 The next item of business is First Minister's Questions. I intend taking both constituency and general supplementaries after question 2. Members wishing to ask such supplementaries should press their requests to speak buttons during question 2, and I'll keep a note of members who press and may take further supplementaries from members if we have any time in hand after question 6. Members wishing to ask a supplementary question to questions 3 to 6, please press during the relevant question. The SNP's vaccination passport scheme comes into effect in just a few hours' time. While the judgment has been delivered, businesses were still in court trying to halt the scheme as late as this morning. Guidance is still being published. The app was to be launched today. So far, we've got the app to check vaccine passports, but we don't have the app for vaccine passports. Everything about this has been left to the last minute. This is not the way to run any scheme, let alone one that will affect people right across Scotland. The First Minister and I disagree strongly about this policy. My party wants it scrapped, but surely even she must accept that the scheme is not ready and needs to be delayed. I don't agree with that. Douglas Ross, perhaps understandably from his perspective, wants to simply gloss over the decision of the Court of Session this morning rejecting the application for interim interdict. Therefore, let me summarise and paraphrase the reasons that were given for that rejection—that the scheme had been consulted upon, that there had been the opportunity to take part in that consultation. The scheme introduced was not disproportionate, irrational or unreasonable. It was reasonable to bring in the phased approach. There was no discrimination and, in summary, the scheme was attempting to address legitimate concerns in a reasonable and balanced way. All along, I have been very candid and clear. None of us want to be in this position. None of us want to be having to take any of the steps that we have had to take over 18 months now to seek to contain a virus, keep people safe and try to limit the health and other damage that this virus does. However, we are still in this virus. There are still around 1,000 people in our hospitals because of it, or with it, or because of it. We face what may be the most difficult winter any of us can imagine. That is a targeted and proportionate way to try to reduce the harm that the virus will do over the winter months, while keeping our economy fully open, functioning and trading. The judgment from the court this morning recognises both the reasons and the way in which the Government has gone about it. We will continue to engage with business, not just in the run-up to the enforcement of this coming into place on 18 October, but after the legal obligation comes into force tomorrow. We will do that afterwards to make sure that we are listening, understanding but that all of us are working collectively to try to keep the country as safe as possible as we go through these winter months. Douglas Ross. The First Minister claims that she has been candid and clear. If only her vaccine passport scheme was candid and clear. She says that I glossed over the legal challenge. I mentioned it right at the top of my question. Surely it shows how badly the Government has worked with businesses that they had to take this last minute legal challenge, and they were still in court with her Government this morning. Sectors are desperately trying to stop it from going ahead because they are so worried about the impact it will have on their businesses and Scottish jobs. This scheme starts at 5am tomorrow morning, but by tomorrow night we could be in the ridiculous situation where hundreds of people will be at venues where they need a vaccine passport to get in, but if the music has turned off, the exact same people suddenly do not need a vaccine passport. At the football this weekend, thousands of people will need to go through vaccine passport checks in a very short space of time without any public campaign to inform them of the procedures that they will have to go through. Does not the First Minister realise that to everyone in the real world, this looks like a complete farce? First Minister. Again, no, I do not. I think that the vast majority of people across Scotland, while very few, if any, like the measures that we are having to take to control this virus, understand the reasons for those measures. We would prefer a situation where people are being asked to show proof of vaccination than a situation where venues such as nightclubs or large-scale events have to stop or close again. That is the balance that we are seeking to strike. In terms of the legal challenge, any organisation in a democracy has a right to challenge decisions of government right up until those decisions come into force and indeed afterwards. Interestingly, I think that the right to judicial review is a right that the Tories south of the border are seeking to take away completely, if I understand it, or at least limit it considerably. The judgment of Lord Burns this morning is very clear and very emphatic on the point about the fact that some venues and some circumstances are covered and not others. Again, I am paraphrasing and summarising, but the reasons recognised that it was widely known that the combination of alcohol-dancing late nights inside created a high-risk environment for the transmission of Covid that does not occur to the same extent in other venues. There is no perfection when you are dealing with an infectious virus. All of the steps and measures that we have to take are imperfect and, of course, they are far from ideal. We cannot simply wish Covid away. We have got to take the steps to get cases back under control. As I said the other day, it is worth repeating, that Douglas Ross over recent months has opposed almost every step that we have tried to take from face coverings through to Covid certification. If I had listened