 That concludes General Questions. The next item of business is First Minister's Questions, and I call Douglas Ross. Thank you, Presiding Officer. 67-year-old Esther Brown was raped and murdered by Jason Graham. This is a man who was a registered sex offender and had 23 previous convictions. In 2013 he was given a seven and a half year sentence for the rape of a retired nurse, but he got released early on licence. After Graham was sentenced yesterday for this brutal attack and murder, one of Esther's friends said that she was the type of person that would go and help anybody. First Minister, can you honestly say that your Government's approach to justice is keeping the people of Scotland safe? First Minister. Well, firstly and most importantly, Presiding Officer, can I say that my thoughts and my sympathies are with Esther Brown's family and with her friends? Absolutely nothing, including nothing. I or anyone else in this chamber can say will ease the pain that that family is suffering, or ease the pain of anyone who knew her. I do hope that the closure of the sentence yesterday will bring some closure to the family, but I do not underestimate the pain that they will be suffering and will continue to suffer for some time. Obviously, I cannot comment on the detail of all individual cases. I think that it is important firstly to recognise that in this case there will be a significant case review that will assess the circumstances of the protection arrangements that were in place and the roles of the operational agencies involved. It will have a very clear view to learning any lessons, and it is right and proper, and indeed it is essential that lessons are learned and acted upon as appropriate. Of course, this is an issue of contention that has been for many years in this Parliament. This Government legislated back in 2016 to end the previous system of automatic release for prisoners, and that could not, of course, be retrospective legislation, but I think that it was an important move to make. We will continue to ensure that our justice system does protect people from criminals and ensures that victims get the justice that they deserve, but also a justice system that tries to ensure that the principles—I am not talking about this case when I make this point—of rehabilitation and reducing re-offending are also at its heart. The case, though, is just yet another damning example of the glaring flaws in Scotland's justice system. Jason Graham was released early. He was not monitored properly. Yesterday he got 19 years, yes, a long sentence, but not nearly enough for such a horrific crime. This week the Scottish Government launched a consultation proposing that violent criminals could get out after just six or seven years. Their document suggests that long-term prisoners could be considered for release after just a third of their sentence. Doesn't the First Minister see that those proposals would take our justice system even further in the wrong direction, risking public safety? There are very serious issues here. Perhaps before I come on to the issues of early release and, indeed, the consultation that was published by the Government in recent days, it is important to say that there are processes and procedures in place, which clearly did not work in this particular tragic case, but there are processes in place through the multi-agency public protection arrangements to minimise risks posed by registered sex offenders. As I said earlier on, in cases like this it is right that there is a significant case review to ensure that any appropriate lessons are learned. On the issue of automatic early release, my Government did not introduce the previous arrangements, but we did legislate to end those arrangements. It is important that we recognise that it is necessary to have in place a justice system that punishes those who deserve to be punished. That is always an important principle of the justice system, but that also promotes rehabilitation and tries to reduce re-offending. One of the things that is often lost in those discussions, and of course I want to continue to reiterate—I am talking in general terms here—not about the case of Esther Brown, but in Scotland we imprison a higher proportion of our population than any other country in Western Europe, so it is not that we do not send a lot of people to prison. The question is, is prison always the effective punishment for people? It will be in many, many cases. We want to have a system of release from prison that has firstly risk assessment and victim safety at its heart and that also looks at what is most effective to reduce re-offending. The consultation that was published this week is a consultation and I would encourage people across the chamber and indeed the wider public to respond to that consultation. It is important to say—this will be my last point in this answer—the abolition of automatic early release for the most dangerous long-term prisoners is not affected by any of the consultation proposals that were published earlier this week. The First Minister started her answer by saying that there are processes and procedures in place. Those processes and procedures did not save Esther Brown from being raped and being murdered, so I am sorry, that does not cut it when we are dealing with lives being lost and it is not an individual case. The Scottish National Party Government consultation does not stop there, however. It also proposes automatically releasing short-term prisoners after just a third of their sentence. The First Minister previously told this chamber and I quote, our objective remains to end the policy of automatic early release completely as early as we are able to. That was six years ago. Yet now, far from keeping dangerous criminals off our streets, this Government is proposing to let them out even earlier. First Minister, is it