 The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the Scottish Covid-19 inquiry. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of the statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions, and I call on John Swinney up to 10 minutes, cabinet secretary. In this statement, I will update Parliament about the establishment of the Scottish Covid-19 inquiry. In particular, I will announce amendments to the inquiry's range of reference. Covid-19 has led to significant loss of life, resulting in heart ache to all those who have lost loved ones. I begin the statement by repeating my condolences to the bereaved. I also repeat my conviction that the Covid-19 inquiry in Scotland should help to provide the answers for which these individuals search. This Government set out a commitment to establish a statutory public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic in Scotland in its 2021 manifesto. In fulfilling this commitment, the Government took time to meaningfully and openly engage with the public on draft aims and principles for the Scottish inquiry. That involved inviting written submissions, meeting many stakeholders and having an online conversation. I met several stakeholders during this engagement phase, including bereaved families and equality and human rights groups. This work was the subject of a published analysis report and directly shaped the development of the inquiry's terms of reference. On 14 December 2021, I announced to Parliament the establishment of the Scottish Covid-19 inquiry and the appointment of the Honourable Lady Poole to be its chair. Since my statement to Parliament, the inquiry has been in an establishment phase. This has involved the inquiry recruiting to build its team and putting in place the systems and infrastructure necessary for the inquiry to carry out its investigatory functions. I am pleased to note from the inquiry's recent public announcement that significant progress has been made. I know that there has been keen public interest in the progress of the inquiry and although ministers must be mindful at all times that operational matters in relation to the inquiry are for the chair, the inquiry launched its website Covid19inquiry.scot two weeks ago. It is a useful source of information on how the inquiry team will carry out their investigations, how it intends to handle the information that it obtains and also includes a section where its latest progress and developments will be detailed. In terms of the inquiry's work to ingather information and evidence, I can confirm that the Scottish Government has already been responding to requests from the inquiry about information the Government holds relevant to its terms of reference. The inquiry operates independently of Government, which is key to its integrity and within the legal regime under which it has been established, the Inquiries Act 2005. The act sets out a clear framework for the functioning of the inquiry and, critically, it gives the inquiry powers to compel the production of documents and evidence and to call witnesses. The 2005 act requires that ministers set the terms of reference for any public inquiry that they establish. In my December statement, I therefore announced the terms of reference, setting out 12 strategic elements of the handling of the pandemic in Scotland. Lady Poole summarised the approach that the inquiry is taking to the terms of reference during some remarks recently, stating that, and I quote, The terms of reference do not attempt to present a definitive list of every person, every issue or every person that the inquiry will consider. Instead, they specify areas of investigation and the inquiry will interpret them with flexibility to ensure particular groups or themes are not excluded. Human rights and equalities are important to the inquiry and will be taken into account throughout its work. Throughout the development by the Scottish Government of the terms of reference, it has been very important to ensure that no groups or themes were being excluded from the remit of the inquiry. The terms of reference have been generally well received since they were announced in December. However, as I made clear then, I agreed with Lady Poole that she would reflect on the terms of reference and should she wish to suggest amendments. This period of reflection was designed to ensure that Lady Poole had maximum flexibility in designing her independent investigations and to ensure that the terms of reference were clear in accomplishing the purpose of the inquiry. The Government has additionally taken careful note of representations made to it about the terms of reference and has discussed them with Lady Poole. As a result and after consultation with Lady Poole, I am making three amendments that clarify the terms of reference. First, we have decided to expressly include social care and the experiences of unpaid carers in the terms of reference. Covid-19 has had a profound impact on the Scottish health and social care sector. I am aware that there are a number of important and legitimate questions relating to social care throughout the pandemic that people want answered. Social care was always intended to be within scope for the inquiry to investigate, but I appreciate that this has not been clear enough. Therefore, we are now clarifying the terms of reference to put beyond any doubt that the inquiry can examine the functioning of any aspect of the social care system. To that end, paragraph 2h of the terms of reference as amended will now task the inquiry to investigate the strategic elements of the handling of the pandemic related to the provision of healthcare services and social care support, including the management and support of staff and the recognition, involvement and support of unpaid carers. I pay tribute on behalf of the Government to everyone in our social care