The next item of business is a debate on motion 3617 in the name of John Swinney on COVID-19 Scotland's strategic framework update. I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now, and I call on John Swinney, Deputy First Minister, to speak to and to move the motion up to 10 minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today's debate delivers on the First Minister's commitment to seek the approval of Parliament for the Scottish Government's updated strategic framework, which we published on 22 February. Earlier, the First Minister announced that, from next Monday, 21 March, with one temporary precautionary exception, the remaining domestic legal measures will be lifted and replaced with appropriate guidance. We will be laying regulations to implement those changes in Parliament tomorrow. The requirement to wear face coverings on public transport and in certain indoor settings will be retained for a short, further period due to the current spike in case numbers. That decision is consistent with our evidence-based approach to managing the pandemic. We will review it again in two weeks before the Easter recess, and our expectation now is that that regulation will convert into guidance in early April. Presiding Officer, for this debate, I will set out the key strands of the new framework and explain what it will mean for our collective response to Covid-19 in the coming months and years. However, before I do that, I am sure that colleagues on all sides of the chamber will want to join me in offering our condolences to everyone in Scotland who has suffered a loss during this pandemic. Everyone in our society has been affected by the pandemic, and there have been some very dark times, but our country has demonstrated significant resilience over the past two years. I would also like to express my gratitude to all those who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much during the pandemic to enable our society to make the recovery that we have been able to make from the challenging circumstances that we have faced. Despite the on-going presence of the pandemic, we believe that we are now able to look forward to the rest of 2022 with increased optimism made possible by the remarkable progress on both vaccination and new treatments. Indeed, at the heart of our framework is an increasing confidence in our ability to achieve a sustainable return to a more normal way of life even as we remain prepared for any future threats that Covid-19 may present. This is important as there are many issues other than Covid-19 that we need to tackle as a society. In the early stages of the pandemic, we have focused our strategic intent on suppressing case numbers. Now, with widespread vaccination and immunity, we are more focused on reducing and mitigating the wider harms than we were able to be before. Our new strategic intent is to manage Covid-19 effectively, primarily through adaptations and health measures that strengthen our resilience and our recovery as we rebuild for a better future. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way. He mentioned earlier the announcement by the First Minister this afternoon that the legal requirement to wear face masks would continue for some weeks. Can he tell us how many people have been sanctioned for breaking that law over the past six months? I cannot tell him that, but I can say that when one looks at the data that is indicated that there is a legal requirement for face coverings to be worn or a voluntary approach to be taken, the difference in the numbers can be quite considerable. The numbers for compliance where there are legal measures in place tend to be in the high 80 per cent and the voluntary measures tend to be about 60 per cent. What we know—this is well-established information from the World Health Organization and various other clinical advisers—is that the wearing of face coverings is a significant impediment to the circulation of the virus. Of course, we are in a position just now where we have a significant spread of the virus to the extent with which members are familiar. That is the rationale that has led the Government to take the decision that we have taken today and which the First Minister set out to Parliament today. It is important as we look at adaptations and health measures to understand that the approach that we now take in the strategic framework is that that does not mean that we will allow the virus a free hand, regardless of the harm that it might cause. Instead, it will help to ensure that our overall approach and any future use of protective measures should we face a significant new threat, which is, as always, proportionate and consistent with our broader purpose of protecting public health and creating a more successful, sustainable and inclusive Scotland. I want to make it clear that the Government will aim to convert the remaining domestic legal requirements for face coverings into guidance as soon as it is safe to do so. That will help us to promote good public health behaviours while retaining the ability to regulate in future should the public health situation is required. Despite that planned shift away from legal requirements, we will still need to manage Covid-19 effectively because the virus remains a threat. We are likely to continue to see outbreaks in Scotland over the coming years and we can expect new variants to appear globally. We have therefore set out in the framework a system of threat levels and potential responses that provides as much clarity as we can for planning purposes but retains crucial flexibility to ensure that responses are both effective and proportionate to the threat level. We do not believe that an approach that relies on predetermined automatic triggers for a response would be appropriate. Throughout the pandemic, we have seen that clinical and scientific advice, data, legal and equality considerations and many other factors need to be combined to inform our decision making, all overlaid by experience and judgment about the right steps to take. We will manage Covid-19 going forward on the basis of measures that are commensurate with the assessed threat. It is right at this point to note the need for collaborative management of Covid-19 to be shared by central and local government, by wider public services, the third sector, communities and individuals. We have achieved remarkable levels of co-operation in managing the harms of the pandemic and this is essential for the management of the challenges that lie ahead. A report published by Glasgow Disability Alliance this week looked at the experience of disabled women during the pandemic. One of the issues that it highlights is that many universal approaches, pandemic responses perhaps unintentionally, ignored the needs of disabled people creating inequalities, injustices and eroding human rights for them and disabled women. That is obviously quite difficult to hear and I wonder if the cabinet secretary could set out how the Government intends to address those concerns that were raised this week. Those are points that have to be taken very seriously and they indicate the challenge that is faced by policy makers and decision makers about dealing with a widespread issue of public health emergency across the whole of our society, but enabling us to take approaches that will specifically address the circumstances of individuals with disabilities, as Pam Duncan-Glancy has put to me. The identification of targeted and focused support to individuals is crucial as part of a wider response to the management of the pandemic to address the given circumstances of individuals. That is something that I think will be at the heart of the response that public authorities need to take forward to address the issues that Pam Duncan-Glancy fairly puts to me. We will continue to consider the needs of everyone in society, and that relates to the point that Pam Duncan-Glancy is making to me, in developing future adaptations, mitigations and protective measures, as there is clear evidence that harm has been felt unevenly across our society. The Government has published separately the detailed impact assessments that inform the content of the framework, and it will inform the decision making that we take forward. We will ensure that any continuing on new measures do not exacerbate any quality, which is why equality, inclusion and human rights remain at the heart of our on-going response and indeed at the heart of our Covid recovery strategy. We also know that, for those who remain at highest risk, there will be an uncertain time that lies ahead and that not everybody in society welcomes the removal of protective measures. We will continue to provide advice and guidance informed by our clinicians as we support those on the highest risk list as we get back to a more normal way of life. The strategic framework update therefore outlines a wide variety of concrete actions that are designed to improve outcomes across society consistent with our Covid-19 recovery strategy. Before I bring my remarks to our conclusion, I would like to put in context the Covid recovery and reform bill, which supports the strategic framework and will ensure greater resilience against future public health threats. While we intend to rely much less on legal requirements in response to Covid going forward, the framework is clear that we must ensure that our legislation is kept up-to-date to support our ability to manage future outbreaks. We hope that that will not be needed in the future, but it is only right that Scotland has permanent public health protection powers, as has been available in England and Wales for over a decade. There is a crucial distinction between having appropriate powers available to respond to public health threats and using them in a given circumstance. The strategic framework sets out what we must all do as we come to rely much more on positive behaviours and actions to manage Covid-19 effectively and sustainably. However, should the virus again pose an acute threat to our health, we have set out how we plan to respond effectively and proportionally to enable people and organisations to plan for the future with greater confidence. We will listen to the developing licence and research that can help us to navigate better through future pandemics and other emergencies to protect our people and ensure that we are able to build a fairer, resilient and more prosperous Scotland as a consequence of our response to the pandemic that we have faced. I move the motion in my name. I welcome the opportunity to debate the strategic framework update for Covid recovery and I move the amendment in my name. It is hard to believe that we are now two years on from Covid first appearing on our shores. At that time, I do not think that any of us expected that two years later we would still be dealing with a deadly virus. I would join with the Deputy First Minister in remembering all those who have lost their lives as a result, offer our condolences to their families and express our gratitude to all those in the public