 I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holy Rood campus and I ask that members take care to observe those measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please only use the aisles and walkways to access your seat and when moving around the chamber. The first item of business today is First Minister's questions. I have begun discussions with parties on our shared aim to include as many members as possible in FMQs, and I'd be very grateful if all members participating could bear that in mind. This afternoon in the Scottish Parliament will debate the next steps to tackle Scotland's drug death crisis. Does the First Minister accept that, in Scotland today, people are still being denied access to rehab, and her Government's addiction treatment system is fundamentally broken? I do accept that we are not yet at the place we want to be in terms of drug treatment and services generally, and indeed in terms of drug rehabilitation services in particular. The Minister for Drugs Policy, Angela Constance, will set out the progress that we have made, the funding that we are committed and the steps that we are taking in order to address that. There are a few things that the Government is more serious about doing. We are keen and open to work across the chamber insofar as that is possible. I have been open about the fact that I do not think that we are notwithstanding our efforts and our determination in this area of policy that we have not yet brought forward—a package of policies that are sufficient to tackle the severity of the challenge that we face. I do not shy away from that, but we are determined, and I know that Angela Constance is determined on working hard to make sure that we do just that. I think that the First Minister did accept that her Government's strategy towards this is fundamentally broken, and I look forward to hearing more about what the Government is going to bring forward later this afternoon. The new standards that Angela Constance has already set out will be an important move in the right direction, but they are not game-changing. They are the basics. They are the very least that the Government should do. People on the front line in the hardest-hit communities have been here before. They are hearing the same promises and warm words, but at the same time they see their families or friends or their neighbours dying from drug abuse. All they hear is that, by next spring, the Government might manage to meet the bare minimum of expectations that people who need treatment actually get it. But without teeth, those new standards will not make a dent on the crisis unless we give them legal basis. They are effectively optional and can be overlooked. Our solution, backed by front-line campaigners, is a right to recovery bill. Give people a right in law to the treatment that they need. Is the First Minister content to stop at the basics, or will she back her proposal and give people the power to get their lives back on track? I will try to address and engage with those points in substance, because they are important. I would ask that Douglas Ross does similar. Repeatedly, he stands up here and puts words into my mouth that I have not said. That is okay for politics, but if we are genuinely, as I sincerely am, trying to find consensus on matters of seriousness such as this, then I think that all of us have a duty to try to put some of the politics to one side. There are people working across the country delivering excellent services for people with problems of drug misuse and people at grass roots. I see that in my constituency. That is why I do not think that it is fair for me to say that the system is broken, because that does a disservice to the work that it is doing. However, that is not me denying that the Government has much more to do and that we, often in the past—this is where I have been really frank—our response has not matched the response of those at the grass roots. I am trying genuinely to engage in that. In that spirit, the Conservatives raised—I understand that Hubs and Yous have met Annie Wells on this matter just a couple of weeks ago—the right to recovery bill. I think that I said at the outset of this term of Parliament that we would look in detail at that. We are doing that. I understand the key strands of what would be in a right to recovery bill are all things that are being taken forward out of the recommendations of the residential rehabilitation working group. We can get into that in some more detail. My mind is not closed to statutory underpinning. What I think we have to be cautious about is waiting for the time that it takes to pass legislation before getting on with this work. In each of the strands of what would be in a bill, there is work already under way. What I want to see is us take that forward as quickly as possible. That does not rule out statutory underpinning, but we all know how long it takes, rightly for good reason, to take legislation through this Parliament. Let's, for goodness' sake, not put other things on hold while we talk about legislation. I am serious about wanting to engage in good faith across the chamber, and I hope others will join us in exactly that. The First Minister has now accused me twice this week of putting words in her mouth. Let me just be clear, because the official report is accurate. On Tuesday I was quoting her national clinical lead and asking her if she agreed with it, and today I was quoting back that the First Minister had accepted that the system is broken, and that is why we are dealing with the case in front of us today. The system is broken, because, if I can, I want to use a case, and I am keeping the man's identity anonymous, but I will provide the First Minister so that she will personally intervene with his details through the Charity Favour Scotland who is acting on his behalf. However, the man was part of the Scottish Government's independent care review. He was abused as a child and still suffers from PTSD. He has been in