system who has worked tirelessly to deliver vital support during the pandemic and continue to work to recover from the effects of the pandemic. That includes the distinct and invaluable role of unpaid carers. The second change has been called for by a number of organisations and is a clarification that I consider to be important to reassure stakeholders of the significance that we place on those matters. It builds on the statement in paragraph 6b of the terms of reference that, in its investigations, the chair has specifically asked to consider the impacts of handling of the pandemic on the exercise of ECHR rights. In its published statements, the inquiry has made clear that when it is considering findings about lessons learned, it will look at adverse effects on the exercise of human rights and the qualities issues where relevant. In Lady Pool, the inquiry has a chair with direct and robust knowledge of and expertise in human rights and the qualities. We are now taking a further step and are expressly highlighting the consideration of disparities in the terms of reference. That encompasses unequal impacts on people. Paragraph 6 of the terms of reference now includes the statement that the inquiry will, as the chair deems appropriate and necessary, consider any disparities in the strategic elements of handling of the pandemic, including unequal impacts on people. That clarification to the terms of reference reinforces the inquiry's public statements on the importance of examining equality and other disparities as part of its assessment of each of the strategic elements of the handling of the pandemic. The third amendment involves the clarification of rewarding in terms of investigation of the decision to lockdown and impose other restrictions. As we all know, the imposition of lockdown and other restrictions had manifold impacts on all areas of our society. We wish to clarify the terms of reference to ensure that the impacts of those restrictions, including for those implementing them, as well as those subject to them, are within the scope of the inquiry. Therefore, our amended paragraph 2 will task the inquiry to investigate the strategic elements of the handling of the pandemic related to the decisions to lockdown and to apply other restrictions and the impact of those restrictions. The full text of the terms of reference as adjusted will be available on the Scottish Government website. Before concluding, I should also like to inform Parliament that, in all of this activity, we have taken into account the remit of the UK-wide public inquiry into Covid-19 that the United Kingdom Government is setting up. Under the 2005 act, the Scottish Government is also a consultee on the UK inquiry draft terms of reference. I am pleased to note that the points that we have raised with the UK Government have been adopted into the revised draft terms of reference that were consulted on by Barnas Hallott in April. I am particularly pleased to note following representations made to me by bodies such as refugees for justice, which we raised with the Prime Minister the inclusion of immigration and asylum in the United Kingdom draft terms of reference. Legally, a Scottish public inquiry cannot examine reserved matters in Scotland. I am therefore very pleased that vital issues identified during the pandemic with respect to, for example, the Home Office's treatment of asylum seekers in accommodation can be scrutinised by an independent public inquiry. We remain committed to working with the United Kingdom Government on the UK-wide inquiry and expect liaison between the inquiries, as indicated, in both the Scottish and UK inquiry terms of reference. The Scottish Covid-19 inquiry has said that it will carry out a fair, open and thorough investigation to establish what lessons should be learnt from the strategic response to the pandemic. That is no less than what is needed, and I hope that those terms of reference amendments further equip the inquiry to achieve that objective. I again pledge the Scottish Government's full engagement, as I know this Parliament and the people of Scotland will, to support Lady Poole in this vital task. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members wished to ask a question where to press their request-to-speak button now. I welcome the statement on the inquiry into the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic and would like to thank the Scottish Government for keeping to their commitment. This is unlike Wales, but the Labour Government is refusing to carry out a similar inquiry. NHS and social care staff have played a vital and enduring role during the Covid-19 pandemic. Like my colleagues on these benches, I would like to reiterate my thanks for their efforts and continued resilience as we begin rebuilding from the pandemic. This inquiry in no way looks to undermine the valuable work that NHS and social care staff did during those dark days. I echo the importance of finding answers around the handling of the pandemic, with so many of us touched by the loss of loved ones. The scope and scale of this inquiry is probably the largest ever conducted, and whilst Lady Poole has the autonomy to make her own decisions, has the Scottish Government asked for indicative reporting milestones because the public will want to know the time scales. Scottish inquiries are notoriously slow to get started with the Edinburgh tram inquiry into its eighth year, and this could be due to our lack of infrastructure, including not having an initial building website or IT infrastructure. What support will the Scottish Government give Lady Poole for the fundamentals to get this inquiry off the ground? Finally, is there a mechanism in place to allow Lady Poole to request additional resources if, in due course, she requires it? If Dr Gohanny will forgive me, I will, in due respect to the fact that the