not the case that this Government's course of action has let some of the worst offenders back on to our streets free to commit further offences? The record will bear this out here. I said in my previous answer that the arrangements that are in place through the multi-agency public protection scheme to protect people from registered sex offenders clearly did not work as intended in the case of Esther Brown. I know that nothing I can say in terms of the generality of those issues will bring any comfort to her family. I want to make that clear again. I have also been at pains to say that some of the comments that I am making because clearly there are wider issues here that Douglas Ross is right to raise. I appreciate are not applicable to the specifics of Esther Brown's case. I want to be clear again there. I absolutely understand that anybody who loved her listening to me right now will take no comfort whatsoever in anything I say, but the Government has a duty to ensure that the overall justice system has the right principles at heart when things go wrong, that lessons are learned and that is what we will always seek to do. In terms of automatic early release, this Government did legislate to end automatic early release for certain categories of prisoner for those serving sentences of four years or more. I do not want to get into politics in such a serious issue that the Conservatives did not vote for those reforms at that time. Other parties across this chamber did. It is important that, as we move forward, we continue to keep all those arrangements under review. The consultation published this week is a consultation. It seeks views on whether certain prisoners serving short-term sentences could be released earlier than halfway if—this is the important if—this was felt to better support their successful reintegration into society and therefore help to reduce the risks of re-offending. We look forward to hearing responses to that consultation and we will consider all of them carefully. Rates of crime, and I appreciate again for any victim of crime, this is no comfort at all. Rates of crime are at their lowest level in many years in Scotland and we send a higher proportion of our population to prison than any other country in western Europe. We have to ask ourselves how we use prison, the most effective it could be, and therefore it is right that we consider these things carefully and we will certainly do so. As we do that, of course, we will learn lessons from tragic cases like the one that we are discussing today. More dangerous offenders, such as Jason Graham, are being released early all the time. The most recent annual figures show that over 95 per cent of criminal sent prison in Scotland will be eligible for automatic early release—over 95 per cent. Far too often, in the SNP's soft touch justice system, criminals are put first, not victims. It's too late for Esther Brown, but this must change. Our victims' law would restore confidence that is sadly lacking. This Government has a choice to make. Empty our prisons by letting even more criminals out early, or protect the public and put victims first. I choose public safety and supporting victims. Which side is the First Minister on? We should all be on the side of victims of crime, but we should also all be on the side of trying to make Scotland as a whole safer. That means trying to make sure that we have a penal system in place that punishes, and that is an important vital principle of any justice system, but that also helps us to reduce the risk of those who do serve sentences in prison from re-offending. That is the wider issue that we have a responsibility to consider. I know that it is an easy soundbite for the Conservatives, but to describe a country as soft touch justice when we both have some of the lowest crime rates that we've had in many years, but also, as I've said already today, send a higher proportion of our population to prison than any other country in Western Europe is simply not accurate. The question that we have to ask ourselves is our justice system and the approaches that are taken to dealing with offenders always as effective as they should be, both in punishing but also in reducing re-offending. That presents difficult, challenging and at times very contentious issues. I accept that, which is why we are consulting carefully on those proposed reforms and we will listen carefully to all the responses that we receive. I have repeatedly come to the chamber to raise tragedy after tragedy at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital. Despite that, we still have a culture of cover-up, denial and families being failed. Everyone should read the heartbreaking words from Louise Lawrence, the widow of Andrew Lawrence, who died in December after being treated at the hospital for cancer. Andrew was a First Minister's official spokesperson in 2007 and then head of the Scottish Government's response and communication unit. He was at the heart of the Covid pandemic response. Andrew went into the hospital to get treatment that would prolong his life. Instead, in hospital, he contracted Covid and then a fungal infection, aspergillus, a deadly bacteria often linked to water or mould. He died just days later. His wife, Louise, told me that she was never informed about the fungal infection and that she had to uncover it in his medical notes after his death. She has courageously spoken of her anger, her shock, her distress and her disappointment. Why? Why, despite everything that has happened, do we still have a culture of cover-up, secrecy and denial, with families being forced to take on the system to get the truth? First Minister, first of all, I can assure the chamber that I have read Louise's words very closely. Firstly, because I will always do that, when relatives of those who have died or received substandard care in