 I have now reached the urgent questions session. I am going to be taking three urgent questions in the order of Patrick Harvie, Jamie Greene and then Douglas Ross. Before I begin, I would just like to repeat that if you do wish to ask a supplementary question and you are either in the main hall or the public gallery, you should raise your hand when the relevant question is asked. The clerk will convey your request to me and will direct you to a part of the building, a part of your location, from where you would be able to ask your question if you were called. I ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the UK Government and with Police Scotland regarding the community response to attempted immigration enforcement action in Kenya Street in Glasgow on 13 May. I thank Patrick Harvie for that important question. The First Minister and I spent a significant amount of time yesterday engaging with both the Home Office and Police Scotland to seek a safe resolution to the scenes that we saw on Kenya Street. The actions of the Home Office yesterday were, at best, utterly incompetent, at worst intended to provoke either way that they were completely unacceptable. Throughout the day, I was in regular discussion with Police Scotland as they updated me on their operational approach to Home Office action, which, in my view, placed them in an invidious position. I was pleased to see the statement from Police Scotland yesterday evening, which noted that those detained had been released back into their community and subsequently that those protesting dispersed peacefully. I also shared my concerns with the director of immigration enforcement for Scotland in Northern Ireland and urged him to abandon the forced removal. Unfortunately, no Home Office ministers deemed the issue serious enough to meet me at the time. I did later participate in a video call with the First Minister and the junior minister for future borders and immigration Kevin Foster MP, where the First Minister made it crystal clear to the Home Office that the actions at Kenya Street were utterly unacceptable and endangering the public's health. She expressed to the Scottish Government's deep concern and anger about that operation, especially in the heart of a community celebrating Eid. To take that action in Paulette Shields, the day after the First Minister warned of an upsurge of Covid cases in the south side of Glasgow was, as I say, completely reckless. To conclude, assurances were sought from the UK Government that they will never again create through their actions such a dangerous situation. They did not provide those assurances. It is increasingly clear that the UK Government is incapable of delivering an immigration and asylum process that reflects Scotland's values of compassion and dignity. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his response. The community response that we saw is a demonstration of the scale of anger at the UK Government's brutality in relation to immigration and asylum, and I am particular to those seeking asylum who are among the most vulnerable citizens of Glasgow, the city that I represent. To take that action on Eid is adding insult to injury, but there are hundreds of people who will be vulnerable to such action in the future. On whatever day it takes place, I think that Scotland and Glasgow, and in particular as we saw Paulette Shields, will continue to stand against it. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has been engaging actively both with the UK Government and Police Scotland. While I have heard mixed views about aspects of the policing yesterday, does the cabinet secretary agree that the Police Scotland priority in any such incident must be the wellbeing and welfare of the people at the centre of it, the victims of those immigration enforcement actions, as well as protecting the right of the public to peacefully resist such action? I thank Patrick Harvie for his follow-up question. I have to say that police were put in, as I described, an invidious position yesterday. They do not routinely accompany border agency when it comes to forced removals, but when there is an incident that they are called out to, of course they would have to attend just as they would any incident. I am satisfied that Police Scotland took a proportionate response but also took on the responsibility of ensuring that the safety of both the protesters but also those whose welfare was potentially at risk that that was their priority. I am pleased that having looked at the issue in the context of public safety and public health, they came to the decision to release the two individuals that had been detained by the border agency. I know that Police Scotland will continue to engage with communities. It is not their responsibility, though. We should be absolutely careful and we should state very clearly on the record that the blame for yesterday's actions lies squarely on the shoulders of the Home Office and the reckless action that they took in the heart of Scotland's Muslim community—not just Glasgow, but Scotland's Muslim community—on the need for fully understanding the reaction that it would provoke. I agree that Police Scotland is not to blame for the timing or the instigation of this incident, but if the cabinet secretary is right that their Police Scotland priority must always be the wellbeing of the people at the centre of it, the victims of such enforcement action and the safety of the public and their right to protest, I would hope that it will not take them as long in future to ensure that releasing people in such a circumstance is