 I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face covering should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus. The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on Covid-19 public inquiry. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on John Swinney, cabinet secretary, around 10 minutes, please. I am announcing to Parliament the establishment of a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 to examine the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic in Scotland. At the outset of the statement, I acknowledged that Covid-19 has had and continues to have an enormous damaging impact on our society. Most painful of all, Covid-19 has led to significant loss of life resulting in heartache to all those who have lost loved ones. We remember all those who have lost their lives and I express my sympathy to those who mourn their loss. I hope that this inquiry will help to provide the answers for which those individuals search. In this statement, I will outline the scope of the inquiry and inform Parliament about the appointment of a chair to lead it. To begin, I want to take a moment to recall why we are establishing a public inquiry. The emergence of the Omicron variant is a stark reminder to us all that this pandemic continues to evolve and challenge us. However, that does not mean that we can delay our efforts to learn from the past. Indeed, it underlines the importance and urgency of learning lessons from what has gone before. The purpose of this inquiry is twofold. It is to provide scrutiny and answers to the questions that people have about how the pandemic has been handled in Scotland. Equally, it is to learn lessons so that we can be as ready as possible to respond to future pandemics. It is in that spirit that this public inquiry is being established. It is how we expect it to continue to provide answers and to help us to make improvements for the future. At this point, I want to express my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has played a part in responding to the pandemic, whether on the front line in hospitals and care, in keeping shops and businesses going, at home finding new ways to work, in taking the vaccine and help to protect people around about you. Responding to this pandemic has taken a lot from people across Scotland, and I want to thank every individual who has played their part. In developing the terms of reference for this Covid-19 inquiry, it has been a key priority for the Scottish Government to listen to those who have been affected by the pandemic, to understand what they wish for the inquiry to focus on, while recognising the need to establish the inquiry quickly. This includes first and foremost those who have endured the ultimate loss, bereaved families of partners, parents, children, sisters, brothers, as well as people who have lost friends and colleagues. Every life lost is one too many, and my condolences go to all those who have suffered losses and hardship. It also includes wider groups of people who have been affected. Whether it is carers, people working in health and social care, councils, businesses or community organisations, we have also taken care to listen to equality and human rights groups. In the course of establishing the inquiry, we have taken over 400 written submissions and received more than 80 online ideas and nearly 200 comments through an online dialogue challenge. We have met more than 70 stakeholders from the third sector, the private sector and the public sector. The feedback that we have received has been considered carefully by the Scottish Government and captured in an engagement analysis report that we are also publishing today. The feedback from people affected by the pandemic has been key in developing the terms of reference that I am sharing with Parliament today. This includes not least strong public support for an inquiry with human rights at its heart. Matters that people have raised have fed directly into the development of the scope of the inquiry. I want to thank everyone who has contributed their thoughts during this process. I know that for many, this will have not been an easy thing to do. The terms of reference for the inquiry set out 12 areas of investigation, each covering a strategic element of the handling of the pandemic. Those are as follows. Pandemic planning and exercises carried out by the Scottish Government. The decision to lockdown and to apply other restrictions. The delivery of a system of testing, outbreak management and self-isolation. The design and delivery of a vaccination strategy. The supply, distribution and use of personal protective equipment. The requirement for shielding and associated assistance programmes provided or supported by public agencies. In care and nursing homes, the transfer of residents to or from homes, treatment and care of residents, restrictions on visiting, infection prevention and control changes to inspections. The provision of healthcare services including the management and support of staff. The delivery of end-of-life care and the use of do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions. Welfare assistance programmes, for example those relating to benefits or the provision of food, provided or supported by public agencies. The delivery of education and certification and financial support and guidance given to businesses and the self-employed, including in relation to identification of key workers by public agencies. In investigating those 12 strategic elements, the terms of reference further ask the chair to consider the impacts of