sector and elsewhere who worked over the past 24 months to protect the public. In particular, we should recommend the tremendous success of the UK vaccination programme, providing a level of protection to the public, which is the envy of many other countries. That means that we have been able to get back to ordinary life. That said, the impacts of Covid continue to be felt, not just directly but indirectly, with a worryingly high level of excess deaths from other causes and much more to be done in restoring our public services to where they should be. I will say more about those issues a little later. In relation to the question of on-going legal restrictions, we have argued now for some weeks that we in Scotland should be following the lead of all other parts of the United Kingdom to see all major restrictions removed. First Wales, then Northern Ireland, then England announced the end of restrictions and Scotland is the outlier by lagging behind. Today, we were hoping that the First Minister might come to the chamber to confirm that all legal restrictions, including wearing face masks in certain settings, would be dropped from Monday, and she disappointed us by saying that that would be extended by some weeks yet. We know from all the evidence that has been produced that, despite the fact that we have had stricter restrictions here in Scotland and for longer than elsewhere in the UK, outcomes in terms of Covid infections and impacts have been virtually identical across all parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is now more than six months since the legal requirement to wear face masks in public places was removed entirely in England, while that law has been maintained in Scotland. The evidence tells us that the rate of Covid infection in Scotland has been at least as high as it has been in England throughout that period. Indeed, over the past few weeks, it has been substantially higher. I will just make this point and give way. The case for on-going legal restrictions is simply not supported by the evidence. I simply asked the member to tell me or advise me if all the Covid infections in Scotland are homegrown. He could be coming into Scotland from other parts of the UK or abroad, so it is a false argument to make without the evidence. I would say to the member that I think that the evidence does tell us what the rate of infection is. I am not sure that we can drill down to what the source of those infections is. Of course, there are many people going in and out of other parts of the UK as there are going in and out of Scotland—probably more so, so I am not sure that the argument that the member puts forward takes us very far. It is also worth making the point that the claims that are made in some quarters that the UK has the worth death rate in Europe from Covid are simply untrue. According to a paper published in the Lancet last week on the first peer-reviewed global estimates of excess deaths over the first two years of the pandemic, the UK's death rate is actually 29th in Europe, below the Western European average and at the same level as France and Germany. That paper also made the case that there is no clear relationship between levels of excess mortality and different levels of restriction. What makes a difference is vaccination, where the UK, including Scotland, has done well. That is not to say that we should be throwing all caution to the wind. We should still have public health advice, advising people to take reasonable precautions, including exercising good hygiene, distancing from other individuals and wearing face masks where they deem it appropriate. The Scottish people have demonstrated their willingness to adhere to public health advice in spades. For example, there has never been in Scotland a requirement in law to self-isolate following a positive test for Covid, and yet that is an instruction that people have on the whole adhered to very strictly. I believe that we can move to a position of personal responsibility and health guidance, not using the law to force people to act in a particular way. Nor do we need to have the Scottish Government's extraordinary and emergency powers entrenched on a permanent basis. There is overwhelming public opposition to the proposed Covid recovery and reform bill, with 85 per cent of those who are responding to the Scottish Government's consultation being against it. The member knows, as well as all the rest of us who sit in the Covid recovery committee, that if the Scottish Government does not extend its powers beyond 21 March, all the powers that the Government currently has fall with the parent legislation. That would mean that, if Scotland had another rise in Covid numbers, we would be left without legal ability to be able to bring restrictions into place. There are two responses to that point from Mr Fairlie. Parliament has already demonstrated its ability to legislate extremely quickly in the event of the circumstances change, but it has not been listening to the point that I made a few moments ago at referencing the paper in the Lancet last week, which makes the case that there is no relationship between levels of excess mortality and different levels of restrictions, and it needs to bear that in mind as well. Coming back to the Covid recovery and reform bill, the Scotland's Children's Commissioner has been clear, in his view, that plans to restrict children's education breach human rights, and on that basis may well be defeated in the courts. It is an unwarranted and unnecessary power grab by Scottish ministers and we will resolutely oppose it. Let us look instead where the future focus should be. The Covid recovery committee has heard alarming evidence about the level of excess deaths over the past two years. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine claimed that, in 2021, 500 people died as a result of delays in admissions to hospital. There are 10 people per week dying because an ambulance does not turn up on time or because of delay in getting them from that ambulance into the emergency ward, and that statistic alone shows that much more needs to be done to get our NHS back to where it is safe for all patients. That is not taking account of all the undiagnosed cancer, 17,000, according to evidence that we heard in the committee last week, people being diagnosed too late with potentially serious outcomes for them, and all the undiagnosed other conditions such as heart disease and stroke. On already, the NHS across Scotland is struggling to cope, and that problem is likely to get much worse. That is why an NHS recovery plan is so important, and in particular a workforce plan that focuses on training for the future enough doctors and nurses to replace those currently retiring or leaving the professions. There is much more that needs to be done, and my colleagues will highlight some of those points during the debate. Covid is not yet over, but it is time to move towards a new approach, based on personal responsibility and not continued legal restrictions. I now call on Jackie Baillie to speak to and move amendment 3617.1. Up to five minutes please, Ms Baillie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I also pay tribute to all those who worked so hard to protect us during the pandemic and send my condolences to all those who lost loved ones? It may be two years on, but I would however note that the pandemic is not over. The latest strain of Omicron, BA2, is more infectious than previous strains, and that is demonstrated in the extraordinary rise in case numbers. Over the last four days, 38,770 positive cases reported, 1,996 in hospital. The increase in hospital cases is, I believe, the greatest single rise in 24 hours since the start of the pandemic. NHS Lanarkshire reports that its three hospitals are overflowing, and the Queen Elizabeth University hospital was on the brink of declaring a code black last Thursday. The pressure on the NHS remains intense. Of course, lots of staff are themselves off ill with Covid, causing further strain to the service. Although it goes without saying that we all support measures to control the virus and save lives, there are many lessons to learn now and for the future in our handling of Covid. That is why I do genuinely find the Covid-19 strategic framework a little disappointing. It appears to contain a number of reheated SNP promises and pledges, and it fails to give any of the real detail that the public and businesses need. After almost two years of the pandemic, I am genuinely puzzled as to why the Scottish Government do not have a better idea of what should happen. The Government says that it wants to help people and organisations to manage Covid-19 effectively and sustainably. I could not agree with that sentiment more, but you need to have credible plans. Let me give you an example. If you want to improve air quality and ventilation in classrooms, organise HEPA filters, make sure that the windows are not painted shut and do not chop the bottoms off classroom doors. A five-year-old could have told you that. The First Minister announced earlier that whole population testing, isolation and self-isolation payments end in April. I am surprised at the speed, but in accepting that, it is important that further detail is provided for the two categories where testing will continue, in health and social care settings and for those with underlying health conditions. The Scottish Government has already been busy with drawing contracts for test and protect, and people who did such a tremendous job staffing call centres are already being made redundant on a Microsoft Teams call—not the way it should be done. However, what will be left for the testing that needs to continue and what surge capacity will be built in would be helpful to know, because you cannot administer antivirals within a five-day window to those who test positive and have underlying health conditions if you remove the capacity of test and protect to get to people quickly. Assurance on that point is important, as is a convincing response on the availability and administration of antiviral medication. RCN Scotland has called for FFP3 masks to be the default in any care of Covid or suspected Covid cases. They have outlined concerns that risk assessments are still not being offered to staff. As hospitals begin to come under increased pressure and staff absences continue to grow, that is critical to protect staff. I hope that the Deputy First Minister would agree. What about vaccination? We know that vaccination is key to reducing the impact of the virus, but that protection is wearing off. As we begin to offer a fourth jab for the immunosuppress and over 75s, what will the Scottish Government do to address the fact that half a million Scots have still not had their first booster? Will they finally outline a sustainable workforce plan for the vaccination programme? Here is another example of what is missing from the framework. There are 119,000 people living with long Covid in Scotland, according to ONS figures. Despite an announcement in September, not