 The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the seventh report on the coronavirus acts. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on John Swinney, cabinet secretary. This is my first statement to Parliament to accompany the publication of a Scottish government report on the coronavirus acts. First, I would like to pay tribute to Michael Russell, who not only led the two Scottish coronavirus bills through Parliament last year, but who subsequently oversaw the publication of six reports into the operation of the act. Today sees the publication of the seventh report on the coronavirus acts, and particularly for members new to the process, perhaps I could take this opportunity to set out the context in which this reporting exercise takes place. In addition to the UK coronavirus act, the two Scottish acts introduced last year contained extraordinary measures that were required to respond to an emergency situation. However, in recognition of the far-reaching and unprecedented nature of some of the provisions, the Scottish acts contained a number of safeguards. Those included that the relevant provisions in the act automatically expired less than six months after they came into force, although that could be extended by the Scottish Parliament for two further periods of six months. That the Scottish ministers have the power to bring provisions in the act to an end earlier, this can be used when ministers consider that provisions are no longer necessary. Lastly, that the Scottish ministers are required to report on the continued need for the measures and on the use of the powers in the Scottish acts every two months. Over the past year, some of the two-monthly reports have recorded significant change in the status and operation of provisions, some less so. With the exception of the anticipated expiry of certain provisions, that seventh report is a relatively routine record of the status and operation of the provisions in the coronavirus acts from 1 April to 31 May. Nevertheless, for as long as the acts are in place, the Scottish Government will continue to meet its commitment to publish those reports and to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise them. The Scottish Government remains committed to expiring or suspending specific provisions as they are no longer necessary. Nevertheless, it is clear that some of the provisions in the acts will be required after the current expiry date of 30 September this year, in order to respond to the on-going threat to public health in Scotland posed by Covid. The Scottish coronavirus acts contain provisions that make temporary adjustments to respond to the pandemic and to protect the health of people living in Scotland. Those provisions were subject to an expiry date that was extended by regulations but which cannot be extended beyond 30 September 2021. To ensure that public services are able to discharge their functions in the way that they were intended to, the coronavirus extension and expiry Scotland bill has been prepared with a view to its introduction later this month to allow scrutiny by the Parliament before the summer recess. The bill amends the expiry date of the Scottish coronavirus acts for a six-month period to 31 March 2022, with the Scottish Parliament giving the power to extend the acts for a further period of six months to 30 September 2022. At the same time, the bill expires a number of provisions that are no longer considered necessary. Many of the provisions contained in the Scottish coronavirus acts have already been expired in line with the Government's commitment to remove provisions that are no longer necessary to support the on-going public health response. The decision on whether to extend parts 1 of the two acts is, of course, for the Parliament to make, and we look forward to hearing the outcome of the consideration of those matters. Returning to consideration of the seventh report, let me note that, as is required by section 15 of the first Scottish act and section 12 of the second Scottish act, Scottish ministers have conducted a review of the provisions in part 1 of those acts and have prepared that report. We are satisfied that the status of the provisions set out in part 1 of the acts, as at 31 May, remain appropriate. We have also undertaken a review of the SSIs to which section 14 of the second Scottish act applies. Scottish ministers are also satisfied that the status of those SSIs at the end of the reporting period is appropriate. Our review has also been conducted of the provisions of the United Kingdom Act for which the Scottish Parliament gave consent, and we are satisfied that the status of those provisions is appropriate. The provisions that we report on today are part of Scotland's on-going response to the pandemic. This Government will continue to do our duty to report and to be held accountable to Parliament for the use of those powers. Coronavirus continues to pose a significant threat to public health, and the Scottish Government is committed to taking all steps necessary to address that threat. For that reason, public health measures needed to control and limit the spread of the virus continue to require a significant adjustment to the lives of those living in Scotland, to business in Scotland and to the way public services are delivered and regulated. Current guidance continues to require businesses and public authorities to operate very differently to the way they have done so previously. All restrictions will be kept under review in the event of new developments, such as the emergence of a new variant of concern to ensure that they remain proportionate and necessary to support the on-going public health response. However, as a result of the work undertaken over the past year and the sacrifices made by the entire nation, real progress has been achieved and we are moving cautiously but steadily