handling of the pandemic on the exercise of convention rights and to create a full factual record of the key strategic elements of the handling of the pandemic. With the exception of the investigation of pandemic planning, the period covered by the inquiry will be from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022. The chair is asked to identify lessons and implications for the future and to provide recommendations, providing reports to Scottish ministers as soon as practicable. As I stand here, I am keenly aware of a fundamental challenge of striking the right balance between, on the one hand, addressing the wide range of questions that so many people have, and on the other, making sure that this inquiry can be delivered at speed so that we can learn and benefit from licences as early as possible. To this effect, I have agreed with the chair that, as they begin their work, they will reflect on the terms of reference and suggest them adjustments should they wish to. If ministers then agree any changes to the terms of reference, I will undertake to inform Parliament as soon as possible. This includes adjustments to take into account the remit of the United Kingdom-wide public inquiry that the UK Government has undertaken to establish, as well as any issues arising in the on-going pandemic that the inquiry judges to be important to investigate. We remain committed to working with the United Kingdom Government to develop the approach to the UK-wide inquiry and expect the chair of the Scottish public inquiry to co-ordinate with the chair of the UK-wide inquiry. The full text of the terms of reference is available on the Scottish Government website as of now. Over the past few months, ministers have been in discussions with the Lord President of the Court of Session to find a suitable chair for the inquiry, in line with our commitment to have the inquiry led by a judge. I would like to express my thanks to the Lord President for his co-operation on this issue. Today, I am pleased to announce to Parliament that the Honourable Lady Poole has agreed to chair the Scottish Covid-19 inquiry. Lady Poole is a sitting senator of the College of Justice of Scotland and has also sat as a judge in the upper tribunal of the United Kingdom. From my own and the First Minister's interactions with Lady Poole, I am left with no doubt that Lady Poole is highly qualified for the demanding task put in front of her. I believe that she will bring pace and energy to the work of the inquiry, as well as a cool, calm head, and that she will approach experiences of the pandemic sensitively and sympathetically. I am satisfied that Lady Poole possesses the leadership skills, integrity and deep technical knowledge to undertake this inquiry. Of crucial importance, I note in particular Lady Poole's high degree of expertise in administrative law and human rights law, which is exactly in line with the expectations that we have that the inquiry should take a human rights-based approach. I should say that Lady Poole has also made clear to the First Minister and to me her own conviction that human rights and equalities should be addressed as part of the inquiry and in the way that the inquiry is run. I am convinced that Lady Poole will approach the inquiry in such a manner as to do justice to those who have suffered through this pandemic and to make sure that we learn the lessons that we need to learn so that Scotland is prepared for the next pandemic. No panel members will be appointed today. It will be for the chair to decide whether to appoint any assessors to provide expertise on particular subjects or any other assistance to the inquiry. In the coming period, the chair of the inquiry will make necessary preparations on operational matters, including the appointment of the inquiry's key staff. Once set up, the inquiry will make announcements about its approach and progress as the chair sees fit. I extend my thanks to Lady Poole for being prepared to take on this most important challenge on behalf of the people of Scotland. We all need the inquiry to explore the handling of the pandemic and to identify the lessons that we all need to learn. I pledge that the Scottish Government will engage, as I know that this Parliament and everyone in Scotland will, to support Lady Poole in this most important task that she now takes forward on behalf of us all. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement, and I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which time we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if those members who wish to ask a question were to press the request to speak buttons now. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. I welcome the establishment of the inquiry being announced today. It will be particularly welcomed by the relatives of those who tragically lost their lives in care homes to Covid, who have been waiting patiently for this process to begin. I also welcome the appointment of Lady Poole, as inquiry chair, with her focus on human rights and equalities. I have two questions to ask today of the Deputy First Minister. First, those who lost loved ones want answers as to what went wrong. They also want to know when they are likely to get those answers. The Deputy First Minister said that this process would be conducted at speed. I appreciate that it may not be an easy question for him to answer, but it would be helpful if he gave us an indication of when he might expect Lady Poole to report on her findings. I think that the relatives would welcome that. Secondly, the Deputy First Minister will be