 I will take this opportunity to remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the Chamber and across The Holyrood campus and I ask that members take care to observe these measures including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please ownl use the� cruel march 소개 to access your seat and when moving around the chamber. The next item of business is a debate on motion 1123 in the name of John Swinney on Covid vaccine certification scheme. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate, to press their request to speak buttons, and I call on John Swinney to speak to and move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Throughout the Covid pandemic, the Scottish Government has taken actions that are proportionate to the nature and the circumstances of the challenges that we have faced. It is for that reason that we have brought forward for debate our proposal to introduce a mandatory domestic vaccination certification scheme for a limited number of events. The situation in which we find ourselves is currently fragile. Despite the vaccine that we have seen over the last fortnight, the number of weekly cases has increased from 26,167 to 44,198. The number of people in hospital with Covid has increased from 391 to 883, and those in intensive care from 44 to 82. However, despite those concerning levels of growth in cases and levels of hospitalisation, we all recognise and I believe are committed to the need to try all that we can to protect the return to greater normality that we have experienced in recent weeks. In June, the Government changed our strategic intent from suppressing the virus to the lowest possible level to a broader view that recognises all possible harms, including social and economic harms. We accepted that measures such as physical distancing were placing considerable burdens on our economy that could not be judged to be proportionate. On 9 August, we removed the majority of remaining restrictions while retaining an effective baseline of public health measures. That baseline includes test and protect, the use of face coverings in certain settings and continued emphasis on good hygiene and ventilation. Of course, it is the extraordinary vaccination programme in which 84 per cent of all over 18-year-olds are now fully vaccinated that allowed us to make that move beyond level 0. I want to pay full credit to the team's length and breadth of the country who have now delivered over 7 million vaccinations since the first Covid vaccination was delivered on 8 December 2020. However, just as vaccination changed the game in terms of Covid response, the arrival of the now predominant delta variant has led to the fragile position that exists today. Vaccination has significantly reduced the link between cases and serious health harm from Covid, the proportion of people with the virus who end up in hospital is now much lower than it was pre-vaccine programme. However, that link has only weakened. It has not been broken entirely. With our national health service under immense pressure, as we catch up with delayed treatment and care, we need to reduce the number of people in hospital with Covid-related issues. I give way to Mr Rennie. I thank the Deputy First Minister. The First Minister quoted Professor Riker today at First Minister's questions, but I do not think that she was complete in how she described his views. He does say that vaccination certificates could lead to riskier behaviours and could lead to some people who are less likely to get vaccinated. Will he give a more comprehensive view of Professor Riker's views rather than the selective view that was given at lunchtime? I have read Professor Riker's thread on Twitter today. It is a very balanced thread, because it goes through the arguments that justify the application of a vaccine certification scheme and the circumstances in which it would work, where there are high levels of trust in the advice and guidance that are in place. He highlights the issues that could potentially lead to vaccine anxiety being reinforced. It is a balanced argument. I do not have her words entirely to hand, but from my recollection of what she said at lunchtime today, she indicated that it was a balanced assessment of setting out the pros and cons of the steps that the Government took. Ultimately, that is a matter of judgment, which I will set out the rationale as to why the Government has come to the conclusions that it has come to. Murdo Fraser. I am grateful to Mr Swinney for giving way, and he is correct to say that it is a matter of judgment. In a matter of two hours, Parliament will be asked to vote on whether or not we approve the scheme. In the paper circulated this morning from the Scottish Government that says this at paragraph 3, the Scottish Government will continue to gather evidence from around the world on certification schemes. We will also publish a full assessment of the evidence for certification. Why is that evidence not being made available to Parliament before we are being asked to vote on the scheme? The Government has published a paper today that sets out the details of the scheme and the approach that we intend to take. There is a constantly emerging evidence base on all matters in relation to Covid. Mr Fraser is a member of the Covid-19 Committee. He knows that fact that there is an emerging evidence base. Of course, he will also know that there will be a consideration of regulations that Parliament will have to go through in relation to this, in addition to the decisions that the Government is being invited to take today. In those circumstances, I believe that it is necessary and appropriate for us to take further proportionate action, not to return to the restrictions of the past but effective and targeted action. Action that, where possible, minimises the harm restrictions caused to businesses, to young people's education and to our overall wellbeing. If Mr Kerr would allow me to make some more progress, it is precisely in that context that we are proposing to introduce a mandatory domestic vaccination certification scheme. It is not an additional layer of restriction imposed on a world that is essentially back to normal. It is a proportionate response to a world in which there is the continued risk of serious harm from Covid, where our hospitals are under strain and where we are beginning to see the serious impact of long Covid. If the choice is between sectors and settings being closed and a limited certification scheme being used to keep them open, the Government believes that it is right to make a choice in favour of a limited certification scheme. I am happy to give way to Mr Kerr. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way. In the paper, it is a very short paper that was produced this morning by the Government. Under costs, it says, any additional staffing or infrastructure costs will be met by businesses. So may I ask the Deputy First Minister what assessment has been made in terms of the economic impact on affected businesses? Part of that analysis has to take into account the point that I have just put on the record to Parliament. The choice that we face just now because of the escalating challenges of Covid is that we may have to consider further restrictions, which would of course have an economic impact as a consequence. We are trying to avoid that consequence. We are saying that this is a lesser and more proportionate impact on society as a consequence and businesses have to respond accordingly. I have a lot of detail that I have to put on the record today, if Mr Kerr will forgive me. As with all Covid measures, certification has provoked controversy and debate, but I encourage Parliament to consider the clinical justification for a vaccine certification scheme. There is clear clinical evidence that double vaccination significantly reduces the likelihood that a person will get Covid-19. There is clear clinical evidence that certain settings are associated with the risk of spikes in infections. We know about the risk of settings where large numbers gather or people spend time close together, particularly indoors. We also know that the activity associated with very large events will pose risks. We saw, for example, a marked spike around the Euro 2020 tournament. Therefore, ensuring that only those who are double vaccinated attend those higher-risk venues and events can directly reduce the risk of transmission in those settings. We accept, of course—I will give way to Mr Ross. He is asking Parliament this evening to vote on his proposals for vaccine passports. Can he tell Parliament and people watching what his definition in this context of a nightclub is? We accept, of course, that the extent of protection against transmission from vaccines is certainly lower now with the delta than with the previous dominant variant. It does not eliminate the risk, but it is likely that it does reduce that risk. I am afraid that I will have to make some more progress to get detail on the record. Any certification scheme cannot be based on a guarantee of no transmission, but it is about allowing some of our higher-risk settings to operate more safely when the potential alternative would be closure. Furthermore, that will help to protect those who are more vulnerable—for example, those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons or who, because of underlying medical conditions, do not respond effectively to the vaccine. In addition, we believe that certification will encourage a proportion of the eligible population who remain unvaccinated to get vaccinated. That is something that we have seen in other jurisdictions. Of course, like any Covid measure, we should not use it for a moment longer than is needed. Regulations will be reviewed against the policy's intention to reduce transmission and boost vaccination uptake and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Those regulations will be reviewed every three weeks. Any certification regulations will expire on 28 February 2022, as with all Covid measures under the health protection coronavirus requirements Scotland regulations 2021. It would require a further decision by this Parliament to extend them further. Let me now turn to the details of the scheme itself. We published in SPICE yesterday a paper setting out the rationale for domestic certification and how we expect it to work. In that paper, we indicated our intention to launch the scheme on 1 October. We accept that it is only a few weeks from now, but to be effective in the current fragile context, we believe that we need to take rapid action. We do not believe that domestic vaccine certification should ever be a requirement for any key services or in settings where people have no choice over attendance and we continue to hold very firmly to that position. As the First Minister set out in her statement to Parliament last week, we proposed that vaccine certification should be introduced once all our adults have had the opportunity to be fully vaccinated for the following events and venues. Firstly, in nightclubs and analogous settings, secondly, sexual entertainment venues, third, unseated indoor live events with more than 500 people in the audience, unseated outdoor live events with more than 4,000 people in the audience and lastly, any event that has more than 10,000 people in attendance. I think that Mr Whittle was on his feet first again. Brian Whittle Still got pace. I am very grateful for the Deputy First Minister's forgiving way. I wonder if we would accept that the major issue over here is the lack of clarity around the practicality of implementation of the vaccine passports. For example, what would happen when venues are not set up to digitally read QR codes or venues that have already automated the entry and who is responsible for policing or baring the costs, so it is the practicalities that I have not been properly considered in bringing this to Parliament. Cabinet Secretary, if I could perhaps move on to some of those details for the benefit of Mr Whittle, we want the vaccine certification process to be as simple as possible and there are just a few steps involved. From 30 September, people will be able to use the NHS Scotland Covid status app, which also has a QR code. Anyone unable to use the app can request a secure uneditable paper record of vaccination. That will replace the current interim solution for accessing records of vaccination. Staff and the venues affected can download the NHS Scotland Covid check verifier app to a smartphone or device. Mr Whittle has asked me to put some detail on the record and I think that it is important that I do that for the sake of clarity. Staff and the venues affected can download the NHS Scotland Covid check verifier app to a smartphone or device. That will be available during the course of the next week, well in advance of the launch of the scheme. There will be detailed guidance for venues on how to use this. There will also be options for venues to integrate the verifier functionality into their own systems as the secure code is open source. If Mr Simpson would allow me to complete the detail. I would suggest that the cabinet secretary is now over time and it would be appreciated if he could begin to wind up. A person who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons will be able to apply for a document that says that they are exempt. Those who are on clinical trials should already have their exemption letter and they will be able to show that instead of the record of vaccination. The introduction of Covid vaccine certificates, even in the limited circumstances that I have set out today, is a significant development, but the evidence base for its introduction in Scotland is not unique. There are not factors about the virus or our circumstances that mean that this measure is unreasonable in Scotland but reasonable elsewhere. The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce certification for England and several European countries, including France, Italy and Ireland, have already introduced certification. Indeed, certification schemes in other countries often cover a wider range of venues than the ones that we are currently considering for Scotland. As I have indicated, the Government has set out details to Parliament of the nature of the scheme. We put those proposals to Parliament this afternoon as part of an approach to protect a very fragile situation that we face in Scotland today of rising infection and hospitality that poses a threat to our national health service. We are trying to take proportionate action to protect the public from coronavirus, and I encourage Parliament to support the measures by supporting the motion that I move in my name. I now call on Douglas Ross to speak to and move amendment 1123.2. The Deputy First Minister just asked Parliament to consider the proposals and vote accordingly. I asked a very specific question of the Deputy First Minister, so I am going to invite an intervention from him. What is a nightclub for the purposes of his vaccine passports? Cabinet Secretary? Up until the arrangements that have prevailed so far, there has been no necessity to distinguish between nightclubs and pubs and hospitality venues that may open later into the evening and into the early hours of the morning. The circumstances that we face here require us to more precisely define the distinction to avoid market distortion between nightclubs and venues that could appear similar to nightclubs but have a different purpose. That is the subject of further discussion with the night time industry sector to enable us to come to conclusions that will of course be set out in regulations. Douglas Ross, I am really not sure of what we are expected to do as parliamentarians, as people sent here to scrutinise the Government. Nicola Sturgeon announced his plans a week ago. We were told that