch told his committee last week, he did not know whether it was encouraging the uptake. You have expressed your opinion to the committee, but you have not given us any evidence. Can I ask you something else about your letter of 28 October? We asked specifically in that letter if you could give us any information on the number of people who have reported difficulties in accessing the Covid status app, their QR code or paper copies, and you said that data is not available. We then asked if you could tell us the number of people who had reported inaccuracies with the information contained in their vaccination record, and you said that data is not currently available. The BBC has been able to obtain, through freedom of information, that 42,000 people have complained about inaccuracies. Why have the BBC been able to obtain that information when you were not able to give it to this committee? That's an issue that's causing me some degree of concern this morning. I intend to investigate that after the committee. I've obviously just become aware of that information that the BBC published this morning. The letter that I've sent to the committee is based on the advice that I take at a given moment. I'm the author of the letter, so I take responsibility for its contents. I'm concerned about the fact that I'm not concerned about the second-last part of Annex A of my letter to the committee, where I say that the number of people who have reported difficulties accessing the Covid status app, I don't think that's in any way contradicted by the data that the BBC has this morning. The final part, however, is the number of people who have reported inaccuracies with the information contained in their vaccination record. I am concerned by the detail that I have said to the committee that data is not currently available, and I am exploring that point as we speak. I would be if I was not here. It's being inquired about on my behalf. Can I go back and ask again about the issue of economic impact? We've heard from the Nighttime Industries Association and the Scottish hospitality group about a major decline in business at many of their premises since the vaccine passport was introduced. Does the Scottish Government recognise that concern? If so, what are you doing to try to address it? Part of the point here, Mr Fraser, has concentrated on a number of points of definitive evidence. I've been absolutely candid with the committee in all my correspondence and in my oral evidence to the committee that we cannot ascribe the direct relationship between one particular measure and one particular outcome. I think that that would be misleading to try to do so. There are a basket of measures and interventions that we have to take to suppress the virus and to achieve our other objectives about increasing vaccination. One of the issues that we have to wrestle with is that the virus remains a very significant threat to the health and wellbeing of the population. We have got to take—and my judgment, Government's judgment, Parliament's judgment as a whole—measures to tackle that situation and the seriousness of the impact that could have on the population. When we take particular measures, we are weighing up in all those judgments what is the proportionate action to take. Where we have rising cases that we have had, we are now sitting with cases that are, I would say, apart from yesterday's data, stable but very high. Yesterday's data was very high and of great concern, but I shouldn't look at one particular day's data, but yesterday's data was of deep concern to ministers. We have cases that are at too high a level, so we are trying to take measures that are proportionate with our objectives of enabling as much of the economy and our society to recover from Covid. We are also at the same time to suppress the virus. That is a fine judgment that has got to be arrived at as to what measures to take. We know that the night time economy is an area of higher risk. We know that from the experience of the pandemic. We are trying to take measures that enable—consistent with the strategic objective that I have just set out—of enabling the night time economy to continue but to do so in a safe fashion, as we possibly can do, which is the justification for the scheme. Obviously, there may well be impact on night time industries as a consequence, but there could be an even greater impact of closure. That is what we are trying to avoid by the measures that we are taking. It is about weighing up what can we enable to happen that does not jeopardise our ability to suppress the virus and enable sectors to be able to thrive? One more question for me, convener. We have heard it from our advisers this morning. Every other country in Europe that has brought in a vaccine passport scheme allows us an alternative and negative Covid test. That gets around some of the concerns that people have expressed around the vaccine passport scheme, in particular the impact on human rights and around civil liberties. Previously, the health secretary came to the committee and said that that alternative was still under consideration by the Scottish Government. Is that still the case and is it still being considered as part of the Mexica? I believe that it would remove many of the concerns that there are about the compulsory vaccination passport scheme. That option is still under active consideration by ministers. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. If I could follow on from some of the points that Murdo Fraser made. As you said, Cabinet Secretary, there are four bullet points for the reason for the implementation of a vaccine passport scheme and one of them being improving vaccine uptake. In my view, by improving vaccine uptake, you can improve the other three bullet points. You are likely to reduce from transmission. You are likely to reduce the effects of illness and death and the pressure on NHS, which will hopefully help to keep places open. One of the phrases that was said this morning by our advisers was evaluating blind. Given that we are looking for the most effective way of deployment of resource, how do we assess the impact of a vaccine passport on that uptake? We have always tried to say or we have always said that we follow the science. There is a suite of measures that the Government has taken, but it cannot be just, surely, throwing as much as we can at it and hoping that we have an outcome. I would not characterise it in that fashion. What we are trying to do is to take a set of very carefully targeted interventions to try to secure our objectives. Our strategic intent, which was revised in the summer, is to suppress the virus to a level consistent with alleviating its harms while we recover and rebuild for a better future. That is very different to our previous strategic intent, which was essentially about maximum virus suppression. We are essentially trying to manage the impact of the virus through tools such as vaccination. I agree with Mr Whittle's point that vaccine uptake is a significant factor on making venues and circumstances as safe as possible because it reduces the risk of transmission and provides greater protection for anybody who happens to contract the virus if they are double vaccinated. By law, we are required to do that. Proportionate measures that enable us to achieve that strategic intent that I have put on the record again. I make no attempt to make this any more precisely than I have made it several times already this morning and on previous occasions. I cannot ascribe a direct relationship between one intervention and the strategic intent, but every three weeks we have to look at the strategic intent and the prevalence of the virus and say, Are the measures that we have in place currently providing us with what are the appropriate and suitable and proportionate in relation to those steps? The Government believes that to be the case, but we are now going through the process of preparing for the next three-week review on 16 November. We have to satisfy ourselves on all those issues at that moment and report to Parliament accordingly. I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply. In a three-week review, you are unable to ascribe the impact of any of the measures on vaccine uptake. Given that vaccine uptake is one of the most important things in tackling the virus, I think that deployment or resource into vaccine passport and the problems around practical or human rights, I feel that it is really important that you are able to persuade the population that this is the right way to go. I am not hearing that, cabinet secretary. I would contend, convener, that the data that I put on the record in response to Mr Fraser's question a moment ago that, as of 1 September, as before the vaccination certification scheme was put in place, 53 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds had two doses of the vaccine. By 1 November, that figure had risen by 15 per cent to 68 per cent. As a proportion of 53 per cent, that is a pretty substantial increase of the order of close to a third. That is a really sizable increase that has taken place. I think that the scheme supports the objectives that the Government has taken forward. We will continue to review that because we have to be satisfied that it is a proportionate action. I confirm to the committee that the Government will be doing exactly that. I want to move on, but my issue with that, from a science perspective, you do not know how many people, how much of an increase in the vaccination uptake would have been without a vaccine passport. Given that the specific groups are less well vaccinated, how are those demographics being targeted? We have been using a number of different means and communications, some of them through public information and the campaigns to encourage vaccinations. We have also been working very closely with the Scottish Government on vaccination. We have been working with what I would call trusted voices within those communities. We have been working with a number of the representative organisations within the BME community. We have been working with different religious figures, faith representatives, who have been able to articulate the message to a population that may be sceptical about some aspects of vaccination. The combination of the wider Government messaging on the importance of vaccination coupled to the specific input of trusted voices within those communities, we judge to be the most effective way of taking forward the steps that are necessary. One of the other main groups of people that we need to tackle are those who are vaccine hesitant. How are we addressing the needs of those? We know that pushing harder is likely to result in a more entrenched view. What is the Scottish Government doing to speak to this group, given that vaccine passports does not persuade this particular group to get vaccinated? I say a few words and I will bring in Professor Leitch in a second. The wider messaging that the Government takes forward about the risks that are faced by the population from being unvaccinated and the prevalence and significance and seriousness of the impact of the virus on people who are not vaccinated is some of the hard and difficult but necessary information that needs to be shared with members of the public. If people are unvaccinated, they stand greater risk of contracting the virus and of having a more serious condition as a consequence of contracting the virus if they are unvaccinated. It is important for that reason and for many others that we share that clinical information with members of the public. That is the communication that the chief medical officer, national clinical director and others are involved in supporting the Government today. I have invested quite a lot of personal time in talking to those groups that you described. I have discovered groups called African mums. I have discovered the Polish community who are the very vaccine sceptical generally. Poland and Japan are the two most vaccine sceptical countries in the world. We have a very large Polish community. We do not have a huge African diaspora in Scotland, but we have reached out to them with trusted voices. I have done quite a lot of that personally. The trick is for me not to do the persuasion. They are not going to listen to the 53-year-old white guy, but I can persuade trusted leaders, give them the data, give them the information and they can take it to the communities. We