 Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting of the Covid-19 recovery committee in 2021. This morning, we will take evidence at stage 1 of the coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation of Scotland bill, and I would like to welcome to the meeting John Swinney, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery. James Wilson, head of contact tracing and supporting isolation policy, Michael Teig, team leader of the Covid-19 legislation and daily contact testing, and Ray Penman, solicitor of the Scottish Government legal directorate. Thank you, everybody, for your attendance this morning. Deputy First Minister, would you like to make any remarks before we move on to questions? Thank you, convener. I'd like to briefly set out the purpose in the background to the coronavirus discretionary compensation for self-isolation Scotland bill. At the start of the pandemic, we took steps to suspend the duty on health boards set out in the Public Health Scotland Act 2008 to take compensation to people they asked to self-isolate. As it became clear that the coronavirus pandemic would require a very large number of people to self-isolate, it was vital to ensure that health boards were not subject to significant financial and administrative resource impacts. The suspension of the duty is contained in the UK Coronavirus Act 2020. Many provisions in the UK Act are due to expire in the spring 2022. The bill takes steps to ensure that the suspension of the duty to take compensation remains in place. Given the recent increase in cases of Omicron, it is vital to ensure that health boards are not subject to additional financial and administrative impacts as they continue to provide public health and health services. Members will be aware of the existing support for isolation that exists. That includes the self-isolation support grant, a one-off payment to those earning the real living wage or less who are notified to self-isolate. That is a vital support to those on lower incomes, helping them to financially weather a period away from work. There are also other forms of practical and social support available, including the local self-isolation assistance service, which provides help to those who need it, with things such as essential medicine and food delivery at local level and the coronavirus national assistance helpline, which is available to help with any queues relating to Covid in 2019. Scottish Government analysts have estimated the cost of reverting to the 2008 act's power, whereas we are experiencing high levels of cases to be about £380 million, some 20 times the budget for the self-isolation support grant. For that reason, and to prevent financial and administrative burdens on health boards as they seek to exit this pandemic, the Scottish Government believes that the bill is a necessary step to ensure that we can continue to provide support and protect those health boards as they provide essential care. In this estimate that was undertaken prior to the emergence of Omicron, we will be revised in line with updated modelling. It is likely that the estimate will increase significantly. At this vital time, it is important that we protect our health boards and ensure that this vital support continues. I look forward to answering questions to the committee. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. If I can turn to questions and if I may begin by asking the first question. In light of Omicron, I know that the guidance for those who should self-isolate was last updated on 11 December. Could you please explain for the record exactly what has changed? What has changed, convener, is that for individuals in households where there is an individual in that household who has tested positive for coronavirus, we ask all who will require all in the household to self-isolate for that period. That is the material change previously. If an individual tested positive in a house, others in the house could receive a PCR test. If they tested negative, they could leave self-isolation, but under the new rules, we have changed that to the position that I have just stated. Unlike in England and Wales, there has never been a legal obligation to self-isolate in Scotland. Instead, those rules are all explained in guidance. Can you explain why that is the case? We take the view that we are essentially inviting individuals to co-operate and collaborate with us in this agenda. We recognise the importance of self-isolation, but we also recognise the importance of public consent in the work that we take forward. The behavioural analysis that we have undertaken, and we listen carefully to behavioural scientists in many aspects of the pandemic, indicates that it is best in that respect to work closely and invite the collaboration of individuals in what is a common endeavour to control the spread of the virus. I have one technical issue to raise about the bill, which was raised with us by the Law Society of Scotland. I should say for completeness that my register of interests discloses that I am a member of the Law Society. The point that it makes in relation to section 4 of the bill, which sets out the process by which ministers can make regulations, states that, if ministers consider that regulations required to be made urgently and come into effect immediately, then they must be accompanied by a statement of reasons. The Law Society believes that that statement of reasons should also explain why it is necessary to make these regulations urgently before they were approved by Parliament. I wonder if I could ask the cabinet secretary to outline the scenarios in which he thinks that the emergency legislation might be used and what safeguards will we put in place to ensure effective parliamentary scrutiny? In terms of the circumstances in which we may have to move at pace, I think that we have demonstrated rather by the experience that we have had about Omicron. I have rehearsed some of this with the committee before, and I certainly have in various media into it. Three weeks past Tuesday, the cabinet concluded that the coronavirus situation was in what I would describe as a reasonably steady state. Yes, cases were high, but they were stable, and the vaccination programme was performing extremely well. We considered the pandemic to be in a recently stable position. Within 48 hours, we were being briefed about the emergence of Omicron in South Africa. In the space of what is actually three weeks today since we got the first briefing about Omicron, we can see just the scale of change and the pace of change that has happened. In a sense, I would use that sequence of events to illustrate why we have to be in a position to move swiftly with legislative change if it is required. Having said all that, it is important that we handle any issues about the making of legislation with great care and to maximise the availability for scrutiny. The Law Society makes a reasonable proposition about the statement of reasons, and I have asked my officials to explore that point. I suspect that it will be an issue that the committee will reflect on in the stage 1 report, and I will look with care what the committee says in that report and respond accordingly. I do think that there is a reasonable point made there by the Law Society, and I am asking for that to be considered now. I will obviously reflect on that and its committee will respond accordingly. However, the argument that I would make is that events are moving very quickly in relation to the pandemic, and we may have to act swiftly. Finally, I would indicate to the committee that I remain available to appear before the committee literally at any moment that the committee would want to see me to take evidence from me on the development of the pandemic. The committee has scheduled meetings on a Thursday morning. If the committee wishes to meet on any other moment in the week with reasonable practical notice, I will appear before the committee for scrutiny. I would not, in any way, want to suggest that I appreciate the need for scrutiny. I am a parliamentarian, but equally, I think that the committee appreciates the need for the Government to move quickly. If that requires an urgent session of the committee to be established, I will be only too happy to appear before the committee. When we have taken evidence so far on the bill, I think that most people agree that that is the right way to go on our NHS. We would be overwhelmed otherwise, but I could ask the Deputy First Minister around the self-support grant, because, clearly, if he wants people to comply with self-isolation, they are not going to be able to do so if they cannot afford to feed their families or pay their rent or the mortgage. Are you confident that there are enough resources there? Has there been any analysis done in terms of who is accessing and who is not accessing? Has there been any analysis done in terms of the promotion of the self-isolation grant and how that information is getting out there? Is the eligibility criteria suitable, given the numbers of people who are being asked to isolate? In terms of the eligibility criteria, we have set that as being eligible to individuals who are earning the real living wage or less. We judge that to be an appropriate level, given the agility of incomes of individuals at that level. The question of adequacy of the grant is an important issue. We feel confident that, given the other measures that are in place in terms of financial support for individuals in such circumstances, combined with the self-isolation support grant, that provides adequate and appropriate financial support for that 