the right call. While I would wish the power to implement a humane and decent asylum system, unlike the one that operates in the UK at the moment, we do not currently have that power. What we have the power to do is to resource our communities, both to support those who are most vulnerable to being at the receiving end of the action and to ensure that our communities are empowered and organised to resist. The resistance that we saw so inspiringly on the streets of Pollock Shields does not happen by magic, it happens by communities being resourced and organised. What role could the Scottish Government have to support such community resistance? On the first part of Patrick Harvie's question, let me reiterate that operational independence means that I will not direct to the chief constable nor Police Scotland what to do. That is absolutely their independence. It is the chief constable's operational independence that will dictate what officers choose to do in any given circumstance. They will approach each incident on a case-by-case basis, but Police Scotland, taking that action to release those two individuals, is not a guarantee that that will happen in every single case. It depends on the circumstances and the context of the situation. I would say to Patrick Harvie that the long-term solution is having control of our own asylum and immigration policy, which I know he agrees with, and ensuring that we can have a system that is based on dignity and compassion, not one that is rooted in suspicion as the current UK system is. I agree with his point about resourcing communities. We have a very proud track record of funding and resourcing a number of organisations such as the Scottish Refugee Council, a Government community project that works on asylum seekers in my very constituency and many others. We will continue to do that. I appreciate that this is a very important matter, but we have a lot of questions to get through, and I would like to involve as many members as possible. I am sorry to be followed by Annie Wells, so I would appreciate concise questions and responses where possible. I join the cabinet secretary and Patrick Harvie in condemning the actions of the Home Office yesterday in Pollock Shields and reiterating how unacceptable it was for it to happen at any time, but during a pandemic, at the height of a spike of cases and on the Holy Day of Eid, we need an immigration policy that is rooted in human dignity and human rights, and I will work with anyone to deliver that, not just here but across the UK. There are, of course, big lessons for the Home Office to learn, but will there be lessons learned from Police Scotland 2 about how they deal with such situations in the future, and what support will we also give to other councils across Scotland so that we all take a collective responsibility to support asylum seekers here in Scotland? For the interests of brevity, I think that Police Scotland is in a very difficult position, and having spoken to some of the protesters who were there or having seen some of their social media commentary, by and large it seemed that the discussion and dialogue between Police Scotland and the protesters was very positive. I would also say to give Anna Sarwar some assurances that I have already had an exchange with Kelly Parry, a councillor Kelly Parry, who leads on the issue for COSLA and any discussions that we have in the future about forming a progressive alliance, which I have written to Anna Sarwar about. I am sure that he will respond positively to resist this hostile environment. I think that COSLA should absolutely be involved so that other city councils can also learn from the example of Glasgow. Annie Wells, to be followed by Pam Duncan-Glancy. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Cabinet Secretary has highlighted the response from Police Scotland. What further support will be provided to the police to manage crowdsgarring during the pandemic as we continue our fight against Covid-19? Annie Wells is missing the point. The issue and the blame for what we saw yesterday lies squarely in the shoulders of a Home Office that took completely reckless action went into the heart of Scotland's Muslim community on the day of eat, when frankly I suspect those certainly high up in the Home Office knew that MSPs would be engaged in parliamentary process. I think that, as I say, at best it is utterly incompetent, at worst it was designed to provoke. So while Police Scotland will do the appropriate debrief, they were put in an absolute invidious position. It is not their responsibility to reverse the undignified, discompassionate policies of the Home Office, but I am sure that Police Scotland would be happy to debrief Annie Wells if she has any particular questions in this regard. Thank you, Pam Duncan-Glancy, to be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you, and I thank the minister for his responses so far. The actions of the Home Office on the Streets of Glasgow yesterday were disgusting. Can I ask the minister if any assessment has been made regarding the human rights of the two men detained in their van on Kenmere Street yesterday and whether the Scottish Government believed their human rights were breached? I spoke with Amar Anwar, who will be known to many people across the chamber last night. He was also, my understanding, acting or certainly involved with the two individuals that were detained. I have spoken to him and I know that the First Minister, as the constituency MSP, has also reiterated to those involved at her office from a constituency perspective, stands ready to help and assist wherever they can. Alex Cole-Hamilton, to be followed by James Dornan. Liberal Democrats have long argued for reform of the Home Office stripping it of its more draconian powers that we saw employed yesterday. There will always be times in our democracy when circumstances demand an urgent act of public protest, even in a pandemic. Those acts must be supported to happen safely. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to provide an update on the current guidance relating to peaceful public protest in the context of the current Covid restrictions? Further consideration will be given to how acts of public protest can be supported to take place safely going forward. As the member is aware, we do not encourage people to gather, although, when it comes to the issues of protest, people have human rights to do that under ECHR. That is why Police Scotland has taken a very consistent approach. When people have gathered, they have facilitated that right to assembly, regardless of what that protest is against or for. That is the consistent process that Police Scotland and a consistent approach that Police Scotland will continue to take. However, my message continues to be for people not to gather, because we are in the midst of a global pandemic. The virus has not gone away. In fact, if those rules, guidance and regulation did not exist, I suspect that I would have been at the forefront in Cymru Street alongside those protesters, but we did not go. I did not go because, as I say, the virus is still out there, and there are events that are taking place over the weekend. I have been consistent to say that people should not, regardless of the circumstances, gather because the virus is still out there. I know that people's passions are running high, but I cannot stress enough that the situation in Glasgow is still at a very critical juncture. I would like to start off by placing in record my admiration for the community resilience of the people in Pollock Shields yesterday. Cymru Street is not far from my constituency, and I know that some of them are there showing Scottish solidarity. The Home Office's deliberate provocative act, while the FM and the rest of the MSPs were being sworn in, further exemplifies how cowardly, barbaric and lacking in any common decency this Tory Government really is. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to ensure that Police Scotland, who are not at blame for this at all, are unequivocal in their stance to play no role in the inhumane removal of asylum seekers and outlaying what steps the police will be taking to maintain and indeed strengthen relations with immigrant communities in Glasgow? Yesterday, Police Scotland released a statement stating unequivocally that they do not assist in the removal of asylum seekers. That is the border agency. When they are called out to an incident, they will, of course, attend, but it is not their role to implement any forced removal that is for the border agency. Police Scotland, in particular, I can speak as a constituency MSP in the south side of Glasgow, that I know that Police Scotland will maintain a very positive relationship with migrant communities, with communities of asylum seekers and, indeed, refugees, and long may that continue. My apologies to members who have not been called. We now move on to the next question. I call Jamie Greene. To ask the Scottish Government what its responses to the reported growing and widespread concern over the 2021 SQA examination, assessment and awards process, which has been described as an unfolding debacle by the offer of the review into the 2020 SQA exam diet. I add a word of welcome to you to your role as Presiding Officer. The National Qualifications Group 2021, which includes representatives of local authorities, teaching unions, pupils, parents, colleges and the Scottish Government, was established in response to a recommendation from Professor Priestley and has designed the alternative certification model, which has been used for the assessments this year. The grades for young people will be determined by the judgment of teachers, which will be informed by evidence of demonstrated attainment of student achievement over a number of assessments rather than an end-of-year exam. The unavoidable second period of remote learning since January has unfortunately meant that students are doing assessments for this year's alternative certification model over a shorter period than was first anticipated. To help address this, coursework has been reduced from most subjects and schools have been given flexibility around the timing and nature of which assessment tools to use to inform teacher judgment of learners' grades, grades that will not subsequently be overturned by the SQA. The National Qualifications 2021 group has also announced that there will be a contingency arrangement for any learners impacted by severe disruption to learning and who are unable to generate sufficient assessment evidence before the extended deadline of 25 June. The system is working together to deliver the best approach possible under the circumstances to ensure that the hard work of learners is recognised fairly. All partners are working to do everything that can be done to support that process and our young people. We know that this is an anxious time for learners and we continue to act to ensure that all learners have the support that they require. Jamie Greene? Professor Mark Priestley undertook an urgent review into the 2020 exam fiasco. He concluded that there were multiple points in the SQA process where different decisions