 Rhaid i ddweud yr item rwy'n gwybod anise yn cael ei fodfodol, yn eistedd o 2030-23-133 yn y ddweud o Nicola Sturgeon yn COVID-19, Scotland's strategic framework. Rwy'n ei ddiscipt gan gwasanaeth gwladol i'r ddiwedd gan gwybod an Unedig. Rwy'n ei ddweud i'r perffant gyda Iath yn trefiadau. Rwy'n ei ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud, a ddim dweud i'r ddweud i gyd-ddiadau eich cyfasysgolegau i ddweud. While we do not necessarily agree with all of them in their entirety, there are good suggestions in each of them and so regardless of how the votes go this evening, we will seek to take those forward constructively. The Scottish Government published our new strategic approach to tackling Covid on Friday that included the proposed five levels of intervention. I will repeat all of the detail today but I will set out some changes we are proposing as a result of our consideration since Friday and I will give a very preliminary indication of the levels that we think might apply to different parts of Scotland from next Monday. I would draw members' attention to a technical paper that we have published today giving more detail of the data and wider factors that will guide those decisions. Firstly, I will just briefly summarise today's statistics that were published a short time ago. The total number of positive cases reported yesterday was 1,327. The total number of confirmed cases in Scotland is now 59,201. The number of positive tests reported yesterday was 8.7 per cent of the total. 1,100 people are currently in hospital, which is an increase of 48 from yesterday. I think that it is worth noting, Presiding Officer, for those who might think that we are being too tough with restrictions right now, that the number in hospital right now is just 400 short of the number of hospitalisations at the April peak. 82 people are in intensive care, which is eight fewer than yesterday, and in the past 24 hours I am sorry to report that 25 additional deaths have been registered, which takes the total number of deaths under that daily measurement to 2,726. I want to send again my condolences to all those who are grieving a loved one. The rising cases that we are seeing in Scotland is part of an international pattern that is reflected elsewhere in the UK, Europe and across the world. Indeed, many countries across Europe in particular face a much more severe situation than we do currently. However, it is to try to avoid that kind of deterioration and to try to avoid mounting pressure on our national health service that we are acting firmly at this stage. It is why we acted back in September to stop household gatherings and then took further action earlier this month to restrict hospitality. The positive news is that we believe that the restriction on household gatherings may already be having an effect. The number of new cases is growing more slowly than at the start of the month and we have not seen the nine-day doubling of cases that was predicted earlier this month. We hope that the effect of the difficult and unwelcome restrictions on hospitality, which should be enforced now for just over two weeks, will soon start to be seen as well. Our hope is that the rate of increase in new cases will slow even further and that we will then see a decline in the number of new cases. If we do see that progress, it is important to stress that that will be down to a reduction in our interactions with each other as a result of the restrictions in place. It is important to bear in mind that, as I run through some of the detail of the new levels, because, although that is difficult for all of us and it is difficult for many businesses, it is by reducing our interactions with people in other households and in environments with higher risks of transmission that we will continue to make progress. All of that said, our position just now is still fragile and it is too early to draw firm conclusions. Cases are still rising and that is not a stable position to be in. Given that we are entering winter, Covid is likely to present a significant continued challenge for us with higher numbers of cases than we would want to see for some time to come. In addition, given the lag effect associated with the incubation period of the virus and how it affects people over time, we know that we are also likely to see hospital and ICU admissions and, unfortunately, deaths rise for some time yet, even as we hope the rate of increase in cases continues to slow. All of that means that we must continue to be very cautious and we must take the action that is necessary to suppress the virus to the lowest possible levels. Given that we are likely to be living with the virus for a while, it also means that we must try to be proportionate and as targeted as possible in the actions that we take. Does the virus go direct? I am keen to understand where we are on asymptomatic testing now. Does the Government now accept that self-isolation of the 80 per cent who have the virus but are not showing symptoms is a benefit that outweighs any of the disadvantages? We think that it is important and valuable to extend asymptomatic testing. We have done that already. The clinical advice that was published in a paper last week from our advisers is that the priority for that should be to protect the most vulnerable. I will come on to this in a bit more detail later on. The priority for testing is people with symptoms, but we will not just extend asymptomatic testing for those who can help us to protect the vulnerable groups, but as we have set out, we will extend that further as capacity allows as part of our increased surveillance and managing outbreaks. I agree with Willie Rennie in principle that it is important, but we have to balance the capacity that we have with the clinical priorities that have been set. As I was saying, the virus we know does direct harm to human life and health and we must minimise that, but we also know that the actions that we take to do this cause harm as well to the economy and living standards and to wider health and wellbeing. The difficult task that all countries have is to balance all of that and minimise the overall harm of the pandemic. The strategic framework and the five levels are designed to help us to do that. Having five levels does not prevent us from applying restrictions consistently across the country if that is deemed necessary, but it means that we can avoid a one-size-fits-all approach if it is not. It will enable a part of the country with relatively low transmission to live with fewer restrictions than an area with much higher transmission. Such an approach is more proportionate, but the downside is that it makes the messages we communicate more complex. To help with that, we will be launching a new postcode checker to allow people to know what restrictions are in place in their area at any given time. The detail within each level is intended to give people greater certainty of what to expect at different rates of transmission, but it is important that we retain some flexibility. I want to be clear that we will keep the detail of each level under review as the situation develops, and that is a point that might be particularly important for the hospitality industry. I wonder whether the First Minister would advise Parliament whether scrutiny will be given of the new framework in terms of an opportunity to scrutinise the connected regulations before they are implemented? Yes. Graham Day will be having—I hope that those discussions will be fruitful—with other Opposition parties exactly how that will be done. We would suggest that perhaps there is a dual approach to this, where relatively minor changes to the regulations go through the committee process, but more substantial changes would involve some plenary input from the Parliament. We are open minded to that. It is important to recognise that the levels will be implemented by, effectively, template regulations that the Covid Committee will be able to scrutinise in the normal way. However, any changes to areas going in or out of levels will also trigger changes to the regulations that the Covid Committee will be able to scrutinise. If there are more substantial changes, I suspect that there will be a desire for the Parliament as a whole to be involved in that, so we will continue to try to seek—I will take one more intervention at the moment before I try to make some progress. Thanks very much. Those are extremely difficult times for everybody, and I am sure for no one more than the First Minister. However, scrutiny is absolutely essential. We have been given a number of documents at 12 o'clock today to try and work our way through. That is very complex stuff. We have had no opportunity to consult with businesses in our area, local authorities in our area and constituents who are writing to us in their droves on a number of issues. I will make a plea to the First Minister. During the Brexit legislation, we were able to do things in this Parliament quickly that allowed proper scrutiny of emergency legislation. We cannot go on as we are at the moment with having things imposed without scrutiny. It is absolutely essential. It is absolutely essential that we do that. I will play to the First Minister to open that up to far more scrutiny than we have had to do. In principle, I agree with Neil Findlay and the previous comment. The one caveat that I would inject here, which I have before, is that, unlike Brexit, we are dealing with an infectious virus, there is a real importance for the Government to be able to act quickly where that is necessary and merited. I think that people would accept that. However, I absolutely agree that the further we go into this, we need to balance that with the legitimate demand for Parliament, not just to be consulted and to have the ability to scrutinise, but to do that early and before changes are made wherever that is possible. I give a commitment today to try to facilitate that as much as possible. We are having a debate and a vote today on the overall framework. When we announce, and I will come on to this in a second, the initial application of that framework will trigger scrutiny of the regulations that will give effect to that, and then there will be changes to the regulations with any changes to the levels framework. There will be scrutiny in the ordinary course of events, but we want to try to build greater scrutiny into that as well. I appreciate that Parliament is getting information sometimes at short notice. We will try to provide as much notice as possible. I spent last week, and I found it very useful, I think, a total of almost three hours with the party leaders of the other parties here, to try to give an early and developing understanding of what we were bringing to Parliament today. I give a commitment that I will try, within the context of what we are dealing with right now, to involve Parliament in as much scrutiny as possible. Let me try to make some progress. I just want to summarise for Parliament today the levels that we are proposing. Members should note that levels 1, 2 and 3 of the five levels are intended to be broadly comparable, albeit not identical to the three levels deployed in England. I explained on Friday that the baseline level 0 is the lowest level of restrictions. It is similar to the state of affairs that applied in August when we had suppressed the virus to very low levels. We consider that to be the closest to normality that we can get to without better treatment or a vaccine for Covid. We remain hopeful about the prospects of both of those scientific developments over the next few months. Level 1 is similar to the restrictions that we had in mid-September, as cases started to rise again, but prevalence remained very low. Our objective, of course, is to get all parts of the country to level 0 or level 1 and remain there if we can. The restrictions that we propose for level 2 are similar to those that currently apply across Scotland outside the central belt and level 3 resembles the tougher restrictions that currently apply in the central belt. Finally, level 4, which we hope not to have to use, envisages something closer to a full lockdown. For example, non-essential shops would close at that level. However, even at level 4, up to six people from two households could still meet outdoors, and manufacturing and construction businesses would stay open. Levels 2 and 3 are intended to apply for short periods of time, and level 4 will be deployed only if absolutely necessary as a short, sharp intervention to address extremely high transmission rates. Under all five levels, we want schools and childcare to remain open if at all possible. Since publishing the proposed levels on Friday, we have consulted with various stakeholders and, as I have said, those consultations included discussions with Opposition leaders. Of course, it is not possible to accommodate all the asks of different sectors and still suppress the virus, but I can confirm that we have decided on some changes that will hopefully be welcomed. Those relate to childcare, shared parenting and child contact centres, outdoor retail, bingo and numbers allowed at weddings at level 4. Full details are on the revised table that circulated to MSPs earlier and will be made available on the Scottish Government website. Before turning to hospitality in a bit of detail, because that is one of the sectors bearing the biggest impact of current restrictions, let me mention one other, hopefully, temporary change. The table that was published on Friday envisaged that at level 1 we would be able to meet with six people from two households in our own homes, but it also made clear that that might change in some circumstances. The public health advice to ministers is that, if a decision is taken this week to move any area to level 1, the current prohibition on meeting anyone from other households in our own homes should remain in place for a period as an extra precaution. We intend to accept that advice, but that position will be reviewed weekly. I will take one more intervention, and I will need to make some progress. Liam McArthur. I am very grateful to the First Minister for taking an intervention. On that specific point, he recognised that, in rural and particularly smaller island areas, the option of meeting in venues or outside, particularly as we move into the winter months, is going to be hugely problematic. Therefore, the restriction in place is likely to reduce public confidence and possibly compliance with the restrictions that he is setting out. I will come on to island communities in more detail in a second. I recognise that, and that is why I hope that this would be a short-term temporary change. It is advice about how we transition to this new system with appropriate precautions still in place. I want to turn to hospitality and describe the restrictions that will apply in each level and outline any changes from the current situation. I hope that the changes will be welcome, but I know that the sector will have wanted to see fewer restrictions, especially at level 3. I will explain why we do not consider that possible at this stage, but I want to be clear that we will continue dialogue with the sector on the proposals that it has put forward. We also intend to establish an expert advisory group on reintroducing safe, low-level music and background noise. At level 0, hospitality will operate almost normally, subject to rules on physical distancing, limits on numbers and other mitigations such as table service only. Level 1 will be similar, but with a curfew closing time. However, that will be 10.30, rather than 10.00 pm. Level 2 is broadly comparable to the restrictions currently in place outside the central belt. Currently in these areas, hospitality can operate normally outdoors with an early closing time. I know that this gets more difficult in winter. I am going to make a bit of progress if that is okay, and if I have time, I promise that I will come back to you. That will continue to be the case under level 2, but the closing time again will be extended to 10.30. Just now, premises in those areas can open indoors until 6 pm for the service of food and non-alcoholic drinks only. At level 2, that will be extended to 8 pm, and alcohol will be permitted with main meals. In the central belt areas, under tougher restrictions just now, only cafes can open until 6 pm for food and non-alcoholic drinks. Level 3 is broadly similar, but all hospitality premises will be subject to the same rules, so cafes, pubs and restaurants will be allowed to open until 6 pm for food and non-alcoholic drinks. At level 4, hospitality will be closed. I know that the sector wants to see more activity allowed, especially at level 3, and we will continue to discuss that with them, but I must stress that areas at level 3 are the areas currently with the highest levels of infection. Our judgement is that to ease up any more at this stage, particularly as our progress remains so fragile, we could risk tipping those levels closer to level 4, rather than having them make the progress that we want to see towards level 2. Assuming that Parliament agrees the overall framework today, I will confirm on Thursday what level each local authority will be placed into initially, and that will be with effect from Monday and will be reviewed on a weekly basis. Those decisions will be based on advice from the Government's advisers and the national incident management team. We are also consulting with local authorities. While we will initially apply levels to whole local authority areas, we will look in future at any situation where it might make more sense to be more targeted. For example, a different approach for the Argyll islands than for the rest of the Argyll and Bute Council area. As I said earlier, we have published a technical paper detailing the factors and data that will guide those decisions. We will look at actual and projected cases per 100,000 of population, test positivity rates and projections for hospital and ICU capacity, and different thresholds for those will apply at different levels. It is important to stress, though, that those decisions will not involve the automatic application of a single statistic or even basket of statistics. Those will inform and guide the decisions, but judgment will require to be applied to them. As we migrate initially to this new system, we will be deliberately cautious. As I said earlier, we are seeing signs of progress, but the situation is fragile and it could go in the wrong direction, so we must take care. I hope that over the next couple of weeks, if progress in slowing the rate of new cases continues, we will see more local authorities dropping down a level, but initially most are likely to stay in broadly the same category as now. Final decisions have not been taken, but I want to give Parliament a broad indication today of what that means. The central belt areas currently under the toughest restrictions are likely to be in level 3 initially, and most of the rest of the country is likely to start in level 2. There are, however, some exceptions under consideration. Firstly, it is hoped that the Highlands, Orkney, Shetland, the Western Isles and Murray might go to level 1. Less positively, we believe that the escalating situation in Dundee City makes it possible that it will go to level 3. As has been reported, we are considering whether the very high rate of transmission and hospital admissions in North and South Lanarkshire may necessitate a move for them to level 4. Those are the only areas currently being considered for level 4. However, there have been some encouraging signs in the past few days that the situation in Lanarkshire may have stabilised slightly, so we will only take that decision if it is deemed absolutely necessary, and I hope that we can avoid it. As I say, I hope to confirm those decisions to Parliament ahead of FMQs on Thursday. For all of Scotland, our aim is to get to level 1 and then to level 0 of the framework as quickly as it is possible to do. We know that that is possible because over the summer we got to the very low levels of transmission that would be needed for that. If we can do that once, we can do it again, but it will not be easy. It will take action from the Government to support the wider efforts. That is why our strategic approach does not simply set out restrictions. It also explains how we will expand testing and the steps that we will take to better support people to comply with the rules, especially on self-isolation. We set out details of our testing expansion in the paper that we published last week. Finally, we know that, while the Government has the responsibility to lead, success against the virus will depend on all of us. It is difficult, frustrating and getting more so by the day, especially as we head towards Christmas. However, if we dig in now and get Covid under more control, we perhaps open the door not to 100 per cent normality by Christmas, but hopefully to more than we have right now. We all want to see that. I am asking people to stick with it. As of Monday, make sure that you check what restrictions apply in your area. Please stay out of other people's houses, except for the limited reasons that are allowed. Follow the rules on face coverings, avoiding crowded places, cleaning hands, two metres distancing and self-isolating and getting a test if you have symptoms. All of us must try to be as patient as possible and not being able to go to the football or for a pint or out for a meal with friends. Those are hard sacrifices, but they will protect you and your loved ones, they will help protect the NHS and they will save lives. Right now, that is what we must all pull together to seek to do. We are where we didn't want to be in the midst of a second wave, with hospital wards filling up, shops and businesses forced to close and many worried that they will never reopen. We have no date for a vaccine and there is an increasing realisation that a start-stop approach to shutting down society may buy time and space, but it is not in itself a solution. Governments across these islands are now adopting a tiered system of response to see us through the winter and into the new year with national, regional and local variations. The idea is, once again, to suppress the virus, to cut infection and reduce pressure on our NHS services. I want to join the First Minister in thanking, as she always does, those doctors, nurses, clinicians and staff who are now stealing themselves for the weeks and months ahead. Today's position is a chastening one, but we have a number of elements in our favour. We have a public that wants to help, that will do its bit if the instructions are clear and the reasoning sound. We have more information and data, we have more examples of good practice from around the world to inform our decision making. There is also, I believe, a political will that transcends party colours to see us through this challenge. On launching the framework, the First Minister said that she sought suggestions for areas that could be improved, questions to be considered and concerns to be raised. I take her at her word and the Conservative amendment today is designed to build and improve on the proposals on the table. Let's start with where we are in full agreement and alignment with the Scottish Government. First, in the need to recognise the importance of local authorities and health boards in this process, to make sure that the people delivering on the ground have the earliest possible input on what they are being asked to enact. Also, on keeping the schools open as a priority, the First Minister will know that the Conservatives have been unwavering in our recognition of the importance of the physical opening and attendance at school. Where plans for blended learning were being advanced for half days and part weeks, we