one penny has reached health boards. Services are thin—in fact, I am probably being kind—and services are non-existent. Businesses who have been at the sharp end of the pandemic need certainty about what support will be in place if there is a need for any further restrictions in the future. We cannot have a system of ad hoc last-minute decisions, which is why it is vital that the big decisions on future restrictions are discussed and voted on by this Parliament, allowing the public the chance to have their voices heard on the issues that impact them. The shameless power grab that is sought by the SNP must be rejected. The Parliament has demonstrated that it can scrutinise legislation quickly and robustly, so there is no need for the Government to have sweeping powers. The people of Scotland deserve a strategic framework that will aid recovery, but this plan falls short of what is needed. Scotland deserves better, and I move the amendment in my name. I would like to associate myself with the condolences offered by this motion by the Deputy First Minister and others in the chamber today. During the peak of measures, people were unable to be at the side of their loved ones at the end of their lives, and saying a final farewell at a funeral was strictly limited. It was the knowledge that we all had a part to play to limit Covid's spread that kept many of us able to make these necessary sacrifices. The First Minister addressed the rise in case rates in the past few weeks. I note that face masks will be retained as a precaution for a short time and hope that that contributes to flattening the upward turning cases. Legal requirements will become guidance, but we should all be mindful that Covid is still around, and there are mitigations that we can take to limit the spread—vaccines, hands, face, space, ventilation—and to remember that not everyone is as comfortable as others as we transition away from requirements. We have all just lived through a collective trauma and the ramifications are yet to be fully understood. I am pleased that throughout the strategic framework mental health that is raised, addressing the long-term aftermath of Covid will be fluid, and services must be just as flexible to adjust to that. Investment and expansion of child and adolescent mental health services, as laid out in the framework, are welcome, as this is a commitment to accessible mental health support directly through doctor surgeries. Scottish Liberal Democrats have been calling for this for many years, as CAMHS waiting lists were long even before the pandemic. Money to local authority partners to ensure that every secondary school has access to counselling services is also welcome. Support in Mind Scotland points to the 1 million or so Scots living in rural, remote and island communities. The strategic update only mentions rural once, discussing scaling up new digital treatments and therapies to ensure that they are also accessible in rural areas. Mental health support and services should be accessible to everyone in rural and island Scotland and not just digitally. More needs to be done to build resilience in rural and island communities and provide accessible face-to-face services in the places where people live. Long Covid is also addressed in the framework. This is a condition that is still new to medical professionals and the healthcare system will need all the support that the Scottish Government can provide to help the estimated 119,000 people affected to get treatment and support. Many have had their lives turned upside down, which also impacts on those around them. I think of a constituent I met with Long Covid, who is now constantly breathless and can hardly walk up the stairs. They can no longer run around with their football playing son, who turned to his parent and said, I wish you'd never got Covid, while the eldest child has in effect become a young carer. To hear the telling of that family's Covid experience was heartbreaking. Scottish Liberal Democrats would like to have seen swifter action to ensure comprehensive adaptations to the ventilation of schools and classrooms. Rates in schools have now risen and air filters in every classroom could have helped stem this rise. I note the Covid-19 ventilation short-life working groups' recommendations for next steps for healthier buildings will report back by the end of March. Lastly, we would like to see an end to the domestic vaccine passport scheme. We know now that vaccines provide high levels of protection, but vaccinated people can still pass on the virus. We should be focused on continuing to encourage people to keep testing. Staying at home when you have any symptoms of a respiratory infection will become guidance soon, and this advice should be taken and become the norm to continue to help to protect each other. As others have said, Covid has not gone away. As we discussed the Covid framework this afternoon, we are reminded that Covid is still very much with us. The statement from the First Minister this afternoon highlighted the fragility of the position that we are still in, hence the flexibility. Case rates are increasing across the age groups, driven by the now dominant BA2 variant. 85 per cent of cases are now thought to be of that variant. Covid is still a public health risk here and globally, and it is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. In my short time, I want to focus on the need to reduce health inequalities that is mentioned in the framework as we emerge from the pandemic. We urgently need to address the pre-existing health inequalities that we are already present. The pandemic has worsened the impact of those across a range of groups. Those include households on low incomes or poverty, low-paid workers, children and young people, older people, disabled people, minority ethnic groups and women. Those groups also overlap. Reducing health inequalities must beat the heart of our Covid-19 recovery strategy. It is also a key consideration in the remobilisation and redesign of our health and social care system. There is much to do and we need to take the opportunity to address many of those deep-rooted health inequalities. The impact of the pandemic is driving demand and complexity across all services, particularly in the most deprived areas. The report of the primary care health inequality short time working group yesterday was very welcome. Keep findings included the potential creation of a new health inequalities commissioner, empowering primary healthcare workers, improving equality data, investment into wellbeing communities and strengthening the focus on inequalities through the GP contract. The recommendations will have a sustained and long-term impact on health outcomes, especially for those facing the most significant barriers to good health. We need person-centred holistic care that considers social and financial wellbeing. The role of the Scottish social subscribing network will be key in that delivery. That will include community link workers who provide invaluable support to people with issues such as debt, social isolation and housing and who will continue to be at the forefront of their efforts to tackle health inequalities. There are also welfare rights money advice services embedded in 150 general practices, and we need to build on those successes by creating a network of 1,000 additional staff to help to grow community resilience and direct social prescribing. However, our people with the right support locally and connecting them to the right services is crucial in our recovery. There are other approaches that need to go hand in hand with those initiatives. There is legislation to restrict promotions of life, healthy food and drink, tackling alcohol consumption and harms, and refreshing the tobacco alcohol plan. There is a pledge to double investment in supporting active living to £100 million a year by the end of this Parliament, so many more people can enjoy active lives. Again, it is very welcome. The factors that impact on people's health and wellbeing grow beyond what the health and social care system itself can deliver. Social economic equality drives health inequalities. The best way to tackle leisure to support actions that end poverty is to increase access to employment, education and training commitments within the plan. The scale of the problem is seen by the massive increase in the use of food banks in my constituency, up 40 per cent, 28 per cent and 54 per cent year on year in the last three months. A place-based approach to tackling inequalities at local level is key. Local communities are best placed to cultivate person-centred approaches aimed at preventing ill health and reducing inequalities by addressing the root causes. It is the way in which I have already heard a workshop looking at health and inequalities. We need to support our local health and social care providers to become active, anchor institutions and build wealth in their community. The recovery from the pandemic will be tough. Reducing health and inequalities must be one of our core objectives. I now call Jeremy Balfour, to be followed by Christine Grahame. Up to four minutes, please, Mr Balfour. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Tomorrow marks the second anniversary for Prime Minister's address to the nation that instituted the first national lockdown. Since then it has been a rocky road, but along the way we have seen some extraordinary efforts that have led to the development and distribution of life-saving vaccines and antivirus that have allowed us to open up and pursue a normal life. As with many in this chamber and across this country, I look forward to the lifting of most of the restrictions on Monday, although I find myself asking why it has taken so long to do so. Mother Fraser has already talked about mass and other such measures that have been imposed on Scottish people for what has turned out to be little benefit. The First Minister and her cabinet are fond of claiming that the approach has been evidence-led. However, as we have already heard this afternoon, the decisions that have taken to delay prolonged face-mars requirement flies in the face of that basic evidence. England has moved past mass weeks ago, and there has been no great surge, and there has been certainty that there is no evidence that the Scottish Government continues a mandate that has led to less transmissions here in Scotland. I do think that the Government does to look at this again. There have been many difficulties caused by the pandemic, education, health and social care, and I am sure that others will comment on those as we go along. However, as we have already heard in an intervention, it is perhaps the disabled and older people here in Scotland that have been affected the most. For two years, services that older people and disabled people have relied on such as day centres have been closed, unable to servers who desperately need them. Day centres not only provide welcome support and respite for carers but also a community for disabled people to be able to join