might have avoided the outrage, the controversy and the U-turns that we all saw last summer. He was also clear that lessons could be learned ahead of 2021. We are now staring this year's exam system right down the barrel and Professor Priestley described the current situation as an unfolding debacle this week. Why? Because the late addition of so-called assessments, exams by any other name, are now doing the job of evidence and the job of coursework. Pupils are at breaking point. Teachers are at their wits end and parents are furious. It is abundantly clear to everyone that history is simply repeating itself and lessons have not been learned. Cabinet Secretary, do you regret not hearing Mr Priestley's advice and why was it ignored? I would contend that we did heed the advice of Professor Priestley. I took early decisions in October to cancel the national 5 examination diet and in December to cancel the higher examination diet and to replace it by an alternative certification model, which we indicated at the time would require demonstrated attainment of student achievement to inform the grades that would be supplied by teachers, which I stress once again will be the determinant of the performance of young people, the grades that are put in by teachers, and they will not be overturned by the SQA once submitted on 25 June, unless there is demonstrable administrative error in the process. We have followed the advice of Professor Priestley in his review. We took early decisions to cancel the examinations and to replace them by a reliable means of ensuring that the attainment of young people can be properly recorded to provide them with a platform for the next stages in their educational life. I am standing at Connect, which is a body that represents 2,000 per cent councils, described this year's system as, I quote, simply mimicking the very worst elements of the inequitable system that it is replacing. One parent complained that her daughter had to sit an unbelievable 43 exam-like papers in just five weeks, which begs the question, why was no assessment carried out on the readiness of pupils to undergo an exam diet of this intensity or this nature? A lack of coursework, pupil absences, teacher shortages, exam materials being leaked on TikTok and a widespread belief among the teaching community that the SQA is simply circling the wagon so that it can place the blame on them. This year's exams fiasco is fast becoming the first scandal of this new Parliament and the first scandal of this new Government. Once again, it has Mr John Swinney's fingerprints all over it. Let's commit right now to making education a number one priority. Let me ask you, Cabinet Secretary, who is going to fix this mess and how. The re-election of the Government with an increased mandate from the people of Scotland does not seem to have done anything to change the narrative of Mr Greene and all that he said in the last parliamentary term. With the greatest of respect, those are incredibly difficult decisions because of the disruption of the pandemic. For that reason, I assembled a national qualifications group suggested by Professor Priestley that includes local authorities, teaching unions, pupils, parents, colleges and the Scottish Government to agree the model that is now being used. This is not some model that is cooked up by the SQA. It is a model that has been agreed as Professor Priestley asked us to do as a model designed by the whole education system to make sure that we properly recorded the achievements of young people. We do young people no service whatsoever to translate every discussion in this Parliament about education into the type of pejorative conversation that Mr Greene has just put on the record. If I am trying to move the debate on education forward into a different place, having been returned to office after all the things that Mr Greene and his colleagues said about me and the Government before the election, I think that the least the people of Scotland expect is for Mr Greene to change the record. I am going to call Bob Doris, but before I do, I would be grateful for succinct questions and succinct answers wherever possible, as this will allow more members to take part in this session. I met pupils from my constituency who are recently wanting some clarity, a bit more clarity in relation to pupil assessments feeding into final grades. Let me give you one of the issues that they raised. They asked how pupils' progression through the academic year would be taken into account for a final grade. It is common to see that improvement throughout the year. It may not always be possible to conduct a fresh assessment on earlier syllabus content earlier than the year because of illness or self-isolation or disruption caused due to Covid-19, but it may not also be required Cabinet Secretary. In such circumstances, can teachers use their professional judgment if there are other indicators of progression for pupils when formulating final awards for certification? If so, can we give that clarity to pupils and to teachers as they work towards those final grades? Fundamentally, the answer to Mr Doris' question is yes. In the circular that has been issued today by the national qualifications group, a line is highlighted that perhaps sums up this point most effectively. Our key message to learners is that your grades will be judged by your teachers and lecturers based on your assessment evidence, and every effort has been made to ensure equity and support for your wellbeing throughout the process. The issues that Mr Doris raises about perhaps irregular access