have done a lot of that and the numbers have gone up. Evidence by the fact that pretty much every over 50-year-old in the country is now vaccinated. Pretty much. Over every over 60-year-old for sure. We continue to do that with communication through faith groups, through community groups, through every other group. I wonder if I could say a word or two on Covid certification since everybody has asked it. Covid certification is now a globally accepted mainstream way of managing the pandemic. Country is all over the world. What our ministers choose to put in Covid certification is a matter for them, but in general Covid certification is accepted as something that is useful at this stage in the pandemic going forward. Airlines have done it, party conferences have done it, countries have done it, independent businesses, cinema owners have done it. I hear night time industry over the weekend saying, we turned away 10 to 20 per cent of people. That sounds to me like Covid certification working. That's exactly what it's meant to do. I was at Murrayfield on Saturday. My vaccine certification was checked as I entered that crowd was safer because of vaccine certification. Absolutely no question. It was safer to be at Murrayfield or a full Celtic park at the weekend because they were vaccine certified. I think that it works. I think that the Deputy First Minister is right that I can't draw you a straight line from vaccine certification to this data. That's impossible. I can't draw it from hand washing either and yet the evidence for hand washing is overwhelming. Inside that basket of measures, Covid certification globally has become one of the ways to manage in a vaccine world how to get out of this pandemic. Just for the record, I'm not necessarily against vaccine passports. I want to put that on the record. What I need to understand is that the implementation of and the way we implement that is the best use of resource in tackling this. That's what I'm on this. Back to the addressing the needs of the vaccine heist. The problem here is what work has been done to ensure that those people are not being excluded from everyday activities because of their concerns around vaccine passports. I think that we are trying not to create this two tier system. The only circumstances in which vaccine certificates are required for entry are, on a rather limited basis, late night premises with music, serving alcohol, indoor events unseated with 500 or more people, outdoor events unseated with 4,000 or more people, any event with more than 10,000 people. If people want to go to a mass event such as a Scotland rugby match or a large football match, then vaccine certification will be required. That's because we think that that is an effective way of trying to suppress the virus and to improve vaccine uptake. If what we have got to do, and I accept this obligation on government, is to make sure that we provide the highest quality information about the rationale why it is in an individual's best interest to be vaccinated, and I think that our clinical colleagues support this argument extremely well in giving dispassionate clinical information. I understand that people will have hesitancy in some circumstances, but all that we can do is provide the best clinical advice that many of us have followed and which we would encourage other citizens to follow too. A very quick last question, if I may, convener. As a Scottish Government, consider what the criteria will be for withdrawing the passport scheme? We have to consider on a three-week basis whether it remains proportionate. That's an issue that we retain under active review. We'll do that again before the 16th of November. We're not dealing with a fixed situation here. We're dealing with the fact that caseload is changing frequently. As I said in one of my earlier answers, the numbers yesterday were unsettling—very unsettling—to ministers. I've not seen the numbers for today—it's a bit early for that—but we'll be watching to see closely. For example, in the briefing that the chief medical officer gave to Cabinet on Tuesday, the last seven days compared to the previous seven days, we've basically been at a high stable level for a few weeks. The numbers were beginning to tick up again compared to the previous seven days. That is something that we will be mindful of as to whether or not we have the right measures in place. We have the COP summit taking place. There are a lot of people there. A lot of people have come into the country for the COP summit. The possibility, which we've flagged up to Parliament already, of a rise in infection over the course of the autumn—autumn, winter, whatever we're in just now—potentially puts further strain on the system. We have to be mindful of the fact that we are dealing with a moving picture on that data. On the question of when we would stop having the vaccine certificate, because it's part of a package, it's not specific in the sense that it's not specific, because we can't tell the impact it's having. I take it that it will continue along with masks and the other restrictions that we have. It's linked to the overall number of cases and the number of people in hospital. Is that what you're saying? Essentially, that's the assessment framework that we've got to undertake. We have a prevalence of the virus, which is roughly, I would say, measured by the number of cases, the levels of vaccination and the pressure on the national health service. Those three factors are pretty critical to the judgment that we're making. On the other side is a set of baseline measures that include face coverings or Covid certification or the encouragement of working from home where that's possible, which are designed to keep as much of the economy and society functioning in a fashion that's consistent with alleviating the harms of the virus. Ministers are making a judgment every three weeks until we think that this is appropriately in balance. Obviously, if the case numbers in hospital get worse, then we have to look at whether the baseline measures are accurate. In the interests of absolute candor with the committee, there is the possibility that baseline measures could be relaxed. There is also the possibility that baseline measures could be expanded. Covid certification could potentially be extended to other sectors or it could have no role to play within our measures. However, that will be dependent on our judgment of proportionality, which is the legal duty that we have to fulfil. That's where I was going next. I mean, I understand Wales, there's more venues, cinemas and so on where it will be required to have a certificate. I mean, I've been enthusiastic, I have to say, about the whole scheme and the fact that it is limited to what I would call extra activities or things that are not a major part of people's lives, I think that has been a good way of dealing with it. However, you know, call it creep or call it whatever, but it clearly is beginning to expand. I think that Professor Leitch said that there are other places requiring it. For example, I'm going to a COP meeting on Monday night and they want to see my certificate. That's slightly more important to me. I don't go to big football matches, as members know. I've not really been required to have it very much. Are you worried that other organisations could be using the certificate excessively or how do you see this moving forward? I don't think—I can quite understand in a society where many, many organisations want to play their part in suppressing the virus. There's lots of organisations in the country and we're very fortunate in that respect. Many organizations, many, many organizations, businesses, institutions recognise the serious threat that's posed to human health from the virus. They want to play their part. I can understand why some of them may take a judgment that they want to—without the Government requiring them to do so—to require individuals who want to come to particular events to do so. I think that those organisations need to make a judgment about whether or not that is leading to any form of exclusivity as a consequence, if they're interested in wider participation. As I'm sure the event that Mr Mason is attending, they will be interested in the range and the diversity of voices that they hear at that event. Organisations have to make that judgment, but I can understand why they want to play their part in trying to do all that we can do to suppress the spread of the virus. What about if employers want it from employees? Does that take it to another level of pressure? Will there be circumstances where employers wish to exercise as much influence as they can to stop the spread of the virus and to enable them to sustain their activities? Employers have to make that judgment. Professor Leitch, do you want to say something on that? Let me not give my personal view. I was tempted. Globally, that is becoming an issue. You'll have noticed in the US that a number of states have said that public employees have to be vaccinated. I think that the Government on advice and policy decision making have consistently said that this will not be an obstruction to public services. From a clinical perspective, that's correct. In the health service, I would not want anybody to have their access to mental health care, pharmacy or anything else, limited by their health status or their ability to evidence that health status. I think that broader than that is a matter for civic society and I would have a view as would you and the Government and the Parliament should decide what to do with that. There is a slightly difficult area and that's care homes and health service employees. The UK generally and the four health ministers continue to discuss that. There is no plan to do so but there is an argument, I think, a clinical argument that says care home workers are different from workers in supermarkets or in DWP. We haven't gone down that route UK-wide and nobody is suggesting we should but that is an area that I think will require consideration. To move on to a slightly different angle, Brian Whittle was always asking about ethnic minority groups and things with lower uptake. One of the figures that struck me was the geographical spread of uptake. We were shown figures that came from Spice that, for example, having had two doses, East and Bartonshire is 96.4 per cent whereas Glasgow, where I happen to represent, is only at 78.9 per cent, which seems quite a variation. Is that something that I should be worried about? It is something that we should all be worried about because clearly the levels of vaccine participation in the likes of East and Bartonshire is, frankly, getting to maximum participation. We would like to have all localities at that level. We know that one of the challenges is around areas of deprivation where people are more reluctant to come forward for such interventions. We are trying our best through the deployment of the vaccine in the way that we have tried to do so to reach as many people as possible. My continued communication from Government is about inviting and encouraging people to be double vaccinated and absolutely anybody who is not yet vaccinated is very welcome to come forward through the different approaches that we have to make sure that they can be vaccinated and we would encourage that higher level of participation. My final point is that our advisers were suggesting that we need to do more work on why people are not being vaccinated. The three words that they used were complacency, confidence and convenience as the things that are stopping people or that we can encourage. In other words, some people are complacent about it and probably the certificates help for that. Are we just having to accept that there is a core bit of the population who will not be vaccinated no matter what we do or that we need to do more work in that area? If we look at those three factors, confidence, convenience and complacency, I think that the Government can do something about complacency and convenience. Convenience, definitely, because we should be making the vaccines as available as readily as we possibly can do. For example, the communities that Mr Mason represents, if an individual was required to use public transport to another part of the city or outside the city to get their vaccine, which involved costs, I think that I can understand why that is inconvenient for people who are on low incomes. We have to make sure