were clear that our young people had been damaged enough through this pandemic and that keeping the learning, the social contact and the structure of school was an imperative. The framework recognises that. In changes from our proposals last week, she confirms that informal childcare, allowed at tiers 0 and 1, will now be extended to include tiers 2 and 3. That change is welcome and so too is the announcement today of a postcode checker to allow people to check what restrictions apply to them. Where we are disappointed is the late change to today's motion to take a swipe at the UK Government, making no recognition of the £7.2 billion of additional funding for Scotland during the pandemic, including £700 million worth of support announced at the start of October. However, that notwithstanding, the Scottish Conservatives will give their support to this motion and are asking for support for our amendment, because we believe that it tackles some of the vital areas that are in the interests of all Scots as we move through the next phase of managing this pandemic. Alongside protecting public health, the most crucial issue is the protection of people's jobs, livelihoods and standards of living. The past six months have been horrendous for small businesses across Scotland, probably the hardest they have ever faced, including the years following the financial crash of 2008. We are not talking here about big multinationals, but family-run firms that are fighting to maintain local jobs in their areas, contending with what might be necessary restrictions but having no part to play in the process of drawing them up. They need to be on the inside, helping to mould a framework of regulation that supports firms and jobs rather than simply be the recipients of restrictions handed down by ministers. Will the Scottish Government consider establishing a formal coronavirus business advisory council to help to advise on the practical needs of businesses during this time of enhanced restrictions and properly inform the decisions taken? That is for the constructive tone of our contribution so far. It may be the case that we cannot support all amendments in the vote tonight because they remove parts of our motion that we think are important. However, I want to make clear that that does not mean that we are not of the view that there are important suggestions in each of the amendments, including the one that Ruth Davidson has just spoken about. We will take all of the suggestions from all of the amendments and try to take forward them as much and as far as we possibly can, and that is a commitment that I wanted again to put on the record in relation to the specific point, but more generally as well. Ruth Davidson I thank the First Minister for saying that she is going to take this on board. If I can explain a bit about why we think that it is so important and would press for that to be looked positively on. Just last week, business organisations were given days—two or three days—to respond to this Government's framework before today's debate, and many spoke out about the need to be in the room of those plans being drawn up in the first place and using their experience to inform that thinking behind them. Throughout the pandemic, we know that representative bodies such as the Federation of Small Business, the Scottish Chambers and the Scottish Retail Consortium have made clear that they want to play a constructive role. The creation of such an advisory council would benefit the Government, it would benefit those in the ground who are doing their utmost to adapt and change and keep their workers and customers safe, and it would benefit all of us by keeping more businesses afloat and more people in work. I am pleased that the Government is going to give such a consideration to such a body. If I could just make some progress, that would be helpful. The reason that it is so important in bringing those businesses inside the decision-making process is that it would help to answer the questions that they have now. I know that Fiona Hyslop received submissions last night asking legitimate questions about how the framework was going to work. How will areas move in and out of each level and under what criteria? What is the minimum period in and out of the levels, because a two to four-week spread simply does not work? What advance warning will businesses get before being told that they have to enter or move tier, and what target criteria needs to be met for areas to move from a higher level to a lower one? They also ask, as the Conservatives have repeatedly done, for airport testing, and they rightly demand a clarity that so far has been missing. For example, firms across the central belt were told to cut or close for a two-week circuit break that was due to end on 26 October. They were then told that that would be extended by a week. They are now being told that they are about to enter tier 3 with no date of exit. The decisions that firms make about a two-week suspension of business are not the same as the decisions that they would make for indefinite closure, and it is simply not fair of government to string them along and not give them that information. They rightly ask why cases, hospitalisation and transmission rates can be so wildly different between, for example, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and yet both cities face the same restrictions. Businesses need clarity on the tier system that we are moving to, and they need clear communication and advance warning, and so too do our councils. I understand that council leaders spoke to the Deputy First Minister yesterday and they were advised that there would be movement within tiers or sub-tears. An area could be level 1, but with some level 2 restrictions, which would effectively make it level 1+. The obvious consequence of that would be that there would be more gradations and combinations of restrictions than the five that have been previously set out. Keeter retaining the public's trust and compliance is absolutely seeking clarity on that point. I am grateful to Ruth Davidson for taking the intervention. I say to her that whatever has been conveyed to her is not the position. We have been very clear, subject to the modifications that the First Minister has made today, that the basis of the levels as set out will be what we commence our arrangements to include. There may be stages at which we can apply different constraints within different local authorities, but not at the starting point. That is the point that the First Minister made about, for example, the Argyll Islands compared with the mainland of Argyll. That clarity is hugely welcome, but it demonstrates some of the difficulties that we have already seen in the process before those tiers are brought in. One of the things that we have put forward in our amendment is a request for provision and publication of more local and regional data. We think that that is one way in which we can help to improve clarity both within local authority areas and between local authorities. Another of our key asks is for real thought to be given now on what can be done for people around Christmas. The Government motion rightly mentions mental health. The Samaritans say that they take 300,000 calls across the UK on Christmas day in the average year. This year is not even close to being average. Research published this month by the campaign to end loneliness showed that nearly two-thirds of adults are worried that they will not be able to see family and friends this Christmas because of the coronavirus. More than a quarter are worried about being alone on Christmas day. More than half say that they will not see elderly relatives because they are afraid of endangering them, but they know that that will also increase their loneliness. On Sunday, the Deputy First Minister indicated that he was in discussions with the UK Government and other devolved Administrations to develop a plan to allow students to return home for Christmas. Notwithstanding his remarks yesterday, that is to be welcomed and it would be helpful if we could get more detail on those discussions and receive regular updates on their progress to ensure that students, many away from home for the first time, can indeed return to their families safely for the Christmas break. That is not enough because we need to look at the viability of a plan to allow a temporary and proportionate moderation of household restrictions that will lift the threat of loneliness and isolation, now hanging over so many as they look ahead. The five-tier framework, as set out, allows for limited degrees of in-home socialising at levels 0 and 1, but no in-home socialising at all across levels 2 to 4. Safety is, of course, of paramount importance, along with the need to suppress the virus, but will the First Minister commit today to examining the case in conjunction with her medical and scientific advisers for allowing a limited degree of in-home socialising across at least the first four tiers over Christmas Day and Boxing Day? Even a limited moderation across those 48 hours would help to ensure that parents could see children and, perhaps more importantly, grandparents could see grandchildren this Christmas. Kind of intuitively, there may be a public health benefit to this because if we want people to continue working within the rules for the long term, they should not be faced with a choice where family needs override their buy-in to compliance because we know that once that rubicon of knowingly and purposefully casting the rules aside is crossed, keeping adherence in all other respects becomes harder. I know that no limited moderation can provide a full solution. The hard truth is that it is impossible for every seat normally taken at the family table to be filled this Christmas, but nobody should have to sit alone. I'm just summing up, but yes, absolutely. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I wonder if the member would agree with Bishop John Keenan, who also said about Christmas that it's important to give people hope. It is absolutely important to give people hope. It is also important to keep people safe. Those are very difficult questions, and I understand the complexity and difficulty with it. That's why we're not calling for a plan to be announced today, but we are asking the Government to take that away and look at it, look at the viability of it, look at what can be done in those areas. We need a plan for Christmas, which shows that, while it clearly will not be normal, must still bring the opportunity for families to come together to see each other, to love each other, to support those who otherwise would be condemned to a very bleak December. The way in which families are structured in the divide that distance has created and entrenched this year means that any Christmas loneliness strategy should be co-ordinated as much as possible across the four home nations. We have approached today in a constructive manner, and we believe that our asks, a coronavirus business advisory council, local and regional data collection and publication, advanced warning for sectors about proposed tier changes, target data for tier reduction and a Christmas loneliness strategy are all proposals that will help Scotland to come through the second wave in better shape. We urge the Scottish Government to consider them. I move the amendment in my name. Richard Leonard Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Government has been trying to build cross-party consensus for this framework over this past week. To those of us who have had friends, neighbours and family members struck down by this virus, who have been hospitalised, who will suffer the long-term effects or others still who did not make it, we know just how serious this is. We do not need to be reminded and so that we agree that we should strive for a consensus, but our first duty is collectively to get this right. We need to get this right for Scotland because people are suffering, businesses are suffering and communities are suffering. Scotland has already paid a price, which is why it remains our firm view that members of this Parliament need to be able to ask questions of Government ministers in this Parliament about this framework in advance of us voting on it. A week ago, this was the agreed position. Then days ago, this was withdrawn in what was clearly a political decision, which begs the question for many people what has the Government got to hide. A simple parliamentary debate on this motion is not sufficient. It does not give us the level of parliamentary scrutiny, which the people who send us here rightly expect. Private briefings with Opposition party leaders have their place, but they cannot be a substitute for public and parliamentary debate, scrutiny and interrogation. That is our view, of course. I appreciate the point that Richard Leonard is making. I do not think that I can be fairly criticised for shying away from questions. I have given up teen statements in the Parliament, answered probably hundreds of questions in the Parliament. I will be back here on Thursday for the weekly FMQs. The view was that this was the time to have a lengthy parliamentary debate with a vote at the end, which we do not have a vote at the end of a statement. However, I will come to Parliament as often, as necessary, as often as is wanted. I will stay here for as long as possible to answer questions. I have made that very clear. I have probably, I will no doubt be corrected if I am wrong on this, but I have probably answered more questions than any leader of any Government anywhere else in the world. I am happy to continue to do that, because that is my responsibility. I thank the First Minister for that intervention, but as a matter of record, we will look for a First Ministerial statement today so that the First Minister could be questioned, and then this parliamentary debate tomorrow. For us, it was not one or the other. It was both that we were looking for. Of course, it is a step forward if the Government is now conceding the principle that regulations should be voted on by Parliament before they take effect, not after. However, we still need the opportunity to test them and the evidence that lies behind them. That is what any motion, any legislation and any regulations passed by this Parliament must reflect. We have always said that the gloom of this pandemic must be illuminated by the light of scientific reason, and that means evidence, credible evidence, persuasive evidence, reliable evidence, evidence that people can see and understand. We need much greater transparency over the indicators that are being used to determine which tier a local population is being placed in. Today, the data that will be used in the thresholds and how that decision making process will work—I had already had an intervention with Ruth Davidson, but I remind people that most of the data and evidence that we have is already published on the Public Health Scotland website. Anybody can go in and look at the data on a daily basis in their own neighbourhood. Some of the evidence that is asked for—I said this to Richard Leonard when we met last week—I understand the call for that, but some of the additional evidence that has been asked for is evidence that, in Scotland or any other country, simply does not yet exist. We will publish and already do publish most of the data that is available to us and we will continue to do that at as granular a level as it is possible to do. Richard Leonard? We think, for example, that clear thresholds should be set out and published weekly so that people can understand which tier they are in and why. We think that clear indicators, like the level of cases in care homes, should be published. The rate of cases among the over 60-year-olds in a local authority area should be published routinely. I have heard the First Minister say on numerous occasions that the evidence that we are looking for does not exist, but it must be possible to distinguish between the rates of transmission in restaurants, pubs, bars and cafes. Otherwise, why could decisions like the one taken in Aberdeen be taken from an informed point of view? That is what business owners and hospitality workers alike were telling me a week ago in Glasgow's Merchant City. They want better informed, evidence-led interventions so that at least some parts of the night-time economy might be kept open in our towns and cities. I am bound to say that it must be possible to do better than the response of the First Minister in her daily briefings, that if there is a thin line between a cafe and a restaurant, then all cafes will be shut down. That is not a rational response of a Government, that it is supposed to be winning public consent at a time of enormous sacrifice. The First Minister must understand why there is such anger in Scotland's hospitality industry. On Friday, the First Minister said that we were not back at square one. It is true that the schools, for example, are to remain open to something that we welcome. We may not be back at square one, but this is a second wave that is coming as we approach the winter. That is very different from the challenge that we faced as we went into the spring and early summer. We know that emergency hospital admissions in December last year were over 9% higher than they were in April last year, so that the challenge that we face is different and it is greater. In our amendment to the Government motion, we reflect on the fact that the Government has been too slow at testing, too slow at turnaround times for testing, too slow at turnaround times for contact tracing under test and protect 2. It is no good expanding testing capacity on its own if the turnaround time for results is too slow. Let me turn to students as well. Students coming to Scotland's universities should have been tested on arrival at least once. Now they should be tested before the Christmas break and on return from the Christmas break so that they can safely have a Christmas break. Families do want to be together at Christmas. The people of Scotland have already paid a price, so everything needs to be done to make sure that this can happen, and we will work with the Government to make sure that it does. Let me also say that the extension of testing is something that we welcome, too, but it has been too slow as well. We have been calling for the extension of routine testing to home care workers for months. The Government has finally agreed, but we still do not know when we can expect to see this. Those workers, predominantly women workers, are putting themselves at risk to care for Scotland's most vulnerable people, so everything needs to be done to ensure that we are caring for and protecting them. They need a date for testing. This new framework, which comes into force in six days' time, like the lockdown of hospitality—like last week's extension to the lockdown of hospitality—has not won unquestioning support out in the country, and so it does not win unquestioning support from Labour. People understand that the choices are stark, but in a democracy they can only be made with the establishment of trust and so the winning of public consent by persuasion and not coercion. The rising public hesitancy that the Government now faces is in part born out of a fatigue, a tiredness, in the desperate search for light at the end of this tunnel, but it is also born out of a growing restlessness and discontent that yet more is being asked without the compelling and persuasive evidence needed to back it up. The evidence has got to be central to the winning of public consent, because the selfless sacrifice of the people has been unlimited. The emotional strength, the effort, the endeavour, especially of those key workers who have worked on for month after month with no break, has been heroic. Now, with many working people facing the grim prospect of unemployment and joblessness in the lead-up to Christmas, that is why they want a Government and a Parliament that is on their side. It is essential that they do not become the victims of a struggle between two Governments. We want the two Governments to co-operate and not compete in the interests of public health of people and of those jobs, so we agree that the Tory Government should increase an extended support for businesses and workers in Scotland, but the SNP Government needs to be bolder too. The framework feels like it is going to be with us for some time, so that is why it is so important that we get it right. That is why we need people to be able to support it, not out of fear of the repercussions but out of a belief that sticking to it will help us all. That is the test for the Scottish Government and it is a test for us as representatives of the people today, because, in the end, that is a test of democracy. Can I move the amendment in my name? It is vital that the Scottish Government's strategy to tackle Covid-19 is properly scrutinised by Parliament and that we have the opportunity to work towards political consensus. As our amendment states, the Greens believe that the ultimate goal should be elimination of the virus. The Scottish Government's framework states that the strategic intent is to suppress the virus to its lowest possible level and to keep it there while we strive to return to a more normal life for as many people as possible. People worked hard to suppress the virus over the summer, but it has subsequently escalated out of control. We have to learn, we need to understand why, and we need to have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate the Government's response on an on-going basis. We cannot continue to lurch from one lockdown to the other until an effective vaccine becomes available. I note what Alison Johnston said in which case I was wondering if she might be able to tell me why the Green Party did not support a statement with questions today and then a debate with the vote tomorrow for better scrutiny this week of this whole framework and what has gone before in the 16 days. I am very comfortable with the Green Party's scrutiny of the pandemic. As my amendment states, routine asymptomatic testing will be an important tool in an elimination strategy. We know that those carrying Covid-19 can be asymptomatic while contagious, and we cannot continue to wait for people to show symptoms before we test them. The framework refers to an expansion of asymptomatic testing to certain groups, but we need to go further and faster. In universities, for example, the framework limits ambition for asymptomatic testing so that it will only be used in response to an outbreak, but by this time the damage has been done. Universities in England are increasingly developing their own testing capacity using innovative techniques to routinely test as many staff and students as they can. The University of Cambridge, for example, can now test up to 16,000 people per week as part of its screening programme. I call on the Scottish Government to work with Scottish universities to let this happen here as soon as possible. Do not forget that it was the return of universities in September that helped to propel us into the second wave, causing misery for thousands of students confined to overcrowded halls. We cannot let this happen again. We in Scotland are still not testing home care workers every week. That is absolutely appalling. NHS staff who are on the front line are still not being tested every week. That is the reality of it, and that is why we require far more scrutiny than we have at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Finlay that I presented the Government with a paper in April calling for asymptomatic testing and outlining the research of Imperial College, which showed that such testing could help to reduce transmission of the virus by up to a third. The fact that the paper today speaks of the introduction of