the system in Glasgow for four years without a care plan. He has been trying to get into rehab for two years, but he keeps hearing he is, and I quote, not appropriate for rehab. This man is at death's door. Today he is having a mental health assessment, just another hoop he has to jump through because he wants to get better. His only hope, it seems, is private rehab because of a charity's generosity. This individual case is shocking, but it is being repeated all over our country. This Government has been in power for 14 years. How much longer do we have to wait for real action that is needed to tackle this crisis? On the individual cases, Douglas Ross fairly said, I don't know all the details of that, and it's rightly confidential as we debate these things in Parliament. Of course, I will look at the detail of that if it can be passed to me. What I would say is—I hope that people would accept this—it is not for me, as a politician, with no clinical qualifications or expertise, to decide whether an individual is to use the term that was used appropriate for rehabilitation. Not everybody—we all accept this—is appropriate, and that's perhaps not the best way of putting it. Not everybody is deemed to benefit from residential rehabilitation. What I am very clear about is that where the judgment of those who do have the expertise is that somebody should have residential rehabilitation and will benefit from that, then they should get that. That is why, for example, we are significantly increasing the investment for residential rehabilitation, and that will be part of what the drugs minister sets out this afternoon. She has already spoken about that. If people are expecting me to stand here—sometimes this is perhaps an unorthodox way of doing politics—but if people want me to stand here and defend everything that we have not got right in the past, I am not going to do that. I think that we have failed in aspects of drugs policy, and I am determined to get it right. I am not going to describe a system as broken completely, because I think that that does a disservice to the many people across the country who are delivering services for people in need. However, I accept that the Government's response has not always matched that, and that is what we have to get right. We have to provide the funding, we have to provide the right approaches, and that is what there is, an absolute determination, and many different strands of work are now under way to achieve. That is difficult work. There are no easy solutions. I think that we all accept that. Change will not be delivered overnight, but we are determined to make the change that is required. That is why Angela Constance is the drugs policy minister. She reports directly to me. That is one of the key priorities of Government over the next period, and we are absolutely determined to make the change that people deserve to see. Douglas Ross I will ensure that the First Minister has details of the case this afternoon, because we have to tackle the issue now. Scotland's drug deaths are the highest in Europe, and they are only going to get worse in the next few years if nothing is done. The First Minister outlined that we cannot be overly cautious or wait too long to pass legislation. I agree, because we have seen, while facing the Covid crisis over the past year and a bit, that Parliament has been able to act and pass legislation at record speed. We need the exact same urgency to deal with Scotland's drug death crisis. My party will publish our proposals for a right to recovery bill before this Parliament rises for recess next week. Therefore, if she will agree with me, addiction campaigners such as Favour Scotland and those on the front line to back our bill to give everyone a legal right to recovery. First Minister I have said previously, and I have repeated today, at least I have given a strong indication, I am happy to say it more expressly. I will look with an open mind at any proposals that are brought forward, including proposals for legislation. Douglas Ross has said that he has not yet published the draft bill. When that draft bill is published, we will look at that. If the view was across this chamber that there was sufficient consensus to bring legislation forward quickly and put it through in an accelerated timescale, we will look at that as well. We all know that. Often, that is for good reason. Even when there is consensus on the principle of legislation, often there is not sufficient consensus on the detail to do that. It is important that we look at those things closely. I am committed to doing that, but whatever route we take on legislation, what I will not do is hang back on the work that we have under way. There are many strands of that work that the Drugs Policy Minister will set out and give an update to Parliament on this afternoon. It covers residential rehabilitation, which is the main thing that the Conservatives have pushed, which is reasonable, but there are many other aspects to that as well. It is about the quality of community services. It is about access to same-day treatment, which is why the standards that Douglas Ross alluded to in his first question are so important. There is a range of things that we have to do and have to get right. It may be that legislation has a part to play there. I am open-minded to that, but we have to get on with that work for the reasons that have rightly been set out. The report published today by Audit Scotland lays out the truth about PPE provision during the pandemic. It confirms that the Scottish Government was not prepared. I accept the specific challenges posed by Covid-19 may have been unique, but a major pandemic was not unexpected. There were three planning exercises, Silver Swan in 2015, Cygnus in 2016 and Iris in 2018. All three made recommendations about PPE, all three were ignored. When Covid struck, that meant that we did not have adequate supplies and struggled to cope particularly in the early stages. Why did the First Minister