 Gweithiau y gweithio ym yr Worwyr ein meddwl gyda gael y ddechrau i'r Ffocion 1415 hyn o Jagosodd Douglas Ross i chi i ddim yn um兜 y ddet saffachio Covid-19. Addysgu'r realoedd, yw chi am ddim yn ei bwysig i gwybod hynny a'n ddim yn ei ddim yn ei ddim yn ei ddim yn ei ddim yn ei wneud han gyda'r eitelf gwyllten y teimlo a mae gennym ni'n cymdeithasol eich cwestiynau i gweithio, felly i chi ddim yn un oedd yn y ffocion I call on Douglas Ross to speak to and move the motion for any seven minutes, Mr Ross. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name, which is a single-sentence motion, which calls on this Parliament not to proceed with plans decided and determined by the SNP coalition Government to introduce vaccine passports in little over 40 hours' time. This is a final opportunity for Parliament to have it say. It's not the first opportunity, however. We have already had a vote on 9 September at which point these benches, the Conservatives, led the Opposition to it, and we're joined by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. In that debate, the real subject matter that many members focused on was the definition of a nightclub. If we had known back then, earlier on this month, that the definition of a nightclub would not be the only issue to come out of those proposals, we were wrong, because so many other issues have now been raised. The definition of a nightclub is something that I will focus on. I will in one moment, Mr Mason, because at that time John Swinney, as the member responsible for this piece of legislation, couldn't define a nightclub. In the same debate, his own MSPs were googling a definition of a nightclub. It has been established what the Scottish Government believes a nightclub to be in terms of this legislation. We know from the hospitality industry that it will be far more wide-ranging than anyone expected. Indeed, thousands of additional premises will now be subject to this legislation if it is passed by Parliament today. I will give way to Mr Mason. I thank the member for giving way, but would he accept that over those weeks a very sensible agreement and definition has been reached rather than using the word nightclub? It's a time definition. Mr Ross? No, I would not agree with that. I wouldn't agree one bit. I wouldn't agree that the Government has used this time to constructively listen to the concerns of businesses. The First Minister said yesterday that she is listening to the concerns of the industries and the businesses. You don't listen if you do not take on board their legitimate concerns. The industries are taking the Deputy First Minister and the SNP Green Coalition Government to court at the end of this week to try to stop those proposals, such as the damage that they are expected to cause. We know from countless people, such as Gavin Stevenson from the Nighttime Industries Association, who have warned that the nightclub definition, which John Mason now wants us to celebrate, will affect thousands of additional properties. The managing director of the Scottish Licence Trade Association said that the proposals were a most unwelcome development for the licence trade in general. The Scottish Beer and Pub Association says that it goes far beyond what any reasonable person would consider to be a nightclub and could capture many pubs and bars. It's not just the industry and the industries affected who are raising concerns. Judith Robertson from the Scottish Human Rights Commission said that the case for vaccine passports has not been made. She said that to a committee of the Scottish Parliament less than a week ago. She is urging ministers to listen to the Scottish Human Rights Commission when they say that the case for vaccine passports has not been made. If they won't listen to business, if they won't listen to the sectors affected, if they won't listen to the Scottish Human Rights Commission, will they listen to themselves? Will they listen to Humza Yousaf, who admitted that he had ethical, clinical and human rights concerns about vaccine passports? Humza Yousaf said that he was instinctively quite sceptical about the use of vaccine passports for clubs. Or to John Swinney, who previously said that he was against the use of Covid passports to deal with the situation that we have in front of us. Or to their coalition partners, Patrick Harvie, who said that the lack of detail and confusion over vaccine passports could spread misinformation and further the anti-vaxxer cause. Or to the same Patrick Harvie, who said that the vaccine passports scheme raises concerns about equality issues. Why are the SNP and the Greens refusing to listen to anyone who takes the counter-view that they have? I'll give way to the Cabinet Secretary for Health if he can explain why he previously felt that these proposals had ethical, clinical and human rights concerns surrounding them. And why he was instinctively quite sceptical of these plans. Why is he no longer so? I'm happy to because, as I will say in my remarks, we've managed to work around in terms of some of these ethical considerations. I wonder if Douglas Ross, the one group in society that he is not listed as listening to, that he hasn't listened to, of course, is the same public health experts, no doubt, that are informing the UK Government in terms of why they have a Covid certification scheme in their winter contingency plan. So what does he say to those public health experts that say that this scheme can help to reduce transmission? Of course, the public health experts are not unanimous in that, and Stephen Riker, who is often quoted by SNP— I'm sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer, but if the Cabinet Secretary for Health and the SNP Government doesn't want to listen to what Professor Stephen Riker is saying, then he should tell the First Minister, because she often quotes him, but of course you can't quote him when he is taking an opposing view from this SNP Government, because they don't want to hear that opposition, they don't want to listen, they know they have votes sewn up in this chamber now, they can ignore the Scottish Parliament, they can ignore this debating chamber, but they cannot ignore the voice of business, the voice of the public who are raising serious concerns about these issues. I'll give way to the Deputy First Minister. I'm very grateful to Mr Ross for giving way. He said that we were ignoring the wishes of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has voted for this. He said that himself a minute ago. I'm saying, Deputy Presiding Officer, that they can ignore whatever this Parliament says, because the SNP— Well, I will explain. This Parliament is not just the SNP and the Greens. Scotland is not just the SNP and the Greens. There are 129 voices in this chamber, and while the SNP— No, sit down, please, Mr Swinney. Mr Swinney, sit down and I will give way, but while the SNP don't want to hear the voices from the Conservatives or Labour or Liberal Democrats, they can also not ignore the voices of many people across Scotland who have said their plans are deeply flawed. If I can have another minute, I will give way to the Deputy First Minister. Deputy First Minister. I'm grateful to Mr Ross for giving me a second time. Mr Ross obviously believes in the principle of parliamentary majorities being able to determine the outcome of parliamentary votes, because he has used his vote in the House of Commons to ensure that there is a cut to universal credit for the most vulnerable families in our country. That is what Mr Ross uses his majority to deliver on the poor in our country. Douglas Ross. If I could just work through that a number of times. First of all, there has not been a vote on the universal credit issue. So if John Swinney is aware of it, he should perhaps look at Hansard and find there has never been a vote on that issue in the UK Parliament. Secondly, we are discussing vaccine passports, and what does it say about the SNP member in charge of bringing forward this legislation that he doesn't want to look at the difficulties with his legislation, doesn't want to look at the flaws in this legislation, and wants to talk about universal credit. We had a long debate about that yesterday. Let's have a debate about what your party is doing to the night-time industry, to the hospitality industry and to people across Scotland introducing this scheme that is ill-thought-out, one that will be enforced but not enforced. This is a shambolic scheme, and to use that great—no, I'm in my final minute—to use that great Scottish word. This is a boorich, and the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister's hands are all over it. We know that, in the next few days, when this is implemented from 5 a.m. on Friday, there will be countless problems. I don't celebrate that, but they have been warned about this. I hope that, on this final opportunity today, some SNP and Green members may see the light and see the difficulties that their scheme is going to cause and vote against it. Certainly, by supporting the Conservative motion today, we can stop the shambles of a scheme coming into effect in a little over 48 hours' time. Thank you, Mr Ross. I think that you haven't moved the motion. In fairness, Presiding Officer, I actually did it in my first sentence, but to Belt and Braces, I moved the motion in my name. Excellent, Belt and Braces is always good. I now call on Humza Yousaf to speak to and move amendment 1415.2 for in six minutes, please. I'm happy to, and I've moved the motion in John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister's name. Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government, of course, opposes this motion in the name of Douglas Ross, as the First Minister said yesterday. The Scottish Government maintains the position that the implementation of a mandatory domestic certification scheme is proportionate and appropriate at this particular point in the pandemic. That is just not, of course, our view, but the view of the Labour-led Government in Wales and, of course, the certification scheme is part of the contingency planning by the UK Government also. Recent data has been a stark reminder of the challenges that we face as a nation, because, although there will be disagreement across parties around the certification scheme, I think that all of us can agree that we have had a challenging number of weeks and continued to face challenge despite the positive uptake in the vaccination process. In particular, the number of deaths and the impact the virus has had on many families across this country is something that I know weighs heavily on the minds of this Government that I suspect on every single member right across the chamber. Although cases are declining, they are still at a high level and pressure on our health and care system remains significant, so we cannot be complacent. In the month of September alone, we have reported that 461 people who tested positive for Covid-19 have lost their lives. That is 461 families and their communities completely devastated by the virus in the last month alone. It also highlights the importance of the vaccine and how we progress through this pandemic. We continue to see exceptionally high uptake of the vaccine, the downward trajectory in cases pointing to the vaccine having an impact. We are seeing, of course, of all. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. I absolutely agree that the vaccine is our route out of this, but vaccine passports are not. Does he recognise that at a festival in Cornwall where vaccine passports were required on entry, 5,000 people at that event still quote Covid-19? Those are not a barrier to transmission. As the First Minister said in response to Alex Cole-Hamilton's exact same question that I think it was yesterday, we are not saying that vaccine completely breaks or completely servers the link between positive cases and hospitalisation. What it does is reduces that link. I will come on to this in a second. It reduces the likelihood of transmission of the virus. That is what we are saying. Yes, I will give way. Daniel Johnson. I am very grateful to him for giving way. Would he accept that there is a difference between the effect that vaccine has at a population level and the impact it might have in a specific venue or event? Those are two very, very different dynamics. Cabinet secretary. Yes, but I will come on to why we think a certification scheme can have a really positive impact in particularly high-risk settings. My remarks are in support of what has been said by Daniel Johnson a moment ago. Vaccine remains the single most important thing any of us can do to help to keep cases under control. That is why we hope that the introduction of the certification scheme will help to increase uptake of the vaccine. Although daily vaccination figures fluctuate and can be variable, we saw in the first days after the announcement, if he gives me a moment to make a little bit of progress, we saw in the first five days after the announcement of a certification scheme an increase in first dose uptake peaking at 80 per cent increase on day 4 compared to the day of the announcement itself. Significant uptake of a first dose of vaccine was also noted in the 16 to 17-year-old age group immediately after we announced our intention to introduce a vaccination scheme. I will give way to Brian Whittle. Brian Whittle. I am very grateful for the cabinet secretary for giving way. Three weeks ago, John Swinney said that the Covid Recovery Committee would deliver the evidence behind the introduction of the vaccine passports. Last week, the First Minister said that she would deliver that within a couple of days. However, in the Covid Recovery Committee, our evidence suggests that the biggest or the lowest uptake in Covid vaccine is among ethnic minorities and the lower SIMD areas. I wonder what evidence the Scottish Government has looked at and how the introduction of a vaccine passport will make an impact on the vaccine uptake in those groups. Even before the implementation or, indeed, the announcement of a certification scheme, we were working hard with organisations like BEMIS, like Symbol, with faith groups and their leaders in order to try to increase the uptake among ethnic minority groups. We know that vaccine uptake rates are lowest among Polish and African communities and, therefore, there has been proactive engagement and initiatives to make sure that those uptake rates are increased. We have seen considerable efforts from business and individuals to step up compliance to mitigation measures that remain in place. I will not. He will forgive me. Let me just continue to make some progress. I have taken four or five interventions. I suspect that I do not have too much time left. In line with our strategic intent to suppress the virus to a level consistent with alleviating its harms while we recover and rebuild for a better future, that is our stated intent. The Covid vaccination certification scheme will allow us to meet the following aims. It will reduce risk of transmission, it will reduce risk of serious illness and death and in doing so alleviate pressures on the healthcare system. It will allow high-risk settings to continue to operate as an alternative to closure of more restrictive measures and it will, we hope, increase vaccine uptake. Research evidence, if you will forgive me, will continue to make a little bit more progress. In terms of some of the research, because I know that was mentioned by Brian Whittle, the vaccine effectiveness expert panel, Veep, as its known consensus view, which fed into sage on 9 September 2021, considers a wide range of domestic and international data and found that vaccines are around 65 to 85 per cent effective against infection. As a result, certification provides a targeted and proportionate means to reduce risk while maximising our ability to keep open certain settings and events where transmission is a higher risk. Now, I see a number of members grumbling. That is the scientific evidence, which is feeding in, of course, to save. I will forgive me. I think that I probably only have around a minute. Presiding Officer, we have listened to a range of stakeholders. My colleague, the Deputy First Minister, no doubt in closing, will give further detail of that. In fact, the announcements made by the First Minister yesterday, the fact that we will implement the scheme on Friday, but of course not seek to enforce these measures until the 18th of October, is an example of a Government that is listening to business. That is an example of a Government that has engaged with business. In terms of the parliamentary vote on this issue, it sometimes suits the opposition to claim that the Government does not listen to the Parliament. Of course, when we do listen to Parliament, they suddenly seem to be on the other side of the fence. We have come a long way in recent months. Our economy is open. Restrictions, by and large, have been lifted. We are seeing a relative return to normality, and partnership has been key to that. I ask businesses and individuals to continue with this endeavour in the coming weeks to ensure that we do everything we absolutely can collectively to recover from the ill effects of this pandemic. To conclude, Presiding Officer, on the face of the delta variant that we know is far more transmissible than other variants, we cannot afford to sit still. The Government will always take the right decisions, even if they are the tough ones, backed by clinical and public health advice in order to keep the people of Scotland safe. Therefore, a move amendment, motion S6M-01415.2, in the name of the Deputy First Minister. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I can advise the chamber that we have very little time, in fact no time at all, so any interventions will have to be accommodated within your speech allocation time. I now call on Daniel Johnson to speak to you and move amendment S6M-141515, five minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let's be clear. Yesterday's announcement by the First Minister was an admission that the Scottish Government's Covid passport policy is flawed, rushed and potentially damaging to jobs and businesses. You don't announce a delay to a law 72 hours before it comes into force when it's well prepared and thought through. You don't delay it because it's straightforward, to implement it. You don't push it back when those tasks with enforcing it are well prepared. No. The Covid certification plan is being delayed because it is flawed, because it is lacking in three key ways. First, that the evidence base is lacking. The impact on transmission is uncertain. That is the first line of our amendment, and not my words, but those of stage. I would say to the Cabinet Secretary for Health to be very careful in citing scientific evidence, which is a population-level efficacy when you are applying it to high-contact venues and situations. Those are different, and that is a very dangerous thing to do indeed. I will take the intervention from Mr Whithall. Brian Whithall, briefly please. I am very grateful for the member to take an intervention. Would he agree with me that the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister's inability to bring evidence into the public domain just shows that they are scrambling around just now after the fact to try to get some evidence? I completely agree, and I thank the member for that intervention. The second issue is that the detail is lacking. The Government singled out nightclubs, but it realised that it had no way of identifying them legally. The definition that has been cobbled together means that any pub or restaurant open at one minute past midnight suddenly becomes a nightclub if patrons start to dance. The answer, according to the official guidance that was published yesterday, is for those venues to switch their music off. With a flick of a switch, a venue turns back into a pub from a nightclub. I hope that someone tells the virus that it is only allowed to transmit itself at a busy bar when the music is playing. The third floor is communication. The cabinet secretary is saying that that is a ridiculous suggestion from a sedentary position, but that is exactly what the guidance says and exactly the effect that if they switch the music off, they no longer have to check the vaccination status. That is the facts, and that is what their own guidance says. Thirdly, communication is lacking. Bar, restaurant and club owners feel ambushed. For months, the Government was saying that it had no plans to introduce Covid passports. In July, Humza Yousaf said that he was sceptical. John Swinney described them as the wrong way to go. In the space of four weeks, the Government has gone from not having plans for Covid passports to rushing them through to now having to delay the start because of the inevitable backlash because they are unworkable. That is a mess. Is it any wonder that the hospitality effect sector feels dismayed? Ministers claim that they have been consulting, but appearing on a Zoom call is not consultation. Speaking to people and telling them what is going to happen is not consultation. Carrying on regardless and not listening to issues, suggestions, questions and concerns is not consultation. Consultation is not a one-way street. If it had been done at all, frankly, the Government would not be in the mess that it is in today. Ministers have to listen. I have been listening to the sector and they feel angry and betrayed. That is what I have heard. That would not matter whether it was being implemented this Friday or Good Friday, because unless we solve the issues around recruitment, this is an absolute non-starter at any time or date. This scheme will result in business failures and bankruptcies. As an experienced operator, I like to think of myself as a fairly sharp guy, but there is a sheer confusion with this plan and there has been no engagement with the sector. If there is a mist in the pulpit, then there will be fog in the pews. The cost of hiring door staff, which are a massive short supply anyway, to enforce this will be more than the pre-Covid profits for many businesses. Not my words, but those of business owners and those that represent the sector. Speaking to me today on my own Zoom call, because I wanted to listen to their point of view. They just want ministers to listen too. When it comes to surprising, could the front bench stop yelling at each other, please, Mr Johnson? Exactly. The last time I take consultation and required listening, all I'm saying is that they should listen to these points of view because it's quite clear, according to their own plans, they've not been doing that. When it comes to suppressing the virus, we know what works. It's about testing, contact tracing and getting people vaccinated. The Scottish Government has to redouble its efforts and prove the systems that it has already not invented new ones. We should resource, track and trace properly so we meet WHO standards. We need to chase down the remaining groups to get vaccinated, making it as easy as possible through measures such as mobile vaccination centres, briding people absolutely no reason not to get vaccinated. If ministers were being honest, they know that this policy has been rushed. If they were being frank, they would acknowledge that it lacks the rationale, planning or communication to be effective. You need to wind up now, Mr Johnson. They know that this is a knee-jerk response. They've been sent down from the ministerial tower by the First Minister to implement and try and justify. It's been botched and that's why it should be scrapped. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you, Mr Johnson. I call Alex Cole-Hamilton to speak for four minutes. Thank you very much. I thank the Scottish Conservative Party for bringing this motion to Parliament this afternoon. It will come as no surprise to colleagues that myself and my party will be voting to abandon this Covid vaccine certification scheme this evening. My party's misgivings about the prospect of Covid ID cards, which they are, in all but name, are a matter of public record. We are being proven right with every passing day. They are illiberal. They are discriminatory. They may even breach people's human rights. After all of that, they are utterly ineffective at protecting people from viral transmission. The evidence from Cornish Boardmasters is testament to that. After showing proof of vaccination as a requirement for entry, 10 per cent of attendees at that event, 5,000 people contracted Covid-19. It offers proof, if ever they were needed, that the scheme offers no barrier to the spread of coronavirus. I will. Jim Fairlie. If 5,000 people were infected after having been double vaccinated and showed a lateral flow test, if 2,500 of those people had not been vaccinated, how many of them would have landed up in hospital with long Covid or worse, dead? Mr Cole-Hamilton. I absolutely agree that the vaccine is our route out with this, but complex addition from Mr Fairlie is not going to get round the fact that this scheme is utterly illiberal and it has no efficacy at stopping the spread of the virus. Presiding Officer, we have made our opposition clear to this scheme from the outset. I am proud that the Liberal Democrats are the only party across the United Kingdom who have consistently and stubbornly opposed the assault on the right to medical privacy that Covid-19 ID cards represent. People are worried about what the scheme means for both Scotland in principle and in practice. The night-time industry, as we have heard, is in uproar, and rightly so. They are being treated with contempt by this Government, and their decision to launch legal action against it should come as no surprise. This is not the only challenge that the Government has failed to address. Last week, I wrote to the Scottish Human Rights Commission asking them to begin a statutory inquiry into whether those plans intrude on people's human rights. The commissioner of that body, Judith Robertson, told the Covid Committee of this Parliament that those human rights to find in law can only be set aside if so doing is a direct means of addressing a pressing social need. The Government has singularly failed to provide an evidential base for meeting that test and those concerns remain. The fact that the SNP and the Greens plan to push on regardless shows a disregard for the rights-based approach that should characterise everything that we do in this Parliament. Those illiberal Covid ID cards will lead to a disproportionate number of ethnic minority Scots, young people, and those from the most deprived areas being systematically excluded from public events and spaces. I know that the Government won't admit defeat on this scheme. They are in too deep right now, but the Green Party might not be. I urge them to think again about those human rights concerns when they vote today. The Scottish Greens have the power to act as either midwife or executioner to this policy this afternoon. They can do the right thing and prove that they are still a party of dependable principles, or they can surrender those principles as part payment for the scraps from the Cabinet table. I say this to the Greens as somebody who has watched their party learn the hard way when you vote against the principles that you were elected on, it does not end well. In May this year, they asked voters this question, do you want more of the same or will you vote like your future depends on it? This afternoon, I put the same question to the Green Party. Will you fall in line with a Government whip that will redraw the lines of personal liberty in this country, perhaps irreversibly? Or will you vote like the future of personal liberty depends on it? Because there is no guaranteed end date for this scheme. Covid ID cards are wide open to extension. There is no guarantee that in five months' time we might not all need to present a Covid ID card just to enter this chamber. There is no evidence that it will do anything to reduce the inequality already faced by some of this country's most vulnerable groups. For those reasons, and for more besides, the Liberal Democrats will proudly act the motion before us tonight. Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. We now move to the open debate. I call Liz Smith, who will be followed by Michelle Thompson. Liz Smith, four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by acknowledging the very difficult job that confronts Government on this issue because it's often necessary to take quick decisions about a virus that shows absolutely no concern whatsoever for the pressures placed upon the economy or on society, and secondly, because it isn't easy to balance the health concerns against the needs of the economy and society's wellbeing. But what is absolutely crucial, whatever is decided, is the need to earn public trust and therefore consent when it comes to ensuring that the public will adhere to the necessary guidelines with a responsible approach. It is on this issue that I want to reflect given what the business community has been saying. The First Minister reminded us yesterday that we should all be united in our aim to tackle this awful disease and minimise the risks that are associated with it, controlling the situations where there is likely to be a risk of increased transmission. Businesses agree with that, but they are making the point quite rightly that the precise aims of any measures must be clear. In the case of vaccine passports, there would have to be supportive and compelling evidence that their introduction would be A, clearly understood, B, accepted by the public that it is the right measure and C, be backed up by the necessary resources to secure effective implementation. I think that those are perfectly fair questions to ask, most especially if an SNP Government, which yesterday again shifted the goalposts. The First Minister claimed that the shift of allowing for a grace period up to 18 October was precisely because the Scottish Government had been listening to business. The fact of the matter is that the business community is saying exactly the same that they have been saying for weeks, that vaccine passports are not the answer. I would argue that scrutiny of proposals is absolutely critical when it comes to fostering public awareness and understanding, but most importantly to produce a cogent case with the evidence about how any initiative will work. On vaccine passports, I won't, if you don't mind, Mr Mason, on this occasion, on vaccine passports however, which we debated earlier in the month, was no time whatsoever for adequate scrutiny, not least because the Scottish Government admitted that it was still in the process of collecting the necessary evidence, a concern, I may say, which was raised by the DPLR committee. My colleague Murdo Fraser rightly set out in that debate on 9 September that, while some parties in this chamber have a long-standing opposition to any form of ID policy, as Mr Cole-Hamilton has just said, the Scottish Conservatives could, on a pragmatic basis, say there might potentially be a case for vaccine passports on a very short-term basis, but only if there was proven evidence that they could be beneficial in the war against Covid. That case has never been made, and worse still, nor has it ever been scrutinised. That's the reason why the business community has been so quick to express its concerns about several key issues on how the QR codes will be read about policing costs, would vaccine passports work better than negative LTF tests, how long the vaccine passports would be necessary, would they perpetuate inequalities, and of course it's because of all these unanswered questions that there has been a legal challenge. Two speakers already have outlined what the hospitality industry and the night-time industry is saying about this, and I think it's absolutely imperative that we do listen to what they're saying because there are serious concerns here, not just about the workability but about the potential legal challenge. Of course, yesterday the First Minister finally had to acknowledge that the deep city concerns are there, but all that she has done is to muddy the waters even more. So, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I finish on the point that it's precisely because of the policy inconsistencies, the legal issues, and of course the lack of on-going evidence that is the real problem here, and that's why we're calling on the SNP Green Coalition, of which we know half, is fundamentally opposed to vaccine passports to halt the programme. Thank you, Ms Smith, and I call on Michelle Thompson, who will be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. Again, four minutes please, Ms Thompson. I think we're all clear that any Government has a duty to act in the general public health interest, and this invariably means balancing seemingly conflicting interests for the greater good. This entire pandemic has been characterised by this challenge, and we have all accepted the temporary abeyance of some of our rights in recognition of our obligations. It appears that there is, after all, such a thing as society. The wonder that is vaccination has been a success leading to fewer deaths and limiting poor health outcomes. Efficacy is better than originally thought, and the booster programme is now being ruled out. Take-up is high, and I'm pleased to see that the take-up in younger people is encouraging. Now it's true that vaccine certificates may affect younger people more, but the vaccine certification approach may encourage take-up as they realise their desire to go clubbing outweighs their hesitancy. I will one like away. Mr Cole-Hamilton. I'm very grateful to Michelle Thompson for giving away. She said at the start of her remarks that the abeyance of rights is necessary at the time of emergency. Does she recognise that that's only acceptable when an evidential base is presented as to why that abeyance of rights is necessary, when an evidential base has not been presented? Mr Thompson. I'm going to come on to the matter of rights at the end of my speech, so thank you for that. Many of us are pandemic weary, yet we recognise that proportionate actions based on an assessment of risks can allow for the resumption of some activities. Nobody today has pointed out the number of governance around the world that have developed something similar. The entire EU with its Covid digital certification, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein, widespread use in Austria, France, Germany, Israel, Italy and so on. Northern Ireland and Wales, considering a similar move, and even the Prime Minister has stated that it's just not sensible to rule out completely this kind of option now when we must face the fact that it might still make the difference between keeping businesses open at full capacity or not. I personally will be very interested to see how Douglas Ross will vote if it comes to his other chamber. I'm going to carry on because I am limited for time. New guidance was indeed published last night, which allows for a stage approach. Business has been listened to. I'll happily give away. Are you going to vote against it when your Tory masters bring it forward in Westminster? Douglas Ross. I'm very grateful to Michelle Thompson for finally giving away. I have been very clear that I am against Covid vaccine passports. That cannot be clearer. What the member has just said is all the countries that have introduced vaccine passports and the experience of taking their Government so long to define a nightclub. Why is that definition so confusing to many people that will take in so many extra premises? Briefly, Mr Ross. Why are we still in the situation where it cannot be enforced for a further two weeks? Michelle Thompson. I think that you are confusing two different things. There may well be a case to make for policies evolving, but we are talking about the principle of vaccine certification. My question to you was how will you vote. Business has been listened to and more time has been allowed for those in the form of a grace period. That has to be recognised. It will not take legal effect until the 18th of October and that will allow business another key stakeholder's time to plan. The idea that business can't fathom away out of a set of circumstances that they have continually managed to work their way through when it's been very difficult is utterly patronising to business. Flexible adaptation is the key. If we've learned one thing through the course of the pandemic it's what the science suggests is the best solution at the time is often required to be rethought. But knowing that there will inevitably be changes is not a rational reason to do nothing. Balancing protection with a resumption of public life and a secure trading environment for business is the balance certification brings. I'll leave you with a few final thoughts. Firstly, the tension between our personal privacy and our civic duty combined with general concerns about the use of data. This is one area that the pandemic will accelerate. Perceptions of how this will be managed is based on trust between citizen and government. The fact of the matter is the trust in the Scottish Government and that of our First Minister is extremely high and extremely low at the moment. Thank you, Ms Thompson. I call on Jamie Halcro Johnston, to be followed by Martin Herfield. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Yesterday the First Minister accepted what everybody already knew but that she has steadfastly refused to accept. Having announced the policy of a vaccine certification scheme to begin this week, the Scottish Government was completely unprepared for its implementation. This was an outcome a long time in the making for the engagement of designing a policy without reference to those who would have to enforce it on the ground of an arrogant dismissal of genuine concerns. If it seems there is a lack of joined-up thinking in the Scottish Government's approach, it is because there is. First, we had the hasty reversal of the Deputy First Minister's position that vaccine passports were the wrong way to go. We had a policy announcement so confused that it led to members in this chamber resorting to googling the definition on their mobile phones. Indications that certification would roll out with new age demographics 16 to 18 roles and potentially 12 to 15 roles were reversed. Then we end up with a situation where guidance has only been issued for businesses on Tuesday evening for a policy that they are supposed to be putting in place this Friday. Guidance for the general public and marketing campaign to raise awareness are, it seems, still in the works. If the SNP's U-turns are not enough, we need only to look to their partners as we have heard the Greens. Patrick Harvie once told us, and I quote, the more I think about this notion of vaccine passports or vaccine certificates, the more concerned I am about it. Well, it appears thinking ends where ministerial office begins. Presiding Officer, the Scottish people have endured a number of restrictions to their lives over the past 18 months. They face with remarkable generosity, contradictions and inconsistencies in this Government's response. But the scheme that ministers have outlined is historically different from what it has gone before. It should only have been brought forward with detailed thought and sober reflection. Sadly, we have had none of that. The First Minister has continually presented the alternative to vaccine certification as a threat to businesses having to close again. We are currently in a period when cases are dropping. Can businesses and other organisations have any confidence now that should that trend reverse, they will not be met with closure anyway? That is not the only question that ministers have to answer. I hope that the cabinet secretary will address the following in his summing up. The Scottish Government is developing an approvals process for medical exemptions apparently to be published ahead of implementation. Well, that is Friday, so has it. What guidance has been given to businesses? Will that exemption be included on the NHS app? Can the Scottish Government say with confidence that problems for individuals who have vaccinated once in one jurisdiction but for a second time in another have been resolved? Can the Scottish Government point to any evidence that a venue with people, dancing and alcohol that closes at midnight will have any less effect on the spread of an airborne virus than those that are open an additional hour? Can ministers truth-release suggest as their guidance state that a large-scale events business will be able to refresh policies and organise staff training based on guidance that has only been issued on Tuesday afternoon? There are many, many more problems with the proposals than just these. For one, the Scottish Government mentions tackling vaccine hesitancy in its amendment. This is despite the First Minister telling this Parliament that uptake rates across all groups in society are high, much higher than we anticipated at the start of the programme. I would also draw their attention to the words of Professor Jonathan Montgomery to a committee of this Parliament that those same groups may respond by increasing distrust of the vaccine programme and government advice because they feel they have been coerced. The reality is precisely that this is a gamble on one that they may put vaccination efforts back further. Unlike before the level system the proposals from the Scottish Government apply a blanket policy across Scotland regardless of local circumstances and prevalence of the virus. Despite its U-turns, what the Scottish Government is putting forward is an impractical and ill-considered set of proposals ones that have potentially negative effects that are themselves dangerous to public health and a threat to business. At decision time, I urge the Government to go further than it did yesterday. Drop these plans. Thank you, Mr Hargrove. Do you want to say now, Mr Whitfield, who will be formed by Paul MacLennan, a tight of four minutes, please? I'm grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure to speak in this debate on such an important matter with regard to vaccine passports or certificates. I think it's interesting that this Government has admitted on a number of occasions that one of the purposes behind it is to drive up the vaccine rate, presumably intended to drive up the vaccine rate in a certain group of people. It's very important that we win the argument on vaccines. They should be taken not to allow you into a nightclub. They should be taken because they protect yourself and those around you. And it's important that we don't entrench hesitancy. And what I fear with regard to vaccine passports is exactly that. It will entrench hesitancy. We have seen the stick if you don't get the vaccine. Where from this Government is the carrot? Where is the better roll-out of vaccine places? Where is the reaching out into the schools, into our universities, into our lower, into our higher poverty areas to try and extend vaccines? That should have been first. That should have been heralded. That should have been really pushed. And it's important because if we can achieve that, then the bit of paper or the app, which certainly with great fear that Covid virus will ignore, isn't necessary. I'm very grateful for the member for giving way. Scotland has the highest level of uptake in the entire UK. We're a percentage behind Wales but ahead of Northern Ireland and England on second doses. Does that not confirm that we are doing everything that Mark Balfield is asking us to do in terms of schools, universities and so on and so forth? But in a fight against a very transmissible variant we have to do more and that's why the certification is important. Very grateful. Then why do we need the vaccine passports? To do more. In relation to those who can't get the vaccine, I was very grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Health this morning who talked about the support that is there for people who fear the vaccine. Indeed, those who have had negative experiences and the potential that they could then have a second vaccine safely. I would ask, and again I'm very happy to take an intervention out of my untimely deputy, whether or not anaphylactic shock is a good medical reason not to have it by Friday. Hopefully just a yes or no. As a reference in my questions earlier, there are some people who have had anaphylactic shock in the first dose but are able to safely complete their second dose. For those who have been identified by the health board as absolutely not being able to complete the vaccine safely, they will receive an exemption letter by Friday. I'm grateful for that and indeed answers a question that I was next going to pose. In what form will the notification take? So they will receive a letter on Friday morning that will allow them to go to the birthday that evening in a nightclub. Will it appear on the app since most night-time institutions seem to be organising themselves about using the app over any paper? My second point, and I'll make this very quickly, I was asked just a few minutes ago indeed whether or not a breach prior to the 18th of October by a licensee can be used as evidence with regards to their actual drinks licence even though it doesn't become enforceable until the 18th. My final point very quickly is with regard to the many people in our society who have any disability. Where is the equal impact assessment? It was promised on the 23rd of September and it still hasn't been published. This is vitally important to those people who both are mentally struggling with regard to going out and rejoining society but more importantly it has been done to show how this will affect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I'm grateful. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Whitfield. I call Paul McLennan who will be followed by Dylan Mackay. Four minutes please, Mr McLennan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As of today, we are still averaging 2,500 to 3,000 cases per day. 15,000 to 20,000 cases per week. As the First Minister said yesterday, this is still too high for comfort. As the vaccination effort continues, the balance of public health and keeping businesses open has to be met. This isn't just about the here and now, this is about preparing for the long days and nights of winter. As of today, we have 1,020 people in hospital, 71 in intensive care and in the past seven days we've seen 183 deaths. We've seen on several occasions that the virus can grow out potentially if it's given the opportunity. Now, I could understand the arguments of the opposition parties if Scotland wasn't engaging in a process that had been implemented over most of Europe. My colleague, Michelle Thomson, mentioned that earlier on. Covid certification has already been introduced by several other Governments of different political persuasions in countries across Europe. Many are going much further than the Scottish Government is proposing. In Germany, states require... Stephen Kerr. I'm grateful to the member giving me. They didn't introduce it the way the SNP is introducing it in Scotland. The second point is this. What is the economic impact that has been assessed that will affect the businesses that were most directly