a national health service speak out, that is part of my duty. However, in this case, I have done that because Andrew was someone I knew very well. Andrew was a greatly valued member of the Scottish Government team. He is deeply missed by everyone who had the privilege of working with him, and that certainly includes me. I think that I first met Andrew on the very first day that I served in government back in 2007. He made an exceptional contribution to the Scottish Government's work, and my thoughts are often with his loved ones, in particular his wife, Louise and his children. We will be engaging. In fact, my officials have already engaged this morning with Greater Glasgow and Clyde health boards so that the concerns that have been raised are properly investigated. We will do everything possible to ensure that Andrew's family get the answers that they are seeking and also consider carefully whether the concerns that have been raised by Louise Lawrence have raised wider issues that require to be addressed. The chief operating officer of NHS Scotland has contacted Greater Glasgow and Clyde this morning to establish the facts. I have asked for information to be available later today, and then we will assess what further steps require to be taken. This Government will not tolerate cover-ups or secrecy on the part of any health board, and where there are concerns about that, we will address those concerns. Of course, in relation to the Queen Elizabeth hospital and other issues that have been raised, including, of course, by Anna Sarwar over the years about Queen Elizabeth hospital, there is under way right now a public inquiry. I hope that that is a sign of our determination to ensure that any issues that are raised are properly investigated and that answers are forthcoming. I am determined, and the Government is determined, that that will be the case in relation to Andrew's death as well. The First Minister says that she has heard these concerns from me for years. So why is it still happening? If even the widow of Andrew Slawrants can't get the truth and justice that he deserves when he was at the heart of this Government, what chances does anybody else in our country have? This is a repeated pattern. Think of the case and the scandal of children's cancer ward that led to the tragic death of Millie Mayne. In that case, a bacterial link to water, stenotrophomonas, was identified by infection control doctors, ignored by management and covered up. In that case, a bacterial link to water and mould, aspergillus, was identified by infection control doctors, ignored by management and covered up. That is the culture of secrecy and denial, and the Government can escape that fact. Again, those cover-ups have deadly consequences. Will the First Minister agree to Louise's demands? First, an independent case note review into all aspergillus cases at the hospital, secondly, an independent Crown Office-led investigation into hospital-acquired Covid infections, and thirdly, for the public inquiry remit to be expanded to include aspergillus cases. But crucially, the health board leadership has lost the confidence of clinicians, patients, parents and the public. Given everything that has already happened and everything that has already been uncovered, why is this health board leadership in Glasgow still in place? I will continue to address the issues that are raised today. I said in my initial answer that my officials have engaged with the health board already today. I have asked for further information later today when I had the opportunity to look at and assess that. I will consider with the health secretary what additional steps are required. I note that Louise has requested a case note review, and that, of course, was something that was done in the earlier issues in relation to the Queen Elizabeth. That is a reasonable request. Obviously, I will consider that with the health secretary later on. On the other two issues that Louise Lawrence has requested, I absolutely understand why that is the case. However, as I know and as Sarwar is aware, the Crown Office is independent of ministers. The Crown Office can look into any cases that it deems appropriate. It is not appropriate for me, as First Minister, to instruct the Crown Office in those matters. Similarly with the Public Inquiry. The Public Inquiry is operating independently of ministers rightly and properly. It is able to look at any issues associated with the Queen Elizabeth that it considers appropriate. However, it would, to be beyond any doubt, there is certainly no objection on the part of the Government to the Public Inquiry looking into any of the issues that have been raised in relation to Andrew Lawrence by his wife today. However, it is not for me to instruct the Public Inquiry because it is operating independently of ministers and it will take the decisions as to what issues it chooses to look at. I accept what the First Minister says, but I note that she dodged the question all together about the leadership of the health board in Glasgow. I am sorry, but the answer is not good enough because this has been raised for years, as the First Minister herself noted. The right thing to do would not be to ask an official to make contact with the leadership of the health board and have a process that comes back. The right thing to do would be for the First Minister to grip the issue, take ownership of it and get it sorted out. Presiding Officer, despite the tragic loss of life, despite the cover-ups and despite the denials, not a single person has been held accountable for the catastrophic errors at this hospital. That cannot continue. From start to finish, the Queen Elizabeth university hospital scandal has happened under Nicola Sturgeon's watch. She was health secretary when the hospital was commissioned and built. She was First Minister when it was