that it is available as much as we possibly can do in communities. Mr Mason raises a fair point that we need to perhaps look afresh at the geographical distribution and other particular areas that we need to put buses into, put established clinics in relevant public facilities, churches and so on. We need to be able to reach those individuals, whatever it happens to be, to try to reach those individuals. Convenience, the Government and public authorities can do something about complacency. I think that the public messaging from the Government and the steps that we are taking are designed to tackle any issues of complacency within the population. Confidence, I think, is the sticky one, the really difficult one, because if you are somebody who is anxious about different things in life, if you are somebody who struggles with confidence in public authorities or confidence in your own wellbeing, that might be quite a difficult challenge for us to overcome. However, the way to do so is by genuine engagement with individuals and communities to try to make it as practical and possible for people to be vaccinated. In terms of the way that the legislation has been brought forward, I think that there are genuine concerns being expressed about the lack of scrutiny and the lack of evidence to support the objectives. We see today that you cannot make a claim that increases amongst young people. There is also a danger that, if we start to see the vaccine passport being used and brought in by different organisations, some employees being mandated that they have to use it, there is a danger that this enforcement becomes the only tool in the box. That would be my main point today, is that I am not convinced that the Government is on top of the other measures that were brought in place, that for the majority of people who do not go to the venues that the passport is used, I have still put at risk. I have raised before retail, and I continue to talk to shop workers who tell me when I have seen them all in the eyes, going into shops, particularly younger generations not wearing face coverings. As Brian Whittle talked earlier about the best use of resources, what resources are we putting in to ensure that the other measures are effective? We saw a senior member of the UK Government's advisory board resign the other day, and one of the key points he was making was that face coverings were not mandatory in England, and they should be. They are mandatory here, but if people are just simply ignoring it, so is it the case that the passport is easy to enforce? It is easy to enforce because you have nightclubs and other venues who will have to enforce it, or they won't pay the consequences of that. However, we seem to have lots of companies in retail elsewhere who are simply ignoring staff who are being told that they cannot approach people and tell people that they need to wear the face coverings. The more you see people not doing that, and finally on that point, vaccine hesitancy, are you doing enough to counter the anti-vaxxers and the messages that are going out there? You will have people who see that this is a big conspiracy and all the rest of it. You will never sort that. However, as social media spreads the misinformation that they are putting out, more and more people are amazed by the numbers of people that are now quoting stuff at me that sounds very plausible, and that has grown. There is a danger that you are taking your eye off the ball on the uptake of the vaccine and trying to counteract the anti-vaxxers' messages that are out there. I have seen it first hand. There is a massive danger that you are taking your eye off the ball when it comes to the other measures that I would argue are far more important to try to counter the very real threat of the vaccine itself. I want to assure Mr Rowley that we do not view vaccine certification as the only tool in the box, far from it. The point that Mr Rowley makes about Sir Jeremy Farrow and his resignation from SAGE over the issues of the lack of the application of face coverings in England is a fair point to make. It is a fair contrast because we are continuing to reinforce the importance of baseline measures. I accept that there is a certain amount of resistance to those baseline measures. However, the Government polls on those questions. Generally, there is a very high level of awareness of baseline measures. There is a very high level of compliance with those measures. I am not going to say that it is total because I can see with my own eyes that it is not total. There are circumstances that are of concern. One of the key points that we took an update on at Cabinet on Tuesday was from members of the Cabinet who were deputed the previous week to reinforce the messaging to critical sectors in the economy about the application of baseline measures. That has been a consistent part of the strategy that the Government has taken of direct engagement by ministers and our officials with sectors of the economy to make sure that they are playing their part. As a personal anecdote, I happened to be travelling on a Caledonian McBrane ferry during October. I was very struck by the public messaging that was put in normal when you are on a CalMac ferry. You got a safety briefing over the tannery system. You also got briefings about the availability of high-quality catering in the cafeteria as well, which is always a treat, but there was very heavy messaging about the importance of wearing face coverings in enclosed spaces. I would say that compliance was very high on that trip. I appreciate that that is just one example. I would be struck during COP in looking at some of the feedback from individuals who have come into Scotland talking about the level of compliance about the wearing of face coverings on public transport that has been much higher in Scotland than they are experiencing in other parts of the United Kingdom. The point that Mr Rowley makes is absolutely right. Those baseline measures—face covering, social distancing, hand washing, working from home—all of those baseline measures are critical. I would contend that the Government is concentrating on those measures. Yes, there is vaccination certification as well, but it is not the only tool in the box that we are utilising, and we will continue to do that. On vaccine hesitancy, there are difficulties. People are having their heads turned by some of the nonsense that is circulating. The best antidote that we can have to that is by putting forward sound clinical advice, which is why we invest so much time in making sure that the chief medical officer, the national clinical director and their colleagues are able to have the opportunity to interact directly with members of the public and give that clinical advice. Through the mainstream media and on social media, in a way that carries a lot of weight because those are experienced clinicians able to support the public in making their judgments and to try to counter some of the points that are circulating more widely, which would encourage vaccine hesitancy and virus skepticism. Like Mr Rowley, I have been concerned by some of the things that have been said to me in my constituents about those questions. It is deeply unsettling when you hear it because I know and appreciate the risks that are faced by members of the public if they are not vaccinated. All I would say to you is that if an eye-clump owner does not enforce a passport, they would be in difficulty. You need to take the same approach to retailers, and if you are not prepared to take that approach, then we are going to see, particularly as I have seen first hand, among younger generations, ignoring the fact that they should be wearing face coverings in shops. I think that Mr Rowley makes an absolutely fair point. I have not in any way tried to dismiss that point. Indeed, going back to what I said in response to Mr Whittle and Mr Mason, if we find ourselves in the next few weeks with our rising prevalence of the virus and greater pressure on the national health service than we are already experiencing, the national health service is under absolutely colossal pressure just now, as Mr Rowley and I have exchanged about that. We might have to take stronger measures, which might apply greater mandatory force. What we are saying to business organisations, transport providers, various public authorities and all sorts of organisations is that we need to get folk to wear face coverings, to observe social distancing and to do the baseline stuff, because if we do not, we will end up with more significant restrictions. I would not want the committee to take any message from me other than the fact that the Government is wrestling with that dilemma. We want to avoid having to take more restrictions, but if we have to, we will, because we have a public duty to protect members of the public. You need to look at retail, but I have two other points. My first one that I want to talk about is the redirection from accident and emergency that has been announced as a policy by the Government. I want to quote Dr Andrew Bust, the BMA's Scottish GP chair. He says, this is about proper resourcing across the whole system. A&E is under massive pressure, so are GPs and this should not result in anyone being redirected from A&E to their GP practice. Last week, we discussed with Professor Leitch, among others, the very real difficulties that people are having in trying to get face-to-face appointments. Is this going to pour more pressure on other parts? Are you looking at the whole of the NHS, simply trying to refer people and keep them out of the accident emergency? If they cannot then be signposted to where they need to go, what is the point? I will bring Professor Leitch in a second. The key point here is that people should access the healthcare resources that are appropriate for their condition. I know that that is a bit of a debate in the parliamentary chamber, which is a slightly less cerebral forum than the parliamentary committees, where we can discuss those questions. That is not me arguing for self-diagnosis. It is me arguing for people who are only going to be in an accident when they are in an emergency situation. That is an important point to establish that people should go to the appropriate healthcare setting for the symptoms and circumstances that they have. The point that Dr Buist makes is that the whole healthcare system is under pressure, and I accept that unreservedly. It was not just the whole healthcare system, but the whole healthcare and social care system is under colossal pressure, because as Mr Rowley and I have again exchanged in the chamber. Part of the problem at A&E is that hospital wards are congested, and hospital wards are congested because there are people in hospital wards that should not be there. They should be supported by care packages at home or in another care setting. However, we do not have enough people in social care to deliver all those settings, so there is a whole system pressure. From that, I think that the best thing that we can do is to try to make sure that people are supported and get their healthcare addressed in the appropriate setting to their circumstances. If somebody is having an acute emergency and needs an ambulance, that is what they should get. If they need to be admitted to A&E, they need to be admitted to A&E on clinical grounds. However, if there is an alternative solution through a pharmacy or a GP or NHS inform or whatever the device, then as long as that is appropriate to the person's circumstances, we should enable them to take that up. That is not about overloading any particular piece of the puzzle. It is a whole system approach to try and get people the right care in the right place. They do not wait too long in the ED and then they do not get the right care. Come to ED with toothache, you are not going to get the right care in the ED. You are going to get that at your dentist. If you have come there, we are going to redirect you to the right place for it. If you need an optometry review rather than a long wait and an ophthalmology review, it might be more appropriate for you to be directed to your optician rather than wait in the ED at 2 in the morning and get an ophthalmology appointment two days later. Mr Buist is absolutely right. We do not want to use this as a dumping in any direction, but Andrew Buist also wants to see the appropriate patients in primary care. He does not want the ED patients