 I will now move on to the next item of business. Before I call the First Minister, I am aware that details of today's Covid-19 update have been reported in the media prior to being announced to the Parliament. I should not be reading in the media that they have seen a draft copy of the statement before it has been made to this Parliament. This is extremely disappointing and is disrespectful to this Parliament and its elected members. I have spoken to the Minister for Parliamentary Business about this, and he has informed me that the Government will be undertaking an inquiry into the leak. I will allow the statement to be delivered today because I cannot be assured that all elected members have seen the full draft. It is important that the public hear the full detail, but before I call the First Minister, I ask for an assurance from the First Minister of her commitment to the place of this Parliament being respected by her Government and her commitment to a repeat of the situation being avoided. First, I will give you that assurance aside from disrespect to Parliament, which is a very serious matter. I will also assure you that there is no benefit or advantage to the Scottish Government in the contents of the statements that have been known in advance of me delivering them to Parliament. I have asked my officials to look into the matter, and I can advise the chamber that the Scottish Government's chief information security officer will be undertaking appropriate inquiries to establish if there has indeed been a leak of some of the contents of this statement in advance of me delivering it, and if so, what the circumstances and the source of that are, and I undertake to keep your office advised of the progress and outcome of that. I assure you, Presiding Officer, that I take very seriously my obligations and responsibilities and those of my Government to this Parliament, and I hope that you will accept that assurance. Today, I will report on the current course of the pandemic. I will assess the latest data and set out our tentative view that, although significant uncertainties remain both in the data and in the immediate period ahead, there are nevertheless some grounds for cautious optimism that a combination of the protective measures introduced before Christmas, the responsible action on the part of the general public and the rapid delivery of booster vaccines have had a positive impact. As a result, I will indicate that, from next week, we will begin to lift the measures introduced before Christmas but that we will do so in a phased and careful way, starting with the removal of attendance limits on live outdoor events from Monday. First, I will run through today's statistics. 10,392 positive cases were reported yesterday as a result of PCR tests, which is 27.7 per cent of all PCR tests carried out. 1,479 people are in hospital with Covid-47 more than yesterday. 65 people are in intensive care. 11 of them have been in intensive care for more than 28 days. Sadly, a further 16 deaths have been reported, taking the total number of deaths under the daily definition to 9,950. Again, I send my condolences to everyone morning a loved one. The increased transmissibility of the Omicron variant is still causing very high levels of infection here in Scotland across the UK and in many cases around the world. However, while the situation is not least for the national health service, it remains very challenging, there are some very early indications in the data that offer some encouragement. Firstly, while it is always difficult to prove a direct causal link between any specific action or measure and subsequent outcomes, there is reason to be optimistic that protective measures, the behavioural response of the general public and the vaccine programme, have helped to mitigate, to some extent, the impact of the Omicron wave. For instance, our central projection last month was that new infections could reach 50,000 a day by early January. That has not so far materialised and said that we estimate that the total number of new infections a day in early January, not just those recorded through positive PCR tests, may have been around 30,000. In other words, it is very likely that the situation that we face now, though serious, would have been even more challenging without the renewed sacrifices made by people across the country over the past few weeks. Further, while we need to be cautious in our interpretation of the daily case numbers at this stage for reasons that I will set out shortly, we can see from these and also from hospital data some early indications that the situation might be starting to improve. Over the past week, an average of just over 12,700 new cases a day were confirmed through PCR tests. However, that is down by 17 per cent compared to the daily average in the preceding seven days. Indeed, on this measure, cases have fallen in the past week across all age groups except the over 65s, over 85s, my apologies. That is encouraging and it gives us some hope that cases may be at or close to the peak. However, as I said a moment ago, caution is required in interpreting those figures, the changes to the guidance on testing that I set out last week to the effect that those without symptoms testing positive with a lateral flow device no longer need to get a confirmatory PCR test mean that the current daily numbers are capturing fewer positive cases than before. To address this, Public Health Scotland will augment its daily reports in future. I can advise Parliament that from Thursday, in addition to reporting the number of people testing positive for Covid through a PCR test, it will also report a combined figure for the number of people who have recorded a first positive PCR or a lateral flow test. Given the increased complexity, not least the need to avoid duplication, there will initially be a time lag in this reporting, so the data released on Thursday will cover the period up to today. However, Public Health Scotland will be working to reduce this time lag in the coming period. The additional data will allow us to assess the trend in cases more accurately than now. Of course, this is dependent on all of us actually recording our lateral flow results, whether positive or negative, so let me take this opportunity to remind everyone that this can and should be done through the United Kingdom Government website, and you can find that page easily by searching for how to report a lateral flow test. There is one further piece of data that gives us some grounds for optimism at this stage, while the number of people in hospital with Covid has continued to increase over the past week, putting significant additional pressure on the NHS. There are signs that the rate of increase may be starting to slow down. The number in hospital with Covid increased from 594 two weeks ago to 1,147 this time last week, an increase of 553. Since then, it has risen further to 1,479, a smaller increase of 332. It is important to note, however, that the number of people with Covid in intensive care has increased more rapidly in the past week than in previous weeks. However, this is likely to reflect the time lag between people becoming hospitalised and then requiring intensive care. In summary, the situation is just now undoubtedly serious, but perhaps less so than it might have been, and there are also some signs that we may be starting to turn a corner. That said, the position is still fragile and significant uncertainties remain. I have already explained the uncertainties in the data, which mean that the picture is