we would get a paper setting out how those vaccine passports would work. For a minute there, the Deputy First Minister fumbled around trying to explain what is a nightclub, yet he wants MSPs in this chamber to impose vaccine passports on those establishments, but we do not know which establishments it will affect. Surely only a responsible Government should bring forward proposals that are ready to be enacted. Further consultation is not suitable if you want the support of members in this chamber. I thank the member very much for giving way. Would he accept that today we are looking at this in principle? The detail has still to be worked out. We have a Covid committee that will look at the detail. I absolutely do not agree with that, because his Deputy First Minister said—I cannot remember the exact words—that he accepted that this is being introduced in short order. A proposal being put forward by this Government to be introduced in short order will not be scrutinised by the Covid committee before it is implemented. I understand from myrdal Fraser that that scrutiny will only happen after that comes into force from 1 October. I think that those are legitimate questions. I think that that is why the Deputy First Minister refused to respond to my intervention during his speech and still cannot tell this Parliament or the public watching what a nightclub is in terms of the vaccine passports that he wants to impose on those nightclubs. I will give way to Ms Martin. It is interesting to me that Douglas Ross was a councillor, and I do not know if he served in any licensing boards. In licensing boards, they have a definition of nightclubs. Would he agree that that is something that is known throughout licensing boards and councils? I was a councillor for a decade. I sat on a licensing board and I did the training to be a member of the licensing board, and there was no such definition. I am not sure if Gillian Martin ever sat on a licensing board, but she did not do the training if that is what she thinks. However, we are in a really difficult position as politicians seeking to make a decision on an extremely important subject if the Government cannot give us even simple information about what is a nightclub and what is not. We were told to expect a paper that would, in broad terms, tell us what to expect—a paper that was only published hours before today's debate. It is 2,000 words in which it still does not define a nightclub that says that there is going to be costs on businesses with additional staffing and infrastructure, but as the Deputy First Minister accepted, he has no idea what those costs will be. It also states that the app will need an update, so it will introduce something for venues that he cannot define with an app that will have to be updated going forward because it is not ready yet. It also does not provide sector-specific detail on how the scheme will be operated. Sectors have been crying out for this for a week since it was first announced, and Nicola Sturgeon and the Deputy First Minister in this coalition want us to vote for it without giving us that information. This is just another example of how the Scottish National Party Government is going to disregard the views of the chamber with today's vote and, for the next five years, if that is how it plans to bring proposals forward. It already knows that its plans will pass. It knows that the coalition that it has formed with the Greens means that it will go through, despite all the concerns that we will hear from around the chamber. That is not just me saying that as the leader of the main—could I just read this and then I will give way. It is not just me saying that as the leader of the main opposition party here in Holyrood. That is coming from industry as well. It is good that the Deputy First Minister wishes to come in on this point, because Stephen Montgomery of the Scottish hospitality group said this morning, that with the coalition that it will just be streamrolled through Parliament, we have not been told anything. Absolutely nothing. We do not know how it is going to work. We do not know the cost implications. We do not know who it is going to affect. I am sorry for Stephen Montgomery and his members with the Scottish hospitality group, but I do not think that this debate is going to tell them the answers that they need either. I am grateful to Mr Ross for giving way and on the issues that he raises, we have published detail and we have provided more detail to Parliament today. We will continue the dialogue with sectors such as those that Mr Montgomery represents. Can I ask Mr Ross to set out to Parliament the steps that he believes, given the rising threat of coronavirus and the delta variant, that we should take to avoid the application of further restrictions? I did this yesterday. We have to do far more with test and protect. There are issues and I know that the First Minister does not like politicians raising concerns about test and protect. It is nothing to do with the staff. They are doing an outstanding job but we know that staff are now being told do not continually phone a Covid positive patient if you cannot get through to them. If we are not going to get on top of people who are testing positive for Covid and find who they have been in contact with, then we are not going to get on top of this virus. Surely simple measures to get test and protect working to its maximum should be what we should be striving to do, not implementing a scheme. The Deputy First Minister is uncomfortable leading the debate today, because he is not someone that, I believe, wants to come to this chamber seeking support for proposals that he has not thought through and that he does not have answers to. Finally, on the point from Stephen Montgomery, and it is maybe useful to say, I did not give his whole quote from the newspaper today because he went on to ask for something very specific. I think that this may be useful because what we have heard from the Government, not just today but over the last week, is that they do not understand business. They do not interact with businesses to listen to their concerns and to try and adapt to the proposals that are going forward that will affect them. Stephen Montgomery went on to say, I would call on the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister to come and work at one of our venues on a busy Saturday night and see the effect of their policy decisions. Will the Deputy First Minister accept that offer? Cabinet Secretary, my apologies. I thought that that was an intervention. Please continue. I am sorry, Presiding Officer. The apology should come from the Deputy First Minister. He is going to cause untold damage and uncertainty to a number of industries. When a very simple invite to go and see what is an invite to join the industry to see how it is going to impact them is met with nothing but a smirk from the Deputy First Minister, I think that that tells you everything you need to know about this SNP Government. I am very quickly, I am sorry, Mr Stewart. Well, I am sorry, Mr That. Colleagues, I cannot hear everything that is going on in the chamber, but I very much would like to hear the contribution from Mr Ross. Thank you. Mr Stewart, who represents an area that has a significant night-time economy, says that it is pathetic to be asking his Deputy First Minister to actually go there and see the impact of their policies. No, I think that we have heard enough from a sedentary position from Mr Stewart. There is a lot I wanted to say in this debate, but I think that the most telling points so far are what we have not heard. I am sorry, I need to make progress. We have heard no details from the Deputy First Minister. We have heard no details from the First Minister. For a week, we have been asking questions, other Opposition parties have been asking questions and the industries have been asking questions. The question tonight is will Parliament vote for this or not, and the Scottish Conservatives cannot support what is being put forward. We will not support this SNP-Green coalition to bring in these plans. This Government has made no effort to bring the Opposition parties in this chamber or the public on board with their proposals. No effort to inform, no effort to persuade, no effort to consult, and it is for those reasons that the Scottish Conservatives will vote against the proposals today. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Jackie Baillie to speak to and move amendment 1123.3. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I think that the one thing we can all agree on in this chamber is that we want to control the spread of Covid-19. The more people that get Covid, the more people end up ill, some in hospital, more run the risk of having long Covid. Controlling and suppressing the virus must be the major public health priority. Trying to do so, while keeping the country open for business, is the exam question for us all. My starting point is to consider any and all suggestions from the Government, the World Health Organization and other experts very carefully. The First Minister suggested that we should all read Professor Riker's tweets. Although I am yet to be convinced of policymaking by Twitter, I nevertheless did so. I have to say that I am not sure that this gives the First Minister the cover that she wants. He warns that passports can be seen as a form of compulsion and lead to increasing alienation in society. We know from other experts that there is a real danger that vaccine hesitancy becomes entrenched and you then limit the number that you can persuade to be vaccinated. Professor Riker goes on to say that you run the danger of exacerbating inequality as you could leave pockets of low vaccination and high infection in some communities. Almost 60,000 people were consulted by the UK Government. How many have the Scottish Government consulted? Have they even spoken to the businesses that will be responsible for implementing this? There seems to have been little meaningful engagement according to the night-time industry and the hospitality industry. By the Government's own admission in the document that was published yesterday, it has not even based it on evidence. The problems with the current system are fast becoming legend. Those on clinical trials are not getting certificates, those getting a dose elsewhere are not being recorded, those whose data does not match and is wrong. There is a practical question of the Government's ability to even implement this. We all know that Covid-positive case numbers are very high, frighteningly so, but we need to understand what works and not simply reach for anything just to be seen to take action and end up making matters worse. Professor Riker warns that vaccination does not stop transmission. To repeat and ask Sawa's comments at First Minister's questions, it is the case that you could be vaccinated, you could have a vaccination certificate, but you can still be carrying Covid and you will be allowed into the nightclub to infect everyone else. It is nonsensical and the Government is in danger of giving people a false sense of confidence. They are not invincible simply because they have a certificate. There is no doubt that the vaccine does reduce the gravity of the infection, but it does not stop you from getting Covid, so we need to do more. Let me agree with the comments made by the First Minister and plagiarise Professor Riker that we need a basket of measures. What should be in that basket? First, better uptake of vaccinations. There are still 200,000 people waiting more than eight weeks for their second dose. They want to be vaccinated, so why is the Government so slow? I will take as many interventions from SNP members as John Swinney did from Labour members. Those paying attention would know that that was zero. Let me make progress. The Government has been too slow. There are people who are genuinely hesitant that need reassurance—pregnant women. Young people are concerned about the impact on their fertility. Where is the special advice? Where is the public information campaign? You need to be where people are rather than waiting for them to come to you. Vaccination centres in nightclubs, in pubs, in schools, in colleges, in football grounds, anywhere that young people congregate, and we could even consider incentives as other countries have done. What about action on ventilation systems? Schools do not have adequate ventilation systems. Neither do businesses and very few of our public buildings have the middle. Where is the action to improve that? Experts tell us that that makes a real difference to transmission, so why is so little happening on this front? What about testing? Scottish Labourers said quite clearly that we favour making a negative PCR or lateral flow test the basis for entry to large events or certain venues. It is a proportionate measure that identifies Covid cases and many organisations already use it. You maybe did not hear me the first time, but I will take as many interventions from SNP members as John Swinney did from Labour ones. That takes me on to test and protect. There should be a key weapon in the Scottish Government's fight against Covid. Finding positive cases, self-isolation and identifying close contacts is essential if we are to suppress the virus. Why is the Scottish Government moving at snail's pace? The lack of action on this front is frankly dangerous. The staff at test and protect do their very best, but they are under-resourced and overwhelmed. As case levels have increased, contact tracing has decreased. Calls have been limited to those who test positive, not even close contacts are getting a call or a text message. It is just silence and so Covid spreads. It used to be that an average of 3.3 people would be contacted for each case. Now it is dropped to 1.5. They are simply not coping. Where is the surge capacity? It appears to be non-existent or it simply comes too late. In fact, I know that some contact tracers are actually being paid off. Despite the spin of the First Minister yesterday, we know that only 60 per cent of the 82 per cent cases were contacted in under 72 hours. That is 20 per cent less than the World Health Organization says is required. The Government is failing to get the most basic measures right and so Covid spreads. Instead of adding more untested measures to the basket, that might not have the desired effect, why does the Government not try something entirely novel? Try to get it right. Try to get right what is already there and we know works. Finally, when I started to consider this issue last week and looked for evidence, I came across lots of commentary from Humza Yousaf, health secretary, instinctively skeptical about vaccine passports. That is what he said. From John Swinney, Covid recovery cabinet secretary, vaccine passports were the wrong way to go. From Ian Blackford, SNP leader at Westminster, SNP MPs will not support Tory plans on vaccine certificates. There are many more. Of course, I could not forget my old friend Patrick Harvey from the Greens. Before his elevation to the ministerial benches, he used to think that passports would deepen discrimination, would set a dangerous precedent and would create generational injustice. They say that a week is a long time in politics. Clearly, it is enough time to jettison your principles. Yes, we need to take further action as case numbers are rising, but vaccine passports are not the silver bullet. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Alex Cole-Hamilton to speak to and move amendment 1123.1. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment in my name. Let me be clear that vaccines are without question our best route out of the pandemic, but vaccine passports are not. Scottish Liberal Democrats are fundamentally opposed to the introduction of mandatory vaccine certification on grounds of ideology and practicality. I want to start by expressing my dismay and the dismay of these benches, that on such a change to the operation of both venues and events, on such a recalibration of our civil liberties, the Government has failed to produce any substantive detail for the introduction of these measures. We have heard a lot already about how the Government will define a nightclub. The paper provides that it accepts that this is a problem, but it does not answer it. All the while, business owners are in the dark as to how they will be classified or what will be required of them, just days before the scheme goes live. The paper is also silent on how certification will handle those vaccinated elsewhere, or who have been lost in the system. It does not address the boost of programme either. There is a shocking paucity of detail for what could prove yet another crushing burden to an industry already on its knees. When she first raised these measures in Parliament last week, the First Minister quoted Jeff Ellis as a sector leader who she claimed had voiced support for the scheme. Presiding Officer, he has been misquoted. I met with Jeff and other leaders in the nighttime industries association on Monday. They have many concerns about these plans, not least because they are skeptical that they will even work. We know that vaccines do not stop you getting Covid, nor do they stop you passing it on, but asking that everyone present a certificate before entry to a nightclub or a sports ground could give people a feeling or a false sense of security. It might lead customers to let their guard down and abandon some of the precautions that we have all adopted these past 18 months. That could lead to increased transmission. Industry leaders believe that it would be far better for customers, if needs be, to present a negative lateral flow test to confirm their Covid status before entry. LFT requirements are different from vaccine certification because they do not compel you to access a form of treatment and then present a record of that treatment to access freedoms in our society. Test results give you and venue staff a snapshot of your health on any particular day, such as a breathalyzer on the side of the road in the hands of a police officer. Above all, Liberals are fundamentally opposed to vaccine passports on ethical grounds. That is because—I cannot believe that I have to say this—you should never have to provide any aspect of your medical history to a bouncer to get into a nightclub. For the first time, citizens will be asked to provide private medical data to a stranger who is not their clinician if they want to enjoy access to venues or other services in our society. The third last paragraph of the Government briefing requires a photographic element to the process, as well as a Sunday post reported that it might. Vaccine certification represents the introduction of medical ID cards in all but name. Those proposals cross an important line in the principle of government by consent in this country. The administration of a free society should never compel its citizens to receive medical treatment, but a policy that will restrict or remove freedoms of those who have not consented to such a treatment does exactly that. Additionally, if the Government wants to increase vaccine uptake in those groups in our society that are hesitant, I am not even sure that the threat and removal of their freedoms is even going to cut it. In France, where we have heard mention already, the vaccine certification has been the norm there for many months, but there is already a black market for vaccine certificates. Before I close, I want to turn to the sensitive matter of the vaccination of children. The paper that we have been given exempts those under 18, but it suggests that that age threshold will be lowered as that cohort receives the full double dose vaccine. We know that the coalition Government is actively considering the extension of the vaccine programme to 12 to 16-year-olds. That may well be the right thing to do, but if it happens, the hesitation of the JCVI on this matter will give many families pause. This will be a judgment call for young people and their parents, and they should face no coercion of any kind before making that finely balanced decision. Therefore, at no point should we require a 13-year-old with a season ticket to Ibrox or Tannadise to evidence their vaccine status in order to attend games. It would artificially put pressure on them to get that vaccine. I invite the Government, in its closing remarks, to confirm that young people will be exempted from the scheme at all times. I want to close by saying how saddened I am by the U-turn of the Green Party on this matter. The party of Robin Harper would not have abandoned their principled opposition to this illiberal policy. Gillian Mackay has described this assault on our civil liberties as the least worst option. I am sure that she wants to believe that. But only seven days notice, a myriad of unanswered questions. With no proposed end date as to where the passports are and an open door to their expansion, the Greens will tonight act as midwifes to a policy that sets our country on a disturbing and illiberal course. Medical ID cards will be introduced by the coalition tonight, and Liberals will immediately begin the campaign to see their abolition. We now move to the open debate, and I call Gillian Martin to be followed by Craig Hoy. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Nightclubs, sexual entertainment venues, indoor unseated live events with 500 or more attendees, outdoor unseated live events with 4,000 or more attendees and all events with 10,000 or more attendees. The managed entry to and the hazard mitigation of those is what we are talking about today. The two themes of marriage remain this debate. One is about health protection and a number of fronts. One is choice, and it remains a person's choice to get the vaccine and protect themselves against Covid. It is a choice that the vast majority of us have made. It also has a person's choice to decide whether or not to attend high-risk events that require a vaccine certificate like those outlined. Of course, a person does not have to go to a nightclub or a football match or a live concert, but if you do choose to, we ask you to take responsibility for your own health protection in that venue. I thank Gillian Martin for giving way before she stood up and suggested that there was a single definition for a nightclub. I wondered for the benefit of members if she could set out what that was. Gillian Martin. Yes, I have actually got it because I have more the councils one here. If you give me a minute and I will bring it up on my phone, it says—I am taking quite a bit of time out of my speech to do this, but I will tell you—it says that the primary function—no, hang on—may include dancing. It would have more people standing than sitting. It would be open from 1am to 5am. That is money councils. Is that a list of things? Aberdeenshire Council. I think that it depends on the council, because Aberdeenshire Council has got one as well. To be honest, I am struggling to think of a nightclub that is actually in Aberdeenshire, because I am not familiar with them any more, being a bit of an old bird that stays at home. Anyway, I will go back to my speech. If you choose to go to the venues, I ask you to take responsibility for your own health protection in that venue. It is not the only mitigation, but it is one that is part of a whole strategy that may allow assemblance of normal life to return. I think that it is right to analyse periodically the effects of this measure, like everything in this dreadful pandemic, with enlarged uncharted waters, and we have to make decisions fast in the interests of our public health. There are quite a few restrictions imposed on the entry in such venues already, and I do not think that it is unreasonable to turn someone away if there is concern that entry into a high-risk environment may result in that person's admission to hospital. I certainly would feel happier going to a live music event if I knew that people I come into contact with were at less risk of ending up in the ICU. If the personal responsibility aspect is not something one cares about and not suggesting that anyone here is in that bracket, then how about the effect on our NHS capacity of large amounts of people going unvaccinated into high-risk areas and becoming seriously ill? I also think that we need to find a way to make sure that those events, which support the livelihood of many of our young people in particular, can recommence safely. We have heard so many times how our creative industries have suffered economically. Many of that workforce have not been eligible for furlough as they are self-employed. Customers are downloading a certificate in a matter of seconds to allow live events to work to begin again more safely. I do not think that that is too much to ask to help with that. I understand that someone who used to work front of house in the entertainment venue, albeit quite a few years ago now, can be challenging to manage entry. I get completely how the addition of checking a certification requirement might impact on that process. Yes, businesses need guidance and support if we ask them to change their practices, and they must be involved in working out how that is to be done. A lot of people mentioned Stephen Riker today, so let us look at the tweets that he has mentioned on Twitter today. I have put a few of them in my speech. He says, certainly, if people are fully vaccinated, it reduces the probability of getting infected and passing on infections. Therefore, it makes venues safer and gives confidence to more vulnerable members of the community. Equally, vaccines do not provide total protection against infection and transmission. If the impression is given that passports have a total solution, if people are entirely safe once fully vaccinated, it may lead to riskier behaviours, and a few people have made that point. For safety, the take-up of the effects are mixed and are contingent. That is nuanced. That is not a straightforward situation. There are lots of things in the suite. Jackie Baillie is right when she says that certification is not a silver bullet. No one is saying that it is. It is part of a suite of measures. He says that vaccine passports may contribute to a strategy of reducing infection and the reopening of society safely, but they cannot be the sole piece of such a strategy. Last winter was miserable. That second lockdown was awful for all of us. I lost a person very close to me. My constituents lost people close to them. We had to stay apart from our loved ones. There was nothing out there that we could do to lift us out of the despair that so many of us felt. None of us want to go back to that. We have some tools available to us that can help us avoid that. If certification is one tool that we can deploy to reduce the risk, to mitigate the spread and to get us to where we all so desperately want to be, I am all for it, as long as its effect in this is continually reviewed. We as a Parliament have not shied away from making really hard decisions over the past 18 months. Decisions that have imposed restrictions have never thought would ever have to contemplate, but we have done it to protect the health of our people, our people of Scotland. That is what will be in my mind at decision time when I support certification on those public health grounds. I now call Craig Hoy, who will be followed by Paul MacLennan. A coronavirus is the biggest threat that this country has faced in decades. The pandemic that it provoked made us challenge long-held beliefs. Beliefs about the way that we live our lives, beliefs about the role of the state, beliefs about individual freedoms and beliefs about that finely balanced relationship between our rights and responsibilities. The public health emergency forced many of us to set aside significant doubts about the interventions taken by government. A silent killer was ravaging our care homes and indiscriminately killing our friends and family members. The stakes were simply too high not to take unprecedented action, but let's not dodge the elephant in the room. No liberal conservative like me would have handed those fundamental freedoms to the state in any other circumstance or on a never-ending basis. The question that we must consider today is whether that Covid passport plan is going to work, whether that is the most effective way and the most practical mechanism to prevent the on-going harm caused by Covid. Until only a matter of a few days ago, senior SNP figures appeared to be against Covid passports. Let's take Mr Brassneck himself, Ian Blackford. Speaking about the UK Government plans, the SNP's Westminster leader raised, and I quote, serious concerns over ethics. Concerns, he said, about equity, ethics and privacy, but he's not the only member of the SNP to pivot on a pinhead. Take the Deputy First Minister. Asked on Good Morning Scotland in late July about the merits of barring the unvaccinated from certain events, he said this. I think that that is the wrong way to handle it. I'd be much more convinced by an argument about engaging people and explaining the rationale. What of Mr Swinney's coalition partners? Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater will today vote for measures that they vehemently opposed only a fortnight ago. That is despite Mr Harvie's belief that vaccine passports, and I quote, could set a dangerous precedent for the longer term. I will give way. Patrick Harvie. I'm grateful to the member for giving way. I don't think that anyone is approaching that issue with dismissing the concerns that have been expressed. I think that even the public health experts who recommend this policy understand the concerns. But there is a very big difference between thinking that this policy should be approved when cases were running at a few hundred a day, to thinking that it is worth considering, to thinking that it is worth considering when cases are running at around 7,000 a day, and once the entire adult population has had the opportunity for both vaccines, does the member not acknowledge that when the facts change, you at least ask yourself have I made the right judgment here? He has been in government for one week, and already the SNP's army of spin doctors have got their claws into him. Let's be in no doubt. The Greens have traded in their tandem for a pair of ministerial limousines, and they have left their principles on the pavement. Deputy Presiding Officer, throughout the pandemic, Scots have largely done what was asked of them. We were told to stay at home to save lives, protect the NHS and defeat the virus, and we did. We were told to close our businesses, putting livelihoods on the line, and many of us did. We were told not to visit sick and dying relatives, and many of us did. We were told not to bury our dead without family and friends there to mourn them, and we did. That was the price of regaining our freedom. The incursion into our lives because by Covid has been unimaginable, but it has also been largely justifiable and based, Deputy First Minister, on practical workable solutions. The issue before us today is different. Many Scots have raised legitimate concerns on civil liberties. What is being proposed means that, for the first time, Scots will have to provide private medical information to strangers in order to access some of the most basic things in our society. Critics say that this will create a two-tier Scotland that has vaccines and that it has nots. What are those with medical conditions going to do? Can the Deputy First Minister guarantee that the exemption scheme will be operable from 1 October? Are those from deprived or ethnic minority backgrounds? We know