 That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on Covid-19 update. The First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister. Thanks, Presiding Officer. Today's statement coincides with the publication of the revised strategic framework for tackling Covid, so I will set out the key elements of the new framework and explain what it means for our collective response to Covid now and in the months ahead. At the heart of the framework is a desire for and increasing confidence in our ability to achieve a sustainable return to a normal way of life, even as we remain prepared for future threats that Covid may present. I will start today by describing our updated strategic intent and approach. This new approach will see us resort much less, hopefully not at all, to legally imposed protective measures. Instead, we will rely predominantly on vaccines, treatments and sensible public health behaviours and adaptations. However, much as we might wish it was not the case, Covid is still a public health risk here and globally and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, so we must also remain vigilant and prepared. To that end, I will also outline how we will categorise and respond to future risks, including from new variants. I will explain why our decisions must be based on a combination of data, evidence and judgment. Thirdly, I will give our assessment of the current situation in Scotland in light of recent data and set out an indicative timescale for lifting or converting to guidance the small number of legally binding measures that still remain in place. Finally, I will set out our commitment to continued access to PCR and lateral flow testing, free of charge, while we transition to a system of testing that is more targeted but retains adequate capacity to support surveillance, rapid response to the emergence of new variants, effective outbreak management and access to the best care and treatment for those who need it. I will also confirm our advice that those testing positive for Covid should continue to self-isolate for now. On the issue of testing, I must express frustration at the UK Government's position. It is, of course, for the Prime Minister to decide how best to tackle Covid in England. However, current funding arrangements mean that, while taxpayers in all four UK nations contribute to the costs, it is decisions taken for England that determine the resources available to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for testing and other Covid measures. As of now, we have no clarity on how much of the Covid testing infrastructure the UK Government intends to retain, no clarity on how much investment will support it in future and no clarity on whether the Treasury will provide additional resources or demand instead that funding is taken from elsewhere in the health budget. I hope that we do get this clarity soon so that we can then set out in more detail our own longer-term approach to testing. However, and I will say more on this later, I want to give an assurance now that the Scottish Government is determined to retain a robust testing system capable of providing Scotland with strong resilience against future Covid threats and firmly aligned with public health advice and the principles underpinning our national health service. Let me turn now to the key points in detail, starting with our revised strategic approach. In earlier phases of the pandemic, it was important to try to eliminate Covid or suppress it to the lowest possible level, because then we did not have vaccines or treatments to protect against the serious illness and death that the virus can cause. That is why our objective initially was to suppress the virus to the lowest possible level, though we modified that somewhat last year. In today's update, it is modified further and now expressed as follows, to manage Covid effectively, primarily through adaptations and health measures that strengthen our resilience and recovery as we rebuild for a better future. This change is possible because widespread vaccination coverage and better treatments have reduced the direct harms of the virus. As a result, using restrictions to suppress infection is no longer as necessary as it once was, and given the wider harms caused by protective measures, it is no longer as justifiable either. The strategic framework therefore makes clear that in future we will seek to rely much less on legally imposed measures and more on vaccines, treatments and sensible adaptations and good public health behaviours. As a priority, we will continue to ensure the maximum possible availability and uptake of vaccination, in line with expert advice. Although the success of the vaccination programme has exceeded our expectations, there are today still more than 600,000 people over 18 who have had a second dose but not yet a third or booster dose, so there is more still to do to maximise uptake. We will also continue to extend the scope of vaccination. Last week, the JCVI recommended that all five to 11-year-olds, not just those at highest clinical risk, should be eligible for the vaccine. I can confirm today that vaccine appointments for this age group will issue from mid-March. To allow parents and carers to attend with children, most appointments will be in the evenings, at weekends or during the Easter school holidays. Yesterday, we also accepted JCVI advice on protecting those at highest risk. It is now our intention to offer care home residents those over 75 and anyone over 12 who is immunosuppressed, an additional booster six months after their last jag. This phase of the programme will also start in March, though the scheduling of appointments for individuals will depend on the timing of their initial booster or third dose. In addition to vaccination, we will also use the best available treatments for those who need them. There are already effective treatments available that reduce serious illness and death in those who have been admitted to hospital with Covid. The therapeutic medicines are also now being offered to patients who have not been hospitalised but who are assessed as being at greatest risk of needing hospital treatment. New oral antiviral treatments are currently being evaluated through a UK-wide study. We will make the best use of those treatments depending on what the evidence and expert advice tells us about their efficacy. Vaccination and treatment will play a major, perhaps the major, role in limiting the health harm caused by this virus in the months and indeed the years to come. However, it is also important to encourage and support people to adopt safe practices and to make basic adaptations that will help to keep us safe. The document that we are publishing today gives more detail on the kinds of behaviours and adaptations that will be encouraged in different circumstances. Those include enhanced hygiene across the general population and improved ventilation in workplaces and other settings, and especially when levels of infection may be higher, increased hybrid and flexible working and the use of face coverings in some indoor public places. It is less likely that any of those measures will be legally imposed in future, but we will advise them for as long as they help to keep the virus under control and also help to protect those who are most vulnerable to it. It is also vital, of course, that we remain vigilant for new developments. It is, unfortunately, highly likely that this virus will continue to mutate and confront us with new and potentially more harmful variants in future. To identify and respond to such threats quickly, we will maintain a strong surveillance capability. We will set that out in more detail next month, but, subject to the point that I made