not yet quite as clear as we would like it to be and as clear as we hope it will be in the next week or so. Of course, we do not yet know what impact the post-Christmas return to work and school will have on the level of infection. What we do know is that staff absences resulting from high levels of infection are causing disruption in the economy and in critical services, and that the NHS remains under very severe pressure indeed. Continuing to slow down transmission therefore remains a vital imperative. The conclusion of all of this in my view and in the view of Cabinet is as follows. It is reasonable and right to be hopeful on the strength of the latest data, however, for the period immediately ahead, it is also prudent to remain careful and cautious. That is the balance of judgment that has informed the decisions that Cabinet reached this morning. As I indicated earlier, we will begin to lift the protective measures announced before Christmas from Monday, but we will do that in a phased way that will allow us to form in the days ahead a clearer picture of the trends in infections and the associated impacts. As a quick reminder, the measures that I am specifically referring to here are limits on attendancies at live public events, the requirement for distancing between groups in public indoor places and the requirement for table service in hospitality venues serving alcohol on the premises. I expect to confirm further dates next week, however I can confirm today that the attendance limit of 500 at large-scale outdoor events will be lifted from Monday at 17 January. That means, for example, that spectators will be permitted again at major outdoor sporting events, including football fixtures scheduled for early next week and the forthcoming six nations rugby matches. The Covid certification scheme will remain in place for these and other events and venues previously covered but with two important changes. First, our guidance will now stipulate that the organisers of large events of 1,000 or more people should check the certification status of at least 50 per cent of attendees rather than the current 20 per cent or at least 1,000 people, whichever figure is highest. Second, from Monday, the requirement to be fully vaccinated for the purposes of Covid certification will include having a booster if the second dose was more than four months ago. The NHS Scotland Covid status app for domestic use will be updated from Thursday so that its QR code includes evidence of booster vaccination. It will also be possible to order updated paper and PDF copies of vaccination status, which are now valid for three months, and it will still be possible to gain admission to events and venues covered by the certification scheme by providing proof of a recent negative lateral flow test. Cabinet will next review the data at our meeting a week today, and I hope that that will allow us to lift the other protective measures—limits on indoor live events, table service and hospitality—and distancing in indoor public places from 24 January. However, I will confirm that in my statement next week. There is a related point that I want to draw to Parliament's attention today. As we do lift those other protective measures, it will be necessary to consider again if extending the scope of Covid certification to other venues might be a necessary protection. To be clear, we have not yet taken any decisions on this, and it will require careful judgment, but I want to be clear to Parliament today that it is something that we feel bound to give appropriate consideration to. What I have just set out gives our direction of travel in relation to the additional measures set out before Christmas in response to Omicron. The baseline measures that were in place before the emergence of Omicron, such as the requirement to wear face coverings in indoor public places and to work from home when possible, will remain in place for now. So, too, for at least the immediate period ahead, will the advice to the general public to try to limit contact with people in other households and, in particular, to limit the number of households in any indoor gathering to a maximum of three. We are not advising or asking people to cut all social interaction that simply is not practical and also has a serious impact on mental health and wellbeing, but trying to limit social interaction remains a sensible step at this stage. It helps STEM to some extent increases in transmission and so it has a collective benefit, but it also helps protect us as individuals. At a time when one in 20 of us could have the virus, the risk of becoming infected when we mix with others is, at this moment in time, a significant one. So, cutting back on contacts where possible and prioritising those that are most important to us helps to reduce that risk. If we make sure that there are no more than three households in any indoor gathering we do have and take lateral flow tests before we go, we further reduce the risks, so all of that remains important for now. There are four further issues that I want to touch on today before I conclude. The first is to underline again, as I alluded to earlier, that staff absences caused by the virus are right now having a very significant impact, obviously on the NHS and indeed on the wider economy, but also on other vital public services. Most notably, for the purposes of my comments today, I would refer to social care. We are working very closely with local partners right now to maximise the resources available for social care so that vulnerable people get the care that they need. In order to give priority to social care, some local authorities and partners may require to make difficult choices that involve temporarily pausing or reducing other services. Those decisions, which will be taken by front-line partners, will only be made when absolutely necessary. The recent changes to self-isolation rules will help to alleviate some of the pressure. However, where such decisions do prove necessary, I hope that members and indeed the wider public will understand that they are driven by the needs of those who depend on social care services. My second point is about ventilation in schools and in early years settings. Before Christmas, we published revised guidance for those settings, which included updated material on ventilation, which, among other things, made clear the circumstances in which use of air-cleaning devices may be appropriate. To assist local authorities with that, I can confirm today that we will allocate an additional £5 million of capital funding to local authorities and to funded early learning and childcare providers. That, of course, is in addition to the money previously provided for CO2 monitors and will support any remedial work that councils need to do to improve air flow and comply with the new guidance. The third issue that I want to cover is the continued importance of vaccination, and in particular of booster vaccination. The programme continues to go exceptionally well. Scotland, as of now, continues to be the most vaccinated part of the UK in terms of first, second, third and booster doses. However, there are still too many eligible people who are not yet fully vaccinated. If you are one of them and if you have no good reason not to be vaccinated, the reality is that you are putting yourself and others at unnecessary risk. The latest available data, which is adjusted for age, suggests that someone who is not fully vaccinated is at least four times more likely to require hospital treatment than someone who has had a booster