COVID-19 vaccine eligibility for frontline health & social care worker groups: FOI release

Information requested

You asked for information on the following, in respect of the removal of unpaid carers from the COVID-19 vaccination programme:

1. Timeline discrepancy and date of the Scottish Government’s decision

2. Wider implications for clinical safety

3. Request for documentation of the decision

4. Minutes or summary of the meeting with carer representatives on 22 August 2024 5. Retrospective assessment

Response

Timeline discrepancy and date of the Scottish Government’s decision

You asked the following questions:

• On what date did the Scottish Government formally decide to remove unpaid carers from COVID-19 eligibility.
• Was this decision based on the JCVI’s August 2024 advice, the June 2025 advice, or a separate internal decision process?
• If the decision was taken in 2024, why was this not communicated publicly at the time?

I can confirm that the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health accepted advice to remove unpaid carers from COVID-19 vaccine eligibility on 14 June 2024. This decision was based on the JCVI’s position discussed at its COVID-19 main committee meeting on 27 February 2024, and subsequently confirmed in the JCVI statement dated 08 April, which was published on 02 August 2024.

The Scottish Government could not announce the decision earlier than the 02 August, because this information is confidential until the JCVI advice is formally published. For this reason, the earliest point at which the decision could be communicated publicly was 02 August 2024, when the announcement was made via the Public Health Scotland website.

Link to JCVI minutes of 27 February 2024: Minute 77th JCVI COVID19 main_27_02_2024.pdf |Powered by Box

Link to JCVI statement of 08 April 2024 (published 02 August 2024): JCVI statement on the COVID-19 vaccination programme for autumn 2024, 8 April 2024 - GOV.UK

Link to PHS announcement on eligibility 02 August 2024: JCVI advice on winter COVID-19 vaccination - News - Public Health Scotland

I hope the information above answers your queries under the heading “Timeline discrepancy and date of the Scottish Government’s decision”

Wider implications for clinical safety

The removal of the frontline health & social care worker group from COVID-19 vaccine eligibility was discussed at the JCVI’s main committee meeting on 27 February 2024, and subsequently confirmed in the JCVI’s published advice on 02 August 2024. The statement went on to say that health and social care service providers may wish to consider whether vaccination provided as an occupational health programme is appropriate. Ahead of such considerations, health departments may choose to continue to extend an offer of vaccination to frontline health and social care workers and staff working in care homes for older adults in autumn 2024.

All 4 nations continued to offer vaccination to the frontline health and social care worker group in winter 2024. Scotland conducted an assessment in early 2025 into whether an occupational health offer was required and a decision was made that it was not, and therefore the frontline health and social care worker group were removed from the programme from winter 2025.

Current evidence indicates that additional COVID-19 vaccine doses provide only short-term, moderate protection against severe illness and very limited protection against mild infection or transmission. With high levels of immunity across the population, the indirect benefit of vaccinating health and social care workers to protect others is now minimal. The COVID-19 vaccination programme is therefore focused on those at greatest clinical risk, where vaccination offers the most benefit.

Request for documentation of the decision

You asked for:

• The decision paper, ministerial submission, or internal memorandum in which Ministers approved the removal of unpaid carers from eligibility;
• Any briefing provided to Ministers addressing the potential equality, health, and risk impacts of this policy;
• Any internal correspondence or documented rationale demonstrating how PSED and Fairer Scotland Duty considerations were assessed in practice without a formal EQIA or HIA.

I can confirm that we hold the ministerial submission from which ministers approved the removal of unpaid carers from COVID-19 vaccine eligibility and I have enclosed a copy of this, however exemptions under section 30(b)(i) free and frank provision of advice, section 38(1)(b) personal data relating to a third party, section 36(1) confidentiality in legal proceedings and section 30(c) prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs of FOISA applies to some of the information you have requested. 

The reasons why those exemptions apply are explained in Annex A to this letter.

Regarding your ask for any briefing provided to Ministers addressing the potential equality, health, and risk impacts of this policy, other than the ministerial submission we have already provided the Scottish Government does not hold any further information. This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested. This exemption is not subject to the 'public interest test', so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.

Moving on to your ask for any internal correspondence or documented rationale demonstrating how the Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty considerations were assessed in practice without a formal EQIA or HIA.

As you noted, we do not hold a formal EQIA or HIA. However, officials considered equality implications through stakeholder engagement and internal discussion. This included recognition that unpaid carers may face additional challenges if unwell and unable to provide care. These considerations were balanced against JCVI advice and the need to prioritise groups at highest clinical risk.

