 Good morning and welcome to the second meeting of the Covid-19 recovery committee in 2021. This morning we will be taking evidence on Scotland's strategic framework from John Swinney, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid recovery, Dominic Munro, director for Covid-19 exit strategy and Professor Jason Leitch, national clinical director from the Scottish Government. I would like to welcome our witnesses to the meeting, who are joining us remotely. Deputy First Minister, can I please invite you to make a brief opening statement? Thank you, convener, and good morning. I welcome this opportunity to appear before the committee for the first time since my appointment to support for the minister for Covid recovery. This is a vital part of the process of parliamentary accountability, which will undoubtedly strengthen our approach to recovery. I will, of course, be happy to respond to any line of inquiry that the committee wishes to do today. I would like to take some time to first set out our developing approach to Covid recovery, then turn to the First Minister's recent announcement about the public inquiry, the current public consultation on Covid recovery legislation, and finally to update the committee on our on-going activity to respond to the pandemic, which unfortunately is still very much with us. In view of what you mean, Deputy First Minister, the First Minister also asked me to lead the cross-government and cross-parliament work that is necessary to guide the country through the pandemic and into a recovery that supports the national health service, protects and creates jobs, supports our young people and contributes to Scotland's ambition to be a next-year nation. Moreover, I am determined that our approach to recovery should take us closer to the kind of Scotland that we all want to see, a country that is more equal and addresses the inequalities exacerbated by the pandemic. The country where the economy is guiding us towards a more sustainable future, with good green jobs and fair work for all, a country with public services supported to recover from the pandemic but also to putting personal centre design and delivery at their heart. In the last 100 days, we have seen a real cross-government effort to support key actions covering Covid recovery. The safe and effective remobilisation of the national health service is one of our top priorities, and on 25 August, we published our national recovery plan. That sets out key commitments that will support recovery over the next five years, supported by the implementation of sustainable improvements and new models of care. I recognise that achieving our ambition for recovery will require more than the efforts of the national government. Wider collaboration and partnership is essential. To that end, I have used part of the summit to engage with a wide range of stakeholders across the private public and third sectors on the priorities that they see for Covid recovery. Just over 60 organisations have, in fact, been involved in this exercise, and I have met regularly with the presidential team from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities recognising the crucial role that local government has played throughout our response to the pandemic from assisting the roll-out of walk-in test centres to delivering self-isolation support and business grants. Our local authorities have provided vital support to individuals' organisations businesses through close partnership with the Scottish Government. I am determined to do all that I can to support this close partnership working as an essential element to our approach to recovery. I know that it is only by harnessing the collective work of both democratic spheres of government and involving as many of our partners as possible that we will be able to achieve the recovery that we want to see. I intend to set out in more detail the partnership that we will take forward with local government when the Covid recovery strategy is published in due course. Members will be interested and I am sure in how we intend to take forward the establishment of a public inquiry into the Covid response. The Scottish Government has always been committed to the establishment of a public inquiry into the pandemic and it will be established by the end of this year, as was promised. We have published draft aims and principles for the inquiry, which, following consultation between now and the end of September with interested parties, including bere families, will become the formal terms of reference. Anybody who wants to can and should contribute to this consultation process. The inquiry will look at all matters related to the handling of the pandemic that were within our devolved competence. That will include the situation in care homes. The consultation will close on 30 September and the Lord Advocate has begun discussions with the Lord President about appointing a member of the judiciary to head the inquiry. It is worth stressing that we will co-operate closely with other Governments, including the United Kingdom Government, on the inquiries into Covid. Apart from anything else, we recognise that we are doing that. We might lessen the burden on organisations and individuals who are making submissions to our inquiry. That will include people who have lost loved ones to Covid. That need for discussion and co-operation cannot be a reason for delay. I believe that an inquiry into the handling of Covid in Scotland potentially has a very important role to play, both in scrutinising the decisions that have been made in the past and in highlighting lessons for the future. I therefore believe that it is appropriate to establish that inquiry as soon as possible. The consultation that we have launched is an important early step towards doing that. In addition to progressing the establishment of the inquiry, we have also taken early steps to consult on how we recover from the crisis and ensure that we are prepared for any future ones, reflecting on the lessons that we have all learned over the past 18 months. As part of that, we must ensure that we review the impact of Covid on the Scottish statute book and carefully consider any benefits of legislation and reforms that may be worth retaining. Our 12-week consultation has been published widely, and members of the public are already contributing their views. The consultation invites views on 30 specific legislative proposals that have the potential to support Covid recovery since there is greater public health resilience set against future threats and the possible retention of improvements and modernisations in the public services and the justice system. The consultation paper outlines our ambitions for Covid recovery and ends with an open question inviting comments on the actions that respondents think it is required to support a fair, safe and secure recovery. During the pandemic, the power to make public health regulations has been instrumental to manage the public health threat through a range of different measures at each point based on expert advice. The public health regulations proposal is not intended to make lockdown measures permanent, but is rather designed to ensure that Scotland continues to have the ability to respond proportionately and appropriately to a whole variety of public health threats. A successful recovery will be unfeasible if we do not effectively respond to the immediate risks that the virus continues to pose. An effective and sustainable response to the pandemic will lay the foundation for the sort of recovery that we want to see. First Minister set out yesterday that we have a steady and on-going increase in cases that has caused us real concern. However, it is important to note that vaccination is significantly weakening the link between high numbers of cases and serious harm to people's health. That is why the Scottish Government's aim in controlling Covid at this stage in the pandemic is different from previous stages. We are no longer seeking to suppress Covid to the lowest possible level. Now that we have vaccinations, the restrictions that are required to suppress Covid could not be justified, given that those restrictions caused serious harms of their own. Instead, we are seeking to suppress the virus in a way that alleviates its harms, but which allows us to recover and rebuild for the future. We need children to go to school, businesses to operate more normally and all of us to be able to socialise and live more freely. That is why so many restrictions, except for key baseline measures, were lifted on 9 August. It is why, in many ways, we should not be too surprised by the recent rise in case numbers. However, we cannot be relaxed about those figures, either. The link between new cases and serious health harms has been weakened, but it has not been broken. The surgery that we have seen may well result in more people going to hospital and, sadly, more people losing their