10-day period. However, it is an issue that we have to continue to consider and to be mindful of. In relation to the promotion of the self-isolation grant, wherever an individual tests positive, they are pointed in the direction of the self-isolation support grant to ensure that they are aware of its provision. For some people, they will not be eligible because of the level of remuneration that they have, but it is pointed to anybody who tests positive. There are, as I indicated, a range of other measures in place that can provide assistance to families who are facing these difficulties. However, I accept the point in principle that Mr Rowley puts to me that the payment has to be adequate to enable individuals to be prepared to comply with the requirements of self-isolation. John Mason, can I please bring in John Mason? First of all, I want to follow on from the point that Alex Rowley was making. We did have some evidence that, especially women, we are not aware of or think to get hold of the grant. Given that it may be that more people are going to have to self-isolate over the next two or three months if there would be an effort by the Government to re-emphasise and reiterate the availability of the grant? We need to make sure that individuals are aware of the provision. I was checking in there for a moment when I did my lateral flow test this morning before I left the house. I have my email from the NHS, which was, thankfully, negative, but it also gives a link to the self-isolation support. There is a very direct connection that is promoting the information on a regular basis. I accept that there are other avenues for us to communicate those messages. From what members will hear from the advice that is given by the First Minister in parliamentary briefings and other media briefings, there is a significant amount of emphasis and attention on the provision of the self-isolation grant. I take away the point that Mr Mason makes to me that there may be a case for us to look in greater depth at how we can further promote the availability of the grant. I will endeavour to do that. That is helpful. I think that the Deputy First Minister is exemplary in the number of tests that he does, but sadly not everybody in society is doing that quite as much, and therefore they are not getting the same feedback information. I appreciate the answer. More generally, is it fair to say that this bill is about saving money? Most bills spend money, but the key thing here is that it would really cripple. We would severely damage the NHS if they had to pay full compensation for people's loss of wages and everything. That is why we have got the bill in so that it is £500 just for the people who need it most. The central point and necessity for the bill is that the provisions of the Public Health Scotland Act 2008 were designed for what I would call isolated requirements of self-isolation. They were envisaged for perhaps an E. coli outbreak in a small locality or a case of that nature, where I think that in general over the years there has been about 30 payments made by under the terms of the Public Health Scotland Act 2008 in these circumstances. The act was not designed for a pandemic because the act requires each individual case to be assessed. Not only would the Public Health Scotland Act 2008 provisions provide for a much larger cost on the public purse, it would also be administratively overwhelming for the national health service. The national health service is currently absolutely focused on dealing with the pandemic, the wider delivery of healthcare services, but it to then have to deploy massive administrative resources on the evaluation of cases consistent with the Public Health Scotland Act 2008 would frankly overwhelm it. We have had to make a pragmatic decision to essentially make payment available to those who require it in a sustainable way, both financially and administratively, for the national health service. That is why the bill is in this accident. I think that I am convinced by the argument that the committee probably has as well. My final question is, does that mean that the 2008 act is not entirely fit for purpose, and do you think that we need to revisit that legislation? I think that we have got to be clear that the 2008 act is fit for the purpose that it was designed for, which is isolated examples of self-isolation. It is not fit for purpose for pandemic financial support, which is why we have to put in place this legislation. In that sense, Mr Mason's point is a valid point. The legislation has its purpose, but its purpose does not meet the circumstances of a global pandemic with the requirement for self-isolation that we are currently experiencing. One of our aims is how we can be better prepared for the next pandemic. Once we get through Covid, I am not suggesting immediately, but would it be worthwhile looking at that act to see that it is ready both for the isolated cases and for pandemics in future? I think that that is a reasonable point for us to consider and to make sure that we have in place the appropriate long-term arrangements. None of us want to have another pandemic here. That is absolutely overwhelming, as it is, but we have to, in the committee's purpose, look at the issues of Covid recovery and the questions that arise from that. That is a reasonable point for us. That concludes our consideration of the agenda item. I thank the Deputy First Minister and his officials for their evidence. I will now suspend to allow a change over of officials. We shall now move on to agenda item number 2. The committee will take evidence from the Scottish Government on the latest ministerial statement on Covid-19 and subordinate legislation. I welcome back to the meeting the Deputy First Minister and the following Scottish Government officials, Professor Jason Leitch, national clinical director, Penelope Cooper, interim director of Covid co-ordination and Derek Greve, head of operational vaccine division. I welcome and thank you for your attendance this morning. Deputy First Minister, would you like to make any remarks before we move to questions? Thank you, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss a number of matters, including updates to Parliament this week and last week on Covid-19. As the First Minister set out on Tuesday, Omicron is spreading rapidly and presents a significant challenge. We know that Omicron is significantly more transmissible than Delta. As it becomes the dominant strain, its much higher R number will also dominate and will drive a steeper increase in cases. It is important to be clear that, even if Omicron does prove to be milder than Delta in terms of severe illness, a much more transmissible infection is likely to place a significant burden on the national health service. More people infected will result in more serious illness and tragically more people will die as a consequence. A significant rise in cases will also result in many more people being off work due to mild illness and isolation. The impact on the economy and our ability to deliver critical services will also be severe. That is why we must take Omicron extremely seriously and respond appropriately to mitigate its impacts on our society and economy. Our vaccination programme is central to our response. Getting fully vaccinated is the best thing that we can do to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Scotland remains the most vaccinated part of the United Kingdom, and we are taking steps to deliver boosters even faster. That is the Scottish Government's top priority. Everyone aged over 18 can now work their booster through the online portal. Our aim is that everyone who is eligible will be able to book an appointment by 31 December. In addition to vaccination, the Scottish Government has introduced some further necessary and proportionate protective measures necessary to slow the spread of Omicron. We are requiring businesses, service providers and places of worship to take reasonable measures to minimise the incidence and spread of coronavirus. Guidance will be issued this week to make clear what that means for different sectors, but that will include physical distancing and other protective measures, and leaving staff to work from home wherever possible. The first one is the outlined additional support that is being made available for businesses, particularly in hospitality and food supply, selected by advice regarding work at Christmas parties. We will work to make the support available as soon as possible. We are also asking everyone to reduce their interactions with others as much as possible and limit the number of households meeting together to a maximum number of feet. Omicron has a very high attack rate, which means that if just one person in the gathering is infectious, they are likely to infect many more people in the group than was the case with the delta variant. Reducing the numbers of people and households gathering together will help to limit the extent of its spread. First Minister, make clear that Christmas is not in any way cancelled, and we are not asking people to change their plans for Christmas day or Christmas eve or boxing day if that is when they celebrate. We want people to celebrate with their loved ones safely as possible. That means that we all need to limit the number of people and households that we meet indoors, take a lateral float test regularly, wear face coverings properly when required, maintain good hygiene, work from home wherever possible, and ventilate indoors spaces. I am very happy to answer questions that the committee may have. Thank you very much, Deputy First