opened. Since then, water reports ignored, deadly building flaws, patients getting infections, wards closed, patient deaths, staff bullied and silenced, an independent review, a case note review, a public inquiry, criminal investigations, continued failings, continued cover-ups and families still having to go public to fight the system to get the truth. Enough is enough. This is the worst scandal of the devolution era. In any other country in the world, there will be resignations and sackings, but under this Government, it is denial and cover-up. How many more families have to lose loved ones before anyone is held to account? There is right now an independent statutory public inquiry under way, and I think that that is right and proper. It was instructed by this Government, by the previous health secretary, to pre-empt the outcomes of that public inquiry. I think that, with some justification, Anna Sarwar and perhaps others would say that that was wrong as well, because we were seeking to interfere with the work that that inquiry was doing. Those are serious issues. I think that they deserve to be treated seriously and on the substance of the issues. The public inquiry is doing that work right now, and the findings and any recommendations that flow from that public inquiry absolutely should be, must be and will be acted upon. However, it is incumbent on all of us who care about those issues, and I know that that includes all of us in this chamber, to allow that public inquiry to do its work. The First Minister may be aware that wish-abased, family-owned, where and request in Scotland-limited entered administration this week. WMQ was one of Scotland's leading mechanical and electrical contractors, and this is devastating development for the owners and the 90 members of staff affected. Can I ask what engagement the Scottish Government has had with the administrators through PACE and what support has been put in place for the people affected by these job losses in my constituency? I thank Claire Adamson for raising what I know is an important constituency issue for her. I was very sorry to hear that we and WMQ had ceased trading after such a long period of time, some 45 years of training, and my thoughts are with the employees affected by that decision and their families. I can assure Claire Adamson that our local PACE team has already been in touch with the administrators. They are working closely with the redundancy payments office who will ensure that information on PACE support is issued to the affected employees. We stand ready to do anything reasonable that we can to support them at this very difficult time. I have a constituent who is in the vulnerable category and went to book the booster vaccination. I was told that availability is not until mid-January. I have this confirmed by Ayrshin Arran health board that they are completely full. With that in mind, does the Government have any plans to expand the booster vaccination scheme to ensure that those who should get a booster have access to that booster? Yes, we do. I am happy to look into that particular case and to the wider issue in Ayrshin Arran. We have plans in place and are working to ensure that those who are eligible—remember, eligibility for the booster means six months on from the second dose—that all of those who are eligible are vaccinated as quickly as possible and before the end of this year wherever possible. That is how we have designed the system. We are flexing the system. Just this week, of course, we are seeking to increase capacity further to start vaccinating those in the over-40 age group. People should be getting appointments quickly. I will certainly look into any situation where somebody has been told that if they are eligible, if they have already passed the six months, it will be January. If there is not a good reason for that, we will certainly take that up with Ayrshin Arran health board. COP26 delegates were handed a free smart card like this one to access integrated public transport across the central belt of Scotland. My constituent, who was cleaning toilets for the world leaders at the SCC in Glasgow, had to pay £5 for a bus ticket and another £3 for the subway every day compared to £3 on public transport for London services or £3.60 on publicly controlled and owned lowly and bus services. In Glasgow, on minimum wage, an hours pay each day is spent paying to get to and from work. Does the First Minister therefore agree that a green new deal for workers in Glasgow must include using the powers of the 2019 Transport Act to bring all public transport in greater Glasgow under a single integrated public control franchise with London-style capped fares? There are two related issues there. I certainly agree with the sentiment behind the question on the integration of ticketing. Transport Scotland is already working towards all journeys on our public transport networks, being able to be made using some form of smart ticketing or payment, and progress has already been made towards that objective. The second issue is affordability. I think that it is an important part of our journey to net zero and getting more people to use public transport to make public transport much more affordable and therefore more accessible. We need to do that in a way that we can accommodate it within our budgets and we are looking at that right now, of course, in the context of our budget process. During COP, of course, one of the things that we were able to confirm was the introduction of free bus travel for all those under 22, which will come into force at the very start of next year. We need to go further than that and we are looking at how quickly we can do that within the resources that are available to us. However, making sure that public transport is more accessible both in affordability terms and in the ease of using it is a key