lives. That is why the Scottish Government is engaging with businesses and organisations in different sectors of the economy to enhance compliance with existing regulations and to maximise the impact of baseline measures. It is vital that all of us follow the baseline measures that remain in place. For example, we are asking people to continue to wear face coverings in indoor public places. That is a reasonably simple and straightforward way in which we can protect each other and reduce the risk of transmission. We are also asking people to be mindful of the basic steps that we should continue to take. For example, washing hands and surfaces, and even though it is not the law anymore, to keep a safe distance from people in our households if we can. The final step that we will take to help to protect individuals and the country as a whole in the short term and to reduce the risk of further restrictions being necessary is to propose the introduction of vaccine certification to be introduced later this month in certain limited settings, subject to parliamentary debate and a vote to signify approval. To conclude, the Scottish Government welcomes the establishment of the Covid Recovery Committee, which I know will play a crucial role in leading the country through the ongoing pandemic and into a fair and just recovery. I welcome any questions that the committee may have and I am grateful for the opportunity to make an extensive statement to open the proceedings of the committee at this time. I will now turn to questions. I would remind members that we have approximately six minutes each for questions. It would be helpful if we could keep our questions and answers concise. If there is time for supplementaries, I will indicate this once all members have had a chance to ask questions. If I may begin by asking the first question, which you just touched on, Deputy First Minister, the Scottish Government committed to the establishment of a cross-party steering group on Covid recovery, which met before the summer. Could you explain what role you see this steering group playing, moving forward and how that will differ from the role of this committee? I think that the cross-party group and this committee have two very distinct roles. I see this committee in fulfilling the role of parliamentary accountability that is absolutely the heart of the operations of Parliament and this committee must be free to explore and to examine any question that considers to be appropriate in relation to Covid recovery. The cross-party group that we established before the summer recess, which met on a number of occasions before the summer recess and will resume its meeting pattern next week, is designed to try to create a more informal sounding board where we can draw together a parliamentary opinion on the difficult questions with which we still wrestle. We have a number of those questions in the handling of the pandemic and, I think, by the current pattern of rising numbers of cases, the challenge remains obvious for members of Parliament for the foreseeable future. We view the role of the cross-party group to be an opportunity to try to bring together parliamentary opinion to address some of the difficult challenges that we have to face. Thank you. I am sure that I am not the only MSP in this committee or across the Parliament who has had overnight a large number of concerns raised by constituents about the announcement yesterday from the Scottish Government on the introduction of vaccine passports or vaccine certifications. I have a number of questions that I would like to ask around that announcement and some of the practicalities of it. I wonder if I could start by trying to understand the policy intent behind this measure. We know that double vaccination, while it helps to protect individuals against the symptoms of Covid-19, is not in itself a protection against people either catching the illness or, indeed, carrying it and passing it on to others. Against that backdrop, I would like to understand what is the primary reason for the Scottish Government considering this measure. Is it to prevent the spread of Covid-19 or is this more about pushing those who are presently resistant to vaccination, particularly younger people, down the route of taking up vaccinations? The primary purpose of the policy proposal that was set out yesterday by the First Minister is to try to strengthen the resistance to the virus by maximising compliance with the measures that we know will have the greatest impact in trying to stem the prevalence of serious illness as a consequence of people contracting the virus. We face a very difficult situation just now, because, as members will be familiar, the number of cases has risen very sharply in recent weeks since the relaxation of restrictions on 9 August. We have seen a period earlier in the summer when we had a very sharp rise in infections and then a very sharp fall in those infections. What the Government is concerned about at this stage is that the rise in infections needs to be tackled with measures to try to reduce its significance, because, as the First Minister set out to Parliament yesterday, even if 2 to 3 per cent of individuals who are testing positive for Covid have to be admitted to hospital, 2 to 3 per cent of a very large number is a lot of people. It equates to the levels of hospitalisation at previous stages in the pandemic, which we wish to avoid. We are trying to take steps within the measures that are available to us with the scope to reintroduce restrictions and maximise the capacity of the population to resist the spread of coronavirus. The purpose of the move is to maximise resistance in the population and to reduce the danger that we have to impose any further restrictions in the future, which the Government is clearly keen to make sure is not the case. I am grateful to Mr Swinney for that answer. I am not sure that it entirely addressed the question that I asked, which was more about which of those two purposes was the primary intention behind the new initiative that has been introduced. I have had a number of other issues raised by me by constituents. Perhaps I could raise another couple of issues. Clearly, there are concerns around the civil liberties angle of introducing vaccine passports. The Scottish Government has said entirely reasonably that those who have medical conditions that would mean that they could not be vaccinated would be exempt from that. Is there any intention on the part of the Government also to exempt those who might have objections to taking passports, for example, because they might be members of a religious group who have a belief that vaccination is wrong? Would individuals in that category also be treated as exempt? Obviously, we can give consideration to the issues and questions that have been raised by Martin Fraser's constituents on that particular point. I think that it is important that we try to ensure that we have the widest possible consent and endorsement to the policy measures that we take forward and that any exemptions that are applied to an approach of this type are properly founded. However, I would say that it is very important to put in place some clear parameters around the proposal that the Government has advanced. That is about the application of a proposal to a limited number of events in the country, events that are all entirely voluntary for individuals to wish to participate in. There is absolutely no question that the Government would apply any such approach to accessing public services or other services that are based on entitlement, because that would of itself raise significant and additional civil liberties questions. We will certainly give consideration to the issues that are raised by Martin Fraser and other members, as we formulate the specific nature of the proposal that the Parliament will consider. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. I have one more issue on the question of Covid vaccinations. I will go back to some of the correspondence that I have had from constituents on the issue. This is about the practical implementation of the measures. We know from what was announced yesterday that outdoor events with an attendance of more than 10,000 will require vaccine certification, so you can see, for example, football matches or rugby matches. 