or a third dose of vaccine. Whatever age you are, getting boosted is the single most important thing that you can do to protect yourself from the worst impacts of Covid and in doing so to help to reduce pressure on the national health service. Even though being fully vaccinated does not completely eradicate anyone's risk of getting Covid, it does reduce that risk. That also reduces the risk of you, if you get Covid, passing it on to others. It reduces the risk because you are less likely to get Covid of passing it on to others, including those who may be more vulnerable to serious illness. In short, being fully vaccinated could save your life or it could save the life of someone you love. However, the unescapable flip side of that is that if you are choosing without good reason not to be fully vaccinated, you are putting your own life and the lives of other people at unnecessary risk. If you have not been able to get your booster or a third jag yet because you have been self-isolating or because you tested positive in the past 28 days or because you simply have not got round to it yet, please do come forward now as soon as possible. If you have not had a first or a second dose yet, please do so without delay. Do not run the risk of later regretting or indeed of leaving your family to regret that you did not take the opportunity to get the protection against illness and death that vaccination does offer to all of us. There is right now plenty of capacity in vaccination centres across the country and you will always be welcomed, so please do go along. It is not too late, it is never too late to be vaccinated against this virus. The final issue that I want to touch on briefly today is the work that I mentioned last week on a revised strategic framework. It is intended to set out how we might adapt in the medium to longer term to living with this virus in a way that still mitigates the harm that it does but without the kind of restrictive measures that we are all tired of and which we know do harm in other ways. Living with the virus—a phrase that we hear more and more right now—is what we all desperately want to do, but it is worth reflecting on what that does and does not mean. Unfortunately, it does not mean waking up one morning soon and finding that Covid has disappeared or that we no longer need to think at all about mitigating the harm that it can do. Hopefully, we are on a path from Covid being an epidemic to it becoming endemic, in other words, existing at more manageable and consistent levels. That is not a shift that any Government anywhere can just declare or wish into being. While it seems that the impact of the Omicron variant on individual health is milder than past variants, it is not harmless. It still causes serious illness in some and it still takes lives. This virus, to be blunt, remains a significant threat to public health. If we are trying to live with the virus, as we all want to do, it will involve, for all countries, careful thought and possibly some difficult choices. It involves consideration of and empathy for everyone in our society, including those who are at the highest clinical risk from Covid. We know that we cannot continually rely on restrictive measures to manage the virus, because we know the harm that that does. Equally, we cannot be indifferent to the continued risk that Covid poses to health and wellbeing. We need to consider what adaptations we can make to manage those risks in a way that is much less disruptive to our lives and much less of a daily presence in our minds. Those are important issues for not just Government, but for all of us to consider. As we prepare the revised framework in the days to come, we will seek to consult across Parliament and with business organisations and other partners across society. Our aim is to publish the revised strategic framework within the next few weeks. As that final point emphasises, we remain in a highly challenging phase of the pandemic. Case numbers are high and the impacts of that are severe. Of course, the future trajectory, as I have set out, remains uncertain at this stage. Largely, because of the efforts that everyone has made, we are in a better position than I feared would be the case when additional measures were announced in December. I hope that we are now seeing signs of improvement. That is allowing us to start the process from Monday of lifting the additional restrictions. I hope that next week I will be able to confirm the further steps in that process. In the meantime, we can all continue to act in a way that keeps things moving in the right direction. I will close with a reminder of what we can all do to help stem transmission. First, get fully vaccinated as soon as you can. If you have not done so already, please do that and do it this week. Second, try to limit your contacts for a further period, with infections at such a high level just now. Every interaction comes with a significant risk of catching the virus, so prioritise the contacts that matter most to you. Third, if you are meeting other people socially, test before you go every time. Take the test as close as possible to the time that you will be meeting and seeing other people and remember to record the result, whether that is positive or negative. Take all the other precautions that we know make a difference. If you are meeting indoors, limit the number of households in the group to three at most and keep windows open. Work from home whenever possible. To employers, please enable your workers to work from home whenever practical. Wear a face covering on public transport in shops when moving about in hospitality and make sure that the face covering fully covers your mouth and nose and follow all advice on hygiene. At these steps, they make a difference. They are making a difference to each person's individual safety and to the collective safety of all of us. I urge people to please stick with them and my thanks again go to everyone who is doing that. The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 40 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Douglas Ross. The latest data shows that we are in a far more positive position than the Government was expecting. The projections in December have not come to pass. We may have already passed the peak of Omicron. There are two main reasons for that. Firstly, the success of Scotland and the UK's vaccination scheme is clear. People who are vaccinated are much less likely to suffer serious symptoms and are far less likely to be hospitalised. The second main factor is the response from the general public. People across Scotland got their booster, took tests, self-isolated when they needed to, they were cautious to protect their families and especially careful around the vulnerable. That is why the data is more positive. The outlook is much better now not because of Government restrictions but because of people's good sense. The people of Scotland got this right, not the Government. The First Minister says that we need to learn to live with Covid, but after two years people across Scotland have already learned to live with Covid. By now people understand what is necessary to combat the virus. We have to trust their judgment far more as we move forward. We should be looking to get a balance that is much more in favour of wider public health and mental health and physical health concerns and, of course, our economy. That is why it is so disappointing to see the Scottish Government again looking to extend its vaccine passport scheme. Scottish businesses, Scottish jobs and