there and he wants primary care patients in general practice. That is one element of how we do that. It is just formalising guidance that has existed for a long time. Some EDs are better at it than others. Tayside is the best example we have. They have done redirection for many years. They have usually been at the top of the league table for waits in terms of the top of the league table being the best place to be rather than the worst place to be. Glasgow has started to do this redirection. It has worked really well. This is yesterday about formalising that guidance, so all EDs do the same thing. We have been warned in this committee for weeks and weeks now that if primary care and community care is failing, those people would end up at the door reaction emergency. That is what we are seeing happening. If you are then sending them back into another part of the health service that is failing, then that is not going to work. I would like to come to my third point. I am not sure that you can do that without asking me a question and allowing me to respond. To me that is the point that I acknowledge. The whole system is under pressure. I am not sitting here trying to deny that. Ultimately it comes back to the fact that in a variety of different settings in the Government it is trying to do as much as we can about this. We do not have enough people available to deliver the healthcare that we require. I am going to come back to talking about the availability of people because of free movement of the population. We have lost that. We have lost people who have left our country who are offering social care services, and they have gone because of Brexit and the loss of free movement. The workforce has been thinned down because of that. It is a hard reality that we are trying to recruit more people. That is why the health secretary has announced enhancements to social care remuneration. That is why we have expanded the resources that are available for social care services because we accept entirely the point that Mr Rowley is making that if somebody cannot be supported in their home then they are going to end up in some form of healthcare setting. It might not be necessary for them to be there because they could be perfectly well supported at home, but if they have not got a care package at home they cannot be properly supported at home. I think that we are in violent agreement here. What kind of pressure has been put on the NHS as a result of the growth of private healthcare in Scotland? I read just recently that demand has rocketed between April and June this year by over 1,100. There were 3,400 patients up for 2,300 over the same period last year, so if you take cardiac surgery up 85 per cent in private hospitals, replacement perhaps rose by 144 per cent. We seem to be moving in this country where the private sector is investing more and more and we are seeing more growth. That must be putting pressure on NHS staff, for example. Are you content that we are starting to see a situation grow where if you have got the money and you need a heart replacement or you need some other kind of medical treatment, the only way you are going to get that anytime soon is to go private and buy it. For those who cannot afford it, it goes against the very principles upon which the NHS was established. I think that I would want to look at that. I am not familiar with the data that Mr Rowley raises, but I think that he is quite clearly—I see this from my constituency cases—people are having to wait longer for what we now consider in life to be relatively routine. That is why the Government is investing in the elective care centres. I saw one being built in Inverness on Monday on the Inverness campus site as a 24-bed unit being built there, which is going to be essentially one of those facilities. Mr Fairlie and I welcome very much the investments that have been made by the health service in his constituency at Perth Royal Infirmary on a similar venture. That is the Government investing to make it easier for what one would call routine surgery to take place, which cannot be disrupted by the other disruptions that can happen within the health service. That is all about making sure that we have expanded capacity to deal with the fact that, with an ageing population, more people will need cataract, knee and hip operations. By that investment, we are trying to make sure that that happens within the national health service and that it is available to all citizens, regardless of their financial circumstances. Obviously, if the private sector wants to pay for such treatment and they feel that they have to, that choice is available to people if they have those resources. I also accept that that potentially can draw people away from working in the national health service. Unfortunately, the sixth person who asked a lot of my stuff has already been brought through, but there are some details that are missing for me, so you will get a wee stream of consciousness here. The first thing that I want to ask is, has twice been mentioned this morning that the Welsh system gives you a passport or a test? Am I not right in thinking that it is both? You still need the passport to get into venues in Wales and they are increasing the number of places in Wales. Is it not both as opposed to one or the other? I do not think that it is both. I think that it is one or the other, but it is to a broader range of venues than ours. Ours is quite a limited range of venues, but Wales, I think from my recollection, theatres and cinemas are involved. I think that it is in hospitality as well. It is in hospitality, so it is in too much wider sectors, but I think that it is one or the other. Earlier on, there was the mention of who mentioned it about the hard core that you are never going to reach. There is always going to be a hard core that we are never going to reach, and to be perfectly honest, you just have to accept that that is the case. We have the figures here for the demographic areas where we are, and as we get to the point where we are getting to the stage where we know that that hard core is not going to take a vaccine, we have to accept that that is the case. At what point is there a tipping point where you say, right, we have everybody who is going to take the vaccine. We are controlling the virus to the best measure that we have. I get that we cannot make that straight line between, well, that is work because of that. I get that it is a sweeter measure, there is a kind of a Belt and Braces approach to it. At what point do you get to a tipping point where you say, well, everybody who is going to take the vaccine has got it, the infection is at a stabilised rate, there is no real value in having the passport anymore because we have reached that tipping point. Is that a viable proposition to get to a later stage? Can I come to Mr Faley's question a second, but I think I better just correct what I said a second ago about Wales. Wales has introduced a mandate to the NHS Covid pass on 11 October, and the Government is planning to extend the scheme to theatres, cinemas and concert halls from 15 November. On 29 October, the First Minister of Wales said that the hospitality industry needs to use the next three weeks to prepare for the possibility that Covid passes may have to be introduced in that setting, so it is not quite as definitive as I said a moment ago. I can just correct that point in the interests of harmony amongst devolved Governments. On Mr Faley's point, there is a judgment that has to be arrived at and he is absolutely correct, and I think I covered this in my answer to Mr Mason. There are three principal points that the Government looks at in judging the state of the pandemic and the actions that we are taking in relation to the strategic intent. Cases of the virus, levels of vaccination and pressures on the national health service. If we found vaccination levels getting to exceptionally high levels, cases really falling and the health service being under less pressure, then we would not have a proportionate argument for maintaining the limited restrictions that we have in place or the vaccine certification scheme. We have to assess whether there is a proportionate argument that can be sustained for those provisions. In theory, that point could be reached. We are nowhere near it, because cases are very high. The health service is under acute pressure. Vaccine levels are really good, but they are not complete. I am going to come back to something that we talked about last week to Professor Leitch. I was contacted by a constituent after our exchange last week regarding natural immunity as opposed to vaccination immunity. I have been sent reams of evidence—I do not know whether that evidence is correct or not—that natural immunity is more effective than vaccine immunity. If you have natural immunity, you are being exposed to the virus' entire sequence of about 30,000 genes as opposed to a vaccine that is primarily focused on the spike. I want to have the freedoms that everybody else has got, because I have had Covid and I do not want to take the vaccine. How do you answer that concern that there is a belief that natural immunity is as strong as a vaccine-given immunity? I have been contacted by the same constituent. I have the same pile of documents from a number of sources. Let us keep it simple. Natural immunity does not last forever, nor does vaccine immunity. Whether you have had the virus or the vaccine, you need to stay immune. Let us talk about length of time rather than type of immunity. Therefore, you need the vaccine. You are not permanently protected by either. You are temporarily protected by both. However, as we said last week, I cannot take your blood and decide if you are a one out of ten or a four out of ten or a ten out of ten. It is literally scientifically impossible. The argument would therefore be that we would just let the country catch it and then we would be fine. That way lies real, real trouble for both us and the world. On top of natural immunity, to the best of my knowledge, I have not had Covid, but if I have or if I had, I would happily take the vaccine 28 days later. That leaves the question then for the Government. If that person knows that they have had Covid and they know the timescale that they have had it because they have had a positive test, are their rights being impinged by saying, Well, I do not want to get that vaccine. I know that I have got a certain amount of immunity because I have had that positive test. Why should that person not be given the freedom to say that is my vaccine by having had the disease? For the simple reason that Professor Leitch indicates that immunity does not last forever, whether you get it because you have contracted Covid or because you have had the vaccine. When we look at the serious health implications of Covid for individuals, as a Government, we have a duty to do all that we can to protect the health of the public in the circumstances that require us to take the steps that we take. If we just said, as I think Mr Fairlie's constituent is trying to suggest, let's just let people get Covid, then have we learned nothing for the last 18 months? Have we literally learned absolutely nothing from the last 18 months? On Thursday, I sat on Tuesday afternoon with the families of a bereave who have lost loved ones in care homes contributing to the thinking that the Government is putting into the terms of reference on the Covid inquiry. Probably the best thing on vaccine hesitancy is that we should actually get the people who are vaccine hesitant to sit and have a conversation with the bereaved relatives who have lost loved ones in care homes. I let them listen to it because I am telling you that I sit through many conversations that are very tough in my role as a minister and that was a tough one on Tuesday, believe you me. I absolutely take the point on board and, as I say, I am merely passing on the regards of my constituent. In terms of the talking about the compulsory vaccination, we spoke in this committee before about compulsory vaccination for care home workers. There is a company in my constituency who has made that a stipulation. I have to say that I totally agree with it because I, like yourself, are speaking to people who have lost loved ones due to Covid. I am going to move on very quickly to something that has been mentioned in here before, and that is long Covid. While we battle with the pandemic