50,000 people turning up at Murrayfield or Hamden or Ibrox or Parkhead would therefore, as I understand it, be required to have proof of vaccination. From a practical point of view, how would you expect that to be addressed? That would require the authorities at the stadia to employ stewards to check people as they arrive, and they would later have to have the technology to be able to do that. There would be training implications, cost implications and issues around the supply of the technology. Has the Scottish Government given thought to how that might be dealt with and what timescale you are looking at for the introduction of the measures, given that all the other issues have to be considered? The timescale that we are looking at for the proposition is for it to be implemented around the end of September. The technology that would underpin that would be utilisation of a QR code, which is now a reasonably routine aspect of the way in which individuals interact with some aspects of purchasing and ticketing of events. Given all the circumstances of large football or rugby games, for example, there will already be ticketing arrangements in place and ticketing checks that will be undertaken at any of those particular events that will be in place. However, I have seen commentary overnight from some of the football authorities on the question, and we will engage constructively with them about the practical issues that need to be considered in taking forward a policy of this type. However, as I said in my opening remarks, I stress that this is a proposal that, given the nature of the proposal, will be the subject of a parliamentary vote and a parliamentary approval that will be required. Good morning. I thought that you were quite clear in saying that this is about maximising compliance, but what evidence do you have? What are you basing on by introducing passports for night clubs? I think that probably about four football clubs, unfortunately, non-football club Keltyhares, will not have that requirement. You are talking about perhaps four football clubs in Scotland. Where is the evidence to show that this will maximise compliance with vaccination? What is it based on? What is the science? What are the numbers? Not every young person under 30 goes to night clubs. The majority in Scotland probably do not. If this is aimed at increasing and maximising compliance with vaccination, where is the evidence for it? I would say to Mr Rowley in the question of Keltyhares that he should never say never in relation to the crowds that may appear there. In relation to the evidence base, the Government has looked at the wider issues around participation in events and has considered it. I would accept that, on all those questions, there will be different opinions and there are contested opinions on those questions. We have looked at that information in the round to satisfy ourselves to provide us with some greater levels of participation in the vaccination programme and to further incentivise individuals to take up vaccination, particularly among younger groups. That is an approach that has the potential to provide us with some greater uptake as a consequence of taking this step. What we have to balance that against is the likelihood that, unless we take action to further improve vaccination levels, we may find ourselves having to take action at a later stage, which could potentially lead to the application of further restrictions. The Government is keen to enlist the support and participation of members of the public in helping us to avoid getting to that position. We have looked at the balance of evidence on that question and come to the conclusion that that would be an effective way of trying to essentially strengthen that population-wide resistance through the virus by maximising the uptake of vaccination. Will you be able to provide to the committee the evidence on what you are making that decision based on for four football clubs and night clubs? Will you be able to provide to the committee the other options and the evidence that you have looked at for the other options? I understand why you would want to maximise compliance with vaccine take-up, but I think that, in this committee and for next week, we need to know exactly what that is based on, what you are hoping to achieve from it and what other options you have looked at. I am very happy to provide the committee with the range of measures that we have taken to strengthen the vaccination programme. It is a pretty established part of the dialogue around the suppression of Covid that vaccination is a critical, absolutely fundamental element of our strategy. If we look at where we are today with the level of cases that we have in this current period, if we had had anything approaching, even a proportion of those cases at prior stages in the pandemic, we would have been applying lockdown measures. We had to do that in January when we had case levels much lower than the current levels that we have, but we didn't have the protection of the vaccination programme. Vaccination is absolutely central to the response of the Government to the pandemic. I am very happy to marshal that evidence and to set out to the committee the steps that the Government has taken to get to the extraordinarily high levels of vaccination that we have in the country just now. However, we have some challenges in lower-age groups. The over-40s uptake is extraordinarily high. We still have some way to go in the 18 to 40-year age groups, so we are trying to take steps to maximise the vaccination levels. That is the clear strategy that we are trying to take. With that approach, we take steps to try to avoid having to apply any further restrictions at a later stage. I am happy to marshal that information and evidence for the committee. Obviously, we have a preliminary debate on the wider and specific question about vaccination certification, which the Parliament will consider next week. The Government will make available the necessary information to Parliament to enable Parliament to make an informed decision on that question. I understand and absolutely praise everyone involved in the roll-out of the vaccination. What you have said this morning, Deputy First Minister, is that we have a problem in terms of compliance with the under-40s and that you are bringing forward this step to try to increase the number of under-40s getting vaccination. Before next week, you need to show us the evidence as to why the specific measures that you are talking about have been chosen, what you believe will be achieved through that and what other options have been considered for increasing uptake in the under-40s. I support absolutely the vaccination and will support taking action to increase the vaccination, but we need to see what evidence that is based on. In terms of compliance, we seem to have relaxation in some areas, particularly in shops where people wear face coverings. If you are going to introduce new measures, you should equally be looking at ensuring that the measures that are in place are being enforced. This week, I have talked to shop workers who work for different chains of shops. They tell me that in some shops that, particularly in younger people, people are simply not complying with wearing face coverings. Therefore, what action can the Government take working with retailers to look at what has become an increasing problem of people simply not complying with wearing face coverings? I agree 100 per cent with Mr Rowley's point in relation to compliance with what I would describe as baseline measures. Baseline measures include the wearing of face coverings in indoor settings, where the regulations specify that that should be the case. No retail employee or any transport employee around the country should get any stick from a member of the public about being called upon to wear face covering, because that is what the law requires individuals to do. On the action that we have taken with respect, I want to reassure Mr Rowley that the cabinet is actively engaged in supporting different sectors and ensuring that there is the effective application of the baseline measures. There are three steps that I would particularly highlight to the committee this morning. The first is that, for the best part of the past 10 days, members of the cabinet and our officials have been in regular discussion with all the sectoral contacts that we have to encourage and support them in ensuring that they apply the baseline measures that are necessary in that respect. Yesterday, Professor Leitch and I, the chief medical officer and a number of members of the cabinet met more than 150 representatives of different sectors of our society from the operators of some of our transport companies to the figures within the retail industry to other business organisations, representatives of trade unions and the workforce, to reinforce the necessity of the application of the baseline measures. There has been very active dialogue by members of the cabinet and our officials with all sectors trying to achieve the objectives that Mr Rowley correctly highlights as being important. The second area is that we have obviously used our public messaging as a Government to make sure that the application of the baseline measures is clearly understood by members of the public and we have used countless opportunities to try to do that and to reinforce that message. Thirdly, the Government's public information communications campaigns are being adapted to reinforce the message that Mr Rowley talks about. If