and foster. It is therefore imperative that these centres open and reopen as they were two years ago. Sadly, that is not the case in many local authority areas across Scotland. There is no clear guidance and timeline for when these centres will reopen. How are they going to continue to be funded and what support will they be given by Scottish Government and by local authorities? I would urge the Scottish Government to work with COSLA and local government to get these centres reopened and functioning as they were before the pandemic. The people who have suffered are disabled people but it is also their carers. Many of them have not had one day off in the last two years. Finally, I would like to raise one other issue that we will come to later on in legislation. I raise the issue as the CPD convener of this funeral and bereavement. I raise the issue of registering deaths under the current emergency legislation. Correctly, under the emergency regulations, all deaths had to be registered online. For many of them, the industry was a welcomed change and brought many benefits. My understanding from speaking to undertakers that if the emergency powers continue, there will be no ability to register a loved one's death in person. For many people, that can provide closure. I wonder whether the minister will reflect whether we should keep both open to register online which will be fine for the majority, but for those who want to go in person to register the death of their loved one, that this should be allowed to happen so that they can say their farewells in that way. I know from a personal experience how important that was for me to do in my circumstance. We need to move on. The virus is here with us, but we now need to live as normal as we can and we need to open services for those who have been most vulnerable and most affected. Managing Covid-19 effectively and getting the balance right between public health and the economy obviously changes as we progress through Covid. I agree that we need to adapt as the virus hopefully moves from pandemic to endemic. Minority of the public are already discarding the wearing of face masks in, for example, supermarkets. The sanitising of trolleys is not always available, even hand sanitizer. I think that it is time to remind us, weary though we all are, that Covid is alive and kicking and among us. Retaining a legal requirement-based face coverings for me is a small sacrifice in the short term. In support, I want to focus on the comments of Professor Gregor Smith and Jason Leage, both of whom are recommending caution. Scotland's chief medical officer said that data shows that some older people are beginning to adapt their behaviour by reducing their contact slightly while the use of face masks is also up. Older people and disabled people and others require other people to protect them, and that means that they should be wearing face masks. As for advice that he would give to ministers, he said, quotes, I think that a cautious approach at this point in time is probably the right approach, close quotes. Professor Jason Leage, Scotland's national clinical director, spoke about his worries about the state of the pandemic in Scotland, but added that he was not in quotes panicking about increasing case numbers. Quotes, you should still be cautious, particularly around those who are vulnerable, and therein lies the rub. Quotes, those who are vulnerable, who are they? Being in the older age group, and I am thankful, like others for vaccination, of course, wearing a face covering does help, but not if the majority are not, nor keeping their distance. Goodness knows, I find the mask difficult to breathe through, like many other folk, but many are complying for the time being, but you can tell when somebody is elderly, but there are folk who have underlying health conditions and therefore are especially vulnerable to Covid who are you protecting by wearing a face mask, not yourself. You may pass them in the shops, sit beside them on the bus, retrain, and you will not know their vulnerability. That is the point, and some of those people have been isolating for years, and they should be free, even if some of us have to give up some freedoms. Yes, of course. I thank Christine Grahame for taking the intervention. I know that she feels really strongly about face coverings. Are there any circumstances under which she would get rid of the legal requirement to wear them and rely on guidance? Christine Grahame. Law works by consent of the public, and that is how it has worked so far. We just have to remind people that this is a legal requirement. Inforcibility shouldn't really be necessary. You want people to comply because they see the good reason for the rest of the community to comply. Circumstances may arise where it is not necessary, but I do not think that we are there yet. I have a short bit to say. I have a little bit of time to make a poll. Early days of Covid, my email box exposed the huge differences between the haves and the haves knots between those stuck in flats with children and no easy access to outdoors and those who could find comfort in their gardens. The difference is from those who could ride out economic deprivation and those who could not. Covid, through a harsh light on the divisions in society and, of course, while we rightly focus on Ukraine and its devastation to the people, we should also ensure that it is not business as usual and that Covid has determined for us all that we must do better for those in Scotland who do not have equal opportunities to enjoy a healthy, happy or fulfilling life. Covid exposed it to every single one of us here in our inboxes. Let us remember that, and while dealing with Covid, let us also deal with the inequalities that it has exposed in our society. I now call Martin Whitfield to be followed by Jim Fairlie up to four minutes, please, Mr Whitfield. I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a great pleasure to follow the very powerful speech of Christine Grahame, particularly reminding us about the inequalities that Covid has shone such a harsh light on, where I feel that some people might have tried to ignore those in the past. Again, looking at the strategic framework, it is a long document and, as Jackie Baillie said, presents a number of reheated SNP promises and commitments, but it is light on detail, particularly in respect of those who are suffering from long Covid. There has been much talk, much promise, of what this group of 119,000 people will get, but they have seen very little of it in reality. I would like to take the short time that I have to address the parts of the report that deals with schools, with the progress and with the future. In the first part, to look at the comments in relation to Professor Muir's report, which we now have available to us. I think that it is enormously important that we address where this Government is in agreement with the report and where it is only in broad agreement. I would reiterate my request from last week to ask when the Government will bring a debate forward on this point. I am also curious about the educational buildings development proposals, because within the report, references made to the education recovery key actions and next steps, which date back to October last year, with strong discussion about the preparatory work for the school estate with regard to the influx of new technology hoped for from 2023 to 24. I do find it disappointing that the framework does not contain provision for how we are going to improve the estate properly with regard to ventilation. With the emergence of Covid, there was the suggestion to open the windows and the doors, which was sensible, because that was the only technology that was available at the time, if truly opening a window can be measured as technology. But then, with the discussion about HEP filters coming in, we are also at a period when we are looking forward to hopefully a rebuilding of our school estate and ventilation should again take the important part in the design so that we can future proof our schools for any future Covid or similar pandemic. I would like to spend some time discussing a very important matter, which is with regard to ASN pupils, those who need additional support. This spring, and I would suggest we are into spring, we hopefully will see the updated additional support for learning action plan. I would hope that the Deputy First Minister could say when that will be published in this spring to look at, because if we look at statistics that have been published today, there are now 232,753 pupils in Scotland who are accorded the status of ASN. A pupil for whom to engage in mainstream education or beyond requires additional support tailored to their very specific needs. This is the largest figure that we have ever had in Scotland, and in some ways that is understandable because of the growth of understanding and appreciation of what some of our young folk have in the challenges to confront themselves. However, what is disappointing is the number of additional support teachers that are available to help those young people. Back in 2008 it was 858. It is now 444 just in our primary schools, and the 357 high schools in this country are 120 teachers short now with additional support, additional experience. These are very vulnerable children who come from groups that have suffered greatly during this Covid. They are a group that suffered before Covid. They are a group that need our additional support to ensure that they can take a full and proper life as adults. Where is the real detail for those? Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans. John Lennon is famously quoted as saying that. There is no one in the world now who does not fully understand the simplicity and power of that statement. What were we all planning to do on 31 December 2019 when the WHO was informed of a cluster of cases of pneumonia of unknown cause detected in Wuhan city? I doubt if any but very few had planned at that time for the unfolding of events that we have all been lucky enough to live through.  