earlier about the overall resources available to us, our surveillance system will include extensive PCR sampling and processing capacity, wastewater sampling and genomic sequencing capability. We also welcome confirmation that the UK-wide Covid infection survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics will continue. It is essential, however, that it continues at scale, and we will seek to work with the UK Government to ensure that that is the case. The surveillance capacity will help us to identify new threats rapidly. It will also help us to assess the potential severity of any new threat and to quickly determine the appropriate level of response. The strategic update that we are publishing today sets out a clear framework for any decisions that we may have to take in future in response to new developments. I want to stress that this is intended as a contingency. We do hope, of course, that we never have to use it. However, it does recognise the on-going challenge that Covid presents and sets out three broad levels of future potential threat, low, medium and high. It also offers illustrative examples of the type of protective measures that could be deployed in response to different threat levels, and it may be helpful to illustrate that through some general examples. If a new variant emerged that was more transmissible and more severe—perhaps with the ability to evade vaccine or natural immunity—this threat would likely be classified as high. In those circumstances, we might advise people to limit social contacts for a period and to work from home where possible, and we may introduce some temporary protections for high-risk settings. If a new variant was either more transmissible or more severe but not both, as is the case with Omicron, the initial threat assessment would likely be medium. In those circumstances, there may be a legal requirement to wear face coverings in some settings, and we might issue guidance for businesses and service providers on reasonable measures to reduce the spread of Covid on their premises. Lastly, in the absence of a new variant, or if a new variant was neither more transmissible nor more severe and if vaccines continue to be effective, the threat classification would likely remain low. Obviously, this is the level that we hope to reach and stay at on a sustainable basis. In those circumstances, there would be no legally imposed protective measures. Instead, we would continue to advise individuals and organisations to adopt sensible public health behaviours. It is important to stress that any decision about the threat level and what the appropriate response should be will be guided by data and evidence, but it is not an exact science. It will also be by necessity involve judgment. That is because the kind of developments that we may face in future, principally new variants, will not be uniform in their potential impact. A new variant that is highly transmissible but less severe would obviously require a different response to one that was less transmissible but more severe. We must guard against a one-size-fits-all approach. That is why the framework does not propose fixed threat shields for action. For example, by stating that we will take certain predetermined steps if the number of cases rises above a specific level. Such thresholds may be superficially attractive because of the certainty that they appear to provide, but they pose a very significant risk of both under- and over-reaction. The framework that I have just described can be used to categorise our current threat level and therefore help to guide decisions in the coming period. I will return to that shortly. First, let me summarise the latest data and trends. Today, we are reporting 6427 new cases from lateral flow and PCR tests. 1,060 people are in hospital nine more than yesterday. 25 people are in intensive care the same as yesterday. Sadly, in the past 24 hours, 18 further deaths have been registered of people who, with Covid, under the daily definition. Again, my condolences go to everyone morning a loved one. Over the past week, reported cases have fallen very slightly by around 1 per cent. They have fallen in all age groups under 45 and risen in all age groups over 45. The latest available data shows that hospital admissions have slightly increased again from 619 in the week to 11 February to 654 in the most recent week. Total hospital occupancy has also increased again, and we will continue to keep a close watch on that. The number of people in intensive care with Covid-25 continues to be relatively low. In summary, we continue to face a highly transmissible variant that is causing a high level of community infection. However, while it is far from harmless, its overall impact is less severe than Delta. Using the framework that I described earlier, we assessed the current threat level to be medium. However, assuming the level of infection and its associated impacts—for example, hospital admissions falls or broadly stabilises—we would expect that to be reassessed as low in the period ahead. That has enabled Cabinet to agree this morning an indicative timescale for lifting or converting to guidance the small number of legally imposed protective measures that remain in place at this stage. I can confirm firstly that the Covid certification scheme, requiring certain venues and events to check the vaccine or test status of attendees, will come to an end next Monday, 28 February. The app that supports the scheme will remain operational, however, so any business that wishes to continue Covid certification on a voluntary basis to reassure customers will be able to do so. Second, as of 21 March, assuming no significant adverse developments in the course of the virus, we expect that the legal requirement to wear face coverings in certain indoor settings and on public transport will be converted to guidance. We will continue to strongly recommend the wearing of face coverings in shops and other indoor public places and on public transport. We also expect, on 21 March, to lift the legal requirement for businesses, places of worship and service providers to have regard to guidance on Covid and to take practicable measures set out in the guidance. The legal requirement on businesses and service providers to retain customer contact details is also expected to end on 21 March. Governments obviously must act lawfully, and that means that we cannot impose legal restrictions when it is disproportionate to do so. As the situation improves and the severity of the impact from Covid reduces, we are therefore duty bound to remove legally imposed restrictions. However, that should not be taken as a signal that Covid no longer presents any risk to health, because it clearly does. Even though certain measures such as face coverings may not be legal requirements in future, we will still recommend voluntary compliance as part of the range of behaviours that will help to keep us safe as we manage Covid in a more sustainable and less restrictive way. Let me turn now finally to testing. Testing has been and it will continue to be a vital part of our management of Covid. However, as the nature of the threat and our approach to managing it evolves, so too will our approach to testing. It is reasonable over time and barring adverse developments to move away from mass population-wide asymptomatic testing towards a more targeted system that is focused on specific priorities. Those priorities will include surveillance, rapid detection of and response to new variants, effective outbreak management, particularly in high-risk settings such as care homes and hospitals, and ensuring access to care and treatment for those who need it. However, it is vital that we make that transition in a