Labour Party does not like me talking about Wales and I will not talk about Wales. In relation to the substantive issues that Dr Gohanny raises with me, I associate myself with all that he has said about the contribution of health and social care staff during the pandemic. First, all of us appreciate and value everything that was done. The purpose of this inquiry is to learn lessons, and if that involves us having to explore and examine what was done well or what could have been done better, that is the purpose of the inquiry, and we should be open to that scrutiny. On the practical issues that Dr Gohanny raises with me about reporting timescales, resources for the inquiry, accommodation and support for the inquiry, those are all essentially operational matters for Lady Poole. It would be inappropriate of me to specify reporting timescales, other than the fact that, obviously, I have made clear to Lady Poole that the Government is anxious to hear conclusions from her inquiry at the earliest possible opportunity, but we must respect her independence and the approach that she designs to take to reflect on the terms of reference and to pursue the terms of reference and to report accordingly. I would point out, of course, that in the range of different inquiries that we have established, there have been different approaches taken to reporting. Some inquiries have decided to report at the conclusion of their proceedings, others—the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, for example—reports on an interim basis on case studies. The choice is there for Lady Poole to decide what is the most appropriate reporting structure, and it is an essential part of her independence that she is able to do so. Presiding Officer, let me echo John Swinney's comments and send my condolences to all those who have lost loved ones during the pandemic. I very much welcome the inclusion of social care and unpaid carers to the terms of reference, something that many have called for. Social care has undoubtedly shared the burden of the pandemic and so to have unpaid carers who are unsung heroes caring for relatives and loved ones without much support. I met Lady Poole yesterday and I very much welcomed the approach that she is taking, in particular providing an opportunity for people to share their experience in a listening exercise as the first stage in the inquiry. I am encouraged that Lady Poole recognises the importance of ensuring that the voices of all those affected are heard. I note that the inquiry has the power to compel witnesses and compel the provision of information, and it is on this point that I want to focus. The Scottish Government, unfortunately, does have form here. They are not known for their openness and transparency. Indeed, it is one thing to withhold information from a parliamentary committee, but to withhold it from the court of session is quite another. Can the Deputy First Minister guarantee to this Parliament, and much more importantly, to all those families who have lost loved ones, that every single piece of information that Lady Poole requires to do her job will, in fact, be provided? First of all, I am pleased to hear that Jackie Baillie has had a constructive meeting with Lady Poole. I am not surprised to hear that, but I am very pleased to hear it. I am also very much welcome her reflection that what she took from that conversation is the importance—which I have felt in my conversations with Lady Poole as well—of the importance that Lady Poole attaches to hearing the voices of those who have been affected. I think that the mechanisms that she is developing for that to be the case I hope will help to assist in the process of healing, which this inquiry has to be part of. Jackie Baillie asks about the supply of information. The Government will comply fully with all requests for information from Lady Poole and the inquiry. We have started to do that already, and we have had some requests, we have responded to those requests, and there will be more requests that will come. We will reply and respond to the fullest extent that we possibly can. John Mason, to be followed by Murdo Fraser. As the Deputy First Minister said, we all want to learn lessons from this inquiry about the future. I wonder if he could say anything about how such lessons would be incorporated into future policymaking so that we are well prepared for future pandemics. We will essentially have to await the conclusions that come from Lady Poole's inquiry, but when that material is forthcoming, the Government will be committed to considering and assessing that information, building it into our Covid recovery strategy, for example, and looking at other approaches that we take, particularly in the space of resilience planning, to ensure that, should there be steps that we are recommended to take in relation to being equipped for any future pandemics, we are able to give the thorough and proper assessment of those recommendations and apply them where it is appropriate for us to do so. Quite rightly, the Scottish public will not expect silence from the inquiry during its long investigation. Regular updates, communications and perhaps even interim reports will require to be issued, as has been the case with other public inquiries, as the cabinet secretary has just acknowledged. Given that will be the case, can I ask whether the Scottish Government will be given early access to or sign off on any such updates, communications or interim reports? Will the Scottish Government be able to redact any material or evidence released by the inquiry, or indeed any of the evidence that it itself will provide to Lady Poole during the course of her investigation? It is a number of quite complex issues in there, and some of that I may have to follow up with a letter to Mr Fraser to give absolute clarity. What I can say is that there will be no