to education or interruption to education are all legitimate issues to be borne in mind by teachers in forming their judgments, which will ultimately determine the grades that are awarded to individual students based on their contributions during the year. It is a welcome question from Bob Doris, a Cabinet Secretary, in your response to it. There is a real significant difference, I believe, between what you are saying, and it feels like digging in a little bit about determined by teacher judgment and the lived experience of teachers and pupils across the country. There is real anger at teachers being told, on one hand by the SQA, that they have to set exams and some of the guidance that we know says that. If there is more clarity coming out today, as you indicate, then that is a very welcome thing. Can I move on to the fix? What do we do to try and sort this situation out? Will the Cabinet Secretary commit today to a robust and responsive national appeals process? Can he tell us what date that will be published? Can I also ask him to commit today that deprivation figures will be published alongside results on results day so that the country can fully understand the impact of the process that he has put in place? In relation to Mr Marra's point, in the circular that was issued on 13 April, let me quote from that, again from the national qualifications group, there is no requirement to replicate full formal exams or prelims this year. That, I think, is a pretty clear piece of guidance to the system that there is no requirement for there to be exam halls, if I may say so, that resemble our main hall arrangement for the voting purposes of Presiding Officer. There is no need for that to be the case. There is a world of flexibility offered to schools to enable that picture to be built up. In relation to the two specific points that Mr Marra raises, the SQA consulted on the appeals process. That issue has been discussed by the national qualifications group, and I expect Mathieu to be published on that shortly. In relation to the figures on deprivation, I am not sure what more information Mr Marra is looking for in addition to what is normally published on exam results day, but if he cares to write to me, if I have not given him all the qualities, I will be happy to answer that particular point. I think that there is sufficient information published on the results day to meet the point that Mr Marra is raising, but I will happily consider that and write to him. Last week, the SQA sent a panic directive to schools, advising them of the need in their words to apply appropriate penalties if pupils have been found sharing assessment papers online. Given that, in any normal year, pupils are allowed to take the exam paper with them when they leave and discuss it afterwards, it should have been entirely obvious that this year's senior pupils would also wish to discuss their assessments after they had taken them. The SQA has engaged in a process of allocating blame to everyone but themselves for an entirely avoidable series of problems that they are responsible for. Will the Education Secretary instruct the SQA to drop that threat, except that pupils are going to discuss their assessments after they have sat them, that those discussions will take place online and that fair enforcement of this directive would be impossible? Can I first of all welcome Gillian Mackay to Parliament? Mr Marra would forgive me, I omitted to work in him to Parliament and I do so generously. He is, of course, someone whom I have exchanged in electoral contest in the past, so it's nice to see him in here. I welcome to Gillian Mackay as well. Can I say to Gillian Mackay that the status of the assessments that young people are undertaking just now is not equivalent to the way in which examinations would be undertaken, because examinations would be taken place in all centres on the same day at the same time. The material has been made available to centres on the basis that they can use it, they can adapt it, they can use parts of it if they consider it appropriate. Fundamentally, they must handle that information securely because it will be used at different times in different ways in different schools around the country. For that reason, the SQA is asking for the system to respect the fact that materials have been used in a different fashion to the normal way in which any examination papers or assessment papers are undertaken in the normal exam diet. My apologies to members that I have been unable to call. I now move on to a question from Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I also welcome you to your new position. Could I ask the Scottish Government for an update on the Covid-19 situation in Moray and what additional support will be made available to residents and businesses? Let me add my welcome to you, Presiding Officer, to your post and indeed welcome, Mr Douglas Ross, to this Parliament or indeed back to this Parliament. I am grateful for the opportunity to update Parliament on the situation in Moray, but with your permission, Presiding Officer, I will also take a bit of time to advise Parliament of the difficult decision we have reached just in the last hour or so in light of the significant increase in cases in Glasgow over the past few days. The latest available data shows that the number of cases per 100,000 is 69, and the test positivity is 1.9 per cent. I am pleased to say that both of those measures are declining, so there are now grounds for cautious optimism that the situation in Moray is improving as a result of the public health interventions that