as it is, I think that long Covid has the potential, and it is just my consideration for what I am hearing from other people, that long Covid has the potential to give us long-term damage long after we come out of the current period that we are in. There is specifically a group called Long Kid Covid—long Covid kids—who are the parents of children who have had Covid, and we are talking as young as two and three-year-olds who have severe problems. There is no question here that it is merely an urging the Government to look seriously at what is happening with kids with Covid. I assure Mr Fairlie that the Government is doing that because it is important that every individual has their clinical needs properly addressed and supported as they wrestle with those circumstances. For some people, Covid will be a relatively mild experience for others. It will have long and enduring effects, and we have to make sure that, in whatever circumstance, people are properly and fully supported. Graham Simpson, can I bring you in? I am really sorry, because we are running really short of time now. We are meant to have finished by now, so we can make it very brief. I appreciate your up against the clock, as this committee always is, convener. I will be as brief as I can be. To inform the committee, the committee is aware of the decision that the Delegated Powers Committee took on the regulations. I sit on that committee. I am not the convener, so I cannot report back in that sense. Essentially, the committee took the view that the procedure used to bring in those regulations was inappropriate, the procedure being that this came into effect. As you are doing today, the policy committee has a look at it. The Delegated Powers Committee felt that was the wrong procedure. Just as a point of information, we are now in discussions with the Government on setting up a series of protocols that would be useful for everyone to determine when the made affirmative procedure should be used. I can ask if I have time just to make a comment and people can respond if they wish. Professor Leitch mentioned earlier his experience of going to rugby on Saturday. He also mentioned football matches. I did not go to the rugby on Saturday, but I have spoken to people who did. Their experience was that they were getting waved through. Somebody has described to me a steward saying, the app is down, in you come. I have been to three football matches since this scheme came into effect. The checks such as they are are cursory. I flash a bit of paper at a steward. It is not looked at in any great detail. It could be showing them anything on your way through. I would suggest that for any club in Scotland to do anything different would cause absolute chaos if they were to start scanning everyone, you could not get everyone in. The way things are working on the ground makes the scheme, frankly, rather pointless, because people are not being checked properly and they are getting into events. I am comfortable with that because I do not see how else you could do it. I asked previously, convener, about theatres when I was last here. I think that there is a bit of a confused picture. Ms Sadler told me that all Scottish theatres were exempt from this, which is the case legally, but there is a rather confused picture out there. For instance, the Osher hall here in Edinburgh, some events are requiring you to show a vaccine passport, some are not. If you look at other theatres, which seem to be doing their own thing, the playhouse… Sorry, Mr Simpson, but we really have to move on. Could Professor Leitch or Deputy First Minister… There is a lot in there. Two principle points that I will make. The first is in relation to the made affirmative procedure. The Government is dealing with a pandemic that requires us to take actions in a swift fashion, but we have to be mindful of the question of proportionality in our actions. We used the made affirmative procedure here because we were concerned about the rising cases and the need to improve vaccination levels, but we had to be certain that that was going to be proportionate. We had to give warning that we were going to move in that direction, but ultimately the final detail could only be put in place with the swiftness that the made affirmative procedure allows us to do. I want to point out that Parliament considered this question on two occasions before the measures came into force—one on Government time and one on Conservative time—and on both occasions that the Government's position was supported by Parliament. We will of course engage with the Delegated Powers Committee on those questions. On the issue of the use of vaccine certificates, Celtic Football Club reported that 75 per cent of attendees at one of their games in the last week were checked. The initial reports from the rugby match on Saturday were that around 40 per cent of people were checked, which is much higher than would be anticipated by the scheme. I understand the concerns that Mr Simpson has, but we cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, Mr Simpson's colleagues will suggest to me that the application of the scheme is being so effective that it is disrupting the night-time economy. On the other hand, we have an argument today that says that the scheme is not being effective at all. We cannot have it both ways. It is either being effective and it is disrupting parts of the economy or it is not being effective. We cannot run the arguments that are totally contradictory. The point that I am making is that the scheme is working well, it is working well as envisaged in all the circumstances that it was intended for, and the Government believes it to be a proportionate intervention. The third agenda item, which is consideration of the motions on the made affirmative instruments, is considered during the previous agenda item. Deputy First Minister, would you like to make any further remarks on the SSIs listed under agenda item 3 before we take the motions? In fact, I set out in the beginning my reflections on all of the instruments, so I won't add any further comments at this stage. I now invite you to move motion S6M-01399. I don't doubt the intention of the Scottish Government in seeking to bring in the Covid certification scheme. However, we still have not heard compelling evidence that it has value. Despite the assertions that we have heard this morning from the Cabinet Secretary, we have however had significant evidence. Sorry, Mr Fraser. This one is about the local authorities. I thought you were taking the both together, my apologies. No, I am going to do this separately. Sorry, that was probably my fault. I should have explained that. Can I ask if members are agreed for motion S6M-01399 to be agreed? We will now consider the next motion under agenda item. I invite the Cabinet Secretary to move motion S6M-01529. I don't question the intention of the Government on bringing in the vaccination certification scheme, but we have yet to hear evidence of its positive impacts. We have significant evidence of its negative impacts. We have heard that from the Scottish Human Rights Commission. We have heard that from those concerned about civil liberties. We have heard about the negative economic impacts. If the Scottish Government were to go down the route of offering the alternative that is offered in Wales and every other European country that has brought in the certification scheme, which is also to produce a negative Covid test, I think that is something that we would be more sympathetic to, but we cannot support this scheme as it stands. Can I ask for members who agree with the motion to raise their hands? I will read out the results. My self as convener was yes for the motion. Murdo Fraser was no. Jim Fairlie, yes. John Mason, yes. Alex Rowley, yes. Brian Whittle, no. We have four agreed and two disagreed, so the motion passes. The committee will publish a report to the Parliament setting out our decision on the statutory instruments considered at this meeting in due course. That concludes our consideration of this agenda item and our time with the Deputy First Minister. I would like to thank the Deputy First Minister and his supporting officials for their attendance this morning. I will now suspend to allow a change over witnesses. Members are advised that we will have a short comfort break during the suspension. Good morning. I bring this meeting back into session and we move to agenda item number four. This morning we are taking evidence from a panel of experts in ventilation on baseline health protection measures. I would like to welcome to the meeting Dr Hewl Davies, technical director of Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, Dr Sean Fitzgerald, director of the Centre for Climate Repair at Cambridge University, Professor Catherine Nokes, Professor of Environmental Engineering for Buildings, University of Leeds and Professor Tim Sharp, head of architecture at the University of Strathclyde. Welcome. Thank you for giving us your time this morning. This is the first of four evidence sessions we have planned on baseline health protection measures. These measures are the main tools we are using to respond to the Covid-19 and they include steps we are taking to enhance ventilation in our homes, workplaces and settings where public services are delivered. This morning's session really is a short scoping session for us to consider the role of ventilation and how it will be played in lessening the impact of Covid-19, especially over the winter period. We will also consider the role of ventilation might play in the recovery phase of the pandemic. We hope that this session will inform further sessions that we plan to hold as part of this inquiry where we will be hearing from stakeholders in health and social care services, the hospitality, business and leisure sectors and also in schools. I will now turn to questions if I may begin by asking the first question. Could the witnesses briefly outline what you think are the main challenges that we need to address in relation to ventilation as part of our response to Covid? Can I start with Dr Davies? Dr Davies, I think that you are on mute. We were having a few technical issues earlier on. Can you hear me now? Yes, I can. Thank you. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee. In terms of where we might want to go, certainly in the short term, the biggest opportunity is around getting people to concentrate on what they have got and getting it to work properly. One of the things that has become quite clear over the last year to 18 months is that a lot of buildings haven't been as well ventilated as they could be, that things that should be working haven't been working, perhaps things haven't been properly maintained and getting people to do those things would be a very good start and need not be hugely expensive or time consuming. There are some fairly straightforward things that can be done and I believe that the committee is aware of some of the guidance that the institution has produced along with others, including the HSE. Another area where perhaps we could concentrate is just getting over some of the basic messages about the role of ventilation. I did look before the hearing at some of what has been produced on the Scottish Government website and there's some helpful material there. The role of getting fresh air into buildings is important and it might be worth asking Dr Fitzgerald to talk a little bit about the use of windows because I think that that's something that perhaps seems a very simple trivial thing, open the window, but there might be a little bit more to it than that. There's a lot that we can do around fairly simple tasks before we get into more complicated discussions but I think that it might be worth turning to Dr Fitzgerald to talk about the use of windows, for example. Can I bring in Dr Fitzgerald? Just one comment I'd like to make as we live in very cold Scotland and moving into the winter having energy prices increasing astronomically at the moment and opening our windows. That's just my hesitation. I understand why we would do it for ventilation but in reality are people going to do that when they come for their energy bills. Can I bring in Dr Fitzgerald? Yes, and again, thank you for allowing us to contribute to this session. I'm grateful for that. For me there are two issues and one is ensuring that the spaces are adequately ventilated. I think that there needs to be