While there is no single document that demonstrates compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty or Fairer Scotland Duty, the decision-making process included awareness of these duties and engagement with representative organisations. I have enclosed a copy of internal correspondence that demonstrates awareness of equality impacts and shows engagement with carer organisations and awareness of their concerns. Exemptions under section 38(1)(b) personal data relating to a third party of FOISA applies to some of the information you have requested. The reasons why those exemptions apply are explained in Annex A to this letter.

Ministers are expected to give due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and the Fairer Scotland Duty when making strategic decisions. In this instance, the Scottish Government relied on the JCVI’s clinical guidance and the broader context of vaccine programme transition to routine cost-effectiveness assessments.

I hope the information above answers your queries under the heading “Request for documentation of the decision”

Minutes or summary of the meeting with carer representatives on 22 August 2024

You asked for:

• The minutes, notes, or official summary of this meeting;
• Clarification on whether this meeting formed part of the formal decision-making process or was purely consultative;
• A list of which organisations attended, and whether unpaid carers were represented directly.

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have some of the information you have requested. I can confirm that the meeting held on 22 August 2025 was one of a series of regular meetings held by our carers policy team with national carer organisations. These are informal meetings are held to share information. No formal decisions are made in these meetings and no minutes/formal notes are held.

This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested. This exemption is not subject to the 'public interest test', so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.

I can confirm that this meeting was not held to form part of the formal decision-making process.

Officials from the Seasonal Vaccines and Strategy Team were in attendance and provided an overview of eligibility changes. Officials acknowledged concerns raised by the carer organisations and aimed to provide clarity on the JCVI’s rationale. I have enclosed a copy of the information presented at the 22nd August meeting between Scottish Government officials and carer organisations.

Please see below a list of organisations that would have been in attendance at the meeting:

• Carers Trust Scotland
• Carers Scotland
• Coalition of Carers in Scotland
• MECOPP
• Shared Care Scotland

I hope the information above answers your queries under the heading “Minutes or summary of the meeting with carer representatives on 22 August 2024”

Retrospective assessment

You asked for clarification on the following:

• Whether this work will include a formal retrospective EQIA and/or HIA on the decision to exclude unpaid carers; and
• Whether the findings will be published, given the scale of the impact on Scotland’s unpaid carer population and the wider implications for equality and clinical safety.

The Scottish Government does not have the information you have asked for. As noted previously, the Scottish Government is currently assessing our approach to vaccine-related Equality Impact Assessments (EQIAs) across the piece and will consider the changes to COVID-19 vaccine eligibility in 2024 and 2025 as part of this.

At this stage, we are not in a position to comment further on specific retrospective assessments or publication of findings beyond what has already been outlined. We remain committed to strengthening our approach to equality and socio-economic duties going forward.

This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested. This exemption is not subject to the 'public interest test', so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.

ANNEX A

REASONS FOR NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION

An exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA applies to some of the information requested because it contains personal data relating to third parties, i.e. names and contact details of non-senior staff and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in data protection legislation. This exemption is not subject to the ‘public interest test’, so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.

An exemption under section 30(b)(i) of FOISA applies to some of the information requested because disclosure of this information is likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice. The exemption recognises the need for Ministers to have a private space within which to seek advice and views from officials before reaching a settled public position. Disclosing the content of free and frank briefing material relating to the consideration of JCVI advice will substantially inhibit such briefing in the future.

This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We recognise that there is some public interest in transparency around policy development , however we consider that it is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring officials can provide ministers with free and frank advice.

An exemption under section 36(1) of FOISA applies to some of the information requested because it is legal advice and disclosure would breach legal professional privilege.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We recognise that there is some public interest in release as part of open and transparent government, and to inform public debate. However, this is outweighed by the strong public interest in maintaining the right to confidentiality of communications between legal advisers and clients, to ensure that Ministers and officials are able to receive legal advice in confidence, like any other public or private organisation.

An exemption under section 30(c) of FOISA applies to some of the information requested. It is essential for the Scottish Government to be able to communicate, often in confidence, with external stakeholders, such as local Health Boards, on issues such as the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines. Disclosing the content of these communications is likely to undermine their trust in the Scottish Government and will substantially inhibit communications on this type of issue in the future. These stakeholders will be reluctant to share their views fully and frankly if they believe that their views are likely to be made public. This would significantly harm the Government’s ability to carry out many aspects of its work, and could adversely affect its ability to gather all of the information it needs to make fully informed decisions.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing officials a private space within which to communicate with appropriate external stakeholders as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s position and appropriate options on issues relating to the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines. This private space is essential so that decisions can be taken based on informed advice. Disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between the Scottish Government and these stakeholders, which in turn will undermine the quality of the policy making process, which would not be in the public interest.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

FOI 202500494428 - Information Released - Documents

File type

PDF

File size

907.0 kB