have been taken. However, case numbers remain more than double the Scottish average, and so the judgment of the local incident management team, which has informed that decision, is that it is prudent for Moray to remain at level 3 for a further week so that we can be more confident that the situation is firmly under control. The position will be reviewed again at the end of next week, at which point I do hope that Moray will move to level 2. I know that that will be disappointing for residents and businesses, and Moray will come back to the point about business support shortly. However, in my judgment, it is sensible, though difficult, to be cautious now and allow Moray to move with more confidence to level 2 rather than ease restrictions prematurely and risk having to go backwards later. The Government is applying a similar reasoning to the situation in Glasgow city, which I must say is causing even more concern at this stage. On the latest available data, the number of cases per 100,000 in Glasgow city has increased to 80 and test positivity to 3.5 per cent. Both of those measures suggest an increasing level of infection in the city of Glasgow. However, an additional and very significant factor in Glasgow is evidence suggesting that the outbreak, which is heavily centred at the moment in the south side of the city, is being driven by the so-called Indian variant. We do not yet have a full understanding of the impact of the variant, including on the protection afforded by the vaccines. However, I stress that nothing at this stage suggests that it is causing more severe illness. However, it is thought that the variant could be significantly more transmissible than even the Kent variant that was identified before Christmas, and that alone calls for an appropriate degree of caution. It is important to stress that public health teams are optimistic that enhanced testing and vaccination will be capable of getting this situation under control, and we will be writing to all Glasgow MSPs over the weekend with full detail of those interventions. On vaccination, that will take account of new advice that is expected shortly from the JCVI. However, the advice given to me by the chief medical officer and which has informed this decision is that we need a few more days to assess the data and build confidence that the situation can be brought under control, or at least that it is not resulting in an increasing rate of hospitalisation and severe illness. Accordingly, and very reluctantly, we have decided to air on the side of caution and also keep Glasgow city in level 3 for a further week. Again, I know how disappointing that will be, but pressing pause for a few days will hopefully avoid a situation in which we have to impose even more restrictive measures over the next few weeks. To help contain, spread and ensure a quick return to a positive track for both areas, we are asking people not to travel in or out of Glasgow and Murray for the next week, except for permitted purposes. In both Glasgow and Murray, affected businesses will receive additional financial support. Murray and Glasgow councils will receive an extra £375,000 and £1.05 million per week respectively. That will allow businesses in hospitality and leisure to be given up to £750 per week. Both situations will be reviewed again at the end of next week, when I hope that the news will be more positive. Finally, I thank you for your patience. I am acutely aware that this announcement will be hugely disappointing and frustrating. However, I want to stress that our progress overall remains good. It is inevitable that, as we continue to navigate our way through this very difficult pandemic, we will hit bumps in the road. However, if we exercise suitable caution, as we are seeking to do today, even though that is difficult, we are much more likely to stay on the right track overall. I am grateful for the opportunity to update on both of those situations today. I am now, of course, happy to take questions. I thank the First Minister for that update, which is disappointing for both residents in Murray and Glasgow, although, in the case of Murray, it was predicted because of the First Minister's announcement on Tuesday of this week. She has mentioned the improving situation in Murray. I spoke to members of the local incident management team this morning who are optimistic about the direction of travel. What more can be done to reassure people, both businesses and within the community, that this is a short-term measure in both Murray and in Glasgow to recognise the tremendous effort that has been put in by individuals, particularly in Murray, because that is the case that we started to speak about in terms of coming forward for testing, coming forward for vaccination and, of course, the effort that is made by NHS Grampian and NHS Scotland. Improving the availability of vaccinations, the Fiona Elcox Centre will be open until 9 p.m. tonight and from 8.30 p.m. until 9 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. What measures can be taken from the success of suppressing the virus spread in Murray to other areas of Scotland that may experience spikes such as Glasgow? I thank Douglas Ross for those questions. I am very optimistic about the direction of travel in Murray and, while I cannot stand here and give a 100 per cent guarantee, I am as optimistic as it is possible to be that, this time next week, we will be seeing a different decision applied to Murray. I want to take the opportunity to thank the council, the Grampian Health Board and, of course, the people of Murray and businesses for