the testing of community nurses is quite, frankly, shocking. I think that a lot of people will be very surprised to learn that that is not happening as a matter of course. The asymptomatic testing is not yet being delivered at a scale and speed required, despite clear evidence showing the importance it has in detecting the virus and breaking chains of infection and therefore saving lives. The framework states that testing on its own does not reduce transmission. I am sure that every single person in this chamber understands that, but we have to look at the research that has been done. As my amendment states, a coherent response to the on-going pandemic requires effort to build political consensus. It is vital that we are properly enabled to examine and debate the Government's approach. We are in the privileged position of representing the people of Scotland, so we have to understand the Government's intention in reducing specific restrictions and the scientific advice that underpins them. I will continue to call for each and every opportunity for Opposition parties to do that. To share that information, too, with wider civic society, it is essential in ensuring on-going public support when new measures intended to curb the spread of Covid are introduced. It is entirely reasonable for people to want to know why they are being asked to do certain things. It provides confidence, too, because people did express anxiety previously when restrictions were being lifted. I, like many others in this chamber, am sure that we all have received correspondence from constituents who are confused about the science underpinning certain measures. They will give examples of one measure and compare it to another. Clarity of messaging is absolutely key. I understand that there is attention between maintaining a flexible approach that enables the Scottish Government and partners to respond quickly to emergency situations and delivering clarity. Although it would be neither fair or productive to impose strict measures on areas where there is a low number of cases, different levels of restrictions being imposed on different parts of the country may cause confusion. The First Minister appreciates the challenge there. I would appreciate, when closing, if the First Minister or Cabinet Secretary could outline what form the new marketing campaigns mentioned will take. As we know—I will begin to close now—the virus affects different communities differently. People in our most deprived communities are twice—more than twice as likely to die with Covid than those living in the least deprived. I am pleased that the framework contains a commitment to work with minority ethnic communities and organisations to ensure that the Scottish Government gets its messaging right, but I would appreciate more detail in that regard, too. In conclusion, the public needs to know that we have an effective exit strategy that we are striving to eliminate the virus in Scotland and that there is robust scientific evidence underpinning the approach. Increased meaningful public dialogue, the expansion of asymptomatic testing and on-going debate in this Parliament will go some way to achieve that. I would ask the chamber to support my amendment. We have worked constructively through the pandemic and will continue to do so. The good news is that the Government now seems to accept the much wider use of asymptomatic testing. The 80 per cent of those with the virus, but with no symptoms, can now self-isolate with a positive test. That is a major change. That benefit outweighs, I believe, any negative behaviours that may come with a negative test. If we had accepted this principle earlier, we might have been in the position today to snuff out any outbreaks before they spread in our communities, and then we might have been able to avoid the imposition of generic crude restrictions that we are talking about today. The First Minister, I know, disagrees with this, but the Government was getting carried away over the summer with talk of elimination, and they missed the opportunity to get ready for the widely-predicted second wave, with greater testing, improving the tracing capacity, but also the quarantine spot check capacity. That the Government was not carried away, what was said about what was achieved by the Scottish public as we reached the summer was entirely accurate, and that we did not waste time. Mr Rennie knows that the reason why we are able now to look at wider cohorts of asymptomatic testing is because we have built up the NHS Scotland capacity to take testing, and that will allow us, along with what the UK Government can manage in terms of the lighthouse lab, to have that headroom incapacity as we enter winter to introduce more cohorts on asymptomatic testing. It is entirely wrong, notwithstanding that we continue to have that disagreement that we do have, to say that we were either complacent or foolish in what we said and did over the summer months. Can I ask the interventions that we kept a bit shorter, please? I am sorry to disagree with the health secretary. I do not think that she was foolish. I do not think that. What I do think is that she had an ideological objection to having asymptomatic testing, because she believed that the negative behaviours that would come from that asymptomatic testing would not be of benefit. She has now evolved that position and changed that position and now accept asymptomatic testing on a wider basis. I think that that is a good thing, but I just wish that it had been done earlier, because we might have been in a better position today. We might have been having that testing to be able to snuff out the virus in our communities. It was an objection, rather than the ability to build up the capacity. There has been much chopping and changing in recent weeks, so we need some stability on the restrictions. I want to see greater involvement of the Parliament in improving the big changes to the levels. I support the various committees of the Parliament in improving the regulations in advance of any change. I also support the chamber debating substantial changes, such as whether schools should move to blended learning, or whether there should be widespread travel restrictions, or whether every council was perhaps moved up to level 3 or 4. I hope that the health secretary in her summing up can respond positively to that proposal. Our amendment, which I move in my name, seeks fairness, hope and clarity. I am pleased with the detail that is provided in the documentation over the weekend and today, the detail on the data, on the issues about the criteria and also the thresholds. That is something that we asked for and I am pleased that it has been forthcoming. There are issues on clarity. Take the local flexibility with the 32 different councils but also, as has been indicated this afternoon, the possibility of some areas within councils like the Argyll Islands. That is a huge potential variation across the country. The flexibility on the levels, not just the five levels, because we have learned today that there is effectively level one and a half with the possibility of maintaining the ban on indoor meetings in the Highlands and Islands, so five plus various measures on the levels. Then, of course, the two to four week periods where those measures may be introduced. Potentially different parts of the country bobbing in it of different levels at different times for different lengths of period. That is going to take a huge effort to communicate that. That level of flexibility may give greater precision for the Government in being able to target what is necessary for each area, but the communication job has just got so much harder with 32 versus five and a half versus different places at different times. It is going to be a real challenge to get those measures across now. I will assist in making that happen, but I hope that the Government is on top of that issue because it is going to be getting a lot more complicated. There is level zero, but there is no apparent route to getting there. Those councils that have zero on the various indicators and documentation that have been provided in the past few days only take them down to level one. I am not sure how those areas get down to zero. How is that possible if those that are already at zero on the indicators are just going down to level one? We need to have some clarity and hope for people that the best-case scenario in the strategy, which is still pretty restrictive, has a potential route to get there. Are we moving to minus one on the indicators? Is there such a thing on that? What do they need to do in order to get to zero? Still on hope—this is a much more fundamental point—we need a debate on the longer-term goal. Of course, we hope for the vaccine. We hope that that is forthcoming and that we suppress it until we get to that vaccine. There needs to be a consideration that that might not be possible and it might take a little bit longer. We know about the various competing harms on health and societal and also on economic. We understand that, but a short period of time, those harms can be coped with. If they are to last so much longer, the burden of those harms becomes so much greater. That, I think, tilts the balance and changes it. Therefore, we need to consider whether it is possible to continue those restrictions at this level. If you look at hospitality, they are expected to be bearing the brunt of some of the changes. Construction and manufacturing sectors have made the changes and are now, under all circumstances, with all levels of the virus, able to operate safely. The same with schools and hospitals is expected. If that is possible for them, why can it be possible for tourism, hospitality and the entertainment sectors as well? When the Two Sisters chicken factory in Couparangas was hit by an outbreak, it was not decided to close every other chicken plant in the country, why can't we have a targeted approach to those who comply with the rules on the hospitality sector? I am not proposing those specific measures, but I want us to come up with a plan for the future, because people need to have hope that it is possible to get there, because that is going to be a long, long winter, and we are doing a long-term strategy. We now move to the open debate and its speeches of up to six minutes, please. Ruth Maguire, followed by Brian Whittle. We are all living through really difficult times. We have lost members of the communities. We represent friends and family members to this virus, and it is with them all very much on my mind and heart that I speak today. What we face is a global pandemic of a nasty virus that presents a serious risk to life. Scotland is not alone in facing this. Decisions that the Scottish Government is taking while not palatable are not being taken lightly, and they are about trying to protect the health and life in the most proportionate way possible. Where there is serious risk to life, serious and sometimes difficult action is required, Scotland is not unique in this. This new strategic framework that we are debating today sets out the work required to suppress a virus based on clinical evidence, expert advice and a balanced assessment of the risks. I want to welcome the approach that the First Minister and her Government have taken in being open and providing honest reflections of the decisions that need to be made and acknowledging that balance requires to be struck between the four harms that we know the virus causes. None of this is easy. As we seek to tackle the direct and very real harm to health and life that is caused by Covid, it is crucial to recognise the wider health harms that will result if our NHS is overwhelmed by Covid. The social harms caused by lockdown restrictions such as increased isolation and inequality and the economic harm suffered by business and workers across the country, which in turn causes physical and mental health problems. None of those issues can be viewed in isolation. We must strike the best balance as we can and the interests of minimising the overall harm that the pandemic is causing. It is important to remind ourselves that if we allow the virus to run out of control, all of the other harms will be exacerbated. That is why everything we do must be consistent with suppressing Covid as far as we possibly can. The five levels of protective measures that are available are helpful in allowing a national approach to be taken if required but giving the opportunity for local flexibility that can ensure that restrictions are not being placed on people unnecessarily, which is really important. I know the personal toll that is taking on people. If we are the lucky ones, we are simply missing family and friends that we cannot see and the activities that we used to take part in. Others are carrying even greater burdens, worried about their long-term health, their families and how they cope with caring responsibilities if they fall sick, worried about their jobs, making ends meet or putting food on the table for their children. We know that people who are already facing inequality are most likely to be negatively affected by Covid-19, with an increased risk of facing financial and physical insecurity. For example, women are affected in terms of their health, not only as front-line workers and carers, but also because of the policies that have been introduced to manage the impact of the virus. Periods of isolation and social distancing can exacerbate women's experiences of domestic abuse, effectively trapping them in unsafe situations with limited access to vital support and means of escape. On top of years of exclusion and austerity, Inclusion Scotland tells us that disabled people have been dealt a triple whammy of virus, lack of control and lack of support, control and support that they need to enable them to endure the pandemic and whatever comes after it. Inclusion Scotland requests the point that it makes around disabled people being able to self-shield as they are experts in their conditions. I would ask the Government to comment on that in summing up. Earlier in the year, I amended the coronavirus legislation to place a requirement on government to have regard to opportunities to advance equality. Current policies, even in times of a public health emergency, should have equality in human rights at the centre. Although I acknowledge how challenging the ask of advancing equality is at this time, we have some examples of where that has been possible. I urge the Scottish Government to continue to fully utilise equality impact assessments to see ways of advancing equality and not simply to highlight issues that people are facing. We have probably become a bit endured to phrases such as unprecedented times when we hear it so much, but it is the truth that, for many of us, that poses the greatest challenge that we have faced as a nation. To succeed to get through this, we need everyone's help and adherence and continued collective care, courage and resolve to do our part, so our communities, our health and care services and our economy can be best protected. By following those measures and playing our individual part, taking care of ourselves and looking out for each other, a better future can lie ahead, and that will pass. Brian Whittle, please, followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Governments of the world over are having to make decisions that nobody would ever want to have to make, and that is why the Scottish Conservatives, all those months ago, put party politics aside and lent our support to the Scottish Government's efforts to tackle the Covid-19 threat. That remains our position, and I think that that remains the right thing to do. However, to help to maintain that unified approach, it is important that communication between the Scottish Government and this Parliament remains as open as possible. Of course, we recognised and we acknowledged that, in navigating this pandemic, mistakes were bound to be made. That has never been an issue. The issue has been that the Scottish Government has been less than forthcoming with evidence and opportunities to properly scrutinise and input into the decisions that have been made. I also think further more that the Government's response to other party inputs and suggestions has been frustrating to say the least to date. However, we are eight months into this Covid crisis and there is little sign of it abating any time soon. Quite frankly, I am sure that the expectation of the Scottish Government and many of us in this chamber was that the worst would be over and it would be under control by the time we got to this point. The reason I say that, Presiding Officer, I think that the approach continues to be predominant and reactive without an overall framework and direction that the Scottish public can work to. Most importantly, I think that there is little discussion on an exit strategy from the pandemic. There is a balancing act here between the need to protect the public from the virus itself and the need to protect them from the impact of the restrictions, because there are very definite significant health issues relating to imposing Covid restrictions both physically and mentally, as well as the obvious economic pain. As has been mentioned before, in terms of mental health, Christmas is now looming on the public conscience and the concerns arising of the impact of loneliness and being away from loved ones, some of whom have not had the chance to see each other since March. What are the chances of the public adhering to, on mass, to stay away from loved ones? They do need hope. They do need a ray of light at the end of a long dark time, of course. Everybody wants to see their family at Christmas. I desperately want to see my family at Christmas. Can I ask the member if he agrees, though, that the best way to try to open the door to as much normality as possible at Christmas is to plan as well as we can, but we cannot foresee the future of this virus absolutely. The best route to that is for all of us to dig in and abide by all the pieces of advice right now to get the virus to the low enough levels that opens the door to that normality. I think that it would be good, as members are doing, for all of us to continually come together behind that message. I absolutely agree with her that what we need is collectively across the whole country to adhere to our strategy, but I think that that is one of the issues that we have here. It has bounced about a bit and it is becoming more difficult for people to understand what the strategy is. In terms of Christmas, that is why we have asked for a Christmas strategy to be developed to have a look at. We do not know what that would be, but we would like that to be looked at, because I think that hope is something that is in short supply at the moment. If I can move on, I want to put forward the case for the voice of business to be heard when decisions on restrictions are being made to protect as many jobs as is safely possible to do, which again speaks to the Scottish Conservative amendment. Businesses traditionally work to a one-three or five-year plan, but currently cannot even work to a week in advance in many cases. Continually opening up and shutting down is unworkable. Business is not a tap that can be turned on and off. It may be easy to shut a business down, but it takes time to turn the tap back on again. Businesses were asked to innovate to find ways of operating in a Covid-safe environment to safeguard as many jobs as possible. I think that they did rise to that challenge, but then the rules changed and all that investment and innovation were lost. There are many businesses that demonstrated their ability to operate safely, yet they believe that they are being penalised for those who have flouted the rules. They say, do not punish those who have fully complied with the rules for the stupidity of those who do not, instead let's seek out those who break the rules. For example, the problems within the hospitality industry are well documented. You only have to drive through a city like Glasgow to see the rise in the two left signs where a restaurant or a cafe was recently trading to get an understanding of the extent of the problem. However, it is not just the hospitality industry that is suffering, it is the whole food chain supply that is under threat. I spoke with a major wholesale on Friday who, in his words, is hemorrhaging money to a point where he is considering having to shed 70 staff because he does not know what is coming down the line. He is a fraction of his delivery trucks out there, half empty, trying to maintain the customers who are still able to do some level of trading. I think that one local chamber member has said that most businesses will not be on the mandatory closed list yet expected to remain open under some restrictions and that overwhelming mid-music from government to cast customers to stay away. We need to speak to the Scottish Wholesaleers Association, and they will tell you the stark reality of the cliffheads that they face, a sector that is worth £2.9 billion to Scotland, supplying some 5,000 convenience stores as well as hospitals, schools, prisons and hospitality. They have high overheads and carry significant stock that they have been left out of the support schemes such as rates relief. If the supply chain fails, it will be extremely difficult to rebuild. There will be a post-Covid period and business needs to know that preparations and plans are being made that they can work to. They need to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel to be confident in retaining their employees. If I can quote the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, hope and confidence in the data and evidence being collated and analysed by the Government, it needs to be open, detailed and regularly reported and communicated. That will be critical to regain the trust that there is still both an ambitious and innovative strategy and a plan to guide us through the crisis. In conclusion, we need to protect lives and livelihoods. It does not need to be either or. Eight months in and I think a response should be more sophisticated. It is time to take a breath and let those most affected by the restrictions have their say, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I am pleased to be speaking in this important debate. In the outset, as an English Scot, I would like to put in record my anger and disgust at the comments from Willie Rennie at the weekend. His appalling attempt to bring naked constitutional politics into Covid-19 was ill-befitting of any party leader in this chamber. I am sure that Willie Rennie will not have found the First Minister at any SNP politician spouting the rubbish that he claimed at the weekend. I quote from Mr Rennie and English Retter that he has reared his ugly head at different points throughout this crisis and there is no place for it. Just as he is not responsible for the comments of his supporters, there is no party leader in this Parliament who is responsible for the people who support them. Similarly, no party leader is responsible for the people who are not members of their party who are supporting their particular cause. Willie Rennie, I certainly do. I think that it is an astonishing remark. There have been nationalists right across this country who have been trying to claim that the source of the rise of the virus in Scotland is coming directly from England. That is something that has not been refuted enough by the leadership of the various political parties in this Parliament. I will stand up and do that at every opportunity, because we are one united kingdom and we should be standing together against this virus rather than trying to divide this country. I regret the comments from Stuart McMillan. Sadly, I regret the comments from Mr Rennie because, once again, he cannot