The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on Covid-19 updates. The First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions, and I call on Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister. Just bear with me a moment, First Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will report today on the current and at this stage much more positive course of the pandemic. I will explain why, although significant pressures and uncertainties do remain, the latest data nevertheless gives us confidence that we have turned the corner on the Omicron wave. I will then confirm our next steps in lifting the protective measures introduced before Christmas. I will also indicate what we can all continue to do in the immediate period ahead to keep cases on a downward trend and reduce the pressure on the NHS and the wider economy. Finally, I will provide a further update on the vaccination programme. First, today's statistics show that 7,752 positive cases were reported yesterday through both PCR and lateral flow tests. 1,546 people are currently in hospital with Covid, which is 21 fewer than yesterday. 59 people are currently in intensive care, including 17 who have been in ICU for more than 28 days, and that is one more than yesterday. Sadly, though, a further 31 deaths have been reported, which takes the total number of deaths under the daily definition to 10,093. Once again, I send my condolences to everyone who is mourning a loved one. As we can see from the data, Omicron is continuing to infect large numbers of people here in Scotland, across the UK and indeed in many other countries around the world. Hospital admissions and overall hospital occupancy associated with Covid also remain high. However, notwithstanding the very real challenges that Covid continues to present, the evidence that I set out last week suggesting that the situation was beginning to improve has significantly strengthened over the past seven days. A combination of booster vaccinations, the willingness of the public to adapt their behaviour to help stem transmission and the temporary protective measures introduced in December has helped to blunt the impact of the Omicron wave. Last week I said that the data indicated cases were falling across most age groups, and I can report today that this trend has continued. There still needs to be some caution applied in interpreting case data at this stage, given the recent changes to guidance on PCR and lateral flow testing. However, data for the past 13 days taking account of both PCR and lateral flow tests shows a significant fall in the number of new positive cases. To put some detail on that, on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday of last week, 36,526 new positive cases were recorded through PCR and lateral flow tests. This week, over Sunday, Monday and today, Tuesday, 20,268 cases have been reported, so quite a significant drop. If we look just at PCR tests, although I would ask everybody to bear in mind the limitations now in doing so, we have seen cases fall from an average of almost 13,000 a day to just over 4,600. That is a decline of 64 per cent, and cases have fallen across all age groups. Test positivity in PCR tests has also declined from almost 30 per cent in early January to under 20 per cent now. The most recent Office of National Statistics data, which covers the week to the 7th of January, and so it does have a time lag associated with it, reinforces this more stable and positive assessment. It indicated that the number of people with Covid in that week, around 1 in 20, was broadly the same as in the previous week. Taking all of this into account and triangulating the various sources of data allows us to say with some confidence that the rise in cases driven by Omicron peaked in the first week of January and that we are now on the downward slope of this wave of cases. The assessment is also reflected in the data on hospital admissions. Hospital occupancy, the number of patients in hospital at any given time with Covid, is higher than it was seven days ago, increasing from 1,479 to 1,546 today. However, the increase of 67 is significantly smaller than it was in the previous seven days and, encouragingly, admissions to hospital of people with Covid, though still too high, are nevertheless now falling. In the week to 7 January, 1,040 were admitted in the week to 14 January, and that was down to 960. The number of people in ICU, which this time last week was rising, has also now fallen slightly over the past seven days, from 65 to 59. All of that is very positive news, and it comes as an enormous relief, I am sure, to all of us. Of course, we do need to recognise that there are still some uncertainties ahead, and so throwing all caution to the wind at this stage would be a mistake. For example, the full impact of the return to work and school after the festive break will not be apparent yet in the data, so it is possible that we will see case numbers tick up again in the next couple of weeks. Also, just as the introduction of some protective measures may have helped to slow down transmission, it stands to reason that the lifting of those measures could have the opposite effect. Indeed, that is exactly why it makes sense to lift measures on a phased basis. Lastly, although cases are now falling, the NHS remains under acute pressure and staff absences are still causing some disruption across the economy and our critical services. While we can take great heart from the latest data, we know from experience how important it is to be responsible and appropriately cautious in the face of this virus. That is the context for the decisions that Cabinet reached this morning. Yesterday, of course, the limit on attendancies at outdoor public events was lifted. The remaining statutory measures introduced in response to Omicron are as follows. Limits on attendance at indoor public events, the requirement for one-metre physical distancing between different groups in indoor public places, the requirement for table service and hospitality premises, serving alcohol on the premises and the closure of night clubs. Given the improving situation and, as I said last week, we hoped to be able to do, I can confirm today that all of those measures will be lifted from next Monday, 24 January. We will also, from Monday, remove the guidance advising adults against non-professional indoor contact sports so that those can resume as normal. From Monday, we will also lift the guidance asking people to stick to a three-household limit on indoor gatherings. However, it is important, I think, to stress this point. Notwithstanding the improving situation, the level of Covid infection circulating in the community is still high. To minimise the risk of getting the virus, it would be sensible for all of us to remain cautious in our social interactions at this stage. Even though, from Monday, we will no longer recommend a fixed upper limit on numbers of households, if we all continue to keep gatherings as small as our circumstances allow for now, I would suggest that, until the end of this month, we will reduce our chances of getting infected. Of course, we should continue to take lateral flow tests before meeting up with people from other households. Please also remember to record test results, whether positive or negative, through the UK Government website. Let me stress that this is even more important now that we are no longer advising confirmatory PCR tests for those without symptoms who test positive through lateral flow devices. Recording those results ensures that we are able to make better assessments of the trends in infection. Finally, we will continue to ask people to work from home whenever possible at this stage and for employers to facilitate that. However, we will engage with business now about a return to a more hybrid approach from the start of February. The baseline mitigation measures that were in place before Omicron and the requirement for businesses, service providers and places of worship to take reasonable measures to minimise the spread of Covid on their premises will be retained at this stage to help to keep Covid contained as this wave recedes. That means that face coverings must still be worn in public indoor settings and on public transport. Businesses and other organisations should continue to have regard to guidance and take reasonable steps to minimise the spread of Covid. Hospitality premises should continue to collect contact details for customers, which is important for the effective operation of test and protect. In addition, the Covid certification scheme will continue to apply for now to large indoor and outdoor events and to late night venues, all settings where transmission risks can be higher. As of yesterday, guidance stipulates that organisers of events with 1,000 or more in attendance should check the certification status of at least 50 per cent of attendees or 1,000 people, whichever is higher. I indicated last week that the Cabinet would consider and decide today whether or not to extend the certification scheme to other premises such as licensed hospitality venues. That was undoubtedly the most difficult decision that we faced this morning, and yet again the judgment that we have arrived at was finally balanced. On the one hand, extending Covid certification could offer public health benefits, ensuring that people attending certain venues are vaccinated or tested reduces to some extent the risk of transmission and the risk of serious illness should an individual contract the virus in one of those settings. On the other hand, we understand that extending certification could create additional costs for businesses at an already very challenging time and, of course, the smaller the business, the more difficult those costs can be to bear. The task for the Cabinet today was to weigh those considerations and decide what, in the current circumstances, would be proportionate. Given that cases are now falling quite rapidly and the current wave is receding, we decided that we will not, at this stage, extend the Covid certification scheme to other premises. We will, of course, reconsider this, should circumstances and, therefore, the balance of judgment change in any significant way. If cases were to start to rise very sharply again, extension of certification may well be a more proportionate alternative to other more restrictive measures. However, our conclusion today, given the improving situation, is that extending certification would not be proportionate at this stage. There is, though, one reasonably minor change to the certification regulations that we will propose. At the moment, nightclubs and other late night venues must apply the scheme if they have in use a designated area for dancing. We intend to amend the definition here to provide greater clarity and prevent premises from avoiding certification simply by having tables on a dance floor and, therefore, claiming that it is not a dance floor but nevertheless permitting dancing to take place. That change will take effect from Monday when late night venues are able to reopen. Finally, let me say a few words about the updated rules on self-isolation after a positive Covid test. Those rules, confirmed two weeks ago, remain in place. If you test positive, you will be advised to