Minister. Due to the developments of the new variant this week, I know that members have a lot of questions for this session, so I ask that witnesses are very mindful of time when answering questions that all members will have around about 10 minutes each. If I could ask the first question, Deputy First Minister, in the last 24 hours, we have seen record numbers of Covid cases reported since the pandemic began. The committee last week had a very sobering briefing with our advisers that made a variety of suggestions on a range of issues that may assist us going forward through what we know is going to be a very difficult winter. I understand that this could cross over on to the health cabinet secretary to remit, but the suggestions that were made were that we need to train up more vaccinators as a matter of urgency to free up doctors and nurses to roll out the booster and to limit bed blocking in hospital over the winter. It was suggested to train up people who could help with care over the winter months. Of course, training and disclosure would need to be in place. Are those the kind of things that the Government is looking at to get us through this difficult winter? Those are measures that are actively being pursued, convener. The committee will be familiar that the Government has already recruited 350 full-time equivalent additional vaccinators. As a consequence of the decisions that we took at the weekend and on Tuesday, we are accelerating the vaccination programme, which means that we need to ensure that more vaccinators are available to deliver vaccinations. That will, of necessity, require us to prioritise vaccination or other aspects of activity in the health service. That capacity is increasing. If we look at the data yesterday about 77,000 vaccinations were undertaken, some of which 18,000 of which were flu vaccinations, the Government has taken the decision to deep prioritise the flu vaccination programme because we have to very high levels of flu vaccination in the most vulnerable categories. We believe that it is clinically safe risk to take by deep prioritising the remainder of the flu vaccination programme. That frees up capacity within the Covid vaccination programme. We need to get to about 75,000 to 80,000 vaccinations a day, or Covid, to fulfil our objectives. On the combination of Covid and flu, we were at 77,000 on Tuesday. We need to increase the tempo of that because, obviously, love the days where it is difficult for us to deliver that volume of Christmas breaks and all that goes with it. We are expanding that capacity and the vaccination programme, Derek Reeves, is the operational director of the vaccination programme, who is on the line, he may wish to add to what I have said. On the question of delayed discharge, there is an intense focus on trying to support individuals who do not need to be in hospital to be released to be supported at home. I have to be candid with the committee. The availability of social care staff is a challenge in that respect. Some people quite simply cannot be released from hospital to be sent home without a care package. I discussed, just last night, with local authority leaders, and the health secretary has been doing this as well, the steps to be taken to expand at home care capacity. That work is under way, but I have to be open with the committee that there are challenges in relation to the availability of social care staff to support that number of packages at local level. Perhaps Derek Reeves might want to add to my comments on the vaccination programme. Can I bring in Derek Gray? Happy to. As you have outlined, there is a whole range of work under way to accelerate the booster programme. It is probably fair to say that, on Tuesday, with the delayed stats, that was our biggest volume of boosters delivered. That demonstrates that some of the work that has been undertaken, such as the additional workforce that has been alluded to. Even since the last few weeks, we now understand that there will be an additional 100 military personnel deployed, which adds even further to those vaccinators. As well as the seasonal flu activity that the Deputy First Minister has set out, we are also making changes to things such as the post-vaccine observation period. At the moment, there was a 15-minute observation period for those who had a homologous vaccine of mRNA. That is being reduced to five minutes. All of those little measures, although they may appear to be marginal, allow us to increase overall capacity and throughput and allow us to accelerate. Finally, I say that, as well as all of that, local health boards are working with local authorities to increase facilities. There is lots of work going on, not just extending the duration and opening hours of existing clinics, but also identifying new ones. For example, Glasgow is bringing on Hamden next week, and Edinburgh is bringing on the EICC again. Some of those mass settings that were planned and undertaken previously are now being brought back into play and stood up at pace. The Deputy First Minister is really around consistency in messaging since the last announcement. There seems to be a lot of confusion from the general public, and I am sure that all members have received those in the inbox in the past week. We have been told that we should limit ourselves to three households, but people can still go to a night club or go to a concert and mingle with thousands. We also have the education setting, which we have had a lot of public questions on to the website regarding education. Last winter, I know that our teenagers had a very challenging winter because they were not allowed to socialise inside, so they took to going outside by crowds. I have had lots of parents in touch asking what numbers can children meet outside with scope. To me, there does not seem to be consistency. At the moment, I appreciate that you said that there will be some guidance coming out this week, but I will try to get some more clarity on what people should be doing. What we are trying to do, convener, is to engage the public in a communal effort to reduce the level of social interaction that it undertakes. We all know that social interaction is the route by which the virus spreads. We are all involved in some degree of social interaction, and the Government's plea is that we should reduce that. What we are trying to do is to do that consistent with a context in which, quite clearly, the wellbeing of individuals in our society is suffering during Covid. The loss of opportunities to go to events that are significant for people is about loss for individuals. That was questioned on the radio yesterday about people going to the pantomime. The pantomime is a landmark occasion in lots of families annual calendars. I would essentially say to people that if you go to the pantomime where you will be sitting alongside other people, first of all, get a lateral protest before you go, make sure that you do not have Covid, be vaccinated, wear your face covering, stay safe. As a result, limit your other social interaction and reduce that so that you can have the events in your family calendar that we all cherish, but reduce the amount of our social interaction to ensure that your conduct is not contributing towards the potential spread of the virus. There is a necessity for individuals to limit their social interaction, which then affects the news. That is why we are not saying to people in a blanket way to return to their houses and not to come out, because we are trying to recognise the damage to wellbeing that has been done by 20 months of the pandemic. We are trying to be as pragmatic as we can. You asked me specifically about the education system, convener. The Government has taken a decision in principle that we want to protect the sustainability of education for as long as we possibly can do. Education will be the last part of our public services to be required or the last part of our measures to be restricted because of the importance of supporting the education of young people. In relation to the socialisation of individuals outside their homes and young people, I would say that we should limit those numbers as much as individuals can do, given the prevalence of alcohol. I have a quick question from a member of the public, if I could ask Jason Leitch. It is from Concerned Citizen in Aberdeensia. What evidence is there to support the Scottish Government's new definition, which means that someone who has been in a classroom with a positive case for more than 15 minutes is no longer considered to be at a higher risk of transmission? I ask Jason Leitch that question. Those are risk-based judgments. We have had four variants and we have had multiple versions of the self-isolation rules because we have to adapt to the variant and the stage of the pandemic. At this stage of the Delta and Omicron outbreaks across the country, we have made risk-based judgments about self-isolation. For now, that is quite harsh on household contacts, for instance, and we are not requiring non-household contacts to go in their houses for 10 days. They can have a positive test or a negative test rather than be released. Tools are again risk-based. They are about close contact and those are judged by local health protection teams generically initially. There is general guidance about what to do and local health protection teams are available for more detailed guidance about whether it was a school bus or a sporting event or whether it was just everybody in the classroom. I am afraid that blanket advice has to be just that. It has to be blanket advice. Self-isolation advice is looked at