into the recovery stage. In my statement to Parliament on 27 May, I set out the Government's on-going response to Covid, our approach to recovery and the immediate steps that we intend to take to bring the necessary energy and direction to that particular activity. The Government's first priority is to lead Scotland out of the pandemic and to reopen the country as quickly and as safely as we can. In carrying forward our work on recovery, we will also act to boost jobs, tackle the climate crisis, support our children and young people, and protect the national health service. Alongside the extraordinary efforts made by all of our people over the past 14 months, the success of the vaccination programme has allowed us to be optimistic about the future and to start the journey towards national recovery. The roll-out of the vaccination continues at pace. As of 7.30 this morning, 3,422,431 people have received the first dose of the Covid vaccination and 2,313,695 people have received their second dose. One last figure that I would like to quote is that 2,162,865 people aged 50 and over have now received their first dose of the vaccination, which accounts for 99 per cent of the total over 50 population. That is an impressive milestone and a massive logistical achievement for all of our vaccination teams across the country, and we remain on course to offer first doses to all adults by the end of July. Although the challenge now is to build forward on a fairer basis, the Government cannot meet the challenge alone. That is why we are committed to bringing people together from a wide variety of sectors and backgrounds in pursuit of the strongest possible recovery. Recovery from the pandemic will only be achieved if the people and institutions of Scotland unite in common cause. We must work together across organisational, sectoral and political boundaries to make sure that recovery is broadly based and enjoys the full support of the people of Scotland. Finally, I reiterate the commitment that the First Minister made that the Government is intent on co-operating with all political parties to put the interests of the country first to guide Scotland through the pandemic and into a recovery that supports the national health service, stimulates the economy, creates sustainable employment and contributes to our ambition for Scotland to be a net zero nation. We welcome the opportunity of engagement with Parliament as it considers the seventh report on the legislation that is relevant. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members could press the request of speak button now if they wish to be called to ask a question. I would first call Murdo Fraser. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of a statement and for the detail of the latest report. I join him in paying tribute to his predecessor, Michael Russell, with whom we always had a constructive engagement, although that was not always necessarily apparent in the chamber. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary about the proposed new bill extending ministerial powers by up to another year from the end of September. It is hard to see how extraordinary and unprecedented powers were granted to ministers last spring to deal with a health emergency can be justified for that additional length of time, two and a half years from when first acquired, particularly given the success of the vaccination programme that the cabinet secretary referred to. Even more worrying is the proposed timetable for the bill. The Scottish Government is trying to railroad through this new law with its extension of extraordinary powers through Parliament in two weeks' time before the summer recess, with no time for detailed consultation or scrutiny, and more than three months before the current powers are set to expire. Why cannot that wait until early September, by which time we will all be much clearer as to the Covid situation going into the autumn and whether the powers are still necessary and give more time for the Government to consult on this over the summer? Why cannot we do that instead of rushing this through in the next two weeks? Presiding Officer, let me try to reassure Murdo Fraser on the issues that he has raised. The first point is that the bill that is brought forward is a temporary extension of some of the existing powers that are in place, and that temporary extension is for a six-month period, which, if Parliament then agrees, can be extended for a further six-month period, so it is not accurate to say that it is for a 12-month period, it is in two six-month blocks. The second point is that there will be no new measures introduced in this bill, so the bill will be setting out the basis for taking forward a depleted set of provisions that Parliament has already agreed to put in place in the previous arrangements. The third point and the necessity for the bill to be in place before the summer recess is obviously the existing provisions expire at the end of September 2021, and we have had the election period and we have a summer recess coming up. What we want to make sure is that there is no dubiety in place for the public services that depend on some of those provisions to execute their functions just now, because, as Mr Fraser will be familiar with, there are some extraordinary arrangements that do not actually give ministers lots more powers but give various organisations the exercise functions such as our courts, for example, to be able to operate on a different model. I would suggest that the courts and other organisations would require more notice than if we were to handle this legislation at the start of September. The final point is that I have asked for there to be the maximum amount of parliamentary time available to consider this legislation before Parliament rises for the summer recess. The Government will propose to the Parliamentary