and the Scottish Government act on those three reports? We acted on all those reports, but I have said before, and I will say again, whether it is on PPE, the response to previous exercises or many other aspects of the pandemic, this Government, in common with Governments No Doubt all over the world, did not get everything right. We have lessons to learn, and I, as I have said many times before, I do not shy away from that. One of the legitimate criticisms—I am sure that there will be more scrutiny of that in the months to come—is that many of us, particularly Western Governments, rested too much of our planning and preparedness on thinking that a pandemic would be a flu pandemic. That is relevant, as I think is reflected in the Audit Scotland report, and the remarks that I heard from the Auditor General on radio this morning reflected in some of our preparations around PPE. I recognise that, but anybody who reads the Audit Scotland report and who listened to the Auditor General this morning would have heard something else. I will quote the Auditor General. Our report found that the Scottish Government and the NHS worked well in extremely challenging circumstances to set up new arrangements for the supply and distribution of PPE across the country. At no point did we run out of PPE. Central stocks at times were very low, as they would have been in many countries, given the intense global demand. However, in terms of supply, we worked hard and reflected in the report to make sure that, often on the same day turnaround, health boards across the country had supplies of PPE. Of course, there is a lot of learning already being done, and we now have domestic supply chains for PPE that are much better than before the pandemic. Before the pandemic, around 100 per cent of all of our PPE was imported. The majority of it is manufactured here in Scotland. Yes, lessons to learn, but I want to pay tribute to everybody in national services Scotland and in health boards across the country who worked so hard to make sure that, at no point, Scotland ran out of PPE. First Minister, you may not have run out of PPE on your spreadsheet, but it ran out in hospitals and in our care settings. Ask the healthcare workers, and they will tell you the truth. Today's Audit Scotland report confirms that central stocks of PPE were so low at points that they could have run out within eight hours. In April last year, ICU doctors raised the alarm that they were having to reuse visors. They were out-of-date PPE being used with fake labels that have been put on top of the expiry dates in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, and more than 1,000 social care staff were forced to organise a petition to get PPE in their workplace. Across Scotland we heard the same horrifying story and saw tragic images. A lack of PPE had consequences and devastating ones. It cost lives. In Scotland, a sixth of all Covid cases admitted to hospital during the first wave were healthcare workers or members of their household. In total, 21 healthcare staff and 28 social care workers have tragically lost their lives to Covid-19 in Scotland. Does the First Minister accept that that is partly the consequence of her government ignoring its own warnings and not being prepared? No, I do not think that that is the case, although there is much scrutiny still to come around the Government's handling of that. I welcome that and think that that is important. I pay tribute to everybody who worked in our NHS in the early days of this pandemic, and up until today, people who are still working hard in the face of this pandemic. However, in terms of whether or not Scotland ran out to somebody working in the front line of our health service, I accept that that sounds like a bit of an arid political debate. However, if Anas Sarwar does not want to take my word for just a simple statement of fact, then again I will quote the Auditor General on radio this morning. People worked really hard to ensure that we did not run out. Supply was low at times. I accept that. I know about that. I was essentially involved in our response at that time. However, when the Audit Scotland report says that stocks were low, there are two other points that have to be made. Firstly, that is a reference to centrally held stocks. As the report recognises, there were additional stocks held at that time in local health board areas. Secondly, the most fundamentally important point—again, I am quoting here directly from the Audit Scotland report—supplies did not run out. There were always, and this is from the report, there were always incoming orders to help to manage supply with stock arriving and being shipped out to boards on the same day at some points. That is down to the work of national services Scotland and people around the country. On the point about expiry dates, Richard Leonard, when he was in Anasarwar's place, used to raise that as well. At the heart of Anasarwar's argument here—and it is not a legitimate argument—is that we should have bigger stockpiles. However, the stockpiles that we did have, because materials have been in stock pile for a while, when you take it out of the stockpile, you often have to revalidate it because it will have passed an expiry date. Richard Leonard described that as palming off out-of-date PPE. That is basically what happens when you have a stockpile, but we had arrangements to make sure that PPE was available. We will continue to take steps. We have made significant changes to the supply chain, to the distribution routes. One final point, Presiding Officer. Mutual aid arrangements were in place across the UK. At no point did Scotland have to make use of those mutual aid arrangements, but we provided mutual aid requests to both England and Wales, but we did not have to ask anybody else for mutual aid because we did not run out of PPE. Anasarwar. I am not sure that that is something to applaud. I do not deny that the Government worked hard, but I will take the word of the ICU doctors. I