It is on that point that I am happy to associate myself with my colleague Christine Grahame and her caution. Losing someone itself is painfully hard to bear, but the pain of losing someone was compounded by the need to isolate, not being able to be with the loved ones at the end and, of course, the inability to do that most human of things to mourn a loss collectively, to grieve together, to share memories, to laugh, to cry, to hug and to help each other through those painful, difficult days. All of those things were taken away from us by a virus that we could not see, hear or smell. Not knowing where your enemy is or what it looks like was part of the most terrifying bit of all of this. We have also lost a big ticket occasion. No-one turns 18 twice or is born twice. Our way to celebrate the big life events has been curtailed massively, emphasising Mr Lennon's prophetic simple statement. It has been a hellish few years for those reasons and more. Businesses and livelihoods have been lost and people have quite simply had to reassess where their life is going and many are still trying to work that out. We are here, in large part, thanks to the amazing efforts of those people who worked across our vital sectors, trying to keep the wheels on the bus and those ingenious folk who developed the vaccinations, which have slowly but surely started to give us our freedoms back. We are all due to them and enormous debt of gratitude, but we are still going to encounter new variants and the danger that they pose will have to be monitored very closely so that we can react with the pace and efficiency that we need to. At this point, I would like to pay tribute to the ordinary everyday people of this country for their forbearance and fortitude in accepting these restrictions on their lives and for getting their sleeves rolled up and getting those vaccines into their arms. That collective spirit of working as one for the greater good of us all is in large part why we are at this milestone today of a positive outlook for our future. I believe that the Scottish Government's leadership through the pandemic, its integrity of messaging and honesty stands in the comparison to that of any other country in the world and indeed is better than some. There is no doubt that mistakes were made, but they were mistakes made in good faith and with the best of intentions and with hindsight being in zero supply. I welcome the Scottish Government's new strategic framework, which was published last month. It is measured, it is appropriate and it shows a clear route towards regional life to as close to pre-Covid levels as possible. Many of the temporary measures have already been removed by the Scottish Government, but if the experience of Covid has taught us anything, it is that we need to be able to respond quickly and nimbly to wherever the threats may face us in the future. To conclude, as it says in the executive summary of the framework document, we know that, while securing stability is crucial, the future path of the pandemic is uncertain and that the threat of new, potentially more harmful variants remains. We must therefore remain vigilant and ready to respond in a proportionate manner to any future threats in order to mitigate the harm that they might otherwise cause. That is a sensible approach that we should all support. The afternoon's update from the First Minister and the daily case rate data in recent days is a grim reminder that the pandemic is far from over. The Government's strategic framework recognises that many of the restrictions that we saw in previous phases should now be avoidable. We cannot say with certainty what characteristics future variants will take, so it would be irresponsible to rule out specific measures for all time. However, the combination of what we have now learned about the virus and the treatments that have been developed to support those who are suffering from it and the success of the vaccination programme put us in a very different place to where we were in 2020 and 2021. That being said, I want to question some of the claims that were made recently about why that is the point at which to base our response solely on the exercise of individual responsibility rather than collective measures. We recognise that our individual health and safety is not dictated by our own actions alone but rather by a combination of ours and those around us. That is harlunique to Covid. Every adult in Scotland has the individual right to smoke if they want to, but they do not have the right to do that in an indoor public space because of the harm that it does to others. As an example, on the train that I got in this morning, I was sat opposite an individual who was not wearing a face mask and I chose to believe that the best in people, so I am sure that they had a legitimate reason for doing so, but this individual clearly has a very frustrating job. Certainly the work that they were doing on their laptop was obviously frustrating them because throughout the journey they were repeatedly exhaling very deeply in frustration at whatever they were working on. It was like sitting opposite an office fan. I am reasonably healthy and relatively young, so, although that was not exactly a pleasant experience, it was a level of risk that I was willing to accept to come to work. I have far greater freedom to take that risk than many of the clinically vulnerable people and those with clinically vulnerable relatives who, rather than feel freer and freer, feel more and more isolated by ever loosening restrictions. I know people like Christine Grahame mentioned who have not taken the bus through the train in over two years now because of that fear of encountering someone who is not wearing a mask. That is why I am instinctively uncomfortable with the language of living with Covid. It implies that the experience of living in a society where the virus is present is an equally manageable experience for all of us. However, as the Government's strategic framework knows, that is not the case. We have all experienced and we all continue to experience a pandemic, but we have not had the same experience for disabled people, for those on low incomes. I am going to take Mr Balfour's point. I apologise, Mr Waddon. I thank the member for taking the intervention. We live with flu, which has a more severe effect on older people and disabled people, but we live with it. Do not we have to get to the situation that we live with Covid as we live with flu? That type of terminology will affect people differently, but it is a terminology that people understand. I am grateful to the member for the intervention. I am not objecting to the principle that we are simply going to have to live with it. The reality is that we cannot eradicate the virus, but we have to acknowledge—I think that the member did—that we do not all live with it in the same way. We do not all experience this in the same way and some people are more vulnerable than others. Some new inequalities have emerged as a result of the pandemic, but most of those existed beforehand and have simply been widened since. That cannot be accepted as our new normal. As the strategy states, we cannot let Covid become established as the disease of the poor, the disadvantaged or the clinically high risk. The strategic framework is a relatively high-level document and not the place for all the details on exactly how we turn that very agreeable sentiment into reality, but there is a need for further detail on what society is living with Covid but is rightly unwilling to live with increased inequality and marginalisation, looks like. We are hardly in a unique situation there, so there is plenty of best practice to draw from elsewhere. Before closing, I want to briefly touch on the effect on frontline healthcare staff of the rhetoric around the pandemic being over and the push to get rid of all restrictions without delay.  I know of one hospital ward treating almost exclusively Covid patients who have seen six nurses hand in their notice in the past six weeks, not to take up positions in other words. They have simply reached their breaking point. We need to acknowledge the effect that all of the discussions that we have on the healthcare workers are still under vast amounts of pressure. That framework broadly gets the balance right, and the Greens certainly support it, but there is absolutely much more work to do for to undo rather than live with the inequalities that Covid has brought. I now call Siobhan Brown, who is joining us remotely to be followed by Brian Whittle. Up to four minutes, please, Ms Brown. Let me begin by saying that I do welcome the Scottish Government's update to the strategic framework, as it is an important moment in our recovery. The past few years have affected everyone across Scotland, some more than others, and we have all had to sacrifice a great deal, and many of us have lost loved ones before their time. I join other members in sharing my condolences to them. The world was not prepared in March 2020 when Covid-19 hit. Close to two years to the day, lessons must be learnt so that we are never in that position again. I am glad that the Scottish Government is committed to learning lessons from this pandemic to bolster Scotland's response to any future crisis. It is the responsible thing to do. It is not a power grab. Our vaccine programme has been a tremendous success thanks to the work of the dedicated staff and volunteers, and because of that, we have a bright and optimistic future ahead of us. The strategic framework marks a point of which we move away, hopefully sustainably, from legal restrictions and rely instead on sensible behaviours, adaptations and mitigations, but our return to normality must go hand in hand with the continuing determination to look out for each other. I would hope that members across the Parliament will welcome the transition of most of the remaining restrictions from legislation to guidance that will allow this greater freedom. This is the right time to make these changes, as the vast majority of the population is now vaccinated and numbers in intensive care at the moment are low, but we must remember that numbers continue to be high due to the BA2 Omicron variant. Only last week in the Covid-19 recovery committee, we heard that the week before last over 4,000 NHS staff members in Scotland were off work with Covid. We must acknowledge the impact that this has on our services. As Jackie Bailey earlier said, the pressure on the NHS is immense, but we also have to acknowledge that Scotland is not alone with this, as the pressure on health services as countries around the globe face on-going challenges because of Covid-19. I welcome that the Scottish Government will continue to consider people who are at the highest clinical risk as we transition into the new phase, and it will be done in a way that provides reassurance and support to those who feel particularly vulnerable and anxious. All of us have a part to play in ensuring a safe and sustainable recovery. Quite rightly, the media attention at the moment has largely been focused on the on-going crisis in Ukraine, another development that, quite frankly, is heartbreaking and the last thing that the world needs at right now. The emergence last December of Omicron variants showed us that we need to remain vigilant. If a new variant emerges, we will get very little time and warning, and the Government may need to act swiftly to curb the spread of the virus. Nobody wants that, but it is right that the Scottish Government is vigilant and prepared to respond quickly to mitigate harm and potentially avoid the need for more stringent interventions later. Therefore, while the future appears to be positive and we can start to work towards our recovery from the pandemic, I thank the Scottish Government for its honesty in being unable to rule out any negative setbacks that are outwith the control of what politician does not want a crystal ball. However, the published strategic framework provides as much clarity as