to Douglas Ross, we probably would not be in the position that we are in now, thankfully, of having cases on a downward path. Perhaps it is Douglas Ross that needs to reflect a bit more on some of the arguments that he makes in this chamber. If the First Minister listened to those of us on those benches, she would not be introducing a scheme from 5am tomorrow that sees hundreds of people get their vaccine passport checked as they walk into a venue, but the music gets unplugged and suddenly, miraculously, they do not need a vaccine passport at all. If she had listened to those benches, she would not be introducing a scheme from 5am tomorrow, which cannot be enforced for more than a fortnight, further on. Businesses have never had a tougher time than right now, but they are getting guidance on vaccine passports at the very last minute. The evidence case for them, if it can be called that because there is barely any evidence for this policy, appeared before a Scottish Parliament committee for the first time this morning. There are so many flaws littered throughout the scheme and proper consideration has not taken place. Let's look at just one key part of this legislation. Who have the Scottish Government consulted with over regulation 16A and what was the outcome of those discussions? We've consulted with a range of stakeholders. I'm more than happy to go into detail or provide—I don't have the regulations in front of me right now—I'm very happy to come back afterwards and go through every particular regulation and who precisely we have consulted on. Let's come back to the heart of the matter here. There is one point that I agree with Douglas Ross on. If we'd listened to him and the Conservatives, many of the steps that we've taken to try to get Covid cases back under control again, we wouldn't have taken, but I'm afraid that the consequence of that may well have been that Covid cases would still have been rising, because Douglas Ross just a few weeks ago was complaining about the continued legal requirement to wear face coverings and has opposed literally almost everything that we have done. I think that this is just part of a pattern and probably will lead most people to think that it's a good thing that Douglas Ross is not standing here facing having to take these decisions. My apologies, I assumed that the First Minister had finished. I was going to address the point about evidence, because evidence is important. Douglas Ross likes quite legitimately to quote different people before this chamber. In terms of the committee that was scrutinising this just this very morning, let me reflect on the comments of Professor Christopher Dye, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Oxford, where he commends the evidence paper and says, and he does say, with one or two comments or queries, I broadly agree with its recommendations. I think that it's a very good report actually, and I agree with its basic recommendations, which is that vaccine certification is a useful device and approach to support the vaccination programme in Scotland. That takes us back to the heart of this matter. We have an infectious virus circulating. It has taken far too many lives. It is still doing too much damage. A thousand people are in our hospitals with Covid right now, as we speak. It is incumbent on government to take responsible, reasonable and targeted measures to keep the country safe as we go into this potentially very difficult winter. That's a responsibility that I am going to continue to treat and discharge with the utmost seriousness. Douglas Ross, Presiding Officer, the First Minister had two bites at the cherry to answer that question, and she couldn't do it. There's only half a dozen regulations to her legislation that comes into effect from 5am tomorrow. If it's somehow unreasonable to know about regulation 16A, it was discussed in the Covid committee this morning, which her Deputy First Minister appeared in front of. She can turn to him to ask for answers. He doesn't seem to know either, and it just shows the lack of engagement, the lack of consultation and the lack of understanding from the SNP about their own policy. The Government seem to be making this up as they go along. Just look at what John Swinney said at the Covid committee this morning. He couldn't even tell the members what will be the criteria to end the Covid passport scheme. He's whispering in the First Minister's ear, so let's hope that she can tell us because he couldn't at the committee this morning. The SNP Government is the only one in Europe to run a scheme like this, relying purely on the vaccination status of people and banning them from venues unless they can produce official paperwork. The only Government in Europe forcing these higher costs on to businesses and the only Government in Europe forcing such restrictive rules on to the public. Nicola Sturgeon wants independence in Europe. She's got it. She's completely alone in pursuing the shambles of a scheme. So can I ask why are countries across Europe wrong? Thousands of Scottish businesses, the Scottish Beer and Pub Association, the Scottish Hospitality Group, the Night Time Industries Association, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Why are they all wrong but Nicola Sturgeon's right? It's interesting that, in the course of that ramble, Douglas Ross appears to have completely changed the basis for his opposition to Covid certification. Up until now, I understood, and I saw it, I think changed the basis of his about a week ago, but up until now, I understood that it was because it was far too difficult for businesses to comply with this. Now it's because we're only requiring proof of vaccine and not proof of a negative test, and I've set out clearly, firstly, why we're not doing that at this point, and the fact that we will keep that under review. But the reason we're not doing it right now principally is because we're trying to drive up vaccination rates. We've set out the