we do not have a greater application of the baseline measures, we will not be able to see the intervention that is required to press the increasing levels of the virus that we are seeing. If we do not interrupt those increasing levels, it will naturally flow that we will have more admissions to hospital and if we have more admissions to hospital, we will have greater pressure on the national health service. Clearly, we are trying to avoid that and to sustain the recovery in the national health service that is currently under way. I am heartily in agreement with Mr Rowley about the importance of members of the public acknowledging and realising that, by applying the baseline measures, we can all play our part in suppressing the rise of Covid within our community. Although it is not generating the degree of serious illness that it was at a previous stage, it still has the capacity to undermine the sustainability of the national health service. Can I bring in Professor Jason Leitch to address some of the members' concerns regarding evidence-based decisions regarding their restrictions? In general terms, in light of the questions that have been asked, let me make a couple of points and then I am happy to take follow-ups. Thank you for having me. It is nice to be back in a slightly refreshed version of the committee. Congratulations, convener. It is nice to be asked to be here. The Deputy First Minister has covered it very well, in fact. Request for neat evidence are always slightly challenging because this pandemic is not as neat and as linear as we would perhaps like. Let me make a couple of points initially. Vaccinated individuals are safer than unvaccinated individuals. They do actually stop transmission. They do not stop it entirely, but they are less likely to transmit. Delta has made that equation a little bit difficult—Mr Fraser is absolutely right—and delta, the transmission reduction, is less than it was with the previous versions of the virus, but you are still less likely to transmit and you are definitely less likely to be seriously unwell. It is just not as dramatic as it was with the previous versions. Vaccinated individuals are safer in themselves, but they are also safer in crowds. Vaccinated crowds are safer than unvaccinated crowds, for sure. The third thing about vaccination that we are only just learning—a big study yesterday—is that we are 50 per cent less likely to get long Covid. That is a massive gain from vaccination and another reason, if we needed one, to add to the vaccination incentives and the vaccination programme. The things that you mentioned are not mutually exclusive. We are not suggesting that vaccine certification replaces anything else or that, if you put screens back in supermarkets, you do not need Covid certification. We are suggesting that those are layers of protection against a vicious infectious disease that is still killing tens of thousands a day across the world that you need to double down on everything that you are doing. The meeting that we had yesterday with football, retail, sport, entertainment and the whole of the country was all about get everybody vaccinated, get everybody tested twice a week and follow the guidance, in fact go beyond the guidance if you possibly can. The vaccination certificate is for both of Mr Fraser's reasons that he said at the beginning. It is, of course, to incentivise those who are unvaccinated, and it is to protect those areas where the unvaccinated will go, because it is safer to go to vaccinated crowds. There is no doubt about that. It is not my job to decide if that is something that Scotland wants to do—that is Mr Swinney's and the Parliament's job. My job is to provide the advice that says that vaccinated crowds are safer. Professor Leitch, Jim Felly, would you like to ask a question? Thank you very much to the panel for attending this morning. I have two or three areas that I would like to cover. There might be a wee bit of jumbled up, but please bear with me. I absolutely agree with what Mr Rowley has just said about compliance. In my hotel dining room this morning, over half the people who were there weren't wearing face masks, so there is possibly an issue about the fact that we still have face mask control in Scotland and they don't have it in other parts of the country, so people coming into the country really need to know what the regulations are in this country. We had a young people's panel here last week, and we asked the question of them. Do you feel that the restrictions have been done to you, or are you complying with them because you are part of the process? They very much came back with the belief that it was being done to them. The Covid, the vaccine passports will feel again like it is being done to people. That goes back to the messaging that Mr Swinney spoke about. While we are putting the Covid vaccine passports in place, could there not be something far more visible, vibrant and stronger in the messaging that we are getting out of how important getting this vaccine is to that specific demographic? I think that it is important that we constantly revisit the messaging that we have on the whole issue of Covid to make sure that it is achieving its purpose. I think that, in general, Government communications over the course of the pandemic have been very effective and very focused in getting that message across. Particularly for younger people, we have to make sure that there is good strong evidence that is available to them about the dangers to which they are exposed as a consequence of Covid. The committee has discussed extensively the whole question of long Covid. Long Covid for younger people could be a very serious factor in their lives. I think that the most important thing is that we have got to make sure that we properly and fully address the issues and the perspectives of young people in identifying how most effectively we can communicate a message of this type and ensure that it is persuasive to young people that they are as much at risk from Covid as other members of our society. I think that it is important that we do not have a message that suggests anything other than the fact that young people face some significant risks as a consequence of this virus. I point out that, when you are young, you think that you are invincible. We need to get over that mental block in the first place. The requirement for the vaccine passports, and first of all I would like to ask is there likely to be any extension to the areas that we are currently talking about doing? Perhaps the second bit is more directed to Mr Leitch. We now know that the virus is in the community. We know that what Mr Swinney has just said that what we are trying to do is to suppress it with the range of measures that we have in place. Are we accepting that this is now a present disease that will be with us and are we trying to create community immunity while we manage it to the next stage? I think that if I could address that latter point from Mr Fairlie as an important one, because it gets to the heart of a point that I made in my opening statement, that the Government has changed its approach to the handling of the pandemic. What I said earlier on is that we are no longer seeking to suppress Covid to the lowest possible level. Now that we have vaccinations, the restrictions that are required to suppress Covid could not be justified, given that those restrictions cause serious harms of their own. What we are trying to do is to operate within a context in which we have vaccination available to us, and if we maximise the uptake of vaccination, we provide the greatest amount of protection against the prevalence of the virus. The best way to explain that is to go back to the situation that we faced in January. In January, the Government got advice that basically said to us that unless we applied a further immediate lockdown, there would be very serious risk, if not inevitability, that our health service would be unable to meet its central purpose and commitment to members of the public. We had to follow that advice because we had such a low level of the population vaccinated at that time. There was a tiny proportion of the population were vaccinated, and even then it was only with one dose of the vaccine in a very limited number of people in our society. Here today, we find ourselves in a very different situation with a very, very successful vaccination programme in the over 40s, but a vaccination programme in the under 40s has still got some way to go. We are trying to take steps to enable us to essentially maximise the protection that we can achieve from the vaccination programme, so that is the strategy that the Government is pursuing. We are trying to utilise vaccination as the means of resisting the pressure that the virus can put on us and to avoid having to take any further restrictive measures. We know that from the four harms analysis that the previous committee questioned