self-isolate for 10 days. However, if you do not have a fever and you take two negative lateral flow tests more than 24 hours apart on day 6 and day 7, you can end self-isolation on day 7. Last week, the United Kingdom Government announced further changes to self-isolation for England. That was publicised as allowing people to end self-isolation after day 5. Essentially, however, that change simply brings England's rules into line with those already enforced in Scotland. That is because in Scotland we count the day of a positive test as day 1 of isolation. In England, that is counted as day 0. In addition, in England, you can end self-isolation after day 5. In Scotland, you can end it on day 7. The slightly different ways of defining the beginning and the end of the self-isolation period has given the impression of difference, but the substance—the period that people are required to self-isolate for—is, in fact, the same in Scotland and in England. It is important that people are clear about that. The lifting from Monday of the protections introduced in response to Omicron is possible in part because of the efforts that everyone has made voluntarily and as a result of guidance and statutory measures to help them to transmission. I want to put on record again today my thanks to people across the country. It is also down to the success of vaccines. At this stage of the vaccination programme, we continue to offer boosters and to implement the latest advice from the JCVI. Just before Christmas, the JCVI recommended that booster jags should be offered to 16 and 17-year-olds 12 weeks after their second jags. Any 16 or 17-year-old who had a second jag 12 weeks or more ago, or who is just approaching that point, can now book a booster appointment online through NHS Inform. They can also turn up at a drop-in centre and get a booster there. In addition, second doses of the vaccine are now available for 12 to 15-year-olds, who had a first dose at least 12 weeks previously. Again, appointments can be booked online. Alternatively, young people can choose to go to a drop-in centre and parents and carers are of course welcome to attend with them. So far, the JCVI has recommended that booster jags should be offered only to those 12 to 15-year-olds at particular clinical risk from Covid. Any 12 to 15-year-old in that position will receive a letter inviting them for a booster 12 weeks after their last primary dose. There is no need to book an appointment. Finally, 5 to 11-year-olds, with specific medical conditions that put them at greater risk from Covid, will be invited for their first vaccination from this week onwards. Again, let me stress that they will be contacted directly. There is no need for them or more appropriately their parents or carers to book online. In due course, 5 to 11-year-olds who are household contacts of people with immune suppression will also be invited to receive vaccination. Of course, we stand ready to quickly implement any updated advice from the JCVI about vaccinating all 5 to 11-year-olds. There are good reasons why the JCVI has given different advice for different age groups, but I realise that it can be confusing. The NHS Inform website now has a self-help guide for parents, carers and children setting out what young people need to do to get vaccinated and when they can do it. If you cannot get online, you can also get this information by phoning the vaccination hotline on 0800 030 8013. That is 0800 030 8013. The final point that I want to make relates to vaccinations for adults. Scotland has achieved very high rates of vaccination. We are the most vaccinated part of the UK in terms of first, second, third and booster doses, but there are still more than 600,000 people over the age of 18 who are eligible for a booster but have not yet had it and there are hundreds of thousands more who have not yet had a first or second dose. I encourage anyone who falls into one of those categories to make an appointment as soon as possible or go to a drop-in clinic. There is plenty capacity and you will be made welcome. The latest available data that is adjusted for age shows that someone not fully vaccinated is at least four times more likely to require hospital treatment than someone who has had a booster or third dose. Although being fully vaccinated does not eradicate the risk for any of us of getting Covid, it does reduce that risk and therefore also reduces the risk of us passing it on to others. If you choose, therefore, without good reason not to be fully vaccinated, you are putting your own and others' lives at unnecessary risk. If you have not had a booster or third-jaget, please come forward as soon as possible and if you have not had a first or second dose yet, please do so without delay. It is never too late to get the Covid vaccines and to start getting the protection that those vaccines do offer. The situation that we face today is undoubtedly less severe and much more positive than it might otherwise have been without the sacrifices that everyone has made over the past few weeks. Despite what people may be hearing from media commentary, we have not yet moved from the epidemic to the endemic phase of Covid, although I hope that transition is under way. However, we are, I hope, once again entering a much calmer phase of the epidemic. That then allows us to consider the adaptations that we might need to make to build our resilience and manage the virus in a less restrictive way in future, as we move into an endemic phase. We have, as I have indicated in previous weeks, started work now on an updated strategic framework, and we will be consulting on that over coming weeks. All of that therefore gives us much cause for renewed optimism. That said, we are still in a challenging position. The NHS remains under very significant pressure. Indeed, as is reflected in today's A&E waiting time figures, the past couple of weeks have probably been the most difficult the NHS has ever faced, as Covid-related staff absences have compounded the other pressures that it is dealing with. The number of Covid cases across Scotland, although declining, also remains high. Because Omicron is so infectious, there is still a significant risk attached to social meetings and interactions. That is why, although we can be increasingly optimistic at this stage, we must all still play our part in helping to further slow the spread of the virus. I close by highlighting again the steps that we can all take to help to do that. First, as I have just talked about at length, please do get fully vaccinated if you have not already. Second, take care of socialising until Monday, keep indoor gatherings to a maximum of three households. After that, I suggest that, for the rest of this month, try to keep them as small as your circumstances allow, and test before you go every time. Lastly, please take all the other precautions that we know make a difference. Keep windows open if meeting indoors, continue to work from home for now if you can, wear a face covering on public transport in shops and when moving about in hospitality and follow all advice on hygiene. Those measures make a difference. The fact that so many people have stuck with them has helped to make it possible to lift the protective measures that were put in place before Christmas. If we continue to stick with them, we can all continue to do our bit to keep each other safe, protect the NHS and keep us firmly on the path, even if only metaphorically speaking, to a much sunnier spring and summer. The First Minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 40 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful of members who wish to ask a question where to press their request to speak buttons now, or enter R in the chat function. I call Sandesh Gulhani. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me begin by urging everyone to keep getting vaccinated. Even if you have so far been against the vaccine, there is still time to change your mind and get your first jag. The First Minister's statement begins a sea change in the Government's policy, starting to shift from a rules-based approach more towards trusting the Scottish public as we were pushing for. Yesterday, we called for an end to all business restrictions, an end to guidance on household mixing and social distancing, and an end to the ban on indoor sports. We did so because the data shows that we are past the peak of Omicron. At this stage, protecting mental health, physical health and Scottish jobs is every bit as important as slowing the spread of Covid. Most of what we have called for has been met, but the Government still have not gone far enough in two key areas. Firstly, we welcome the move away from guidance on working from home, but can the First Minister explain the evidence behind that decision? Why at this stage can we not go further? Perhaps publish all the evidence used to make this decision. Secondly, it is right that the First Minister has backed down on extending the vaccine passport scheme. For many Scottish businesses, it remains a burden and a potential risk. The First Minister has twice threatened to extend the scheme to Scottish businesses, twice she has backed down. Isn't it about time that the First Minister accepted that this scheme is a dud and scrapped it altogether? While we are past the peak of the Omicron crisis, we are at the peak of the crisis in A&E departments. The latest appalling A&E figures show the worst ever waiting times for patients. Double the number of patients were waiting more than the target time compared to the same week last year. My colleagues on the front line of the NHS are overwhelmed. Covid is making things worse, but the root of the problem is not Omicron. It is the lack of a credible plan from Humza Yousaf. How many wake-up calls does the health secretary need before he finally devises a coherent strategy to tackle the unacceptable emergency waiting times in Scotland? The Government policy and approaches to tackling Covid has, throughout the past two years, and will continue to adapt in line with changes in the path of the virus. Keeping the public as safe as possible will continue to be our driving imperative. The approach that we have taken is balanced, appropriately and suitably cautious, and it is data-driven. For all those reasons, it stands in stark contrast to the approach that the Conservatives have proposed at each and every stage. I would gently remind the chamber and indeed the public again today that, at every turn, whenever decisions have been taken, the Conservatives have, in my view, rather opportunistically opposed whatever it has been that the Scottish Government had recommended. That has been the case on face coverings, it has been the case on working from home, it has been the case in terms of mitigations in our schools. With the greatest of respect, when the Conservatives have called it wrong at every key juncture in the tackling of this virus, forgive me if I continue to follow clinical advice and take careful judgments rather than follow the advice that the member is offering today. On working from home, I continue to be surprised that Dr Gohani asks me for evidence of things that I think even non-clinically qualified people now see as pretty obvious. When you are coming out of a wave of this virus, the worst thing