impacted by this measure? Can the member tell me? Paul McLeanon. I thank you in regard to this. Each country has brought in certificate schemes that suit their own circumstances and this is what the Scottish Government is doing. This is what the Scottish Government is doing. The Netherlands relaxed social distancing rules on the 26 of June for nightclubs. They had to close. In Australia, Belgium, Denmark and France, certification is required when attendance at events reaches a certain threshold. In Israel, Norway and the Netherlands, capacity limits are in place for events with certification. Are they going to tell us that most of Europe are getting this approach wrong? Seriously? Getting this approach wrong in all these countries? I'll give way. I'm grateful to the member for giving way but he's just listed a range of countries that already have had the use of ID cards in their societies for a long time and constitutional protections around their use. Does he recognise that we have no such protections? Paul McLeanon. We're not talking about ID cards here. I respect the member's view on this but this isn't about ID cards. These schemes in Europe have seen an increase in those taking up the vaccination including those who may be vaccine hesitant. We've seen examples of that in four minutes I've already taken to. The Welsh Government will be implementing a vaccine certificate scheme in Wales. Are they wrong, too? As we know, as part of its winter contingency plan, the UK Government hasn't discounted such a scheme. This Parliament on 9 September voted for the Covid passport scheme. The Tory said at the time that the Scottish Government wasn't listening to business. Here we are three weeks later and the Tory's tried to disregard a vote of only 20 days ago. I've had two already in the last minute. The Scottish Government used that time to engage with business, produced updated guidelines and is being pragmatic in its implementation. That engagement will continue. The new stage approach for the Scottish Government is proposing a design to help business to adapt to the scheme that will place upon them and give them a period in which they can operationalise and test arrangements in practice. A prime example from the SPFL that was raised in the debate three weeks ago we warmly welcome indications from the First Minister that spot checks look likely to form the basis for a vaccine certification in major events. There remain a number of aspects that are required to be finalised, but we are hopeful that positive talks will bear fruit in the Scottish football will continue to play a prominent role in reducing the impact of the virus. A Covid vaccination certification scheme will provide a target proportionate means to ensure that Scotland has ability to keep up higher risk settings open. The Scottish Government has already said that this approach will be under constant review and this approach will reduce the impact of transmission. The Scottish Government approach strikes the right balance, and the public health objectives as part of a suite of measures align business to stay open, support their amendments. Thank you very much indeed, Mr MacLennan. I now call Gillian Mackay who will be followed by John Mason. Again four minutes, Mr Mackay. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. In the previous debate on the vaccine certification scheme I made the point that with Covid cases still too high and vaccination rates of some age groups slowing we needed to take action. Although cases have fallen recently the fact remains that our health and social care services are under enormous strain and while the virus circulates at such high levels in a partially vaccinated population the risk of variants and long Covid looms large. We need to urgently drive up vaccination rates and suppress the virus but with furlough ending our options are limited. A return to lockdown measures would mean job losses and economic turmoil and this scheme offers a solution to this problem by allowing us to take a proportionate action without reintroducing restrictions. I recognise that the scheme cannot work in isolation and that it must be part of a wider strategy. It is important that there are continued efforts to address vaccine hesitancy. There have been many harmful comments in social media about unvaccinated people being selfish or conspiracy theorists. We all know there are some who are maliciously spreading misinformation about the vaccine and they should rightly be condemned. What they are doing is dangerous but we will get nowhere by similarly condemning or dismissing people who are anxious or frightened or who just do not realise the danger posed to them by Covid because of the perpetuating narrative that only those who are older or who have underlying health conditions get sick. People rarely respond when they are ashamed or browbeaten. We need to reassure and persuade those who are hesitant that the vaccine is safe and effective and that it presents the way out of this pandemic. I also do not want to dismiss the moral and ethical concerns that members have raised about the certification scheme. I have said before in this chamber that I respect their position and we should of course continue to pay close attention to those concerns and I know that the Government has worked hard to address issues around things like digital exclusion. We must ensure that any actions we take to tackle Covid are proportionate and it is right that this scheme is kept under review. It has been pointed out previously that Scotland is not an outlier on this. The Government amendment refers to the recent announcement from the Welsh Government that from the 11th of October anyone over 18 will have to show an NHS Covid pass proving their vaccination status or negative test result in order to enter night clubs and attend certain events. Many other countries we have heard from Paul McClellan have introduced similar schemes and I do recognise the point about adding in a requirement for a negative test but I appreciate the current practical issues that the Government has laid out. A vaccine certification scheme is part of the Conservative UK Government's winter contingency planning. The Tory's hypocrisy on this issue is not surprising. Their obsession with putting economic growth before lives is apparent in this debate as well as their complacent attitude towards other mitigations like mask wearing. The Tory approach to tackling the pandemic has seen a removal of furlough, a cut to benefits opening up of international travel when importing new variants could pose a risk to Scotland's recovery from Covid. In Scotland we have to mitigate this recklessness by using what limited powers we have and now the Tories want to remove the safeguards that we can put in place. Any responsible Government has to do what it can to limit the spread of the virus using the powers that it has. It is clear, I am in my last minute, that the Conservatives have no such interest in such responsibilities. So I say to the Tories instead of coming to this chamber with a one-line motion which seeks to put a halt to one of the few options open to us to drive up vaccination and lower transmission why not come with some suggestions of how? After the UK Government's decision to end furlough how do we suppress this virus? Indeed I challenged them to go back to their colleagues at Westminster and argue for that extension to furlough to give us more options. The least they could do is attempt to offer some solutions. The reason they decide not to offer solutions is because they simply don't have any. Frankly, there has been a lot of nonsense talked about vaccination certificates by opposition parties. Most of them have colleagues in similar parties left, right and centre across Europe who are supporting such schemes. So Scotland is very much in the European mainstream to have certificates in this way. The odd one out in many ways is England but once again we see a great fear amongst the Conservatives to be different from our neighbours. It has also been claimed that this measure is being too quickly introduced yet the reality is most other measures to do with Covid came in with just two or three days notice. This time we have had several weeks including two debates in Parliament so compared to other restrictions in the last 18 months this has been one of the slowest and one of the most consulted upon. I'll give way to Mr Fraser. I'm grateful to Mr Mason for giving way. He, like me, is a member of the Covid-19 recovery committee. This ambassador is due to come in within a day and a half from now. Has he seen the regulations yet that will bring in the detail of this policy or not? Because I haven't seen them. We have seen more detail on this and there has been more discussion on this than I think any other restriction that has been put in place. To date, Tuesday's figures of 1,027 people in hospital with Covid shows how serious it continues to be. That means hundreds of extra patients in hospital and that means hundreds of other people who should be in hospital for operations or whatever are being kept out by Covid. So it seems clear that we cannot sit in our hands and do nothing. We have to take some action and I suspect we would be heavily criticised if we did nothing. So the key question is if it is not to be vaccination certificates what action should we be taking as Ms Mackay just said? We have not heard many suggestions from opposition parties this afternoon. No, I think I'll just