all the time for adults and children and settings such as schools, theatres and prisons and everywhere else. We adapt according to the disease that we are facing and the stage of the pandemic that we are at. Thank you, Professor Leitch. I will move on to members' questions now. Thank you, convener. Good morning again, cabinet secretary and welcome to the officials. Two issues that I would like to raise this morning. Firstly, to pick up on your opening statement, I think that the public is increasingly aware of the risks from Omicron. I think that it is very encouraging to see so many people coming forward now for boosters and people being aware of the risks of mixing with others. I think that that is good. At the same time, I think that we are all aware that Christmas is just over one week away and a lot of people have already made their plans for Christmas to see family and friends. I think that there will be some concern at the prospect that these Christmas plans, which have already been put in place, might be disrupted by any further new restrictions brought in over the next week. Is there a real prospect of any stricter rules being brought in that will affect the Christmas period? I would really love to be able to roll that out, but I cannot in all honesty do that at this stage. Mr Fraser is absolutely right about the severity of the situation that we face. I welcome his acknowledgement at that point. I also entirely accept his point that I think that the public is responding accordingly to the challenge. I think that we all look at evidence, but we also are all influenced by anecdotes. I have to say that I have noticed that my journeys into Edinburgh on Tuesday and Thursday this week have been much easier in traffic volumes than last week. Today was significantly easier than Tuesday was, which suggests to me that more people are working from home and fewer are commuting. I hope that the public are responding. I hope that we can avoid any further constraints on the way in which people are able to enjoy Christmas. However, the message that the First Minister issued on Tuesday was deliberately positioned to say to people that, if we want to be able to carry on with our family plans around Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day, wherever people celebrate accordingly, the best and safest way to do that is to prepare well for that by making sure that we are all Covid-free and that we are lateral floaters before we gather in family groupings, but that we also reduce our social interaction before and after that period. I think that that is the safest way to proceed, but I have to acknowledge that, given the rapid pace of the increase of Omicron cases and the data that was shared by the Prime Minister and the chief medical officer in the United Kingdom yesterday, it reinforces the points that the First Minister was making on Tuesday about the severity of the threat. I cannot rule out that we might have to apply further constraints in the period ahead. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That is a very clear answer, and I appreciate it. My one follow-up is what would be the last date on which any additional restrictions might be announced that would impact on Christmas? Again, that is a difficult question for me to be precise about. We are reviewing the situation on a constant basis. We are looking at many data streams about levels of infection, about pressures on our hospitals, about the effectors of the vaccination programme. There are many factors that can be borne in mind. What I would say to people at this stage is that the advice that has been given so far about reducing social interaction before and after the Christmas period is the most effective contribution that people can make towards ensuring that we can enjoy and appreciate some time with our families over what we might call the formal Christmas period. Obviously, the Government will be very mindful of the fact that the last thing that we want to do is to inflict disruption on people at this time. Sadly, it had to happen last year, and we want to avoid it if at all possible this year. We will be very mindful of the plans that people will have been made in any decision making that we undertake. My second question is on a slightly different topic. It is about the regulations that are to be introduced from tomorrow, which were announced to the Parliament on Tuesday by the First Minister, on which a draft has been shared with us. The regulations that relate to businesses and other venues such as places of worship will, according to the regulations—the draft regulations that we are looking at, refer to guidance that is being issued by Scottish ministers and say that those that are responsible for those businesses must have regard to that guidance. Where is the guidance and how do people access it? The guidance is being formulated as we speak, given the nature and the pace at which we are operating. We are trying to discuss with a variety of interested parties the detail of that guidance. I expect it to be available in the course of Friday. It will essentially provide the information that those who are obliged to have reference to that guidance are able to take forward. We need to consult with the business community, we need to consult with faith leaders, and we need to consult with other relevant organisations. That work is under way so that we can try to do this to the greatest extent possible in a manner and in a fashion that enables continued activity to take place, but in a way that contributes towards the reduction of the possibility of the circulation of the virus. Thank you for that clarity. The regulations say that they come into force on the 7th, which is tomorrow. You are saying that the guidance will not be available until tomorrow. I appreciate the need to consult with those affected, but it is not giving people very much time to access the guidance and implement it if the regulations are coming into force on the very day that the guidance is being published. I appreciate that. I can only say that the Government is having to respond swiftly to a changing situation. That has been the nature and the manner of our experience over Covid. On the ground, it has advanced at a frightening level and a frightening rate, and we are having to take measures swiftly. The guidance has been formulated equally swiftly. We will endeavour to publish that guidance as quickly as we possibly can do. There is obviously dialogue going on, but the headline messages that we have issued are about indicating to various organisations, be they in the retail sector or in places of worship or in the hospitality sector, measures with which those organisations will be familiar. We are certainly mindful of the need to ensure that we provide clarity in that guidance, and that is what the Government is endeavouring to do. Okay, thank you. Finally, convener, just on this point, the regulations as I read them say that persons must have regard to guidance. That does not sound to me like putting a legal obligation on businesses or places of worship to follow them. Is that correct? I think that Mr Fraser is a lawyer, unlike me, but as a legislator, I would say that having regard to places of obligation on those organisations to heed the contents of the guidance and in the spirit of how we have tried to embark on the whole approach to the management of Covid, I would invite organisations to follow up with that obligation, which I would consider to be a legal obligation to have regard to that guidance. Thank you very much, convener. My first point is possibly for Jason Leitch. We have been given some advice that February is going to be the real crunch month for infections and hospitalisations and so on. Is that what we are currently expecting? The huge challenge here is that the virus's timing is horrid. We have had four variants, two of which have come four weeks before Christmas. The fact that we are having to have conversations about Christmas socialising again is horrid for all of us. The other challenge is not only its timing of arrival but its incubation period and the gap between infection and disease that causes hospitalisation or death. That is longer with this virus than we would hope, because it is easier to control almost if the incubation period is faster. There is no real science yet to say that Omicron varies much from Delta. It might have a slightly shorter incubation period, but we do not have the numbers to know that for sure. The average is three to five days between meeting the virus and having a symptom, two weeks to end up in hospital and then horribly another two weeks if you are in the very small number of people who might unfortunately need intensive care and perhaps even die once you reach there. If you work out where the wave is, we are at the foothills of the wave just now, which is why we are asking people to help us to control that wave as much as they can. That would suggest peak hospitalisations two weeks after that peak. Remember, this is not a single day. It is a curve, so the curve of hospitalisation comes afterwards, but you will see a peak in that hospitalisation and then, unfortunately, in intensive care and death. The one that is still really much unknown about this variant is how many hospitalisations lead to intensive care and death because we just have not had enough time yet. We do not have enough disease around the world and enough time to get there. Early signs from Scandinavia are unfortunately not encouraging. The number of hospitalisations has shot up in Scandinavia, and even if, as the Deputy First Minister said at the