careful and a phased manner. In March, by which time I hope that we will have more clarity from the UK Government on available resources, we will publish a detailed transition plan for test and protect, setting out our priorities in more detail and describing the scale of infrastructure that will remain in place for the longer term. The plan will also confirm the duration beyond the end of March of any transition period during which the system will operate broadly on the same basis as now. The public health reasons for ensuring a careful phased transition from the current arrangements to a more targeted testing system are obviously the most important, but we should also remember that hundreds of people in test and protect at testing sites across the country and in our processing labs, including Glasgow Lighthouse, have worked tirelessly to keep us safe over the past two years, and those decisions affect their jobs and livelihoods, a point seemingly overlooked by the UK Government yesterday. Let me record our thanks to them today and give an assurance that the Scottish Government will engage closely with them in the weeks ahead. As we do this work in the coming weeks and for the transition period, subject to one change that I will set out shortly, access to testing will continue on broadly the same basis as now. We will be considering separately advice for schools and health and care workers in line with expert advice, but for the general public, let me set out clearly what that means from now until further notice. Firstly, if you have Covid symptoms, you should continue to go for a PCR test. Access to these tests will remain free of charge at testing sites across the country. Second, you should continue to make regular use of lateral flow tests, even if you do not have symptoms. The only immediate change that we are making to current arrangements on lateral flow tests for the general population is in our advice on the frequency of testing. Instead of advice to test before going anywhere to mix with others, we will, from Monday next week, revert to advice to test at least twice a week, and in particular if you are going to a crowded place or mixing with someone who is clinically vulnerable. Lateral flow tests will remain free of charge in the transition phase. Indeed, we consider it important in line with the principle of healthcare free at the point of use that they should remain free of charge for any circumstance in which Government recommends testing, and this is a principle that we will seek to uphold in our longer term plan for testing. I also want to emphasise that, in Scotland for now, we will continue to ask those who test positive for Covid to isolate for the recommended period, and we will continue to make self-isolation support payments available to those who are eligible. We will, of course, keep the recommended period of isolation under review, but it is worth stressing that isolating, staying at home when positive with a highly infectious virus and to follow-up tracing that test and protect does, remains one of the most fundamental public health protections that we have available to us. It helps to limit transmission overall, and in helping to keep workplaces and other settings safer, it also provides protection for those who are most at risk of serious illness from Covid, enabling them to return to more normal lives as well. Covid is, unfortunately, still with us, and we must therefore remain vigilant and prepared for the threats that it poses. However, today's new framework is an important moment in our recovery. It marks the point at which we move away, hopefully sustainably, from legal restrictions and rely instead on sensible behaviours, adaptations and mitigations. A return to normality must, though, go hand in hand with a continuing determination to look after each other. All of us have a part to play in ensuring a safe and a sustainable recovery. I will close again by urging everyone to follow advice on getting vaccinated, testing as regularly as appropriate, wearing face coverings when required or recommended, keeping rooms ventilated and following hygiene advice. All of that still matters, even as we lift the remaining legal requirements. It is how we keep ourselves and each other safe as we recover from Covid and look forward now together to much brighter days ahead. Thank you. The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 40 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Douglas Ross. Begin by saying that, as we debate this afternoon, the grave situation in Ukraine is at the forefront of all of our minds. The Prime Minister has made a statement to the House of Commons that has rightly received cross-party condemnation for the actions of President Putin and Russia. For weeks, we have seen a build-up of activity and threats, but last night's statement from President Putin provided in the starkest possible terms the reality of what Russia is seeking to do. We must stand together supporting the UK Government, Governments around Europe and across the world as they seek to deal with the current and future threats from Russia. Above all else, we have to make it very clear that we stand with the people of Ukraine. Turning to today's statement, we welcome the move away from blanket legal restrictions towards an approach based on public health guidance. Two weeks ago, the Scottish Conservatives published our own blueprint for living with Covid, titled Back to Normality. Our approach focused on personal responsibility, trusting the Scottish public to make their own adjustments to protect themselves and their families. When our plan was published, the health secretary claimed that it was reckless. Today, large parts of it have been adopted by the Scottish Government. They are moving face masks from law to guidance. They have finally scrapped vaccine passports and are getting rid of mass testing. Government policy was reckless two weeks ago today. Her statement says that the Government is moving to a system of representative sampling away from mass testing. Why has the First Minister created a fight with the UK Government over this issue just weeks before her own plans to scale back testing anyway? Secondly, the First Minister just said in her statement, and I quote, Using restrictions to suppress infection is no longer as necessary as it once was, and given the wider harms caused by protective measures, it is no longer justifiable either. So can the First Minister explain why her Government intends to extend the Covid powers that has at its disposal for a further six months until September if it is no longer necessary or justifiable to keep restrictions in place? Why is it necessary or justifiable for the Government to cling on to control over those powers and keep the threat of restrictions hanging over the public? Finally, throughout the pandemic, Scottish businesses have been left in the dark. They have been an afterthought for this Government. The document that is published today is a plan for living with Covid, so can the First Minister tell us? Did she personally have discussions and consultations with Scottish businesses before publishing that guidance and document? Can she tell us what her feedback was? First, on the dreadful developments in Ukraine, the actions of Putin are utterly indefensible and he must face the most severe sanctions as a consequence of those actions. The announcement by the Prime Minister just a short time ago did not, in my view, go nearly far enough. He described the limited sanctions announced today as a first tranche. I think that it is essential that we see further tranches very soon, with very severe sanctions imposed upon Putin and on interests in Russia. We must all, and I hope across this