me about before the election in May, which dominated our thinking and planning as we took steps to relax restrictions over the course of the last 12 months or so, we had to take steps that would adapt and change given the presence of the vaccination programme in our society and its effectiveness. There has been a change in the way that the Government is handling these issues. It is to recognise the fact that Covid creates multiple harms, and we have to avoid those multiple harms. The best way to do that is by having very high participation in the vaccination programme and by following the baseline measures that I discussed earlier with Mr Rowley. Mr Fairlie also asked whether there would be any plans to change or extend the certification beyond the very limited number of groupings that we highlighted before, and the Government has no plans to do that. I do not know whether Professor Leitch wants to add anything that I said. A couple of things. Mr Fairlie, your point about youth comms, if I may summarise it like that, is a good one. I make it often to my marketing colleagues, because I am very involved in the communications. Their answer is that a lot of that is invisible to 52-year-olds. When they show me it, it is stuff that I have never seen, because it is in mediums that I do not use, that I would imagine that you do not use either. I might be wrong, but we have enormous advertising campaigns on podcasts, on TikTok, in schools, in all the places that you would expect it to be, using different voices from the 52-year-old guy's voice. I have also spent a lot of time in the past few weeks with young Scots. They have a health panel. I talk to the health panel, and the health panel then talks to the young people. There are all kinds of mechanisms in there with education, with the NUS, with young Scots, to get that messaging out. It is hard, and they get bombarded with information that is not from trusted sources, and we have to compete against that a little. Anything that MSPs can do in their environment to help us with that messaging is, of course, appreciated. Much of the youth comms are invisible to the 52-year-olds, because they are elsewhere. Your second question about endemic infection has been answered by DFM in a political sense, in what we are headed to. In a scientific sense, you are right that we are moving from a pandemic infection to an endemic infection. I would remind everybody that three quarters of a million people caught the virus yesterday—three quarters of a million. What Scotland does is only part of that puzzle for the global pandemic. We are a long way from done. 24,000 people died yesterday around the world of Covid, and that is a big underestimate because there is not testing everywhere. There is not registration everywhere. The pandemic will continue for some time until we can vaccinate our way out of it. In Scotland, we are moving gradually to making this infection an endemic infection, an infection that we will live with, but that is a very gradual process and one that we have to do very cautiously, because there is still harm in an endemic virus, and there is still hospital pressure in an endemic virus. We are not quite sure—because we cannot be sure—what that looks like in the medium to the long term. However, we can see the change in immunity helping us out of that—in immunity, principally, vaccination immunity, but also some previous disease immunity—people who have had the disease and are not then vaccinated. That helps us to get out of it. That is absolutely the route out, but it also takes us to protect ourselves from other variants. Delta will not be the last variant globally, so we have to think carefully what Scotland does and what the rest of the world does. Thank you very much for that one very final quick question. This is specifically answering constituency requests that we have had overnight. I think that everybody in the panel has talked about the flood of emails that we all had last night. I can almost answer that myself. Will this passport be time limited? In what respects? Will it be time limited in the sense that once we start carrying, if we accept the fact that we have an endemic disease within our community, will the passports then be required forever? Is the terminology that I am getting in my emails? It really depends on the course of the pandemic and the degree to which that becomes less of a present and prevalent threat to us. The Government is not doing this because it just decided to do this. It is doing this because we are looking at what steps we have to take to protect the population and, specifically, to try to avoid having to apply any further restrictions on the population. We want to avoid that if we possibly can. We consider to be another step to try to help us to avoid having to take a step of that nature. I am just conscious of time. Brian Whittle Thank you for coming to give us evidence. I have a couple of issues that I want to raise. One is with vaccine passports. We all recognise the sort of moving feast that tackling this pandemic is and that ideas and changes are going along. It is not a criticism at all, Mr Swinney, that, not that long ago, vaccine passports were ruled out. As evidence has come forward, the Government has decided that they should be ruled in. On the backdrop of that, speaking with the music industry, nightclubs and sport industry, they feel that they have not been consulted as those decisions have been made. I think that, for me, they understand the business's responsibility to practically implement this policy. There are a couple of things. One, how do you envisage that being policed? Secondly, how do the Scottish Government consult with the industries prior to making those decisions? Surely, it is much better to have their input into the decision-making process rather than, as my colleague Jim Fairlie suggested to the younger people, have those issues imposed on the industry. How is the consultation process done? The first point that I want to agree with Mr Whittle about is on the question of the description of Covid as a moving feast. We are facing a constantly moving challenge on that, and the Government has to be prepared. If we are going to be realistic about addressing the implications of Covid to adapt and change our position, then should we need to do so? That is precisely the approach that the Government has taken throughout the pandemic. We have not sat in oblivious to changing circumstances or changing prevalence of the virus. If we had done that, we would have had a much more serious situation on our hands than the very serious situation that we have already faced. The Government has to adapt to changing circumstances, and that is exactly what we have done here. We try to discuss issues with business sectors on an on-going basis. We have a huge amount of dialogue going on with all sectors of society, and we take on board the practical feedback that we get from sectors. Ultimately, the Government has to make choices. Sometimes it is difficult to make choices in a fashion that involves as much open prior dialogue and consultation than we would ordinarily like. Yesterday, Mr Fraser—I understand exactly why he was saying this—raised the point of order with the Presiding Officer that, prior to the First Minister standing up, there was some media commentary about the Covid certification issue. The time difference between the First Minister standing up and that point appearing on the media was maybe 20 to 30 minutes. If the Government had open consultation with sectors beforehand, I think that it is pretty clear that information would have been out before the Parliament heard it, and, understandably, it would have been pretty aggrieved by that. I said in my response to earlier questions that the Government will engage with sectors to make sure that we hear all those questions before the Parliament comes to conclusions on those points. I give that assurance to Mr Fraser today. It is important that we have that dialogue. I had a very constructive discussion with, as I said, over 150 sector representatives yesterday about the importance of applying the baseline measures. I detected that, among all those organisations, we are willing to be part of this journey with us. If we are all part of that journey, we can get to a good and positive outcome. I will follow-up to that question before I move on to my next point. One of the things that came into my inbox just this morning was the question of how do you define a nightclub, for example? Again, this is where consultation is so important, because on one side of the street, what is designated as a nightclub with 250 people in it and across the street? If we have a pub with 250 people in it and blasting out loud music, one needs passport vaccination and the other doesn't. How do we make sure that consultation is done and that everybody feels that they are being treated fairly? I think that that is a very