to do is to lift all restrictions at exactly the same time and allow all of the mixing and interactions that we have been trying to restrict to happen again all at once. Therefore, what is the evidence of saying that if people are not working from home, not travelling to get to work, not coming together in canteens, for example, at lunchtime, is because when we reduce that kind of interaction, we reduce the opportunities for the virus to spread. While we are lifting other restrictions for a couple of weeks longer, it is prudent to keep that piece of guidance in place. It is common sense, I would argue, and I think that most people across the country understand that. Secondly, on accident emergency, in passing on back to my earlier point, I would simply say that had we followed the advice that I can give that polite term of the Conservatives and lifted measures prematurely at previous stages, not had in place the mitigations that we have in place, we would be in a much worse position with Covid than we are right now, and the pressure on our national health service and accident and emergency departments would be even greater than it is right now. We continue to support our national health service. The figures for A&E today reflect the probably the most difficult period in the history of the national health service over the past couple of weeks when staff absences have compounded the other pressures. I would hope that we will see those figures start to improve in the weeks ahead. We will continue to support the national health service in every way that we can, but the biggest thing, the most important thing that all of us can do to support the national health service right now, is continue to act in the careful way that we have been doing to keep cases on that downward trajectory. Can I start by sending my condolences to all those who have lost a loved one throughout the pandemic? Today's announcements offer hope to a lot of people who can once again look forward to getting some more normality back in their lives, but too many businesses are still teetering on the brink, and too many workers have found themselves waiting for weeks with no support. Just one example from my home city, where the First Minister needs to go further now, more than 100 staff working at two Glasgow theatres have been left without pay for an entire month. That is just one example for one sector that tells a story about the lack of urgency from this Government. The scheme that would support those workers won't even publish its guidelines until tomorrow, and applications won't open for another week, never mind dispersal of the actual money. Those workers have bills to pay and families to feed now, so what will the First Minister do today to support those workers and all light them across the whole of Scotland? Two years into this pandemic, we should have already had a system that is built in resilience, and we all hope that the worst is behind us, but going forward, any changes in these restrictions cannot be ad hoc. We need a system that sets clear trigger points on what people can expect when cases do rise and lays out what financial support will be made available to people when there will be a title to it and when they will receive it. When can we expect meaningful debate on detailed proposals for a framework like this to come to this Parliament? Restrictions, while well-intentioned, have had a detrimental impact on people's mental health and wellbeing, and we cannot expect people to live their lives like that indefinitely. First Minister, on business support, the money that has been made available, I remind people that much of the money made available in Scotland is not available in other parts of the UK, but is flowing where appropriate from local authorities. In the case of theatres and those in the culture sector from Creative Scotland, Creative Scotland has already started paying, for example, successful applicants to the freelancers hardship fund, and other funds will be following right now. As I said last week, we are working with local authorities, with other agencies, to get this money out the door and into the bank accounts of those who need it as quickly as possible. There are checks and processes that have to be applied to guard against fraud. I noted yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that £4.3 billion was being written off in money that had been fraudulently claimed earlier in the pandemic. I can imagine anasarward reaction if we were in a position of taking decisions without appropriate checks here. Work continues to get that money out to people as quickly as possible because we understand how badly needed it is. On the second point around the framework, I have already said that we have started work on the framework. We will consult with parties across the chamber, with businesses and others across society in the coming weeks. We will bring that to Parliament over the next few weeks for debate and for a vote. It is really important to understand the uncertainties that still exist. I understand the clamour for certainty. We all want certainty, but we are dealing with an unpredictable virus. Fixed trigger points would not serve anybody well at the moment because we need to continue to apply judgment to use the example of Omicron, a new variant, but, as we quickly found out with Omicron, it did not behave in exactly the same way as Delta behaved. Trigger points designed for Delta or now designed for Omicron might not be appropriate for the variant that comes along. We have to retain a degree of flexibility. Frankly, anybody who suggests otherwise is not going to navigate a path through the virus that serves the country well. Much of what we have done has been in line with other countries across the world. I think that we have had far fewer restrictions in the latter phase of the pandemic than some other countries have had. No country has the magic answers to that, but, as we learn more, we can have more certainty about the path that we take. However, that degree of flexibility, which I would say is very forcibly based on all my experience of the past two years, is really important to retain. It is gratifying to hear that the Scottish Government has determined that it would be disproportionate to roll out the further use of vaccine certification at this stage. The Liberal Democrats have always said that Covid ID cards are disproportionate full stop, and I hope that they will now fall away. The announcement today will represent light at the tunnel for many, many people, not least in the hospitality sector, which was hobbled by the restrictions over Christmas and many of whom are still looking for answers. Answers really matter, and people need to trust that if further restrictions are required in the future, that they will be based in transparency and in a science that they can see. The information commissioner ruled last week that the Government had acted unlawfully in withholding projections about a second wave. Can I ask the Scottish Government, in the light of the rebuke by the information commissioner, if it will commit to moving forward with transparency going forward? First Minister, on the issue of Covid certification, I think that the difference between me and the Scottish Government and Alex Cole-Hamilton is that we assess the proportionality on the basis of the evidence and we make balanced judgments. If the evidence shows us that Covid certification is a less restrictive option than other measures, then we will consider that. Alex Cole-Hamilton takes a fixed ideological position, which I think in the face of an infectious virus is not appropriate, and that perhaps is the key difference. In terms of restrictions, none of us want to go back to restrictions. Even over the past few weeks, when we have had further protective measures in place, they have been far less restrictive than at earlier stages in the pandemic, as we have been now for most of this year gradually learning to live with Covid in a greater and greater way, but we need to continue to assess those things based on the evidence. The Government has been totally transparent. We publish figures every single day—that is the data. People say that it shows the data. We publish the data every day. The evidence is how the virus behaves. We know from epidemiological evidence that the virus spreads more when people come together in particular settings. We will continue to enhance that data as our knowledge becomes more developed. In terms of the freedom of information issue, the commissioner found that the information with held was of a type to which the exemption, which covered development of government policy, was applicable. He accepted that that information was intended to assist in developing policy in relation to a possible second wave, but took a different view in assessing the public interest issue. We will consider the commissioner's decision carefully and respond appropriately. I call Ruth Maguire, and I would take this opportunity on behalf of the Parliament to welcome Ms Maguire back. On Saturday, NHS Ayrshire and Arran held a drop-in vaccination clinic for pregnant women and women who had recently delivered their baby at Ayrshire maternity unit, a very welcome initiative. It is crucial that women looking to conceive, including those accessing specialist IVF treatment, are also provided with timely information and advice on vaccination and how that might impact their hopes of conceiving. An example of where that did not happen was raised with me recently. Those involved were left devastated. What action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that women looking to conceive and those providing their healthcare are kept properly informed about the importance of vaccinations? I also say how brilliant it is to have Ruth Maguire back with us as a friend, a colleague and the MSP from my hometown. It is absolutely brilliant to see her looking so well and back here in Parliament. Covid continues, and it is important to stress that, to pose a serious risk to unvaccinated pregnant women and their babies. Data from Public Health Scotland shows that 98 per cent of pregnant women with Covid who required intensive care in Scotland were unvaccinated. A decision was therefore taken by ministers to temporarily defer fertility treatment for women who are not fully vaccinated. I fully understand that undergoing fertility treatment is an emotional experience for those involved. Treatment centres are providing counselling to those women who want to discuss vaccination in more detail and are in touch with patients to provide further information on treatment and vaccination. Public Health Scotland has also produced information leaflets and online information encouraging vaccine uptake among pregnant women. Additional guidance on fertility and vaccination can be found on our parent club and NHS informed websites. Miles Briggs, to be followed by Gillian Martin. Throughout the pandemic, I have raised hospital parking for NHS staff with the First Minister. I welcome some of the steps that the Government has taken. From the start of this week, NHS staff here in Edinburgh are having their parking rights removed at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. Over 20,000 people have signed a petition calling for a rethink. I