our economy are set to be hit harder even though the data is more positive. The Scottish National Party Government has accepted that there is no evidence that the vaccine passport scheme stops or reduces the spread of the virus. On just what evidence is it considering expanding the number of venues that are affected by the scheme and the number of people who will be checked going to stadiums and large events? Which kind of businesses could be impacted by the extension of the scheme and from what date? And does she really believe her plans, which will see more than 30,000 vaccine passports checked at Murrayfield during the Six Nations next month, are actually workable? Finally, while crowd attendance at outdoor events will now be allowed, there is not a single mention in the First Minister's statement about indoor sports events. Those are vital for indoor sports events, not a single mention in her statement. Those are vital for people's mental and physical health. Will the First Minister lift the restrictions? If so, when? If not, why? We are in a more positive position now than we might have been, and I feared that we would be when I spoke to Parliament before Christmas. However, there are still significant uncertainties both in the data and in the circumstances that lie ahead, as schools have returned and some people have returned to work. I think that calls for continued caution coupled with the optimism that we can rightly feel as a result of the more positive signs in the data. As I said in my statement, I think that the progress that we have made is down to a combination of the vaccine programme, particularly the booster delivery, the response of the public, but some of the sensible steps that have been taken. It is interesting that Douglas Ross is certain that the measures that he likes have been responsible for progress, but the measures that he does not like, he is equally certain that they have not played any part in the progress that is not, for the first time, a rather incredible position to take. I am also struck by the fact that some of the measures that the public are willingly following, and I thank them again for that, that Douglas Ross is now also rightly praising the public for face coverings, for example, working from home when possible, are all things that, in past weeks and months, Douglas Ross has stood here and absolutely opposed and said that the Scottish Government was wrong in asking people to do. We will continue to take balanced cautious steps to try to make sure that our progress out of this phase is one way and that we do not end up going backwards, despite the unpredictabilities that we know are associated with the virus. On the two specific points, I mentioned indoor events. I hope that we will see indoor events, which, for the avoidance of doubt, although I think that most people listening would probably know this, include indoor sporting events, will resume on 24 January. However, because of the uncertainties ahead, it makes sense to do this in a phased way. As we have done so many times in the past, when we face things, we lift measures on outdoor events before we do the same for indoor events. On vaccine certification, as we lift essential protective measures in some settings that we know are higher risk for transmission, despite the best efforts of those who run those settings, we are duty bound to consider whether there are any other measures that will mitigate and protect against those risks. That is where vaccine certification comes in. The vast majority of people accept that, if the price of getting to access pubs on a normal basis, or nightclubs on a normal basis, may be shown that they are vaccinated and that they are willing to pay. We have not taken a decision on extending the scope. We will consider that carefully and come to a balanced judgment. Finally, on Murrayfield, it is not too long ago that Douglas Ross was telling me that Murrayfield would never be able to do the spot checks that we were asking for then. They have been excellent in coping with that. I have every confidence that the SRU will be able to do that. In some other countries, of course, it is 100 per cent checks of vaccine certificates that are required. I have every confidence in the football authorities and in the rugby authorities to continue to operate responsibly and effectively. I start by sending my condolences to all those who have lost a loved one. There are reasons to be optimistic, but we are right not to be complacent. I welcome the easing of restrictions, particularly on outdoor sports events. Last week across this Parliament chamber, contributions from multiple members stressed the importance of providing up-to-date and comprehensive data, not just because it is right for this Parliament to do its job properly in scrutinising the Government, but because that information being in the public domain is vital to maintaining and building public trust and confidence. It helps people across Scotland to make decisions about what is right for them and their families. The First Minister has promised Parliament that the data will be available on Friday. Instead, we have got at best a partial dataset. That is not acceptable. The Government must have been basing decisions on that information. If not, why not? If yes, why not trust the public and share that information? A new phase of the pandemic must mean a new approach. One that recognises that we will be living with Covid in some form for years to come. That means building resilience back into the heart of our national health service but also into our economy and recognising the toll that the past two years have taken on the mental health of many Scots. People can no longer live their lives waiting to hear an ad hoc basis on what the rules will be day by day. Businesses and workers cannot plan for the future properly if they cannot predict the Government's response. I welcome that the First Minister now recognises the need for a proper framework. Can she confirm whether that will include clearly set out trigger points for any future restrictions? That could include rates of infection, hospitalisations and staff absences. Will it also include key triggers on what financial support will be available alongside that? Finally, can she commit that Parliament will vote on the framework and that any deviations from that framework will also come to Parliament for consent? The basic data is published every single day. When we can and need to augment that data, that is what has happened. I have set out today the way in which Public Health Scotland later this week will be augmenting that data to take account of the change to testing advice. On the data around hospitalisation, those in hospital, because of Covid versus those in hospital with Covid but for another primary reason, Public Health Scotland published on Friday the preliminary results of the analysis that they have been doing. I am not sure whether Anas Sarwar is somehow suggesting that Public Health Scotland is hiding some data that they have. That is not the case. They are doing careful, detailed work so that that information is robust. What was published on Friday is broadly in line so far with similar findings in England about the split between because of and with Covid. It is broadly in line with, although slightly different, to the same data that was published in August last year at an earlier stage of the virus. That data will continue to be updated as Public Health Scotland can robustly and confidently do that. However, as I said last week, any Government that was