aware of concerns that we expressed about the report by Public Health Scotland on Covid deaths in care homes up to February, not being published as scheduled because of the Holyrood elections in May. Can we have an assurance from the Deputy First Minister that the Scottish Government will co-operate fully with the inquiry and make all necessary information available to it as quickly as possible? On the first question that Mr Fraser asked me, he is absolutely right that it is a difficult question for me to answer. There are different ways in which public inquiries can take forward their reporting responsibilities. It will be for Lady Poole to determine how she does that. If I give Mr Fraser an example, Lady Smith in the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry has published a series of case study findings in the course of her work. That has been helpful in giving answers to individuals who have experienced abuse in those circumstances. I hope that the way in which we have structured the remit of the inquiry on Covid perhaps gives the opportunity for Lady Poole to consider whether there is an interim set of conclusions that she could publish on a similar case study basis. That is, of course, me intruding on the design of the inquiry that I am not entitled to do. We obviously want a report as quickly as possible, or we want findings as quickly as possible, but clearly there has to be adequate time to undertake those tasks. I am sure that Lady Poole will make clear her approach to that point in due course. Mr Fraser's second point. I would dispute the narrative that he sets out, but I assure him that the Scottish Government will co-operate fully with the inquiry. I have given a pledge to do so, and the Government will do that in every way that is required to do so. I thank the Deputy First Minister for an advance copy of his statement, and I too welcome the announcement that the Honourable Lady Poole will preside over the public inquiry. It is important that we do not wait to learn lessons from the initial decisions around the pandemic to inform thinking as quickly as possible. On that basis, can the Deputy First Minister maybe indicate when the inquiry will start? The previous Cabinet Secretary for Health set out the four harms that would be considered by the public inquiry, and I am pleased to see that those are reflected in the remit. It is right that some of the focus will be on deaths in care homes, which were at the very epicentre of the pandemic and decisions by Scottish ministers to discharge people from hospital without testing. It will also examine the non-Covid health impacts, and today the national records office told us that the number of deaths for non-Covid-related reasons has increased. The number of deaths in quarters 1, 2 and 3 all higher than the previous five-year average, up by 15 per cent alone in the last quarter. Cancer deaths are up, coronary heart disease deaths are up, deaths from dementia and Alzheimer's were also up. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that item H of the remit will encompass looking at whether decisions to cancel cancer screening programmes, delays in diagnosis and the cancellation of operations that perhaps contributed to this higher than normal death toll amongst the population will be fully considered? The formal process of the establishment of the inquiry requires there to be a setting date established, which will be as early in the new year as we can in the range. That is essentially a matter of negotiation between the Government and Lady Poole, with Lady Poole very much in the driving seat of determining that moment. We will get the inquiry established so that it can then begin its proceedings. We have taken a very significant step to get to the appointment of a chair at times of reference, interim staffer in place to support Lady Poole, and she will be able to make steps. I know that she wishes to proceed at pace to establish the inquiry. In relation to the wider questions, many of the issues that Jackie Baillie raised are frankly matters for the inquiry to consider. At the heart of the handling of Covid has been the Four Harms framework. It was a policy development that I led within Government to recognise the fact that there are no easy choices to be made in the handling of the Covid pandemic. I acknowledge that there have been significant implications for other health services as a consequence of the prioritisation of Covid care. Sadly, that is what happens when a global pandemic comes upon us. However, the inquiry will be able to consider and reflect all of that thinking in what has been a very broad remit that has been given to the inquiry. Obviously, Lady Poole will be able to reflect on all of those questions. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Firstly, I would like to extend my condolences to all those who have lost loved ones to Covid-19. My thoughts are also with those who are living with long Covid. I too thank the Deputy First Minister for sight of a statement. I am pleased to hear of and welcome the appointment of Lady Poole's chair of the Public Inquiry and of the human rights-based approach. It is important that the actions taken by Government during the pandemic are examined so lessons are learned, both good and bad. It is important that the Public Inquiry does not take years and years to report and the moment to learn is lost. In the time that it can take, memories fade, contemporary evidence is lost and any hope of accountability with us. Can the Deputy First Minister provide an assurance that the voices of all