Chamber and committees

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)

Clarity is important, of course. The need for my question is best set out in the report that Audit Scotland published today, to which Liz Smith referred. Will the cabinet secretary be specific? Will she commit to publishing the schedule of regular budget and spend updates that transparency demands, rather than have the Parliament rely on ad hoc budget revisions?

Poor implementation of central control centres was the underlying fault behind these tragic deaths, and Police Scotland has rightly apologised. Capital funding of Police Scotland per police officer has remained around the fourth lowest across United Kingdom police forces since the creation of the force, at around half the police service’s assessment of what it requires. Will the cabinet secretary reflect and extend his apology to police officers for his Government’s failure to fund the systems, facilities and equipment required to create a single police force?

Will the member take an intervention at this point?

Will the member take another intervention?

Can the member cite a single academic paper regarding the efficacy of the vaccination against transmission? As recently as July, the WHO said that there was insufficient evidence regarding the efficacy of the vaccine against transmission or infection.

Will the member take an intervention?

According to Nature, a study in Wisconsin between June and July showed that the viral loads of the delta variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated people were comparable, suggesting that there is very little reduction in transmission by those who are vaccinated.

I really do understand Clare Adamson’s motivation, and I agree that we have to listen and go to briefings. However, ultimately, it is a question of whether the measure will do what she is suggesting. I think that we have to question that.

One of the fundamental issues here—I was going to come on to this later—is the proposition that vaccination reduces transmission, because the Government is conflating two fundamental elements of vaccine efficacy. There is the efficacy of the vaccine in terms of ensuring that people do not get ill and go to hospital. The evidence on that is clear: the vaccine does reduce it.

However, the evidence of the vaccine’s ability to reduce transmission is far from clear. That is why the WHO stated back in February that it did not recommend vaccine passports as a measure to reduce transmission, and it is why, in July, it reiterated that the evidence was not clear. It is why the New England Journal of Medicine published an article just the other day stating that, on transmission, it is not clear that passports can be used as a measure.

We also have to look at the legislative process that the Government is taking in regard to the measure. There has been derision and amusement regarding definitions of nightclubs, but Douglas Ross is absolutely right to raise that, because when we legislate and introduce measures, definitions matter. If we fail to accurately define the scope of a measure, we will get things wrong.

That is not the only issue with what is being proposed today. We have to be steered by international organisations and scientific advice. The WHO has set out the parameters by which Governments should approach vaccine passports. As well as scope, it says that there should be detailed cost benefit analysis, yet the proposal from the Government has none. It says that there should be detailed examination of digital barriers and discrimination, and it suggests that there should be a full equality impact assessment. I wanted to ask Fulton MacGregor whether he thinks that the Government should undertake a full equality impact assessment before it introduces the measure, because there has been none.

The WHO also says that Governments should take all necessary measures to protect participants in terms of continuity of care and particular focus being placed on data relating to individuals, but there is scant detail of how such details will be protected in the Government’s measure.

We need to look at the very real concerns that have been raised by the Liberal Democrats—by Alex Cole-Hamilton—and others.

We have to look at the implications of what we are introducing. Vaccination passports are medical ID cards by the back door. I do not entirely share the concerns of the Liberal Democrats about identity cards, but I am clear about the fact that we should not introduce ID cards by the back door. We must not introduce medical photographic ID for one purpose, only for that to result in its being used for another one. That is a real danger of the measure—[Interruption.] I cannot take an intervention, as I have to wind up.

Ultimately, the Government’s position can be summed up as having no detail, having had no consultation and having no evidence—the measure should have no confidence from the Scottish Parliament.