My follow-up question is about next steps. Some of the respondents have asked for a clear road map for how we are going to get to the legislation and for implementation. Annie Gunner Logan has talked about addressing some of those points. Are people keen for the short-term solutions that we have just talked about to be set out clearly, as well as the longer-term piece of work?

In anticipation of this announcement and in response to it, many people who have disabilities or who are immunosuppressed, and their carers, have expressed worries about what the new framework could mean for them and their loved ones. They have also expressed frustration about their lack of dialogue with the Government.

What engagement have the First Minister and the Government had with people who have a disability, carers and the organisations that represent such people, in the preparation of the framework? Will the First Minister commit to further engagement in the coming weeks?

I associate myself with Gillian Mackay’s comments and those of the First Minister as we celebrate LGBT history month.

Access to sport for LGBT+ people has been historically challenging, and it remains so today because of barriers caused by stigma and discrimination. If we have made progress on sporting role models globally, we still have a long way to go, with many professional footballers in this country speaking of the barriers that remain to players coming out. Does the First Minister agree that the work of organisations such as Leadership, Equality and Active Participation in Sports Scotland—LEAP Sports—and campaigns such as Stonewall’s rainbow laces are vital in supporting LGBT+ people to participate in and enjoy watching sport? What more will the Government do to support that important work?

Since March 2020, many have made sacrifices in exchange for the protection of our national health service and our fellow citizens. Taking action such as self-isolating and following the rules has undoubtedly saved lives. However, as well as being a public health crisis, Covid has contributed to an unprecedented economic crisis that is making people choose between heating their home and putting food on the table.

As the immediate threats to public health begin to abate, we must not forget about people on the lowest incomes who, as is too often the case, are suffering the greatest impact. As I heard time and again in the early days of the pandemic, we may all be in the same storm, but we are not always in the same boat. That is why the Scottish Labour Party broadly supports the bill, but we must ensure that it addresses wider issues of inequality and the hardships that are faced by low-paid workers, our creative sector, women, unpaid carers and disabled people.

People in low-income households are already struggling to make ends meet so, without sufficient Government support, having to choose between continuing to work or self-isolating without any income may cause them to forgo public health advice. The bill is vital in order to combat that in its widest sense. As we heard from Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour’s reasoned amendment calls on the Government to increase the self-isolation support grant to ensure that it at least matches the national living wage, which will rise to £9.50 in April. Matching the national living wage will ensure that support for those who are required to self-isolate is directed to those who need it the most. In doing that, we can ensure that those who are living on the margins do not have to choose between making ends meet and protecting other people.

I am sure that colleagues across the chamber will agree that the national living wage is the bare minimum that Scots should receive. I urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that there is equal access to the grant, so that we can protect as many people as possible. As colleagues have noted, there is a disparity across local authorities in access to that vital support. The rates of approval for self-isolation support grants are as low as 32 per cent and 35 per cent in Moray and North Lanarkshire respectively, whereas in Dumfries and Galloway and Dundee they are above 70 per cent.

It is concerning that the extent of available support is guided by something of a postcode lottery, which demonstrates the need for clear and standardised guidance for local authorities, which are tasked with delivering those grants.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will look into that further and perhaps say something about it in his closing speech, because it is vital that money is getting into people’s pockets, no matter where in Scotland they live.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will work towards finding resolutions to the issues that people are experiencing in relation to self-isolation support grant applications—issues that have been raised by me and by other colleagues in the chamber. As long as we continue to call on the Scottish public to do their part in containing the spread of the virus, we, in this Parliament, must also do our part in safeguarding them from falling through the gap and into more financial distress.

I will not be the only member in the chamber who has had constituents getting in touch about having their care packages cut or about delays in packages being put in place in the first place.

We know that the impact of those delays and cuts can be devastating. Does the minister accept that addressing the workforce shortages in social care is critical to fulfilling Frank’s law and that one way in which those shortages could be addressed is by giving social care staff an immediate pay rise to £12 an hour, going up to £15 an hour?

Good morning. I will follow on from the previous question about the Promise. Last week, Louise Hunter, the chief executive of Who Cares? Scotland, referred to “implementation purgatory” in relation to progress on the Promise. Given what the minister has said about the time that it will take to develop a national care service, and what the sector perceives as a delay in implementing the Promise, are those comments a fair assessment?

Having read some information on the subject, I want to start with how the data can be improved with intersectionality. For example, how do we know how many families from an ethnic minority background have children who have a disability? How do we drill down and get to the detail of what are complex and different lives?

Thank you for that comprehensive answer, which began to explore some of the other themes that I am keen to get more clarity on. You said, quite rightly, that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work. Is the Government’s intention, then, to target measures specifically to the groups that we have just discussed? Are there examples of initiatives through which that targeting is happening?

I have a technical question about Barnett consequentials—in particular, the Barnett consequentials from the UK council tax rebate and their most effective use in relation to the cost of living. What is the Government’s view on how they will be used? Are there plans in place?

I did not detect in the minister’s answer any recognition that, after 14 years in government, the Scottish National Party should accept that this shameful situation has unfolded under its watch. The gap in respect of premature deaths is at its widest since 2007, when the SNP came to power. The gap of 26 years in life expectancy between the most affluent areas and the least affluent areas is the widest ever.

It is clear that radical solutions are needed, such as those that Professor David Kerr of the University of Oxford has advocated. He has called for implementation of the framework that Professor Sir Michael Marmot devised, which would devolve to local communities powers and funding for education, public health, early years and employment to find solutions that work for our diverse cities, towns and villages.

The Government talks big and does little. Is it not time to take a radical approach to tackling such issues?