rise to the occasion on the issue of Covid-19. It is clear from the outset that a four-nation process to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic was important, crucial and attempted to be delivered from the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish First Minister. The Scottish Government is continuing to press the UK Government to ensure that sufficient four-nation approach takes place, particularly on the necessary funding for Scottish businesses and for workers in Scotland. The support that the Scottish Government is providing is the maximum that can be afforded under the current powers of this Parliament and the resources that are available. That is why the dialogue and the discussion must continue. Earlier this year, Mark Drakeford, the Welsh First Minister, called for a UK-wide lockdown strategy and criticised the UK Government for its policy. I quote Mr Drakeford, that the tendency to keep its cards close to its chest and then, later in the day, revealing its thinking to other Governments. I disagreed with Mr Drakeford and I still do so now. I very much agree with the comments from Jackson Carlaw earlier this year, when he is quoted as saying that a national strategy can allow for variations different nations operating at a different pace reflecting their circumstances. I agree with Jackson Carlaw then and I still think that that was very much a comment for today also. If a full UK-wide strategy were to be implemented, it would not be able to provide for the local actions for local situations. Something that Mr Rennie was actually talking about in his earlier comments, when he spoke about wanting plans to allow for people to follow the rules, but also spoke of the potential confusion of messaging within local authority areas if there were to be a different set of circumstances within those areas. However, the UK Government 3-tier system will be helpful for England and I welcome that. I also believe, however, that the Scottish Government's 5-tier strategy, however, advances what has certainly been in place already in Scotland and certainly at some point in the future, something else, another strategy, will actually come across that will actually improve upon what has been announced today. Covid-19 does not stand still and the scientists are learning every single day. With this, this is why I genuinely welcome what has been published. I welcome the framework, and it has certainly also offered it to be a local authority-based and not based solely on health boards. Inverclyde has been surrounded by areas whose rate has been a lot higher than ours, apart from Argyll and Bute. I would like to see Inverclyde placed in a tier that helps the economy to reopen under the appropriate measures, and tier 2 would certainly be ideal. I know obviously that the proposal from today with the new set of the tier 3 rules, I think that they are a huge step forward, but I still do think that tier 2 would be advantageous for my local area. On 24 October, Inverclyde had 52 new cases whilst neighbouring Renfisher had 383 and North Ayrshire had 310. I accept that North Ayrshire is obviously an Argyll and Bute, so it is in NHS Ayrshire and Argyll. However, our rate is certainly lower than our neighbours. Inverclyde has 68.1 per cent per 100,000, and Renfisher has 222.8 per 100,000, and North Ayrshire has 233.9 per 100,000. I also accept the challenge that there will be if there was that type of additional flexibility, because people will travel, and it has already been documented of people travelling from Glasgow over to Helensburgh last weekend, and certainly that would happen to Inverclyde as well. That then takes potentially the risk into those areas that also have a lower level. I genuinely welcome this five-tier strategy. I genuinely welcome this framework, and I know that it will be beneficial for every single community. However, we are also very much aware that we need to do what we need to do at the moment, because we certainly want to have a Christmas, and we want to have a better outcome for every single person, not just in Scotland, not just in the rest of the UK, but also globally. Scotland has already paid a very heavy price in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, but we have reached a critical point in reassuring the public that the latest strategy that was published over the past few days is workable, that it can win trust and support for ordinary people. It already feels grim, as we await the official announcement on Thursday, and the First Minister has given us a rough indication today of how the country might be divided up. We know that it is a global problem, and we are not alone. We are doing better than we were, but we are still far away from having it under control by WHO standards. Track and Trace and the failures of track and trace are one of the key reasons why we are not doing better, as referred low compliance rates. I know that many people are still waiting to be contacted while they have known that they have been in the presence of someone who has had a positive result. There is still much to be done here, and we need to learn the lessons of countries who have had the success of that, and that message has not really changed in the last seven months that test, track and trace is the key. I also believe that we must aim for a mass testing strategy going forward to open up the economy. I would like to add that there are many workers playing key line on the front line, or health workers or care workers. We too workers, too, are facing the public every day and they are beginning to question whether or not they should be tested, and I just wanted to mention that in the passing. However, the basic principle should be that, if you are shut down because of a decision for public health, then there has to be support for those people and for those businesses. It has to be the basic principle. We still have to see how effective the recent restrictions have proved. First Minister said that there are early signs that it is looking to improve figures, and we are now going to move to a new five-tier matrix, which is already causing considerable confusion and brings many questions about how decisions will be made and if we are on the right path. Transparency, simplicity or paramount and without it, there will be confusion that helps no-one. I, as other Labour members said today, I would have preferred to be a full participant in the process of scrutinising, which I believe is my job to do, of this framework. The business manager said earlier in the day that the view was that we should just have a debate, but it was not our view, and I want to make that absolutely clear. We have been used in this place for the last seven months questioning your First Minister, who I do give credit to, who stood there at the chamber desk answering your questions. I just don't see why this debate should be any different. In fact, arguably, I thought that it was more important that we should have both, as Neil Findlay said, in his intervention. We need to be able to chance to consult with businesses and people about our approach to this framework. Our constituents demand of us that decisions are backed up by clear data and that the process can be easily followed. The businesses that will have put restrictions on them should have the conventional financial support and still have many questions unanswered. The well-worn statement that we are all in together might be true, but some people are suffering considerably more than others. Each of those decisions will affect ordinary people and not just businesses. We have to be mindful of that. Those who have lost their jobs and more who will lose their jobs, sadly, as a lockdown framework, can impact and has impacted on some of the biggest sectors, such as hospitality. There is already confusion and divisive arguments about what a cafe is and what a restaurant is. Hospitality knows that they are the sector that may be expected to have more closures in the coming months, depending on what level they happen to be in. We must make sure that those questions are answered. The criteria for moving into each area—of course I will, yet. Nicola Sturgeon stands the difficulties for hospitality generally, but cafes and restaurants in particular. I wonder if she would recognise that, under the new proposals, all premises will be subject to the same rules in future under level 3, so there will be no distinctions between cafes, restaurants and pubs. I hope that she would welcome that as a useful step forward. Pauli McNeill. I also welcome, First Minister, what you said about listening to some of the ideas that hospitality has to make it smoother. It is important that people sign up to a strategy in which they do not feel that there is the device of which previous regulations were. I wholeheartedly welcome that. However, the strategic framework tells us of possible indicators, but does not tell us when the actual threshold is reached. I think that you said in answer to someone that that is clear, and it is not clear to me so far of what I have read. Given an indicative view about where North and South Lanarkshire might be, Glasgow might be. I already can see the figures that are 335 out of the 100,000 and 375 in Glasgow, that is 308 per 100,000. However, I am not clear at what level they will go into tier 3 or tier 4, because there are only indicators that would be helpful to get an answer to that. The ranges at each level are set out in the technical paper that we published today. I appreciate that members will not have a chance to absorb that in full. The point that I made earlier on, which I think is important, is that the statistics, cases per 100,000, test positivity projections around health service capacity will guide those decisions, but inevitably there will be a degree of judgment that has to be applied to this. The interconnections between different areas, whether cases are going up or down, whether there is community transmission or a series of smaller outbreaks, so it will not be an algorithm-based approach. Those statistics will guide fuller decisions. In applying that judgment, all I would ask is that the judgment applied is also clear and rational how it arrived at that, because judgment does imply that someone is making the decision and it might not be clear-cut. I would just ask for that and I do appreciate the answer that I got here. I think that I have to close, but if I could, in closing, end on a very positive note, because I do welcome the First Minister's announcement, which I, myself and Claire Baker and others have campaigned for, the expert group to look at music possibly, looking at whether it could return to hospitality sector. In closing, if the First Minister could just address the level zero issues for the nighttime economy, because in no scenario would they ever open up? I just hope that they will be engaging with night clubs and nighttime economy on that. Thank you very much. I am looking to sit up and not. I cannot go there either. Graham Simpson is there. Yes, we will have Graham Simpson. Always ready. It is really good that we are having this debate today. Parliament has so far been an after-the-event bystander when it comes to dealing with Covid-19. We have not had any meaningful votes. We have scrutinised some quite restrictive measures, but only after they have come into effect. We have had important matters relating to the pandemic announced at a daily press conference rather than to this Parliament. Both those things should make the Presiding Officer as angry as the Speaker of the Commons clearly is. At the start of all this, I thought that the advice that we were all getting was clear and easy to understand. If you do not want to catch the virus, stay away from other people, keep your hands clean and do not touch your face. I felt pretty safe sticking to that, as did most people. Now, though, we have a somewhat confusing model of rules and regulations, and people are finding it hard to comply with what they do not understand. Members will know because they can see it for themselves that many people are, for example, struggling with the law that says that they cannot have visitors to their own home. That brings me on to Christmas. People will go to see family over Christmas. They will travel within Scotland and between the nations of the UK. The Government of the UK needs to pull together to find a way that makes things work for people over the festive period. The plan unveiled by the First Minister last week was, to me, a document devoid of hope, because there was nothing about what needs to happen to get us back to normal. I think that the people who are making so many sacrifices and businesses deserve to have a plan that shows them how we can get there. We will support the plan, but it does run the risk of confusing people even more than they are now. The mood music of getting a vaccine is encouraging, but what if we don't get one anytime soon? Those restrictions could potentially last for years. The plan provided no detail on what has to happen, what evidence is expected, to move an area from one tier to another. People and businesses have a right to expect some clarity on that. The paper that was released earlier today, setting out some of the indicators, was useful. I would say that it should be updated for MSPs weekly. I want to turn now to reports that south and north Lanarkshire may and I stress may be put into the highest tier. I hope that that is not the case, because if it is, it will be because the numbers have gone in the wrong direction. The paper that I referred to a moment ago does not look good for Lanarkshire, so we may be heading for that top tier. The paper says that an area would be considered for level 4 if it broadly meets one of five conditions. What do we mean by broadly and why just one of the conditions? As a local member, I would want to know where the cases are, how the experts think that they have been spread and what the situation is in Lanarkshire's hospitals. In terms of where cases in a particular local authority are, you can go on to the Public Health Scotland website every single day and see that updated down to neighbourhoods of 4,000 people. That information is there. On the second point, where cases spread, there are limits to the evidence on that without genomic sequencing, which scientists in Scotland are doing. Beyond that, we have to make assumptions based on the information that comes through test and protect. Some of the data cannot be provided in that timescale, but we are working to provide as much detail as possible, and some of what he has just called for is already available. I thank the First Minister for that. I was pleased to hear earlier that we will get this postcode checker. That is a great idea. We have had hospital figures Lanarkshire-wide, but a further breakdown would be useful hospital by hospital. The Government must, if it goes down this route, say how it will protect the businesses that will be forced to close in Lanarkshire if Lanarkshire goes into that top tier. If there are to be travel restrictions, the Government must say how that would work and how it would be enforced, because people travel in and between council areas as part of their daily lives, dropping the kids off at school, for example, if it is in a different council area, or doing your shopping, just normal stuff. I would appeal to the Government to show some flexibility, too, if that is possible. The First Minister mentioned that earlier, but would it be fair to apply restrictions in rural areas in Lanarkshire, such as Clydesdale, if the numbers there do not justify it? In all that, I would urge the Government to work with elected members in any area that is likely to go into that top tier. We do not, I think, have to put things like moving tiers to a vote every time, but we do need detailed discussions so that we can all agree on what is needed to protect public health, while also protecting the economy. Government has a tough job, difficult decisions have to be made and there is a difficult balance to be struck between taking public health measures and protecting the economy and the fabric of our society. I do not envy them, but it is vital that the Government carries the country with them on this journey, and that is why they need to do better at explaining what they want to do and why. Joan McAlpine, please, followed by Kenneth Gibson. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome the document, Covid-19 Scotland's strategic framework, and in particular the emphasis that it places on the wellbeing of the most vulnerable, including extending asymptomatic testing to those who are most at risk. I want to focus my remarks today on one of those groups, people with learning disabilities, whose interests I have raised before. People with learning disabilities do not command the same headlines as some of the other groups most affected by the pandemic, but that is all the more reason to draw attention to the needs in today's debate. The Government's case-to-life strategy acknowledges that people with learning disabilities already have poorer health outcomes and die earlier than there is to the population. Last week, the journal Annals of Internal Medicine reported that people with Down syndrome have at least 10 times the risk of dying of Covid-19 in the general population, based on the UK data of 8 million people. In June, the Care Quality Commission in England reported a 134 per cent increase in the deaths of people with a learning disability during the height of the pandemic. Yet neither learning disability nor Down syndrome is listed in the four nation guidance as a condition that makes people more vulnerable to Covid-19. If people with a learning disability live in a care home, they will have the additional protection that comes from asymptomatic testing of the carers who support them. I very much welcome that and the fact that it is moving to the NHS. However, most people with a learning disability do not live in care homes and their carers are not tested weekly, even though the strategy document says that routine testing includes, and I quote, non-elderly adult settings, and it would be good to get some clarity on that at some point. Many people with learning disabilities, including those with very high support needs, have been moved into community settings. However, in practical terms, those settings carry the same risk as care homes, so people with significant needs will live in small complexes, perhaps with five to 20 other people receiving 24-hour support, including close personal care. That means that the infection risks that apply to care homes are similar to those complexes. People in supported accommodation are subject to the same curtailments on their freedoms as people in care homes, because they are vulnerable. I know that charities like Enable and Epilepsy Scotland have also called for routine testing in those settings, so I welcome the Government's commitment and look forward to more detail on when it will be delivered. I understand that home care workers should also be included in that, and that they look after people with learning disabilities. However, if there is a capacity issue, I would have suggested that those complexes, where people who receive 24-hour care alongside other people in supported living, should come first. I have a personal interest in that matter, as I have said before. My sister is down syndrome and lives in supported accommodation, and when it was a bit warmer, I was sitting with her in the shared garden, and one of the fantastic staff who looked after her in Inverclyde told me that her husband worked in a nearby care home and was tested every Monday morning, and she simply couldn't understand why the people she cared for were not offered the similar protection. It was the people that she cared for that she was thinking about, not her own health. The strategy document also places a welcome emphasis on wellbeing of the most vulnerable. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport has written a very welcome letter to directors of social work on the social isolation experience by learning disabled people as a result of the closure of adult day services or adult resource centres, as they are sometimes known. In that letter, the cabinet secretary emphasised their importance and urged safe reopening and the importance of putting meaningful alternative provision in place where capacity is reduced. However, the feedback that I have got from all over the country is that little or nothing has been put in place often to compensate for the closure of those ARCs. Because of that, hundreds of people have been left at home and their carers are under enormous pressure. In South Scotland, where I live, one local authority is now undertaking remote needs assessments before they provide the alternative support, and that process is causing real distress. A carer in my constituency who supports her learning disabled sister was told that if they moved to self-directed support to replace the day centre provision while it was closed, the funding would only cover basic needs such as feeding and washing. The social stimulation, leisure and friendship that she got at the day centre would not be replaced. The carer was told that if she did hire a personal assistant to fulfil those basic needs, her sister could lose her place at the adult day centre permanently, cutting her off from all the familiar activities that have given her life meaning for the last 20 years. That is not a person-centred approach, and I am sure that the whole chamber agrees that it is not an acceptable approach. In conclusion, can I ask again that people with learning disabilities are given the health protections that they need by testing anyone who they rely on for close personal care and that local health and social care partnerships and local authorities ensure that people with learning disabilities are treated as human beings with the right companionship, recreation and meaningful activity, as well as having their basic needs looked after? I thank Kenneth Gibson to be followed by Elaine Smith. Yesterday, 442,721 people tested positive for Covid-19 across the globe on a seven-day rolling average. That is the highest ever, as were 21,926 cases across the UK. Worldwide, 5,922 deaths were recorded. Sadly, it looks likely that it is going to be more than £1.5 million by year's end. Yet the virus seems to have hugely varying impacts. Singapore has had 57,980 positive tests and 28 deaths, a mortality rate of less than 1 in 2000. Gibraltar and the Faro Islands, with 617,490 positive cases respectively, have reported not a single fatality between them. Dealing with a seemingly idiosyncratic virus is no one that leaders across the world are struggling to know how best to reverse this pandemic. Covid-19 will clearly impact our lives for the foreseeable future, and I am sure that we have all been contacted by constituents demanding full lockdown or a complete lifting of all restrictions and no doubt everything in between. Folk are exhausted and often bewildered. The Scottish Government is constantly striving to balance national and local restrictions to best protect Scotland's health and economy. The introduction of a more comprehensive-level system in place of ad-hoc restrictions is welcome in such circumstances. As the First Minister stated with introducing the framework, it must be approached with an open mind. We must listen to stakeholders and communities to ensure that they are properly supported through the next phase of the pandemic. It is my view that the support should include more nuanced restrictions once a new local authority provisions bed in. Until last week, the Isle of Arn had been virus-free for four months, yet people and businesses were put under the same stringent conditions as the central