basing all its decisions right now on that particular data set alone would not be serving the country well. It is important information to have, but there is a real limit to the significance of it in terms of the impact of Covid. Somebody who is in hospital with Covid, even if Covid is not their primary reason for admission, still triggers a response that has a massive impact on the national health service and the fact that they have Covid will potentially exacerbate the other condition that they are in with. I would caution again over simplification of the significance of that data. Finally, I am happy to give a commitment that we will ask Parliament to consider and to vote on the draft revised framework. We will always come to Parliament appropriately with changes to our approach, but I repeat again just for the importance of understanding the fact that the virus does not wait until Parliament considers things. It spreads at its own pace, so sometimes Governments everywhere have to respond quickly in the interests of public health and public safety. We will consult on the contents of the framework in terms of triggers that it includes. Yes, we will look to give as much clarity and certainty as possible, but let me say this finally, Presiding Officer. It goes to the point about predictability. Of course, we want to give as much clarity and predictability as possible, but we are dealing with an infectious, unpredictable mutating virus. Any Government that gets itself stuck in fixed triggers or fixed ways of thinking about things is not serving the health and the safety of the country well, and we will not do that. I am very concerned that the use of vaccine certification is set to continue, not least because it does not show venues who are sick and who are well. I am also concerned about their wider role light to a new array of venues, particularly when many of those venues are pulling themselves off the map following the latest hospitality curves. I am also concerned that, with just five days' notice and big sporting events, they will nearly need to treble their checking capacity, leading potentially to bottlenecks and safety concerns that they have already raised with this Parliament. The First Minister talks about living with the virus. That is a concept that is all too familiar to 100,000 Scots who suffer long Covid. That number is surely going to rise with the surge that we currently face. I wonder whether the First Minister can tell us that more than 100 days have passed since the Government published its long Covid action plan, yet we are nowhere. Where are the long Covid clinics? Where are the care pathways? Where are the long Covid nurses? What is she going to do with those thousands of Scots who have been living with the virus, some of whom, since the start, are still waiting for support from her Government? On the points that have been raised, on vaccination or Covid certification, Alex Cole-Hamilton and I will have to agree to disagree. I think that vaccination certification has a role to play. Let me briefly illustrate it just by reference to any individual. If an individual is in a setting where the risk of transmission is higher and they get the virus there, if they are vaccinated, as I said in my statement, their risk of being hospitalised is significantly lower than it would be if they are not vaccinated. Making sure that somebody is vaccinated before they are in that setting has a significant benefit to individuals, but because it then reduces the chance of that individual being in hospital and adding to the pressure of the health service, it has a broader societal benefit. There is a place there, and I believe that it is an important place. Of course, we continue to consider it carefully. On the issue of checks, some sports clubs, as I understand it, have already gone beyond the minimum 20 per cent in guidance, but it is not too long ago that members were saying that the 20 per cent was unattainable and undeliverable and would lead to all sorts of chaos. That was not the case, and I have confidence in the bigger sports clubs that they will do that effectively because it is in the interests of sports clubs that we keep those settings as safe as possible. The long Covid action plan continues to be implemented. Again, it is wrong and an oversimplification to focus purely on one model of long Covid clinics. That has a role to play, but it is the overall pathways of care. It is the development of specialisms, the developing understanding of long Covid and its implications that is encapsulated in that wider plan and will continue to take that forward in partnership with clinicians and health boards across the country. Colin Michelle Thomson, to be followed by Murdo Fraser. Through the course of the pandemic, the First Minister has made difficult decisions in complex situations. Recently, we have heard reports that the UK Government is considering withdrawing free access to lateral flow testing with some senior UK ministers advocating even shorter self-isolation periods and even some influential Tory MPs calling for an end to all restrictions, regardless of infection rates, on 26 January. Even in the face of an endemic rather than a pandemic, does the First Minister agree that free lateral flow tests must remain a key part of any protection strategy? Can she reassure those watching that the gradual lifting of Scottish restrictions will continue to be balanced against wider public health needs? On the last part of that question, yes, it is important that we get this balance right. We all want to move back to the normality as quickly as possible. We know from past experience that, if we do that too quickly or in the wrong order, it can set us back rather than take us forward. Those judgments continue to be made as carefully as possible. On the issue of lateral flow testing, I think that living with Covid is likely to involve for some time the need to test ourselves in particular situations. Therefore, for that to be effective, I think that it is essential that we continue to make lateral flow tests available as widely as possible and free of charge. That is a really important principle to the effective working of any testing strategy. The UK Government has been at pains to say that it is not thinking of removing free access to lateral flow devices anytime soon. I hope that we see that assurance solidify and replace that with a clear commitment to continue with free lateral flow devices for as long as necessary. On the issue of self-isolation, after careful consideration, we moved from 10 days to 7 days. Having done that, I think that it would be a mistake to go further than that before we have had a chance to assess the impact of the change that has been made, but we will continue to keep all of those things under review and informed by the best clinical and expert advice possible. The First Minister talked about the protection that vaccination and being boosted provides against serious harm from Covid. Does she agree that publishing the figures for the numbers of those in hospital and in ICU as a result of Covid who are not vaccinated would help to reinforce that message to the public? Why is the Scottish Government still not announcing those numbers, despite repeated requests from those benches? Public Health Scotland is providing information on the relative risks of vaccination and non-vaccination. I am sure that Murdo Fraser has seen it in past Public Health Scotland reports. As I said in my statement, the up-to-date data shows that you are more than four times greater