absolute clarity that we don't want places to be so cold that we've lost the battle in terms of therefore making environments, especially working environments, educational environments. If they're so cold, then why, if people are coming in there and they're not able to function, learn appropriately, they may as well be at home. We've got to make sure that we don't have spaces that are overly cold but conversely we've got to make sure that they are providing appropriate amounts of insulation. One of the things that could help greatly is ensuring that spaces are using high-level windows rather than low-level windows wherever possible. There are two benefits for that. The first is that if the air is coming in through a high-level window it will then mix with the interior air before it then hits anybody and therefore you could help ameliorate what would otherwise be fairly cold drafts. That's the first point. The second point is that if anyone is standing one of things like this, if you're just using low-level openings, frankly that air at the top of the room is not then being ventilated and displaced. For a health benefit as well you want to ensure that you're using high-level windows. Unfortunately, my experience is that many many spaces are still not that well maintained. If you have older type buildings that are using, for example, sash windows it is quite common for the top stashes to be painted shut and therefore people just using the lower sash windows. It's very simple, but the idea about cracking the top sash windows open can provide massive benefits. I would stress back to your point, Collina, that it's important that we don't freeze the spaces and therefore what we're looking for is ensuring that it's the very poorly ventilated spaces that we need to bring them up to a standard so that we then don't have major hotspots for infections. The second issue that I would like to cite is to do with culture. There are certain educational environments where there almost seems to be a huge focus where there is a lot of ventilation. I would argue sometimes too much ventilation if we're going to then impair the learning of children, for example. I mean lots of environments where there's been a lot of attention to ventilation, which is great, but I think it's important that we then don't overventilate that. Comparing that with other environments and the one that I'm going to cite is mainly the retail hospitality sector in particular, where there can be challenges regarding providing no spaces with ventilation, especially as the colder weather sets in, just keeping the windows closed. There needs to be very high degree of disparity between different kinds of settings where ventilation is adhered to. I'm going to let somebody else speak, actually, how you might gauge what is an appropriate level of ventilation through the use of, for example, cupboard outside monitors. It might be best if Professor Knokes or Professor Sharp made comments on that. Professor Knokes has asked to speak. Can I invite you in, Professor Knokes? Thank you very much again for inviting me to join this session today. I was going to make two comments. One was, I think, there is, we've talked about some of the things already that you can do around ventilation, but before we even get to that point, people need to know why ventilation matters. I think that there is a variability in knowledge still that some people are still very much focused on washing their hands and the virus transmits on surfaces. As we've gone through the course of the pandemic, we've learned an awful lot more about transmission. It is very likely now that the majority of transmission happens through inhalation of the virus. You're at greater risk of that when you're close to somebody. In certain settings, particularly in rooms where people may be talking for long periods of time, singing for long periods of time or doing aerobic exercise, they generate more virus particles and then you can get a longer range airborne transmission across a room at more than two metres. I think that getting across the understanding of transmission then helps people to understand why ventilation matters. Of course, it matters much more in workplace settings, educational settings, communal settings than in your own home. If you're in your home when it's just you and your family, it's less of an issue where you don't need to have your windows wide open all the time if you don't interact with others, but perhaps when you have visitors you should be thinking about ventilating an environment. When it comes to ventilation, just to follow on from the short points that Dr Fitzgerald made, one is the fact that we don't have to open windows, we don't have to ventilate continuously. You can actually open windows a small amount. When the weather is colder, you get more ventilation as the weather gets colder for the same size of opening, so you can get away with making apologies. It's a bit annoying if you've got some background noise there. I'm by the main road with an open window. As you reduce the size of an opening in cold weather, you still get quite good flow through those openings, so you don't need anywhere near as big a window opening in cold weather as you do in warm weather. Therefore, you can also open windows periodically rather than just opening them all the time. You perhaps open them for a few minutes every hour to refresh the air in a space, and that can help you to manage that balance between temperature and energy bills and ventilation. As Dr Fitzgerald indicated, carbon dioxide metres in some settings might be a very good way of managing that ventilation. A human breathes out carbon dioxide. We breathe it out at a higher rate than is naturally present in the air. When you measure carbon dioxide in an indoor environment, it gives you an idea of how much of the air in that space has previously been breathed by other people, how much of it is exhaled air and how much of it is fresh air. The closer it is to background levels, outdoor levels are around about 400 parts per million, the better the ventilation is. We have looked at some of the data on that, and we have suggested that if buildings have carbon dioxide levels around about 800 parts per million or less, that is actually quite good ventilation. However, if you have regularly seen high values of 1500 parts per million or much higher, you should be thinking about trying to improve the ventilation in that space or reducing the occupancy in that space. Carbon dioxide metres can be used for that. It is not something that you can do in every space, but it works quite well, particularly in offices, schools and classrooms. Those spaces have the same people regularly over periods of time. Perhaps I will hand over to Professor Sharp, who may be able to talk a little bit more about that. Yes, thank you. Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I would agree with all the points that have been made previously. One of the challenges about ventilation is that it is at the same time very simple and very complicated. One of the issues with it is that you cannot see or feel ventilation in the same way that you can see or feel thermal comfort. So trying to assess what the ventilation is of a space is actually quite challenging. That is one of the reasons that things like CO2 monitors can be helpful in that they give you some kind of indication of what is going on in that space. That can be useful if nothing else raises an awareness of what is going on there. They are by no means a measure of ventilation. They are an indicator. It is a very blunt tool, but nevertheless it is a potentially useful tool in some situations and gives an opportunity for users to help to manage their space. The first port of call here is trying to get people to do what they can to manage that ventilation. That includes that thermal comfort issue. You do not want to over ventilate and be very cold, but at the same time you want to get reasonable levels. Having something that helps you to maintain that level is quite useful. The other thing is in terms of the measures. The first measure is trying to get occupants and people and indeed building owners to do what they should be doing in terms of managing that space. The second then is if what we are seeing is spaces that do not appear to be well ventilated or cannot be well ventilated, what measures do we need to take? That is things like unsticking those windows, making sure that the systems are effective and work. Perhaps introducing relatively simple things. There are windows that are also vents. It does not have to be a window. There are things like trickle vents in some spaces which give you that background. As Professor Dote said, it does not need to be leaving things open all the time. It may be intermittent opening. For example, in classrooms between classes, just purging that space is a useful technique. What we are concerned about, ventilation is one of a hierarchy of measures. The concern here is the spaces that might be more affected by ventilation. They are spaces that are occupied for a long period of time by relatively high numbers of people. That is the principal concern. Thank you very much. It is some very fascinating points raised there. Just one quick question. Just looking at businesses, for example, and maybe people looking at returning people back to offices and the hospitality industry. How accessible is a carbon dioxide readings for normal businesses to get those readings from their premises? I am not sure who would like to come in. I can contribute in that I used to run a company where we provided lots and lots of these sorts of sensors as part of just our standard fare. They are typically anywhere between £100 and £200 per sensor depending on how many you buy. They are reasonably available. Clearly, I do not think that we can provide, for example, 32,000 monitors for all the schools all in one fell swoop, but they are available. What I would urge people is to think carefully about the quality of the sensors and the timescale of the urgency. The reason being is that the more expensive, the better the sensor and the less work they then need in terms of what we call calibration. Some of the cheaper ones might only be appropriate for this current winter, but in terms of just the priorities, maybe that is okay for the moment. I will hand over to others then. Thanks very much. I might bring in members for questions. Murdo Fraser, please. I just have one question for the panel in relation to the issues in schools. I received quite a number of complaints from teachers who at the moment are complaining that in most of the schools that I am aware of, the ventilation is purely open windows, which in the summer might be fine. At this time of year is clearly causing an increasingly uncomfortable environment, both for the teaching staff and pupils. We have in many schools a situation where the radiators are positioned close to or even under the windows. The heating is on full blast. Most of the heat is going straight out of the window. That is not just bad for the climate, but it is also very bad for the schools' heating bills, as you might imagine. The First Minister announced back in the summer that she was providing local authorities with an additional £10 million to support enhanced ventilation in schools. I am wondering if anybody has any sense of what would be the likely overall cost in fitting adequate ventilation to schools to try to deal with this issue. Even if the money was available, how practical and under what timescale could that work actually be done, because presumably it would take months if not years to bring every school in Scotland up to an adequate standard? It is a real challenge, and I think that what it is demonstrating is that we have got a legacy of buildings that we have not thought very much about for many, many years. I guess going back to the beginning about a point earlier around carbon dioxide monitoring. For the short term, that can be quite a viable solution for schools because many of these carbon dioxide monitors, as well as showing you the CO2 levels, will also show you the temperatures. You can try to use that to balance the environment, but I appreciate that it is a very difficult thing for schools to manage. We probably need to start thinking about what is the strategy for how you identify those schools that do not have effective ventilation and how you start to put a plan together