rationale, we've set out the reasons and we've set out the detail. A court has looked at this over the past 24 hours, and I've already summarised the judgment of the court delivered just this very morning. The committee has scrutinised this again this morning. We have listened to businesses, which is why we have delayed enforcement to allow businesses a grace period to test their arrangements in practice, but I come back to the central point. I'm left wondering what exactly it is that Douglas Ross does support us doing to keep Covid under control, to protect people's health, to protect our economy and to save lives. The position that he is taking right now is simply to oppose everything that this Government does simply for the sake of opposition. At any time, that is irresponsible, but in the face of a deadly virus, that is particularly irresponsible from the Conservatives. Presiding Officer, we are facing a cost-of-living crisis. Today furlough comes to an end—a lifeline for so many. Next week, universal credit will be cut for millions of people across the country. I'm sure that the First Minister and I agree that that is a shameful mistake by the Tory Government. Tomorrow, the energy cap will rise by £139, meaning that many will face the choice between eating and heating this winter. Even before this cost-of-living crisis, this was an unacceptable choice facing too many people in our country, particularly our elderly. Can the First Minister tell the chamber right now how many people in Scotland are living in fuel poverty and how many of them are pensioners? Far too many, with apologies to Anna Sarwar, I don't have the precise figures in front of me right now, but I know that it is too many. Of course, this Government is taking action to try to help people on the lowest incomes with the cost-of-living crisis, because I absolutely agree that that is what we are facing. For example, by the end of October, we will make a £130 support payment for every household to receive council tax reduction. That is an investment of up to £65 million. It will benefit over 500,000 households. Of course, we have introduced the child payment, which is also intended to help those living in poverty. As I suspect, Anna Sarwar's next question is going to be to ask me for us to make additional payments to people living in fuel poverty. We can hopefully agree between us that if this Government had the wherewithal to do that, we would do that, because we all want to help those on the lowest incomes. We get again to the nub of a matter here. Any Government in the Scottish Parliament is simply unable to continue, week after week, month after month, year after year, mitigating the impact of reserved policies from a limited and finite devolved budget. It simply is not possible without hitting the devolved responsibilities that we have the responsibility for hard. That comes back to this matter. If we want this Parliament, as I do, to be able to do all the things that no doubt Anna Sarwar is going to ask me to do, we cannot just wish the ends. We have to give this Parliament the means to do it. We have to give this Parliament the powers, and we have to ensure that it is this Parliament that holds the resources. Anything short of that from Anna Sarwar, I am afraid, is just an empty soundbite. What we face right now is far too serious for that. That is far too serious, and that is why the soundbites are coming from the First Minister. We do have means, and we should use the means that we have. We have the power to have the winter fuel payment from this Parliament, but the First Minister has chosen to give that power back to the very Tory Government that she rightly criticises, so let's use the power and make a difference. On the question that I asked the First Minister, the answer is 613,000 people living in fuel poverty, and of that over 200,000 are believed to be pensioners. That is one in four households across our country unable to make ends meet and forced to make heartbreaking choices right now. This week we heard that Scotland has recorded the first death by starvation of an older person in a decade, an older person in our country, one of the richest in the world, starving to death in their home. First Minister, words cannot describe how tragic and awful that is, and words are not going to keep people warm this winter. The Scottish Government can and must take action now. Earlier this week, we called for a £70 increase in winter fuel payments to help the poorest pensioners this winter. Today we learned that the Scottish Government will receive an additional £41 million to support hard-pressed families over the coming months, so now we can go even further. Will the First Minister enhance the winter fuel payment not just for the poorest pensioners but also give targeted support to struggling families, for example, where there is a child with a disability and for those in receipt of a council tax reduction? We have the means, let's use the means. The £41 million that Annas Sarwar is referring to, I assume, is what will flow from the announcement of the UK Government this morning of a £500 million fund UK-wide for low-income families. I am surprised to hear Annas Sarwar talk about that positively, because this is an announcement from a Tory Government who is taking £6 billion out of the pockets of the lowest-income families through the universal credit card and is expecting praise, which they seem to have just got from Annas Sarwar for putting £500 million back. It is an absolute disgrace and an insult, but every penny of consequentials that we get from that will go to support low-income families, and I give that absolute commitment. That will be, in addition to the support that I have already talked about, a £130 support payment by the end of October that will go to every household who did receive council tax reduction, supporting over 500,000 households across the country. We are also doubling the carers allowance supplement in December to try to