 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1-227, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a change to today's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now. I call on Stephen Kerr to move the motion. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 1-227 be agreed, are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is topical questions. In order to get as many people in as possible, I'd be grateful for short and succinct questions and responses, as I call Graham Simpson. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the announcement by the UK Government not to proceed with plans to introduce vaccine passports. We know from expert public health analysis that we must do all that we can to stem the rise in cases and reduce the pressure on the national health service. Vaccine certificates have a role to play as part of the wider package of measures. They add a further layer of protection in certain higher-risk settings. We propose a very limited scheme to allow businesses to remain open and prevent further restrictions as we head into autumn and winter. The measures that we take forward have got to be effective but they have equally got to be practical and able to be delivered. We will work with all of the relevant sectors that are affected in a constructive way to make sure that we implement the decision that Parliament has taken in principle that it wants to see a vaccine certification scheme in place. Graham Simpson. Can I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer? He didn't answer the question that I asked, but we'll move on from that. The weekend, the head of the SPFL, Neil Donkaster, said that the league was hugely concerned about the practicalities of delivering the scheme. After the league made it clear that the Government's plan was unworkable, the health secretary confirmed that Mr Donkaster's suggestion of spot checks on those attending a match was a possibility. That shows that this Government is still filling in the blanks when it comes to this scheme. One of the many questions still remaining is around data and the equipment used in the debate last week, much was made of the fact that businesses will be able to use an app on a phone to scan QR codes. When I asked the Minister for Parliamentary Business earlier today what data would show up on somebody's personal mobile phone, say outside of football ground, he couldn't say. If my name, address and date of birth were to show up, that would be a clear breach of data protection laws. Those details could be easily harvested. So what protections would be put in place to prevent this happening? It is interesting that Mr Simpson moved on his question and, instead of pressing me for further detail on the United Kingdom Government's position, he might have done that because, of course, the United Kingdom Government has just confirmed to the House of Commons that it intends to take forward a vaccine-only certification scheme in nightclubs, in indoor crowded settings with 500 or more attendees, in outdoor crowded settings with 4,000 or more attendees and any settings with 10,000 or more attendees should the circumstances arise because of the level of the pandemic. That is exactly the situation that we face. We face—we have been open with Parliament, it is very obvious that we have a very significant level of caseload just now, which is putting huge pressure on the national health service, hence our rationale for bringing forward a mandatory vaccine-only Covid certification scheme, which is exactly the same position that the United Kingdom Government is taking forward. Of course, I can understand why Mr Simpson is skating past this, because it has been, frankly, a very confused 48 hours on this question from the UK Government. On his substantive— Mr Kerr says that this is a Scottish Parliament—I have just been asked a question by one of his own back benchers about the United Kingdom Government. I am just trying to be as fabulously helpful as I always am when I am answering questions. On the point that Mr Simpson was raising about what information will show up when a QR code is being analysed, the data that he has talked about will not show up when that is the case. He is right that that would be a clear breach of data. There is no harvesting of data involved here. It is simple checking of information contained in a QR code to verify that somebody has been double vaccinated to try to keep us all safe. Of course, the difference between the UK Government and the Scottish Government is that the Scottish Government has set a date for introducing that. The UK Government has not said that, if circumstances arise, there is a big, big difference there, and the Deputy First Minister knows it. It has been almost two weeks since the First Minister announced the plan for vaccine certification, but the Health Secretary again said yesterday that it is still working on the definition of a nightclub. Does the Deputy First Minister see how ridiculous it is that the scheme will come into force in a matter of weeks and the Government still cannot provide any clarity on key questions surrounding its implementation? One of the many points of similarity with the UK Government here is that our decision-making is based on the circumstances. We have a very high prevalence of Covid and it is driving hospital admissions today. There are 1,064 people in hospital today with Covid-related illness. That is a very high level, comparatively very high, so we are having to take the action in the timescale that we are setting out because the circumstances have arisen here. On the definition of nightclubs, the Government is working with the night-time industries association to be certain about the details of that definition. We are working through individual questions with the night-time industries association to ensure that we address any unintended consequences within that definition. Of course, we will publish that when we have come to the conclusion of that exercise. Students will be congregating from all over the world and the UK in pubs, cafes and restaurants. Indeed, for the next two weeks, students from outside Scotland will be in nightclubs. On 1 October, they will not be able to do so because they have been vaccinated outside Scotland and NHS Scotland does not recognise their vaccinations for the purpose of certification. The problem has been there for months and has not been fixed. Can the cabinet secretary confirm to the chamber that it will be fixed in the next two weeks? We are working to address a number of practical issues to ensure that the steps that we take forward are effective. However, we fundamentally come back to the core motivation behind that particular move. The core motivation is to try to reduce the level of transmission that is possible because of the protection of double vaccination and to make higher risk settings safer as a consequence of the vaccination certification approach. That is the policy objective that we are trying to secure. I quite appreciate that that will mean that some people are unable to access nightclubs because they will not have adequate vaccine certification in place. However, the purpose of that is to try to reduce transmission by maximising the level