beginning, even if the hospitalisation rate is half of Delta, the numbers are going to be so high that we are still going to be in trouble. Okay, thanks for that. That is helpful. My second question would be for John Swinney. Clearly, finance is an issue in this, because we do not have the money to compensate businesses if we close them. I am just wondering whether we can do more with other measures. For example, we have previously talked about rolling out the vaccine certificates more widely. I mentioned the other day that I was at the theatre on Saturday night. There were only 1,500, so it would not have been covered by the certificates, but the theatre group, which I thought was great, were insisting on either a negative test or vaccinations. I have to say that the whole thing went very smoothly. They checked us in the line. People had time to then switch their phone to their ticket so that they could get in the door. There was no negative reaction that I could see to that at all. Is it possible that a useful measure would be to roll out the certificates a bit more widely? Secondly, on that one, masks. I think that it has varied a lot about people wearing masks. I think that some places have been very good. Again, the theatre virtually everybody wore the mask, but the trains have been very poor at asking people—not telling people, but asking people to wear masks. The railway companies are just saying, oh, it's up to British transport police, we can't do anything. I just wonder if others like that could be encouraged to push their masks a bit more. On the first question about vaccine certification, the cabinet considered whether we should extend the vaccine certification to a wider range of settings. A judgment was that the appropriateness of that step at this stage when we know that the existing vaccinations that individuals have undertaken need to be boosted by the booster vaccination for them to be effective against Omicron. It does not make that a justifiable move because it puts on a requirement that would be difficult to demonstrate by providing robust protection with the advent of Omicron. Omicron is a last two weeks development that we now have. There may be a moment when that becomes relevant, but the cabinet decided that at this stage it was not. The second point on mask wearing is absolutely fundamental. The point that Mr Mason makes is completely justified. Wearing a mask is frankly the least thing that anyone should be pertumbed about. I appreciate that for some people there are health issues and they can't wear it. For everybody else, there should be no question about it because it is demonstrated by global research, by the policies of the World Health Organization and the advice of the World Health Organization to be a significant deterrent to the circulation of the virus. People wearing face coverings is fundamental. I will certainly take away from the call the need to reinforce to transport providers and the base of what Mr Mason has put to me, the need to remind people of the necessity of wearing face coverings on public transport. I don't think that it's an issue that can just be left to British transport police to enforce. There should be constant messaging to the effect of that. I will take that issue away. It's an issue that the cabinet has reflected on before and which it believes to be an important part of the protection in place. Just a quick question on the inquiry. As I understand it, the inquiry is going to go up to 31 December 2022. Can you tell us why that particular date was chosen? It's obviously in the future. We think that the pandemic is still with us just now. We are still taking decisions about the handling of the pandemic and we will be doing that well into 2022. We decided to put a timescale of that nature on it for two reasons. Firstly, to define a structure for the period, it can't be unending the period of scrutiny or the inquiry. We'll just frankly never report. There has to be a defined timeframe. We didn't want to limit that to too great an extent without providing the scope for the inquiry to look at the overall handling of the pandemic. That was the justification for the timeframe that we have set in. I realise that this is touching on a reserved matter, but we had a briefing from amongst others Oxfam and Christian Aid about the vaccines getting into poorer countries around the world. One of the figures that they gave was that only 7.1 per cent of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose. The gap between them and us is just absolutely huge. They are arguing that it is not just that existing companies are producing more vaccines, it should be about allowing the developing countries to produce them themselves by allowing the intellectual property rights to be waived. Is there anything that the Scottish Government can do to push the agenda along? That is an issue that the First Minister has taken forward with the United Kingdom Government to try to make progress on the legitimate issues that Mr Mason puts to me. There is effort and measures in place across the globe to protect all populations, and the disparity between developed and developing countries is frankly indefensible. There has to be a combined global effort to enable us to be the case. The First Minister has given her support to the endeavours that she has engaged with the organisations that have made those representations to the United Kingdom Government, and we will continue to do so. Can we please move on to Brian Whittle? I raised this this morning with a brief on consistency of messaging. I think that, driving in this morning, I think that myself and a couple of colleagues were listening to a radio programme that we are very legitimate. We are putting forward their thoughts on Omicron virus coming out of South Africa, whether it was particularly violent, while one was saying that we needed a circuit breaker. The experts clashing or bumping heads with each other, and we can tell the post-bags that we get in their constituents' phone calls, that there is a lack of understanding, really, of where we are going with what Omicron virus means. How do we get a much more consistent messaging together because it impacts potential compliance, impacts with people's—I have raised this before—almost anger and ability to access public services and NHS services? How do we get this consistency across to the general public so that there is this maximum amount of compliance? I will put that first to the Deputy First Minister, if I could. The necessity of handling this matter in a dispassionate evidence-based approach is absolutely critical. Throughout the pandemic, we have listened with care to expert opinion on this matter. As Mr Whittle is absolutely correct, there are some experts who will debate some of those elements, but I am satisfied that we have had from our chief medical officers and our senior advisers a body of well-considered, thoughtful and accurate advice on the nature of the pandemic. If we look at the current situation that we face, anyone looking at the briefing that was given last night by Professor Chris Whittle, the United Kingdom chief medical officer, and the guidance that was presented by our chief medical officers, national clinical director and their teams, that advice is absolutely consistent. The idea is that, somehow, there is a lack of clarity or consistency in the messaging about the severity of the threat that we face. That is a point that I would not accept. I think that that is clearly marshaled for the public to see. I think that the question then becomes, what do you do in the light of that advice? That is where I think we have got some genuine difficulty, because the First Minister was clear on Tuesday that she would have liked us to have gone further, but we are constrained from going further because of the lack of ability on our part to be able to adequately compensate people who would be affected by those decisions. That does not mean that, in any way, making that part as I remark, it is a recognition of the reality that the measures that we would think appropriate for the gravity of those circumstances is not reflected in decision making that enables us to act from the United Kingdom Government, despite the fact that the clinical and epidemiological advice that is going to us and the United Kingdom Government is absolutely consistent about the severity of the threat that we face. I follow up on that point. You said earlier on that you are having to act on a very fast-moving and changing picture. That, of course, is exactly the same for every other Government or all other Governments across the world, which would then suggest to me that there is a need for the Westminster Government and the devolved Government to work ever closer together. Therefore, they can have a consistent approach across that. Where are we with that? Is that happening? Are we able to put... As you said, Chris Whitty, I was pleased to hear his messaging as well. Are we working together across the United Kingdom to create the same approach, if you like? There are elements that I think are strong. The vaccination programme is an area of strong collaboration of joint purpose, of absolutely consistent messaging. If you are over 18, get yourself a Brewster Jag and do it at Pronto and we are expanding capacity and all that goes with that. There is absolute consistency and approach between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments on that question. In terms of the advice that we are receiving, I would say that I heard nothing from Chris Whitty last night that I am not hearing with the same gravity from