priority for us. To ask the First Minister if she will join me in thanking all the staff, volunteers and people of Scotland who have helped to make Scotland the first UK nation to give the extra vaccine dose to half of over 50s. I remind members that I am still part of NHS D&G's vaccine team. I want to take the opportunity to again thank everybody who is working really hard to design the vaccination programme to do all of the work to work out how we get the capacity where that capacity should be and those who are administering the vaccines in vaccine centres the length and breadth of the country. I know that that includes Emma Harper. The programme is going very well. We have become the first part of the UK to pass 50 per cent of over 50s being vaccinated with the booster, but there is still a long way to go. Vaccination remains our best line of defence against this virus, so let me take the opportunity briefly to encourage anybody who is not yet vaccinated with either the first, second or if they are eligible for their booster, please get vaccinated because you are protecting yourself and others, so please do it without delay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On Tuesday, the First Minister turned her back on 100,000 oil and gas jobs, many in the north-east. Yesterday, the SNP turned its back on its commitment to fully dual the A96. Can the First Minister explain to the people of the north-east why she has turned her back on them? Much else that comes from the Conservative benches is just complete nonsense, but it also completely ignores the responsibility that all of us have to address climate change. Those issues are complex, they are difficult and they are often contentious, but on the issue of oil and gas, let us first be clear on this. The transition away from oil and gas, which the science says is essential, must be a just one. It must not put 100,000 workers into unemployment or increase alliance on imports, but the question that then flows from that is the key question. Do we say—because we have a current jobs and energy reliance on oil and gas—that we continue to go on with new developments and unlimited extraction, or do we say that we need to break that cycle of reliance by investing in the alternatives and speeding up our move away from fossil fuels? I think that our obligation to the planet says that we need to do the latter. That is why this Government is investing in a just transition, but that is a just transition that would be easier if the Conservative UK Government hadn't turned its back on carbon capture and storage, the Scottish cluster and the ACORN projects. Perhaps that is something that the Conservatives want to take up with their colleagues in London. The heartbroken family of Andrew Slawrens are not the only family seeking answers about what happens to loved ones at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Trisa Smith, as reported on the front page of the Greenock Telegraph today, has spoken of the deep pain that her family has endured since the death of her daughter Sophia in April 2017, at just 12 days old. Sophia died of an infection contracted at the Queen Elizabeth, despite initially responding well to treatment for breathing problems. The family were not informed and had to fight for a post-mortem to know the truth. Trisa and her family have described the torturous journey to try and get answers on what happened with phone calls, emails and letters of Stonewall, and she too has pointed to her cover-up. I have heard what the First Minister said in response to Anna Sarwar about the public inquiry, but does she not recognise that I didn't save Andrew Slawrens and it won't save patients right now? What is the Government doing immediately to prevent these terrible and tragic deaths from happening again? The infection prevention control is a priority within every hospital all of the time, and that is absolutely right and proper. So is the need to learn lessons from when things go wrong, and that is a daily priority of health boards and hospitals across the country. I want to convey my sympathies also to Sophia's family. If the member wants to correspond with me, I am very willing to see if there is something that the Government can do to help to get answers that Sophia's family understandably wants. In a situation like this, it is right—indeed, it was called for—that we have a proper independent statutory public inquiry. That is not the sign of a Government trying to cover things up. That is the sign of the opposite. That is the sign of a Government determined to get to the truth, determined to find the facts, determined to get the answers, and determined to learn the lessons. That is what we should be seeing. Ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government anticipates the lasting impact of COP26 will be for the people of Glasgow and Scotland. I think that the lasting impact will be a very positive one. I think that we can all feel pride in the leadership that Scotland and the people of Scotland and in particular the people of Glasgow have shown during COP. I think that the outcome, while not going as far as many of us would have liked it to go, will accelerate or help accelerate our delivery to net zero, and it is important that people and communities are at the heart of that. We are currently funding a number of projects in Glasgow through the climate challenge fund, supporting communities to reduce car reliance, cut waste, grow local food and lower energy use. We are also building a new model to support further community climate action, which will be part of the longer-term legacy from COP in Glasgow over the past two weeks. For many countries in the global south, the impacts of climate change are already being felt. We have a model responsibility to acknowledge this and to take action. The Scottish Government has led the