help carers with the cost of living increase. As I have already said, we have introduced the child payment. In fact, Social Security Scotland, which I visited in Dundee just yesterday, is delivering 11 benefits already. Seven of them do not exist anywhere else. That is how seriously we are taking the obligation to help those who are most in need. However, I come back to the point. Our resources are finite. What Annas Sarwar is asking me to do is to find money again to mitigate the impact of reserve policies. Does not it make more sense for us to have the powers here in this Parliament with the accompanying resources so that we can take different decisions? I will make two open offers to Annas Sarwar. First, I will back the Scottish Government in that call to devolve all of Social Security to this Parliament and not just some of it. Secondly, if he wants us to make another payment, then by all means, if he wants to come to me and say where in the already allocated Scottish budget we take over and above the £41 million that he has spoken to, which I have already said will be fully allocated, if he wants anything over and above that, then come and tell me where within the Scottish budget he wants me to take that money from. I am happy to listen to him if he is prepared to do it. I am very conscious of time, and I would be grateful if we could have shorter questions and responses, Annas Sarwar. I think that the problem is that the First Minister wants to shout preprepared attack lines rather than to listen to what I am saying. I was not welcoming the new money as some kind of relief to universal credit. I was taking seriously what the First Minister often says. If you have a proposal, tell us where the money is coming from. I have told her quite clearly that there is £41 million coming there, so let us use it to make a difference. She also gives examples, which I am also welcome, but they were announced before we had a cost-of-living crisis. I say to the First Minister that we can shout about what new powers we want. Let us use the powers that we have to change people's lives into here and now. This is urgent. People are facing rising costs today. Energy bills will rise tomorrow. People need help now. We cannot dither and delay when families need that reassurance. The Scottish Government has the power to do something about it. We know that the additional £41 million is on its way, and families need to know that support is on its way, too, because warm words will be cold comfort for people who risk suffering this winter. Can the First Minister guarantee to the chamber that the Government will act that she will back our plan and make sure that £41 million gets into people's pockets before it is too late? People watching this will have heard me say that every penny of the £41 million will go to help directly low-income families. Anna Sarwar says that that is where he thinks the funding for his proposal should come from. He announced his proposal before we knew about that £41 million, so I am assuming—maybe I am getting it wrong in terms of exactly what his proposal is—that the £70 payment is over and above that. All I am saying to him is that he will tell us where he thinks that money should come. Every penny of the £41 million, assuming that it comes from the UK Government, because sometimes the consequentials do not turn out to be exactly what they appear, every single penny will go to helping low-income families. That will be in addition to the other sources of support that I have just outlined, £130 support payment, all the other steps that we have taken, the doubling of the carers allowance, the seven benefits that do not exist anywhere else in the UK that Social Security Scotland is already delivering. We act to use our powers and our resources, but the cost of living crisis is being caused by UK Government decisions that they are taking within their reserved powers. We cannot go on raiding a finite devolved budget to mitigate the impact of those. We need to get those powers out of the hands of UK Governments and into the hands of this Parliament. As long as Anas Sarwar prefers keeping those powers in the hands of Boris Johnson, he will not have the credibility that he wants to have before this chamber. We move to supplementary questions, and I call Rachel Hamilton. Mike Coffey from SRUC said, With the state of the planet, we need to do something rather urgently. We no longer have the luxury of having decades to breed plants and animals. The Rosalyn Institute, the NFUS and the SRUC are all concerned that this SNP Government are adopting an outdated EU position in rejecting gene editing instead of grasping science and innovation and putting rural farmers in Scotland on the back foot. Does the First Minister agree with David Mishie of the NFUS that gene editing will benefit animal welfare, public health, the environment and farmers? I have not seen those comments in full. I am happy to look at them and consider them carefully. Those are serious issues, but I think that the quality of our food and our agriculture is really important. I do not support GM crops, and I think that the opposition to that is important. I know that we are not talking about exactly the same thing, but I think that it is important that we consider all of these things carefully. I will consider the comments and be happy to say more when I have had the opportunity to do so. In Washington last week, Boris Johnson claimed that the US ban on imports of lamb had been lifted. UK Government memos obtained by the Daily Record have revealed that the ban has not been lifted and that the PM has been, and I am quoting here, from UK civil servants misleading. Does the First Minister agree that the way that the Tories are treating the industry is quite frankly disgraceful and that Boris Johnson must apologise and set the record straight? Jim Fairlie appears to be suggesting that not everything that comes out of the mouth of Boris Johnson can be relied upon. I