ask the First Minister specifically, does she agree with me that front-line NHS staff working night shifts should always be given the option of a parking space? Secondly, will she agree to a national review of hospital parking for NHS staff? I agree that NHS staff should not have to pay to park their cars when they turn up to work. I was the health secretary who removed car parking charges at NHS-owned car parks. At the start of the pandemic, of course, Jeane Freeman, who was health secretary, managed to secure the removal of car parking charges from the PFI car parks that still had them. It is an important principle. I will ask the health secretary to engage with the health board about the particular issues so that we can ensure, particularly at this exceptionally challenging time for those who work in the front-line of our NHS, that they are not being penalised unfairly. As we all know, the challenges of the pandemic and more recently the Omicron variant have placed increased pressures on social care settings. The health and social care partnership in Aberdeen are having to take staff away from other services and redeploy them to ease that pressure. What impact does the First Minister anticipate that the funding of SSC registration and PVG checks will have on staffing levels in the sector? Is there anything more that we can do to help with social care front-line? The introduction of Scottish Government funding for SSC registration fees and PVG checks aims to assist easing winter pressures across the sector by removing any financial barriers that might stop people from applying for a career in care. It is all about supporting those who work in the sector. Health and social care partnerships continue to face significant challenges in providing social care due to increased levels of demand and staff absences. We will continue to look at all options to further support the workforce. Today, the Deputy First Minister, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Justice, is meeting with council leaders, local authority chief executives, COSLA NHS boards and the third sector to discuss the need for a whole system response to prioritise social care and agree what more can be done both nationally and locally. People living in care homes where self-isolation is 14 days and can last longer were not mentioned in the statement today. Many of them fear that they are being forgotten as the rest of us move on. Some families from care home relatives Scotland describe their loved ones as having no visitors, no freedom and, worst of all, no hope. Will the First Minister listen to her concerns? Will she reassess the proportionality of the 14-day isolation rules? Will she wait for the Government to give effect to Anne's law and ensure that full use is being made of PPE, testing and vaccines to facilitate safe visiting and contact between care home residents and their loved ones? First Minister. Care homes should be ensuring appropriate visiting for residents and making full use of PPE and testing. I know that care homes are working hard to do that. Looking specifically at the issue of self-isolation, let me say here that our overriding priority throughout the pandemic indeed, although decisions, of course, understandably have been subject to questioning criticism, but our overriding priority has been to safeguard and protect residents and staff in care homes. At times during the pandemic, those have been some of the most difficult decisions with some of the most challenging and difficult outcomes, but it remains really important that we take very, very careful decisions here, given the frailty and the vulnerability of the people that we are discussing. The measures that are currently in place ensure that loved ones can have contact with residents while balancing the Covid risk and the need to keep people safe in line with clinical and public health advice. That is especially true, given the emergence of Omicron, which is so much more infectious. However, as I said in the chamber last week, given the recent changes to isolation more generally that we announced two weeks ago, we had already commissioned public health experts to review the guidelines currently in place for care home residents and we expect to be able to announce an updated position on that imminently. However, I hope that Monica Lennon and indeed the whole chamber will accept that it is important that we do so on the basis of quality clinical and expert advice. My understanding is that the latest round of business grants for hospitality and similar businesses has gone to those that got it in the previous rounds. However, for some businesses, either they are new or their circumstances have changed and they missed the first round for a technicality, is it possible for such businesses to get a grant in this latest round? Yes, it is. New hospitality businesses that did not previously receive funding can complete an application form. That means that local authorities can then assess their eligibility and they will be contacted by local authorities within 14 days of receiving an application. The application form is live on the Scottish Government website. The reason for automatically going to those who previously got support is for the speed of getting money to people, but we do not want to exclude anybody who did not get support previously if they are entitled to it now. I am pleased that we are seeing a downturn in cases, but as we know, things can change rapidly, so it is essential that caution is maintained. We are not following the reckless advice of those who suggested scrapping self-isolation for those who test positive. We need to ensure public compliance with measures, and that means supporting those who need to isolate. Will the First Minister confirm that the Scottish Government will continue to make support available for those who need to isolate? Yes, I can confirm that. It is an important point to raise. Isolation remains an important part of our response to the virus to help us to break the chains of transmission. That is obviously particularly the case when someone has tested positive. One of the unanswered questions in what the Conservatives were calling on us to do yesterday, which was just to, as I read, remove everything and take our chances with Covid, is whether they were actually suggesting that we should remove self-isolation for those who had tested positive. That is something that they will take the opportunity to clarify, but we will keep in place support for those who are self-isolating, because we recognise the financial challenges. None of this is easy, none of this is what any of us want to be in the position of doing, but particularly at this stage, almost two years in, it is really important that we take basic precautions in order to avoid, as far as we can, the situation going into reverse again. Claire Adamson, to be followed by Russell Finlay. First Minister, the vaccination certification programme has been pivotal in allowing people to take part in activities in Scotland during Covid restrictions, but also for those travelling aboard for work or for pleasure in order to meet the requirements of the country that they are visiting. Can the First Minister give any advice to those relying on a paper copy of the vaccine certificate to ensure that they can prove their booster status and access an up-to-date QR code? Paper certificates are available—I set that out again last week—and they are accepted at domestic venues where the certification scheme is in operation and also accepted by most countries around the world for entry through borders. Boosters were added to paper certificates on 13 December, so people should request a new copy if their certificate was issued before that date. In addition, QR codes are regularly updated for security reasons and paper copies should be renewed every three months to ensure that a valid QR code is used. Where possible, we do encourage people to use the app for domestic purposes and, indeed, for international travel certification requirements, because this updates all QR codes each time the app is activated, but paper copies continue to be available. Today, the Scottish Court Service published new data about tens of thousands of pending criminal trials, many delayed by Covid. Most recent figures from December show that 760 of those are in the High Court. In every single one, there is a victim or a murder victim's family waiting for justice. The Scottish Government rejected my party's call for additional funding to clear the backlog. What would the First Minister say to the victims and their families? We are, of course, making funding available to the court service to help with backlog. We have ensured in the draft budget that was published just a matter of weeks ago that the justice system more generally, including the court system and, indeed, the Crown Office, are getting a fair settlement in light of the circumstances that we face. I deeply regret the impact of the virus on everybody who has suffered because of it. Many people have suffered health impacts because they have had the virus become seriously unwell. Sadly, too many people across our country are bereaved as a result of the virus. Even for those of us who have not had the virus or who have not lost a family member, there have been a plethora of other impacts. That undoubtedly includes victims of crime having trials delayed. I wish none of that had happened. I wish we were in and never had been in the global pandemic, but we are, and we need to continue to manage the impacts of this. Getting Covid under control, keeping it under control and moving into a phase in which we can manage it much less restrictively is a key part of that. Supporting and funding organisations to catch up on the backlog is work that we will continue to have our focus for this year. No doubt, in some respects, beyond that. We continue to give all of that our utmost priority as we move forward. To ask the First Minister what further help the Scottish Government can offer vaccine trial participants so that they are not disadvantaged by recent changes to rules on self-isolation and international travel, in particular the requirement for a booster, something that many trial participants do not yet qualify for. It is an important question for those who take part in trials. Let me stress that clinical trial participants are treated the same as the rest of the population and therefore eligible for boosters and offered them in line with the normal eligibility criteria for the booster programme. For domestic and international travel self-isolation on return to Scotland, clinical trial participants are treated as if they are fully vaccinated and therefore should follow the guidance on testing and self-isolation detailed on gov.scot. For travel to other countries, all travellers should follow the relevant individual guidance and entry conditions required. Further information on other countries' entry requirements is available at gov.uk. On 5 January, the First Minister confirmed that £375 million would be made available for business support. To date, I believe that only £262 million has been allocated, leaving £113 million. If correct, when will that sum be allocated? Will it afford the Government the ability to address the issues outlined by Mr