will take the word of the GPs who sent the pictures of the out-of-date PPE. I will take the word of the 1,000-plus care worker staff who had to sign a petition to demand that this Government gave them PPE. That is whose word I will take. I accept that the ministers had to make tough decisions, but the hardest decision was for those who risked exposing themselves to the virus and possibly taking it home to their family in order to care for others. They are the ones that we should be thinking about today. The law requires that workplace-related deaths are reported for investigation. However, it is left to the employer to determine whether, and I quote, there is reasonable evidence that a work-related exposure is likely to be the cause of disease. We have all applauded NHS and care workers on the front line and we rightly call them heroes. Some of our heroes have tragically died. Their families deserve answers. Currently, only 27 deaths of workers across all sectors are being investigated by the Procurator Fiscal, but we know that 49 health and social care workers have lost their lives to Covid. All those deaths should be referred to the Crown Office for a full and proper investigation to establish if their death was linked to the workplace. Can the First Minister give a commitment today that that will happen? I want to make sure that every relevant aspect of the handling of this pandemic, whether in general terms or as it affected individuals, is properly and robustly scrutinised. I not just welcome that, but I think that that is really important. In terms of prosecutions, I would ask members to cast their minds back over the past few months in completely different contexts and think about how often we have misguided allegations about Governments trying to politicise the role of prosecutors. Prosecutors act entirely independently, and that is right and proper, and any politician suggesting otherwise should think about that. Those are really important matters. Annas Sarwar said today that we should be thinking of those in the front line of our health service. I agree with that, but there is not a single day that I do not think about those working hard on the front line of our health service. He mentioned care homes. One of the other things narrated in the Audit Scotland report is that, pre-pandemic, under all administrations in the lifetime of this Parliament, the Government through National Services Scotland did not supply PPE to the care home sector, or indeed to primary care. It used to get it directly from private suppliers. One of the changes that we made was to directly supply the care home sector from the national health service. Those are the changes that we made. There are undoubtedly lessons to learn, but it is not wrong, in my view, to say that we did not run out. It is not wrong to say that that was a good thing in the teeth of a global pandemic, when competition for supplies of PPE was so intense. We now have significantly higher stocks of PPE. We will not need the same volumes in future, but, at every step of the way, we have worked hard, which is reflected in the Audit Scotland report by the Auditor General, to make sure that our staff had PPE and that we will continue to do that each and every day. During the election, the First Minister had to explain why her Government had missed two climate targets in a row. This week, a third annual climate target came and went, and Scotland is falling even further behind. On home energy use, transport, farming and land use, the Government is failing to live up to the rhetoric about world-leading targets. Year after year, the Greens propose stronger action, and year after year we're told, don't worry, we have a new climate plan. Now, with a third year of missed targets, the only difference is that the Government has had to admit just months after publishing their new plan that it too needs to be replaced. This is not the bold leadership that is needed. What does the First Minister think her Government is doing wrong? Can I just make sure that we are being factually accurate in a part of this? The figures that I am going to address essentially in a second are for 2019. They predate the updated climate change plan, so they take no account of the changes that were in that plan, and I think that it's just important to be accurate about that. What are we doing wrong? I don't think that for Scotland, and Scotland, of course, is ahead of most other countries in the world. I don't think that it's about what we're doing wrong. On climate change, none of us are yet doing enough right to get to the point that we need to get to. We need all of us to accelerate our progress. In terms of the missed target, we of course want to hit those targets, and we've got more to do to get there, but we shouldn't overlook the scale of our progress. Emissions in Scotland in the report this week are down by 51.5 per cent, the target was 55 per cent, but down by 51.5 per cent. That means that we are more than half way to net zero, we are further ahead than the rest of the UK and further ahead than most other countries across the world. However, there's more to do. We will publish a catch-up to show not just what we're doing through the plan, but how we're going to accelerate to catch up. We see, for example, transport emissions are actually down year on year, but there's more to do there. All of us across the world have to live up to this. Scotland, like other countries, needs to accelerate progress, but Scotland is already further ahead than most other countries, and I want us to make sure not just that we maintain that position, but that we get even further ahead so that we're leading more, by example. Patrick Harvie I'm not so fussed about being further ahead of the UK, because I don't think that that would be any great boast. I want us to be further ahead than our own targets say we should be. Let's take farming and land use as just one example. I think that Scottish farmers are facing a perfect storm