possible. As convener of the Covid-19 recovery committee, I particularly welcome that the Scottish Government will be listening and learning from third-party organisations in order to link up our thinking on how best to tackle those situations. This is feedback that we have received time and time again from organisations that have given valuable evidence to the committee. After all, the Covid-19 pandemic is not the first pandemic and it will not be the last. I am hoping that I am not sounding all doom and gloom, so let me finish on a positive note. We now have a unique opportunity ahead of us in our recovery. We can decide the approach that we take and cannot waste that opportunity. Together, we can build a fairer and more equal post-pandemic Scotland where we can solve the inequalities that have been exacerbated by Covid. The strategic framework will help us to get into that position. It is hard to imagine that it was two years ago that we sat in this Parliament passing emergency Covid legislation and that every party in this chamber put party politics aside for the good of the nation and back to the Scottish Government. At that point, we had watched as Covid made its way across the world. From China, we watched as it devastated countries like Italy. We were getting an idea that the most vulnerable to this virus would be the elderly and infirm, as well as those with an underlying health condition. Still, when it got here, we were unprepared for what was to come. I want to stress here that if emergency powers had been available to the Scottish Government at that time, it would have made absolutely no difference at all to what the response was, which is why I think that the Scottish Government's plan to make emergency powers permanent bypassing Parliament scrutiny is not based on a need, and it is actually a power grab. After all, when asked, this Parliament passed emergency legislation in no time at all, yes, of course I will. Does he not also agree, though, that the way that the Parliament operates now is in a far better position to pass emergency legislation almost at the drop of the hat with the hardware that we have in place now, which was not available two years ago? Absolutely, I would agree with that. Given that we passed emergency legislation so quickly the last time, now we can do it even quicker now, I think that asking and receiving the backing of Parliament to take on emergency powers to the Scottish Government also took on a responsibility to be open and transparent with Parliament on what actions were taken and sharing evidence to back those decisions. That is where I think that the Scottish Government did fall down. It was almost as though they thought that being scrutinised for the decisions was beneath them, and it is where the most of the subsequent discourse between the Scottish Government and Parliament has ar risen. Now, Presiding Officer, mistakes have been made by every Government in every part of the world. When one country seemed to be doing better than us, all of a sudden it was their approach that was better and we must follow them. Then another country was the front-runner and the jump to their approach was the way to go. The truth is that I think that nobody had the right answers and every Government response was in the main reactionary and dependent on an analysis of their version of experts. What can be in no doubt though is the importance of the substantial financial support from the UK Treasury that supported businesses and jobs in the UK and the roll-out of the UK vaccination programme. They were the real gamechangers that have allowed us to get to the place we are now with most restrictions revoked and are economically, mainly intact and quickly recovering. Being wise after the fact that it is an easy road to take, but the investigation into the approaches taken, if done impartially and thoroughly, cannot help us to develop a strategy for any future health emergency. We should, for example, be looking at the level of PPE that we have retained at any one time of our ability to shield the vulnerable that should be scrutinised and planned for. Let us not forget the decision to move Covid-positive patients into care homes and the devastation that caused that. If we are smart and invest in our ability to gather and analyse big data, we can really learn so much from our response to this pandemic. Our ability to gather and share data has always been a problem, we have always been behind the curve in Scotland. It was often discussed in the health and sports committee last term. Covid has just shown a light on the importance of an IT system that can be used to gather and share data and I think that investment is long overdue. More than that, we have an opportunity here to reset how we view health. We know that over 60 per cent of those who have lost to Covid were obese, we know that approximately a third were diabetic and all the other comorbidity issues that contributed to Covid being so prevalent on death certificates. We know that those conditions are more likely to appear in lower SIMD areas, the same areas where Covid deaths are highest. Presiding Officer, Scotland is the unhealthiest country in Europe and has been throughout the SNP tenure and before. Surely, as part of our preparedness for future health emergencies, the preventative health agenda at long lengths needs to be addressed. In fact, what Covid has done is shine a light on the health issues Scotland has faced for decades. That is where the SNP Government's focus should be and definitely not on trying to bypass Parliament by unnecessarily retaining emergency powers. I now call Emma Harper, who will be the last speaker in the open debate. Up to four minutes please, Ms Harper. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and I welcome Scotland's strategic Covid-19 framework update. Just as I start, Presiding Officer, I want to be crystal clear that Covid-19 is still with us and we heard that from the First Minister earlier today. While vaccines are protecting us from the worst impacts of the virus, people infected do still require hospital attention, including intensive care support, although, thankfully, that is less than previously experienced. The publication of the updated version of Scotland's Covid-19 strategic framework marks the point at which we move away from legal restrictions and rely instead on personal behaviours, adaptations and mitigations. Personally, I welcome that face coverings, the requirement has been extended a wee bit and that the other measures that have been put in place. It is an important point in our national journey through and out of the pandemic, and our return to normality must go hand in hand with a continuing determination to look out for and after each other. All of us have a part to play in ensuring a safe and sustainable recovery, continuing to follow public health advice on getting vaccinated, on testing as regularly as appropriate, wearing face coverings when required or recommended and keeping rooms ventilated. All of this does still matter, even as we lift the remaining legal requirements. We know, for example, how successful face coverings have been in protecting each other from the virus. For me, it is vital that we look at supporting and protecting people. I know that it is not as comfortable to wear face coverings, but we need to make sure that people who want to continue to wear them do so and feel that they can do that without fear of being judged. In fact, I would support any action to take or make FFP2 masks, which are more secure fitting, make them available as they protect the wearer more effectively than other standard face coverings. The threat of new variants does remain, and we have just heard that in the last 14 days. We have seen the emergence of a sub-Linage variant called DeltaCron, BA.2. That is another variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which appears to be even more transmissible than the already highly transmissible Omicron variant. Dr Adrian Esterman, who is a former world health organisation, epidemiologists said that BA.2 variant is pretty close to measles in transmissibility, and measles is the most contagious disease that we know about. It is therefore right that the strategic framework update sets out how we will respond to future threats at a national level, and the strategic intent has been revised from a focus on suppressing cases to one of managing Covid effectively using adaptations and health measures. The adaptations and health measures referred to include vaccinations, treatment, surveillance, strengthening the resilience of health and social care generally, and adaptations to behaviours and physical environments. The update also sets out clear framework of threat levels and potential responses that provide as much clarity as possible for planning purposes but retains the crucial flexibility to ensure that responses are effective and proportionate. I will just briefly highlight the support in mind briefing that we got ahead of this debate. We need to continue to recognise how people's mental health has been affected during the pandemic, including for people who had a diagnosis prior to Covid. However, I also acknowledge that tailored direct mental health support needs to continue as we go forward. On vaccinations, I understand that currently 34.5 per cent of people from Ukraine have had a first dose of the vaccine compared to 73.1 per cent of those in Scotland. I will be interested to hear from the Deputy First Minister how we can commit to helping people who are arriving and who we welcome from Ukraine to access their first, second and, if appropriate, based on clinical need, additional doses. Finally, I support this motion today and I welcome this framework. I look forward to the Deputy First Minister's response. Thank you. We will now move to closing speeches. I call on Alex Rowley, who is joining us remotely, to wind up for Scottish Labour up to five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I wind up in this debate for Labour on the updated framework. I would like to join the Deputy First Minister, Jackie Baillie, and many others who have talked about the pain and the heartache to people who have suffered up and down Scotland and their condolences to everyone who has lost a loved one, lost a friend, but also to recognise that, for many people, they are still struggling and still need support, whether that be mental health support or financial and other support. We have rightly in this debate—many people have rightly in this debate—thank those front-line workers, particularly health and social care workers, for all that they have done. However, as Jackie Baillie pointed out, the pressure on our hospital staff right now is immense. When I meet and talk with nurses and doctors, with people working on their health service, they tell me that they are completely overrun, and therefore there has to be a priority given to ensure that we deal with those issues and that we get proper workforce planning in place and that we get the resources where