Mason, but also to extend support to sectors that so far have completely missed out such as retail, given the deeply damaging impact restrictions have had on this most critical trading time of the year? We continue to liaise with individual sectors to try to make sure that any remaining funds that we have to allocate are targeted as effectively as possible. We started allocating funds to those most obviously impacted, but there are a variety of other impacts that we want to make sure that we properly understand and as far as resources allow us to address and respond to. Further announcements will be made in due course and as quickly as possible. We will also publish, as we did in previous stages of the pandemic, out-turn data on the actual debursment of moneys, and that will be published at or towards the end of January. We will do everything within our power to make sure that all businesses across different sectors that have been impacted by this most latest phase get some help and as much help as we are able to provide. People throughout Scotland have been disgusted by the hypocritical behaviour of the Prime Minister, who has flouted the rules of his own Government on numerous occasions and yet continues in his role. What would the First Minister say to those people who feel that this situation undermines the credibility of the public health message? I think that I have made my views clear, as many other people have, about the reports of repeated and serial breaches of the Covid rules on the part of the Prime Minister or those who are working for and around the Prime Minister. I absolutely understand the intense anger that people feel about this, given the very painful sacrifices that so many people have made over the past couple of years. Of course, all of that has the potential to undermine compliance with the things that we are still asking people to do, but what I would say to people is that the reason for complying with any guidance or protective measures in place at any time during this pandemic is not because a Prime Minister or a First Minister or any politician tells you to do so. The reason all of us should do this is to keep ourselves and those we love and the whole country as safe as possible. I appeal to everybody, while we are still in this pandemic, not to allow understandable and justified anger at politicians to get in the way of doing the right thing for yourself and your loved ones. With so many people contracting Covid over the festive period, many will not be able to get their booster for another four weeks. As the First Minister said in a statement, more than 600,000 people over age 18 are eligible for a booster, but have not had it yet. There are hundreds of thousands more who have not yet had a first or second dose. Will the First Minister commit to keeping mass vaccination centres open for the foreseeable future, such as the Sculty Centre in Bancary? We will keep access to vaccination open and available and accessible. I absolutely give that assurance that it will never be too late to get this vaccination. I am not going to stand here and say that every single centre that was open and necessary, while we were vaccinating large numbers of people on a daily basis, will remain open. As we go through different phases of the vaccination programme, different models of provision will be more appropriate. A large vaccination centre, when we are dealing with more of a trickle of people, rather than a big flood of people, would not be a good or efficient use of resources. We will judge that on an on-going basis, as we have done throughout. I do not pretend on any aspect of handling the virus that we have got everything right all of the time. Manifestly we have not, but we stand here right now on first, second, third and booster doses as the most vaccinated part of the UK, which would suggest that the approaches that we have taken to this so far have been effective, and we have a responsibility to make sure that they remain so. On the central question, of course, we will absolutely make sure that anybody who is not already vaccinated, who wants to come forward for their vaccination, has the ability to do so. Marie McNair, to be followed by Paul Sweeney. What is the support that is announced by the Scottish Government in recent weeks has been welcomed, particularly given that support is not available to businesses elsewhere in the UK. My office has been contacted by a local independent travel agent who continues to struggle due to Covid. Given that the Scottish Government does not have the powers to borrow resources to extend support further to other businesses, what representation has the First Minister made to the UK Government to provide funding for those currently not eligible for financial support? We have made repeated calls on the UK Government to increase the level of support available during the Omicron wave, either across the UK or, and we have been joined in this call by the Welsh and the Northern Irish Governments to make available a process whereby our devolved Governments can do so. There have been some new money provided, but not nearly as much as I think would have been appropriate, but we continue to ensure that we maximise what we are able to provide from our own resources and get this money to businesses as quickly as possible. As I said in relation to a previous answer, there are some funds that we have made available that we have not yet allocated and therefore we are further consulting with affected sectors, and this may be relevant to Marie McNair's question with those sectors about how it can best be targeted. Paul Sweeney, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. I press the First Minister on my constituents who have been affected by the closure of theatres in Glasgow. They have gone a month without wages, and they really need direct assurance from the First Minister that they will be helped. That is a serious financial imposition at this time, so I can ask the First Minister to take direct oversight of this particular issue, up to 150 workers affected. Can he please get a clear solution from the First Minister? I have oversight of all aspects of the response to Covid. That is my job and my duty. I understand absolutely how difficult it is for any organisation, whether it is theatres or other businesses, that have been impacted by those recent restrictions. That is why we have allocated money and are working to get that money to organisations, and therefore to those who need it most as quickly as possible. Of course, I will ask the economy secretary to follow up in more detail with the member, should that be helpful. Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Sharon Dowie. Last week, it was announced that a £4 million funding package would be put in place to support unpaid carers. What impact does the First Minister anticipate that that will have on the lives of unpaid carers who have faced greatly increased pressures during the pandemic? Lots of people, almost everybody in the country, but particularly groups of people have been severely impacted by the pandemic. However, there are a few groups who have been impacted more severely than unpaid carers who already carry a significant burden, and I have had that burden seriously exacerbated because of the pressures and the strains of dealing with Covid. There is no amount of money that will ever repay unpaid carers for the debt that we owe them, but through a number of strands, the supplement to the carers allowance, for example, where we try to do more to help, and that additional money will help to provide some respite for carers and additional support in different ways to help them to deal with the burden that they are currently carrying. However, we will continue to look for always in which we can further support unpaid carers in the period ahead. Farron Dowey, to be followed by Evelyn Tweed. From large-scale events like Edinburgh's Hugmanay to smaller ones like Christmas Market, events organisers have had a tough festive period. That is at a knock-on effect on other businesses, including B&Bs, who have already had a difficult year and cancelled events that have only added to their problems. My questions twofold, how much of the £21 million to support culture in events is now actually in the pockets of recipients? What support has been provided to B&B owners and other providers of short-term accommodations since December 2021, and what plans are there to introduce additional support? The money that we have made available across different sectors is in the process of flowing to businesses. As I said in response to Paul Sweeney or Daniel Johnson's question, we will publish out-turn information on each of the strands of business support that will show exactly how much of it has been allocated, and we will publish that information at the end of January. We will continue to ensure that we are doing as much as possible to support whether it is B&Bs or other parts of the hospitality and leisure sectors that have been very badly affected by the pandemic generally, but in particular in the past few weeks. I repeat a central point here. The most important thing that we can do—perhaps not the most important thing, because in the immediate term that is financial assistance—is to keep Covid under control, which is why I would appeal to everybody across the chamber to understand why a careful, cautious path out of this wave is really important in the wider economic interests, as well as the health interests of the country. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to ensure that the inequality gap does not widen as a result of the thousands of people being plunged into debt due to the pandemic along with soaring energy prices, good costs and coupled with the cuts to universal credit. In this Government, we are taking a range of actions to try to tackle inequality, the national mission to tackle child poverty and the commitment, for example, of more than £800 million to provide more affordable housing. In the Covid recovery strategy, we set out specific actions to tackle the inequalities that have been exacerbated by Covid. That includes work to increase financial security for low-income households. This financial year, we are providing more than £7 million to support free debt advice, including funding to meet increased demand over the winter period. We had TV adverts starting this week through our money support campaign, making it clear that people do not have to deal with financial problems alone, signposting them to free debt advice services. That is just some of the support that the Government is providing. Evelyn Tweed is absolutely right that all of that is being undermined by the lack of action on the part of the UK Government to help with soaring energy, costs and wider inflationary pressures. All of that has been severely undermined by the completely wrong-headed and cruel decision to remove the £20 a week universal credit uplift. As we take action, it is incumbent across all of us in this chamber to call on the UK Government to live up to their responsibilities to ensure that any quality does not get worse as a result of the pandemic that we are living through. That concludes the First Minister's statement. Covid-19 update. There will be a brief pause before the next statement.