keep going just now. Perhaps we should have a midnight curfew. Perhaps that's what the Tories want. A midnight curfew on all pubs and night clubs. Maybe we should limit the crowds at all events including football to 10,000. I'll give way in a minute. Those would seem to me the kind of measures that we would have to take to ensure that we would be able to use certificates. I accept that across the board such restrictions might be simpler and more straightforward to implement. Some might even say that that route would be fairer as it would treat everyone the same, vaccinated or not. But surely such blanket closures once again would be harsher, would damage more businesses more seriously and would spoil the lives of many people. Mr Whittle, very briefly please. I remember the Covid committee and the Covid committee we know the sections of society that are reluctant to take up the vaccine. The solution would be to target those particular groups. Do you not agree? We need to encourage those who are reluctant and some, and the majority would appear, have people not been bothered or just haven't got round to it. They're not against the vaccine. So we need to encourage these people and this is a carrot to do that. I think we should also learn at the end of May for implementation in July and uptake of vaccines jumped in June. After France announced health passes four million people got their first jag and six million people made an appointment to get one. In Canada appointments for vaccination in Ontario and Quebec doubled after the Government's passport announcement. So if one of the key aims of the certificates is to encourage uptake of jags other countries experience seems to be better. Vaccines have been around for hundreds of years and they are extremely safe. I have lost count of the number of vaccinations that I personally have had through my life and I'm very grateful for every one of them. Thank you very much indeed Mr Mason. We now go to the wind-up speak. First we call on Smith four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This debate has shown that while vaccine passports will be rolled out or rather stutter out to large events and venues in Scotland in two days is certainly not two days away from being ready. Labour's concerns have always been practical. They've always been about whether this is the best measure to drive down the virus or will it simply drive up the negative impact on sectors already being hammered hospitality and events. All of us support vaccination, a point stressed by Martin Whitfield. We know that vaccination reduces the impact of the virus on our health and therefore the impact on our health service. We know that it does not stop you getting the virus and passing it on to others. It's a fact that someone could be vaccinated and have a vaccine certificate but still be carrying Covid still be allowed into a late night venue or large event and therefore still be able to infect everyone else. The Government's emphasis on vaccine only certification is in danger of giving people a false sense of confidence. I'm undermining the message that the best weapon we have against the spread of the virus as a world health organisation said 18 months ago is test, test, test. Not fully embracing testing as the key has always been the approach of this Government sadly. Whether it was a shameful failure to roll out testing to social care staff earlier, the irresponsible rejection time and time again of calls by Labour to introduce testing at airports to stop the import of the virus or the fact that contact tracing in Scotland has repeatedly missed the world health organisation standard of tracing. 80 per cent of close contacts within 72 hours it's not been a case of test, test, test from the Government it's been fail, fail, fail. You can see the failure to recognise testing in the SNP's amendments in the comments of the health secretary when he claimed this is a process that's being replicated in Wales. That's simply not true. The First Minister of Wales, Mark Drafer has consistently criticised the ethical equality and practical problems of a proof of vaccination only approach. Something frankly the health secretary used to also believe. Mark Drafer has said that Covid pass is different to vaccine certification. It allows proof of a negative Covid test for entry. That's very different from the vaccine certificates the Government in Scotland are proposing. So if we're going to compare policies with other parts of the UK let's have some honesty in what those policies actually are and let's have some honesty from the Government when it comes to the economic impact on businesses. Many time ministers promised that when they bring in what they say are public health measures that hit business they'll provide extra support. Is the Government really saying that a vaccine passport scheme where venues won't just need to check everyone entering the premises from midnight but either check everyone already in the venue at that time or kick them out and tell them to queue up again, that won't have a negative impact on business. This is not just 100 night clubs in Scotland based on the Google definition of a back bench but thousands and thousands of pubs in clubs. Do you have time to... Very briefly then. I agree with that point and it's important to stress that this is thousands and thousands of pubs in clubs that are open after midnight. Many of which don't have door staff to enforce this policy so may well close by stealth and the public have no idea of the scale of the venues that this policy will affect. So where is the promised extra support from the Government? The health secretary said several times he's listening to the concerns of the business community. Is he listening to Liz Cameron, chief executive of the Scottish Chamber of Commerce who said it's becoming clear that the Scottish Government expects businesses to bear the burden of implementation costs without any financial support whatsoever? Is he listening to Stephen Montgomery of the Scottish hospitality group who said this is a shambolic policy, rushed policy is bad policy? Or is he listening to the Scottish Licence Trade Association because he might have noticed that they're taking him to court. Hardly a ringing endorsement. As Daniel Johnson said, this is a mess and it isn't in any wonder the hospitality sector feel dismayed. It's a bad plan being badly implemented and if this Government really was listening it would put this policy not just enforcement on hold and it would think again. Thank you Mr Smith and I call the Deputy First Minister for five minutes. Thank you Mr Swinney. Both Liz Smith and Michelle Thompson made what I think is the fundamentally difficult and challenging issue with which Government has wrestled for the last 18 months. That is about balancing the effect of the virus and the significant impact on public health with the impact it has on other aspects of the economic and social life of individuals within our country. As members will know, I have been at the centre of decision making on those difficult choices and indeed developed the four harms framework which has been the basis on which we have exited lockdown over the course of the last 12 months. Those are incredibly difficult issues in balancing the question of public health versus economic and social questions, which is why the contribution of Paul McClennan was important because Mr McClennan reminded Parliament that there are an average just now of 2,500 cases a day of Covid. Over 1,000 people hospitalised due to Covid today. Now, there are of course also mitigating factors. Very substantial levels of vaccination have been undertaken within the country and I pay due credit to those who have executed that vaccination programme. If Mr Cohampton will let me develop my point. 2,500 cases a day at previous stages in the pandemic vast sectors of our economy would have had to have been closed to protect the public. At 1,000 plus hospitalisation cases our national health service is wrestling with significant and acute strain in its operation. Mr Cohampton. I am very grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way. Those are important decisions but does he recognise that important decisions demand parliamentary scrutiny and this one-hour opposition debate is practically the only proper scrutiny that he has had. Right now in the court of session, Government lawyers are pointing to this as evidence of scrutiny in the chamber and that is not good enough. Deputy First Minister. Forgive me but there was a Government debate on this subject a couple of weeks ago. I was in front of committee on this subject. The committee has taken evidence. I will be in front of committee again tomorrow on that question so there is a very significant amount of parliamentary scrutiny which brings me on to the point that John Mason made. Because of the nature of a pandemic and a virus that presents a real and significant threat to human health and wellbeing decisions have had to be taken and implemented at pace. Most of them are an awful lot faster than this particular proposal is being implemented because of the necessity of the pandemic but also because of the acute driver of the pandemic which is the delta variant. I will give way to Mr Mason. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way. I asked Mr Mason earlier a question about when we would see the regulations that are being brought in. According to the BBC reporter Philip Sim, the Scottish Government's QC told the court of session this very afternoon that Holyrood's Covid recovery committee would scrutinise these regulations tomorrow. I am the deputy of the committee. I have not seen those regulations. They are not on the agenda for tomorrow as the Government's QC just misled the court of session. Deputy First Minister. No, because as I understand that the material will be available to the committee later on this afternoon. So there is the answer to the question. Daniel Johnson, Mr Johnson knows that I have a very high regard for him but I felt he was awful confused today in his speech particularly about the significance or the advisability of Zoom calls. Mr Johnson indicated that these are his words. Carrying on regardless is not consultation. The Government is not carrying on regardless. The Government has listened and it has delayed the enforcement of those provisions. Indeed, this morning on the radio Leon Thomson, the Executive Director of UK Hospitality in Scotland said that it is certainly the right decision to delay enforcement. That is something that we have been calling for. What he also said that is certainly welcome news. This does alleviate some of the pressure and burdens that we have been highlighting over the last few weeks. I am very pleased that Mr Thomson was able to put on the record if Mr Smith does not have it and I am from a sedentary position to say anything decent about this particular issue. Give way to Mr Johnson. Very briefly, Mr Thomson. I am afraid that I am still confused if the Deputy First Minister would clarify. What, apart from delaying those measures, has the Government due to alter them one iota? I have not spotted anything. If Mr Johnson was to look at the guidance that we have issued, we have taken a pragmatic approach about the way in which businesses will be expected to implement those regulations. We have set out the various steps that businesses have to take to make sure they are in a position to implement them effectively. To wind up my remarks, Mr Smith, you can just keep persisting from a sedentary position. It is something of a special subject on your behalf. The Government believes that those measures are the right measures to be taken to tackle the pandemic and I look forward to members supporting them at 5 o'clock today. Thank you very much, Deputy First Minister. I call Murdo Fraser for round 6. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Maybe I could just start addressing this issue of parliamentary scrutiny but we are only having this debate because the Opposition called the debate this afternoon, otherwise this debate would not be taking place at all. Of course. Mr Swinney. Mr Fraser seems to have the same amnesia of Mr Cole-Hamilton. The Government brought the issue to a debate a couple of weeks ago. Has he forgotten how badly he performed in that debate? Murdo Fraser. I recall that debate as I spoke and he could not answer any of the questions that we have put forward in that debate about the purpose of this policy. We have not seen the regulations. Mr Swinney says that we will see the regulations this afternoon. I have got here the agenda for tomorrow's Covid-19 recovery committee. There is no mention on our committee agenda of any time being set forward to consider those regulations. Mr Mason has not seen them. I have not seen them. I am sure that other members have not seen them. We have no idea what the detail of those will be because they have not been brought forward to Parliament. Mr Swinney. Mr Fraser must surely have been looking at the material that the Government has published which is given the detail of the scheme that is going to be brought into effect it is completely and utterly unacceptable for Mr Fraser to indicate that none of that detail has been put into the public domain by the Government. I am sure that Mr Swinney knows the difference between the law and policy announced by the Government. Even Mr Swinney must know the difference between those two aspects. Of course yet again this Government will bring in these regulations and made regulations they will come into force immediately without any parliamentary scrutiny of these regulations and that is not acceptable. We were challenged in this debate by Mr Mason and a number of other members on the SNP benches. What are the alternatives? Two very simple things. Properly resource, test and protect so we are tracing the people who have positive contacts and secondly reach out to those groups currently not having access to vaccination to ensure that we are increasing the take up of vaccination to practical policies that could be introduced as an alternative to what is being proposed today. It is more than three weeks since the Government brought forward the policy and we are still no clearer as to where the evidence is that supports the introduction of the policy. I remember Mr Rowley in the Covid recovery committee asking Mr Swinney if he would bring forward the science that backed up the policy three weeks on. We have still not seen the science. We can piece together what the Government thinks are the arguments from what Mr Swinney and Mr Yousaf have said but we have not seen the science behind it. First of all is that having vaccine passports will provide greater protection for people in crowds and there may well be limited protection for people in crowds. Although we have heard Professor Jason Leitch has accepted this point that because of the delta variant that protection will be limited. We heard earlier from Mr Cole-Hamilton about the example of the event he referenced where even where people were double vaccinated so that is not a complete answer to the question. The other alternative is that it might encourage a take-up of the vaccine. Again, we have yet to see where the evidence is to support that particular viewpoint. Indeed, there are many experts who take the view that it might actually increase the incidence of vaccine hesitancy. Last week the Covid recovery committee heard from Professor John Montgomery of the Ada Lovelace Institute who said that what you worry about with vaccine passports is that instead of seeking to address the reasons for distrust and concern you aim to up the stakes for people and say if you want to enter these things you have to be vaccinated and that may exacerbate distrust and come back to haunt us. Tomorrow we are hearing from Professor Stephen Reicher and Professor Christopher Dyer a professor of epidemiology no less who also have similar concerns about the cases. The Government simply has not made the case nor has it produced the science why vaccine passports are required at this particular time. Indeed, when they were making the case three or four weeks ago the case rates were much higher than they are today and we have seen a very helpful and welcome reduction in the case rates since then. Indeed, if matters were serious as the Government were suggesting why did they announce the U-turn being introduced? Surely they cannot be that serious or they would not be doing that. We heard about the concerns about human rights brought to the committee last week by Judith Robertson of the Scottish Human Rights Commission who was very clear that the case had not been made for the introduction of vaccine passports and in her words there is in clarity around what evidence is being used to base these decisions on. Mr Fairlie, please. I asked the question very clearly last week that there is a care home based in England who has care homes in my constituency who are sacking people who are not double vaccinated on the issue of human rights. Whose human rights are more important? The people who want the care home in order to be looked after and stay alive or the people who refuse to get the double vaccine? I have 20 seconds left, Mr Fairlie. That is a really significant issue that you have raised. That requires a serious level of debate and discussion. I am not going to give you an off the cuff response to that because that would not do that issue justice but it is a serious matter that you raised and I sympathise with it. We have also heard if I can just be brief in winding up, Deputy Presiding Officer. A lot of concerns from industry we know at the moment in the Court of Session the night-time injuries industries association in Scotland are taking a legal case against the Scottish Government. Deputy Presiding Officer, just last week we saw an SNP U-turn on the requirements for international travellers who were double vaccinated to also have PCR tests thanks to concerns raised by the travel industry. Yesterday we saw another U-turn with a grace period being brought in. I think that the Scottish Government can rethink these issues. They need to rethink this issue too. We know, Deputy Presiding Officer, there are those on the SNP benches in this Parliament on the back benches who are concerned about this policy. We know that, because we know that even the SNP front bench we are expressing their concern about this policy just a few weeks ago. We also know that there are those in the Green Party deeply concerned about this policy. I hope for once people on the SNP back benches will grow a backbone and stand up to their front bench and say that this policy is damaging, it is not wanted and it should be put on hold. That is why I support the motion in the name of Douglas Ross. Thank you very much Mr Fraser. We have no time in hand. I would ask the front benches to change over as quickly as possible so that we can move to the next item of business.