they are needed within the health service. That brings me to my first point, because I know in the document that the document talks about the strengthening, the resilience of health and social care generally. I would say to the Deputy First Minister that if we do not tackle within social care the inequalities that exist within that workforce, if we do not tackle that, if we do not tackle the poor terms and conditions, and if we do not tackle the underpayment of care workers, the Government will not be able to fix the growing crisis that there is within social care. Go words is one thing, but action in health and social care is what we need for this Government, and it must act on that. It disturbs me that money is being put into social care that we are talking about a review of social care, and the main problem that is sticking out as to why we have a recruitment and retention issue is the underfunding and the unfair treatment of social care workers, so that has to be tackled if we are going to tackle social care. I can also, just in the last 30 seconds, the need to support those who are most in need at this time, the levels of deprivation and poverty that people acknowledge have grown and grown significantly, but we have to target that support. So, when I look at the £150 that MSPs in the Parliament, including myself, are going to get to help us with a cost to living crisis, then it is ridiculous that that is how we try and help people who are suffering the worst to a cost to living crisis when we should be targeting that money much more at those most in need. When I raised this with the finance secretary, she told me that it was very difficult to get that in directly, but the councillor Stephen McKay has pointed out that the council tax system already has a rebate system in place that is means tested. Why are we giving MSPs and others earning those types of wages £150 to help them out with a cost to living crisis when we should be focusing all our resources on those that are most in need? Again, this document talks well, but we have to have the action that we would be able to follow up. In general, most people in Scotland will recognise that the extension of the face coverings is the correct thing to do. For a few more weeks, given what we have come through, as people have pointed out, the virus is still out there and is still rising. I think that everybody knows somebody who has Covid, but we have to be cautious with that support. I will leave it at that. The Scottish Government's motion is 236 words long, and we back 112 of them. Our condolences go out to all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic. We salute those who work so hard to keep our vital services going. Let's make no mistake about it—they are still working hard today. The vaccine programme has been a huge British success story, and, going forward, Governments at all levels—public services, charities, businesses and communities—need to work together to manage Covid-19 and its variants. We also recognise how the pandemic has hit so many hard working families and exacerbated problems faced by those disadvantaged in our communities. But 124 words of the SNP green motion actually makes the case for an illiberal Covid power crowd. The Government have become so hooked on controlling people's lives that it wants to make emergency powers permanent. It wants the powers to close schools, release prisoners early and do so without this Parliament's consent. Let's not forget that the alarming overreach of power could only be made possible if the Green Party remains in line and support. Do the Conservatives sincerely commit to opposing all aspects of the bill, including the relatively benign commitments to continue protecting people from evictions, bankruptcy measures and so on? Is it genuinely the bill in its entirety that the Conservatives are rejecting to it? Many of the proposals in it were supported by Conservative members at the time they were introduced, and not with the idea that they would only be temporary, because they just make sense. It's not our fault that everything has been put in to one place. What you need to do is separate them out. That could have been done, but it has been chosen not to be done. I'm surprised to hear Ross Greer support this motion, as his Green Party has a guiding principle that states that individuals should control decisions that affect their own lives. To members of the Green Party, with respect to today's motion, our motion is what your principle should look like. The Scottish Conservatives amendment recognises that the public can be trusted to act responsibly and follow guidance promoting good public health behaviours. As a medical practitioner, are you saying that there should not be a mandatory requirement to wear face coverings while Covid is on the increase in Scotland, as indicated in the advice of the chief medical officer and clinical director? Glad that you brought that up. If we look at face masks, they are not as effective as we think they are, because most people wear them with their nose out of it. Most people pull down their masks to talk. Could we have a wee bit less noise right across the chamber? If you ask me a question, I'd be quite... I've already indicated that members should allow Dr Gohani to continue. Thank you. Dr Gohani, please continue now. The masks I see everyone wearing here and in the public should not really be rewarned once a journey is completed, plus 56 per cent of people reuse single masks, and 34 per cent wear reusable masks over four times before washing them. That's why we oppose the SNP Green's proposal to retain emergency powers. We've also learned so much over the... Sorry, Dr Allan, are you seeking an intervention? I don't think Dr Gohani is giving way to Dr Allan. Dr Gohani, please continue. The SNP and Greens are failing to read the room. In their motion, there's no acknowledgement of the crisis in our NHS that must be tackled. There was actually a crisis before Covid, now the NHS has passed breaking point. Our treasured health service, dentists, doctors, nurses, ambulance crews are being failed by this government, so please wake up. And then there's education, another example of shambolic SNP stewardship. The government must really get a grip and support our young people, our country's future, who have suffered from two years of disrupted learning. I can't really fathom why Governments left healthcare and schooling out of their motion, why no statement of intent, why only a call for more power, more control. It's max of arrogance, or maybe they're deeply embarrassed about their record on health and education over the past 15 years in government. Jackie Baillie asked what should be done to test and protect, while in February the Scottish Conservatives published back to normality a blueprint for living with Covid. We proposed facing out test and protect, replacing with a smaller system and then reinvesting the resources into frontline NHS services. We also called for an end to legal restrictions with future pandemic management through advisory public health guidance and personal responsibility. Our amendment is consistent with this position, and it also addresses two key areas that the Scottish people care deeply about, the NHS and children's schooling. The government's motion today on the other hand is opportunist. It's a cling on to power. It's illiberal. It's a clear message. This government doesn't think that we've learned anything from the past two years, nor does it trust the people of Scotland. The member is concluding this, really. To do the right thing. To conclude, if you believe that individuals should be allowed to make decisions about their own lives, support murder phrases amendment and declaration of interest, I'm a practicing NHS doctor. Thank you. I now call on John Swinney, Deputy First Minister, to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government. I forgot to mention that. I'm also a practicing NHS employee who was a vaccinator for the last two years when the vaccines were introduced. Thank you for your contribution, and that is now on the record. I call on John Swinney, Deputy First Minister, to wind up for the Scottish Government around eight minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the early contributions to the debate, Beatrice Wishart talked about the fact that legal requirements will become guidance, but Covid is still very much around and that not everyone will be comfortable with the relaxation of restrictions. In that one sentence, Beatrice Wishart summed up the reality of some of the dilemmas that exist here, dilemmas that are studiously ignored by the contributions made by the Conservative members, that there are members of our society who are profoundly uneasy about the circumstances that they are now facing. Those were points also made by my dear and respected colleague Christine Grahame about the situation that people who have vulnerabilities who are anxious about re-emerging into society actually face. The casual dismissal of those points by Conservative members today, or the very aggressive dismissal of those concerns by the Conservative social media feeds over the course of the last 24 hours in the face of overwhelming evidence that justifies the decisions that the Government has arrived at today, is a stunning wake-up call for the Conservatives. Of course, I'll give a week. The idea will be in two weeks that you remove the legal requirement for face covering. Are you saying that people who are anxious now won't be anxious in two weeks' time? No, I'm not, but what I'm saying is that the Conservatives disregard the feelings and the opinions of those individuals and they do so in an unrelenting casual fashion. I sat here and I listened to Douglas Ross, the leader of the Conservative party, earlier on today, absolutely racing past that argument. Mr Greer and Alec Rowley made the point about the pressure that is faced by national health service staff. That is one of the realities that the Government has wrestled with in taking the decisions that we have announced today to Parliament, which we believe are proportionate given the scale of the challenges that we face. A number of points have been made in the debate today that I want to address particularly. I think that, not for the first time, Murdo Fraser overstated the case that he makes to Parliament, particularly in two respects. The first is in relation to the effect of precautionary measures that the Scottish Government has taken. Mr Fraser asked for what the evidence was of the performance of those measures. One example of evidence that I would cite is the position of the ONS infection survey, which, from 31 October 2021 to 5 February 2022, the period that Mr Fraser was taking exception to about the differential positions that the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government had taken in relation to the application of restrictions in Scotland versus England. Over that period, the ONS infection survey showed that about 26 per cent of people in Scotland were