at the moment. They have a need to make even bigger emission cuts to make up for the wasted years. They have a need to adapt to a changing climate and protect wildlife, and the UK Climate Change Committee this week said that both the Scottish and UK Governments are failing on that agenda, and now they face an Australian trade deal that threatens to flood the country with cheap imports. We need to radically reform agricultural subsidies to meet those challenges, but the Scottish Government currently intends to put that off until 2024. Does the First Minister accept that that is simply too late, not just for the next half dozen climate targets, but for the rural communities that need to see change if they are going to have a sustainable future? Yes, I think that how we use land is a really important part of how we meet our targets for the future. We need to support our farming community, not undermine our farming community, as is being done by the UK Government right now in trade deals, in order to make the changes that allow them to do that. I know that there is a great appetite and willingness across the farming sector to do that, and we will continue to support them through funding mechanisms, but through other ways in order to do that. Of course, the figures this week included a major technical change to the reporting of our emissions from peatlands, for example, which is part of the report that was published. Agriculture is a central part of that. I am not suggesting that Patrick Harvie is saying that we can. We cannot just wish all those changes into being. There is hard work under way and hard work to be done to bring them about. I am not simply comparing us to the rest of the UK. I want us to lead by example. We are ahead of most other countries in the world. Does it go in far enough, fast enough? No, but I think that it is important to try to motivate us all to go further so that we do not lose sight of the significant progress that we have already made. One of the reasons that I am keen—I hope—that my party can reach a co-operation agreement with Patrick Harvie's party is that I think that it is important that we are all challenged to go further and faster on that. That determination is there. I am sure that it is shared across this chamber. Let us celebrate the progress that we have made but use it to motivate all of us to go further, because that is what we owe to generations that will come after us. To ask the First Minister what engagement the Scottish Government has had with the UK Government on business support in light of the rise of the delta variant. We recognise that deviating from our route map impacts on businesses, we have funded additional financial support to businesses in areas where it has been necessary to retain restrictions for an additional period. We also continue to emphasise to the UK Government the need for additional funding to be made available for businesses. The situation exemplifies why it is so important that we have the requisite fiscal powers here to respond to the pandemic and increasingly to recovery from the pandemic. The furlough scheme also continues to be hugely important to Scottish businesses and workers. We again call on the UK Government to maintain the support for as long as it is required. I thank the First Minister for that response and certainly agree with her comments about the furloughs scheme. With 3.4 million people still in furlough and 553,000 fewer people in payroll employment, it would be utterly unthinkable for the Tories to cut support prematurely. Does the FM agree with the Scottish Licence Trade Association who, along with other businesses and trade unions, have called for the extension to the current support schemes available such as furlough, VAT reduction and the deferral of loan repayments? Yes, I do. I thank Michelle Thomson for raising points that are important to businesses across the country. It is vital that furlough is extended for as long as possible. The extension of VAT reduction is important, too, and the deferral of loan repayments. There will be many companies that have taken advantage of the loans that have been made available. I welcome the fact that the loans were made available, but there now needs to be consideration given to how and when. In some respects, if those loans should be repaid by businesses that need to get back to normal and get back to a position of sustainability, I recognise the responsibility on the shoulders of the Scottish Government to do as much as we can. Many of those levers lie in the hands of the UK Government, and it is important that they use them properly to support businesses as well. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on the commitment to holding an inquiry into the malicious prosecutions concerning Rangers football club. Both the Lord Advocate and the then Minister for parliamentary business made clear to Parliament on 10 February this year that the Scottish Government supports both parliamentary and wider public accountability in those cases. In February, indeed, the Parliament passed a motion supporting a judge-led inquiry, which the Government supports and is committed to. Of course, that can only happen when related legal proceedings are completed. There are currently legal proceedings that remain live in relation to those cases. However, there will be an inquiry once those proceedings have concluded. Russell Findlay. We do not yet know how much those malicious prosecutions will end up costing taxpayers. The self-inflicted damage to the Crown Office's reputation is unquantifiable. The SNP has agreed to most of the Scottish Conservatives' demands in relation to the inquiry, but one big question remains unanswered. That is, will the judge leading the inquiry be from outwith Scotland and it is a yes or no question? First Minister. Yes, I think that there is an argument for that, but these decisions have got to be taken in the proper way, in the proper time. We are committed to this. Of course, the Crown Office in prosecution matters acts entirely independently of ministers. It is important that there is a remit for this inquiry and that it is led by a judge that commands confidence. That is in the interests of everyone. We will take those decisions once the proceedings have concluded. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to reports that some patients are having to wait over three years to be discharged from psychiatric hospitals. No one wants people to be receiving care in psychiatric hospitals for any longer than is deemed clinically necessary in every individual case. Where there are delays in discharge, that can be very challenging for individuals. However, it is the case that significant packages of care often need to be linked to, for example, specialist accommodation, which sometimes has to be commissioned, specially designed or even purpose built. That can take a considerable time to be put in place, while those concerned continue to receive appropriate care in a hospital setting. To help address the issue in February this year, the then Cabinet Secretary for Health announced a £20 million community living change fund, which would be allocated to integration authorities via NHS boards. The fund has been made available to help partnerships drive further service redesign to adopt a preventative and anticipatory approach to supporting people with very complex needs that can avoid the need for institutional care in the future. The figures reported that we are stark and unacceptable, as well as delayed discharges that are serious issues with people only being offered out-of-area placements for care. In their legislation for a national care service, will the First Minister commit to introducing a statutory duty on integration joint boards to provide care in the community for people leaving psychiatric hospitals, rather than leaving people in limbo for years and years, as has been reported this week? Obviously, the whole Parliament has to debate the detail of the legislation to establish the national care service, but in principle that is an important part. I certainly do not disagree with how important it is to make sure that people with complex needs have the right care in the community and not have to be in institutional care when that is not necessary or appropriate. The challenge here is that I try to set out in my original answer is often that it is the complexity of the needs of individuals that means that it takes time to ensure that the right provision is available in the community. Sometimes that can mean accommodation that has to be specially designed or commissioned or even purpose built. Obviously, there is a real obligation on everybody involved to speed up this process as much as possible, but what is really important is that the right provision is in place given the complexity of the needs that individuals have. Thanks, Presiding Officer. I welcome yesterday's announcement that not only will dental charges be removed for care-experienced young people as set out in the SNP manifesto, but that that has also been extended to all 16 to 25-year-olds. Can the First Minister tell us how this will benefit young people and what plans she has for the further expansion? I think that this is a really important commitment. Having committed to removing dental charges as the first step in our commitment to remove dental charges for everyone, to remove those for care experience young people under the age of 26, when we have looked at this, we have decided that we should have our first step removing charges for all young people under the age of 26. I think that this is a really important step and one that I was delighted that we could announce this week. Approximately 600,000 people will benefit from that. Of course, as I say, our plans are to remove dental charges completely because for some people they can be a barrier to getting the treatment that they need and that can lead for some people to them needing emergency treatment. Removing that barrier helps individuals, but it also helps the NHS make sure that people get the treatment that they need as early as possible in the setting that is most appropriate for them. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Paul Sweeney. First Minister, since March, conductors and ticket examiners at ScotRail have been taking strike action. It is believed that this will go on into the summer. This has led to a huge reduction in services on Sundays, including for a number of key workers who have contacted me to tell me that there are only limited bus services to various hospitals around Scotland. What is the First Minister's view on those strikes? What is the Scottish Government doing to bring this action to a close and end the travel disruption for millions of passengers? I do not want to see strike action being taken anywhere across the country. I do not want to see strike action being taken on our rail services either. It is really important that the employer tries to resolve that as quickly as possible. Collective bargaining rests with the operator and the trade unions concerned. I know that the transport minister has agreed to meet with trade union representatives later this month to discuss their concerns in more detail. I hope that we will see a resolution to that as quickly as possible. Over the months to come, we will be doing the work to take ScotRail into public ownership, which I think will bring a range of different benefits to people across the country. Paul Sweeney, to be followed by Clare Adamson. The First Minister may be aware of reports that Glasgow City Council intend to extend the ban on asylum seekers coming into Glasgow as a result of the constraints of accommodation. We all know the inadequacies of the Home Office policy and its privatised service, but surely that is tantamount to an abdication of responsibility by, as are Scots and Glaswegians, to some of the most vulnerable people in the world. We should seek to lift that ban as quickly as