question of the Government signing off a report from Lady Poole, and it would be completely inappropriate for that to be the case. Whatever is produced by the inquiry in its reporting will be the work and the conclusions of Lady Poole, and the Government will have no prior sign off of the details of that. On the issue of redaction, there may be certain legal and GDPR issues that have to be considered in that respect, which we will, of course, explain to Lady Poole in the submission of evidence to Lady Poole. I can envisage a situation, for example, where certain advice may be offered to Lady Poole openly by the Government in its full form, but we may say to Lady Poole in relation to referencing that or in publishing that that there may be other considerations of a legal and GDPR nature that need to be considered. I will reflect on the response that I have given Mr Fraser, and if I need to write to him to set out more details or more specification, I will do so, but I think that that would be the fairest way of responding to his question today. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what the practical consequences will be of having a human rights-based approach to the inquiry, and how will this approach ensure the voices of bereaved families are meaningfully heard? The importance of a human rights-based approach to the inquiry is that the voices and the experiences and the impacts of the pandemic on individuals will be at the heart of the reflections of the inquiry. In the amendments that I have made to the terms of reference today, particularly paragraph 6C, there is very explicit wording about the necessity to consider any disparity in the strategic elements of handling of the pandemic, including unequal impacts on people, and that is essentially the manifestation of the human rights foundation of the inquiry. We are very fortunate in that we have in Lady Poole an internationally renowned advocate on human rights and equalities issues with enormous experience, which she brings to the inquiry. The changes that I have made to the terms of reference I think provide the opportunity for that to be fulfilled. I know, and this is relevant to the response that I gave to Jackie Baillie, that Lady Poole is constructing an approach whereby she can hear and the inquiry can hear the experiences of individuals as part of the evidence-gathering process. I would try to wait to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Presiding Officer, I very much welcome what the Deputy First Minister has said today, and like Jackie Baillie I would home in on the social care and what has been said there. Can I say the most profound impact was on care homes, the greatest grief, hardship and heartache. Does he agree that families must understand, must get answers, must understand what happened, what the pressures were on staff, on families in order not to blame but to understand so that it can never happen again? In the original draft of the inquiry, I felt that I had put in adequate provision to address the issues that Mr Rowley raises, but it is an interesting reflection that what one puts into a particular draft is perhaps not what other people read from it, and it is an important reflection on that point. At paragraph 2g of the inquiry terms of reference, there is explicit mention of care and nursing homes. I felt that that was adequate to address the issues that Mr Rowley is raising with me, but the feedback from individuals and groups was that we needed to be more explicit about social care, which is why an additional terminology has been added in on social care in paragraph 2h to ensure that the points that Mr Rowley properly raises with me are fully considered by the inquiry and there is no dubiety about that in the public mind. Finally, I come back to reinforce a point that I made in my response to Jackie Baillie, and I very much agree with Mr Rowley on that point. This is not about blaming people who were doing their best. It is about trying to help us to understand what could have been done better and to also help a process of healing for individuals who are experiencing grief and loss as a consequence of what they experienced. I hope that the inquiry can help in that endeavour. My understanding is that the Scottish inquiry into the handling of the pandemic can only look into devolved matters in relation to Scotland. Are the Scottish Government confident that that will allow for an accurate representation of the handling of the pandemic in Scotland, given the interplay of reserved and devolved issues? To give a full answer to Mr McMillan's question, I would have to say that the conclusions of the Scottish and the UK inquiries will give, hopefully, a complete picture, because there will be issues that the Scottish inquiry is prevented from looking at because of the terms of the inquiries act. Having said that, on the issues that we have raised with the United Kingdom Government, which we have been keen to see referenced in the UK terms of reference, there has been a positive response from Barnett Hallott, and I very much welcome that. The best way to answer Mr McMillan's point is to acknowledge that there will be—I am very confident that the Scottish inquiry will be able to undertake a comprehensive assessment of decision making taken in Scotland—that there will be an element to which the UK inquiry will provide an input into the oversight of decision making in the United Kingdom context, which will never be had an impact on some of the handling within Scotland. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I was very gratified to meet with Lady Paul Yesay, and I think that we should all have justifiable confidence in her ability to perform this work. Presiding Officer, the listening exercise that she is about to embark on will provide catharsis for many of the 15,000 families who are grieving lost loved ones and many more families who are families of care home residents. However, there are so many stories in that listening exercise that only a tiny fraction will make it into an overall report. Can I ask the Deputy First Minister what consideration his Government might give to creating something like a national book of remembrance for those stories that cannot be captured in Lady Paul's final report, but can give those families that ultimate closure? I think that there is a lot of merit in exploring the point that Mr Cole-Hamilton has put to me, and there is discussion being undertaken about the appropriate commemoration of the suffering in the pandemic. Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago, I attended the opening, the inauguration of the start of a memorial in Pollock Park in Glasgow, which is a beautifully designed set of wooden memorial sculptures. It has been drawn together under the instigation of the Herald newspaper. Alex Findlay, the artist behind the venture, gave a compelling account of the development. However, that is welcome, and it indicates that it is a place where some healing can be undertaken for people. Mr Cole-Hamilton's point is somewhat different, because it gets to a point of almost having a reference point nationally of where the suffering of individuals can be recorded. I will give consideration to the point that he has raised. I think that it is a valuable suggestion. The Government is interested, and we hope that the inquiry will be part of the process of assisting individuals in our country who are suffering to find some form of reconciliation through this process. It is important to remember that, as a public inquiry, the Covid inquiry will proceed independently of Government. However, does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that it is vital to ensure that members of the public and organisations will have every opportunity to have their say? Can he set out the steps that the Scottish Government has taken to facilitate that? I agree very much with Collette Stevenson's point. In relation to what the Government has done to support that, we are obviously the part that we have to do is to ensure that the terms of reference enable the inquiry to fulfil our expectations. I expect to be my last word on the terms of reference. Thereafter, the terms of reference move very much over to Lady Poole for her to pursue the inquiry. The Government will provide the resources that are required to support the inquiry and its full collaboration, as I indicated to Jackie Baillie. It will be up to the inquiry to conduct its proceedings and, crucially, as a number of colleagues have put on the record today, for members of the public to be able to express their contribution to the inquiry, and I know that Lady Poole is keen to receive that. I welcome the decision to specifically include disparities in how the handling of the pandemic impacted certain groups, as it has been well documented that Covid-19 has not affected everyone equally. Given the public interest in any outcomes of the Scottish inquiry, how will the Scottish Government ensure that conclusions, including interim conclusions, if appropriate, are in formats that are accessible to provide all families who have lost someone to have the answers they deserve? That is very much an operational question for Lady Poole and her inquiry, but I am confident that, because of Lady Poole's perspective, experience and the foundations of her professional reputation in all those areas, all the issues that Gillian Mackay puts to me will be fully taken into account in how the inquiry communicates its work to the wider public. Tess White will be fooled by Jackie Dunbar. We all agree that the additions to the scope of the inquiry announced today are welcome. The Law Society of Scotland suggested that consideration should also be given to Covid-19 in prisons and legal custody to learn lessons for the future. Can the Deputy First Minister indicate whether that, along with the early release of prisoners, as a result of the pandemic, will fall within the remit of the inquiry? The best way to answer the point that Tess White puts to me is to refer to the quote that I read out from Lady Poole, in which Lady Poole said that the terms of reference do not attempt to present a definitive list of every issue or every person that the inquiry will consider. Instead, they specify areas of investigation and the inquiry will interpret them with flexibility to ensure that particular groups or themes are not excluded. What I encourage members to reflect on is that the inquiry terms of reference have been written to be broad, but they should not be looked at as a checklist. Just because a particular term is not in the terms of reference does not mean that it is of limits to the inquiry. I hope that that reassures Tess White that the intention behind the writing of the terms of reference has been to keep it as broad as possible. I appreciate that the inquiry will operate entirely independently, and it would therefore not be appropriate for the Deputy First Minister to give a time frame for the inquiry to report its findings. However, is the Deputy First Minister in a position to inform the Parliament whether there will be any updates in the interim? That will be very much a matter for Lady Poole to determine, but what I would say, and indeed we have aired some of the issues at the Covid-19 committee this morning, it is important that we have an identification of lessons to be learnt at the earliest possible opportunity so that we can assess those issues in relation to the planning of our future approaches, given the fact that, although we would love to avoid the situation, we cannot rule out another pandemic. That concludes the ministerial statement on Covid-19 inquiry. There will be a brief pause before the next item of business.