mean, perish the thought. Perhaps the more pertinent question is if anything that comes out of the mouth of Boris Johnson can be entirely relied upon, but Jim Fairlie is absolutely right. I think that the Prime Minister does own apology because clearly what he said is not the case and of course has been described as misleading. However, of course, this is a UK Government that has betrayed our farmers, our fishermen, our entire agricultural sector, and each and every day right now it is paying the price of the Tory Brexit and that price is getting higher and higher with every day that passes. Perhaps an apology not just for a misleading statement in terms of the import ban on lamb but an apology for all of the damage that this UK Government has done through Brexit would indeed be appropriate. Daniel Johnson Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today, the furlough scheme comes to an end. The most recent figure is showing that over 100,000 people in Scotland were still on furlough. While the headlines may be discussing labour shortages, labour market statistics show that the number of jobs in the economy is still significantly below pre-pandemic levels. While the transition training fund is welcome, it will account for a small fraction of the job's shortfall. Does the First Minister think that her Government is doing enough to help those who may be finding themselves out of work at the end of this month? Given the stress, anxiety and impact on household finances, they will be finding themselves in? We will continue to do everything that we can. It is a fair question about the need for us to look on an on-going basis at whether we are doing all that we reasonably can to help low-income families, to help those who are unemployed. I certainly give the assurance that we will do that on an on-going basis. In a sense, my answer comes back to the answer that I gave to Anna Sarwar. I am afraid that suffering the impact and people across the country are suffering the impact right now of decisions that are beyond the control of this Government and this Parliament. There will always therefore be a limit to what we can do to mitigate the impact of those decisions. It would be far better if we did not have to go cap in hand to a UK Government to ask for furlough to be continued. It would be much, much better if we could take these decisions here in this democratically elected Parliament in Scotland. Perhaps, if Labour is serious about those issues, as I respect the fact that the member is, they have got to stop this position of just willing the ends of things. They have got to get into a position where they give this Parliament the means to do the things that we all want it to be able to do. Jamie Greene Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just as we have been sitting here, listening to the exchange about vaccine passports, I have been contacted by a hospitality venue in the Highlands who says that they host weddings. There is one tomorrow night, actually. He understands that all guests will need to provide evidence of two vaccinations to be allowed in. There is music, there is dancing and all the rest. Some of the guests are family members and they are over from China. Will they be allowed in? First Minister As we have made clear, weddings are exempt from the vaccine certification scheme. Jenny Minto Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the UK Government regarding the announcement of a temporary visa scheme to tackle skills shortages. We discussed these matters on an on-going basis with the UK Government. I have made very clear that this Government has made very clear on many occasions our opposition to the immigration policies of the UK Government and, in particular, the ending of free movement. We welcome anything that enables more people to come here to work. However, the changes to the visa rules that were announced last week, to describe them as a sticking plaster, would be an exaggeration, because I do not even think that the amount to that is woefully inadequate. I am afraid that the price of those policies is going to be paid and felt by people across the country for some time to come. Abortion rights are under attack around the world and here in Scotland, women are being harassed when trying to access abortion clinics safely. The implementation of buffer zones around clinics has stalled and campaigners like Back of Scotland are looking to the Scottish Government for leadership and support. Does the First Minister agree that anyone accessing abortion healthcare in Scotland should be able to do so safely and free from harassment? Will the Government reassess its position on legislating for abortion clinic buffer zones? Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I am a very strong believer in a woman's right to choose on the issue of abortion. If it is possible, I am an even stronger advocate. Everybody should be regardless of different views on abortion. Any woman having an abortion should be able to do so without any fear or reality of abuse or harassment. I do believe that there is work to be done to make sure that that is the case. My party's manifesto, as other manifestos did, had things to say on that in the election. We will be considering steps that we can take to make sure that that is a right that women can exercise in reality. Reputational damage is being caused to some Shetland businesses as Transport Scotland fails to address the needs of adequate year-round ferry freight capacity. A removals company with forward bookings cancelled resulted in a house owner sitting on the floor in the new empty home, just one recent example. There can be no economic growth without sufficient infrastructure, but this matter has been raised before and the responses that pinch points are recognised and all options are being considered. There is growing frustration and anger in the aisles that no interim solution has been found. Can the First Minister indicate what Transport Scotland