for improving that ventilation over the longer term. You may find that it is not all schools. There will be some schools that have issues across the whole of the school estate. There are other schools where it might be a small number of rooms that have issues. There are other things that can be done in the short term, so it is possible to use portable air-cleaning technologies, which might rely on pulling the air in the room through a high-efficiency particulate filter, which can then remove virus from the air and enable. It does not ventilate the space, but it will reduce risks in those spaces, which are perhaps harder to ventilate. Ultimately, they are only a temporary solution because they do not ventilate the space. We know that ventilation is not just important for Covid reasons. It is also important for productivity and cognitive reasons, as well as general health and wellbeing. Every school, every workplace will be different. There is no simple one-size-fits-all retrofit solution, but there are technologies out there. For example, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery systems, which can be retrofitted. They can often be quite standalone systems, but I could not tell you the costs of it. It is not something that I have particularly looked at, but it will cost money. However, I guess that this is something that, as a long-term strategic challenge, is thinking about the health of the public health benefits wider than Covid. Thinking about exposure to air quality, thinking about learning outcomes and thinking about preparation for what might be the next pandemic. Perhaps it is time that we thought about that long-term investment in some of our buildings. It is a legacy that we have not necessarily invested in them over many years. Can I please bring in Professor Sharp? Yes, thank you. A couple of things, just not on that point. Firstly, buildings should be designed and constructed and maintained to meet building standards. That is the case, whether we are in Covid or not. One of the unfortunate facts is that this pandemic has revealed some deficiencies there, unfortunately. One of the challenges that we have here is that we realise now that we have very little knowledge about how buildings actually perform in practice, and that is a real challenge that we have here. Building should be doing what it should be doing in terms of meeting regulations. That is still non-negotiable. What this gives an opportunity to do is to gather some information on how those buildings are working and then put in those measures to try to make the performance in general. That is a whole range of things. That is certainly ventilation, but it is also energy as well. One of the big challenges of construction is that we do not regularly go back and monitor the results of our buildings. Therefore, we are flying a little bit blind in terms of understanding actual performance and therefore the implications of that. Can I please bring in Professor FitzGerald? Yes. Back to the specific question regarding the idea about opening windows and the heat going out of the windows. I repeat in terms of the preferred strategy. If you have a school and all you have right now, and I am thinking about the current winter, is opening windows, is the use of the high-level windows? The problem is that, if you have a low-level window and a high-level window, which is often used, the air will come in through the low-level window, heated by the radiator. What that radiator is really doing is not only adding heat to the air to a miliar, it will then be a cold draft. It is then causing heating in the classroom and, if you are ventilating in accordance with modern building regulations, the classroom gets too hot weirdly and the air is then leaving through the high-level vent. All those problems are changed if you are focusing on just using high-level vents. The radiator itself will be a lot more effective and use a lot less energy. As director of the Centre for Climate Repair and a lot of my research and work has been about trying to reduce the energy consumption in the built environment. I have done a huge amount of schools getting the ventilation strategy right. My first port of call will be to try and use the infrastructure that you already had, namely the opening windows, and being smart about the way that they are used. If, in the future, there is an opportunity to look at, for example, putting in some assisted devices because the opening windows are just not the right design or they are insufficient, then if you want, in terms of the prices, within the industry, something like £3,000 to £5,000 for equipment alone is about the order to go and fix ventilation in many kinds of classrooms. Jim Fairlie. Thank you, convener. This is the Covid recovery committee and I actually see this as a bit of an opportunity. Professor Sharp, you were just talking about the building regulations that we currently have. If you are building a house right now, you have to make sure that you have the trickle ventilation in the windows compared to the size of the room for the size of the window that you have, et cetera, et cetera. There is an opportunity here for us to be able to, because you are absolutely right, I have been in schools myself where you cannot get the window open, that was the case when I was at school a very long time ago, and some of those windows would not have been open since then. There is an opportunity here for us, as a country, to say, we have a problem, we know what this problem will help us to transmit a virus in these enclosed spaces. A very simple solution to some of those high-opening windows, and I am taking on what you are saying, Dr Fitzgerald, about the high-level ventilation. By simply putting in trickle vents to some of these wood-framed windows in some of these older Victorian schools, is that going to be sufficient to be able to allow us to have the heat down the bottom, the trickle vent at the top? Is that in itself going to be enough to create enough ventilation within some of these spaces? Would you like me to answer that? Yes, please. Right, so my experience is as follows, trickle vents are typically very small, and the amount of ventilation that you get there is probably insufficient for 30 children. What I am going to repeat as a note is at a point, that for a given opening, when it gets cold outside and you are trying to maintain an interior temperature of say 21 degrees centigrade, you get a lot more ventilation. Because of the bigger temperature difference, the bigger density difference, and of course in winter, you have more wind blowing as well. I would urge that we just look at our high-level windows and see whether we can get those to function properly. Unfortunately, that is revealing a problem in the way that we maintain and manage our buildings and the attention that we have put over the years regarding making sure that everything is working properly. It is just revealing some problems in terms of the culture within the facilities management aspect of buildings. I think that that is what we need to address rather than saying that we are going to fit trickle vents in windows. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I was going to bring in John Mason because he has got to leave to go to the chamber shortly. Thanks very much. Building on what folk have said so far, I think that I have a couple of questions. My first one would be, I am assuming that older buildings might be better than newer buildings because the ceilings are higher, they are probably more draughty because they are not so sealed. I am thinking both of public buildings and of people's homes. Is that a fair assumption? Professor Knox, I think that you were nodding a little bit. I think that this will depend. In a lot of places, yes, the older buildings will have the higher ceilings, they will be leakier and they will naturally have more ventilation. It is very uncontrolled ventilation often in a leaky building. One of the challenges that we have had is that some buildings have been retrofitted over the years and quite often those very old buildings have been retrofitted with UPVC windows and instead of now having windows that open at both the low level and the high level, they now only open at one place. They are cheaper windows. We have engineered out often the ventilation strategies that we have put in place in those original buildings. Again, it is thinking through the consequences of something that might have been done for an energy perspective and may have been done for cost reasons. It is cheaper to have a window that only has one opening than has two openings or has three openings. I think that this perhaps comes back to the earlier point around trickle vents that rather than just saying, should we retrofit a few trickle vents, if we are going to put some effort into putting improving schools, there is one thing doing some very cheap quick actions that may reduce an immediate problem, but if we are going to put effort in, we should make sure that we do it properly and do not retrofit some trickle vents that are not quite there and say, we have solved that and then come back to this problem in five years' time and go, I wish we had done that differently. I think that it is worth thinking through what was originally designed for the ventilation strategy in that space. Is that ventilation strategy still applicable or has it changed over the years? What can we do to improve that? I think that there is probably a set of buildings that are quite likely built in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, which are probably the ones that will struggle with the most, where energy was a big focus, there was a reduction in the size of the spaces, it is much harder to get good ventilation in those and they may be the buildings that are the hardest to deal with. Perhaps it is worth bringing in Fitzgerald's on this. Sorry, could I just bring in Professor Sharp, because he asked to come in? I will try to make these brief points. One of which is regulation supplied to new buildings and in fact the vast majority of the stock is older buildings, which would have been built to older regulations or indeed no regulations at the time and then, as the points have been made, will have been changed and so on. So there are lots of examples of that. The point that I would like to make is that when we are doing these measures, they need to be designed, they need to be not just put in as blanket measures, they need to be undertaken in consideration with the whole performance of the building, so that includes the energy performance as well. So there are plenty of examples where we've done things as single measures and examples include things like forms of retrofit for thermal performance, which hasn't included then measures for ventilation, so you get these unintended consequences. I think it's very important that when we are thinking about these measures, we are trying to design them. We are trying to understand what their actual performance is intended to be. Thank you. Can I bring in Professor Fitzgerald, followed by Professor Davies? I think you're on mute. Am I unmuted now? You're unmuted, thank you. Back to Professor Noakes' comment. In the buildings which are more modern, what we've found is that it's cheaper to build buildings with basically a shallower floor-to-ceiling height that's just less wall and therefore the buildings are cheaper. Unfortunately, those buildings are therefore not as well suited to the old strategy in Victorian times of buildings where actually if they had a sash window you could just crack the top sash open and allow the air to come in naturally and mix with enough of the warm room air to ameliorate a cold draft to the higher the floor-to-ceiling height, the less the problem of cold drafts is. Professor Noakes is completely right that when you have these more modern buildings then it's the 60s plus buildings which have been built on the cheap, which have got shorter floor-to-ceiling heights. They're the ones where actually we've got more of the drafts issue, which is where actually you then have that issue where we're going to try and preheat the air with radiators which then has energy penalties, so which is where actually maybe some assisted mixing is therefore going to be necessary or indeed heat recovery units. So it is the more modern buildings that I think are the bigger challenge than some of the more historic ones. Professor