Bureau that the debate is not held over one day, which is often the way in which emergency legislation is handled, but is in fact handled over three separate days providing the opportunity for members to reflect on provisions that have been taken for, but I stress provisions that Parliament has already legislated for in the two coronavirus acts. I think that everybody would agree that this has been a really tough year for people. Key elements of the coronavirus legislation have provided a safety net to those struggling to get by because of the impact of the pandemic. People who are struggling to stay out of debt or, indeed, keep a roof over their heads must continue to be protected. As the furlough scheme unwinds, more people may lose their jobs and will struggle to make ends meet. The cabinet secretary will be aware that eviction proceedings are already before the courts, 16 in Edinburgh yesterday and 28 in Glasgow today, and it is therefore imperative that we maintain that safety net. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that he intends to keep in place vital lifeline protections, including excluding eviction bans to people living in level 1 and 2 areas and extending notice periods for evictions in a package of measures to make it more difficult for somebody to lose their home in the new coronavirus bill in a couple of weeks' time? Jackie Baillie raises entirely legitimate issues, and I acknowledge the seriousness and the significance of the points that she makes. Indeed, in the substance of her question, Jackie Baillie illustrates why there is a necessity for longer-term protection to be in place for the exercise of public functions and to protect individuals. She raises specific points in relation to eviction provisions. What Jackie Baillie set out in her question is not actually the contents of the existing legislation that we have in place, but she raises a legitimate point about whether it should be or not. I give Jackie Baillie the commitment that the Government will engage constructively on that particular question, recognising the seriousness of the issue that she raises and the threats that are posed to individuals as a consequence of evictions, because we are living in very unsettling times for many individuals who face disruptions to incomes and livelihoods as a consequence of Covid. In February this year, I moved a motion in the chamber to extend the self-isolation support grant, so that it becomes universal, ensuring that no one is forced to choose between working and isolating. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Security at the time agreed to further extend eligibility, but argued that universal provision could cost a whopping £700 million a year. Given that only £2.5 million has been spent on self-isolation grants this year and that only over 40 per cent of those applying have been rejected, will the Government look again at making provision universal? I am certainly very happy to look at that question and to explore whether the provisions that we have already extended are satisfying the needs and the requirements of individuals who are required to self-isolate. I think that Mr Ruskell will accept that this is an area where we have to make sure that the provisions are appropriate to the needs within society and the Government very much accepts that principle and will use that as the guide to the analysis that we undertake on the question that he raises. The last coronavirus legislation passed, as it was, in those weeks of high infection and as the nation moved into lockdown, went through this Parliament at breakneck speed by necessity. As a result, some disabled people had certain rights suspended, we still have illiberal mental health powers and the Government would have ended hundreds of years of trial by jury in a single line of text had Liberal Democrats not worked with others to stop that. That is why scrutiny matters. Further to my phrases line of questioning, will the Government not publish this bill now so that we can consider what measures are still required, allow everyone to have their say over the summer and then give Parliament adequate time for scrutiny when it returns in September? Surely we can give lead-in times if changes need to be made in the courts and other such places. Alex Cole-Hamilton raises the issue that I hope will be addressed by the fact that he will be aware of the provisions that the Government has to go through to introduce legislation to Parliament. The legislation has to be considered by the Presiding Officer. Those provisions are being fulfilled and we want to publish this at the earliest possible opportunity when we are able to do so. My expectation is that that will be published on 18 June. What I hope is that that will be published on 18 June. Obviously there will be the opportunity for members of Parliament to scrutinise that legislation over an extended timetable compared to what was the original timescale back in early 2020. I reassure Mr Cole-Hamilton by the fact that we have now published the seventh of the reports on the application of those provisions, so that we can see in detail how those provisions have, in some cases, not been used, which I hope will provide Parliament with a substantial evidence space to inform the scrutiny of the legislation when it comes to looking at that detail. Fulton MacGregor, who is joining us remotely to be followed by Donald Cameron. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome the cabinet secretary to his new role. I wanted to ask about the guidance around transition events for children and young people, and particularly that of nursery graduations, which parents have been contacting me about in great numbers over the last week. Such moments are obviously special for both the children and the parents. Just last week in this chamber, we acknowledged that children had, in many ways, taken the brun of the restrictions over the last year in a bit. Can the cabinet secretary confirm if events such as nursery graduations are permitted to go ahead under the guidance subject to appropriate mitigations, and, in addition, can he outline what steps have been taken to ensure that local authorities, nurseries and parents understand what is and is not permitted, and if there is work to suggest alternatives, like, for example, making them later on in the summer? On that question, the Government takes advice from the advisory subgroup on education and children's issues. The Covid-19 safety guidance that has emerged after the taking of that advice seeks to minimise the number of contacts that children and staff have in early learning and childcare settings by limiting adult visitors to those that are strictly necessary. The application of that guidance would mean that such events that involve parents attending the nursery or its grounds are generally not permitted currently. Obviously, that advice is available to local authorities, it is available through the work that is undertaken in the education recovery group and, of course, a number of early learning and childcare settings are bringing forward alternative ways in which they can celebrate those landmark moments that do not involve groups of parents gathering at settings. The Government will certainly be happy to share information on the different alternatives that have been taken forward by a variety of ERC settings to inform wider discussion on that question. Donald Cameron, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. The Deputy First Minister will be aware that the powers of the Scottish Government to introduce health protection measures such as introducing or relaxing restrictions arise not under the Scottish coronavirus acts but under the overarching UK coronavirus legislation. That UK legislation remains in place, would he therefore agree that in terms of health protection there is no need to extend the Scottish legislation beyond 30 September 2021? I do not accept that point and it lies fundamentally at the heart of the judgment that we have got to make about making sure that we have in place appropriate arrangements that enable our public services and a wide variety of other examples to be able to be conducted within a context that is compatible with the current public health environment in Scotland. The question that Mr Cameron raises is one that needs to be addressed by considering the public health emergency that I expect us still to be facing in September because of the nature of coronavirus, the mutations of the variants that we are all facing and having to respond to. On that basis, the necessity of those provisions being in place is apparent for me. However, I would stress that I made to Murdo Fraser a moment ago that we are dealing already with a depleted range of measures that are in place because we have removed any provisions that are no longer necessary and the bill that is brought forward will do so as well. It is important that we have those provisions in place to provide the necessary protection for members of the public. I have eight more speakers. I would like to get everybody in. Eight more questioners, if we could have succinct questions and answers, please. That would be helpful. Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Paul O'Kane. As the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport will know, the situation has been quite challenging for some time. In particular, in recent weeks where we have seen situations where numbers of cases have meant that the different areas require a different degree of lockdown measures, can the Cabinet Secretary therefore provide further information as to how that will inform the Scottish Government decisions regarding expiring provisions of the coronavirus bills? That judgment lies at the heart of the bringing forward of the legislation because, as Mr McMillan rightly indicates, we are seeing an increase in the number of cases that we are facing just now. We are mounting those cases very closely to see what the implications are in terms of acute and serious ill health, but the number of cases for example today was over 1,000. That is an example of the development of the new variants. We have to make sure that we have a legislative framework in place that adequately addresses the public health emergency that we are facing. That is the issue that I addressed in my response to Mr Cameron. I heard what the cabinet secretary said in response to colleagues about wanting to be constructive in the forthcoming bill. Mental health has obviously been a huge issue across the nation during this period, and he will be aware of concerns that have been raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others about provisions in the bill around the detention of people, particularly around mental health. He will also be aware that provisions such as debt repayment programmes, which we have seen a 21 per cent increase in over the period, have undoubtedly had a positive impact in terms of mental health and wellbeing across Scotland. Will the cabinet secretary commit to removing provisions that are dangerous in terms of human rights and commit to those more positive for mental health in the forthcoming bill? I am very happy to engage in those questions. I am not in a position today to give specific commitments to Mr Rackane, but he raises legitimate issues. I think that he highlights the fact that this bill is, on the one hand, an opportunity to remove certain provisions that are no longer necessary, but also an opportunity to maintain provisions that are necessary to protect members of the public, and I will engage constructively in all of those questions. Willie Coffey, who joins us remotely, to be followed by Annie Wells, who will join us remotely. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The UK Government plans to end the job retention scheme in September, and that will cause a great concern for sectors of the economy that, for understandable reasons to stop the spread of the virus, are unable to open. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the Scottish Government's latest engagement to the UK Government on the issue? That is an important issue, because the furlough scheme that has been initiated by the United Kingdom Government has been an absolutely central tool in enabling us to withstand a severe economic shock of the magnitude that many of us feared. Therefore, the removal of the furlough scheme has the potential to lead to economic and employment disruption. For that reason, the First Minister raised the issue of the continuation of the furlough scheme with the Prime Minister at the Covid recovery summit that took place on Thursday, in which I participated, along with other ministers from the devolved administrations and ministers from the United Kingdom Government. I give Mr Coffey the assurance that ministers are regularly raising the issue with their counterparts in the United Kingdom Government. Annie Wells, to be followed by John Mason. The vaccination programme has been described by the First Minister as a route out of restrictions. Why, then, does the Government need to extend the powers to introduce restrictions after the point at which the vaccination programme will have delivered two doses to all adults and potentially many children as well? We are in a situation in which we still do not have absolute clarity that we could extend the vaccination programme to children. It is looking encouraging, but we do not have absolute clarity and authorisation to do so. Indeed, there will still be many individuals over the age of 18, at the very least, who will still be requiring the second dose of their vaccination. They will not get that until later on in the year. Those provisions are not new provisions that have been introduced. I reiterate the point that I have made a number of times already. It is simply an extension of certain provisions to ensure that we have the capacity and the capability to manage the public health emergency if we need to do so. International travel has been quite a contentious issue, and especially which countries that people are required to quarantine have been there. Is there something that will be touched on in the bill, and how is the Government considering that? The Government undertakes the analysis based on the work that is prepared by the Joint Biosecurity Centre, which works on methodology that is endorsed by the four United Kingdom chief medical officers. The travel regulations are devolved public health measures, but we work, obviously, across the other countries of the United Kingdom on that question. I took part in a discussion last Thursday morning with ministers from the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government, which took the decision in relation to the situation arising in Portugal, which was the subject of announcements by the United Kingdom Government in the course of Thursday last week. My constituent, Pauline Borish, runs LBS event design and wedding planners in Glasgow. She got in touch today to highlight her frustration that another wedding season is being lost because there is no flexibility on attendees or any form of outdoor entertainment, and her business has been specifically excluded from further financial support. Meanwhile, she is watching big corporate organisers being allowed free reign to set up a Euro 2021 fan zone for up to 6,000 people a day on Glasgow Green with no testing or vaccination safeguards. The obvious unfairness of these double standards is now undermining the credibility of ministers' public health advice. So will the Government now urgently extend financial support to the wedding industry and put in place a level playing field so that all outdoor sport and entertainment events can take place again, and not just those run by big corporate interests? The work on financial support for individual companies is kept under constant review by the France Secretary and the France Secretary updates Parliament on those questions. Clearly, there are a number of changes that have been put in place around arrangements for weddings and other life events as a consequence of the change in levels arrangements. It has been a disappointment to us that we have not been able to get to lower levels than we had hoped for large parts of Scotland in relation to the decisions around level 2 and level 1 in some parts of Scotland. I assure Mr Sweeney of the Government's determination to make as swift progress in that direction as we possibly can do and to move to lower levels when it is safe for us to take that action. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that guidance for local authorities on how to respond to domestic abuse will continue to be regularly refreshed to reflect any changing circumstances in terms of the lockdown measures that are in place? One of the central features of the legislation that Parliament passed, and indeed another argument to go back to the point that Jackie Baillie raised with me earlier on, of the arguments why such provisions should be continued, is the focus very much on tackling domestic abuse, which at no occasion should be tolerated within our society. Clearly, in the context of the restrictions around the pandemic, there has been an issue of heightened concern within our society. The Government makes guidance available, we fund a range of services along with our local authority partners and we will continue to do so to make sure that the scourge of domestic violence is not present within our society. I have to move on now to the next item of business. I will pause for a moment to allow the front bench team to change.