belt. The small cluster of confirmed cases on the island have been effectively contact-traced and managed. That shows that, even with the recent return of coronavirus, Arn is not the same as the mainland. In a gylem but to which other members have already touched on, the differences are even starker. One can see the western isles from Tyrie, but not Helensborough, which is 142 miles away from Roddenferry. As we move into this new phase of fighting the virus, we need more targeted restrictions and I look forward to those in due course. The widespread adoption of masks is one of the most obvious ways that the public has complied with regulations to make Scotland safer. The Scottish Government acted decisively to make face coverings mandatory on public transport and in shots before other parts of the UK and has provided comprehensive guidance on proper hygiene while wearing a mask. We know that a mask should cover our face and nose to wash our hands before putting it on and then avoid touching our masks and faces. However, there is some confusion regarding other aspects of correct usage. Constituents have asked pertinent questions that have not yet been addressed by guidance. The advice is to wash face coverings after use with a school day or a trip to the supermarket given as examples. It would be helpful to have clarity on what counts as one use as examples given vary. Should our face covering be washed at 60 degrees after every single layer, if travelling on a train and taking a mask off at the end of a journey where a clean mask be required for the journey home. Advice is to wash your hands after removing a mask should you also wash your face. It may seem that mask hygiene is simple common sense, but it is brand new to most of us. I am sure that we can agree that the more clarity and guidance provided, the safer mask compliance will be in the more effective way we can control the virus. However, we must also recognise that Covid-19 is not the only risk to health and wellbeing this winter. As a night's draw in, we face a wave of loneliness and isolation. I have been contacted by older constituents deeply concerned about the coming months. There are, of course, where of coronavirus and follow all the necessary guidance and regulations. The First Minister announced in Friday's briefing that right up to level 4 restrictions, six people from up to two households would be allowed to meet outside. This compromise was first reached in summer as a way to safely interact with people outside their own households. It will undoubtedly help many people over the warmer months. However, we are asking much more of people if they can only meet up in this way over the winter when it is cold, wet and dark. Some of my older constituents in particular are worried that they face a choice between braving potential and hazardous weather conditions and spending the winter alone not seeing anyone at all. Liam McArthur had already touched on island communities where perhaps meeting places are fewer and farther between. I therefore asked the Scottish Government to increase the flexibility for single people and even couples to meet safely indoors. That might take the form of couples and individuals having a chance to meet each other's homes—perhaps three or four people from a maximum of two households—while observing social distancing and any additional regulations deemed necessary. Any increased risk of transmission must be balanced against the positive impact on people's physical and mental health. The next few months are going to be hard for all of us, but we will get through it. However, those months cannot be about just avoiding the virus. Being alive is much more than having a heartbeat. We must continue to work with our communities and give people the chance to live, not just survive. Thousands of men and women play organised amateur football. The only adult grade of Scottish football that has been stopped, even though they follow all the same protocols as all clubs outside the top two leagues. In 2018, UEFA reported that amateurs gave NHS Scotland £690 million by helping to prevent 5,000 mental health cases, reduce cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, etc., as well as adding £200 million to Scottish economy and £300 million in social benefits. Therefore, I urge Scottish ministers to allow amateur football to restart to continue delivering those benefits that would otherwise be lost to individuals themselves and Scotland. The Scottish Government has acted commendably throughout this crisis, and it would be inconceivable to expect this if any other Government navigates such difficult unprecedented times without putting a foot wrong. Like elsewhere, things were handled well and those that have not gone to plan. There will be more of both as we progress. The next phase must continue to be informed by the science to protect quality of life as well as life itself. There will be a balancing act, but providing that we proceed with open minds and are prepared to listen and adapt to what is necessary, we can bring Scotland through this. In starting any speech on the subject of Covid-19, we must remember all those who have died and sent their condolences to their families. There are also many suffering from long Covid, and although the majority of people may fully recover, there is certainly not a virus that anyone wants to catch and particularly not those with underlying health conditions. However, I am also quickly aware from constituents of the other health service provisions that are now suffering. Cancer treatments have been stopped, the symptoms have not picked up and elective surgery has been cancelled. Undoubtedly, people have also died because of the restrictions put in place to battle Covid, and their deaths are equally tragic. People are also suffering in terms of their mental and physical health, their financial situation and the loss of personal contact with family and friends. The havoc that this pandemic is raking on our society, particularly in terms of health and the economy, would have been quite unimaginable just a year ago, but so too would the idea that our civil liberties and human rights would be so restricted. The Scottish Government's framework document, which the Parliament has been asked to note, not to endorse in the motion, speaks of principles that include a commitment to fairness to uphold the principles of human dignity, autonomy and respect and equality. However, with rising inequality in the gap between rich and poor growing, the Covid pandemic is undoubtedly impacting differently across our country, not just by local authority or health board area, but by class. Some of the steps laid out in the framework published on Friday within the different tier levels do not seem to be given equality and human rights impact. That is crucial that they are given that, both in terms of successfully combating the virus but also in terms of meeting those obligations on equality and respecting our human rights. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation pointed out in its latest Poverty in Scotland report that thousands of families that have never accessed the social security system before will now be seeking support. Women, disabled people and young people are the hardest hit, but the interventions, I do not think, are quite bold enough and nor do the proposals tackle isolation and loneliness. The First Minister told us that the 16 days was a short and sharp action, but the leak, obviously, last night tells us and the First Minister confirmed it that Lanett Shire may be put into even more draconian measures, despite being an area of higher deprivation. I think that we do need clarity on where exactly are the outbreaks. Are they in care homes? Are they in schools? Are they in hospitals? Can it still be hospitality when they have been closed for so long? To consider whether that is proportionate, I think that we do need specifics, First Minister. Perhaps the third plug for the Public Health Scotland website today, anybody can go on and it is updated on a daily basis. You can go into your local area and you can see the breakdown of cases to a very local level. The demographic breakdown, the age breakdown, is available as well, so we try to improve that as much as possible. However, from some of the comments across the chamber today, it is clear that people are not as aware of that as they should be, so hopefully this debate will help to rectify that. Maybe that will help for the public to be more aware, because obviously the public are still confused and I do not know whether there is not hospitality. Is it still increasing in hospitality settings when they have been closed? We need answers on that. However, I know that, from listening to my constituents, anxiety is on their eyes, support for them is hard to find and a sense of confusion is evident despite what the First Minister said. Perhaps that is why we need more scrutiny and questions in this Parliament rather than just plans put in front of us to note. The restrictions do not deliver consistency in a way that is understood or in a way that gives confidence that the growing inequalities will be addressed. If the First Minister wants to intervene again, Presiding Officer, I am happy to let her as long as she gives me the time back, because I think that we should have had a question and answer session today. Sorry, I just had understood, but I may be wrong that it was Labour that actually wanted us to have a motion that said no and not endorse, but if I am wrong about that, I will stand corrected. Labour were certainly giving sight of your proposal, First Minister, but we did not comment on whether we wanted a motion that said no. What we did want was a question and answer session today and a debate tomorrow when we all had more time to digest what you have put in front of us. That would have been a much better level of scrutiny all round. I would suggest including for yourself instead of all this backwards and forwards interventions and questions. As I said, the restrictions do not deliver consistency. There are so many variations and the rules are not easy to make sense of whether visiting a lonely friend or relative in their home, for example, can be a crime, but meeting them in a busy cafe has been allowed, or when attending a wedding reception in a hotel with 20 others is acceptable, but socially distancing in a local restaurant with strict safety measures have been introduced is not acceptable, where so many services are now accessible only online, but thousands of my constituents have got no access to Wi-Fi or a computer, so there will be no digital Christmas for them. On the one hand, the Government speaks of the importance of the high street to communities and local economies, but on the other hand, small businesses that have put health protections into practice are faced with closure. Of course, the United Kingdom Government Chancellor should increase the extent to support packages for businesses and individuals, but the Scottish Government does need to be bolder. It needs to, for example, give priority to local suppliers for the school meals contracts, for the necessary food deliveries and to ensure that those local shops remain open in the future. The framework speaks of the principle of evidence, but the rules are changing so quickly that it does not seem even possible to collect the evidence, yet alone draw conclusions. For the rules to be followed with confidence, people need to know more about exactly what works and what does not work. The rule of six was brought in for private homes, but it was hardly given any time to be judged when it was then ruled out, but there has been no explanation of the science that allows hundreds of school children to mix with each other and their teachers and support staff. Of course, no one wants schools to close and children to lose out in vital education, but many children have been sent home to isolate for 14 days at the moment due to Covid outbreaks in the classrooms. How is that affecting their learning? In terms of students, will they now be tested before returning to the halls after Christmas? That is hugely important. Hospitality was asked to put in place safety measures. The vast majority spent money doing that, but why are they all being treated as if they have broken the rules? Why was Scotland the only country in the world to ban background music in pubs and clubs? What was the science for that? With businesses closing, travel and tourism devastating and the shrinking of the economy, how is the loss of jobs and the resultant poverty going to affect our children and young people's future? If those are political decisions, rather than science-based, we need to hear that from the First Minister. People can judge whether they think that they are proportionate or not. We are now being asked to support a five-tier system, which starts at zero and ends at four, although we have been asked simply to note rather than to endorse the plan, which means that we are merely observers. What are the indicators that will be for those proposed tiers? Will they include rates for the over-60s care home outbreaks, testing positive cases by area? At the start of this, when it was clearly in the emergency situation, and as described by the First Minister, beyond politics, it would surely have been preferable for the Scottish Government to be truly non-political and set up a coalition unit executive to tackle it in a cross-party way, but the First Minister chose to do it herself. Parliament has handed unprecedented powers to the First Minister and her Government, but we must now have a much greater role in scrutinising all of this. It must be transparent and we must have the raw data that underpins the decisions and when such information is made fully available, then there might be more democracy. Despite the First Minister somehow laughing about that, we all want to see the Government and wider society succeed in the fight against this virus, but members of this Parliament must be able to constructively hold the Scottish Government to account, to publicly scrutinise the decisions and actions to help in the national effort to tackle the pandemic, and to urge support for Labour's amendment. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am speaking today as an MSP but also as a resident of North Lanarkshire, which, as you all know, is currently one of the hardest hit areas in the country in terms of Covid cases. Last week, we learned from NHS Lanarkshire that our hospitals were becoming close to capacity. In Malklands hospital, only a mile or so from where I live was closing again for non-essential procedures. Indeed, I recently spoke with a friend who works in Malklands, and previously she worked in the specialist Covid ward during the earlier part of the year. I could hear the worry in her voice as she warned that things were getting bad, pressure was building and she was really worried about going through it all again. She has pleaded with me to help others to make sure that they take this seriously. Presiding Officer, we must listen to people on the front line on the surgical road track. I repeat, we cannot be allowed to become overwhelmed. We are in hard-placing Lanarkshire, and I am sure that I do not just speak for the Coatbridge and Crescent, which is part of that local authority, when I say that we will do whatever it takes, whatever tier we are going to get the virus back down and under control. Does he agree that it is extraordinary that almost 8 months down the line, front-line healthcare workers are not being tested on a regular basis? I thank the member for that intervention, but I think that the testing system is working well and I'm going to come to that later in my speech because test and protect is working well in Scotland. I think that constant attacks on it aren't helping anybody. As I was going to say, I fully welcome the strategic framework, it gives more clarity in what's acceptable and what's essential in terms of activities and travelling in and out of areas with different infection rates. I think that this is needed because there is evidence in front of us every day that people aren't always clear in this. I don't play the blame game and I do believe that the majority are trying to do the right thing and put in personal safety measures in place, but we've kind of got to this point where we are now from the summer gradually and as we approach winter it's time to restock and do things a bit differently. So, Presiding Officer, even before the leaked email last night, most of his and Lanarkshire are expected to be in tier 3 as an absolute minimum. If this is the case, businesses in our area will need more support. Some could be shot for six to eight weeks or longer in this period and we know that they employ significant amounts of people in some of our most deprived areas. The grants are good and very welcome, but the reality is that we will need more. This is where I turn to the benches on my left and I'm well aware that this is a Scottish Parliament debate, but we can't escape the hard reality that the UK Government needs to step up to the plate and support our businesses in our most deprived areas. It's unthinkable that a blank cheque approach has been given to other parts of the UK but not here in Scotland. No way can any Tory, Central Scotland-list Tory or anywhere else, sit back and allow central belt areas to have tougher restrictions and for us to be treated at second rate. Back to what this Government can do, I want to put on record that I welcome the news today that nightclubs and soft play centres will be given additional funding. I know that I have contacted the Government several times about both these types of businesses on behalf of the ones that operate in my constituency, as have many others, and it's great that the Government has taken this action. I publicised last week on my social media that I was hoping to speak in this debate today in asking constituents to get in touch. For most to have done that, I've already had answers for them given the updated framework that was set around this morning. For example, I was contacted by Buzz Bingo in Coatbridge, outlining the benefits of Bingo and the safety measures that have been put in place. I was therefore pleased that it is now anticipated that Bingo will be able to resume at tier 2, and I'd like to thank the manager, Gordon Barr, again for getting in touch. Similarly, following some queries, I'm happy to hear that there's clarity around travel when there are shared parenting arrangements. It's really important to avoid any additional pressures and hiring for children and young people as we move into winter. Wedding some constituents who contact me will be happy to learn that there's proposed increase in guests to 15, even when an area is placed in tier 4, which, as we heard from the First Minister earlier, may happen in Lanarkshire, but hopefully not. There are other areas where I receive contact and there is no change proposed. For example, in relation to adult outdoor contact sport, specifically amateur and other football, as Kenny Gibson has already mentioned, and I think that others have had those queries as well across central Scotland. I do have, I think that tier 3 is unfortunately the right place for this, and I actually say that as a footballer, and I use the word lightly myself, and it's something that's not likely to get back to football for some time, but I do think that tier 3 probably is the right place for adult contact sport. However, saying that, having organised it as well as playing it for some time, I know the benefits of this in all similar reports, and it's the social eyes and the emotional benefits for people as well. I think that the best thing here is the hope that tier levels can deliver, and that people can work over a short period to come down to the tier 2, where it can resume. I think that that's another benefit that the tier system brings, rather than being about, well, you know there might not be an end in sight to when football can resume. However, the most contract that I've had has been about is schools, and as a father on MSP agreed that schools should only close as a very last resort, but I think that the enhanced and targeted measures that are referred to in the frameworks should be fleshed out a bit in terms of what that might mean. I think that people would expect powers to close schools for short periods if necessary, and it would be short periods with a planned end, not the situation that we had earlier in the year. I say this because there are cases in schools. Every day, North Lancer Council provides data to elected representatives excellent communication from the council throughout the whole pandemic, and almost every night there is at least one school where there's a pupil or staff member who is tested positive and a number are isolating. That number seems to have increased gradually, with last night's briefing having 27 different schools across the authority affected. That, of course, reflects the wider situation in Lancer and that testing protect is working. To be crystal clear, I endorse the plan and very much support that schools remain open at almost all costs, but constituents are telling me that if we need short and sharp action against the virus, not one that lasts for months, then everything should be on the table and they'd be willing to do it. Presiding Officer, I can see that I've run out of time, but, in conclusion, I would like to say again that I welcome this framework fully and to scrutiny around it, and for giving us a chance to raise constituents' concerns directly. Thank you very much. I call Annie Wells to be followed by Alex Neil. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's clear that Scotland is currently in a precarious place. People have made enormous personal sacrifices in halting the spread of this virus, but it remains incredibly stubborn. Cases remain worryingly high, and each tragic death that occurs as a result of Covid-19 reminds us of the gravity of the situation. As such, as the spread of the virus accelerates, the only logical option is to adapt by introducing more restrictive measures. Although painful, my party agrees that it is the most effective way to safeguard public health. Only on Sunday it was reported in El Paso County, in Texas, that hospitals have reached full capacity, as cases rise sharply and the health system comes under immense strain, requiring health officials to seek additional more space. Although far from home, incidents like that around the world remind us of the value of NHS and those who work in it, it is vital that we protect it to ultimately save lives. That being said, I want to raise two serious concerns raised by my constituents. Everyone understands that saving lives is the number one priority, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that those restrictions will place enormous pressure on individuals and businesses across the country. Take the knock-on effects of redundancy, for example, which can lead to financial insecurity and a men's strain on mental health. That is why I expect disappointment at how businesses in Glasgow have been treated by the SNP Government. The confusion over the definition of restaurants in a cafe continues to cause frustration to businesses in the hospitality industry. However, I am also pleased to hear that the First Minister has acted on that within the new guidance. A local eatery in Glasgow's East End, whose owner employs 17 people, was forced to close by Glasgow City Council. The owner is rightfully angry, as the council could not provide an answer to his question concerning the difference between his establishment and other businesses in the local area whose premises remain open. I have written to the Glasgow City Council to urgently clarify what the specific guidance is for businesses such as this. That goes to the heart of the problem over the new guidance, in that the SNP has consistently failed to engage with businesses, which is having direct consequences on people's wellbeing and livelihoods. People's jobs are on the line here. The SNP must start to take those concerns seriously before it is too late. Secondly, I would like to turn to the impacts that the pandemic is having on our elderly and vulnerable. A view that I am sure will be shared across this chamber. The fortitude that it has shown throughout this crisis has been an inspiration to us all. For those who are most vulnerable, this is an especially difficult time. That hits close to home, as my mum, who has always pride herself in her work, has had to make the difficult decision to retire due to the anxiety of her contracting Covid. It was her lifeline that has allowed her to speak to friends, co-workers and cherish that social contact that she and many others will dearly miss. Naturally, I want to support her through this and be with her as much as possible, but with the restrictions on social distancing guidelines, as well as having a son who stays down south, my mum, along with many others, will fuel the pinch of these new measures. That is why I am delighted to support the amendment in Ruth Davidson's name, which calls for the Scottish Government to develop and publish a Christmas loneliness strategy. These past few months have been brutal, and she and others need to hope that families can be reunited in some form for Christmas. I want to draw attention to the shambolic situation over the flu vaccine. Despite the Scottish Government pledging to scale up the seasonal flu vaccine programme, its role in greater Glasgow and Clyde has been disgraceful. I received countless emails from constituents, many of whom contacted me on behalf of their elderly parents, with one describing the process as farcical. Many people are having to wait far too long to receive their job, with many still not having yet received it. As many remain anxious with the prevalence of Covid, that is simply not acceptable. If a coronavirus vaccine is developed in the next few months, the SNP must put more robust provisions in place to ensure that we avoid the same problems that people have experienced so far with the roll-out of the seasonal flu vaccine. Everyone accepts that, around the world, we will inevitably encounter difficulty as we combat the virus. However, as Opposition MSPs, it is my job and the job of my colleagues to hold the SNP Government to account. Right now, it is failing business, and it is offering little reassurance to our most vulnerable people, which is deeply dreadful. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. I speak in support of the Scottish Government's motion, but I also welcome many of the suggestions that have been made in this debate from across all parties. I think that people out there in Scotland want us to operate in the Scottish Parliament as part of Team Scotland, and I think that the tone of this debate has been very helpful indeed. I particularly welcome some of the announcements made today. I think that it is a good idea to move in terms of deciding who is in which tier, to move from health board areas to local authority areas for the simple reason that there is wide variation within large health graphic areas such as Ayrshire and Lannyshire. Therefore, it is appropriate that we take a look at the local government area where we can pinpoint more accurately where the real problems exist. I also welcome the flexibility introduced of going below local authority area into localities, although we have already heard quite rightly about treatment possibly for different islands in Scotland. The likes of the small remote rural communities come into a similar category, so I think that that is progress. I also welcome the relaxation of things such as bingo and the money for things such as soft-play businesses and night clubs. I particularly welcome the fact that restaurants and pubs are now on equal footing with cafes. There is one area that I agree with Kenny Gibson. I think that it would be helpful if the Government looked again at the status and standing of amateur football, because there is irritation among amateur footballers that they are not in the similar standing to senior and junior clubs, particularly given the importance of tackling issues such as obesity among many of our younger and middle-aged people. I hope that that is something that we will look at as well. I have a number of suggestions to make about what we also need to look at on top of everything else that the Government is doing. Right at the core of the strategy is the need to reduce the level of hospitalisation, because the need for the restrictions that we have had to impose is to a large extent driven. It is not overwhelmed by the number of cases that a number of people who are admitted to hospital. Some progress has been made with some of the new drugs that they have come on board since the beginning. They allow the length of stay in hospital to be reduced, and that is very much to be welcomed. Let us hope that many of the other drugs, anti-viral drugs that are in the process of development at the moment, come on stream reasonably quickly, and that will help. There has also been a lot of work done, particularly down south, on the profiling of patients, those patients who are most at risk of needing hospitalisation. I think that those profiling protocols could be very helpful in helping to identify early on in the community those people who are most likely to need hospitalisation and putting in place a strategy for earlier intervention in terms of drugs and treatment to see if it is possible to reduce the number of those people who are identified as likely to need hospitalisation once they reach a certain stage to see if we can prevent a number of them, probably not anything like all of them, but it would be helpful if we could at least prevent a number of them ending up in hospital. The other area where I think that we need to do a bit more work is in terms of looking at what is happening in many other countries, most noticeably, for example in Japan, where they are very much focused on the need to deal with so-called super spreaders. The research seems to show that a small number of people with Covid pass it on to a very large percentage of those people who get it from someone else. In some studies, it is showing up to 80 per cent of people infected by a small number, relatively speaking, of super spreaders. If we can identify more quickly the super spreading situations and intervene very quickly, that would be helpful, and it is shown to be helpful in countries such as Japan in reducing the prevalence and spread of the virus. The suggestion also by one of the Scottish Government's own advisers that, instead of just isolating those contacts, identify through test and protect, we should be looking at testing those people as well. As the capacity ramps up to 65,000 in the weeks ahead, then, hopefully, some of that capacity could be used because, again, if it is done quickly, it might prevent a lot of spread that is happening at the present time. Obviously, if the so-called swab in the gobb, as it is being referred to with the turnaround times and minutes rather than days of the analysis of the test, if that comes on board quickly, it will allow for the scale of testing, which so far has just proved unimpossible. However, if we can get to mass-scale testing, then, clearly, that would be beneficial. We are all hoping—somebody mentioned earlier—the need for an exit strategy. The exit strategy is a safe and effective vaccine, hopefully coupled with safe and effective anti-viral treatments, which we do not have at the present time. However, we need a bridge to go over so that we get not just to the authorisation of a vaccine but to the time that it will take to distribute and give people that vaccine. I think that we need a vaccination strategy, which, among other things, takes on the anti-vaxxers and tries to prevent and pre-empt any damage that they might do, as they did on the MMR issue many years ago. We cannot afford not to vaccinate the requisite number of people to put an end to this nightmare that we have been going through since February, March and, unfortunately, which we are likely to be going through for some time yet. Thank you very much. I now call Anas Sarwar to be followed by Richard Lyle. Presiding Officer, I want to start by paying tribute to all those who continue to work on the front line to try and suppress this virus and to save lives, to recognise the efforts of all those who are working round the clock to try and beat this virus, whether that be in Government officials or those on the front line, and by also sending my condolences to anyone who has lost a loved one through this pandemic. We are seven months into Covid-19 and into the second wave. I think that it is right at this point to reflect, to recognise what we have worked, to recognise what has failed or has gone wrong and to decide what the focus on our priorities should be going forward. Fundamentally, this is about saving lives and livelihoods. To be clear, from the outset, and even today, I want the Government to succeed. I will, and I have supported when I think that the Government has got it right, and I will continue to constructively challenge in the right tone, in the right spirit, when I think that the Government has got it wrong or when I think that the Government can do better. I also want to put on the record that, whilst I support attempts to control the virus, I do not think that we can be blind to the challenges and the consequence of how we respond to the virus. I do fear that how we have responded may in itself cost more lives than the virus will cost itself. The impact on health, mental and physical, the pause on cancer services being one example, whether that be on screening, on speed of diagnosis, cancelled operations, isolation, loneliness, the heart of loss, poverty, in some cases, extreme poverty, unemployment, job losses, the general uncertainty and, for many, many families, particularly lots of women and children across the country having to live in really difficult circumstances and perhaps really difficult households. All of those things I think we need to be really alive to. One area that we rightly commend the First Minister on is on the communications. I accept that the First Minister is a better communicator than Boris Johnson, thankfully. Perhaps not a high bar, but thankfully a better communicator than the Prime Minister. However, I think that we have a hard lesson to learn as we enter the second wave, and that is that our effective communication strategy is not the same as a virus elimination strategy. There are going to be comms challenges as we go forward, and that is going to be even more difficult. We are going to have 32 different local authorities, perhaps having different sets of restrictions, five tiers, and that is not going to help to keep a simple message, and that will cause some challenges. A few months ago, when Willie Rennie mentioned that, we were being told that we were in the midst of a zero Covid strategy, and we had a chance to eliminate the virus by the end of the summer. That was simply untrue, and we should not have allowed that to happen. I think that he is talking a lot of sense, which I take seriously. That was not untrue. We probably did virtually eliminate the virus. With winter coming and lockdown being lifted, that becomes much more difficult as countries across the world are finding. However, I wonder if he would agree with me that, had we not suppressed so firmly in the summer months, we would be in a much more challenging situation right now. We do face challenges, but if we look across the UK and Europe, our position is not as severe as some other countries. We should not be complacent about that, but that is because we put so much emphasis on elimination over the summer months. I completely agree with that, and I supported the suppression that we did over the summer months. However, it is still important to recognise that, in those summer months, we still had the third or fourth worst death rate anywhere in Europe and infection rates anywhere in Europe. We did have the Government and senior advisers say that we were on a zero-coverage strategy and the world could learn from Scotland. I think that we just have to accept the fact that we are now in this with the long haul and that getting people back into restrictions again is made much more difficult if people think that those restrictions that happened before were not just a one-off exercise, but could be cyclical now until we have a vaccine. If there is any lesson to be learned from the flu vaccination roll-out programme, we have a lot of work to do to make sure that people have confidence in the roll-out of that vaccine. That should have been the dry run. That dry run sadly has not been good enough. I think that the comms are really important because we have to maintain confidence and public support. As the restrictions get more complicated and there are perceived contradictions or inconsistencies, that risks public support and buy-in to what we are trying to do. We were told that the full lockdown was about helping to strengthen our systems. Yes, it was about protecting the NHS, yes, it was about saving lives, but it was also to give us time to prepare and strengthen our systems. One of those systems was our test and protect system, because we were told that test and protect would help us to isolate the virus and stop the spread of it. It is doing it, but it is not doing it anywhere near as much as we need it to do it. Test and protect was meant to be large at the answer. I am in my last minute, cabinet secretary, so you can perhaps respond in the closing remarks. Test and protect has not helped to suppress and defeat the virus. People's intentions to support test and protect and isolate is high and adherence is low. A study done by the King's College of London, which looked at figures right across the UK, showed that, for those people who did have Covid symptoms, only 18.2 per cent self-isolated, only 11.9 per cent requested a test, and only 10.9 per cent reported staying in the quarantine for two weeks. That is not me saying that people do not have the right intentions. I think that we have to recognise that people have really difficult financial constraints, sometimes caring responsibilities, sometimes restrictions on their accommodation, sometimes really difficult personal at home circumstances, and we have to make sure that any decisions that we take are rooted in the real world and real lived experiences. In closing, I recognise when my final seconds is testing. We keep hearing about testing. There is not adequate levels of mass testing. There is not adequate levels of rapid testing. You can go to Boots now and get a test kit that does in 12 minutes, or certainly that is what the advertisements are saying in terms of the future. Every single Premier League register footballer will get a test every week. Why can't every care home staff member get a test every week? Why can't every NHS staff member get a test every week? Why can't every home carer get a test every week? In 1957, when we had the TB crisis, the Glasgow corporation set up 35 mobile x-ray clinics and units in Glasgow, and in two months tested 750,000 people. We should be at that level of scale and size in order to beat the virus. The legacy of the virus has to be what we learnt from it, how we built back better, and how we prevented harm in our society. The legacy of the virus cannot be a scarred generation. I have just viewed the NHS Covid-19 profile. It highlights what we face and needs more exposure to the public. I was quite shocked when I read it. Covid-19 Scotland's strategic framework sets out the intended approach to managing the suppression of Covid-19 across Scotland. I note that local NHS boards and local authorities will be consulted on the application of the framework to individual areas. I have to ask whether local SPs will also be consulted. There is a commitment to keep schools open at levels, and I promise that an economic package is put in place to support those businesses that may be required to close or have their operations restricted. Support for workers who will be hardest hit by the necessary restrictions. What will be announced shortly will have a cost for all, and we have to meet that cost. We must support our citizens in this pandemic, every citizen and family. We cannot see the virus, we may unknowingly touch it, we cannot taste it, but it is still there. We have to defeat the virus, whatever the cost. Today I want to speak about what my constituents are facing during this pandemic, and how they want clarity and information to go into a higher tier. To keep their privacy, I will give them other names. Ann says that she operates two restaurants, both of which were forced to close on the 9th of October at 6pm. Of the 70 staff across both restaurants, only 22 qualified for furlough during the 16-day closure. She cannot take bookings with no knowledge or if they will ever operate again. It is very difficult for her, and she says that she has to offer some security to staff who are receiving little or no pay during the closure. In the time between the 15th of July and the 19th of October, they had the report of one customer with Covid. They had to close for 24 hours, deep clean, at their own cost. They need to continue. They want to be able to survive. Will Ann get that financial help? John is a taxi driver. He asks when he will be helped. Business is very bad and he cannot meet his bills. Please help me, he says. He is self-employed and every fund he has applied for has turned him down. He needs that support. He is one of the many that has been missed. One of the other problems we have is how we can make regulations or tiers more clearer. Most of the emails that I am getting, I am sure everyone else is getting, is asking why is this closed but something else is open. I certainly do not want to get into the same mess as Wales did. I cannot buy a kettle or certain products. How daff was that? People want to participate, but, quite rightly, they ask that we have to have clarity and common sense. Like others, I have also been contacted by bingo operators. Bingo clubs are currently closed within the central belt, and I am informed that bingo clubs have had no Covid outbreaks, no concerns arising from multi-visits made by regulatory bodies, operated two-metre social distancing, where everyone else is at one meter in the hospitality sector. They certainly have not seen any evidence that would justify a decision to close, and hopefully that will not come about. I have also been contacted by bowling centres who are also under threats that they are particularly social distanced and should be allowed to open as they are in England. They believe that they are in the wrong tier, and I would like to know why they are in that tier. John asks why are amateur football clubs excluded presently from playing and goes on to say that we may be placed in tier 3 when others operate under the same protocols and strict guidelines are allowed to play? We are clear of the opinion that amateur football has not been treated fairly and we are asking that you do something about it. Kell says, I run a wedding videographic business based in your constituency and I am writing for help in changing a seemingly small detail that is currently in place in England and the current restriction for weddings in Scotland, which would make a massive difference to our industry. Personally, our income has been completely wiped out for 2020. Now looks as though it will be the case for 2021. Detail I refer to is that videographers are included in restricted numbers of guests, meaning that couples need to choose between having a close family member as part of their already reduced numbers or having a videographer and a photographer at their wedding. That is resulting in couples going ahead with small weddings but cancelling their services. If that was changed it would make a difference. I will leave the best to the last. Again, I refer my register of interests. Shoman has not earned a penny since last March that fell down for every fund that the Government has put up. The stand ready with PPE and cleaning material but they cannot use it. Councils are refusing to deal with them due to Government guidance or how they interpret Government guidance. In level 2 it states that their businesses are unable to qualify for Covid-19 grants because their premises are not business rated. I totally agree with that. Again, I make a plea that they need help. In level 2 it states that cinnamon's amusement arcades remain open. Those are indoors, by the way. Why are outdoors funfares in level 2? They are outdoors and should be treated as outdoors. I just don't get it. Funfares are a shining example of why I would agree with the regulations. We have to make those regulations clear, concise and explainable and we have to help them financially. For the first time ever there will be no funfares in Scotland at any proposed Christmas markets. We must continue to refine our clarity. We must continue to help all our citizens who have no income or no prospect of earning over the next few months and ask the Government to do that to the best of their ability. I know that none of us want to be having this debate. I have participated in nearly every Covid-related debate since March, but nothing has irked me more throughout the pandemic than knowing that the voices of those most affected by the restrictions that we pass have not always been heard or listened to, such as those in my region given just two days' notice to shut shop for two weeks, which was extended by another and which they now learn today could be indefinitely. My vote to grant this Government emergency powers did not grant consent to learn about new year extended restrictions via media speculation, press briefings, leaked documents or on social media, no least during recess, because that is the job of this Parliament. I do not disagree with the essence of this new framework, because I believe that ministers are working earnestly to tackle this awful virus, and I thank them for that. But people rightly expect transparency over the rationale and the thinking behind these decisions because of the impact that these decisions have on their lives. This new-tiered approach, if it is implemented and communicated properly, will recognise the diversity of our demographics, of population densities and, crucially, the differing rates of virus transmission. However, the real test of this framework will not be whether the framework commands the support of the Parliament, but if it commands the support and the confidence of the public, because cafes, shops and B&Bs in our regions and constituencies want to do the right thing to tackle this virus. However, they also want to make a living. They want to be part of thriving communities and offer job opportunities to our young people. In goodness knows, we need all of those right now. However, they must be confident that when the Government limits their ability to earn revenue, to grow and even just to stay open that these decisions are not taken lightly, that they will be consulted with, they will be supported, these are reasonable demands. People on Arran are asking me why their lives will be restricted if virus levels in Ardrossan will rise. I have no justifiable answer to that question. Does the Government, because if controlling human interaction is the primary tactic of suppressing the virus, that inevitably suppresses the economy too? I think that people deserve three simple things of us in return. One, clarity of messaging