Parliament, be united in standing in solidarity with Ukraine and with the people of Ukraine as they defend their independence, their sovereignty and territorial integrity. I am sure that that is something that will unite us across this Parliament and across the country. Turning to the issues in my statement, Douglas Ross says that we have now done what he has asked us to do all along. Pause to say that Douglas Ross, of course, opposed face coverings ever being a legal requirement. He opposed Covid certification ever being a legal requirement. He has, I think, opposed almost everything that this Government has done to try to control this virus and keep people safe from it. The Government will continue to take a responsible approach to steering the country through this virus. We will take decisions in a timely manner. We will be driven by the data, by the evidence and by the application of judgment. We will not follow an opportunistically thoroughly oppositionalist approach that has been recommended at every interval by the Scottish Conservatives. On the issues that were raised in detail, on testing, I think that it is a bit rich, I have to say, for Douglas Ross to accuse me of picking a fight with Boris Johnson, but we will leave that to one side for the moment. I think that we all agree—I have had many discussions with UK Government representatives over the past days on this issue—that, in time, we should move to a more targeted system of testing. The difference between the Scottish Government and the UK Government is that we think that we should do that on a careful phased basis, and that we should give great care and thought into the testing infrastructure built up over the past two years that we retain for the future. To dismantle that in any significant way, I think that there would be any excusable negligence given the threats that Covid still presents to us. Instead, we had an announcement from the UK Government yesterday of what they are stopping doing, but no clarity on what they intend to retain or the funding that will be in place to support that. I think that that is deeply regrettable, and we will continue to work with them to try to get that clarity so that we can set out our longer-term plans. We think that we should remain, retain testing on the current basis for a transition period and then, in a managed and careful way, move to a more targeted system, but one that nevertheless retains the capacity and the contingency that we may need in future. In terms of issues around continuing to have contingency measures that we may use in future, Covid has not gone away. It is not the case that it simply disappears because we want it to. We may face—and the Chief Medical Officer for England, I heard making this point yesterday—it is highly likely that we will face new threats from the virus in the form of new and potentially more harmful variants. We need contingency measures in place. We need to make sure that we have laws that are fit for purpose, and that is what this Parliament is currently scrutinising in terms of the coronavirus legislation, and we will continue to do that. On the issue of business, my ministers engage with businesses on the detail of this, as is right and proper. We will continue to do so, and we will continue to take appropriate steps to keep businesses safe while we keep the overall country safe. I am sure that there will be many people across this country who will just breathe a sigh of relief that Douglas Ross has not been in charge of those decisions. I call Jackie Baillie. I associate the Scottish Labour Party with the comments about the situation in Ukraine and our determination, which I hope is shared across the chamber, to defend them against Russian aggression. Boris Johnson's decision to dismantle the infrastructure that we rely on to keep Covid under control is premature, incredibly concerning, and that it neglects and fails those who are most at risk from Covid. Those are the words of the BMA, and on that we can surely agree. I have always expressed a desire, particularly at times of crisis, for both Governments in Scotland and the UK to work together in the interests of Scots, but instead we see conflict. At the start of this month, Scottish Labour published our plan for living well with Covid. It set out our priorities to keep people safe, provide them with certainty and build resilience into our services. Central to that is the continuation of testing, contact tracing and isolation. The First Minister talks about transition phase in which testing will remain free of charge. That appears up to the end of March. It is not clear from the statement what will happen thereafter, so could she set out her plans for focus testing? It is also not clear what circumstances the Government will recommend testing for. Is it going to be the same categories as the UK Government is using, or are the different categories, and could she perhaps outline what the difference is? Could the First Minister also tell the chamber what constitutes a low, medium or high-risk threat level? Will it be based on numbers of those who are infected, hospitalisations or other data? In the interests of us all having a shared understanding and transparency, it is important that we understand how that will be determined. There is little mention in the framework about long Covid. That is affecting more and more people. It is especially a problem, because their experience on the ground is not as painted within the framework. They are not getting access to services. At a time when people are looking for more certainty about the future, there are not yet answers to some of the fundamental questions that will be in place to protect Scots. We were promised a framework, but that appears more like a progress report. I appreciate that the First Minister is waiting for the UK Government to decide, but as public health is devolved, will she commit now to funding testing and contact tracing in order to protect the people of Scotland? There is no conflict on those issues. There is a UK Government that is failing to take decisions in an orderly and a competent fashion, and that is the reality. As recently as Friday, we fully expected that yesterday the UK Government would set out in detail the testing infrastructure that it intended to retain and the funding that would accompany that. I had two conversations yesterday with Michael Gove in between those conversations. A UK cabinet meeting was postponed because they were still having conflict amongst themselves. I deeply regret that because it has a knock-on effect on Scottish Government decision making, and I hope that they get their act together quickly. Jackie Baillie is right to point to the fact that public health responsibilities are devolved, but that takes us to the very part of the issue. Public health decisions are devolved, but decisions that determine how much resources available to Scotland, to Wales and to Northern Ireland flow only from public health decisions that are taken for England by the UK Government. That is a system that I do not defend because it is unacceptable and unsustainable, but it is a system that Jackie Baillie and her party unfortunately and regrettably defend. If Jackie Baillie is not prepared to take my word for how unacceptable that is, perhaps she would listen to the Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, who makes exactly the points that I am making about the complete unacceptability of that position. I have said that we will continue to secure free access to PCR and lateral flow testing for a transition period. I have said today that I would expect that transition period to extend beyond the end of March. We will set out the detail during March, but before we