of protection that is in place in the population. The Government seems to be shifting its position in light of its discussions with the industry. I think that it is only fair to press the Deputy First Minister in respect to the answer that he gave some moments ago to my colleague. When exactly does he expect to be able to bring details to the chamber and to publish them more widely? The first point that I would make is that Mr Simpson—actually, I should have addressed this. My apologies to Mr Simpson, I did not address this point that he made earlier. He talked about the possibility of spot checks at football grounds and suggested that that was some new development. That was conceived of in the document that we lodged with Parliament last Thursday, so it should not have been a surprise when the health secretary talked about it on radio at the start of the week. In relation to Mr Kerr's point, the Government often gets criticised in the eyes of some of our critics not engaging enough with external sectors. Now we are getting criticised for engaging too much with sectors. We want to make sure that we get a definition, as I explained in my response to Douglas Ross last week, that we do not have a definition that essentially creates any uncertainty or disadvantage within the marketplace around the grey area between night time pubs and night clubs. We just have to make sure that we get all those details thought through in consultation with the industry and we will publish that information as soon as we have completed those discussions. To ask the Scottish Government whether it is in discussions with the UK Government regarding its decision to terminate its supply agreement with Valneva for its Covid-19 vaccine candidate, VLA-2001. The decision to terminate Valneva's contract was one taken unilaterally by the UK Government. We are in discussions with the UK Government over Valneva's alleged failure to meet the terms of its contract and we are waiting further information. We are currently working with Valneva to secure the future of the site and the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise Ivan McKee will be meeting with them shortly to discuss matters. The announcement to terminate the contract does not affect the Scottish Government's vaccination programme, which we continue to roll out as guided by advice from the JCVI and the First Minister will give details of that shortly. We have sufficient vaccine supplies to undertake any potential booster programme over the coming months. Many people in Scotland participated in clinical trials of the Valneva vaccine and this decision may understandably cause them anxiety about their vaccination status. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the termination of the agreement will not impact the vaccination status of anyone who participated in the Valneva clinical trial? I will take a look at that. Of course, we wouldn't want anybody disadvantaged if they took part in a vaccine trial. We owe them a great deal of thanks. I am not talking specifically about Valneva, because I do not have the details in the clinical trial, but I will urge the UK Government to publish that detail, because transparency is paramount. I will go away and take a look at that to double check whether the Scottish Government is starting position that anybody taking part in a clinical trial should not be disadvantaged in any way, shape or form. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. There is some evidence that the Valneva vaccine could be more effective against variants than other vaccines. What impact does the cabinet secretary think that the UK Government's decision could have on our ability to protect people against further mutations of the virus? I will reiterate what I just said a moment ago that it would be important in the interests of openness and transparency that the UK Government publish—absolutely when appropriate, because I know that there are sensitivities and commercial sensitivities around those matters, but they publish the results of the cough boost trial and the clinical trials under way. What I would do is reiterate that, regardless of that decision, we have plentiful supply of vaccine. I am pleased to say that the clinical trials and the evidence that we have show that the vaccines that we are using are very effective in relation to reducing the severity of illness against Covid and including the delta variant. Valneva employs constituents of mine, and he will be aware that Angela Constance, MSP and Hannah Bardell MP have written to the UK Government asking them to provide transparency about the UK Government's decision making and their on-going investment commitment to the West Lothian-cited French-owned facility. As Scottish Enterprise has also supported the company, will he ask the business minister when he meets with the company to discuss their worldwide vaccine market opportunities and the situation? I will do, and I agree with everything that Fiona Haslop has said. I have spoken to both Angela Constance and Hannah Bardell yesterday. I am more than happy to speak in detail with Fiona Haslop and any other interested member, but we certainly, as a Government, will do everything that we can to ensure that we can provide as much security for the site as we possibly can. As I say, I am happy for my colleague the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise to update the member once he has had those discussions. It is very welcome to hear from the cabinet secretary that that should not impact on access to vaccines. Does that also include the possibility of 12 to 15-year-olds being given vaccinations and older people getting boosters? Does that impact on the surplus that he has referred to? Will that impact on the possibility of the Scottish Government supporting people going to COP26 from low-income countries being able to access vaccinations? The answer would be yes, yes and no to her answer to her question. We have plentiful supply. The First Minister will outline shortly our response to both the CMO's advice and JCBI's advice in respect of 12 to 15-year-olds and the booster programme respectively, but we have plentiful supplies, even if we include those two possibilities in our future programming. I know that the decision by the UK Government will not impact our decisions to be able to vaccinate those from the developing world who may be coming to COP26, so there is plentiful supply. I just want to reiterate and reassure for our future vaccine roll-out programme with all the possibilities that we are planning for, that we have plentiful supply. Thank you. That concludes Topical Questions. Very grateful, Presiding Officer. With regard to Topical Questions, the first related to vaccine passports, there was great interest in adding additional questions to seek clarification on this matter. Could I ask for your advice on how we can persuade the Government to come and give a ministerial statement on this so that the significant number of outstanding matters could be answered? Thank you. The member may be aware that there was discussion at the bureau amongst business managers. Such discussion will continue as a matter, of course, for the Government as to whether or not a ministerial statement is made.