over the tiers, the rules and the restrictions. Secondly, clarity over what support is available to them and how easily it can be accessed. Thirdly, clarity over what measurements the Government will use to trigger the rising or lowering of those restrictions and how they move from one tier to another, because uncertainty and confusion are no-one's friend in a pandemic. Changes to guidance are welcome when they are sensible ones, such as today, issued over early years in childcare, or the commitment to keep schools open. I hope that that is a positive sign of the Government's willingness to listen, because, listen, it must, because households have not been able to mix indoors for over a month already, some for longer. The majority of people who are asked to work from home are doing so, and most small businesses, including hospitality, have complied with social distancing since July. People are perfectly justified in asking us what is working and what is not, as difficult or uncomfortable as it is to answer those questions. The need for action is undeniable. Yesterday, 82 people are in ICU with Covid, up from six in early September. However, we all must know and understand what is driving this data. How many of those patients were admitted for a care home setting, for example? How many were already in hospital and contracted the virus whilst there? What does test and protect tell us about the source of those cases? More importantly, how does the answer to those questions justify the restrictions in other areas of life? The problem is that if we cannot confidently and fluently answer those questions on a daily or weekly basis, then the job that we have of taking the public with us is made all the more difficult. By this Christmas, many thousands of vulnerable people will have been shielding themselves from society for nearly nine months, almost entirely. We all know somebody in this boat. Professor O'Connor said that the effects of lockdown would be long lasting. That is an understatement. It is already having an effect. I can best sum it up by a conversation that I had recently with an elderly constituent, who, quite blankly and rather bleakly, said to me that she would rather die of Covid if it meant that she could spend a few precious days with her grandchildren this Christmas than spend the next year alone without them. How very sad is that and how eye-opening is that? Christmas offers an opportunity for so many to escape chronic loneliness. That is true whether you are a pensioner or a pupil. I argue today that it is our duty to leave absolutely no stone unturned in finding a solution to that conundrum. First, by testing through whatever means and whatever scale is necessary. Second, by offering clear guidance to people before, during and after the festive period, students or otherwise. Third, by treating people responsibly and with responsibility. We must know that the state cannot account for every situation in every family or manage every moment of every person's life. The public needs reassurance that this new road map versus any other incarnation of it will actually work, because almost 80,000 women in Scotland missed breast cancer screenings this year. There could already be hundreds of undiagnosed cases according to leading charities. Youth unemployment in Scotland now sits at 14.5 per cent, more than double what it was in February of this year alone. People are scared out there, people are worried and people are tired and I think they need hope. We cannot tackle one health emergency by creating many others, either knowingly or even unwittingly. This is my biggest fear in all of this, because if we are truly in this for the long haul, then we must be honest with people. We must be honest that we cannot and we will not save every job, every life or fix every problem, but we can and we will listen. Sometimes that is all people ask of their politicians. Today has been a good start. Let's keep it up. Thank you very much. We now move to closing speeches and I call on Beatrice Wishart to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. So much has changed since the start of the year and at such speed. Things have often felt disorientating. It is going to take years to fully process everything that has happened, but it remains important to reflect and learn lessons as we go. As other members have said this afternoon, most people are trying to do the right thing. It took great sacrifice to bring levels of the virus down over the summer. The emotional and economic blows of this virus are terrible, but people understood that they were buying time. Without a vaccine, normal life hinges on the Government keeping their side of the deal, and that is why it was so important to use that summer progress well. Regrettably, that did not happen. Problems were foreseen but not dealt with. It took four months for the Scottish Government to get quarantine spot checks up to the promised 20 per cent. More than 1,000 travellers were lost in the process. Students were treated shabbily. The spiking cases that came after the return of the virus was predictable and predicted. It was a scheduled mass migration. Nowhere near enough was done to keep them safe. I am glad to see the Scottish Government now going to look at asymptomatic testing for students, which Willie Rennie has been making the case for since July. Scottish Liberal Democrats have sought to be a constructive opposition during this pandemic, where there have been problems that we have sought to offer solutions. On that note, I hope that the Scottish Government will soon address the issues that vulnerable teachers are facing. Since August, many teachers have been telling the Government that the guidance does not reflect the realities of teaching. They feel like they have just been expected to get on with that. Vulnerable teachers have felt that especially. There have been reports of teachers who had been shielding being given no work from home options. In Denmark, doctors' orders on working conditions have to be followed. It builds trust and ensures safety. The same needs to be done here. People are craving certainty, ability and, as many members have mentioned this afternoon, hope. We need a plan that can stand the test of time. There needs to be meaningful engagement with communities to understand their needs. Guidance on quarantining before operations and on how students returning home has to involve public transport. The islands cannot be an afterthought. It has taken a great community effort to keep the levels of the virus so low in Shetland. However, the rules on in-home socialising have weighed heavily on families and friends and something that I know is replicated across the country. When the going gets tough, those support networks are often what gets us through. Shetland is a harsh winter, and stopping people from meeting inside at all will add further to feelings of anxiety, loneliness and isolation. If the Scottish Government is going to keep asking people in Shetland to keep to that rule, they need to provide explicit evidence showing that Covid risk in Shetland continues to outweigh those social harms. I hope that, in the wake of the debate, the Scottish Government is clear that this framework needs to be part of a two-way conversation. If it wants to continue to bring people along with it, for the greater good and for all our health and safety, that is essential. Thank you. Thank you very much. I call Patrick Harvie to be followed by Jackie Baillie. I welcome the chance to close for the Greens in this debate. Like everybody else here, I hate what we have all been living through these last months. Just the basic reality of needing to stay apart from one another. It is horrible. I am sick of it, and we all are, but we all know how important it is that we continue to do what is necessary to save lives. I welcome the fact that we have had this debate. It was regrettable that we divided on a matter of process rather than substance at the start of it, but this has been a debate that has offered the opportunity for MSPs across the chamber to make meaningful contributions on questions of substance, as I think most of our constituents want us to do. I think that we should do it more often during this, allowing richer debates to happen. There are issues of process that matter. The Greens have sought to raise some of those in our amendment by offering constructive proposals, recognising that it takes effort to build political consensus. It does not happen by magic. We have to work at it. It requires the Government to do more to share not just data and evidence but expert scientific advice that it has and the rest of us need if we are going to build that consensus. We also need to allow ourselves the opportunity to consider all the options that the Government is considering before they make a policy proposal to the chamber, rather than considering the scrutiny of the policy proposal that has been decided on already. Those issues of process are for inside those walls. I think that most people outside want us to focus on the substance. One of the most important matters of substance that many members have talked about today is on the role of asymptomatic routine regular testing. As Alison Johnston said, it is something that we have been keen to push on since pretty much this business began. Obviously, social care and healthcare settings are really important places for that approach to begin. The nosocomial review group that decided just about a month ago to base its testing strategy on the European CDC approach seems to suggest, at least on paper, that right throughout health and social care we should be seeing regular routine asymptomatic testing. As we have heard from a number of members, this is not the day-to-day experience on the ground everywhere and it needs to become that now that it is the strategy on paper. The same approach has wider application. Unite hospitality has been making the case for the same approach to testing in hospitality settings. As retail settings come higher up the list of places where people who have tested positive have been circulating, we should look at that as well. Our amendment talks about education settings as well, both FE and HE. I would also draw members' attention to the view of EIS that has been circulated about schools. We know that social distancing is not happening in schools across the country and teachers are deeply concerned that their health is being put at risk in confined spaces. The restrictions at level 4 of the new system are parallel to what in many other countries, including other nations in the UK, are triggering school closures. I agree that we should try to avoid school closures if at all possible to keep schools open if it is safe to do so. Teachers and pupils and families need to have the clarity about what the conditions would be in the future if closures, even for short periods of time, become necessary. The Scottish Government should publish evidence and advice on the decision that has been made about keeping schools open at level 4 and about what future decisions could be made. I want to briefly touch on the Labour and Lib Dem amendments. I think that both add something positive and constructive. I would have been able to vote for both of them, but the Labour one, I regret to say, removes too much that is valuable in the original motion. Like Richard Leonard, I would love to have all the information that we could about how many people contracted the virus in pubs compared with restaurants. We simply cannot have that information. We can have the information about where people who have tested positive have been. It is not possible to know precisely where they contracted the virus. The information that we have available can be used as a basis for deciding how best to reduce social mixing, because that is what we have to do. On the Conservative amendment, which also removes too much from the motion, I recognise the requirement to have the voice of business heard in relation to how we implement restrictions, how we communicate them and how we mitigate them. However, if the Government is going to take seriously the proposal from Ruth Davidson today, I say that there needs to be a clear distinction between that kind of advice and the advice about where restrictions are necessary. That must be led by public health expertise, principally, because we know that, as well as many responsible businesses, there are those, as I put to Mr Ewing earlier today, who are putting their business interests ahead of the health and safety of their workforce and of their customers. Presiding Officer, I know that I have run over time. This is clearly an unprecedented situation, with unprecedented powers given to ministers. It clearly is the time when there is an expectation that we start to shift some of the power back from Government towards Parliament. However, if we are going to do that, it needs Parliament to have access to the information, as well as the expert advice that Government has, and it will require a level of responsibility from all of us. I commend the amendment in Alison Johnson's name. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. Let me start by talking about the simplicity of the message, because we know that simplicity is important in ensuring compliance. I am genuinely worried that the framework is complex. We have gone from a four-phase strategic route map to five tiers of a framework, but numbered zero to four is a complex basket of indicators to determine which tier your local area is in. A lack of clarity is about the length of time that this might apply for and what flexibilities might apply in exercising judgment. I do get, though, that being more targeted increases complexity, so there is a fine balance to be struck. However, I am concerned that compliance is reducing. That has to worry us. A recent survey told us that only 27 per cent of people fully understand the guidance. Not very many could tell you what facts stand for, despite the First Minister's herculean efforts. The UK Government is, in this case, I think, marginally better. Even I can remember hands, face and space, but we all agree that, for the public to be able to follow these messages and to keep themselves and others safe, we need clarity on what they are being asked to do. I welcome the postcode checker, but I think that we need to go further. Common sense, consistency and clarity are essential to take people with us. Richard Lennon was right to acknowledge the frustration that people feel, whether it is individuals separated from families or unable to see loved ones in care homes, or indeed businesses who are in danger of making staff redundant or closing for good. For people to buy into restrictions, they need to understand what underpins the approach. We have talked about data, but we need to see the scientific evidence. I welcome the commentary from the chief medical officer and the national clinical director in one second. Sorry, I did not see you. They give me one second and I will give way to you. They have an important role to play, but they are not the scientific experts. The Scottish Government set up a Scottish equivalent of sage, and I welcome that, but we do not know what they think because their papers are not published. We need to see that evidence because if you want to improve compliance, you need to improve understanding, and that means that the scientific evidence needs to be published. I know that the First Minister said that she would consider that, but I genuinely believe that if we treat people like adults, they will respond in kind. I am happy to give way to Graeme Dey. I thank the member for giving way. She talks about the need for clarity. I wonder if Jackie Baillie could clarify on behalf of Labour where she actually stand on the Government-motion-seeking Parliament to note, rather than endorse, the plan, because, earlier in the debate, Elaine Smith criticised the noting approach, yet in the lead-up to the debate, it was Scottish Labourers who asked the Government to take this approach. I am quite confused. I wonder if Jackie Baillie could end my confusion. I think that what was interesting was that people were criticised earlier on for talking about process rather than substance. I think that Graeme Dey is trying to take us back there, but my understanding is that this was a discussion between special advisers and not politicians. At the end of the day, what matters is what is said in this chamber. Can I also make a plea for geographical guidance? In constituencies like mine, which straddle two local authority areas, people are used to working and socialising across local boundaries. One area is tier 2, as I read it. The other is likely to be tier 3. Understanding what you can do to allow you to plan your life accordingly, I think, is going to be quite important. At the start of the most recent restrictions, thousands of people ignored the First Minister's injunction to stay in their health board area, and it seemed like all of them ended up in Helensburgh. I am curious to know how that will be handled in the five-tier framework, because the travel restrictions are not entirely clear. There were real problems with travel restrictions previously, and that coupled with the closure of car parks and toilets in the national park, Forestry Scotland, Land Scotland and councils caused chaos. I asked the First Minister, can we avoid that kind of chaos again? That is a genuine question, and I am genuinely interested in the answer. Is Jackie Baillie arguing that we should not give advice on travel restrictions, or is she arguing that advice should be placed in law and that it should become much more enforceable? When Richard Leonard and I spoke about it a few weeks ago, the view that this is not a criticism was that travel restrictions were not a good thing, so which way does Labour want us to go? It is a genuine question and I am genuinely interested in the answer. It is one that I would happily reflect on with local businesses in my constituency, because what we saw was the train suddenly being mobbed coming from Glasgow to Helensburgh. The hospitality industry is being overwhelmed, so I am happy to discuss that. There is not an easy answer, but those were the very real problems, including the closure of toilets, the closure of car parks. I am glad that you understand the problem. I am happy to help you to work on a solution that works for business as well. Let me turn to the impact on business, particularly hospitality and tourism businesses, because the overwhelming majority of hospitality and retail businesses have been following the rules. They do so in part because it is required of them, but also because they want their customers to feel confident in returning to their premises. They care about their customers, but they also care about their staff. Restaurants, pubs and hotels are in danger of closing down, and that will result in huge job losses. They cannot operate on the basis of a two-week temporary lockdown, which is extended without notice to 2 November and is likely to be extended even further. They cannot begin to plan for the future. Consultation with business is essential. Let me echo a point that was made earlier that groups such as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, FSB, the Scottish Retail Consortium, umbrella organisations in hospitality and tourism all want to help to arrive at solutions, and I hope that the First Minister will engage her expertise on an ongoing basis. However, we must also align restrictions with financial support. I agree that the UK Government needs to step up to do more, but I also expect the Scottish Government to work with them and to use the money that is currently unallocated in the Scottish Government's budget to start the process of ensuring that there is adequate business support. Let me tell you today a hotel in my constituency told me that they had been rejected for assistance from the Business Closure Fund because the Scottish Government said that hotels are not eligible. Why? They are having to close too. Why is not the First Minister looking at this again? Of course, as we approach the busy Christmas period that matters to the hospitality and retail sector, I hope that the Scottish Government will balance health concerns with economic concerns. I want to cover a couple of things very quickly. The strategic framework does not specifically mention learning disabilities, and I associate myself with the remarks by Joan McAlpine. There are key points that have been made to me by members of enable. Firstly, that there needs to be easy read guidance on the new tier level. Secondly, that there is anxiety for people with learning disabilities when they see people flouting the rules, not knowing who to contact, who will enforce, and lastly, a lack of local community opportunities, which is a view that is widely shared. Let me finish by talking finally about test and protect. I welcome the expansion of testing. Home care workers in my constituency, who work for the local authority, are not routinely tested. In fact, some are not tested at all, and they work with older vulnerable people. We need routine asymptomatic testing on a regular basis. We are not testing enough people, yet we have the capacity to do so. We do not have enough contact tracers, and this is reflected in the decline in the numbers that are traced within 72 hours. When I raised this before with the First Minister, she told me that there was not a problem, nothing to see, that contact tracers deserve our thanks. They absolutely do, but what they deserve is to have enough colleagues to make their workload manageable. What they deserve is to have the resources to deal with the challenge that they face, learn from countries that have suppressed the spread of the virus because they have more comprehensive and more robust testing and tracing systems in place. We have one of the worst testing rates in the UK, one of the worst death rates, not just in the UK but in the world. We simply cannot afford to be complacent. Finally, I have no doubt that winter will be tough for everyone, for front-line staff who care for us, for businesses that are forced to close, for individuals and families, and a vaccine cannot come quick enough. I hope that the Scottish Government will put in place a vaccination strategy very quickly indeed. I am grateful for the opportunity to close for the Scottish Conservatives in what has rightly been a very important debate, most especially because it has offered the opportunity for greater scrutiny of the Scottish Government's intentions. That is something that I think will be warmly welcomed by the public at large, never mind in this Parliament, for exactly the reasons that Alex Neil and Jamie Greene spoke about in their own contributions. May I join Jackie Baillie in saying that we just cannot say often enough actually that we must thank all our front-line and key workers, particularly those in the NHS and social services, who, as we know, are once again under increasing pressure. As Ruth Davidson remarked in her opening speech, this is an unprecedented challenge, and therefore the decisions are undoubtedly extremely tough. It is also an unpredictable challenge for the reasons that Kenny Gibson cited in his speech. Can we pay tribute to all the people who have worked so hard behind the scenes, perhaps unsung heroes in many cases, and to pay tribute to all the businesses across Scotland who have had to adapt significantly to meet the challenge of reducing the spread of Covid-19? As we have learnt more about this virus and more about how we have to adapt to it, many of our businesses have had to do that at significant cost and time, and many business owners face continued uncertainty. I will come back to that point in just a minute. The Scottish Conservatives have made clear