material point. It is a point that was raised with me yesterday by some of the sector representatives that there can be a pretty fine line between different venues. We will discuss those issues with the relevant sectors. As I said, we want to avoid—of course, the minister made this play yesterday—we do not want to apply that to the hospitality sector as a whole, so we want to avoid any steps that might take us into that territory. The point of distinction that Mr Whittle raises is an important point for us to get right in the judgments that we make. If I can move on to another topic that has been raised with me just this morning, it is the implications of specific sectors that have to isolate a waiting Covid test. The ones that were raised this morning were nurseries having to close while they wait for Covid tests and to close the knock-on effect on the business world and our economic recovery. There are schools in which a significant amount of teachers are missing in schools. How do we recover from bringing schools back to full learning capacity with increased shortage of teachers? Of course, that also applies to NHS, in which I know that there are significant shortages across a lot of disciplines because people are absent waiting Covid test results. How do we tackle and recover the backlog in an NHS with those increased shortages? That is obviously a circle that is incredibly difficult to square, but how is the Scottish Government looking at that particular issue as we recover from this virus? That is a critical issue. The Government has changed the regulatory environment around self-isolation in a recent period, specifically as to how that relates to an educational context. The reason for doing that has been based on the risk assessment of the effectiveness or the necessity of self-isolation in the context of a more highly vaccinated at-risk population. We have less onerous self-isolation requirements than we had at previous stages at the pandemic. We justify that because we have higher levels of vaccination in the population. Having said all of that, I acknowledge the point that Mr Whittle fairly makes. If there are a number of cases in a school or in an early learning centre, that is clearly disruptive to a range of children and young people, and we are trying to minimise the disruption to their education. Obviously, if they are not required to self-isolate, it will have knock-on effects at home and among people who ordinarily might expect to be at their employment. It is a very difficult circle to square, and we believe that we have taken pragmatic and risk-assessed judgments about the approach to self-isolation, but it does not insulate us entirely from the impact of the virus. What will insulate us entirely is by having compliance with the baseline measures, reducing our contact and seeing a fall in the number of cases. It is the fine number of cases that is the problem in driving the process, not the requirements on self-isolation. There are consequences of the high number of cases, so if we concentrate on the steps to try to reduce the number of cases and by application of the baseline measures and other factors such as vaccination, then we can contribute significantly to trying to address the issue. I do not know whether Professor Leitch wants to add to that in relation to the self-isolation requirements. Only contextually, Mr Whittle, let us remember how big a change this was in terms of risk. Nothing is safe. Safety is a relative concept, not an absolute concept, but whatever we do here is risk. We gave a massive piece of advice and the Government made a very big decision to change the self-isolation rules for adults and children from 10 days for close contact reduced down to wait for a negative PCR and then release. That is a huge change in terms of risk. We have not long done that. Relatively recent change. We were under huge pressure from industry, from education, from parents, from kids because they were isolating and not that many of them were converting into positive cases. We now know that, in some sectors, that was about 5 per cent of people were converting from contact to positive cases. That is all about a big risk judgment, so we decided, unlike some other countries—there are countries that are clear in that sense and there are countries that are tighter in that sense—we made the choice. In our advice to say, we think that it is now time in the pandemic because of the list of things that Mr Swinney mentioned, principally vaccination, that we would now move to a more risky version of that by allowing people to isolate until they get a negative test, then they would be released. There is a specific nuance in health and care where we believe that it is more risky than other settings because of the nature of the job, where, if that contact is a household contact, you still have to isolate for the 10 days. That is causing some challenges to health and care workforce, of course. It is a balance between the risk of sending those people back to work and the risk of sending those people back to work with or without Covid. Each of those equations is really challenging, but we have made a big change. I think that the correct change for this point in the pandemic and, eventually, coming out the other end of it, will make it even more relaxed, but not yet. Continuing on the question of vaccination certificates, I suppose that they depend on how robust the underlying information is within the NHS system. My question is, how robust is that information? I have constituents contacting me who had one jag in Scotland and one perhaps in England or Germany or some other country, so they have a problem. I myself had both my jags in Easterhouse in Glasgow, but the NHS system says that I only had one jag, so I cannot get a certificate. The NHS in Glasgow said that that is a national problem, not just a local problem. How robust are our records? Obviously, more than four million people have been vaccinated within Scotland, so I would be confident that, for the overwhelming majority of those individuals, vaccine records will be strong and robust. I think that I would have to accept, because of what John Mason has just put to me, that there will be instances where there are issues with the accuracy of the information. Any suspected errors in a person's Covid vaccination record should be reported to the national helpline. There is a telephone number available for that, and the information is contained on the NHS informed website. In general, the quality and the strength of health records in Scotland are very strong, because they are anchored in the kind number that every citizen has, and that provides us with a robust protein with foundation for the delivery of information about vaccination records for individuals. However, I would have to accept that there will be limited cases where that information will not be entirely completed. I have a bit of a moral dilemma as to whether I should take a third or booster vaccine when half the people around the world have not had any vaccines. That strikes me as being a bit greedy on my part. Where are we with boosters, and should we be holding back a bit so that the rest of the world can get some? I think that there is a moral and an ethical dilemma in all of that that I suspect could keep us here for a long, long time debating the contents of that particular issue. We expect to receive advice fairly soon from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in relation to booster jags. We will be ready to implement a programme of deployment of those booster vaccinations when such a strategic decision is given to us by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. As the committee will be aware, we have, as our predecessors have done, all of the JCVI advice on all questions in relation to vaccination. Essentially, we await that advice to come in relation to booster jags. I think that there is a moral dilemma here. We obviously take part in discussions with the United Kingdom Government who take part in the international discussions about the necessity of ensuring fair and equitable access to vaccination around the globe. As Jason Leitch indicated in the data earlier on, in one of his answers, that remains a significant global problem. Until such time as we have effective vaccination around the world, we will still face significant and acute threats as a consequence of Covid. My third and final point on a completely different subject is that we have had the suggestion from the airline and the wider tourism industry that they are hoping to go back to the same level that they were at pre-pandemic, but we also have COP coming up and we have climate change concerns. Is it the Government's feeling that we should be aiming to get the airline industry back to 100 per cent of where it was? I think that they are currently at 20 per cent or 25 per cent? Or should we be aiming at something in between for the