can set out that detail, we need to know, based on the decisions that the UK Government will take, what resources are available to support that. The assurance that I can give is that that will be the maximum possible testing capacity and infrastructure. I do not want to see what we have created over the past two years dismantled and I want to see the testing arrangements that we have fit for purpose and appropriate for the future. Will the categories of people who we routinely recommend testing for be the same as the UK Government? Will the UK Government, having given clarity on what their categories will be, so I cannot answer that question? I have set out the broad priorities for testing and we will continue to develop the detail. I think that this is my last point on this. I think that, in line with that fundamental principle that I support, I think that Jackie Baillie's party supports—I am not so sure about the Conservatives—healthcare-free at the point of use, any circumstance in which Government recommends testing for Covid, it should provide those tests free of charge. That is a principle that we will seek to the best of our ability to uphold in any future strategy. I know that I have taken some time, but there were a lot of questions in Jackie Baillie's contribution on the low, medium and high threat categorisation. I have set out in summary today, in my statement, in more detail in the document why it would not be appropriate to rely on fixed thresholds of numbers of cases per 100,000 or numbers of people in hospital. That is because different threats do not have a uniform impact. It stands to reason that, if we face a variant that is very highly transmissible but less severe, like Omicron, that will demand less of a response than a variant that is both highly transmissible and more severe and puts more lives at risk. That is why, of course, we look at all that data, but we will have to continue to apply judgment to that. There is significant detail set out in the document around that, as there is on long Covid, which is a significant challenge and something that this Government and other Governments will have to respond to for some time to come. I echo the support and solidarity expressed by all sides of the chamber for the people of Ukraine in the steepening crisis. Far from abolishing Covid-id card vaccine passports, the statement will normalise its use by some businesses. It will bake them into everyday life, perhaps indefinitely. From now on, venues will have carte blanche to ask for private medical information without a public health imperative for so doing. You can have a Covid passport and still have Covid. There is no comfort or reassurance to be offered by such a system. Can I ask the First Minister to revisit this assault on medical privacy and abolish it in totality today? Alex Cole-Hamilton does a disservice to his argument with the hyperbole that he uses in his language. That is a proportionate measure that businesses after it is no longer a legal requirement will have the choice of using or not. The app is there. Everybody can see the information that is available on the app. For every person that has contacted me to say that they do not agree with Covid certification, I have had at least one other person who has said that it makes them feel safer in going to places to know that people there are vaccinated or have recently tested. I think that there will be some businesses who see the advantage in still doing that in order to make people feel more confident about going and using their services and buying what they have to offer. This is about giving choice and making sure that we have a package of measures in place that collectively help to keep us safe as we continue to navigate our way through a challenge that, hopefully, is receding, but will continue to pose difficult times for us in the months and years to come. Stephanie Callaghan, to be followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you. This morning, UK health secretary, Sadiad Javid, commented on Scotland taking a different approach to managing the effects of the pandemic than the Government at Westminster, saying that Scotland can, and I quote, pay for it in the same way that we pay for things in England. The Prime Minister said words to the same effect yesterday. I wonder if the First Minister can confirm whether that means that the Scottish Government will have the powers to borrow in the same way that the UK Government can to be able to spend and to deal with the public health decisions in Scotland. Those are really important questions. Traditionally, we may debate those kinds of things through a constitutional prism, and we will differ in that. Even if we do not approach this from a general point of view, this is about the best ways of dealing with an unpredictable public health challenge. Right now, the fact is that, through the Barnett formula, the only way money flows to Scotland, or Wales, or Northern Ireland to allow us to discharge our public health functions is if the UK Government takes a decision that generates additional spending for England. If they do not take those decisions, or if they take those decisions but do not provide any new money to support them, then there is no resource made available to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. I am not the only First Minister making those points. Mark Drakeford is making those points, and the Executive, which of course is not functioning normally right now in Northern Ireland, makes those points as well. It is a basic fact. Of course, it is compounded by the fact that the devolved Administrations do not have borrowing powers. Anybody who wants this Parliament, this Government to be able to take public health decisions without being constrained by the decisions of other Governments on resources should support us in getting to a more sustainable way of dealing with those matters. I encourage people across the chamber to engage with those issues seriously. One of the emergency Covid powers that the Government is seeking to retain is ministerial power to release prisoners from prison on the grounds of public health, which itself is fine, but when that power was last used during the pandemic, some 40 per cent of those early released went on to re-offend within just six months of that release. That is not one or two isolated incidents, either. What happened, I am afraid, is exactly what we warned might happen, and behind every one of those re-offences is a victim of that crime. Will that particular emergency power be ditched? No least is a token of apology to those who suffered the disastrous consequences the last time it was used. First Minister, we continue to take decisions in a proportionate way. If a further future action was necessary, Ministers would set out specific criteria for which prisoners could be released. That would exclude types of prisoners that raised particular concerns. Indeed, since that power was created in April 2020, it has been used only once. The bill, which will undergo full scrutiny in this Parliament, only extends that temporary power. It does not make it permanent, as I understand it. The equivalent power in England is permanent—that is not the proposal here. It is about making sure that, whether on this issue or on a range of other issues, we have at our disposal the means to respond proportionately and flexibly in the face of public health challenges. I heard Ailey MacHarg, a Professor of Public Law, say recently—I think it is worth quoting her—that there is a difference between having access to emergency powers and using those powers. There is a better opportunity now to design an effective framework than there would be if powers were to be acquired urgently