that, within those groups, the vaccine uptake remains lower than the population as a whole, and this move risks further entrenching inequality. The Government insists that the scheme will not be in operation for a moment longer than it needs to be. Deputy Presiding Officer, it is commonly accepted that we cannot eliminate Covid, so surely the logic of the Government's position is that passports will be here to stay in their headlong rush. I am grateful to Mr Hoy. I invite him to follow through the logic of the argument that he has already put to Parliament, whereby he has acknowledged himself that regulations and restrictions have been removed when the situation has improved. That is exactly the same here, that we are saying that those certification passports would be in place for a period up until the end of February 2022, but they would automatically expire at that moment because we faced the challenge of autumn and winter on a very high threshold of cases that exist today, which did not exist at previous stages in the pandemic. Mr Hoy, you have taken a couple of lengthy interventions and allowed your time back. We have seen time and time again that the Government has not handed back the powers. It keeps extending them, it keeps seeking to extend them and it is confirming that it will not necessarily withdraw them. You did it in June for the powers that could have— No, I really must make some progress, but notwithstanding what the Deputy First Minister says about the nature and timing of those powers, what evidence does he have that that policy will increase vaccine take-up? Even if it does, will it not undermine testing, creating a sense of reassurance that nightclubs are Covid-free? The challenge is faced by the industry. How will the equipment be rolled out? When will the beta testing of the app take place? Who will man the checkpoints? Who will pay for them? We found out today that it is hard-pressed businesses all over again. What will we do for those people who do not possess smartphones? How long will it take for the authorities to make and distribute the paper-based certificates? The Scottish National Party Government should stop, pause and consult further on the concerns that have been raised. The Scottish Government has failed to prepare the Scottish public or Scottish business for the introduction of the system. It has not addressed the problems that are raised by businesses, and it has glossed over legitimate concerns on civil liberties. It is for those reasons that I will vote against vaccine passports today. The first duty of any Government is to protect its citizens. The pandemic has seen the biggest challenge to our way of life, our prosperity and, of course, our communities. When I spoke in the programme for government debate on Tuesday, I said that serious times required serious and responsible government, and that is what we have with us being brought forward today. Let's look at the fundamental facts. Vaccination reduces transmission and significantly reduces the risk of serious illness. Of that, there is no doubt. We know that far fewer people are dying from Covid-19 and before the vaccination programme was rolled out. That is why we must all do what we can to ensure that people take up the offer of a vaccine to protect themselves and the nodes around us. We must also ensure that there is enough capacity in our health and social care system, and nobody is touching that today at all. In an ideal world, we would not be looking at Covid vaccine certification. I, like others, do not want it to be in place for any longer than is necessary. However, the alternative mealed us to facing the possibility of facing further periods of closure of some of the higher-risk settings. That is the reality, but we need to undertake the most proportionate actions to keep people on the venues that visit as safe as possible, particularly what is likely to be a very challenging winter period. We know that the highest risk is among months and vaccinated individuals who are significantly more likely to get infected. Could he cite a single academic paper regarding the efficacy of the vaccination against transmission? The WHO recently said that there was insufficient evidence regarding the efficacy of the vaccine against transmission or infection. That has been mentioned in Public Health Scotland and has covered it in various briefings. That is the reality, but we need to undertake the most proportionate actions to keep people on the venues that are safe as possible, as I said in a very challenging winter period. Vaccination reduces transmission and significantly reduces the risk of serious illness. We have heard the mention around will-it-increased vaccine hesitancy. We have examples of that. We have seen the introduction of the certification scheme in France and the announcement of such a scheme in Israel, where both were associated with significant increases in vaccine uptake. Covid certification is becoming an increasingly common response to the exceptional circumstances that we are all facing. The question is—this is a fundamental question—how do we reduce the risk of transmission in the most proportionate and least restrictive way possible? Certification is a reasonable response to a very difficult discussion. I am grateful to the member for giving way. What is the member's assessment of the economic impact on businesses in his constituency of those measures? What does he expect he will be saying to him when he visits them on Friday, if he visits any of them, if he dares to show his face to them? Mr MacLennan, when intervention is taken, I would be grateful if you would return to your seat, but I can give you back the time. I speak to businesses all the time about that. They are supportive. The one thing they do not want is to be able to—yeah, they do. They do not want to close. Let me answer the question. I have spoken to businesses, and I have spoken to businesses who have had to close in the past few months. They do not want to go into that situation, so they are supportive. The Scottish Government has made it clear that domestic vaccine certification will only be used to gain access to key services or in settings where people have no choice but to attend—for example, healthcare, public transport, shops and educational settings. The Scottish Government does not currently consider appropriate—no, I have taken a few already—to introduce certification for the hospitality industry as a whole. It has been mentioned before that it also envisages that children and people with medical injections would be exempt. The Scottish Government has never ruled out the certification, Covid certification. The First Minister has said that we continue to consider very carefully the possible albeit limited use of Covid status certification for access to certain higher risks in the future. Covid certification has already been introduced by several other Governments of different political persuasions in countries across Europe. Just in August, the EU digital Covid certificate was introduced in all 27 member states, as well as Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. Politicians from all parties agreed that it was a proportionate and necessary step to help control the pandemic while opening up travel and social venues. There has been little or no ideological dispute—maybe a lesson for our opportunist opposition. Many countries have already gone much further than the Scottish Government is proposing. What the Scottish Government is proposing is also being proposed by the UK Government for England. We are also looking to introduce certification for England at the end of this month. The same scheme that the Tories are opposing in Scotland is the same scheme that they will support by Conservative colleagues in Westminster. In regard to Labour, Cure Stammer himself said that he supports passports plus testing for mass events but does not access to critical things. That is exactly what the Scottish Government is proposing. The Scottish Government will continue to keep all requirements under review, and that is an important part of the review. Any changes to legal restrictions will of course be scrutinised by Parliament. If both opposition parties are concerned about how the scheme will operate, support the principle of Covid vaccination certificates and work with the Government on its implementation. Only this afternoon, I had an email exchange with hospitality Scotland who said that they were not against the scheme in principle. They had concerns about how it was going to be implemented, but we speak to the Scottish Government, so they were not concerned about the scheme in principle. I support the motion to protect the health of Scotland and enable us to finally move out of the pandemic. The Scottish Government is really concerned about the current situation with Covid, as Jackie Baillie said earlier. The daily infection rate is too high, so we clearly need to sue something about it. I do not believe that vaccine certification passports is the right thing to do, and I have not heard any confidence in the Government's argument or its backbencher speaking today, as I just heard, but Paul MacLennan is unable to answer Daniel Johnson when he asks rightly so for the science behind the argument that he is making today. The much-quoted Stephen Riker, who the First Minister quoted today, does not really support anyone's argument if he actually read all of his tweets. He says many things, but he also says that it is neither negative or positive, because the issues are complex and it will have a mixed effect. Why that backs up the Government's argument is that I am mystified. Transmit kicks off in Glasgow tomorrow with 50,000 people attending over the weekend, and those who attend will require a proof of a negative lateral flow test to be recorded on the Government's website, which is something that Scottish Government officials asked for. One of the first issues is that it is causing confusion among concert goers about what the Government's message is, whether it wants a lateral flow test, and they are now switching the argument to a passport entry. Other venues such as the SubClub had already been using such a system, and I just want to make this point. This sector has been quite responsible so far, and Mike Greve wrote to me yesterday that he is the owner of the SubClub, and he confirmed that they were doing this and other mitigation measures to reduce transmission. Like many in the sector, he and others are saying that a more honest position of the Government is to admit that its real policy is to coerce 18 to 29-year-olds in order to get the vaccination, because they cannot even define what a night club is, and the inconsistency in night clubs versus large pubs is absolutely staggering inconsistency in the Government's approach to that. I would say that the sector that I have also spoken to is livid at the suggestion, but public health measures have asserted in the press this week that ventilation is poor in night clubs. Many in Glasgow and in the city, I represent a heavily invested in ventilation before the pandemic, and I really quite insulted that there does not seem to be any understanding of this and have not spoken to those representatives. I was quite clear with them, what are you prepared to accept? I just want to put on the record that it is not as if they do not accept what they have to do. The accept that they have to do is something. Vaccine passports will also be incredibly difficult for hospitality venues and night clubs who are being asked to do that. Any proper engagement would highlight this. A certification scheme being implemented is an added burden for night clubs in particular, who already have to supervise long queues to ensure that their safety for those attending in terms of drugs and weapons is the reality on the ground. Any real consideration was given to night clubs who already have to do that. I do not think that threatening the sector that they might close them all down altogether is helping the discussion. I have to say that it is the wrong tone that the Government has taken in trying to get the sector on board. It is my view that it places further demands on a sector that has endured hardship due to Covid, particularly as it has been closed for more than 18 months. There is conflicting evidence as to the benefits of the scheme, so it has been asked to endure the hardship on its business without any hard, real evidence that that will make a difference. However, I agree with Stephen Kerr on that. It will damage the sector and there has been no offer of mitigation. I asked the First Minister yesterday and she did not reply to me at all. The Nighttime Industries Association has warned that nightlife businesses are likely to lose more than a third of their trade if Covid passports are mandatory. It pointed out that staff shortages will intensify as many employees have indicated. They will quit the sector rather than accept compulsory vaccination. I quoted Mike Kill yesterday and he said—it is just his words—that, contrary to popular belief, much of our core market and workforce will not accept being coerced into taking the vaccine. I asked the question again why the Government is so convinced that it will have the effect that it wants to have. As we all know, we can still catch Covid and transmit it even if you have been vaccinated. I think that the Government should be really clear about why it has opted for this option. We already know that there are many communities that have low uptake of the vaccine, so that is the real challenge for the Government how we are going to tackle this. The plan is only to impose it on nightclubs in Gillian Martin. I think that it demonstrated that it is really difficult to draw this distinction, so you have to provide a passport to go to the nightclub. However, the pub next door has a capacity of 400 and has a DJ playing loud music. It is absolutely a mystery as to why the Government does not see that there is absolute consistency. Promoters and sporting venues are already having to invent a refund policy due to the new rules. If you are not vaccinated, you cannot attend, so you can see that it is going to have quite a massive effect for what seems to be a questionable scheme in order to get the intended effect that the Government wants. I hope that it is accepted by the Government. We understand that we have to take action. We are not coming at this from an absolutely principled position. Like many other MSPs, I have had plenty of people write to me asking us to take a principled position on that. It is not practical. It will not have the desired effect. It is inconsistent. It will damage the night-time economy. The engagement has been woeful in this, and I hope that the Government will learn some lessons going forward and bring something to the Parliament that we can all get behind, because that is what we want to do. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this extremely important and sensitive debate. I have not been contacted like all of us I would imagine by dozens and dozens of constituents regarding this issue over the past week. I am very aware of the genuine concerns held by many around the introduction of vaccine certificates. The correspondence that I have received has represented all sections of society. In particular, my constituents have voiced concerns that the introduction of any form of Covid certification would instantly create a two-tier system within our society. Many feel that such a move would go against the long-standing efforts of this Government to fight any form of discrimination. However, I am proud that there has always been a zero-tolerance approach taken by the SNP Government against discrimination in our society. I would therefore welcome assurances from the Scottish Government in order to alleviate the concerns of my constituents that this Government remains fully committed to fighting inequality and injustice across our society, especially in these Covid times. I recognise, however, that, as the number of Covid cases remains stubbornly high, particularly in Glasgow and across the Lanarkshire area, more has to be done in order to protect the most vulnerable as we look to further the reopening of our society and economy. The introduction of the Covid vaccine certification scheme will allow higher-risk venues to remain open and help to ensure that there are no further lockdowns in the hospitality sector. Having heard from and also have met representatives from the industry, I understand that—go ahead. I am very grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Giving Way. I wonder if she could tell the chamber what aspect of just proving the fact that you have had both doses reduces the infection risk to you and other people in a venue that you are in? I am not sure. Sorry, could you say that again? I can. I apologise. I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary for Giving Way could tell the chamber what aspect of having a vaccine passport keeps you safer from passing on Covid, even if you did not have one and were double-jab nonetheless. We have got a little bit of time, so you will be re-bushed. Thank you for that intervention. I have been double vaccinated, so I will use a real example. If I had my passport to prove that, it cuts down on my ability to be able to pass it on and keep others safe and to prove that. I do not mind having the passport in order to prove that I can keep others safe in large venues. Can I ask the front benches to stop having a private conversation with Stuart speaking? I have lost my place a wee bit, so I will go back to it. No other further lockdowns, having heard from and met, I understand that there has been a disproportionate impact on our hospitality sector. As Pauline McNeill pointed out earlier, the industry is vital, especially in Glasgow-Kelfin. I therefore ask the Scottish Government to release details as soon as is practically possible on how any certification system implemented will impact on my constituents who work in the arts, the entertainment and hospitality sectors, where certification may be necessary to attend. With the transmissibility of the delta variant much higher than the alpha variant and the impact of the delta variant on younger people being even more severe, I agree that the need to support this move for vaccination certificates in the very limited number of high-risk settings identified in this motion. Particularly as those places are where our younger citizens who have had the lowest vaccine uptake rates gather in larger numbers. As we move into the autumn-winter months, where the huge number of rising cases will only impact further on NHS services, it is imperative to be proactive and ensure that many of our young people, as soon as possible, are fully vaccinated. I am hoping that the introduction of the vaccine certificate will encourage more of our young people to take up the vaccine, as it has done in other European countries such as France, where they saw a wave of young people being vaccinated after announcing the roll-out of their Covid vaccine certificate. In finishing, I believe that the election result in May is a testament to the trust that the Scottish people have placed in the SNP Government to lead our country out of the pandemic. The Scottish public understands that the First Minister and her Government will do everything that they can to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all. It remains their top priority, with a particular emphasis on protecting people in higher-risk settings. Ultimately, being fully vaccinated is the best defence against rising infection rates, limiting transmission and lowering the extremely serious consequences of contracting Covid. A vaccine certificate gives us just one more tool to reduce transmissions and the risk of severe illness. Those continue to be challenging times, and there is no denying how difficult this decision is for members and Government alike. I, for one, trust the Scottish Government to continue prioritising public safety as it has done so throughout the pandemic. I now call Gillian Mackay, who will be followed by Douglas Lumsden. We all hoped that this was a decision that would not need to be made, but the simple fact is that the pandemic continues to rage and action is needed once again. Today, I want to set out and explain how we have come to our position on this issue. I do not think that laughing from the Conservatives is helpful, to be honest. The rising cases and plateauing vaccine rates mean that we are on the brink of re-imposing restrictions that we thought we were at the end of, and many of our health boards are struggling to cope. Many have stopped non-urgent surgery and are dealing with rising numbers of presentations at A&E and minor injuries. I have had many people write to me on the issue of vaccine certificates, and I have taken into consideration carefully what has been said when arriving at the position that we have today. It is true that the vaccine is less effective at stopping transmission of the delta variant compared with the alpha variant. However, the vaccine does reduce transmission and serious illness, and I have scientific papers if anybody wants to see them. I can send you links. According to Nature, a study in Wisconsin between June and July showed that the viral loads between vaccinated and unvaccinated people of the delta variant were comparable, suggesting that there is absolutely little reduction in transmission with those who are vaccinated. There is also a study in the Journal of New England Medicine to say that there is a reduction in the transmissibility of the virus when people are double vaccinated. For this to happen, however, we need a higher number of people vaccinated than are currently. The lower uptake numbers of vaccines in lower age groups have been widely reported, and we need to continue to encourage young people to take up the vaccine. I hope that I have a lot to get through, and we have only one speech, so I am genuinely sorry. We need to continue to encourage young people to take up the vaccine, and I hope that alongside other measures, certification will do that, as it has elsewhere. Indeed, I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary could tell us whether there have been any early signs of the impact in the vaccine uptake since it was announced when they closed. There is also evidence published in the Lancet on 1 September by Antonelli et al that found, and I quote, we found that the odds of having symptoms for 28 days or more after post-vaccination infection were approximately halved by having two vaccine doses. That result suggests that the risk of long Covid is reduced in individuals who have received double vaccination when, additionally, considering the already documented reduced risk of infection overall. I hope that this is something that Scottish Government may look into further and commission research on this in a Scottish setting. For some young people, that will all seem contradictory to the narrative throughout the pandemic. Young people have been told for 18 months that they are at less risk of becoming seriously ill. That does not mean that you are at no possibility of becoming ill, and now we are seeing more under 40s than any other age category in hospital. Long Covid has also always and will continue to be a real danger to anyone who catches the virus. At the start of the pandemic, young people were asked to do the right thing, abide by lockdown measures and keep everyone safe, which meant that they often missed out on formative experiences such as graduation, freshers week and entering the workforce. We greatly appreciate those sacrifices, and now we have to ask you this time to do something again so that you do not miss anything. I really need to get through stuff. We are asking you to get your vaccine, not to just protect you but everyone else around you. Some people have said that this may increase vaccine hesitancy, although it does not appear to have been the case in comparable countries that have introduced similar schemes. However, I would implore health boards and the Government to continue to reach out to those who have expressed hesitancy to give them the information that they need on the vaccine. Since those plans were announced last week, I and my colleagues in the Green group have pushed strongly to ensure that this measure is time-limited and targeted to both increase vaccination rates and, as a result, decrease the rate of transmission. I am pleased therefore that, in addition to being reviewed every three weeks, there is a provisional end date for this scheme at the end of February. I have also pushed to ensure that disabled people and other marginalised groups will not be adversely impacted by the scheme. I am pleased that paper certificates will be readily available and that medical data will be limited and that individuals who cannot be vaccinated for health reasons will be exempt. Nevertheless, we are acutely aware that this remains a risk of this policy and I will be keeping a close eye on it. I am also aware of the impact that this could have for students and others vaccinated in countries where it may be difficult to obtain proof of vaccination. We are continuing to work with the Government on this and I am encouraged that everyone who has taken part in a vaccine trial will automatically get a certificate. I understand the moral and ethical concerns raised by others and I absolutely respect their point of view. It is one of the Greens previously shared when furlough was still in place and some age groups had not yet had access to vaccinations. If we were looking at the health impacts of Covid, then re-imposing wider restrictions would probably be the obvious initial step. However, with furlough ending shortly, this is no longer a choice that we have. The consequence of shutting those industries without furlough would lead to job losses and businesses closing on a scale far beyond what we have already seen. The discussion that we are having today would be an entirely different one if we had the ability to extend furlough and provide the financial support needed to reintroduce restrictions. We are very much in the realm of the least worst option. Conservative colleagues have said that they are going to vote against this this evening. However, I implore them on how important it is to speak to colleagues at Westminster and lobby for furlough to be extended. Is hypocritical to vote against health protection measures here without any attempt to resolve the issues that hamstring other interventions? As I said earlier, this is not a decision that we wanted to be on the table for many reasons that I have already laid out, but we will not shy away from taking the decisions that are in the best interests of this country, and we will continue to work with the Government to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected, to ensure that the scheme is not in place for a day longer than it needs to be and to minimise the restrictions on our civil liberties, which this pandemic has sadly made necessary. I now call on Douglas Lumsden, who will be followed by Fulton MacGregor, Mr Lumsden, in around six minutes. Vaccine passports are a contentious issue and has raised a substantial amount of correspondence from individuals and businesses right across the north-east. There is a huge amount of anxiety being expressed about the pace, lack of consultation, form the passports will take and impact they will have on businesses and those attending events. The screeching new term by the SNP green government has led to confusion, chaos and concern for many of my constituents. That concern is born out of a deep distrust of this devolved Government and its ability to deliver projects. We have already seen the ffiasco over the new IT system for the farming sector and the promising of apps that have never been delivered. Businesses and citizens simply do not trust this devolved Government to implement a system that works for them and their customers, particularly when they have not been consulted on this sudden U-turn. A year ago, we, the Conservatives, called for a business panel to be established, to be a sounding board for government on Covid measures. This never happened. I am positive upon deflection that the minister is now wishing that he had listened to the Conservatives and implemented the business panel. We could have heard what businesses need rather than try and work through what looks like a dog's dinner of a policy without the knowledge of business on the ground. However, this devolved Government has a habit of talking down to business, of telling them what is best rather than understanding their needs and requirements. In my discussion with business leaders, here is what they are telling me. I have been contacted by the chairman of a football club and he said that clubs with over 10,000 attendants will be severely challenged financially. We have already had a huge number of season ticket holders state that if we force them to get vaccinated, they want their money back. We have done everything not to make anyone redundant at the club. Our initial estimate is that this will cost us at least £1.5 million in lost income. Clubs have gone through all the pre-season planning, jumped through all the hoops, put in place Covid measures and adhered to all the guidelines. However, with this ill-thought-out policy, the Government has put in all of that in jeopardy. I thank the member for giving way. Has he got some other suggestions instead of the certificate? For example, would we just stop crowds at football altogether? I think that we heard from Douglas Ross earlier that getting test and protect working would be a more effective way. When I read the proposals—we are calling them proposals—I can understand the concerns that football clubs have. It says that staff at a venue can download a free QR code verifier. Has anyone from this Government ever been to a football match? There is not one orderly queue of 50,000 people. You have hundreds of turnstiles, mostly unmanned. You do not have a guy each turnstile with an app on a phone. A couple of days after that is due to come into force, there are four matches in Scotland that will be affected. That proposal will be a hammer blow to those clubs who have already suffered hugely over the past 18 months. Mr Lumsden, hold on a second. I want to hear what Mr Lumsden has to say. There is too much chatter across the chamber. I urge the Government that, if they do force that through today, to work closely with clubs and do not hand them out to dry. The Night Time Industry Association has also written to MSPs and put forward some helpful suggestions on how the impact of the policy could be mitigated. They asked the Government to pause and reflect where the numbers are going. The case numbers, as suggested by the First Minister yesterday, may have peaked and we are now starting to see that fall again. Surely, it is premature to bring this policy in quickly without the necessary infrastructure in place. They also raised with me another issue that has been touched upon today. That is the definition of a nightclub. The Government does not have a definition for it yet, so there will be many pubs that I suspect will be in for a big, nasty surprise. There seems to be a lot of talk about a definition, so I have had a wee bit of time to look it up. The definition of a nightclub is a noun. It is an entertainment venue that is open from the evening until early morning, having facilities such as a bar, a disco or other entertainment. I thank the member for that intervention. Obviously, she has not read the notes that were released today, because in