risk of being hospitalised if you are not fully vaccinated than you are if you are fully vaccinated. Public Health Scotland will continue to consider how best to present information, but there is no dubiety and no doubt whatsoever about the fact that if you are fully vaccinated, your risk of serious illness is significantly lower than is the case if you are not fully vaccinated. That is a message that all of us should be giving loudly and clearly. Staff absence in the NHS due to Covid is sitting at 3 per cent, but in social care it is 9 per cent and care packages have been withdrawn for several weeks now. Acknowledging the crisis in social care, can the First Minister comment on reports that the Scottish Government is considering paying family care as £15 an hour in the absence of care packages being put in place? Can she advise if this is a short-term measure? If family carers are to be valued in this way, why won't her Government value professional care staff by paying them £15 an hour? That is not a policy or a proposal from the Scottish Government. I hope that that deals with that point. We are increasing the wages of social care workers and I have taken steps to do that and want to continue to do that as resources allow us to do in order to properly value the contribution that social care workers make. The issue of staff absences is particularly acute in social care, which is why I spoke about the very significant work that the Scottish Government is doing with local authorities and other partners to make sure that we are maximising the resources that are going to support those who rely on social care and pointing out that even if, in the short term, that requires local authorities to take resources from other services to make sure that those most vulnerable who rely on social care get the services that they need, that is what they will do. We continue to work very carefully with local authorities to achieve that, but, as always, it is very easy to set out the problem, as Jackie Baillie, if I may say, so it always does very well. Finding the solutions to that, including the solutions that come from continuing to bear down on infection, is what we must focus on. As I agree with Jackie Baillie, that includes increasing the wages of social care workers, which this Government is already doing. The First Minister will be aware of calls from UK cabinet ministers for the self-isolation period to be cut to five days, seemingly without sufficient regard to the potential risks involved. Can the First Minister advise what consideration the Scottish Government has given to the issue and can she provide an assurance that any changes will be guided by expert clinical advice? As I said a moment ago in response to Michelle Thompson, we will consider the clinical advice on this issue and will keep this issue, as with all issues, under regular review. However, I have not just made the decision to move from 10 days to 7 days not an insignificant decision, as I said last week, not a decision that comes without risk. I think that the prudent and sensible thing to do is to monitor the impact of that before deciding whether or not to go any further. That is what we will do in the period ahead. I think that it would be a mistake to very quickly move from 7 days to 5 days. However, as I have already said, we will continue to discuss this with clinical advisers. It is reported that Scotland's national clinical director has said that closing nightclubs and cancelling football fixtures has made little difference to Scotland's coronavirus case numbers. As the First Minister says in her statement, the behaviour of response to the general public and the vaccination programme have helped to mitigate to some extent the impact of the Omicron wave. However, contrary to the statement, it seems that those restrictions may not have. When was the First Minister first aware of this data on closing nightclubs and cancelling football fixtures? Will the First Minister commit to providing all the data—not just the basic data, as was said in a previous answer—that the cabinet uses to inform its decision making ahead of announcements? Why keep it a secret? For clarity, I wish to point out in case of confusion that I am not against proportionate restrictions to mitigate the impact of the pandemic. I am glad that the member has been clearer on that point this week than he managed to be last week. The national clinical director is possibly the most misquoted person in Scotland at the moment, and I suspect that that is the case in relation to the member's question. It is not the case that there is secret data that we take decisions on. The member is a doctor and understands more than most the difference between data, evidence and judgment. We publish all the data that is there and relevant. Data is case numbers, numbers of hospitalisations and the numbers that sadly die. That is the data that we publish. The evidence is where the risks are highest in terms of transmission, and we know that that is where ventilation is most difficult, where people come together, where often alcohol is involved. We take all that and apply our judgment to how best to stem transmission. That is what we do every week. That is what we will continue to do. It is difficult, and I wish that it was easier, to draw absolute causative links between measure A and outcome B. All of what we are seeing right now, not just in Scotland but in many other countries as well, is that it is a combination of vaccination, behavioural response and proportionate balance measures in higher-risk settings that are helping to blunt the edge of the Omicron wave. There is no magic wand to be waved here, but it is that combination that is helping us through, and it is that balance combination of measures that we will continue to seek to take. I have been contacted by constituents who have advised of their anxieties as they await for cases to go to court. As we know, court closures during the pandemic have led to significant backlog of cases. Will the First Minister provide an update as to the Scottish Government's work to enable backlogs across the criminal justice service to be cleared? This is an important area of work, and all the different justice agencies are focused on doing it. As Elinor Whitham and other members will recall, the recent budget announcement included significant funding increases for the justice portfolio, which will help to reduce the backlog and support community justice services in recovering from the pandemic. We have also established a justice recovery fund for the next financial year to further help with recovery renewal and some longer-term transformation activity across the justice system, which will include the ability to maintain enhanced court capacity and remote jury centres, which have been really important in dealing with the situation so far. Again, there are challenges facing the justice system, as is the case across all aspects of Government responsibilities, but investment has been made and action has been taken to get those services back to a normal operating basis as quickly as possible. The importance of complying with public health guidance to safeguard the most vulnerable in society and to protect our public services has been paramount for the past two years. In that time, so many of us have made sacrifices not seeing loved ones and not visiting those in crisis, but the level of solidarity that is shown by the public in following guidance and laws has been impressive. It is therefore absolutely sickening that, once again, it appears