again in the context of another healthy emergency. That is about making sure that our law is sensible and gives Governments with appropriate scrutiny from Parliament the ability to respond to such emergencies. Siobhan Brown, to be followed by Pam Duncan-Glancy. Can I ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to tackle health misinformation, especially in relation to the Covid-19 vaccinations? We continue to work with colleagues across all four UK nations to make sure that we are sharing learning and intelligence, and that applies in particular to the learnings from the vaccination programme. That work includes monitoring, misinformation and disinformation that could adversely affect the success of the programme and proactively sharing information about such campaigns with stakeholders once we are aware of them. Research has shown that Governments who directly challenge conspiracy theorists can be counterproductive, although I do not think that we should ever rule that out. That is often because conspiracy theorists use such attacks as validation of their world view. Our policy in this is shared by other Governments to continually provide the public with information with reliable sources of truth about the vaccine, such as our website and the information available on NHS Inform. All MSPs and all politicians have a role to play in helping to ensure that we tackle misinformation and disinformation and that we encourage people to take up the opportunity of vaccination whenever it is available to them. Pam Duncan-Glancy, to be followed by Evelyn Tweed. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A constituent recently contacted me after they were wrongly administered four times the dose of the Covid Pfizer vaccine in one sitting. Despite UK Government guidance stating that any person who is given more than the recommended dose should be monitored and treated for symptoms, my constituent only received one phone call following this event. She was not monitored at all in the days following the error. Despite displaying negative symptoms and having repeatedly reached out to health services, I do not believe that the Scottish Government is doing enough to support hard-working NHS staff and patients when this situation reflects that. Does the First Minister agree with me that NHS is in a critical condition, that it is critically under-resourced and that that has resulted in patients not receiving the care and attention that they deserve, and will she ask urgently to address that? I do agree that the NHS is under significant pressure. We are working hard with the NHS to ensure that it can address that pressure, recover from Covid and get back on track in a whole range of ways. I do not think that I could conclude from what I have heard in the question that those pressures are responsible for the individual situation that has been narrated. Although that does, of course, sound unacceptable, I would be happy to ask the health secretary to look into that in more detail. Pam Duncan Glancy wants to send me the details of it. The arrangements for what should happen in the very, very small number of cases where errors are made in the administration of vaccine are clear, and those should be followed. If that has not happened in this case, obviously we would want to ensure that the relevant health board reflects on that. So, if the details are sent to my office, I will ensure that that happens. Evelyn Tweed, to be followed by Gillian Mackay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The announcement of the new £180 million Covid economic recovery fund targeting support for businesses and communities is very welcome. Can the First Minister provide any further information about the flexibility that local authorities will have to ensure that this funding can be best used to maximise economic recovery in their respective areas? The £80 million Covid economic recovery fund that I set out yesterday will give councils the ability to consider the needs of local businesses, communities and, indeed, households within their local areas and to let them target support and maximise economic recovery as we move into this new phase of the pandemic. We have given councils the flexibility on how to use the money. They may give money to individual businesses but also support initiatives such as Scotland Loves Local, Business Improvement Districts or some place-based investment programmes as they see fit and in ways that they think best contributes to recovery from Covid. The flexibility I know has been welcomed by local authorities and by COSLA, and I think that the money will go a long way as I was hearing from businesses in Edinburgh yesterday to help them with that recovery process. On behalf of the Scottish Greens, could I also associate ourselves with the solidarity shown across the chamber to the people of Ukraine? The UK Government's decision to scrap the requirement to self-isolate and scale back free testing will undermine Scotland's ability to recover from Covid. It also signals the abandonment of a four-nation approach, as well as people who were previously asked to shield. How can they protect themselves from the virus if they do not know where it is? What steps can the Scottish Government take to mitigate the risk of being posed to clinically vulnerable people and ensure that they continue to be protected and supported? That is a really important issue. Let me stress again and emphasise that we are not changing our advice to people who test positive. That advice remains that they should isolate for the recommended period. We will keep the recommended period under review, but it is important that people, when they are positive with this highly infectious virus, stay at home to reduce the risk of infecting others. That has always been in guidance in Scotland, rather than in law. I think that it is well understood and that we are not changing that position. Crucially, unlike the position that was outlined by the Prime Minister yesterday, we will retain self-isolation support grants for those who are eligible to help people do the right thing by isolating. I think that that is one of the most basic and important things that we can all agree to do. The converse of that would be saying that it is fine for somebody who tests positive with this highly infectious virus to go to work as normal or to go shopping as normal or to go to pubs and restaurants knowing that that would then allow the virus to circulate and infect others. That would be counterproductive overall in terms of our efforts to control the virus, but it would make all those settings much less safe for people who are highly vulnerable and at highest clinical risk. As we return to normality, it is really important, as a matter of principle, that we all get to return to normality. We do not create a situation where those of us who do not have other health conditions or are not frail by virtue of age, for example, have to continue to effectively shield, while those who are not in that position can go about our normal conduct. However, those who are have to effectively shield. Let us all continue to do the basic important public health things to keep the country as safe as possible for everybody so that we can all get back to normal as safely as possible. To continue to help protect the Scottish population, what would the monthly cost be to the Scottish Government to provide the testing kits free at the point of need, and would that be borne solely from the health budget? Those are details that we continue to work through ourselves, but also with the UK Government. There is no doubt at all that the testing system that we have in place right now is very expensive and resource intensive. The UK-wide cost is