those impacted across health and care, education and the wider community will be at the root of the inquiry? Can I impress on the Deputy First Minister to clarify a timetable so that we do not have another Penrose or Chilcot inquiry? There is always in the timetable of an inquiry the challenge between the need to provide adequate examination of all the issues involved and the speed of reporting. I know that that is an issue that Lady Poole feels very acutely. She has made it clear to me that she does not want to spend the remainder of her judicial career leading the inquiry. I very much agree with that sentiment. I think that Lady Poole will be determined to make sure that the inquiry covers the ground that it has to cover, but it does so efficiently and promptly so that we can learn lessons and there can be the understanding and accountability that Beatrice Wishart properly talks about in that respect. I cannot at this stage prescribe the timescale, but I give Parliament the assurance that Lady Poole is keen to make as swift progress as she can, and the Government is very happy to support her in that endeavour. Thank you very much, and I welcome the inquiry. Clearly, as the Deputy First Minister said, the pandemic is still evolving, and some people might think that it was too early to be having a public inquiry because we cannot look back at the whole thing. How do we respond to such people? Mr Mason is absolutely correct. We have just made a statement that dominated the afternoon session of Parliament today, which has reflected on the latest challenge that we have had thrown at us from Omicron. Three weeks ago, the Cabinet had a discussion in which it would be generally summed up that we felt that the pandemic was in a relatively stable position. We found ourselves 48 hours later taking a dramatically different view because of the emergence of Omicron. Mr Mason makes a very fair point, but the Government has to acknowledge that the public have a desire to ensure that, although we are dealing with this difficult situation, we are also learning lessons to influence policy making in the future. That is what the Government is committed to ensuring is the case. We will co-operate with the inquiry, but, at the same time, we have to give the attentive focus on ensuring that we manage the pandemic that we currently face. I am happy to give that assurance to the Parliament today. Dr Gohani is joining us remotely to be followed by Co-Cab Stewart. I only stood for election because I felt that there was poor communication between the Scottish Government and the NHS during the pandemic, so I welcome the inquiry. Would the Cabinet Secretary give an assurance that we could look at long Covid and look at how we have gone about treating patients who suffer from this debilitating condition? I think that what Parliament will recognise is that I have endeavoured to ensure that we have the broadest possible remit available for the inquiry. Asking Lady Poole to judge about the treatment mechanisms for long Covid feels to me like a clinical matter, which is perhaps beyond the scope of the inquiry. There are plenty of clinical advisers who can consider the issues around the treatment of long Covid. Lady Poole is free to explore all of the questions that are relevant to the terms of reference. If there are issues relating to long Covid that arise, I am quite sure that we will hear about those issues. Co-Cab Stewart is joining us remotely. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome this public inquiry and I am hopeful that it will be thorough. I would like to ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure that all viewpoints and voices are heard in the public inquiry, specifically the voices of our asylum seeker and refugee population. There are two points that I would make in relation to Co-Cab Stewart's question. The first is that the inquiry is obviously embarking on its approach with a human rights-based approach, so the interests of different groups in our population are very important. The interests and perspectives and the experience of different groups in our society are fully considered at the heart of the inquiry. I am certain that the remit enables that to be the case. The second point that I would make is a slightly more constrained point, which is that the inquiry is required by law only to examine Scottish matters. Essentially, the implications of Scottish policy decisions on the asylum seeker community would be relevant to be considered, but some of the questions about asylum policy, for example, are reserved issues for the United Kingdom Government, and the inquiry would, by law, be unable to explore some of those questions. During the pandemic, social care services stopped overnight for some people. Disabled people were left without help to wash and lived in their beds for weeks. That has had a significant impact on their human rights, and it also meant that approximately 400,000 more people have taken on unpaid care, 70 per cent of whom have not had a break and most of whom were women. On average, women spend four and a half hours per day on unpaid work, and the UN has said that it could put women's rights back by 25 years. The impact of decisions taken in social care on disabled people and on unpaid carers and women does not appear specifically in the remit, nor does the unequal impact that the decision had on specific groups. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that those issues are within the remit and the work of the inquiry? What we have tried to do in the remit of the inquiry is to set out the range of issues to define the broadest possible scope for issues to be considered, and then in the notes on interpretation to set out the basis of so-doing, which is fundamentally about the application of convention rights, as defined in the human rights act. We are trying to take right at the heart of the inquiry a human rights-based approach, which clearly involves an assessment of decision-making on questions such as discrimination and about decisions that may have a discriminatory nature about them or implications of a discriminatory nature. All of those factors are legitimate issues to be considered within the scope of the inquiry. Can the Deputy First Minister provide an assurance that the public inquiry will engage with and speak to people from every constituency with an initial focus at least to those areas that have suffered the greatest from the pandemic? I am not sure whether Mr McMillan is putting to me the term constituency in a parliamentary constituency sense or in a grouping within society. What is important is that the inquiry has got to reflect the experience of every part of the country, as Mr McMillan will know from the community that he represents. Some communities have taken a much harsher impact as a consequence of some of the underlying issues of inequality that exist in those communities. Those issues will be considered and reflected on right across the whole of the country to ensure that we do adequate justice to the issues that are raised from the different experiences of different parts of the country. We are still in the middle of the pandemic with the development of the Omicron variant. The inquiry cannot wait any longer, so can the cabinet secretary outline if the inquiry will provide interim reports to inform scrutiny work and how the on-going response to Omicron will be examined by the inquiry? In relation to the last part of Julie Mackay's question, the fact that the timescale of the inquiry or the period in scope goes up to 31 December 2022, there will be the opportunity to reflect on the experiences in relation to Omicron. In relation to the reporting questions in my response to Murdo Fraser, I gave the example that there is the opportunity should the inquiry decide to do so to take a case study reporting or a series of interim reports. Those are choices that Lady Poole will make. I am quite sure that she will consider the representations that I made in the course of this parliamentary statement and other experiences about how those matters might be best taken forward. Quite rightly, that is an extensive in-depth and very welcome inquiry. I know that there are 12 heads, but on the reports, I note that in the statement, the chair has asked to identify lessons and implications for the future and to provide recommendations and to provide reports that are plural to Scottish ministers as soon as practicable. Am I assuming correctly that the chair is being asked to identify, under a specific case, whether it be a matter for the chair, what matters to report as soon as practicable in the interim reports rather than a full-fledged report for the entire inquiry? The chair has got scope to consider how best to address the 12 areas of investigation that are at the heart of the terms of reference of the inquiry. It will be up to Lady Poole to determine how best to hear and to structure evidence to enable that and then to report accordingly. I have given a perhaps suggested some more detail than I probably should have in the course of this statement, but it will be for Lady Poole to determine those issues independently of Government. I stress that she will be operating absolutely independently of Government. Brian Whittle is to be called by Jim Fairlie. Deputy First Minister, in light of what the Deputy First Minister has just said, will the inquiry be allowed to examine the way in which the Scottish Government reported to Parliament and the way in which the Scottish Parliament was permitted to scrutinise Scottish Government decisions? The terms of reference are there. My judgment would be that Lady Poole might think that the way in which Parliament scrutinises the Government is a matter for members of Parliament, and members of the judiciary tend not to reflect on the processes of Parliament. However, if that was an issue to be considered, I have no opinion as to whether that should be the case or not. I think that, just for the record, there has been a voluminous amount of parliamentary scrutiny, not least of which my Thursday morning meetings with Mr Whittle and his colleagues. As well as the tragic health impact of Covid and the economic impact of the necessary protections, there will be effects that we have still yet to feel. Can the Deputy First Minister outline how the inquiry chair will work to identify those areas so that all possible lessons are learned for future pandemics? By defining a time period that extends to 31 December 2022, we expressly acknowledge the point that Mr Fairlie is making, that we are still in an evolving situation and that it is reflected in the question that Mr Mason put to me as well a moment ago, that we have to recognise that there may well be changes in developments in front of us. The inquiry has the opportunity to consider and to reflect on those issues and to make recommendations accordingly, and that will be for the inquiry to determine how best to do that. That would be inappropriate for ministers to prescribe that. That concludes the statement. There will be a short pause to allow front-benchers to move seats safely before the next item of business.