the chief medical officer or the national clinical director in Scotland. Unfortunately, however, the case is a difference of opinion about the scale of response that is required to that in policy terms. I think that it would be fair to say that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments all share a common position that we should be going further than we have currently gone, but that is not shared by the United Kingdom Government. There is dialogue about that. My First Minister was involved in a further four nations call last night. I have been involved in four nations calls on several occasions in the course of the past few days on Sunday and earlier on last week, but that is not producing a meeting of minds about the scale of response that is required other than on some of the questions such as vaccination. That is welcome, but I think that we could benefit from further alignment and from a greater set of measures, given the gravity of the situation that we face. Taking that a little bit further, yesterday, the First Minister announced that an extra 100 million pounds had been incurred, if you like, out of the Scottish budget to try and tackle Covid, and then there is a further 220 million that has been announced coming from Westminster. That is 320 million. What is the ask then? If it is not 320 million, what is the ask? How short are we in terms of what the Scottish Government would like to do? First of all, I need to delve into the figures. The £100 million has come out of existing Scottish Government resources to support the hospitality sector. That is a re-prioritisation that we have undertaken, and there will be some discomfort and some pain about that in the remainder of the financial year. The £220 million is not additional money. We had been expecting to receive £265 million in UK consequentials, and we factored them into our financial planning. The Treasury has confirmed that we are getting not £265 million but £220 million, so we are receiving less than we anticipated and have factored into our budgeting. The issue that Mr Whittle puts to me is about the nature and the scale of the response that is required. The point that I have been trying to make over the past few days is that we need to be able to take livelihoods. That has been our strategic approach throughout the pandemic. We take measures to suppress the virus and we protect livelihoods while we do so. We have been able to do that up until now, hugely because of the support of the furlough scheme from the UK Government. It is really valuable underpinning of the response up until now, but the furlough scheme has come to an end. If we were to apply further restrictions on the ability of people to work or to run businesses, that would undoubtedly give rise to other financial challenges for those individuals or businesses. We quite simply do not have the financial means by which we could compensate for that or ameliorate the effect of it. £100 million will help, but that is all that we have to deploy in that particular situation. That is a plea that has been made not just by the Scottish Government but by the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Government for us to be able to have access to financial flexibilities to enable us to act in that way. I will ask Professor Leitch if I could. The concern that a lot has been discussed around the pressure that is going to be put on the NHS is not necessarily about hospitalisation, but it is about the public services being affected by absenteeism due to Covid. We are seeing that happening in increasing numbers. Are you concerned that the pressure of the rise of the Omicron and the speed of the rise of the Omicron is going to put unnecessary and more pressure on our NHS than it can cope with? Yes, I am, frankly. Not just of our health and social care system, but also many other elements of our society—public and private services. You cannot have the predicted wave that we are going to have without putting people in their houses, either themselves or looking after relatives or kids who are working in our society and do not have an effect. It is impossible unless you reduce the wave, which is why we are trying to reduce the wave. There is a perfect storm that we have mentioned many times at the committee of Covid, winter and postponed care. When it turns up—forgive the impersonal nature of that, but when it turns up, postponed care is often worse than if you had got it the first time. It takes longer. People need more care, people need more tests, so all of that jams up the system. The more we stop, the more we have to pay back as time passes. Even if the disease does not cause us many hospitalisations and deaths, social media does not know if it is less severe. Even if it is less severe, the sheer weight of numbers of those either positive or self-isolating will cause a significant challenge to our public services. It is important to say that we have exemptions to some of those rules in critical national infrastructure, including health and social care, retail, some essential retail and some other elements of our society such as electricity supply. However, it is only for those who are fully vaccinated and it is only in those industries. Again, we will look at the self-isolation rules as we learn more, but for now we need to try to slow the wave and self-isolation and interrupting the chains of transmission is the most important thing that we can do about bar-getting everybody vaccinated. Thank you, convener, and my time is up a few. We can hear you. You can hear me. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr Swinney and Mr Leitch and all of your staff that are with you. Mr Leitch, following up on what you have just said, the workers being allowed to go back to work, do you have a scheme already in place to allow essential workers to get back out to work as long as they are vaccinated at the moment? Is that already in place that people know about it? I am sorry, Professor Leitch. You seem to be on mute. So there are two systems, Mr Phillip. One is a blanket exemption for health and social care front-line workers, which all those in charge of health and social care know about and are activating. It is the same as we had before called the critical national infrastructure process, and it is application. If you have a food distribution system that is absolutely essential for public services or if you are an electricity supply company or a funeral director, etc, etc, you can apply, and that process now is faster than it was before because we have the history that we already had and that guidance is online and available. How extensive is it? Does it go to a food business for shelf-stalkers, for instance? You have to prove essentialness—I am not sure that is a word—but you have to prove that your particular part of the puzzle is essential. The definition of essential, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. Let us remember what we are trying to do here. This is a compromise. The public health advice is to isolate all contacts if you possibly can because you want to interrupt the change of transmission. However, the other harms—the harms of running a country for health and social care, for essential infrastructure—mean that we have to have exemptions otherwise other harms will overtake us. The public health advice is to move that bar to more safety. The business advice is to move that bar further along. The truth is somewhere in between those two, and that is why there is a process to make those judgments. Okay, thank you. We will make essentialness a new word for Covid. We can also stick to the value of using other countries' experiences to work out the strength or nastiness of the disease. I know that we have had the South African system, and it is now promulgated widely that it is not nearly as dangerous, but that is because of a different demographic. How can we get the message of what is happening for us here in Scotland? That is an excellent question. You have to be careful about extrapolation from other countries' experiences into ours. It is a dangerous game to take one country and say that this is how the virus behaves. In general terms—I think that I have said this before—in very general terms, South Africa is younger, poorer and less vaccinated. All those dials are different from our set of dials. Norway and Denmark are richer as vaccinated. You have to adapt what you see in other countries to your environment. The best data that you can get is, of course, your own, but we look constantly. South Africans have been hugely open and helpful. They are doing daily press conferences. They are also doing private briefings for other countries. Their genetic sequencing has been hugely helpful. They have nothing but praise for the South African public health system in their help to the world, particularly when that variant became apparent. The other big challenge that you have in South Africa is that they have a mixed delivery system. They have a private and a public system. When you look at the data, you have to be very careful about which sector it came from. Did it come from their private insurance healthcare system, which is a legitimate and good system, or did it come from their slightly more challenged and, in general terms, poorer public system? Therefore, the data that you see has to be seen through that lens. We have the WHO helping with that, and we have the European Centre for Disease Control helping with that, and, of course, our own scientists and analysts looking at that. The advice that we give to the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister goes through the lens of adapting it to what we are seeing from other countries. That is how we know that it is more transmissible. It looks as though, with a fair wind, it might be slightly less severe, but we do not know. It might still respond to vaccination, but we know that it definitely responds to booster vaccination. We have some knowledge, and every day we get more. Thank you for that. I have lost the tail end of that, but I have one last question. It is a very quick one, I hope, because I have been asked to ask this by a healthcare professional. Given the virulence and the transmissibility of that, should we be asking people to wear an FFP2-type mask? I do not know what that is. I have just been asked to ask that question. There are grades of face coverings from FFP3, which is the one that you see in intensive care, through FFP2, which are the black or white ones that usually have a margin along the centre. You will not be surprised to know that my answer is to ask the experts. As we do with a number of those difficult questions, we have a group of four country experts and Scottish experts. In fact, the four country committee is run by one of our professors of infection and prevention control, and they look at that constantly. Their advice for now is not to change the advice for the general population. Those masks need a bit of work. They need to be worn a very particular way. It is not about supply—we could do it if we had to—but the advice from the expert group on infection and prevention control is to reinforce the messaging around wearing face coverings well and wearing the three-layer fabric or the fluid-resistant ones—the blue ones—that you can now buy pretty much everywhere and use them well in the population and reserve the FFP2 and FFP3 for healthcare settings. I want to move on to Mr Swinney now. We have a public question here, and this is not the final part of my question. I just want to tie it into something else. What funds will be made available to support the third sector organisations that support health and social care and have been greatly impacted by the pandemic? That is part 1. You talked about care packages that are required for getting people out of hospital and back home. My own father took Covid. He is now having severe problems with Covid delirium, and he is still in hospital, and he will be until such time that that delirium clears. We cannot get a care package that would fit to take him home, which is going to be very expensive. Brian Whittle talked about the funding—the extra £220 million that is coming to the Scottish Government. I am not trying to make a political point here, but my understanding is that that is not extra funding. That is an advance from money that should be coming from later on in the financial year. What impact will using that money now in the healthcare setting have on later on? I want to come back quickly about the finances for the hospitality sector as well, if we get time, convener. In relation to the close of money from the United Kingdom Government, as I explained in my answer to Brian Whittle, the Scottish Government had been expecting the United Kingdom Government to allocate consequentials to us from other decisions in the UK to the tune of £265 million. We did not have absolute confirmation of that, but that was our estimate, and we have factored that into our financial planning for this year and next year. What the United Kingdom Government announced in the course of the last 24 hours is that that number will not be £265 million, but will be £220 million. What that says is two things. One is that we are receiving less money than we were expecting. Secondly, there is no new money coming from the UK Government. That was all expected and it has been factored into our planning, so there is no new money coming from the UK Government funding announced. The second point that I would make is in relation to the delivery of care packages and the support for the third sector. Obviously, the Government is allocating resources. We have given additional funding to the delivery of social care within Scotland, substantial increases in the money for social care packages, and that money is available in some circumstances to be used by local authorities in other circumstances to be delivered by third sector organisations that will be acting under contract from local authorities through health and social care partnership. There are opportunities for the third sector to receive financial support through the delivery of increased social care resources that the Scottish Government has put in place. However, a challenge is about the availability of people to deliver those social care packages. In the communities that Mr Fairlie and I both represent in Perthshire, we both are hearing from organisations about the challenge of, in this particular circumstance, not necessarily the availability of money but the availability of people to deliver those social care packages. That has a significant bearing on the question of delayed discharge, because the last thing that we want is people being in hospital, such as Mr Fairlie's father, who could be supported at home with a care package, but we cannot do that because we do not have the people to deliver those social care packages on the ground. That is about wider issues, with which we are all familiar, which arise out of the loss of free movement of individuals and other challenges. Mr Fairlie, I know that you want to come in on another question, but could we just move to Alex Rowley and, if we have time, we will come back to you at the end? Okay, thank you, convener. Mr Swinney, you have constantly talked about the importance of acting proportionately and appropriately in terms of measures to mitigate, but I am not convinced that the current announcements that we have had are appropriate to the scale of the problems that we face. I do not think that you have to be an expert if you have looked at the evidence of the spread of this latest variant. You have got to be really worried. Professor Leitch mentioned earlier about Omicron and the fact that some people say that it is less a health risk, but the evidence coming from Denmark, for example, is that hospitalisations are really running much higher. When I heard the First Minister's statement on Tuesday, I suppose that my surprise was that it was not going further. You talked earlier about pantomines and I understand that there is a big difference between a pantomine and going into a venue where alcohol has been consumed at farce rates. People are not socially distancing, people are dancing at this time of year and tend to cuddle up or whatever. Is there a real risk that there is or not? Do you believe that you are acting proportionately in terms of the level of risk? Will the failure to act now not result or have more chances resulting in a lockdown as we go into the new year? Those are some of the central dilemmas that ministers wrestle with at all times. I have been open with the committee that the Scottish Government would like to be taking more substantive measures, but we have to be mindful of our obligations across all the various harms associated with Covid. If we take action to address the direct health harm of Covid, which is essentially the point that Mr Rowley recently put to me, that may result in social and economic harm to individuals in our society, which the Government has to be in a position to either defend as proportionate or to ameliorate by some form of compensatory intervention. We are trying to maximise the compensatory interventions that we are able to make by the resources that we have allocated, but we would be in a stronger position if the same approach that we believe is necessary, which the Welsh Government believes is necessary, the Northern Ireland Government believes is necessary, or shared by the electrician of Government into the bargain. That is candidly what is the challenge here, that we cannot align that scale of intervention. I have said to the committee that there may be circumstances in which the Government has to take further action, and we may well have to because of the gravity of the situation, but we have to be cognisant of the various harms that individuals may suffer. If I could make one final point, convener, I might have made some of this point in the questions that Mr Fairlie raised with Professor Leitch. I am increasingly concerned about a notion that Omicron is a less severe variant than Delta, or our previous variants. That is a complete misnomer, because the transmissibility of Omicron—this was the central point of my opening remarks to the committee—the transmissibility of Omicron will result in a discernibly higher level of cases in Scotland and other countries than has been the case before. We have seen that in the daily numbers, and we will see that again today. Even a small proportion of that much, much, much, much larger number ending up in hospital is going to give us a severe challenge in our hospital system, and it will give us a severe challenge in the delivery of public and private services in the period that comes. The UK Government, in my view, is trying to almost create this false myth that it is public health versus the economy. The economy will collapse if public health gets completely overrun by this variant. I suggest to you that it is not good enough for the Scottish Government to simply say that the UK Government is not making the finances available. That UK Government becomes more discredited by the day, and therefore, surely, we in Scotland should expect a Government to stand up to the UK Government making clear