way by providing £2 million in funding for loss and damage, a commitment that has been widely welcomed, including by the United Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, but we cannot act alone. Can I ask the First Minister how will the Scottish Government continue to push for climate justice globally post COP 26? Firstly, we will try to lead by example through our actions at home. That is why the decisions that we have taken to increase our climate justice fund are important and why our decision to allocate resources to the issue of loss and damage is important, because it allows us then to use that leadership to seek to encourage others to do likewise. I have already had discussions on the issue with other Governments. I know that there is a willingness now to step forward on loss and damage, and we will continue to try to play our part in building that momentum. It is really important that we focus on actions to mitigate climate change, to help countries to adapt to the future impacts of climate change. However, as Cokab Stewart rightly says, there are many countries across the world that are suffering loss and damage right now. They are struggling to cope with that. The developed world, which has done the most to cause climate change, has a real moral obligation to step up and play our part in helping with that. Scotland will continue to do everything that we can to play our full part. As my colleague Paul Sweeney has already said, one of the positives from the COP conference in Glasgow was that delegates benefited from smart integrated ticketing. The First Minister promised Scotland almost a decade ago, but has never delivered. Doubleing this week is rolling out a new 90-minute ticket across bus, tram and train. Glasgow in Scotland is falling further behind our neighbours. When will the First Minister finally make seamless and affordable public transport a reality for Scotland's passengers? That work is already under way. I am not going to repeat everything that I said in response to the previous question on this. It is an important question. It is an important priority, but let me repeat one point. From January next year, every young person under the age of 22 will have free bus travel in Scotland. That is a significant step forward. It is not the end of the journey. We have got to build on that to go further, but we are taking concrete steps to make public transport more accessible and more affordable. We will continue to make that progress in the years ahead, as we have to do a range of different things to live up to our own climate change targets. To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the impact of reduced-face-to-face advocacy services on vulnerable people such as victims of domestic abuse. I want to commend the work of front-line advocacy services. They have worked tirelessly to ensure that people, including those who experience domestic abuse, have been able to access support throughout the pandemic. We are in regular contact with those services to understand the challenges that they face and support them as best we can. Over the past 18 months, we have invested an additional £10 million to allow rapid redesign of services and address backlogs supporting organisations such as Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland. In addition, our delivery equally safe fund also recently confirmed funding to 112 organisations to help them to provide key services and prevent gender-based violence. Obviously, when the issue is raised, it is important for all of us to see how utterly abhorrent domestic violence is. It should never be tolerated, and if anyone is in need of help, whether from the police or from a support agency, they should not hesitate to seek it. First Minister, I especially welcome the additional funding for the equally safe campaign. It is clear that the loss of face-to-face advice will have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable members of our communities. Rachel Moon, a senior solicitor at a Government law centre, recently said that, for the most vulnerable in our society, those with no literacy, no English, no family or monetary support and a history of discrimination need a physical place to see a real person to hand over their eviction documents. I must remember those people who cannot phone, zoom or scan documents. For giving violence against women, it is sadly endemic in our society, and domestic abuse is rising alarmingly, as the First Minister has recognised. Taking help remotely at home can be impractical in a controlling and abusive relationship. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government will do to review funding that it gives to law centres and free advice sectors so that vulnerable people and women experiencing domestic violence are safe places to access face-to-face legal advice. As I said in my initial answer, we will continue to do all that we can to ensure funding for those front-line organisations who provide advocacy services. There are a range of those, obviously. I mentioned some of those, particularly in the field of dealing with gender-based violence, but I used to work in a law centre many years ago to provide valuable advice and services. On the issue of face-to-face access versus telephone or online access, organisations themselves will often be best placed to make the decisions about the correct balance there. It is really important that, where necessary, people have the face-to-face option. I know that some organisations over the pandemic have found that the necessity of moving more to digital access has actually allowed them to extend their reach. It is really important that that balance is the right one, and it is challenging in those circumstances. However, the commitment to funding as far as we possibly can, I hope, will help those organisations to return to normal and