opment of where they stay and I therefore support amendment 195. However, I do not support amendment 196. That also provides for a review of the operation and effectiveness of local place plans, however, that version goes on to potentially link the review outcome with the introduction of a community right of appeal. Members will be aware of my views and the introduction of a community right of appeal into the planning system. I believe that it would only introduce additional conflict at the end of the process. We will have a full debate on that later. Our proposal is to improve engagement with communities at earlier stages and go across the whole planning system from the national planning framework to pre-application consultation, not just local place plans. It is certainly not appropriate to tie a parliamentary decision on introducing appeals to just one element of our broad planning reform package when there will be a wide range of ways in which communities can influence the future of their places. I therefore ask Mr Rowley not to press amendment 196 and I move amendment 85. 195 introduces a duty to review the effectiveness of local place plans after seven years. 196 introduces a duty to review the effectiveness of local place plans after seven years with a requirement on the Parliament to consider amendment appeal rights if they have not effectively engaged communities in the planning system. We accept the Government's amendment in this group to accept why the support should be available for those developing local place plans. However, we remain deeply skeptical about the idea of local place plans and maintain that the Government has failed to provide any evidence that it will transform community engagement in the planning system. At the committee stage, we heard several concerns about how local place plans would work in practice, their status and the level of influence that they would have within the planning system. Those include the level of resources that are available to community groups to produce local place plans and the evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee. The Scottish Property Federation estimated costs could be between £25,000 to £30,000. Capacity in communities to produce them, particularly disadvantaged communities, would be difficult. The extent to which authorities will have regard to any local place plan that they receive. The extent to which local place plans might displace community time and resources from engagement in the local development plan preparation process. The extent to which local place plans might be constrained by the requirements to reflect the local development plan or the NPF and other special plans as agreed developments take place. For example, Ballantyre Community Council said that the local place plan initiative is set to fail and increase inequalities unless communities themselves are given the funds and access to the experts to produce their own plans. Moray council considered that and I quote, the bill should focus on further integration of early and continuing engagement rather than introducing another layer of plans and further complications to the system. Scottish environmental links say that the fact that they are not part of the local development plan means that they are likely to be given pretty limited weight, and we think that there is a risk that, as formulated, they could end up being quite a distraction from engagement in the local development plan. We are not keen on them as they are currently being progressed. We would much rather see a concentration on getting better engagement in local development plan processes. Not much has changed since stage 2 beyond local authorities now having to take into account local place plans. Does the minister realistically think that that will make a difference to some of the criticisms outlined? As it stands, the introduction of the local place plans risks communities spending significant time, effort and resources on something that may or may not be taken into account by the planning authorities. Without any meaningful outcome for communities, the significant resources would be better used on broad engagement of communities in their local development plans. If we do not have the confidence in this now, if it has not been shown in seven years' time not to have work, it is right that we review it, and it is right that we ask the question, do communities have the same say over developments in their communities as developers? If the answer to that is no, we need to give them a more say. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments over local place plans. We went over it extensively in committee and indeed at stage 2. We have just heard from Alex Rowley, who has gone over it in some depth. I just want to talk about a couple of the amendments 1.04 and 1.95. 1.04 from the minister adjusts the requirements for planning authorities to set out the assistance available to communities for local place plans. This was a key concern. It would allow this to cover any such assistance rather than just assistance from the planning authority. I think that there has been a bit of confusion over that. Some people have thought that the minister was trying to roll back potential funding. I do not see it that way. It is quite the opposite. It could widen it to beyond just councils. Alex Rowley's amendment 1.95 would ensure that the ministers review how local place plans are working within seven years. That is very sensible. We should keep an eye on how they are performing. 1.96 goes beyond local place plans and takes in community right to appeal. Perhaps a cheeky amendment from Mr Rowley, but I think that we should be sticking to the subject. We will support 1.95, but what not 1.96? We will support all amendments in this group. I commend Alex Rowley on amendments 1.95 and his cheeky 1.96. Unless I am mistaken, it seems to be missing a subsection 3. I do not know if that is a drafting error or if any substantive legal provisions are missing from the amendment, but no doubt that will be picked up in due course. Those amendments go some way to addressing the concerns that were raised at stage 1 and by witnesses as to the real value to be gained by local place plans. I think that views on local place plans were mixed in committee. I was not persuaded that they were going to add anything of substance, but I took the committee's view that they could and therefore went on to support them, but I still remain sceptical. Amendment 1.95, in particular, will enable a proper review to take place and provide parliaments to take a view on what to do in terms of 1.96, should it be resolved that such plans are not ensuing the needs of communities that are being addressed in the planning system. I invite the minister to wind up in this group.  I am sure that Mr Rowley recognises that the national planning framework also has to be taken into account when it comes to local development plans, and I am sure that he would not be thinking that local authorities would ignore the national planning framework. In my opinion, I have always wanted to see community planning and spatial planning intertwined, and I think that local place plans have the opportunity to do exactly that. I think that local place plans will empower communities where communities themselves are able to set a vision for their place. There is general support for the introduction of local place plans, including in the survey of children and young people undertaken by Young Scot as part of the consultation on planning reform. Much of the detail about how local place plans will work in practice will derive from the secondary legislation, backed up by supportive guidance. Of course, all that will be subject to consultation by Parliament in additional impact assessment, too. Guidance will be prepared, as the Government said. Tools such as the place standard are constantly developing. There will also be support from various community support organisations, such as PAS, and locally there will also be sources of information, support or funding available to each planning authority. Obviously, it is wise to look after implementation, how local place plans have worked, and I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. I think that I am probably much more optimistic about what can be achieved here than some others, but communities rise to the challenge. Some communities have already got their own local place plans. Let's see many more of them right across the country. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Can I call amendments 86 to 97 and invite the minister to move these amendments on block? Thank you. The first question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Mr Wightman. Sorry, Presiding Officer. We are not content to have them moved on block. No, I have moved them on block, but I am going to take the votes until we get these seven. I beg your pardon, yes. That is right. I am glad that you are on the ball, Mr Wightman. No, he is absolutely right. He said earlier that 87 would be an objection. We will just rerun that vote. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are not agreed, and we will move to a vote on amendment 87. That will be a one-minute division. On amendment 87, members may vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 87 in the name of Kevin Stewart is, yes, 110, no, 10. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I am now going to ask the chamber if you are content that we move amendments 88 to 97 on block. Does everybody agree? We are agreed. So the question is that amendment 88 to 97. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Now, before we turn to group 14, I am just going to suggest a short break this time of just five minutes. A five-minute suspension will come back at 1835. Short suspension. Okay, can I call the chamber back to order? And we'll move to group 14, which is local development plan examination. And can I call amendment 194 in the name of Andy Wightman, grouped with amendment as shown in the groupings, and I can invite Andy Wightman to move amendment 194 and to speak to the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Amendment 194 reinstates an opportunity for those who have made representations to a local development plan to be heard at any examination of the plan. When I see a rein state, this opportunity was available under section 15 of the 97 act, but was removed when the provisions in part 2 of the 97 act were wholly replaced by alternative provisions in the 2006 act. Therefore, I have tabled a modest amendment to give the appointed person the opportunity to hear from objectors, which I think was a valuable part of the examination process. We do not agree with amendments 118 and 119 in the name of Graham Simpson. I move amendment 194. Thank you very much, and I can invite Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 118 and the others in this group. Presiding Officer, I apologise, but I did not hear what Andy Wightman said at the end, whether he was supporting one of my amendments. I said at the end of my short contribution that we would not be supporting amendment 118 or 119. People get frustrated with the planning system when they see councils reject applications only for them to be overturned on the appeal. One of the arguments that developers use, and quite often it is successful, is that local development plans have not allocated sufficient housing. The outcome of any successful appeal can be a frustrated community, but equally a developer thinking they could have done without the delay. If councils got their housing allocations right and crucially agreed at the outset, we could avoid all this. Amendment 119 in my name is an attempt to improve on this. It will give an appointed person, probably a reporter, a new power if they are not satisfied with the amount of land allocated for housing. Andy, I agree with Graham Simpson for giving way, because this is a classic example of what has happened in Fife. When Derek Mackay was the planning minister, he increased the number of houses that should be available within the SES plan area that included Fife. When you meet with the heady planning, with the strategic directory planning in Fife, they tell you that there is more than enough adequate land available and that it is the Scottish Government that has got it wrong. However, that does not help when you have a plan application, for example, in Aberdeyr that has been refused through all the local planning processes. It is then overturned by the Government on the grounds that there is not enough housing land supply. When you have the heady planning, the strategic development manager, they are all saying that the figures are wrong. I am not sure that putting enough housing land supply in Fife would be satisfactory to the people who have had to suffer as a result of the disagreement in Fife. Graham Simpson. Alex Rowley has spoken for longer than I intended to speak to my amendment. I am not actually sure whether he is agreeing with it or not, because surely what we need to do is have local plans allocate the right amount of housing. That needs to be agreed at the outset. This amendment has the support of homes for Scotland, so I think that it is worth accepting. It could actually reduce the number of appeals, reduce the frustration in the system. Everybody knows where they stand at the start, and that is what we should be aiming for. I hope that it will lead to better practice and rigorous local development plans, but I hope that the power will not be used. Amendment 118 is a technical amendment that supports 119. We cannot support Andy Wightman's amendment 194. It was submitted so late that we had no chance to amend it before the deadline. We liked the principle behind the amendment. It would ensure that communities and complainants have a right to be heard. Unfortunately, as it is currently drafted, the hearings can involve an almost infinite number of people—thousands, potentially—so I would have liked to have discussed that with Mr Wightman in advance. It was not to be, and that is a shame, so we will not support it. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 98 and the others in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is important that local development plans are properly and independently scrutinised prior to their adoption. Wider provisions of the bill will ensure that that is done earlier in the process, with the scrutiny of an evidence report by an independent person who will ensure that housing requirements are assessed up front. After that, authorities are expected to allocate sites for development and to bring that forward in a proposed plan that is then independently examined at the end of the process. The amendments in this group relate to the duties and the powers of reporters who undertake that final examination. Mr Wightman's amendment 194 would reintroduce a right to be heard at the examination stage for all parties who have made an unresolved representation on the plan. Similar provisions were removed by the last planning act as it was argued at the time that members of the public may not feel comfortable participating in such proceedings with lawyers and planning consultants retained by developers. Many issues can be fully understood and considered through written submissions and the current arrangements, allowing for a more proportionate and efficient approach. I do not want to add further conflict, time and cost to the system. I am also concerned that that has come forward at a very late stage without wider consultation, and therefore I cannot support Mr Wightman's amendment. I move on to the other amendments in this group. At the moment when a local development plan that has obvious shortcomings comes forward for adoption, there can be pressure on the reporter or indeed on ministers to fix the problem. However, when a plan fails to allocate sufficient land for housing, I believe that the solution should come in the first instance from the local authority rather than an intervention by central government. Those amendments put responsibility for local development plans firmly in the hands of local authorities. Reporters can recommend modifications to plans to address problems that they have identified in the examination. My amendments give the reporter a further option where it is clear that shortcomings of plans cannot be addressed by relatively minor changes and adjustments. They mean that the reporter could recommend to authorities that they amend their plan immediately after it has been adopted. In some cases, it is in everyone's interest to have a plan in place, even where there are outstanding issues that need to be addressed. A requirement for changes to be made to the plan soon after it has been adopted could ensure that it does the job that it is supposed to do in a timely way. There is much debate on planning for housing. It has always been a very contentious issue. A plan-led approach to housing development can be undermined if plans fail to allocate sufficient land for housing. Graham Simpson's amendments are similar to my own, but they provide a further option that aims specifically to ensure that plans allocate sufficient land for housing. Where that is not the case, the amendments would allow the reporter to return the plan to the authority so that it can allocate further land to ensure that the housing needs of the area can be properly met. I agree that that could also be a useful option in some circumstances. Local development plans have a crucial role to play in the planning system, but we can only have a plan-led system if those plans tackle their areas' development needs properly. I have considered how the bill can best support that in a way that reflects our wider aims of planning reform. There may not have been much agreement evident in the earlier stages of the bill, but it is clear that there is cross-party support for further decentralisation of planning powers. I therefore ask all members to support both my amendments and Graham Simpson's. Thank you very much. I could invite Andy Wightman to wind up in this group. Mr Stewart and his comments talked about the members of the public being uncomfortable in the presence of lawyers and developers. I think that that was a very astute observation, in fact, and it highlights everything that is wrong. All that is wrong with the planning system whereby the interests of large private interests—who can afford lawyers—have disproportionate sway over members of the public. I will give way to the minister. Those were not my words. The words, formal inquiries can sometimes be lengthy and complex, or not the best place for people to feel comfortable in making their case, was the words of Johann Lamont, the deputy minister during the scrutiny of the 2006 act. I recognise those words from Johann Lamont back in 2006 that make no difference to my observations. I did not give enough explanation as to why we are not supporting amendment 119 in the name of Graham Simpson. I think that it is courteous to perhaps do so now for the record. Why there is not enough land allocated for housing can be down to many reasons. It is a crude measure, we think, simply the amount of land that is allocated. Many sites are not developable due to reasons outwith the planning system, for example, land ownership or infrastructure requirements. We need a planning system that is more plan-led and is not at the behest of the volume house building industry. The amendment of Graham Simpson undermines a move towards a much more plan-led system. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I press amendment 194, if I need to. 194 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We are going to move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 194. This is a one-minute division. Amendment 194. The result of the vote on amendment 194 in the name of Andy Wightman is yes, 32, no, 88. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Can I call amendment 118 in the name of Graham Simpson? Graham Simpson to move? That is moved. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We are moved to a division. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 118, a 32nd vote. The result of the vote on amendment 118 in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 91, no, 28, no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 98 in the name of the minister? Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. We are not agreed. We move to a division. On amendment 98, this will be a 30-second vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 98 in the name of Kevin Stewart is yes, 94, no, 25. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 99 in the name of the minister? Thank you. The question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 99 in the name of Kevin Stewart is yes, 99, no, 21. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. I am just conscious that we are just up against the time limit for this particular group, so if the Minister for Parliamentary Business is able to amend it to accept a motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by 10 minutes. We are nearing the end, colleagues. The question is that, in the name of the minister, Graham Day, that our time limit be extended by up to 10 minutes are well agreed. We are agreed. Can I call amendment 119 in the name of Graham Simpson to move? That is moved. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. It is again a 32nd division. The result of the vote on amendment 119 in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 92, no, 27. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendment 120 in the name of Graham Simpson to move? That is moved. The question is that amendment 120 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 120. The result of the vote on amendment 120 in the name of Graham Simpson is yes, 113, no, 6. There were no abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. Can I call amendments 100, 101, 102, 103, 121 and 104, all in the name of the minister and invite the minister to move the amendments on block. Does any member object to those amendments being moved on block? You do, okay. In that case, can I put the question 100 to 103 on block? The question is that the Parliament supports amendments 100 to 103. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 121. The question is that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, so we will move to a vote on amendment 121. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 121 in the name of Kevin Stewart is yes, 95, no, 25. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 195 in the name of Alec Rowley? Alec Rowley to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 195 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 196 in the name of Alec Rowley? Alec Rowley to move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 196 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 196 in the name of Alec Rowley is yes, 28, no, 92. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I am going to turn to group 15. This will be the last group of today. It is a short group, and at that point we will move to decision time. Can I call amendment 122? That is on locally significant buildings. Can I call amendment 122 in the name of Graham Simpson, in a group on its own? Graham Simpson to move and speak to amendment 122. I will move amendment 122. It is the only amendment in this group. I was the first to speak this afternoon. I am also going to be the last. I promise to keep things brief, and I will stick to that with this one. This relates to local place plans. It is an attempt to make them better. I brought an idea at stage 2 that communities could bring forward or could identify locally significant buildings, buildings that they felt were important to them. That did not go through, so I have slightly changed the idea. This merely says that a local body, a local community could identify land and buildings that they consider to be important to them. I think that this would enhance the local place plan idea. It gives people a real say in their communities in saying what is important to them. I will end it there, Presiding Officer, because I know that people want to leave. Thank you, Mr Simpson. I invite the minister to respond. I support amendment 122. I take it that Mr Simpson has nothing further to add. You are quite right. The question therefore is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now on amendment 122. This is a one-minute division. The result of the vote on amendment 122 in the name of Graham Simpson is, yes, 99, no, 20. There was one abstention and the amendment is therefore agreed. One final amendment. Can I call amendment 123 in the name of Graham Simpson? Have you already debated Graham Simpson to move or not to move? Moved. That is moved. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. Sorry, that concludes the consideration of amendments for today. However, the next item of business is consideration of business motion 17814 in the name of Graham Day. Can I ask Graham Day on behalf of the bureau to move this motion, setting out a change to this week's business? Graham Day to move this motion. That is moved. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against this motion. The question therefore is that motion number 17814 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. The next item is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 17815 on a committee substitution. Again, can I ask Graham Day to move this motion on behalf of the bureau? Thank you very much, Mr Day. The question is that motion 17815 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. That is agreed. That concludes decision time. We are going to move shortly to members' business, but we will just take a few moments for members, the minister and others to change seats. A few minutes.


Is it just me or have you all noticed that ever since Ringland Brothers and Barnard and Bailey Circus closed, we've got an epidemic of clowns on the loose, and it wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that many of the clowns have infiltrated their way into the church. They've done it under this guise of being woke. Was Jesus woke? In their attempt to try to be relevant, maybe they do have a genuine desire to fix what's wrong with society. Well, here's an idea. Why don't we try what Jesus offered? Why don't we follow what he did? Or do we forget that some of the things that are present in our society were also present in Jesus' day? There was hunger, there was famine, there was racism, there was classism, there was all these different things, there was slavery, all these things. And what was Jesus answer? Him. That was his answer. So in your attempt to be woke, why don't you follow the only person who ever was woke? That was Jesus. So was Jesus woke? Yeah, on one Sunday he woke up.


What's up guys today? I'm going to be showing you guys my top 10 polls of all time on my channel We're gonna be showing you guys all the best Yu-Gi-Oh cards I've pulled in all of my different videos, which is over like 400 at this point So we've got a lot to choose from put your guesses down in the comments What you think is gonna be in there also when the video is over. Let me know what you think I left out I'm giving away something pretty big a Black Lester soldier envoy of the beginning Original invasion of chaos and it's actually in pretty good condition All you have to do is like this video be subscribed and let me know your favorite poll for my channel It doesn't have to be in the top 10 Also, make sure to let me know if I missed anything that you guys thought deserved to be in the top 10 And I hope you guys enjoy the video not really the actual foils But I had a lot like I had all the commons and stuff, you know like flame champion Twin headed fire dragon was one of my favorites I loved that card Because back in the day you didn't really care if it was a foil or not, you know, the card looked cool. It was like, all right, that's awesome So here we go. Oh dna surgery. That's a good pull One oni tank t35 Doku royaiba dark bat.   I'm freaking out Oh man That's about ratio for ultras. We're not getting our supers, but it's okay Now can we get a secret or a black luster soldier? Here we go. C-serpent warrior of darkness These cards are going crazy. Okay. C-serpent warrior of darkness jade insect whistle Amphibious burgoth mk3 Oh Dark magician of chaos Yes We fooled it dark magician of chaos That saves the day. All right Three more packs like at this point like chaos emperor dragon. Yeah, why not? All right blast in the ruins multiplication advance gale lizard. Oh What what What What in the world? I don't even know what to do use the seal yugi Like so, I don't think he tells him to use it or does he I can't remember. I can't remember how he gets it is use exchange or something Like how does it even happen? He ends up getting it out of his hands.  Okay. That's pretty awesome. Oh my goodness. That's pretty awesome We've got an exodia neck Ross and this guy looks clean Hopefully we can pull a foil here Make it six, but I mean we might not so it's okay Probably won't but you know All right, here we go arsenal robber dark scorpion gorg the strong fairy of the spring dd trainer This looks like a hollow No way.  No No, no, no, no, no All right, legend blue eyes white dragon the final pack of lord of detain. We pulled a super rare so far so Not crazy, but we have pulled a foil which is good All right, the 13th grave. Come on. Okay. These these comments are way off center But that doesn't usually mean that the foil is all right. Hinatama the magic card are just oh, man These two thousand two cards are awesome Oh Another one and this time it's a 2002 print Oh my goodness So two more chances probably not getting anything here but I don't want to miss The blue eyes soon if there's a possibility of getting it All right giant turtle who feeds on flames magical admiral through a nice card dark zebra Rising air current and oh It was in here Oh my goodness. I can't believe it Oh my gosh So so far nothing really to uh Nothing really to go crazy about But first edition tactical evolution pretty cool Always got a chance to pull something pretty awesome. Here we go next venom swamp chrysalis chicky Yes, yes My heart literally dropped. I think that's the first time that's ever happened. Maybe the red eyes Thank goodness. We got the pecanium off. All right final pack. Legend of blue eyes. Hope you guys have enjoyed the 25k special Yeah, I don't know about the pools, but I appreciate all you guys subscribing We're going to do some more epic stuff in the future.  Bless us with something good. Can this be like the LOB first edition video? We pull something big at the last pack Maybe we'll see tripwire beast Skull red bird, please please please give us something Misure a zombie. Come on blue eyes. Come on. Come on.  Oh my goodness last pack. I I never could have imagined it going this poorly In terms of not pulling an ultra rare Our actual pulls are good, but we only have five Oh my goodness Final chance It's not like i'm promising He know tama armored starfish metabat sandstone No No way The last pack I was No freaking way no Freakin way. All right Let's go to retro pack two So not not the lov. You know foil off of the bang star that I was hoping for but that's okay Oh, we've got um Spirit message in oh wow, okay spirit message in can we pull something a book of moon guys This book of moon's been printed so many times, but retro pack one is the most valuable Version so that's pretty cool skull invitation Kaiku the ghost destroyer. It's a nice common. It's not the blue eyes from the lov But it's as good as you're good No way. No way. No way. No way Okay, okay. Okay Okay Oh my goodness This is one of my best pulls ever So that's it for my top 10 pulls of all time Make sure to let me know if you guys thought I missed anything Let me know If you guys were here when I originally pulled those cards or when I posted those videos, etc And thank you guys for watching. I'll see you guys later. Peace Elements on you dark bright Boom