Davies. Thank you. I just wanted to pick up on the regulatory aspect because one of your members made a comment about the opportunity that there may be here. We know that we're going to have to make a significant effort to improve the energy performance of our buildings and we're also now aware that we need to think about ventilation and it's really important that we do take a systematic approach here and don't allow people to pick off one issue at a time and when buildings are being worked on to improve their energy performance it's really important that ventilation is also considered and there's a real opportunity particularly in Scotland where you have a single system of building verifiers in the public sector. They do need to be encouraged to see the role that they can play when they're supervising projects and make sure that ventilation is properly considered at the design stage and then properly installed. It's easy to put it in the design and get it signed off. Sometimes designs then get altered. The euphemism is value engineering. It's neither engineering nor does it usually add value. It's usually about taking out cost and some of that cost is associated with providing important things. The building verifiers really do need to be encouraged to make ventilation and energy efficiency seen as two sides of the same coin and then we avoid running the longer term risk of people thinking well I can either have good ventilation or I can have energy efficiency in lower bills and it doesn't need to be that way. We can ventilate well and be energy efficient if we think it through in a systematic way. I hope that's helpful. Are we okay for time? I'll maybe aim this one just purely at Professor Noakes because it was a follow-up to what she said to Murdoff Fraser. She used terms which I'm trying to get my head around, air-cleaning technologies and high-efficiency particular filters. I mean a particular issue with ScotRail, our railway operator and that may be slightly different for buildings but they have some trains with windows which are locked so they could open but they weren't and I said to them wouldn't it be better to open the windows and they said that their artificial air circulation system was just as good as having the windows open. Is that likely to be true or not? It quite likely is true. It was difficult to say exactly because every system is different but it is quite likely that they will have a mechanical ventilation system that can provide fresh air that is as effective as opening windows. The risks on public transport are difficult to understand. It's a very difficult environment to get direct evidence as to whether transmission actually happens on public transport. If we think about the factors that influence risk it is proximity to people which of course public transport does increase that risk. It's activity so public transport perhaps decreases that risk because a lot of the time people are relatively passive on public transport. It's wearing a face coverings which of course if wearing a face coverings is done well then that reduces risks on public transport quite significantly because you are reducing the amount of virus put into the environment. Then it's also duration of time so when we're thinking about public transport journeys very short journeys, commutotype journeys which are often only maybe 20 minutes or so are probably relatively low risk but it's from an airborne transmission perspective. It's the longer duration journeys where people might be in the same carriage as others for several hours where we really need to be thinking about ventilation. There are some trains which are designed to have their windows open and can have their windows open. They tend to be the shorter distance commuter journeys and I would probably urge that they should have their windows open as far as it's practically possible. There are certain weather conditions where it's probably not going to work because you're going to end up very wet but certainly those longer distance journeys they rarely have opening windows because of the speeds that those trains go and the pressures that you get through them. They're not practically designed to have opening windows and they're designed in such a way to have a ventilation system that usually has an air change rate in the carriage around about eight air changes per hour so that's a fresh air rate every sort of 7 to 10 minutes or so in that space. That's great, that's very helpful, thanks so much. Thank you. I'll move on to Alex Rowley for a question then could we please go to Professor FitzGerald. Okay, can we now just have a quick question. So returning to schools and to the short term, the here and now as we head into winter, so the Scottish Government has continued the policy that face coverings should be used in schools but what would your immediate advice be to education authorities? I mean education authorities will have property managers that manage the school estate but is there the skills and the knowledge or do we need to try and bring in skills and knowledge to advise and Murdo Fraser mentioned earlier £10 million which is not a lot if you're going to try and. So what in the short term, immediate term would you advise government and advise education authorities to be doing as we approach winter? So I'll just chip in briefly. My urgent request would be that it's simple, it's about making sure that many of the schools will have just opening windows and are they properly maintained? Do we have the high level windows? And this is not a skills issue, this has a previous budget issue and attention to this and adherence. So that would be my priority and I'll let somebody else comment on the face coverings and things but from an estate point of view I would immediately be looking at the high level windows and then back to the other issue regarding making sure we then don't freeze the spaces. This is where government and outside monitors can help trying to make sure that actually we're providing enough ventilation but not so much ventilation that then we've got energy bills issues and thermal comfort issues. Thank you. Can I bring in Dr Davies? Thank you. I'm going to be very quick. I think it's largely about making sure that what is there as Dr Fitzgerald has said is working, older schools, lots of instances of windows being painted so that they can't open. It's really the basic audit is what we've got working. If schools have got co2 monitors they can be useful in identifying areas where there may be a greater risk and then focus on those places where there may be a greater risk of transmission. Is that because something isn't working? Is it because that space just has never been very well ventilated and we haven't had a reason to find out until now? In those circumstances Professor Noate's comment about air cleaners may well be one way of dealing with that. It may just be that it reveals one or two spaces that are currently so badly ventilated that they'd be better not used for a few weeks and some advice taken on how to deal with that. Those would be immediate short term things to reduce risk over the next few weeks and months. Can I bring in Professor Noate's who wishes to come in? I'll be very brief. I think that a lot of points have been covered. Everybody recognises the importance of ventilation, not just for Covid but for many other considerations and also the fact that co2 monitoring would be beneficial. I want to look at the practicalities of developing a country with buildings with good ventilation. As we know and I think was indicated by the convenience right at the start, poverty is a major driver of the virus proliferation. The practicalities of developing all of our buildings into good ventilation is beyond the budget of the Government. Presumably what we're talking about here is a focus very much on commercial properties rather than domestic. I'm going to make two points prior to that and one related to that question. The first one is that there was a previous comment about face coverings as well as ventilation. I think that it's really important that we recognise that ventilation is only one of the mitigation measures for this virus and that we also have to think about other mitigations in places too. That needs to include measures to think about how we mitigate short proximity to people. The ventilation will not mitigate close range transmission and that's where face coverings and distancing enter things. We also have to think about using other strategies such as requiring people to stay at home when they've got symptoms, making sure that we've got good testing in place etc to limit the chance of having infected people in the space. Looking at that long-term question now, how do we get our buildings to be good? It is a really big challenge and I think that we need to recognise that this is a long-term goal. It's not going to be something that gets solved overnight but if we don't have an ambition for that long-term goal then it will never happen. I think that it's really important that that ambition gets tied up with net zero. There is a long-term ambition to reduce emissions and make our environments more energy efficient to reduce the impact on the climate. We need to tie ventilation in with that. As we're putting in measures to say heat pumps into buildings, to insulate buildings, actually making sure that they're ventilated at the same time should be part of that long-term strategy and that applies to commercial buildings and domestic buildings. With regard to commercial buildings, I think that we're going to have a hierarchy. We need to start with the worst ones. If we look again at schools, as I know that example has come up several times, there will be schools that have already good ventilation in the majority of their classrooms. They're perhaps not such a concern. There will be others that have okay ventilation but occasionally it's not great. We could look at what we can do to those in the short term and think about some longer-term improvements there. The ones that we'd be most concerned about are the ones that have truly inadequate ventilation, which are impacting much more widely on people's health and wellbeing. Those are the ones where we should be saying that we need to think through a programme. The first question is, is that building fit for purpose? I know that there are programmes to build new schools and new buildings. Those perhaps are the ones that we should be looking at in terms of priorities for those types of programmes. We do think that the building is fit for purpose. We can then say that those should be the priority spaces where we have to invest. It is a long-term strategy but there needs to be that ambition to make that work. We can have that ambition with other things. I don't know why we can't have the same ambition to make sure that we have healthy buildings. The benefits could be enormous. We know how to do this. This is not rocket science. We know what the tools and technologies are to make buildings perform very well. It's just that we don't do it as a matter of course. That's the challenge here. There are plenty of ways of addressing this problem. There is this problem of thinking about the building as a whole system and making sure that it is properly designed, constructed and maintained to maintain that system. This isn't an impossible challenge by any stretch of the imagination. The problem really is a lack of political will to a certain degree. There is certainly something about whether our regulations are being properly complied with and checked and so on. Then there are some important questions about what we do about retrofit. Building regulations don't apply to retrofit unless it's making some significant things. I think that's an area that we should perhaps look at. There are some technical challenges, but there are also some policy challenges in terms of whether we want to mandate those things. I thank the witnesses for all their evidence and for giving us their time this morning. It's been very beneficial. If witnesses would like to raise any further evidence with the committee, they can do so in writing. The clerks will be happy to liaise with them on how to do that. The committee's next meeting is on 11 November when we will continue to take evidence on baseline health protection measures. That concludes the public part of our meeting this morning. I suspend this meeting to allow the witnesses to leave.