all of the efforts in the last few days. My message is to continue to do what is being done. The figure that I have just given for the rate per 100,000 members have to be aware that there is a three-day lag on all of this data, but the figure of 69 per 100,000 that I have given today is a significant reduction on the 100 that was reported on 9 May. Things are going in the right direction. I would encourage people to continue to come forward for testing, to come forward for vaccination, to be ultra cautious around all of the public hygiene and public health advice and to co-operate with the authorities as they try to do this work. It is difficult for individuals but, of course, it is difficult for businesses, which is why the additional financial support is important. I think that there are lessons to learn from the efforts in Murray to be applied elsewhere. The situation in Glasgow and the epicentre of this outbreak in Glasgow right now is actually in my constituency, so I know the areas very well. The different factor that is not at issue in Murray, as far as we know, is the concern about the Indian variant, and that that is perhaps even more transmissible than the Kent variant, which, of course, was more transmissible than that that we were dealing with last year. Public health teams in Glasgow are working hard to, as has happened in Murray, test more people to have testing done door-to-door. Lateral float devices have been made available. There is testing being made available on Sarwan. I spoke to the mobile testing unit at Glasgow Central Mosque the other day. We are awaiting, perhaps later today, some further advice from the JCVI on the use of vaccine against the Indian variant, and, therefore, we need to take that into account. However, we are doing everything possible supporting our public health teams. We are doing a fantastic job to keep those outbreaks or to get those outbreaks under control so that we can be optimistic that this bad news for Murray and for Glasgow is short-lived and that both areas get back on to the right track as quickly as possible. The Murray Business Resilience Committee met yesterday and anticipates on the funding made available at the moment that 650 businesses in Murray will be able to access that. Many will be concerned that £750 will not cover a loss of income because there had been predicted bookings that have now been cancelled. What more can be done to offer further support and for businesses that are out with the current scope of the schemes to get discretionary funding through additional support to Murray Council and Glasgow City Council? Finally, while the First Minister has indicated giving an update next week, that would presumably take in an extra weekend. I know that it is difficult to give an outrun at the moment, but, as businesses plan, if a further decision and update is taken by the Scottish Government in one week's time, could the restrictions be removed immediately or will there be a period for that to be worked in? We will have further discussions with both councils and with their economic resilience teams to make sure that we are providing maximum financial support. The situation is difficult in Murray, but, as Douglas Ross rightly said, there has at least been more notice there than there has been in Glasgow. Many businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, will have taken bookings for Monday that will now no longer be able to be honoured in the same way. We are very mindful of that impact and will do everything that we can to mitigate and compensate for it. That is a very clear message that I want to give to the business community. On the point about the immediacy of implementing any decision, I will absolutely take that away and consider it. One of the difficult balances that we always have to strike is waiting until the latest possible moment, so that the data that we are basing our decisions on is as up-to-date as possible versus giving businesses more notice. It is a legitimate point, and I will factor that into the thinking over the next few days and set out early next week if we can what the expectation is in terms of any time lag between a decision being announced at the end of next week and that decision being implemented. As you would expect on the interest in the pandemic and its impact on public health, there is a great deal of interest, but I would be very grateful if members could keep questions and responses as succinct as possible. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and welcome to your new role. I echo the concerns that tourism will be badly hit if Murray and indeed Glasgow are behind the rest of the country, especially for the staycation market, but there are also other businesses that depend on tourism that makes up part of their income. If they will qualify for support and reiterate the calls for discretionary money to councils to ensure that those who fall through the safety net can receive money from their local councils and to ensure that that money is sufficient to allow them to survive. We will issue details of the eligibility and the scope of additional funding. I think that the point is reasonable that, while businesses in the hospitality and leisure sectors that are most affected retail, for example, are open under level 3, but hospitality businesses expect to be able to trade more freely under level 2 than they can under level 3. We will make sure that we try to take into account all of the knock-on effects of that as far as possible. The most important thing that I would say here is that, by acting in this really