infected with Covid, but in England it was 34 per cent. I used that data to illustrate to Mr Fraser that I could go on to talk about the differences in deaths within 28 days of positive test by area, which show, in Scotland, for example, over the duration of the pandemic, that it was 200 per 100,000 population, whereas in England it was 250 per 100,000 of the population. I simply say that data to illustrate that those decisions are not easy for any Government in any part of the United Kingdom, but what we have tried to do has been to take measured and appropriate steps to protect the population. I believe that the announcements that the Government has made today and the contents of the strategic framework are consistent with that position. When you talk about appropriate and measured steps, given that 98 per cent of Scotland is rural and there are a million people living in rural Scotland, why is it that rural is only mentioned once in your whole document? It only suggests that those with mental health should have access to digital treatments. Do you believe that everyone should be supported no matter where they live, or do you think that people with mental health in rural areas should get less support and services than everybody else in Scotland? I am producing a strategic framework that is relevant and appropriate for every citizen of our country, regardless of where they live. I am proud to represent a rural area in this Parliament and to take no licence from Finlay Carson about how to represent rural Scotland in my country. The second bit, in which Murdo Fraser overstates his case, is in relation to the Covid recovery and reform bill. Of course, Murdo Fraser was echoed by numerous others, Mr Whittle, into the bargain. Let me reassure Mr Balfour for the sake of clarity that the issue that he raised about the registration of deaths being able to be undertaken in person, the bill provides for that to be the case. That removes one reason why Mr Balfour can be opposed to the bill, so I look forward to his support for the bill as a consequence of directly addressing the issue about which he was concerned. One of the familiar points that is raised with us is about the importance of learning the lessons from things. What the Government is doing is learning the lessons of the pandemic that we want to ensure that the Parliament, the country, has in place law that enables us to react as quickly as we need to react to the challenges that we may face. We have all agreed that everybody has accepted that Covid is still around. It may reappear in much greater virulence than has been the case, and we have to have the legislative arrangements in place to deal with that. On any other day, the Conservatives would be coming here saying to us that they should have learned the lessons, they should have prepared the statute book for all of this, and here we now find ourselves preparing the statute book for all of this, not for the Government to have automatic powers, powers that will only be able to be used with parliamentary consent and with appropriate evidence of the gravity of the situation provided by the chief medical officer. Some of the language that we have had from the Conservatives today is completely overtought. I am spot for choice between Mr Fraser and Mr Whittle, but since I have mentioned Mr Fraser, I will give way. I am grateful to the First Minister for giving way. On the point that he has just made about parliamentary consent, is he now ruling out what is in the bill, which is the use of the made affirmative procedure, which is laws coming into place without Parliament considering them first? For all the years that he has been here, he has deployed the most appalling ignorance of parliamentary procedure. The made affirmative procedure is an accepted statutory mechanism that involves parliamentary scrutiny, so there is no bypassing of Parliament whatsoever involved in the Government's legislation. If we are at this stage where I am having to lecture Mr Fraser on the parliamentary procedure, no wonder that the Conservatives are in the sorry state of affairs that they are in. The Scottish Government is taking the necessary and proportionate steps to respond to the challenges that we face. We have done that throughout the pandemic. I am profoundly grateful to members of the public for the way in which they have supported the measures that the Government has taken forward, the way that they have embraced those measures and the way that they have acted responsibly to protect other members of our society. The Government intends to provide the leadership to enable that to continue in the period to come. That concludes the debate on Covid-19 Scotland's strategic framework update, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 3638, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on changes to this week's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-to-speak button now, and I call on George Adam, minister, to move the motion. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore the question is that motion 3638 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that motion 3597, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on ending conversion practices, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is therefore agreed and the motion is therefore agreed. The next question I will now move to and would point out to members that, if the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Jackie Bailey will fall. The next question is that amendment 3617.2, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion 3617, in the name of John Swinney, on Covid-19 Scotland's strategic framework update, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed and therefore there will be a division and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.


Senator Nise, members of the House of Representatives have on Tuesday demanded that the Inspector-General of Police, Khali Baba, take over the murder case of Ms. Inyo Bongumorin, who was killed in Aqaibom after she was lured with a fake job offer. The House urged the IGP to ensure that justice prevails by taking over the investigation and prosecution of the suspects. The resolution of the House follows a matter of urgent public importance raised by Nhi Meidem representing Uqanafun or Uqanam, the federal constituency of Aqaibom State. From the sand that it has been reported that the assailants upon his arrest by the police and subsequent voluntary conversion boasted that he is well connected and will be released from the police custody scot-free in a matter of days. Bordered that the family members of the deceased have reportedly raised an alarm receiving strange phone calls and threats of various degrees and have been asked to withdraw the case, condemn in strong terms the acts of sexual assault and gruesome murder of Ms. Inyo Bongifrem Umorin as barbaric, inhuman and despotic, to mandate the Inspector-General Police to immediately commission and take over the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators of the heinous crime. Mandate the Inspector-General Police to ensure the protection of our family members from harassment, intimidation and harm.


Terror attack in Russia exposes Putin's weakness, he loses control of power. A recent terrorist attack at the Kroger City Hall demonstrated the unstable position of Russian President Vladimir Putin and how Russia's security apparatus is unprepared for such challenges, reports The Times. According to the media, the sequence of events unfolding in Russia demonstrates how Putin is gradually losing control. For example, on February 16th, Alexei Navalny, who was a competitor to Putin, died. In early March, Russians held a silent mourning for Navalny, whom some considered a leader. On March 7th, the United States warned of a terrorist threat in Russia, but Putin ignored it, claiming it was an attempt to reduce voter turnout during the election that he won with a suspiciously high result of 88%. The article says the events show Putin gradually losing control over events in Russia, noting that the war in Ukraine has deprived him of a narrow vision, while Russians who once imagined him as a trusted leader now fear for their own future. The Times outlined three possible scenarios after the terrorist attack in Russia. Russia may present the attack as an operation under a false flag to fuel public anger against Ukraine and legitimize general mobilization. Putin may use the attack as a means to freeze the war against Ukraine and focus on the war against terrorism. Putin has already lost control, allowing internal conflicts to prevail. According to the media, the return of Islamist terror to Russia was both predictable and ignored. Putin's intervention in Syria to support Bashar al-Assad has earned him not many friends. Central Asian republics also feel his weakness. Putin will intensify intelligence sharing on ISIS with Turkey, China, Iran, and North Korea. The Times notes. Ukraine announced new landings of Ukrainian military personnel in Crimea. The head of the main directorate of intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, Kirill Obudinov, has announced new operations by the Ukrainian military in the temporarily occupied Crimea. In response to the journalists' question about whether there are any new landings being prepared in Crimea, Obudinov replied affirmatively, Yes, they are being prepared and they will happen. Soon it will be warm, so we will continue. Crimea will be returned, emphasized, the head of the main directorate of intelligence. Obudinov stated that Russian occupiers do not abandon plans to once again seize the Ukrainian Zeminyi island, regularly launching missile and bomb attacks. They regularly carry out missile and bomb strikes. There has been information several times and we have seen its confirmation about conducting a similar operation as we once did. Obudinov said, however, according to him, it is impossible to do so. But they couldn't do it because knocking out the garrison from the island is already unrealistic. Emphasize the head of the main directorate of intelligence. The main directorate of intelligence fighters conducted several ground operations in the temporarily occupied Crimea. For example, on August 24, 2023, reconnaissance troops managed to carry out a sortie near the settlement of Mayak on the Tarkhankut Cape. A battle took place within the framework of the main directorate of intelligence special operation involving naval assets and aviation. In turn, Russian sources began to invent their own version of the so-called Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance groups allegedly destroyed. In reality, at least 30 occupiers were destroyed and four high-speed boats were damaged as part of the special operation. Furthermore, on October 4, Ukrainian special forces again landed in the occupied Crimea and inflicted a fiery defeat on the Russian occupiers. It is noted that a fierce battle took place as part of this operation resulting in significant losses among Russian soldiers.