possible and also explore every possible opportunity to improve quality of life of the 5,000 or so asylum seekers in Glasgow, such as extending concessionary travel to them free of charge. I think that one of the last organisations in this country, and I say that under the current political leadership of Glasgow City Council, but also to be fair under the last Labour leadership of Glasgow City Council, Glasgow City Council is probably the last organisation that deserves to be criticised for how asylum seekers are treated. It has been one of the few areas that has welcomed asylum seekers and done everything that it can to support them. There is an issue about the responsibility of having asylum seekers when the Home Office and the UK Government are refusing to put in place adequate provision for accommodation. Those are difficult issues, but I think that the target of our criticism, and I suspect that Paul Sweeney and I agree more than we disagree on this issue, the target of criticism and the target for demands for change should be to the UK Government not to Glasgow City Council. I want to see asylum seekers welcomed here, I want to see us make sure that we have provision for asylum seekers that has dignity and support at heart and that could not be further removed from the very punitive and heartless approach of the Home Office. I would genuinely say to Labour that we should be united in this, not seeking to blame Glasgow City Council for a problem that is not of its making. Clare Adamson, to be followed by Alexander Stewart. First Minister, I am sure that you and the whole chamber will join me in sending sincerest condolences to the friends and family of 13-year-old Aiden Rooney and to the wider St Aiden's High School community in Whishaw. Aiden died tragically after getting into difficulty in the river Clyde in what was sadly drowning prevention week. As we approach the school holidays, can I ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to promote accident prevention messaging, particularly water safety, to our young people and families? First Minister, can I extend my deepest and sincere condolences to Aiden's family? Aiden, of course, the young boy who so tragically lost his life in the Clyde last week. I cannot even begin to understand the impact on his family, on his friends and on the wider community. While incidents such as those are thankfully rare, each and every drowning is one too many and they demonstrate the vital role of initiatives such as drowning prevention week due to run from this Saturday. I support the work of the Royal Life Saving Society and Water Safety Scotland, who are working hard to prevent such tragic incidents. We will do everything we can to support the work that they do. I encourage everyone to use the water safety resources that are freely available to ensure that everyone can enjoy water safely over the summer months. However, for now, I am sure that the thoughts of all of us are with Aiden's family. Alexander Stewart, to be followed by Michael Marra. First Minister, the Royal College of Psychiatrists have released figures showing that referrals for young children and young people with eating disorders have soared to crisis levels during lockdown. Constituents in my region have been in touch to say that virtual appointments, loss of support structure, staff shortages and a less action within the community services has fuelled the crisis. What action can the Scottish Government put in place to improve services to ensure that face-to-face consultations are returned to as soon as is practically possible? Everybody understands that eating disorders have a devastating impact on individuals, but their families and rapid intervention are essential. That must be available. We published the national review of eating disorder services in March and will announce further steps by the end of June. We will also be establishing an implementation group to ensure that the recommendations in the review are taken forward quickly. Intensive home treatment is an evidence-based intervention for treating eating disorders, and part of the work of the review group will be expanding those services across Scotland more generally in terms of mental health services, as the chamber knows that work is on-going to extend the provision of community services, particularly for children and adolescents. Michael Marra, to be followed by Jim Fairlie. Evidence in today's Scotsman shows that young people judged to have failed a course are not having their grades submitted to the SQA. Although non-presentation of candidates for exams is a feature of our system in normal years, this year it is a decision being taken after the result is known. Crucially, in this year, young people not presented to the SQA then lose their ability to appeal against how they are being judged. Does the First Minister believe that this is an acceptable practice, and will her Government issue guidance against it ahead of the grade submission deadline next week? I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that this is being used in a way this year that would be less appropriate than last year, but if there is evidence that anybody wants to put forward, we will look at that as a matter of urgency. Indeed, the EIS has said that it is not aware of that as an issue in schools. As Michael Marra rightly says, in any academic year decisions will be made about whether it is right or not to put a young person forward for a qualification in normal years for an exam, and that is a decision that should always be taken in line with the interests of the young person. That will be happening in some cases this year if anybody has evidence that is happening inappropriately. As I said, we will look at that as a matter of urgency. Jim Fairlie, to be followed by Liam McArthur. Any few Scotland has said that the agreement in principle with Australia sets a dangerous precedent for future free trade agreements. It is a deal that has been done with no consultation, no