about £15 billion per annum, but it is important that we recognise the cost of not delivering a testing system that is fit for purpose and helps to guard against those risks in future. We want to be able to provide an appropriate testing system in Scotland, one that provides free access to testing to people who need it, aligned with the purposes that I spoke about in my statement, allows us to have proper surveillance, respond to outbreaks and make sure that those who most need it get access to care and treatment. That is what we will be working on, but we need to see that the UK Government provides the clarity that it has not done yet in order for us to set that out in detail. The Government yesterday announced the final allocation of Covid-related funding for businesses hit hard by her Government's restrictions in December. Despite that, many businesses are still being overlooked and have had little or no support, so all the First Minister therefore urgently looked into those two areas. The support given to outside catering operators, such as Joe's Kitchen in East Lothian, who, despite losing £42,000 in orders in December, secured only £1,000 in support, and close contact businesses such as Pure Spa and Beauty, which, despite employing 130 people at 12 locations across Scotland, qualifies for a grant of only £1,500. What we have done is, as a result of the announcement yesterday, we have given money or will be giving money to East Lothian Council that will allow them, using the flexibility that councils often ask us for, to consider whether the businesses that the member has mentioned there would merit that kind of funding. It is not given the stage where act for the Government to step in and make those decisions for councils. We have given councils the balance of funding so that they can make those decisions based on what they think is right for their areas. I am sure that the member will engage with the local councils on behalf of the excellent businesses that he has just mentioned in the chamber. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many households in Scotland are already facing financial pressures as a result of the pandemic, compounded by the additional pressures arising from Tory cost of living crisis. What clarity has the Scottish Government received from the UK Government that the consequentials that are announced on 3 February are above the position outlined in the spring budget revision? We know that the position that we expected to be in at the end of the year is not as good as we hoped it would be and that the consequentials from the measures that the chancellor set out to address cost of living have not flowed through into a net increase in the Scottish Government's budget. The finance secretary set that out when she presented the final stage of the budget just before recess. She continues to discuss with the UK Government and the Treasury in particular the year-end issues in order that we can present a final position to Parliament as soon as possible. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has announced the final tranche of £80 million of the original £375 million of business support funding that was initially announced back in January, but that was to deal with Omicron. Given the urgency that many of those businesses will face, when does the First Minister expect the £375 million to be fully paid out in the hands of businesses? The change of regulation into guidance for public safety measures such as facemask will be welcome. There may be some confusion given the on-going recommendation to where face coverings are. Will there be updated guidance and information to avoid that confusion? Yes, there will be updated guidance and we will ensure updated marketing campaigns and public awareness campaigns to help people to understand the changes that I have announced today. That is a very reasonable point to raise. On the issue of funding, members often call for us to give local authorities more money in the flexibility to spend it. We have rightly given the balance of funding to local authorities to ensure that flexibility. On the rest of the money that is flowing to businesses right now—for example, if we look at the management information on the local authority to deliver funds for hospitality, for example, and for taxes—of the almost 23,000 applications received so far, almost 22,000 have been paid out. Of course, there are a range of other schemes that are administered by Creative Scotland, for example, and that money is also flowing to businesses. We will continue to work with stakeholders responsible for delivering that to ensure that all of it gets to the businesses that need it as quickly as possible. Michelle Thomson, to be followed by Sharon Dowie. Experience tells us that significant public health issues remain prevalent even after a pandemic has ended. For example, instances of strokes and heart attack increase after every flu season. Infection of the brain can occur in patients with mesos, and I have a friend who is still suffering from post-pollos syndrome some 65 years after illness. Given that, does EFM share my concern that the potential removal of wider infrastructure by the UK Government will therefore impact on important data gathering and may ultimately condemn more citizens to the longer-term consequences of Covid-19? That is an important point. We must recognise the possible longer-term impacts of Covid, including on heart disease and stroke. We continue to work with Public Health Scotland for example to understand the wider impact on the population as deeply as we can, but it will be some time yet before we properly fully understand the impacts of the pandemic. That also underlines the importance of continuing to be vigilant about any future threats that the pandemic presents for us, because it will also have long-term consequences. At the heart of living with Covid, which is the phrase that we hear more and more, it must be that very robust and very developed system of surveillance, so that we can identify new risks very quickly and respond quickly to those new risks to minimise the impacts that they have on the population. I hope that our discussions with the UK Government in the period ahead will allow us to have the clarity that then enables us to set out our plans for a longer-term testing infrastructure that meets all of those needs. The £2 million that was announced last week for the event sector is welcome, but it covers all events in Scotland, meaning independent music festivals may be shortchanged. It has been suggested that festivals are caught between the events and culture funding streams with neither quite fitting the bill. Will the First Minister consider creating a dedicated fund for Scottish music festivals to encourage festivals, artists and audiences back to Scotland? I will take that point away and give it consideration. However, it is likely to be whether there is anything that we can do within the funding that was already announced. In addition to that, the money that we announced yesterday for local authorities gives local authorities additional flexibility to meet the needs of any businesses, organisations or events that have not been properly catered for by some of the other funding streams. Therefore, local authorities will have the ability to look at music festivals in that context. Beyond that, I will take the point away and give some further consideration and ask the minister to write back to the member in due course. Douglas Ross refers to personal responsibility, but my supermarket at the weekend there was more than one group without face coverings by no stretch of imagination where they all exempt so much for their personal responsibility. Will the First Minister