does with the freight information that Northern Isle stakeholders provide to it, and when is the Scottish Government going to address this very serious problem? I know that the Transport Minister has been engaged in those issues. I absolutely agree around the importance of them. Obviously, there is planned development around two new freight vessels, which will help to address the issue in the longer term. However, the Transport Minister has also given an assurance that work is under way to explore potential shorter-term actions that will alleviate some pressures on the busiest sailing. I will ask the Transport Minister to write directly to the member if she wants to provide any more details of the particular case that she has cited here. That will be passed on as well. I will ask Graeme Dey to provide more details of the work that is under way to resolve that in the shorter term as well as the longer term. To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the on-going economic impact on Scotland of Brexit. The Scottish Government has estimated that the new EU-UK relationship could cut Scotland's GDP by around 6.1 per cent. That would be equivalent to £9 billion in 2016 cash terms by 2030 compared to continued EU membership. In particular, we have forecast that one of the immediate impacts would come from challenges in recruiting and retaining EU citizens as workers here. Indeed, that is proving the fuel crisis, the labour and skills shortages that are being experienced across the economy and, indeed, public services right now. I think that Labour bears the economic recklessness of this hard Brexit. The UK Government pressed ahead with leaving the EU despite repeated requests to delay, and everybody across the country is now seeing the result of this short-sighted ideology everywhere we look today. The people of Scotland never voted for Brexit. Now we are faced with soaring energy prices for courts running dry. There is a labour shortage affecting sectors from care to haulage. We are even threatened with shortages of iron brew if that case is not urgently addressed. The Conservative response to that is a pathetic offer of a three-month visa for EU truck drivers. It is clear that the Tories have nothing to offer Scotland but cuts, hardship and cruelty. With their latest plans for replacing EU subsidies, they are yet again taking powers from this Parliament and threatening our plans for a green recovery. Is the First Minister concerned about this latest power grab and will she reaffirm her commitment, as outlined in our co-operation agreement, that the people of Scotland will be given a way out of Boris Johnson's Brexit Britain with a referendum on Scotland's future before the end of this Parliament? Yes. I thought it was interesting as Gillian Mackay was asking that very, very pertinent question that the Tories were getting very, very twitchy, because they do not like hearing, they do not like listening to the reality of the damage their policies are doing to people the length and breadth of Scotland, but they will not be able to hide from that damage in the weeks and months to come. On immigration in particular, having spent the time in the run-up to the Brexit referendum and since the Conservatives giving the impression that people from other countries are not welcome to work here, they now, of course, want people to come here for three months to help the UK Government out of the self-imposed crisis, only to send them back again on Christmas Eve is absolutely disgraceful. I think that we have heard across a range of issues today the real need and power of the argument for this country to be independent so that we can take these decisions ourselves, so that we are no longer dependent on the decisions of a UK Government, and we can respond to the needs of people across this country here in the democratically elected Parliament of our nation. So yes, I do continue to believe and indeed intend that this will be the case, that people across this country will have the opportunity to choose independence in a referendum within this Parliament, and I hope that within the first half of this Parliament. Does the First Minister agree with me that local authority budgets have been badly affected by the disastrous Tory Brexit deal, where councils such as Aberdeenshire are struggling to repair potholes because contractors cite additional costs relating to supplies and staff? I would just like to ask colleagues to please bear in mind that we are all wishing to hear the questions asked. I am hopeful, First Minister, that you heard the question. I did hear the question. The fact of the matter is, and people will draw their own conclusions, Presiding Officer, that the Tories do not want people to hear these questions, because they hope that people will not see the damage that Tory policies are doing to people across this country. However, people are feeling it in their jobs, in their pay packets, in their energy bills, and they will see it, and they will know exactly who is responsible. In terms of local government budgets, during a decade of Tory austerity, we sought to treat local government as fairly as possible, and we will continue to do that. However, whether it is austerity or Brexit, we see the damage that the Conservatives are doing, which is why more and more people think that this country should be independent. Question 4, Evelyn Tweed. To ask the First Minister what engagement the Scottish Government has had, and plans it has made with key Scottish industries to support vulnerable households this winter. I have already, in answer to previous questions, set out the range of measures that we are taking to directly support vulnerable households across this winter. More generally, we are engaging with people and businesses across the country. We have been engaging with industry and consumer groups, including fuel poverty organisations, to develop plans for what we can reasonably do to further support those in vulnerable