regrettable way, I do not relish at all standing here today making this announcement, but by acting quickly, by trying to be precautionary, our hope is that this will be limited in duration. Therefore, both Glasgow and certainly today, we already see Murray in a situation of improvement that we will get back on track as quickly as possible. I would very much hope that, again, I cannot give guarantees given the nature of what we are dealing with here, but I hope that this time next week we will be setting out a much more positive and much more encouraging picture. Given the situation, particularly with the in-day invariant, my judgment is difficult, though it is that caution will be in the greater and better interests of businesses than allowing things to go ahead. Perhaps this time next week, looking at going into reverse or having to impose even more heavy restrictions. That is a difficult balance to strike, but my judgment is that this is the one that is likely to be in the interests of businesses and, indeed, those areas overall much more than the alternative. Willie Rennie, to be followed by Emma Roddick. We know that this contagious virus is to blame for the outbreaks, particularly in Glasgow, but what can track and trace tell us about the reasons behind those particular outbreaks? The special measures that the First Minister referred to include the acceleration of the roll-out of the vaccine to all ages in Glasgow. The factors, as far as we can tell, we do not have sufficient genomic sequencing information right now for me to stand here and say with certainty that the in-day invariant is driving the outbreak in Glasgow, but people will recall us talking in the context of the Kent variant about the S gene drop-out and the absence of the S gene being indicative of the Kent variant. What we are seeing now are more test results where the S gene is present, and that indicates that it is a different variant. Because of the demographic, particularly in the south side of Glasgow, that also gives more of a suggestion that the in-day invariant may be at play here. That is evidence that is not absolutely certain but is heavily indicative from all of the circumstances that we are looking at. The point about vaccine is one that is really important. We have been vaccinating younger age groups on an accelerated timescale as being part of the response in Murray. We have been discussing that being part of the response in Glasgow as well, but one of the things that the JCVI, I understand, has been looking at is whether there is any evidence about variations in the effectiveness of the vaccine against the in-day invariant. We are expecting some advice from the JCVI perhaps later today or over the weekend. I want us to be in a position to consider that advice before being absolutely definitive about what exactly the accelerated vaccination will be in Glasgow. I am pretty sure that there will be an accelerated vaccination aspect to that, but exactly what it will be will depend to a large extent on the advice that the JCVI gives us. I am very reassured to hear from the First Minister very clearly and transparently why the measures are being taken. It is very clear that the effect on livelihoods is being considered at every stage as she continues to put lives first. Can the First Minister tell us, given the heavy reliance on tourism in the region, what particular support is being given to that sector in Murray and how the Government will ensure those who hope to be able to welcome visitors on Monday will be able to do so once it is safe? I thank Emma Roddick for her question and I take the opportunity to warmly welcome her to the Scottish Parliament. It is fantastic to see her here. In terms of the specific question about tourism in Murray, I think that there are a couple of things that I would reiterate. First, the financial support that will be available to affected businesses and, as I have said in response to previous questions, we will work with councils, the affected councils, to make sure that that support is as comprehensive as we can make it. However, the second point is that I really do hope that this will be a very short-lived extension of level 3 in Murray. This time next week we will have more positive news for Murray and then people will be able to travel to and from the area and tourism will be able to get back to where they hope to be on Monday. We did try. I regret that the situation in Glasgow has deteriorated since earlier this week, but earlier this week we did try to give some notice to businesses in Murray that this may well be the outcome of our considerations this week. However, we are very mindful. I am acutely aware of the impact that this has on individuals, on businesses and financially, but also in terms of our general sense of how things are going. I want to reiterate that these are setbacks and are undoubtedly bumps in the road, but an appropriate degree of caution as we deal with them, as we navigate our way through this, I hope will continue to keep us on what continues to be an overall positive track through this virus. I would ask people, however difficult I know this is, for us all to continue to try to exercise the patience that is required. Thank you. My apologies again to those members that I have been unable to call. That concludes urgent questions. Members may wish to note that the next meeting of the Parliament will be at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 May, to select a nominee for the appointment of a First Minister. I now close this first meeting of the sixth session of the Scottish Parliament.