remind us all that wearing face coverings in public places, lateral flow testing, isolation are not for you but for others, protecting not only family and friends and work colleagues, but more importantly people you pass by who you will never know and indeed may be very vulnerable to the virus that you may give them? That is possibly the most important point to make as we go into this next phase. Governments can impose legal restrictions that are not proportionate, which is why we are lifting the legal restrictions, but that does not mean that the risk of the virus has gone away. Therefore, we will continue to encourage voluntary compliance. The point that Christine Grahame makes is absolutely correct. We do all those things, whether it is wearing a face covering, get vaccinated, test regularly, obviously to protect ourselves, but we also do it to protect others, to protect those around us and particularly those around us who may and we may not have knowledge of that, who may be clinically vulnerable and who may be at very serious risk, even with vaccination of serious illness or death if they get this virus. Therefore, doing all of these things is about solidarity, it is about looking out for each other, it is about looking after each other and that becomes more important as we go into this next phase. I would encourage everybody to continue to do all the right things for all the right reasons. Jeremy Balfour, to be followed by Bob Doris. First Minister, the guidance around the 1m rule still applies. That is affecting universities and our schools reopen more will affect the ability for parents to go in. Will the 1m rule be reviewed and when will it be reviewed? We are intending, assuming that there are no adverse developments between now and then, to lift on 21 March the requirement for businesses to take account of Government guidance and to take all practical measures to reduce the risk of infection in their premises and we will continue to update guidance to give businesses and other organisations the right steer on what to do. We would anticipate moving to a position where none of those things are legal requirements for businesses or for others. As we have just been talking about in terms of individual behaviour, businesses, for obvious reasons, will want to operate in sensible ways that allow them to keep their staff and their customers safe. We will continue to engage with businesses about the nature of that over the coming weeks. As we lift Covid requirements, households will continue to face significant financial pressures as a direct result of the pandemic, compounded by additional pressures arising from the Tory cost of living crisis. On 3 February, the UK Government announced spending for England to tackle such pressures. What clarity will the Scottish Government have received from the UK Government that associated Barnett consequences will provide additional funds overall to Scotland compared with the Scottish spring budget revision to allow Scotland to tackle such significant household pressures here in Scotland? Those outside the chamber may not see it, but the Conservative Benchys seem to think that the cost of living crisis is something to laugh about. I do not think that there will be many people across the country who share that view and I would encourage them to have some more respect for the difficult circumstances that people face. It is the case that, as is very often the case, what the Treasury appears to announce does not translate into actual money for the Scottish Government. The UK supplementary estimates published today confirmed that the Scottish budget is receiving £17 million less than the Treasury had provisionally indicated before the Chancellor's cost of living announcement. That is one of the things that we have come to expect from the Treasury. We will continue to work with the UK Government to try to get maximum support for people across the country who are really suffering as a result of the pandemic, as a result of the other factors driving up the cost of living, which might be, unfortunately, exacerbated by developments in Ukraine. There is undoubtedly much more action that we need to see the Chancellor take in the days and weeks to come. In anticipation of the announcement and, indeed, in response to many people who have disabilities or are immunosuppressed and their carers have expressed worries about what the new framework could mean for them and their loved ones and, indeed, have expressed frustration about the lack of dialogue for them with the Government. What engagement has the First Minister and the Government had with people who have a disability? Carers and the organisations that represent them, in the preparation of the framework, I will commit to further engagement in the coming weeks. We have a significant engagement with stakeholders representing people who are more at risk, and that will continue. I recognise the issue that we are, even as we lift legal restrictions, continuing to recommend basic protections and mitigations. That is why we think that access to testing continues to be important. That is why we think that any of us who test positive should continue to be asked to isolate to reduce the risk for those who are most vulnerable. We all have to recognise that the desire to get back to normal, understandable though it is, has to be tempered by the understanding that, for those who are at greatest risk, the anxiety is very real. We can all behave in a way that reduces the risk that people face and, hopefully, reduce that anxiety. The Scottish Government will continue to take those considerations very much into account as we take decisions in the future about the handling of the pandemic overall. I know that the First Minister agrees that everyone should be able to benefit from a return to greater normality and no one should be left behind. Like other MSPs in the chamber, I have constituents who previously had to shield or were vulnerable as a result of not being able to get the vaccine. They are feeling a bit scared at the prospect of restrictions being lifted and what that means for their quality of life. I ask the First Minister what further assurances she can give to them that, unlike the approach being taken by the UK Government, their wellbeing is being taken into account as protections are relaxed. Further to my last answer, let me just give an assurance again that we are considering, have considered and will continue to consider people at the highest clinical risk in every strand of the phased approach that we are taking to managing the pandemic. There are a number of practical ways in which we give life to that, so people at higher risk obviously continue to be prioritised for vaccination. Our testing programme continues to support the effective management of Covid. People who are at a higher clinical risk may benefit from the new treatments that have been identified. I set some of that out in my statement and, as I said in my previous answer, we are also continuing to encourage and to recommend to everybody across the country to adopt safe behaviours and practices that help to keep those most vulnerable as safe as possible. This, from day one, has been a collective endeavour. We have all had to look out for each other and look after each other. Even as we go into, hopefully, Camer waters of this pandemic, that remains the case. I urge everybody, however frustrated you may be, about wearing a face covering or having to isolate when you test positive, to continue to do those things, because they are about the protection of those who are most vulnerable in our society. That concludes First Minister's statement. Covid-19 update. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business.