circumstances. The cabinet secretary, Michael Matheson, has also met the UK Secretary of State. He did so on Monday this week, when he pressed for further UK government action on skills industry and for support for the most vulnerable, and we intend to keep making that case. As the First Minister knows, there is just one week to go before the UK Government cuts universal credit, plunging over 60,000 families and 20,000 children in Scotland into poverty. Tory MSPs have spent this week defending the indefensible. Will she join me in saying to the Tories that it is not too late to do the right thing, defend your constituents and stand with the Scottish Parliament against those cuts? As part of the cutting thrust of democracy and political debate, I disagree and oppose many of the UK Government's policies, as the Conservatives will oppose many of the policies of this Government. However, I do not think that there has been anything quite so morally indefensible as the cut to universal credit that is planned to take effect in a week. At this time in particular, £20 a week away from the most vulnerable, lowest-income households across the country simply cannot be defended in any way, shape or form. I say to the Conservatives here, if Douglas Ross wants to get off his phone for a moment, while we are talking about this serious issue, please, over the next few days, try to persuade your UK Government colleagues not to do this, because it is your constituents, just as it is mine and the constituents of every member in this chamber, who are going to find it difficult to feed their children, to pay their energy bills and to live with dignity if this cut goes ahead. For goodness sake, let's all of us unite to say to this UK Government, do not do this. Question 5, Miles Briggs. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reports that in the last year ministers overturned almost 50 per cent of planning applications. First Minister. It's simply incorrect to say that ministers have overturned almost 50 per cent of planning applications. The vast majority of planning appeals are decided by independent reporters from the planning and environmental appeals division of the Scottish Government. It is right and proper that ministers have no involvement in cases delegated to reporters. In the last financial year, 135 decisions on planning appeals were made and planning permission granted on 67 occasions. However, in the same period, local planning authorities decided approximately 25,000 planning applications of which 94.5 per cent were granted planning permission. Planning approvals issued by reporters were approximately 0.3 per cent of the planning permissions granted over the course of this year in Scotland. That is my response to that claim. Miles Briggs. We know that the national planning framework 4 will give ministers additional powers over local planning. Council leaders, including your own First Minister, voiced real concerns about the impact of Government proposals on centralisation of services and further loss of local accountability and decision making, including plans around the drug and alcohol partnerships and children's services being swept up in proposals set out for a centralised system. Can I ask a very simple question of the First Minister? By the end of this Parliament, will councils have fewer or more powers? I seem to have gone from planning applications to children's services. We work in partnership with local authorities to make sure that we are delivering for people across the country. However, let us go back to planning applications. There is no centralisation here. As I said, 25,000 planning applications are decided by local planning authorities. The vast majority of them are 94.5 per cent granted planning permission. 135 decisions on planning appeals were made through the arrangements that I set out within the Scottish Government. In 2020-21, Scottish ministers made the final decision on four recalled planning appeals. The whole premise of the question is deeply flawed, which is probably why Miles Briggs chose to go on to something else after my first answer rather than stick with the subject matter of his question. Arrian Burgess On the subject of planning and the national planning framework, which will be published and consulted on soon, I would like to ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government intends to publish a national planning framework participation statement setting out the consultation process. I am very happy to get back to the member with the date if we have set a date on which that will be published. I will ask the relevant minister to write to the member as soon as possible. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reports that social care services in Glasgow have been temporarily suspended because of staff shortages. First Minister, I think that all of us understand how vital those services are to many people and understand the concern that any changes to the operation of such services bring. Glasgow Health and Social Care Partnership has sought to assure the Government that the suspension of day services is temporary. It will be regularly reviewed and services will be reinstated as quickly as possible. We have been and will continue to work closely with all local areas, including Glasgow, to ensure that services are delivered safely. That, of course, has included measures to address recruitment and retention issues, such as working with the Scottish Social Services Council and key partners to promote opportunities and encourage take-up of vacant posts. That includes work on training and developing the workforce. In addition, we are running a campaign to attract more people to the sector and accelerating the routes into the sector in recruitment processes. Pam Duncan-Clancy I thank the First Minister for that answer, but people who require care will probably find little comfort in that. Glasgow City Council last week took the operational decision to suspend day