benefit of climate change? What we have to make sure in the immediate term is that we take the steps that are necessary to be taken in relation to international travel that are appropriate to tackle Covid. Those issues are in the subject of great controversy and I read lots of commentary from people telling us that we have been far too restrictive on international travel. At different stages in the pandemic, I do not think that the United Kingdom was strict enough, but those are difficult issues to wrestle with. The whole question of the scale and the nature of air travel and the environmental issues that come with air travel will be something that we have to address as part of the measures to tackle climate change. That will be a wider policy process in which Government is involved. It will be at the heart of the discussions around COP later on this year in Glasgow. All societies will have to wrestle with the question that the immediate challenge that we have to face is to make sure that we have the correct approach on international travel that is commensurate with the steps that we need to take to suppress Covid as effective as we can within the population. The industry has raised a number of concerns, but one of them is that, for those people who require to be tested, it says that there is a monopoly over the test. Due to that, it is far more expensive for people to have to access the test. I wonder whether that is something that you have heard of and it is something that you have looked at. It is an issue with which I am familiar. There have been many discussions about this particular point. Much of it is driven by the systems in which we are a part of operating on a UK-wide basis, but there is some flexibility being assessed as part of addressing the concerns that have been raised by the airline industry. I appreciate that we are running slightly over, but I will have two more short questions. In the previous session, I understand that the Scottish Government routinely provided the Covid-19 Committee with draft regulations for consideration before they were made into law. Do you still envisage that the committee will be provided with the draft health protection regulations on the Wednesday by 4pm ahead of our meetings on Thursday morning? I would expect that to be the case, convener, although we are in a period in which I would hope that we do not have to be in a position of applying any other restrictions. The necessity of coming to the committee for regulating the change of that type, I hope, is something that we do less of in the future, but I certainly know what to maintain the protocols that have been in place before. I do not know if Dominic Munro wants to be online with me as to whether he wants to add anything to that answer. I do not think that I need to add too much DfM. I hope that you can hear me okay. I would just say two things. I have a colleague who is joining the panel later who covers our legal issues. He might be able to follow up on that, Liz Blair. However, the point is that, with all our restrictions and particularly those that are regulations, we are required by law to keep them under regular review. Although, as DfM says, the intention is not to bring new regulations back regularly to the committee because we are trying not to impose new restrictions for those regulations that remain in place. It is our intention to keep them under regular review to make sure that they are proportionate and necessary and justified, which is what we are required to do under the current legislation. I have one follow-up question going back to the issue of vaccine passports. John Mason mentioned COP26 that is coming up in Glasgow in November. I am assuming that, under the plans that are being announced by the Scottish Government, everyone attending COP26 will have to provide proof of double vaccination. Is that the case? There are discussions that are under way with the United Kingdom Government and the United Nations around the arrangements in respect for accessing COP26. Many of those issues are the subject of active discussion with the authorities that are running COP26 to ensure that we have the appropriate arrangements in place. That concludes our consideration for agenda item number 1. We move on to agenda item number 2. We shall now move on to take evidence on the latest ministerial statement on Covid-19, two monthly reports and subordinate legislation. I welcome Elizabeth Blair, team leader, Covid co-ordination, governance and decision making, who will be joining the Deputy First Minister in this agenda item. The committee will consider regulations that were laid over the summer. The full list of SSIs are in the agenda, but to summarise this, we will consider number 27 to number 32 amendments to the health protection, coronavirus restrictions and requirements local levels Scotland regulations, the health protection, coronavirus requirements, Scotland regulations 2021, SSI 2021, oblique 277, the coronavirus Scotland Act 2020, early expiry of provisions regulations 2021, SSI 2021, oblique 214, the coronavirus Scotland Act 2020, early expiry of provisions number 2, regulations 2021, SSI 2021, oblique 236, the coronavirus extension and expiry Scotland Act 2021, evidence saving provision regulations 2021, SSI 2021, oblique 280 and the coronavirus act 2020, suspension, disposal of bodies, Scotland regulations 2021, SSI 2021, oblique 250. Deputy First Minister, would you like to make any remarks before we move to questions? Thank you, convener. If I could perhaps make some remarks in relation to the number of SSIs that are on today's agenda. Six of those SSIs amended the health protection, coronavirus restrictions and requirements local levels Scotland regulations 2020. Those made various adjustments to the levels rules that were in place at the time and have since been removed and moved beyond level 0 on 9 August. In order to assist the committee, I will run through the changes made by those regulations. The number 27 amendment regulations that came into force on 11 June made provision for local authority officers to have a power of entry in relation to restrictions on stadia and events. Those regulations also adjusted the physical distancing requirements in place at Hamden and Glasgow Green during the Euros. The number 28 amendment regulations removed travel restrictions in relation to the Republic of Ireland and Bedford in England and introduced travel restrictions in relation to travel tune from Manchester and Salford. Those regulations came into force on 18 June. The number 29 amendment regulations came into force on 26 and 28 June and made a number of changes, including adjusting physical distancing requirements at funerals and for an event of miracle, extending hospitality opening hours for the knockout stages of the Euros, adjusting the face covering rules at weddings and civil partnerships. The number 30 amendment regulations removed all travel restrictions in relation to Bolton, Manchester and Salford on 30 June. The number 31 amendment regulations adjusted the physical distancing requirements at the Scottish Open and removed travel restrictions in relation to Blackburn and Darwin. Those regulations came into force on 8 July. The number 32 amendment regulations came into force on 19 July. Those regulations moved all of Scotland to level 0 and made various adjustments to the levels regulations. Physical distancing requirements were reduced to one metre indoors and outdoors. The regulations also removed the requirement for physical distancing between people in the gathering of up to 15 outdoors. They also provided that children under the age of 12 years did not count for the purpose of calculating the number of households permitted for gatherings indoors, and the regulations also altered hospitality trading times at level 0. As you know, we were able to move beyond level 0 on 9 August. At that point, baseline measures were put in place in the health protection coronavirus requirements Scotland regulations 2021. Those regulations set out four sets of legal requirements as baseline measures. First, relevant hospitality and entertainment premises are required to obtain and record customer information for a period of at least 21 days for the purpose of preventing the spread of coronavirus or monitoring the spread of infection and the incidence of coronavirus disease. Second, the regulations require persons responsible for places of worship carrying on a business or providing a service to have regard to relevant guidance by the Scottish Ministers and available on the Scottish Government website about measures to minimise risk of exposure to coronavirus. Third, the regulations also provide that people in specified indoor places and on public transport must wear a face covering, unless a specific exemption applies. And finally, the regulations cap numbers of live events at 5,000 people for events held outdoors and at 2,000 people for events held indoors, subject to local authority approval of higher attainments limits. The Scottish Ministers are also provided with powers to call in applications for exemption from capacity. Those new regulations, like the previous levels regulations, provide for the enforcement of the requirements and the regulations provide that they must be reviewed at least once every 21 days. Scottish Ministers are required to revoke any requirement as soon as it is no longer necessary. The first review had to take place by 30 August. Those regulations remain enforced, but we are keeping the requirements under review. Finally, I would like to inform the committee that the Scottish Government's report on the coronavirus extension and expiry Scotland Act 2021 will be laid before Parliament tomorrow. This report fulfills the requirement in sections 5 and 7 of that act to lay a one-off report before the Scottish Parliament one month after the act received royal assent. I am very happy to answer any questions that the committee may have about the regulations. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. I now turn to questions, if I may begin by asking the first question. Can I seek clarification whether the committee will be given secondary legislation to consider the policy on vaccine passports or whether that will just be a motion taken or as part of a chamber debate? If subordinate legislation will be forthcoming, in what timescale and what will be subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the emergency made affirmative procedure? The committee may well have to consider SSIs on that question. Obviously, the nature of the parliamentary debate is to seek parliamentary approval in principle behind the concept of the approach that the Government is taking, recognising the very different and distinctive character of the decision, but any other requirements for legislative provision or for enforcement will require to come to the committee and to the delegated powers committee, and the Government will fulfil all requirements in that respect. As to the question of whether the emergency procedure will be required to be undertaken, there is a question that I cannot answer today, but I will answer when we have come to conclusions on that point and will advise the committee of our conclusions. Thank you. I will open up questions from other members. Thank you, convener. I really just have a question on one of the instruments before us, which is the SSI 2021-277, which is an instrument that requires, subject to some exemptions, face covering should still be worn in some indoor spaces. That was the subject of some discussion in the Parliament's Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on Tuesday this week. It identified that the guidance states that face coverings are not required to be worn while dancing in a nightclub or dance hall. However, there is no specific exemption for dancing listed in the instrument. I wanted to ask for some clarity around that particular issue and whether that has been on the mission from the terms of the instrument. I will have to look in detail at the point that Mr Fraser has raised, but I was with Blair May want to add to the response on that particular question, but the regulations will have been framed in a fashion to try to provide the greatest degree of clarity and certainty in those circumstances. The policy purpose will have been the intention to draft on that basis, but I wish to add to my comments. Yes, thank you, Deputy First Minister. The regulations provide an exemption to the face covering requirements where a person is exercising. That is the basis on which the face covering requirement when a person is dancing is not required. I suppose that the issue then becomes when dancing is not dancing. Maybe that is the question for Michael Gove rather than yourself, Deputy First Minister. However, if there is an exemption for people exercising, does that apply to people walking, for example, or what constitutes exercise? I think that the difference in the distinction there would be that there is a greater degree of physical participation beyond what one would consider to be routine elements of everyday human functions, such as walking, which I think would be the distinction that would be made here. I am sure that we could pursue that in great detail, but it highlights the need for a degree of precision in relation to the drafting of those instruments. Thank you. At this stage, please bring in Professor Jason Leitch. I would say exactly the same as Elizabeth Sett. It is an exercise common sense exemption. Walking to the bathroom in the nightclub is not exercise, but walking on a treadmill in a gym is. We are asking people to use their common sense and you are exempted from face coverings if you are eating, drinking or exercising. Is any of the other members got any questions? That concludes our consideration of this agenda item. I thank the Deputy First Minister and his officials for their evidence today. We now move on to agenda item number 3. I now move to the third agenda item, which is consideration of the motions on the made affirmative instruments considered during the previous agenda item. Would you like to make any further remarks on the SSIs before we take the motions? Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Are members content for motions S6M-00695, S6M-00694, S6M-00693, S6M-00692, S6M-00702, S6M-00701 and S6M-00901 to be moved on block? Members are agreed to move the motions on block. I now invite the Deputy First Minister to move on block motion S6M-00695 that the Covid-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the health protection, coronavirus restrictions and requirements, local levels, Scotland amendment number 27, regulations 2021, SSI 2021 oblique 238 be approved, motion S6M-00694 that the Covid-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the health protection, coronavirus restrictions and requirements, local levels, Scotland amendment number 28, regulations 2021, SSI 2021 oblique 242 be approved, motion S6M-00693 that the Covid-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the health protection, coronavirus restrictions and requirements, local levels, Scotland amendment number 29, regulations 2021, SSI 2021 oblique 252 be approved, motion S6M-00692 that the Covid-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the health protection, coronavirus restrictions and requirements, local levels, Scotland amendment number 30, regulations 2021, SSI 2021 oblique 255 be approved, motion S6M-00702 that the Covid-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the health protection, coronavirus restrictions and requirements, local levels, Scotland amendment number 31, regulations 2021, SSI 2021 oblique 262 be approved, motion S6M-00701 that the Covid-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the health protection, coronavirus restrictions and requirements, local levels, Scotland amendment number 32, regulations 2021, SSI 2021 oblique 263 be approved, motion S6M-00901 that the Covid-19 Recovery Committee recommends that the health protection, coronavirus requirements, Scotland's regulations 2021, SSI 2021 oblique 277 be approved, can I ask the Deputy First Minister to move the motions on block? Thank you, is there any comments from members? I know that no member has indicated that they wish to speak so we will now put the question on the motions. The question is motions S6M-00695, S6M-00694, S6M-00693, S6M-00692, S6M-00702, S6M-00701 a S6M-00901 to be agreed. Do members agree? The motions are agreed to. The committee will publish a report to 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 and I would like to thank the Deputy First Minister for his attendance today. I suspend this meeting briefly to allow the witnesses to leave the meeting. I now move to the fourth agenda item, which is consideration of the evidence heard earlier in the meeting on three negative instruments, which are the Coronavirus Scotland Act 2020, Early Expiry of Provisions Regulations 2021, SSI 2021 oblique 214 and the Coronavirus Extension Expiry Scotland Act 2021, Evidence Saving Provisions Regulation 2021, SSI 2021 oblique 236, and the Coronavirus Extension Expiry Scotland Act 2021 Evidence Saving Provisions Regulation 2021, SSI 2021 oblique 280. Those are negative instruments, which means that Parliament has 40 days to consider a motion to annul them. We have taken evidence on the instruments from the Deputy First Minister this morning and motions to annul these instruments have not been lodged. Have I got any comments from members? Are members content that this concludes our scrutiny of these negative instruments? That concludes our business for this morning. This committee's next meeting will be on 9 September, when we will be taking evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport on International Travel Regulations. I now close the meeting.