Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Fraser will appreciate that there is a hypothetical element to his question. Decisions relating to litigation would be taken in the context of that litigation. Wider consideration of such issues that might be relevant to the inquiry that is being conducted by Lady Poole would be a matter for her; it would definitely not be for ministers to take or express a view on that. In a sense, I would separate those questions entirely. If litigation comes, it will have to be addressed, but any implications of such a situation would be for Lady Poole to determine, as part of her independent judgment.

Yes, I think that that is essential. I have had several meetings with bereaved families who have lost loved ones during the pandemic. It is absolutely central and fundamental for me that those families are confident about the process that is undertaken and that they have satisfactory engagement with the inquiry. That has been a critical element of the preparation of the inquiry, as I stressed in my answer to Mr Fraser. I have to be careful that I respect the independence of the inquiry, so I will simply read what Lady Poole’s spokesperson said yesterday:

“Lady Poole has already met a number of different organisations representing those affected by the pandemic, including bereaved families in January 2022. These meetings have been extremely important and informative and will help shape the Inquiry’s investigations in the months ahead.”

That is a very clear indication from Lady Poole and the inquiry of the importance that is attached to hearing the views of bereaved families, which I have reiterated from the point of view of the Government. It is vital that the issues and concerns that they have are properly addressed. I give my assurance that, when the remit for the inquiry is finalised, those issues will be central to its purpose, and that, although the inquiry is independent of the Government, it must address the remit given to it by the Government; that is a requirement of law.

Or dentistry.

Not in the slightest.

That would require us to configure the national health service around the circumstances of a few—I do not know how many; perhaps 1,000 or 10,000—individual patients, as opposed to trying to ensure that every patient gets the treatment that they require.

We have circumstances just now in which, unfortunately, individuals with complex healthcare needs have to have a range of different specialist interventions to meet their needs. I can only give a personal observation on this: I do not have healthcare issues, thankfully, but if I did, I would want to see a person who knows what they are doing. With all the greatest respect to Professor Leitch, I am not going to consult him on, say, open heart surgery.

There is a fine line to be walked. We want to retain as much of the really good strength and capabilities that have been built up in the testing infrastructure, but if we move away from that scale of testing infrastructure in the country, some people will undoubtedly become available for employment. We have to work with individuals to ensure that they are appropriately trained and skilled to remain in the labour market, albeit that they might be undertaking different tasks. The Government’s economic objectives are about maximising economic participation by those who are able to participate, hence the pilot projects that we are undertaking to tackle the levels of economic inactivity in Scotland. We want to reduce those levels and expand the size of the working-age population.

Based on the best measures that we have for the prevalence of the virus, we are in an improving position, with one in 19 of the population having the virus. I think further data on that will come from the ONS survey tomorrow.

I would rather address the question that Mr Nolan has raised through the route of rearrangement of the appointment on the basis of clinical advice, which I know from other experience is happening. The circumstances that Mr Nolan faces are not particularly different from the circumstances of many other people who have other clinical treatments and where the clinical advice is that they should continue with the treatment that they are getting—for whatever non-Covid issue it is—and get the benefit of the Covid booster vaccination at a different time. That is not an uncommon situation, so I am troubled to hear that, on the basis of that clinical advice, Mr Nolan was not able to readily rearrange his appointment.

That would be the more appropriate and reliable route, rather than having drop-in provision, which might or might not be available. I have previously gone over with the committee some of the challenges of drop-in provision. I would much rather that the circumstances of people such as Mr Nolan were addressed by rearrangement. If Mr Fraser would like to drop me some details about that, I will see what can be done to address the issues.

I ask Professor Leitch whether he would like to add anything.

I am not sure that I can subscribe to the argument that there is evidence of something better being done in England. I can subscribe to the argument that something different is being done with the establishment of long Covid clinics. However, I come back to the answer that I just gave Mr Mason, which is that our health service is founded on the principle that patients should get the treatment that they require and see the people who they need to see to ensure that interventions are appropriate. That founding principle must be honoured, and we must constantly explore whether there is a more effective approach that we could take. That is what the research projects that we have commissioned are all about.

Research work is under way to look at different models and approaches. If there is learning to be gained from examples in other parts of the United Kingdom and across the world, we will be open to that. Our health service is constantly engaged with other health systems to identify the most appropriate interventions to support individuals.