provide the essential services that they offer to so many people across the country. Advocacy services are an important lifeline to many different groups, including vulnerable older people. However, even before the pandemic, reduced funding to advocacy organisations across Scotland meant that they were struggling to meet the demand. Therefore, does the First Minister agree with independent advocacy services that increased funding is necessary to allow those organisations to protect vulnerable individuals' rights? Yes, I agree with that strongly. We do not have unlimited resources, which is just a statement of fact, but within the resources that we have, we are seeking to ensure that front-line organisations supporting and providing help for vulnerable people have the funding that they need that will continue to be challenging. Of course—I am not talking here specifically about domestic abuse, but the range of circumstances in which people will feel the need to access advocacy support—we also need to do more to deal with the root causes of some of that. It is the case that there will be many people accessing services right now, such as citizens advice bureaus, for example, who are doing that because of the cuts in their benefits that are happening and the often destitution that that is putting them into. We all have a responsibility to support front-line services, but we all equally have a responsibility to try to deal with some of the root causes that lead people to need those services. I hope that that is something that the member will reflect on on behalf of his colleagues. Question 5, Stuart McMillan. To ask the First Minister what consideration the Scottish Government has given to increasing the minimum unit price for alcohol. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that, going forward, we have in place a level of minimum unit price that remains effective in reducing alcohol harms. Obviously, when minimum unit pricing was first introduced, at that point we did not know that we were facing a pandemic, and that has had an impact on use and consumption of alcohol. Prior to the pandemic, however, we were seeing early and very encouraging signs of a reduction in alcohol sales and a reduction in alcohol-specific deaths. The evaluation of minimum unit pricing is, of course, on-going, with a final report from Public Health Scotland that was expected in 2023, and any change to the level or any detail of the minimum unit pricing policy must have a robust evidence base. First, I remind the chamber that I am a member of Moving on Inverclyde, a local addiction service. The First Minister will know that the most recent stats indicated that Inverclyde had the highest level of alcohol-related deaths during the peak of the Covid pandemic, and every death is a tragedy, and I offer my condolences to those affected. It is clear that minimum unit pricing was having a positive effect, but due to inflation, the effectiveness of the 50p unit price will have declined. I bear in mind that alcohol was 64 per cent more affordable in 2017 than it was in 1980, particularly in supermarkets and off-sales. Would the First Minister consider increasing the minimum unit price in line with inflation, or even slightly above that, in the upcoming budget, and commit to setting up an external commission to look at when future increases should occur and what level they should be? I will certainly consider any suggestions of that nature and will take those suggestions into account. It is really important that we do two things that are obviously related. Firstly, properly and robustly, we evaluate the policy of minimum unit pricing. Indeed, that was a commitment that was given when the legislation was passed and when the policy was introduced. That is under way, and we will know the outcomes of the Public Health Scotland evaluation in 2023. However, in terms of the level of the price, yes, it is important that we keep that under review and that we take account of factors such as inflation, because the level of the price is critical to ensuring that that policy continues to be effective. There were encouraging signs pre-pandemic that it was being effective. We need to take account of changes since then, so those will be issues of on-going and very careful and evidence-based considerations of the Government. Willie Rennie. Stuart McMillan is right about this. It has been a decade since the 50p rate that was first set. We have inflation rising quite dramatically and we have the sunset clause coming in very soon. The First Minister and I agree on minimum unit pricing, but I am concerned about the lack of urgency in our answer today. We need to move faster on increasing the rate. 28 organisations have spoken out today saying that the rate should be 65 pence. Will she back the science? I hope that Willie Rennie and others will accept that there are probably few people in the chamber more committed to the policy of minimum unit pricing than I am. I was the minister who took the legislation through and obviously we then had a very lengthy court challenge and have been committed to that policy right throughout that, including at times when very few people were prepared to predict that it had any chance of ever becoming operational. I take those points extremely seriously. We need to consider all of that carefully and we are. I do not want to sound in any way complacent about this. Minimum unit pricing will only have the desired effect if it is set at a level that is effective. There is one other complicating factor right now and I am saying this as a statement of fact, not for any other reason. That is the UK Government internal market act, where any changes in the price level, whether by inflation or any other level, could potentially engage the internal market act. That is a source of great concern for us and one of the many