that the Prime Minister and his inner circle have ignored the rules and tried to cover it up. This is undermining public confidence in following health advice. The public feels betrayed and the Prime Minister must go. Does the First Minister agree and what can we do to retain public confidence in current measures? Before the First Minister responds very briefly to Ms Mackay's question, can I just emphasise to Ms Mackay that questions must focus on issues of devolved competence? The protection of public health is very much a devolved competence. It is the case that people across the country are aghast at the revelations about Downing Street's conduct. It appears that not just one isolated breach but serial breaches of guidance that people were following through painful sacrifices right throughout this pandemic and a Prime Minister who apparently is not being truthful about his knowledge of those matters. I do not think that it will surprise anybody to hear my view that the office of Prime Minister would be greatly enhanced by Boris Johnson's departure from it, but more importantly at this moment in time the interests of the United Kingdom would be enhanced by that as well. I call Pauline McNeill to be followed by Paul MacLennan. Excuse me, I am just going to rewind slightly and call Annabelle Ewing. It is clear indeed that from the start of the pandemic the extent of the buy-in to the Covid restrictions on the part of the people of Scotland, if not as we have heard number 10, Downing Street has in fact been quite remarkable. Can the First Minister therefore take the opportunity today to reiterate that the essential rationale for the remaining restrictions is indeed to protect the NHS as we navigate through another very challenging winter? I think that the groans coming from the Conservative benches when this issue is raised suggest that they are really out of touch with the feeling and the sentiment across the country. People over the last two years have been unable to see loved ones on their deathbeds, have been unable to go to funerals and comfort other loved ones during bereavement, have had long periods of absence from those nearest and nearest to them and to find that it appears that those making the rules in Downing Street on a serial basis where breaching those rules is deeply angering people and deeply upsetting people and that has to be understood and acknowledged. I understand that anger but what I would say to people across the country and this is very much my responsibility as First Minister with chief responsibility for trying to protect the public health of the country is notwithstanding anger at politicians wherever and whoever they are. Those rules, this guidance is there for a reason, it is there to try to keep you safe and to keep the country collectively safe and I would ask people to continue to do the right thing as the vast majority have been doing throughout and again take the opportunity to thank everybody for all of the sacrifices that have very painfully been made. Pauline McNeill, to be followed by Pauline McLeanon. Thank you. There are many examples of the impact of Covid restrictions on the events industry. For one agency, only seven Hogman issues went ahead out of 60 plans, so the loss of income due to Covid restrictions for many in the sector is catastrophic. I do however welcome the additional support that the First Minister had announced last week. Can the First Minister make sure that everyone in the event industry chain who needs support, and that would include agencies as well, will be eligible to apply for financial support? We are working very closely with the sector to do exactly that. I am not going to stand here and pretend that every single organisation, business agency that feels, doesn't just feel, that will have had a financial impact will get full compensation for that, but all of the packages of support that we have put in place are designed to try to ensure that help goes to those right throughout the supply chain of whatever sector we are talking about. That very much includes the event sector. That is the work that we are doing with the sector to try to make sure that that happens. Paul McLeanon, to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. The First Minister highlighted progress in regard to the revised strategic framework. Can I ask the First Minister what the consultation process will entail in regard to public health, education, business and local government bodies? We intend to, as I said in my statement, publish a revised framework as quickly as possible. I would hope that we will do that over the next few weeks, but we also want to consult as widely as possible. Principally, of course, we will consult with members and parties across the chamber, but we will also ensure that teams in the Scottish Government responsible for those areas will ensure that stakeholders in the economy, in education, across the wider public health community have the opportunity to feed in their views. Living with Covid has become a shorthand phrase. I am not sure that, when I say that, I mean the same things as, for example, Boris Johnson means when he says that, and different people will mean different things by that. That is not a pejorative statement, that is just a statement of fact, but it is important that we consider carefully what living with Covid means and the different trade-offs that might be involved with enabling us to do that. That means that we need to listen to views from across society and make sure that we take the best possible advice and expertise that we can, and that is what we will seek to do, albeit in a relatively short timescale. Don't run the risk of later regretting or of leaving your family to regret that you didn't get the protection against illness and death that vaccination gives you. First Minister, those are your words, not mine. Thousands of vulnerable and at-risk people are stuck in hospital or have been waiting weeks to be discharged and have missed getting a booster jab. How will your Government ensure that vulnerable people stuck in Scottish hospitals get the protection that you and I have received and they have missed? First Minister, I have made this point before, because this is an important issue, and it is important that we do not misunderstand the situation. Whether or not somebody who is in hospital gets the vaccination is down to clinical decision and judgment, there is no blanket prohibition on people in hospital being vaccinated. It is important to understand that. However, in relation to people who are in hospital when they could be discharged, our focus is on appropriate discharge as quickly as possible, because that is better for the individual, not just because they can be normally vaccinated but for all sorts of other reasons, but that is also in the interests of the wider national health service, because it alleviates some of the pressure that comes from delayed discharge. However, let me stress again that, whether somebody in hospital is vaccinated or not, is not the result of some blanket policy that is down to clinical decision making. A concerned constituent has been in touch as his mother is in a care home in Aire, where residents have been told that they need a self-isolate for 14 days when they are testing positive. With the self-isolation period being reduced from 10 days to 7 days, can the First Minister advise when the guidance for self-isolation in care homes will be updated? That is obviously an important issue. I think that everybody understands and agrees that protecting