that we cannot continue—there are certain sections of our economy right now—that one way or another is going to end up shut. The problem is that if we do not move first, then the impact of that on our national health service as we go into the new year is just going to overwhelm the national health service. I would urge you to be much more forceful, and hopefully Wales and Northern Ireland will be the same, because we seem to have a Prime Minister in Downing Street who has his fingers crossed, hoping for the best, and not following the clear science that is coming out. I understand entirely where Mr Rowley is coming from. I think that he makes an entirely accurate point that if cases rise to such an extent that we are seeing happening and that we fear and that our modelling suggests, then there will be a massive threat to the delivery of a range of public services, not just the national health service, but the national health service will face a lot of pressures. However, our ability to deliver routine public services and private sector services will be severely impaired if Omicron develops on the worst-case scenario that we believe to be the case. Hence, I understand the pressure that Mr Rowley puts on me for an assertive stance to be taken within the UK Government. Believe you me, that is being done publicly by the First Minister and by Ministers. It is being done privately by the First Minister and Ministers. At all times, we are wasting no opportunity of interaction to put this point to the UK Government. In the Four Nations call last night, the First Minister reiterated those very strong arguments. The First Minister of Wales did likewise to the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. To those points, they are being made forcefully to the United Kingdom Government. That is the approach that we are taking and we accept the gravity of the situation that we face. Let me finish this answer by saying that Mr Rowley and I come from different political stables, but he and I share many similar political outlooks. The conclusion that I draw from all of us is that our Parliament should be able to take the necessary decisions to deal with all the implications of the health emergency. That is my always-has-been-liked position. The gravity of the situation that we face just now, Mr Rowley, is raising issues that require me to go into this territory in the committee evidence. The gravity of the situation demonstrates why this Parliament has to be able to have access to much more financial flexibility and responsibility than is currently the case. I think that it highlights why there is a noble well in case for greater borrow power. Can I shift now to social care? I have urged the Deputy First Minister over a number of months now to look at putting the task force in regional by region to look at social care. I have raised previously that I do not have the confidence that there is the management capacity within health and social care partnerships to address the issues that they are. In the past week or two, I have met a number of social care providers, and it is quite horrific listening to the challenges and the difficulties that they are facing. There needs to be a clearer strategy around recruitment and retention, but I have to say that I was so disappointed when the budget was announced last week, because it is clear from all the evidence that not paying the rate for the job for social care workers is a key factor in retention and recruitment. I know that Mr Swinney will say to me about Brexit and free movement, but the fact is that the providers that I have talked to do not highlight that as the key issue. It is an issue, but one of the key issues that we will have to resolve is not paying the rate for the job. Does Mr Swinney accept that if this was a sector that was male dominated, does he accept that we would not be in this situation where people are not being paid the rate for the job? Therefore, will he accept that if we are going to tackle the so-called social care issues, we have to pay people the rate for the job? Can we just move to the Deputy First Minister? I am really conscious of time. We have only got several minutes left, Deputy First Minister. The Government has increased the resources available for social care salaries, and I value the work that is undertaken. I do not think that the issues raised by Mr Rowley about the gender composition of the social care workforce are in any way a legitimate issue to drive those questions. We have taken steps to increase pay in the social care sector. We are facing, as a society, enormous challenges in the labour market across a range of sectors of which the social care sector is one about the volume and availability of people. The Government will continue to work with local authorities on the question of health and social care partnerships. Mr Rowley suggests the concept of a task force to address those issues. I am not convinced about that, because I simply think that we have to get on with delivering. We know what the problem is, and we have to get on with delivering and we are health and social care partnerships to be supported to do that. That is exactly what the health secretary and the social justice secretary are doing to enable that to be the case. If management lacks the capacity to address it, then there is a serious problem. Are you confident that social care partnerships across the country have the management capacity and the ability to address what is terminating to a deep crisis getting worse by the week? Yes, they should have that capacity and they should be able to deliver that in all parts of the country, because our fellow citizens require the provision of such services and people should only be exercising those roles in the management and the organisation of those services if they are fit and capable to do so. That will conclude our consideration of this item. I thank the Deputy First Minister and his officials for their evidence today during those worrying times. We will now move on to the third agenda item, which is consideration of motion on the made affirmative instruments during the previous agenda item. Deputy First Minister, would you like to make any further remarks on the SSIs listed under agenda item number two before we take the motions? Cymru, it may help if I just simply place on the record some detail. Following the clinical concerns about the levels of omicron variant being imported across Africa, the international travel instruments before the committee today reintroduce restrictions to allow the joint biosecurity centre more time to engage with African authorities and access richer data to inform their risk assessment. The number eight, nine and 11 instruments added 11 countries to the red list in line with the latest UK health security agency risk assessment with changes agreed on a four nation basis. Travelers from these countries are required to enter managed quarantine hotels on arrival into Scotland and to take tests on both day two and day eight after their arrival. The number 10 regulations remove the option for travelers to take an LFD test and require that they must take a PCR test within the first two days of arriving into Scotland and self-isolate until the result of the test is known. The number 12 regulations reintroduce pre-departure testing for all travelers, regardless of vaccination status, and extend it to new groups, including some children previously not included. It also reduced the period from three days to two days within which a test can be taken before travel. As the committee is aware, the international travel rules are subject to regular review on a four nation basis and this review took place at the start of this week. Temporary additions to the red list were proportionate as an immediate response to limit importation of the new variant, but the rapid growth of omicron cases across the world meant that it was appropriate at this point to remove the 11 countries in the red list from 4am on Wednesday 15 December. Following clinical advice from senior clinical advisers, it was also considered appropriate that those in managed quarantine with a negative day two test with no subsequent positive test are eligible for release from 4pm on Wednesday 15 December. Thank you very much, Deputy First Minister. Are members content for the motion on the agenda to be moved on block? If any member is not content, could you put an R in the chat function now? Thank you. Members are agreed to move the motion on block. I now invite the Deputy First Minister to move on block motions S6M-02339, S6M-02340, S6M-02341, S6M-02436 and S6M-02454. I will ask if any member would like to comment. Could you put an R in the chat function now? I note that no member has indicated that they wish to speak, so I will now put the questions on the motion. The question is that motions S6M-02339, S6M-02340, S6M-02341, S6M-02436 and S6M-02454 be agreed to. Do members agree? If anyone does not agree, please put an R in the chat. The committee will publish a report to the Parliament setting out our decision on the statutory instruments considered at this meeting in due course. That concludes our consideration of this agenda item and our time with the Deputy First Minister. I would like to thank the Deputy First Minister and his supporting officials for their attendance this morning. The committee's next meeting will be next Thursday on 23 December, when we will be taking evidence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery, and that concludes our public part of the meeting. I suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave.