That is helpful. We are pressed for time, so I will move on and perhaps the other two witnesses can come in on that subject later.

Recommendation 1 on page 5 of your report says that funding guarantees should not continue. I understand the logic behind that, but I wonder how we deal with it. To me, the problem is that, when Westminster announces expenditure, we do not know whether it is new money or existing money. It would be better if Westminster would just tell us how much of it is new money. For example, if the UK Government is spending £5 billion on London crossrail and we are going to get £500 million, if it would at least tell us that £250 million of that is definitely new money we could then bank on that, even though it is not technically a guarantee. Is there a way round that issue? Otherwise, it takes us ages to find out whether we are getting new money.

That is for Professor—

That is helpful.

The figure of 5 per cent sounds a little arbitrary. I think that you said that there was a deal between the two Governments. We sometimes have the problem in Scotland that the two Governments do a deal, but the Parliament does not get a look in. In Wales, it would be the Senedd. Was that broadly what happened in this case? What was the reaction of the Senedd? Did it feel that Wales should have pushed for more than 5 per cent?

I will move on to a different area. I saw in media coverage that the UK is buying two different kinds of drug for treating Covid—I do not know what they are. Where are we with that? Are the drugs and treatments still being developed? Some people ask me why they should bother getting the vaccine if they can get a drug later on. I tend to say that prevention is better than cure, but that is perhaps a slightly simplistic answer. Can you give an update on where we are with drugs and treatments? That might be a question for Professor Leitch.

A friend of mine with long Covid said that, when they got their jag, they felt that their condition improved. That is just anecdotal, but is there any evidence for that?

I have one final, brief question. There have been media reports that the number of lateral flow tests being used is increasing, which is good news, but there has also been coverage that the use of check-in apps and test and protect is decreasing. I have noticed that in Parliament—people are meant to check in at the coffee bar, but I do not think that many are doing so. Is the check-in side of things still important?

Previously, we had no crowds at all at sports events, including football. I am not arguing for that, but I wonder why, by that logic, you do not stop crowds altogether.

I start in the realm of sport. I was on Twitter last night, which may or may not have been a good idea. However, some useful points came up, one of which was around why the figures of 500 for outdoor events and 200 for indoor events have been chosen, and why those are such blanket restrictions.

For the larger clubs, such as Rangers, Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts, it does not really matter too much whether the figure is 500 or 1,000—in effect, it is nothing—but for some of the smaller clubs, such as Clyde and Airdrie, the jump from 500 to 1,000 is a big one. If the limit was 1,000, they could have their whole crowd in, whereas with a limit of 500 it will have to be very limited. Those who know their football stadiums will know that Airdrie and Clyde’s stadiums are quite modern and spread out, so you could easily get 1,000 people in. Albion Rovers, on the other hand, can hardly get 500 into its ground. Why are the figures 500 for outdoor events and 200 for indoor events, with no variation depending on the size of the stadium?

Thank you. I accept that.

Still on the sports theme, I have a question about compensation. Murdo Fraser pressed you on that issue, and you were clear that decisions will be made fairly soon and that we will get an announcement. Can you say that you do not rule out providing support for sports organisations such as Glasgow Rocks basketball team in my constituency? I had bought tickets for next Wednesday, but there will now not be any crowd at all for that match. That puts Glasgow Rocks in a particularly difficult position, because it is competing with English teams that are allowed to have large crowds.

Sports organisations such as Glasgow Rocks, the carnival in Glasgow and taxi drivers, for example, are all losing out because of their links to events. Are they at least in the running for getting some compensation?

I take your point that there are a number of exceptional circumstances, but I feel that there are other areas of the Scottish budget, such as the national health service, which are also facing increased needs, but which cannot get a 30 per cent increase in their budget. I suspect that some of the other commissioners, such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, could easily spend another 30 per cent of their budget. Therefore, I am looking for an assurance that, between you, you will be strict, thorough and rigorous, and will not just hand out a 30 per cent increase.

That is fair enough—I just wanted to raise the issue.

I also want to ask about the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Perhaps you or one of your colleagues can explain the figure of £300,000 for contingency in that respect. As I understand it, it is already getting a 4.9 per cent increase, and it is also requesting an extra 25 per cent, which would bring the increase to something like 30 per cent. That seems like quite a lot.

Thank you.