reasons why we raised such profound concerns while that act was going through. I hope that as we take forward this work, members will engage rightly and properly on the detail of where a price should be set. That has to be evidence driven, but I hope that we will have the support of members across the chamber if we find that the internal market act is a serious obstacle to ensuring that minimum unit pricing remains effective, because that would be deeply regrettable given the history of where that policy has been and how difficult it was to get it into operation. Scotland sadly saw alcohol-related deaths rise by 17 per cent in 2020 to 1,190. Those devastating figures emphasise that action must be taken and that a range of measures should be implemented to tackle harmful alcohol consumption, including minimum unit pricing. I know that the Government plans to consult on the marketing of alcohol, but will the First Minister consider implementing other measures, such as mandating nutrition and health information on alcohol labels and placing a social responsibility level on alcohol retailers? Without commenting particularly on the specifics that Jilly Mackay has raised, although they are both important suggestions, let me say in general that we remain open minded to all and every action that can help us to deal with the harm that alcohol misuse does. In fact, when we first proposed minimum unit pricing, it was at that time one of, I think, about 40 different actions that were put forward in our alcohol strategy. Minimum unit pricing is really important, but it is not the only initiative that needs to be taken. We will consider other initiatives and we will very carefully consider the evidence-based offers that that includes. Within the powers that we have, that includes the suggestions that Jilly Mackay has put forward. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I draw members' attention to my register of interest as an owner of an entity property in North Lanarkshire. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to support tenants in light of the University of Glasgow research indicating that around a quarter of private tenants are in arrears totaling around £126 million. We are very aware that rising rent costs do cause hardship for tenants. While that has been the case for many years, the pandemic has further exacerbated the financial situation for many. That is indeed why the Government has taken very significant action already. For example, we have supported and are supporting tenants through a variety of schemes with an additional £39 million. That includes a £10 million tenant grant fund, an increase in discretionary housing payments and a £10 million tenant hardship loan fund. This year, we have committed £82 million in discretionary housing payments. In the longer term, we have committed to tackling high rents by implementing an effective national system of rent controls by the end of 2025 and introducing a new deal for tenants so that there is quality, affordability and fairness at the heart of the rented sector. I am grateful for the First Minister's answer, but social sector arrears have grown by £9 million just between July and September this year. It is clear that arrears are set to dwarf that £10 million grant fund. To my surprise and the surprise of those in the sector, that is not even new money but has been raided from the endless and the ending homelessness together fund. The loan fund also appears to be completely useless. It offers tenants in arrears more debt, most applicants are simply refused, and in the first four months of this financial year just £43,000 was paid out anyway. Tenants fear a tidal wave of evictions and homelessness, and yet last week's report says that landlords want notice periods for arrears to be slashed to the pre-pandemic level of 28 days. Can the First Minister assure tenants that their rights on notice periods will not be slashed and commit to rent controls in next year's housing bill, not by 2025, as is suggested in our previous answer? I think that the member can take from my previous answer, indeed from the overall commitments of the Government that our objective is to strengthen the rights of tenants, not weaken in any way the rights of tenants. I take his points about financial assistance, although I would say that helping tenants with rent arrears is an important part of helping to prevent and therefore end homelessness, so I think that that point needs to be made. Of course we will look in the course of our budget process at what more we can do to help not just tenants but others who are dealing with difficult financial circumstances right now if the member wants to make proposals about how we free up more money in the budget. I know that the housing minister would be perfectly happy to have that conversation. Equally, we are happy to engage about the timing of legislation around rent controls. The Parliament rightly wants proper time around consultation and scrutiny of legislation, but we are open to discussions about the legislative programme and how quickly we can move to introduce reforms that will be contentious. I do not believe that they will be unanimously supported within this Parliament. I hope that they will be within this party. I am not sure that they will be within this Parliament, but perhaps those who might oppose them are murmuring from sedentary positions just now. To be serious about this, this is a real issue, but overall inflationary pressures from energy costs, rent and rising food prices are going to be significant challenges for many across the country, and this Government will do everything that we can within our resources to help people to deal with those pressures. That concludes First Minister's questions. We will move on to members' business, and can members leaving the chamber please do so quietly?