consent and no parliamentary scrutiny. Does the First Minister agree that if the UK Government is so confident about the benefits of the deal, it should be put to a vote, rather than selling out Scotland's farmers and crofters, just as they sold out the fishing communities? Yes, I agree. The detail of the deal should be published in full. It should be put to a vote, and I suggest that it should be put to a vote not just in the House of Commons, but in this Parliament as well, so that we can represent the interests of the farming community across Scotland. I am deeply concerned about the implications of this trade deal and future trade deals on our farming sector in Scotland. I have noted, as I am sure others have done, the words of the Australian Deputy Prime Minister just last night where he said, and I am quoting, that the big winners are Australian producers and Australian farmers, indeed Australia, full stop. I asked about Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish beef producers. He said, I am not so worried about those. I should say that it is not his job to worry about Scottish producers, but the fact that he is not worried suggests that the UK Government is not standing up for their interests in those talks either. Open that up to scrutiny, and open it up to scrutiny in the national Parliament of Scotland as well. Liam McArthur, to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister will be aware that self-referral for breast cancer screening by women over 70 has been paused. This is giving rise to concerns among those affected in all parts of the country, but particularly in places like Orkney that rely on mobile screening units visiting once every three years. As one constituent put it to me earlier this week, for many of us this will mean a weight of another three years, making six years in total without receiving a mammogram. Given the risk of concerns of cancer going undetected for such a prolonged period, will the First Minister ask her health secretary to look urgently at what can be done to reopen self-referral opportunities for women over 70 in Ireland in rural communities? That is obviously a really important issue. The breast screening programme did resume in August last year, but that was done in a way that was in line with expert clinical advice and, indeed, the recommendations of the Scottish Screening Committee. Initially, patients were prioritised to receive non-routine appointments and, more recently, patients who receive routine appointments between the ages of 50 and 70 have been invited. Liam McArthur is right. We need to make sure that the service for everybody gets back to normal as quickly as possible, but that has to be done safely in line with expert recommendations. Since the restart of the screening programme, I know that this is not directly addressing the problem of over 70s, but in general, since the programme resumed, more than 120,000 have attended for breast screening before the pandemic, during a similar period. Therefore, it was around 135,000. There is work to still be done here, but the service is getting back to normal, and we want it to get back to complete normality as quickly as possible. Mark Ruskell, to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. Families in Fife waiting for autism assessments for their children are at crisis point. There have been no assessments since the start of the pandemic, and now a backlog of over 1,000 children are waiting for support. Given that there is currently nothing in Government guidance on preventing autism assessments from taking place, what more can the First Minister do to ensure that NHS Fife clears the backlog and gives families the support that they desperately need? We understand that, within NHS Fife, a decision was taken through its multidisciplinary management group to not conduct remote assessments via near me through the pandemic. However, I also know that they are planning to restart face-to-face autism assessments in July, so there is a need to get these back to normal and to address the backlog. We will continue to work with NHS Fife and other health boards to support them to do that. The importance of a diagnosis cannot be overstated, and the frustration and anxiety that families will have around any delays is understandable. There is a need for Fife and other health boards to make sure that that is being addressed. I will ask the health secretary to write to the member with more detail of exactly how and when that is going to happen. This week, I met with Borders-based travel agent who has legitimate concerns about the effect of travel restrictions on his business. Like many others, my constituent has lost commission from tour operators because of cancellations. Will her Government consider further support for travel agents? What is her assessment of proposals for individuals who have received double Covid-jags to avoid quarantine on return from amber list countries? We continue to consider, on a four nations basis, global considerations what role vaccination may play in future in easing up international travel. The issue about the impact on the tourism industry is understood, and we will continue to do everything that we can within the resources that we have available to provide support for affected sectors, including tour operators and tourism businesses. As I said in response to an earlier question, we will also continue to urge the UK Government to make more support available. The situation around international travel is really difficult, and unfortunately, that is inescapable. If we want to try to avoid in future what we have unfortunately not been able to avoid right now, which is the importation of new variants. I understand how difficult it is for those in the sector, and we will continue to do everything that we can to support them to get back to normal. Vaccination may well have a role to play, although we have been clear that we have to be careful about some of the considerations around that.