care services on the basis of mounting staffing pressures on what has been described as a critical shortage of care workers—a shortage that I, as a care user, am acutely aware of. Does the First Minister accept that there is a crisis in social care recruitment? There are governments continued year-on-year underfunding of local authorities and social care has impacted on the vacancies and the pay available. Can I ask the First Minister how many vacancies there are currently in social care in Scotland? Whether the Government will commit to publishing this information, what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle the crisis, including the grossly unfair low pay in the sector? I think that there are a number of perfectly reasonable questions involved there. First, I will undertake to consider whether, obviously, local authorities generally are the employers of social care workers. The data is likely to be held mainly by local authorities. I will undertake to look at whether we can publish the kind of information that Pam Duncan-Clancy is asking for so that we have greater understanding and transparency around the level of vacancies. Secondly, I absolutely agree that notwithstanding my answer and probably notwithstanding this answer, this will be of profound concern to anybody who is affected by this temporary suspension of services. Everybody wants to see that reinstated as quickly as possible. We will continue across this chamber to have debates about funding. We are increasing funding to social care and it is important that we do that. I think that there is a recognised need to drive up the pay and conditions of the social care workforce, which is part of our national care service proposals, but needs to be progressed leading up to that as well. I take all of this very seriously. I do not want to get back into exchanges that we have had earlier on about Brexit, but we are facing a shortage of labour in this country that is affecting, as we see right now, haulage companies and many aspects of the private sector. However, we all have to recognise that this is affecting our health and care sector too and is likely to exacerbate in the coming period. The Scottish Government, in fact, the health secretary and I were discussing this yesterday with officials, have a number of plans in progress to try to increase recruitment into social care and we will do everything that we can. However, this is one of the impacts of decisions that have been taken over recent years that is going to be very difficult for us in the coming months. We all have to recognise that and resolve to do everything that we can to overcome it. Yesterday, during the debate on the drug death crisis, SNP MSP Jim Fairley suggested that the Scottish Conservatives were, and I quote, that kind of language that I suggest goes beyond the robust debate that we want in this chamber. To those of us who have stood up over the past few years from across the floor and from all parties, represented our communities and debated this issue with a view to finding solutions, this is offensive. If Mr Fairley is suggesting that Opposition parties should not use their debating time to highlight a crisis that sees Scotland as the drug death capital of Europe and that the First Minister conceded that the Scottish Government had taken the aisle of the ball, then I am not sure what we are supposed to use our time for. It is because of the drug death rate that we continually raise this matter and I know that members from across all political parties recognise this and work constructively to help tackle this shame. I recognise that Mr Fairley is one of the new members of this place and I would like to put on record that he is someone that I have respect for and work with in committee and perhaps he would use this time to reflect on the use of inflammatory language, but that brings me to someone who should know better. The SNP chief whip stated that conservators are playing political games while people's lives are at stake and apparently it was a damned disgrace. Now he may be relishing his time in the spotlight but since the start of this pandemic some 18 months ago the Scottish Government has consistently reassured this chamber that would bring important decisions to the Parliament for approval and scrutiny. To ask the Scottish Government to adhere to its own commitments should not result in a chief whip of this Government suggesting that we are putting lives at stake. It is because people's lives are at stake that we continue to press for this information. You know that I am an advocate of robust even heated debate in this chamber, but I have to say that the language that is creeping into debate is deteriorating. It took the First Minister, herself, to have suggested that we need to consider a behaviour and language in here. For suggesting that anyone is using the death of others or that we are putting lives at risk for questioning the Scottish Government, I would say that it is unparliamentary and it is going too far. I seek your opinion on whether or not parliamentary protocol has been breached. I thank Mr Whittle for his point of order. He is entirely correct that while debates in this chamber can be robust, they must also be conducted in terms that demonstrate courtesy and respect for other members. The Deputy Presiding Officer and I will always intervene where we feel that language has been used that is not acceptable. MSPs have a leadership role in their communities and across Scotland. The way in which we conduct debate in this Parliament should set a positive example to people across the country, and I would ask all members to reflect on that in relation to their conduct in the chamber. Brian Whittle has several times referred to the Minister for Parliamentary Business as the chief whip, which is incorrect. Thank you, Ms Mackay. Your comments are on the record. We now move to the next item of business, which is members' business. Please leave the chamber quietly.