here it says that there is no definition of a nightclub, and that is still being worked on. How we can vote on those proposals, when those definitions are not in place, is a strange one on me. Those proposals presented to us as more holes than a Swiss cheese. It is meant for nightclubs, but we cannot define a nightclub. The medical exemption process is still being developed. Under-18s will be exempt, but that might be changed to under-16s. Now, we have a situation in which young people going to a concert will have to prove that they are under-18, and if they do not have a driving licence or a passport, I am not sure how they are going to do that. We have no idea on cost to business. Guidance on reasonable measures will come later. So many unknowns have been asked to approve today. I am also extremely concerned by recent reports that events are abstaining from coming to Scotland and move existing events to England, as those measures proposed by the devolved Government will prove too costly and too difficult for them to operate in Scotland. Our events industry is worth around £1.5 billion a year in Scotland. To lose that or see a substantial reduction will have a major economic impact in many regions, including the north-east. Of course, we have a major event coming to Scotland in just seven weeks' time, COP26, and we have no idea how the conference will be impacted by what is proposed today. Obviously, we will just have to cross our fingers and hope for the best. Finally, colleagues, there is one more concern that I would like to highlight today, and that is about the timing of introducing those restrictions. If that is introduced and then forces someone to go and get vaccinated, the quickest they will be allowed into a venue will be 10 weeks after their first injection. If they got their first jab today, it would be 18 November before they were able to go to a football match or a concert, and that does not seem fair. Colleagues, this is an ill-thought-out policy from the coalition of chaos. The screeching new term by the SNP Green devolved Government is a sight to behold. Where is the once-principled view of Patrick Harvie so ardently against this policy, now falling into line just to protect his ministerial salary? There has been no planning, no discussion, no consultation, no thought to this policy. It has been done on the back of an envelope without the IT systems in place to support it. Once again, the people and businesses in Scotland will be left to suffer and try to cope the best that they can. As a great privilege to speak in this debate on a matter of such huge significance, I will say from the outset that I intend to vote for the Government motion today. However, before I outline my reasons for this decision, I want to take some time to express concerns that I have, as I think people across the chamber have, about the vaccination certification scheme and to make sure that the voices of the many constituents who have been in touch are heard. My first concern, Presiding Officer, is a member of this Parliament and his Equalities Committee. From a human rights perspective, members will be aware that the Scottish Human Rights Commission briefing that was sent out to us said that the Government should ensure that two tests are met in terms of vaccine passports to comply with human rights. The Government should provide evidence that the measure is necessary to achieve a pressing social aim and that it is proportionate, going no further than necessary to achieve that aim. I do feel that the Deputy First Minister's opening speech today demonstrates that, for now, those tests have been met by keeping certification only for high-risk events. To be under regular review and scrutiny, I think that those tests are very important in allowing us to take that step today and for many of us to go ahead and vote for it. Also, as we have heard from others, the night-time industry—I believe that this is maybe better, Mr Johnson was going—has raised significant points. Those were backed up by my constituent who runs a number of night clubs in my constituency across Lanarkshire. Actually, he spoke to me today as someone who has been very supportive of measures to restrict Covid and is not opposed to the measures that we are talking about today, but he did reiterate some questions that we have heard from a number of other members, mainly from the Opposition, about what constitutes between a nightclub and a late bar. I think that those are legitimate questions. I think that John Mason's point is a good one that we will need to flesh some of that out. He also raised some concerns about how that will be enforced, how can fraud be prevented, etc. I know that other members have covered that, but he also goes on to tell me—perhaps this is a point that Douglas Ross was making, but I think that he made it in the wrong way to the Cabinet Secretary, but he also went on to tell me that they have been open since the 13th of August, had 6,780 people across their doors, no pings in the test and protect and no staff members unwell. He himself put that down to robust systems in place, including everyone signed in to test and protect, temperature checks and an innovative system pumping—I better get us right—one metre cubed fresh air per second and filtering out the same dirt air. I wonder then if the Government would consider coming to visit the example of good practice. I know that he has very much had good practice throughout the pandemic and had contact with the Government. Will I be able to get the time back, because I've got quite a lot— You've got a little bit of time back, yes. Michael Manor. Thanks for giving way. It's one case in the proportionality that you're talking about. I'm glad that the member isn't resorting to Google, as some of the other members are, to try and make their definitions as he goes along. Part of the proportionality issue is that all the other means have been exhausted before this is brought in. Is it not right that we get test and trace working properly before we actually move into this kind of circumstance? Is that not a test of proportionality? No, I think that I've already covered that. I thank the member for that intervention, but I think that the proportionality aspect has been made by what the Deputy First Minister has said. I also think that what is really important is that all members across all parties agree that the fact that it is a provisional end date and a three-weekly review that we can review this measure. I think that it brings in proportionality. I'm sorry, Mr Ross. I'm not able to just now, because I would like to make some progress. I would also like to thank the very many individuals who took the time to get in touch with me about this matter. For around 50 or so, I think that our constituents of Mine, Co-op, Rich and Christen will each receive a response from me, but I understand that the arguments that you have put to me about human rights and individual choice. I also understand that many of you have been double vaccinated but are worried about the possible trajectory of such a move and where it may lead even once the pandemic has subsided. I wanted to say that I will continue to be your voice in Parliament, and there is no indication that that would be anything but a short-term measure. I also understand the concerns of various specific groups, and we experienced that while my partner was pregnant and there was conflicting advice, it wasn't easy to make the choices about vaccination. Moving on to the second part, I want to talk about why I am supporting the motion today. We firstly are in the midst of a global pandemic, and I don't know about anyone else, but I think that the point has been raised, but we don't want to go back into lockdown in restrictions. Essentially, if that measure adds value to the other measures, then I am for it. Last week, I was at NHS Lamontshire briefing where we were told—not just now—that two-thirds of those currently in hospital with Covid-19 are unvaccinated, and a significant proportion of the remaining one-third have only had one jab. Two-thirds are unvaccinated. Just think about that for a minute. Surely, if one of the primary aims of that measure is to increase vaccination groups in groups who do not already have it, then we have a duty to try it. That is why I cannot believe that Opposition MSPs are so against it. It is not even that there is an argument and that they are going a bit too and from, like most of the SNP members. It is just totally against it. Are you guys going to the same briefings as me? The NHS Lamontshire briefing could not have been clearer, and there is also a simple element of trust. I am, of course, a member of the Parliament and of the Government party, but first and foremost, I am a father, a son, a partner, a friend and a citizen of Scotland. The Government has earned her trust through the course of the pandemic and has been demonstrated by the recent elections. If the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Government, the advisers think that this is a good idea and that it will help, we should support it. I know that they will be the first. The Cabinet Secretary will be the first to come here and say if it is not working and pulling the measures. However, the irony of Douglas Ross and even anas Sarwar to a lesser extent will not be lost in anyone. It is good enough measure to tackle the virus for the people in England but not here in Scotland. Is that really what you are saying? Maybe it is not. Maybe I am misquoting you, but it feels like it to me. It has a three-week review built into it. You have literally nothing to lose but, of course, one thing—the opportune moment to play party politics. I am not taking any more interventions, I have taken one. I am happy to support this motion tonight. I raise my own concerns and those of constituents on their behalf, and I look forward to updates on the success or otherwise of those measures in tackling the pandemic. I remind the chamber that it is up to members whether or not they take an intervention. I now call on Alex Rowley for around six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Speaking in this debate today, I would first make clear my support and that of my party for vaccine take-up. Indeed, without the success of firstly securing the vaccine across four nations and then the massive uptake by the public, we would not be in a position where we are seen to open up of our economy and our society. I have spent much of the last five days researching into the issue as much as I possibly can, with the intention of making a decision based on the evidence given the wide range of views and concerns being expressed at what is being proposed here today. The fact that those proposals are coming through emergency legislation means that there is not the levels of scrutiny that would be the norm for such serious measures. I note that the House of Commons Public Affairs and Constitution Committee did take advice on the introduction of a Covid status certification and published a report on 10 June this year, and basically found that the UK Government had not presented a scientific or public health case for introducing Covid status certification systems. It also made the point that such significant measures should be done through primary legislation. My view is that today the Scottish Government has not brought forward a convincing scientific case for introducing a certification system that is to target certain venues and certain gatherings, nor has it provided the evidence that those specific areas being targeted are causing major outbreaks in the spread of the virus. That is important because we must surely have that knowledge to try and get back on top of driving the R number down. From my knowledge of people getting Covid, the greatest area of spread seems to be the schools. I worry that the Government seems a bit hapless when it comes to knowing what to do while schools are struggling to manage the situation that they currently find themselves in. The main purpose from what I can see of introducing such measures is to use the stick approach to increase uptake amongst younger people. The Deputy First Minister told the Covid Recovery Committee last week that the primary purpose of the policy proposal is that the First Minister set out to strengthen resistance to the virus by maximising compliance with the measures that we know will have the greatest impact on stemming the prevalence of serious illness as a consequence of people contracting it. That statement raises a number of questions, the first of which is will it improve uptake compliance of the vaccine amongst younger people? Where is the evidence that is being given to show that that would be the case? Initial research on that question raises concerns that it may have the opposite effect and entrends vaccine hesitancy, particularly in groups that need to be reached. Although the Government will win the vote today and proceed with the proposal, I would ask that it also brings forward much more detail on what it is doing to specifically focus on those geographical areas and specific groups, such as the younger population, where there is low take-up of the vaccination. I should note that, certainly watching the TV news the last few nights, the numbers of young people going for vaccination has certainly in many areas been on the increase. I believe that taking those steps will be far more important to encourage uptake amongst people who, for whatever reason, have concerns and fears about getting the vaccine. For giving way in what is considered contribution, he says that he notes anecdotally that numbers are increasing in the last few days. Does he not think that that might be to do with the fact that we have announced the certification scheme and our intentions to implement it? Alex Rowley, I also noted that a lot of the evidence is suggesting that, by trying to force people to take the vaccine, it can have the opposite effect. I am less than convinced, but I think that we need to focus measures on how we reach what we might call the hard to reach. The Scottish Human Rights Commission makes the point that take-up of Covid-19 vaccines is lower among some groups, including people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, people from certain ethnic minority groups, refugees and people seeking asylum. I also think that we have to do more to challenge the level of misinformation that is rife and increasing from anti-vaccination groups. The more misinformation goes unchallenged, the more dangerous it becomes. If the Government brings forward measures that demonstrate that it will increase the uptake of vaccines, then I certainly will support those measures, but you need to be able to bring forward the evidence that sits behind those measures. On the question of compliance, the disregard for mass wearing in shops on public transport in other areas where there are required by-law is sadly increasing at a worrying rate. I have to ask what steps is the Government taking to support retailers, for example, to enforce the law on face coverings and why has it been left to shop workers to ask those questions and put themselves at risk? To use emergency legislation to bring in new laws while ignoring the laws that we have in place to protect people is not right and we need to address that. Likewise, we have all seen the pictures of the overcrowded trains, which is a direct responsibility of this Government, so it is one thing to tell others what to do, surely we need to get our act right alongside that. To conclude, I am not sure that the measures that are proposed will deliver the intended result, and I want the Government to enforce the laws that are already in place to keep people safe. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Rowley. I now call for a brief contribution to the last of the open speakers, Pam Duncan-Glancy. One of the concerns that has been raised with me is that people who have had one vaccine in one country and one in the other cannot get their vaccine passport. My office has asked National Services Scotland about that, and they have said that it is not yet possible to bring vaccination data together from one different country to another. I would be grateful if the Government could give an indication of when they expect to resolve the issue. Also, disabled people, carers and other seldom heard groups have been strong in their concern over the lack of consultation that they have had in the Scottish Government's Covid response and have consistently asked that they are involved in all aspects of it. Is crucial that any introduction of vaccine passport schemes is considered and planned to ensure that it does not perpetuate or exacerbate existing inequalities? Has the Government carried out a detailed and robust equality impact assessment and human rights impact assessment on vaccine passports? If so, when will they publish it, and if not, could the Deputy First Minister explain why not, or the cabinet secretary? Finally, if the Parliament votes for vaccine passports today, how will the Government involve disabled people, people living with long-term conditions, unpaid carers and other seldom heard groups, in designing how they work and how they are rolled out? I would be grateful for the cabinet secretary to set that out in his closing remarks. Thank you very much, Ms Duncan Glancy. We now move to closing contributions, and first up, Willie Rennie, around six minutes. Just six weeks ago, Patrick Harvie wrote in my favourite authoritative journal, The National Newspaper. He railed against Boris Johnson's plans for vaccine passports. Mr Harvie said that threats and coercions will backfire. It could destroy public trust, deepen discrimination, deepen inequality, would allow anti-vaxxers to spread misinformation. To top it off, Mr Harvie wrote that Boris Johnson just does not care. I know that Mr Harvie was nuanced and understated in that article, but forensic analysis will glean that, on balance, he was not in favour of vaccine passports. Fast forward six weeks, Mr Harvie has changed his view. I am not sure that he now thinks that the use of threats and coercion to get people vaccinated is acceptable. I am not sure whether he is bothered about public trust or inequality or discrimination anymore, not just now. Is he content to let anti-vaxxers spread misinformation? Does Mr Harvie now think that Boris Johnson cares after all? I know that the Government office can change people, but I did not believe that it would turn Patrick Harvie into Boris Johnson's biggest cheerleader, Mr Harvie. I am not sure that Willie Rennie took that last comment any more seriously than I did. He is quoting my article. Everybody selectively, as several members have quoted Stephen Reicher's tweet this morning, but can he tell the chamber when I wrote that article what was the daily case rate of Covid transmission in Scotland? Willie Rennie is amazing how compliant Mr Harvie has become with just a few weeks in office. Six weeks ago, he was against coercion. Now he has joined the SNP and he is in favour of coercion. I have a little bit of advice for Mr Harvie. Some might say that I have a little bit of experience of this. If Mr Harvie does not want to get pushed around for the next five years by his new coalition partners, he needs to stand up for what he believes now. If there is no better opportunity than doing that today, his votes will make the difference in this debate. Stand up for what you believe, Mr Harvie. My opposition to Covid ID cards was first expressed last autumn when I asked the First Minister in this very chamber. She denied that she had any plans to introduce them. I raised it again in the spring and in the election campaign several times. I banged my desk in approval when Patrick Harvie challenged the First Minister about them too. My opposition is simple. As a Liberal, I am always suspicious of Governments that want to accrue more powers for itself over the freedom of the individual, no matter how apparently innocuous it is. That is why I posed the SNP's Government plans to introduce a super ID database, the precursor to an ID card in this country. That is why I was opposed to Labour Government's ID cards and we scrapped them when we got into power, Mr Harvie. It is a major shift in the power balance between the state and the individual to include vaccine ID cards in this country. It would require people to get treated in order to get access to normal services. That is not something that I am prepared to accept. We need to be very careful whenever we consider shifts in the power of the state. It should not be rushed with haste. We received the flimsy six-page note this morning from the Government. A few hours are insufficient time to consider this. This Parliament should not be bounced by this Government, and it deserves more than a couple of thousand words of waffle. It just asserts this. Covid-19 ID cards will work. That is about the length of the argument. There is no guidance, no regulations, no agreement with other countries, not even our neighbours in the rest of the UK. The QR code has not been widely tested, the technology has not been shared with venues, and they have had no training. All of this is supposed to be in place in 21 days' time, three weeks. The IT system cannot cope with the current demand for vaccine passports for foreign travel, so I cannot see how it will cope with this massive increase in demand. I am also unclear as to what it thinks that this is going to fix. Having the vaccine does not stop you contracting or spreading the virus, although it does limit it. However, the danger is that people—this is Professor Riker's argument. The danger is that people at these big events ignore all the protections, as if they have had the all-clear from a Government-endorsed ID card. That is an argument that Government ministers were particularly enthusiastic about over the past 18 months. I am afraid that the Government has lost its head. It has been captured by the something-must-be-done advocates. We have worked together through this pandemic. I personally have praised the First Minister for our leadership. We have asked many people to make many great sacrifices, and many have made the ultimate sacrifice. However, we have always sought to unite society to beat the virus together. I fear that the Government is abandoning that approach today. It is overreaching. It is garnering more powers for itself against the individual, and it is doing it at such great haste. I would urge the Government to thank again. Let me begin by some points that I think that we can all agree on. As Alec Rowley said, we all want to see vaccination rates increase. Like Gillian Martin said, we want to find safe ways of doing the things that we did before the pandemic. Absolutely like the Deputy First Minister said, we have to ensure that we suppress the virus, and we have to look at what will work. However, I think that we have to question the approach that the Government has been taking. We have to question why it has created the imperative now. We have to question the process by which it has brought this about, and we have to question the fundamental rationale that lies behind the measures that they have put before us in the motion this afternoon. We knew that the roll-out would conclude roughly at the end of this summer, back in last December. At that point, when we knew that timeline, the question was always going to occur, do we need to enforce vaccination? Will we ask people to prove it? Similarly, earlier in this year, the discussion around vaccine passports occurred throughout the world. In July, we knew that Scotland was a global hotspot for the virus. Throughout this time, there was the opportunity to discuss and explore the possibility of a vaccine passport. Look at the practicalities, look at what would happen. Quite simply, it is not good enough for the First Minister to say that she did not reject the idea to somehow claim that her Government was developing it. They were not. If they wanted to do this, they should have been examining it in detail and preparing it. Even the UK Government did a consultation back in March. This is a false imperative. As Willie Rennie said, the Government has been captured by the something must be done. Something must be done. This is apparently something. Therefore, we must do it. That is simply the sum total of the Government's argument this evening. In terms of the legislation, I would be happy to hear it. I have listened very carefully to the concerns that have been raised. However, two weeks ago, I attended an NHS briefing in Lanarkshire. There were members of your party there. To the best of my knowledge, there was a single MSP or MP from the Tory party at that, and they were going to oppose this evening. My constituents cannot get personal care unless it is emergency. We cannot get operations in Lanarkshire. The rates are going up, and the briefing from the officials was absolutely clear that we had to do something about vaccine uptake and protect our health service. For that reason, I will be voting for this this evening. However, Mr Johnson, do you understand just how hard it is for my constituents at the moment? I really do understand the motivation from the member. What is more, I would say, is that we have to listen and go to briefings. Ultimately, this is a question of whether the measure will do what the member is suggesting. We have to question that. The reality is—I was going to come on to this later—that one of the fundamental issues here is the proposition that vaccination reduces transmission. The issue is that the Government is conflating two fundamental elements of vaccine for efficacy. There is the efficacy of vaccination in ensuring that people do not get ill and do not go to hospital. The evidence on that is clear. It does reduce that. In terms of the evidence of the vaccine's ability to reduce transmission, the evidence is far from clear. That is why the WHO stated back in February that it did not recommend vaccine passports as a measure to reduce transmission. It is why, again in July, it reiterated that the evidence was not clear. It is why the New England Medical Journal published an article just the other day stating that, on transmission, it was not clear that passports could be used as a measure. We also have to look at the legislative process that the Government is taking with regard to the measure. There has been some derision and amusement regarding the definitions of nightclubs. Douglas Ross in his sense is absolutely right to raise that. Ultimately, Parliamentarians, when we legislate, when we introduce measures, definitions matter, because if you fail to accurately define what the scope of a measure is, you will get things wrong. That is not the only issue with what is being proposed today. Again, we have to be steered by international organisations and by scientific advice. The WHO has set out the parameters by which the Government should approach vaccine passports. As well as its scope, it says that there should be detailed cost-benefit analysis. The proposal from the Government has none. It says that there should be detailed examination looking at the digital barriers in discrimination. It suggests that there should be a full equalities impact assessment. That was what I was going to ask Fulton MacGregor. Does he think that the Government should have a full equalities impact assessment before it introduces the measure? There is none. It also says that it should take all necessary measures to protect participants in terms of continuity care, and a particular focus is placed on the data relating to individuals. There is scant detail about how those details will be protected in the measures from the Government. We also need to look at the real concerns raised by the Liberal Democrats, Alex Cole-Hamilton and others, because we have to look at the implications of what we are introducing. Those are medical ID cards by the back door. I do not entirely share my Liberal Democrats' concerns about identity cards, but one thing I am clear about is that you do not introduce ID cards by the back door. You do not introduce medical photographic ID cards for one purpose, only for it to result in another one. That is a very real danger from the measure. I think that I probably have to wind up. I would just conclude by saying this. Ultimately, the Government's position is summed up as this. It has no detail, it has had no consultation, it has no evidence and this measure should have no confidence from this Parliament. I call on Murdo Fraser up to seven minutes, Mr Fraser. A number of members referred to in the debate about the correspondence that they had from constituents. I am sure that we have all had a great volume of correspondence from many constituents who are hostile in principle to the notion of Covid vaccination passports. That position was articulated well in the debate by representatives from the Liberal Democrats, but I do not think that most of us in this Parliament are in that position. Most of us probably do not take a particularly principled stance on this. Instead, we wrestle with the conflicting arguments on both sides. There are arguments around civil liberties and efficacy, but we have to weigh that with the arguments around the benefits to public health, as we have heard a number of members talk about today. We are trying to find a way forward based upon the evidence as to what works. A few weeks ago, I was asked in a radio interview about my views on vaccine passports. My view at that time, and this was a time when restrictions were still in place, was that it was a reasonable trade-off to allow large events to start to take place to require those attending either to produce proof of vaccination status or, alternatively, proof of a negative test. Unlike some other people in this debate, I have not changed my view. That is still my view. Indeed, when the announcement was made in the chamber last week of the introduction of vaccines—let me finish this point, I will give you away—I asked the First Minister whether negative tests would be accepted as an alternative to certification, but the answer was no. I will give way to Mr Cole-Hamilton. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I am very grateful to Mr Fraser for giving way. I accept his very nuanced position, and I respect that it may differ from mine. Does he recognise that the sector, the hospitality sector and the events industry, have said themselves that their preference is for lateral flow certifications, so that people can evidence their health on that particular day, and that is far safer than just the vaccine passport plan that the Government has? That is a very fair point for Mr Cole-Hamilton. I think that he would find me in agreement with it. Certification of vaccine status is not something new or unusual. Some years ago, I travelled to Tanzania. I had to provide proof of yellow fever vaccination, and many travel companies now require proof of vaccination status, and other countries have, of course, implemented schemes already. However, there is still widespread public concern about what is being proposed by the Scottish Government. At this stage, I do not believe that they have made a case that convinces us of the need for these measures at this time. Last week's meeting of the Covid recovery committee, I asked John Swinney what the purpose of this policy was. Was this about preventing the further spread of infection when we know that, with the delta variant, double vaccination provides only limited protection in that respect? Or was this more about trying to push unvaccinated groups such as the young to get vaccinated? I did not get a direct answer to that question. Then there was a subsequent question from Alec Rowley, from Labour, asking that the evidence behind the decision should be shared with the committee and with wider Parliament. Mr Swinney undertook to provide that evidence. One week later, I have seen no further information coming out from the Scottish Government to justify the policy or to present the evidence behind it. We are simply in the dark. What we have seen today is this flimsy document, 2,000 words from the Scottish Government, which says—and I quoted it already at paragraph 3—that the Scottish Government will continue to gather evidence from around the world on certification schemes. We will also publish a full assessment of the evidence for certification. However, we are being asked to vote today, in a matter of minutes, to approve a scheme where the evidence has not been presented. I am sure that Mr Swinney himself understands what an unreasonable ask that is of this Parliament. Let me make a further point and I will give away it. That takes us back to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, which I think is really important. This week, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee wrote to the Scottish Government to ask that there is an opportunity to scrutinise the detailed regulations that we are expecting before they are implemented, because there are so many unanswered questions that we have heard in this debate about the detail. This morning, the Covid Recovery Committee endorsed that call. I have just seen a response from the Minister for Parliamentary Business to that very reasonable request. To say that it is disappointing would be an understatement, because, according to him, regulations will be introduced and imposed without debate, scrutiny or vote in committee. To quote directly from that letter, the debate in the chamber today and if circumstances permit consideration by the Covid-19 committee will ensure that there is some parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals before the regulations come into force. That is it, Presiding Officer. The entirety of scrutiny of this complex, sensitive issue is this to our debate this afternoon. That is not parliamentary democracy in action, Presiding Officer. If, in a few minutes' time, this Parliament votes, yes, as I expect it will, that will be it. Vaccine passports will come in. The Scottish Government will have sole and unfettered control over the detail of what will be new law and Parliament will only consider that after it has been introduced and after it is the law of the land. That is a shameful way for this Government to treat this Parliament. There is much more I could say about the impact on civil liberties. We have had representation from groups like the Health and Social Care Alliance talking about the impact on human rights, particularly for those who are disabled and people living with long-term conditions. Their concern at inequalities could be exacerbated. The Scottish Government says that those with medical conditions not permitting vaccination would be exempt from getting to provide certification, but it appears that that would not apply to those, for example, with a religious objection to vaccination. I have had correspondence from a constituent in that category, but no exemption is provided for them. We know that the business community has widespread concerns about the use of vaccination passports. The document that we have seen today says that the costs will be met by businesses themselves, but we have no idea what those costs will be. There has been no impact assessment and there has been no financial memorandum to accompany the measure. Again, we are being asked to vote for something, and we are in the dark as to what the impact will be. We have already seen the Scottish National Party's U-turn on the issue. It was only a few weeks ago that John Swinney and Humza Yousaf were saying that that was not the right way to go. Even if it is troubling for them to have changed their position, it is even more embarrassing for the other part of this Government coalition of chaos. Recently, at the end of July, Patrick Harvie was railing against Covid vaccination passports. Here today, he and his colleagues are supporting the Government in voting them through, despite all the concerns that we have heard. Mr Harvie and his colleagues are bought and sold for the price of two ministerial salaries, and they should be ashamed of themselves flying down their party members and voters. Today, the Scottish Conservatives will vote against the Scottish Government's proposals. They simply have not made the case and there are too many unanswered questions. Vaccine passports, I am afraid, has not yet been made as of today. I call on Humza Yousaf to wind up the debate, cabinet secretary, up to nine minutes. It has been a mixed debate, it is fair to say. There have been some contributions that have been more heat than light, but there have been other contributions that I must acknowledge, whether it is from our own back benches or many in the opposition, that have asked some very important questions, some pertinent questions, many who have reflected on the numeracy emails that we have all had in our inbox from questions from members of the public. I will attempt to answer some of those and as many of those as I possibly can. I think that it was right for the Deputy First Minister to start—and Daniel Johnson, I know, did this in his contribution—to remind us on what we do agree on, remind us of why we are even here, because maybe in the humdrum of political debate we can sometimes forget just how difficult and serious and significant the challenge we face as a nation is and we have all of us, a duty as parliamentarians, to give all any proposal, any initiative that is brought forward by the Government or indeed by others, its full consideration given the challenge in front of us. Weekly cases are increasing from above 26,000 to now over 44,000. The number of people in hospital with Covid has increased from 391 to 883. Those in our intensive care units from 44 almost doubled, just under that, to 82. Today alone, 12 people have died. That is 12 families who have been decimated and are grieving because of their loss through Covid. I know somebody this week, I think, and a sour probably knows the individual. Two who was in his 30s, who passed away with Covid-19. A reminder that we are here to find solutions does not mean that we all have to agree, because we will not always agree that today is our case in point, but we are here because we want to try to work our way through what is the most challenging set of circumstances that I suspect any Government will ever have to deal with certainly for many, many years to come. We must do something. That does not mean just doing anything, and I will come back to that point. Someone in the Opposition has said that we have moved too quickly. I would say to the Opposition that we have a variant, a delta variant this time, that moves incredibly quickly. It is so important that we also make sure that we are moving at pace so that that virus does not outrun us. Oliver Mundell, I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way, but does that not make the point that the Deputy First Minister should not be going on the radio and giving categorical positions and rubishing ideas that have come forward in other parts of the UK and then going away and doing no work and then coming back at the last minute with a poorly prepared proposal? Cabinet secretary, I do not agree unsurprisingly with his characterisation. In fact, neither the Deputy First Minister nor I nor the First Minister have ever ruled out a Covid certification scheme. We have put on record where our concerns are. Some of those concerns we managed to get a workaround. For example, I was always concerned about people who may be digitally excluded. That was a point that Douglas Lumsden and a couple of others made, but we found a workaround around that, where people can receive a paper copy on average three to four days that it takes to arrive. However, it is not a step that this Government has taken lightly, but in light of just the case numbers, if you let me make just a little bit of progress, I promise you that I will take more interventions. A number of members—I am sorry, Jackie Baillie was one of them—asked for the clinical advice. There are a number of studies that Gillian Mackay said that she could send them on to members, but I am equally happy to do that, too. A recent publication from the UK study of react 1 reports that researchers estimate, and I will quote from the study directly, that fully vaccinated people in this testing round have between around 50 to 60 per cent reduced risk of infection, including asymptomatic infection, compared to unvaccinated people. In addition, I think that that is a really significant point. In addition, double-vaccinated people were less likely than unvaccinated people to test positive after coming into contact with someone who had Covid. In another study, it shows that, although double-vaccinated people and unvaccinated people may have similar viral loads, those viral loads stayed in the body for a shorter period of time, and therefore are less likely to transmit the virus. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way, but would he recognise that the evidence while he can cite some studies is still equivocal? That is why the WHO has not moved their position. However, more importantly, can I ask him why the studies were not included in the Government paper that it published? Right now, the paper has nothing, which is why we have been googling for evidence during this debate. Cabinet Secretary for Evidence and Studies that I read, our paper in paragraph 6 says that research evidence indicates that being vaccinated reduces the risk that a person will become infected with the virus and likely further reduces their risk of transmitting coronavirus. If his criticism of the Government is that paragraph 6 should have had an appendix to it with all the studies that I mentioned, I will take that one on board and I will be happy to send out some of that detail. No, I am just going to make some more progress, particularly on the international evidence. In fact, I have often heard some members say that we should just stick to talking about Scotland. However, in a global pandemic, we want to look to across the world of where there is best practice and international evidence is convincing. There are certification schemes that exist in France, Austria and Germany, in Israel, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and Norway. Of course, there will be one introduced in England, too. In most of the countries, the use of our certification scheme is far broader than the very limited scope that we are suggesting. Alex Cole-Hamilton suggested in his contribution that the scheme is illiberal. Is he really suggesting that France is illiberal, Germany illiberal, Italy illiberal, Belgium, where the Liberal Party are part of the ruling coalition that they are illiberal? It is not a position that I can agree with. Of course, I will give way to Alex Cole-Hamilton. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Giving Way. Every single one of the European nations that he has described has constitutional protections around ID cards, which they have all had for many, many years. We have no such protections in this country. Cabinet Secretary, Britain's constitution is the obvious point, of course, but what I am saying is that these countries are not illiberal. Therefore, a certification scheme is becoming the European norm while it may not be quite the global norm. A number of people asked about nightclubs. I look at those countries that I have just referenced. If I looked at nightclubs, they are included in our scheme because we believe them based on the clinical advice that we have received that they are high-risk settings. However, it is not just us. They are included in the scheme for Austria, for Denmark, for France, for Israel and for some regions of Germany. Indeed, they will be included in other countries. I will give way to Stephen Kerr. I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Giving Way. He is mentioning studies and various things that he is promising to publish. The Deputy First Minister, in relation to the subject that he is addressing, said that there had been an assessment of the economic impact of those measures on the night-time economy, for example. Will the Cabinet Secretary undertake to see that that information is also released into the public domain so that we can scrutinise it? When we lay the regulations, we would follow that with an equality impact assessment in the business regulation of Bria. Of course, that would be published for the committee to scrutinise. There has been engagement with business, and I can give the dates of that. However, I want to touch on another issue because I am rapidly running out of time. That is a question that Gillian Mackay and Alex Rowley asked and a number of other members asked as well. The primary aim of our certification scheme is to try to reduce, not eliminate, because a number of members have made that point, but reduce the risk of transmission and what we consider in clinical view to be high-risk settings. However, one of the other primary priorities for the scheme is to try to incentivise vaccine uptake. Of course, we can all agree that the vaccination programme has been a huge success. I know that there is often competition between the four nations of the UK and the police at Scotland holds its own, but all four nations have done incredibly well in their vaccination programme. However, uptake across the UK among younger cohorts is far lower than we would like it to be. That does not mean that we will not do the drop-in clinics, we will not do more mobile vaccination units, we will not do more social media messaging, we will do that. However, there is evidence to suggest that vaccine certification schemes can help with the uptake amongst a younger cohort. In fact, there has been a 10.4 per cent increase in Scotland. There has been a 10.4 per cent increase in first dose vaccination uptake amongst 18 to 29-year-olds in Scotland. There was a 100 per cent increase that was observed in daily doses over a 10-day period when Israel announced the Covid pass. I am afraid that I will have to wind up shortly. France saw an uptake as well. I will end in simply saying some of the points that Pam Duncan-Glancy made. I just want to give her an assurance in particular that those exemptions on medical grounds, clinical trials and what will be available and will be able to publish guidance on those points before any scheme comes into implementation. We will also have an interim solution for people who have been vaccinated outside of Scotland. We will also have a day after a digital solution. I will finish simply by saying that our discussion today often descended into a lot of heat. However, there is a collective desire from all of us, I believe, to return to some sort of normality and to support all parts of society to engage in activities that have been missed for some time. We have a consensus that we must support the country in recovering from the past 18 months. We must continue to take proportionate measures. I believe that this is, in a very limited setting, a proportionate response to suppress the virus to a level consistent with alleviating its harms while we recover for a better future. I will end by saying that Covid certification allows us to provide assurances and reduce the risk of transmission, particularly in those limited settings, and that is why I ask you to support the motion before you today. That concludes the debate on Covid vaccine certification scheme, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business.