those in care homes who are often most vulnerable to Covid is an overriding priority. The measures that are currently in place enable loved ones to have meaningful contact with residents in care homes while balancing the risk that comes from Covid. The need to keep people safe in line with public health advice, especially given Omicron, is very much underpinning the decisions that we take. Given the changes to isolation that I set out last week, we had already commissioned public health experts to review the guidelines currently in place around self-isolation for care home residents and we expect to be able to update that position imminently. I undertake to ensure that the Parliament is notified of that as quickly as the work allows us to do. I heard the First Minister's answer to my colleague Jackie Baillie, but it is my understanding that areas, including Orkney, are already considering policy of paying family carers £15 an hour to discharge people from hospital, and that a Government minister has been quoted saying this in the press of the weekend. If this is happening, it appears to be a rushed policy that alone will not resolve the problem and unpaid carers have yet again not been involved. 90 per cent of unpaid carers have stepped up, providing 24 hours a day support for nothing. 10 per cent who actually do access carers allowance have been doing the same for the equivalent of 35 hours at £1.93 an hour. Unpaid carers are again rightly feeling bruised by a sudden realisation that they are key to the pandemic response faced with a continued lack of acknowledgement of the solutions that carers organisations have offered to the Government. What are its intentions around this policy? How will it determine who gets £15 an hour, who is left on £1.93 an hour and who gets nothing an hour? How can the Government ensure that they do not create a three-tier system of unpaid care where some people are paid at a rate that we believe is right for the job, as my colleague Jackie Baillie has set out, and others are left in poverty on £1.93 an hour or nothing at all? Let me be clear again that the Government has no plans to introduce a system to start paying family members £15 an hour or any amount an hour to look after elderly relatives. Individual partnerships may adopt different approaches as they see appropriate in their local circumstances, but it is not a Scottish Government policy or position. In terms of the Government's position, we do champion, of course, self-directed support to allow family members to employ people to provide care. That is an option that we encourage people to explore where appropriate. We do recognise, and I have repeatedly recognised, and we recognise through our policies such as the carer supplement that allows the enormous contribution that is made by unpaid carers. We are actively considering how we can further support unpaid carers, who I think are shouldering a disproportionate share of the Covid burden at this time. Of course, as I said in my statement, we are working with local authorities to help to support the social care service more generally through a very difficult period. That includes not just in the immediate term, but in the longer term, increasing the pay rates within the social care sector. Omicron is a hugely adverse impact on foreign travel, resulting in thousands understandably cancelling holidays over Christmas and beyond, with travel agents spending more time at their own costs in terms of staff and utilities, handing back money to customers rather than booking holidays. Can the First Minister advise what support the Scottish Government will provide to hard-pressed independent travel agents, many of which are family-owned and will struggle for many months to come? That is a difficult time for travel agents, as it is for businesses in different sectors across the economy. We are trying as hard as we can to target funding to sectors that are most immediately and most severely impacted by the measures that we have in place. We have recently announced additional support for businesses, and we are working with different sectors, including in the travel sector, to get that money to affected businesses as quickly as possible. That work will continue for as long as there is a necessity to have measures like that in place. Minister, before the Covid pandemic, around 2,000 people were waiting for orthopedic treatment in NHS Island. The figure is close to 2,800 for the projected waiting time for new patients of years. First Minister, with the local national treatment centre not yet built, staff recruitment is looking increasingly difficult. What urgent actions can be taken during the pandemic to reduce these high waiting times? There is action currently being taken in the form of additional investment and efforts to maximise capacity to reduce waiting times as the NHS recovers. We set out, of course, in the NHS recovery plan the medium to longer-term commitments around increased capacity. That includes the commitment to national elective treatment centres. It also involves increased recruitment. Recruitment is a challenge right now in health, social care and across the economy. Of course, one of the significant reasons for that is the implications of Brexit and the ending of free movement, which is something that we need to make sure that we do not lose sight of. However, we will continue to support the national health service in a range of different ways to try to avoid unnecessary admissions, to reduce delayed discharge at the other end of the hospital system and to make sure that we get those waiting times back down as quickly as possible. Crucial to that, of course, is getting Covid under control so that we reduce that pressure on the NHS and enable it to focus fully on the recovery work. What reassurances can the First Minister provide to the pregnant women who may have reservations about getting vaccinated? I am happy to provide an assurance about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine for pregnant women, but perhaps for any woman who is pregnant rather than hear that from me, somebody who does not have clinical qualifications. I would point them to midwives of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Midwifery. All of those expert voices are not just giving assurances about the safety of the vaccine for pregnant women but actively encouraging pregnant women to get vaccinated. Let me repeat that call. Please, if you are pregnant and are not yet vaccinated, take steps to do so. It provides you with protection and it provides your unborn baby with protection as well. Can the First Minister advise how the Scottish Government is financially supporting people on low incomes who are required to self-isolate? We are doing as much as we can to ensure that those who are on low incomes and are being required to self-isolate, which is a very difficult thing to be asked to do, to get the support that they need. We have put aside a further £100 million for the self-isolation support grant, for example. That means that those on low incomes who are asked by Tess and Protect to self-isolate can apply for the £500 grant. If they are eligible, that helps to ensure that they can self-isolate without financial hardship. We will continue to keep under review all the different ways that we can help people to do the right thing by self-isolating if that is what they are asked to do. That concludes the First Minister's Covid-19 update. My apologies to those members that I was unable to reach. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.