that we very much welcome some elements of the Scottish Government's motion today and, indeed, several aspects of its framework. We note that the tiering system will be applied by local authority area than by health board, and we welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has committed to consult on the application of the framework to individual areas with local authorities and with health boards. Both are extremely welcome changes in approach, and I think that they will go a long way to reducing a lot of the confusion. We also acknowledge the Scottish Government's commitment to continue to build and enhance the test and protect system and to aim to deliver the 65,000 tests per day by winter. Indeed, we welcome the expansion of lab capacity through the proposed regional hubs in NHS Grampian, Lothian, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and through commercial and partner nodes. The new app that the First Minister announced today will be helpful in identifying some postcode regulations. With that in mind, however, we also note that the Scottish Government's review of testing strategy has recommended faster test turnaround times, stating that in considering the principles of the testing strategy, the advice is that there should be greater focus on the importance of fast turnaround times so that testing achieves its intended purpose of reducing transmission by enabling prompt contact tracing and isolation of potentially infectious close contacts. That is particularly important in light of the growing evidence, some of which we saw just this morning, that antibody immunity may not last as long as we previously thought, particularly among the older population. In some medical journals, caution has been expressed about the value of some data on negative testing. Above all else, we recognise that there is a need to have a system of measures that are straightforward, easily understood, flexible and able to help to reduce the spread of the virus with as limited economic and social impact as is possible. However, as my colleagues have expressed throughout the debate, we do have some concerns. Many have rightly been very critical of the SNP Government for its failure to supply the full evidence on when it comes to the decisions on recent measures. That has become a bit of a theme through a lot of this pandemic. Professor Hugh Pennington recently noted his own frustrations at the quote, below information level and outbreaks and the evidence that is being used to support the closure of some businesses. Although more information has been made available today, there is still more clarity that is needed about the methodology that has led to the creation of this five-tier system. We are somewhere along the road, but any clarity that we can get about that methodology is hugely welcome. For example, in Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire, East Dunbartonshire, Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire council areas, they have all been subject to restrictions on household movements for more than two months now. However, we do not yet know if that has been effective in suppressing the virus, because the SNP Government has not published the full data on that. The First Minister, there is a question about the data that your own advisers have said to you. I am absolutely committed to providing as much data as possible. We probably provide more data than many other countries, and we want to enhance that. If Liz Smith can point to me to any pieces of data across other parts of the UK that are being provided there but not being provided here, I will look at that. I suspect that you will find that it is not the case, because some of the data that has been called for in a scientific basis simply does not yet exist. First Minister, people like Sir Hugh Pennington are making the case that in order to have public trust, which is absolutely essential when dealing with this issue, and to ensure that there is compliance, that methodology and the data that goes with it is absolutely essential in backing up the moves that you want to put in place. There is an issue about that transparency, but we also do not know if there is evidence to support the closure of some of the licence premises across the central belt. That is another issue about the methodology and the evidence, because, as several people have said across the chamber this afternoon, if you are going to make those changes, some of which might be absolutely admirable and sensible to do, in order to ensure that the public agrees with that and complies with it, that methodology is crucial. Smith wants to, or any member of the chamber wants to come to us with specific requests for specific data that exists. If I look across the UK right now, hospitality is closed in many parts of England, it is completely closed in Wales just now, it is completely closed in Northern Ireland. I am not aware of any of those Governments providing any greater level of data and evidence than we are, because we are all providing as much as exists, but if there are examples of where we could, something that has been provided elsewhere that we are not providing, I am happy to look at it. I thank the First Minister again for that intervention, but the whole point is, and I think that one of the reasons that you are getting some knockback from the business community, and exactly why the Scottish Conservatives are asking for greater transparency when it comes to this issue, to involve the business community in that, they need to understand what it is, what are the reasons behind and the evidence to support the decisions that the Scottish Government is making. That is what is being asked for and that is what we are very keen to produce. Thousands of Scottish businesses across Scotland have obviously had huge benefit from a lot of the UK's investment. I have heard the cries from the SNP that there should be an endless support of money from the UK Government. Yes, we have heard it time and time again that we cannot stop the furlough scheme, we cannot stop that in the next. There is no endless pot of money about that. I urge the SNP to understand that the UK Government, time after time, has put its hands in its pockets to provide a huge amount of financial support, which otherwise would not have been possible. Therefore, I think that the criticism that is being levelled by the SNP at the UK Government is unnecessary and it is not something that we can support. I am conscious of time, but can I just raise a couple of other issues before I finish? I strongly believe that when it comes to the next few weeks and the lead up to the Christmas period, when anxieties, fears and the concerns about what the future is going to hold will inevitably just increase. We need to be very clear about what we can support. It is important that the people in Scotland know exactly what it is that this Parliament will have to do to scrutinise what the Scottish Government's decisions will be, because that scrutiny point—I accept what the Labour Party is saying on this basis—is something that is essential. It is essential because it helps us to understand the process about decision making, about methodology and about the very important reasons that are there in order to ensure that people do what they are being asked to do. I come back to this point and I will finish on this, because it is one of the most important points. We cannot expect public trust, we cannot expect compliance unless we are absolutely crystal clear about the instructions that we are giving to people in all different parts of the country and ensure that they know that that decision making has been based on clear evidence, clear thinking and something that they can accept. I will be very happy to accept the amendment in the name of Ruth Davidson. Thank you for your time, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I now call on Jeane Freeman to wind up the debate. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and let me start by expressing my gratitude to members across the chamber for the contributions this afternoon as we shape Scotland's strategic response to dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic through the next phases. As the First Minister reported earlier, today we have seen the loss of 25 more lives of our fellow citizens to this virus. That is 25 families who today are in mourning for a loved one. They have our sincere condolences. Reducing the impact of this virus is at its core about preventing the further loss of life, but it is also about preventing the long-term health impacts for many people who become infected with Covid-19. Those 1,100 people who are Covid positive in hospital right now, of whom 82 are in ICU, are people who are now enduring long Covid that we know about and we read more about every day. They will testify to the impact of surviving Covid but enduring long Covid. The rising cases that we have seen in recent times in Scotland are cause for considerable concern, but we are seeing signs of improvement and we intend that the steps that we introduced in September have prevented the scale of acceleration that we have seen elsewhere in Europe. As the First Minister outlined in shaping the new levels, we have consulted with a range of stakeholders since we published the outline on Friday. Clearly, we cannot make every change that we are asked to without reducing the intended impact of the restrictions at different levels. However, as the First Minister said earlier, we have acted where we believe that we can. That leads me to an important point that I will return to in closing this debate. That is the point about judgment and balance. As the health secretary, I am acutely aware that, as winter begins, the challenge of Covid-19 will sorely test our health service. As health secretary, I cannot proceed in this closing speech without thanking our health and social care staff from the bottom of my heart for everything that they have done over the past nine, ten months and everything that we will not ask them to continue to do. The five-level—yes, of course— Of the unfortunate and sad deaths of Covid, what percentage of them are currently occurring in care homes? After seven months into the pandemic, lessons have been learned on how we manage Covid cases rising in our care homes. What will the Government do differently over winter that it has done in the past seven months? The answer to the first part of your question, if you look at the statistics published every week by national registers of Scotland, you will get the answer to that first part. They are published every week in terms of what we will do to prepare and what lessons we have learned. Then again, shortly in this chamber, I will set out the winter preparedness plan for adult social care as a follow-on to what I intend to do tomorrow in terms of NHS. I hope that we can have a constructive debate on that and that what I say in that will give the member some assurance about not only lessons learned but how we are applying those lessons. The five-level framework has been made with protecting our health service firmly in mind, protecting our NHS from being overwhelmed, not only to save life but also to continue to deliver healthcare as safely as we can. We do not want to go back to a situation where we had to pause significant areas of healthcare in our NHS in order to deal with the first phase of the pandemic, but we can only not pause those areas of healthcare if we are successful in reducing the prevalence of the virus. Our aim is to allow a more proportionate response where areas of the country with very low levels of transmissions do not have to live under the same restrictions as areas experiencing very high levels of transmission. That clearly comes with a challenge in one moment. That clearly comes with a challenge of helping people to see and understand the level that is in place in their area. I completely agree with Mr Sauer and others. The communication challenge simply gets more difficult the more we try and address in a proportionate way our response to the pandemic. I am pleased that members have welcomed the new postcode checker service, which will help people to do exactly that, explaining the restrictions that are in place where you are tailored to your area. Colin Smyth, I thank the cabinet secretary very much for taking intervention. The cabinet secretary said that the restrictions levels in each area will reflect effectively the level of Covid cases in that area, so it will be more tailored locally. The First Minister earlier said that when we move into this new regime, local areas will be placed in similar levels of restrictions than they are currently in. For example, in the Scottish Borders, that means that they are being told that they will be in level 2. However, if you look at the criteria that the Government published today, in four out of five of the indicators, the Scottish Borders is at level zero and in the fifth one they are at level one. They are nowhere near level two based on your own criteria. How do we get adherents from the public if we are asking them to adhere to a level that is seen, frankly, to be unfair? The First Minister will recall that the First Minister set out very clearly that we look at actual and projected cases, we look at test positivity rates, we look at projections for hospital and ICU capacities, but we then make a judgment. What was also said clearly is that applying the framework, the tiers, in the first instance, precaution and caution is what we are applying. We have also said, as the member recalls, that we look every week at where local authorities will be in all those different levels and make changes where we see consolidated progress. However, in moving from where we are now into those five levels, it makes sense to take a precautionary approach. As the First Minister set out, our levels one, two and three have been designed to be similar to the three levels in place in England. While our level four is clearly closer to lockdown, it is not a full lockdown as we saw in March. Should Parliament give its broad agreement to the framework today, we will set out on Thursday at what level each local authority will be set out as of Monday, and that would be kept under weekly review. Our actions are focused in such a way that, in the coming weeks, the rate of growth in UK cities will, we hope, continue to slow, and that would allow council areas to potentially drop down levels in time. Clearly, we want to get to a position in Scotland where all of the country is at level one and ultimately at level two. We achieved exceptionally low levels of infection over the summer, and we want to see that again. As members have said, testing is important, not on its own, but as part of an overall package of measures in order to help us to suppress the virus. Over the next few weeks, our capacity will grow to 65,000 tests a day. In addition to continuing the testing of care home staff, we will also look to regularly test others and we have begun their planning to map additional groups designed, as our clinical and professional paper sets out, to protect the most vulnerable against the scale-up of that testing. We will keep members in touch with that work and are open to discussion on that work. Will the cabinet secretary tell us when she will test care at home workers? I have constituents who have cared at home workers coming into their homes but are not tested at the moment. I have just said that we are planning how we map the scale-up of additional capacity against the groups that we would bring into asymptomatic regular testing and set the dates when all those groups will begin. I am very open to discussing that with members and to taking on board any particular views that they have. As the member will have read the paper that we published on Friday, she will know that care at home staff are one of the additional cohorts that we want to bring into asymptomatic regular testing precisely because it is about protecting the most vulnerable. I also want to say before I move on that test and protect is a vital part of our defence and that those involved in our test and protect programme deserve not only our thanks and recognition but that they also deserve that I clarify for the record against what some members have asserted. Between the period 21 September and 18 October, when members will know case numbers were arising, 91 per cent of positive cases were successfully completed in interview within 48 hours and within that 74.7 per cent within 24 hours. I think that that is a system that is working and as well as thanking those that work in that service, we should recognise what they are achieving. Let me turn before I finish to the question of scrutiny and let me repeat that we welcome scrutiny and questions and debate. That is exactly how we all learn and no one in this chamber has a monopoly on good ideas but we do that in the context of a virus that does not respect rules and procedures and with current doubling time of 10 to 15 days, the desire and intent for greater scrutiny in those circumstances must be matched by a recognition both of pace and of the need and responsibility of government to act quickly and yes to be accountable for that. As the First Minister set out, we have proposals to get that balance of proper scrutiny, increased scrutiny and pace in a better place and we will continue to actively engage across the chamber to agree how that can be achieved. I do not have time to do justice in responding to every contribution and point that members have made but as the First Minister said, whilst we cannot vote for all amendments because two of them seek to remove parts of our motion, which we think are important, we will look at all the proposals in all of the amendments and seek to consider them fully and where we can take them on board. Let me make two final points before I finish. First of all, on data, I need to repeat, I understand, I absolutely understand, although I am afraid that I need to finish, I understand. I am trying to be helpful. That is very important. The cabinet secretary referred to the amendments but she has not pointed out which amendments the Government is going to accept and that would be really helpful for members. Thank you. It is not a point of order but it is a point for the cabinet secretary. It is not really but I will happily tell you that we cannot accept the Labour or the Conservative amendment but we will accept the Lib Dems and the Greens amendment. I want to talk finally, Presiding Officer, about data. I need to repeat that I completely understand why people want data and want to see more data but the fact of the matter is that some of the things that people are asking for simply do not exist. We cannot make data up. We publish—I carry around with me—a full two sides of A4, which on lines in very close type is all the data that we publish weekly, daily, monthly, loads of data. The difficulty for all of us is not the data that we publish, it is being able to triangulate and understand and apply that data and recognise that in dealing with this virus, political judgment on top of good clinical and scientific advice, in the context of a virus that the world is learning about and therefore our understanding and knowledge changes constantly, means that we do not have the opportunity of binary choices where we might all quite like binary choices, they simply are not there for us. We do face a serious situation but it is a less severe situation than many other countries, not only in the United Kingdom but across Europe. That is partly because, collectively, we suppressed the virus to a very low level over the summer and because of the effectiveness of test and protect and our health staff in particular. I am not in the least complacent about that but our situation right now would be worse if we had not done that. There has been a lot of talk today about hope. I firmly believe in the portlands of hope. I actually believe in the power of hope. I think that we can draw hope from what we have achieved so far, from the lessons that we have learned and applied in the last nine months, from the dedication of our NHS and social care staff, from the expertise of clinicians and scientists here and globally and from the efforts of people across the country. This virus, this pandemic, challenges us every day but working together, not without debate, not without disagreement, certainly not without argument, but working together we can get through this. Every single one of us in this chamber has to be an advocate for a strategy and an approach that puts lives first, recognises what we need to do to mitigate against other harms but works collectively and with strength to get Scotland through this pandemic. I will make my point of order once the groans die down. Before we turn to the vote, can we just clarify something, please? We need to clarify that the cabinet secretary said that, if Parliament broadly agrees, we just need to clarify that we are noting the Government's new strategy. We are not endorsing the Government's new strategy, and it is very important to make that point prior to voting in this chamber. Thank you very much. Again, that is a point of argument or a point of debate. It is not a point of procedure for me to rule on. That concludes our debate on Covid-19 Scotland's strategic framework. We are going to move to the next item of business, which is decision time and the vote. The first question is that amendment 23133.4, in the name of Ruth Davidson, which seeks to amend motion 23133, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on Covid-19 Scotland's strategic framework, be agreed? Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We are going to move to a vote. As members know, we will have to suspend shortly just to allow all members in the chamber and those online to access the voting app, so a short suspension. To resume proceedings, we are going to go straight to the vote. The question is that motion 23133.4, in the name of Ruth Davidson, on Covid-19 Scotland's strategic framework, be agreed? Members should cast their votes now. That is Ruth Davidson's amendment. That vote is now closed. We are just checking the vote and there are a few moments for members who do not think that they voted to let us know. Thank you. The result of the vote, on amendment 23133.4, in the name of Ruth Davidson is, yes, 50, no, 69. There are no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 23133.2, in the name of Richard Leonard, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, be agreed? Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. That will be a one-minute division on Richard Leonard's amendment. That vote is closed. We will just take a few moments for members who think that they have not voted to let us know. Thank you. The result of the vote, on amendment 23133.2, in the name of Richard Leonard is, yes, 54, no, 64. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 23133.3, in the name of Alison Johnstone, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, be agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that amendment 23133.1, in the name of Willie Rennie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, be agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The final question is that motion 23133, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on, as amended, on Covid-19, Scotland strategic framework, be agreed? Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We are going to move on shortly to members' business, but I would encourage all members to be careful leaving the chamber, observe social distancing when leaving the chamber, put your masks on and observe the social distancing around the building too. A short pause before we continue with members' business, in the name of Liam McArthur.