Chamber and committees

Just a moment.

SNP members believe that the prescription for the disease is more of the disease. They identify a mistake, and then they want to repeat it. That is simply incoherent.

It does my Conservative friends across the chamber a great disservice when they say that they thought Brexit was going to be a bad idea, which is why they argued against it, but that now they think that it will be okay, because these are just temporary inconveniences, which we will get through, and there will be wonderful opportunities. Indeed, there was a great deal of irony in Liam Kerr’s plea for the Government to focus and look at the issues in detail, while his party ignores the issues that Brexit is creating.

This afternoon, there has been gross oversimplification on both sides of the chamber, but Richard Leonard was absolutely right, and Ross Greer, again, highlighted the complexities of the issues that are at hand. Absolutely—Brexit has exacerbated the issues with HGV drivers but, in the words of Richard Leonard, we must look at what they have to put up with. The wages for the job have declined against median wages for the past decade; that is why a third of HGV drivers are looking to retire, and it is why their average age is 55 and less than 1 per cent are under the age of 25. It is not just Brexit that caused that issue but poor terms and conditions, and focusing on training and support will solve those issues. In addition, it is not just a problem in this country: Poland is short of 120,000 HGV drivers and Germany is short of 60,000 HGV drivers. The USA is also short of HGV drivers, and the USA’s shortages are not caused by Brexit.

That is not the cause of my confusion. I am confused because the minister has failed to set out a single way in which independence would fix any of the problems that we face now, or how it could be delivered within a timeframe that would allow it to deal with the issues that he has identified.

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 then realised that it had no way of identifying them legally. The definition that has been cobbled together means that any pub or restaurant that is open at 1 minute past midnight suddenly becomes a nightclub if patrons start to dance. The answer, according to the official guidance, which was published yesterday, is that those venues should switch their music off. With a flick of a switch, a venue turns from a nightclub back into a pub. I hope that someone tells the virus that it is allowed to transmit itself in a busy bar only when the music is playing. [Interruption.] The cabinet secretary says, from a sedentary position, that that is a ridiculous suggestion, but that is exactly the effect of what the guidance says. If staff switch the music off, they no longer have to check people’s vaccination status. That is what the Government’s own advice 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 vaccination passports. In July, Humza Yousaf said that he was “sceptical”, and 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 vaccination passports to rushing them through and then having to delay their start because of the inevitable backlash, because they are unworkable. The situation is a mess. Is it any wonder that those in the hospitality sector feel dismayed?

Ministers claim that they have been consulting, but appearing on a Zoom call is not consultation, and speaking to people and telling them what is going to happen is not consultation. Carrying on regardless and not listening to issues, suggestions, questions or concerns is not consultation. Consultation is not a one-way street. If it had been done at all, the Government would not be in the mess that it is in today. Ministers have to listen.

I have been listening to people in the sector, and they feel angry and betrayed. This is what I have heard:

“This wouldn’t 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 sheer confusion with this plan and there’s 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 in massive short supply anyway, to enforce this will be more than the pre-Covid profits for many businesses.”

Those are not my words but those of business owners and those who represent the sector. They were speaking to me today on a Zoom call because I wanted to hear their point of view. They just want ministers to listen, too. [Interruption.]

Ministers know that this is a knee-jerk response that they have been sent down from the ministerial tower by the First Minister to implement and try to justify. It has been botched, and that is why it should be scrapped.

I move amendment S6M-01415.1, to insert at end:

“; recognises that the impact of certification on behaviours that reduce transmission is uncertain according to SAGE; notes that the scheme does not include proof of a negative test as an alternative to certification; raises concern about the inadequate consultation, published detail or lack of support for the sectors impacted by the introduction of vaccine certification; regrets that contact tracing in Scotland has repeatedly missed the World Health Organization’s standard of tracing 80% of close contacts within 72 hours, and calls on the Scottish Government to focus on urgently resourcing Test and Protect and increasing vaccine uptake by improving access to vaccination clinics.”

I am afraid that I am still confused and I would be grateful for clarification from the Deputy First Minister. What, apart from delaying the measures, has the Government done to alter them one iota? I have not spotted anything.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that there is a difference between the effect of vaccination at the population level and its impact in a venue or at an event? The dynamics are very different.

Let us be clear. Yesterday’s announcement by the First Minister was an admission that the Scottish Government’s vaccination passport policy is flawed, rushed and potentially damaging to jobs and businesses. You do not announce a delay to a law 72 hours before it comes into force when it is well prepared and thought through. You do not delay it because it is straightforward to implement. You do not push it back when those who are tasked with enforcing it are well prepared.

The vaccination certification plan is being delayed because it is flawed, and it is flawed because it is lacking in three key ways. First, the evidence base is lacking:

“the impact ... on ... transmission is uncertain”.

That is stated in the first line of our amendment, and those are not my words but the words of SAGE. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care should be very careful in citing scientific evidence at population-level efficacy and applying it to high-contact venues and situations. The dynamics are very different, and it is a very dangerous thing to do.

The last time I checked, consultation required listening. All that I am saying is that the Government should listen to those points of view, because it is quite clear, according to its own plans, that it has not been doing that.

When it comes to suppressing the virus, we know what works: testing, contact tracing and getting people vaccinated. The Scottish Government has to redouble its efforts and improve the systems that it has already, not invent new ones. We should resource test and protect properly so that it meets World Health Organization standards. We need to chase down the groups that remain to get vaccinated by making it as easy as possible, through measures such as mobile vaccination centres, providing people absolutely no reason not to get vaccinated.

If ministers were being honest, they would acknowledge that the policy has been rushed. If they were being frank, they would acknowledge that it lacks the rationale, planning or communication to be effective.

Defining a nightclub as somewhere serving alcohol after midnight, with music and a space where people may dance, runs the risk of catching pubs, bars and perhaps even restaurants that would not consider themselves to be night clubs. With that in mind, will the First Minister clarify what she means by “larger” and whether it will be defined? Based on what she said in her statement, it strikes me that some of those smaller venues, which do not consider themselves to be night clubs, will have to check everyone, whereas larger venues, which consider themselves to be night clubs, will simply have to carry out spot checks. Can the First Minister clarify that point?

To ask the Scottish Government how the finance secretary plans to allocate the Barnett consequentials arising from the United Kingdom Government’s recent announcement of additional funding for NHS England. (S6O-00145)