 That concludes general questions. The next item of business is First Minister's Questions, and at question number one, I call Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Earlier this week, Rishi Sunak announced a £4.2 billion contract to build five Type 26 frigates on the flight. This is a decision that will protect and strengthen our Scottish shipbuilding industry. The UK Government contract will support 1,700 jobs at Govan and Scottsdon alone, with a further 2,300 jobs in the wider supply chain. Will the First Minister join me in wholeheartedly welcoming this huge investment in Scottish jobs and our economy by the UK Government? Yes, I do welcome this announcement and I welcome the recognition of the skills, talent and expertise on the River Clyde. Of course, while those are responsibilities that continue to lie in the hands of the UK Government, albeit with Scottish taxpayers contributing to the cost of them, it is absolutely vital that Scotland benefits fully. I do welcome the decision and I would also take the opportunity to congratulate BAE. I have campaigned over many years for the future of Govan shipyard, which used to be in my constituency and is now in the constituency of Humza Yousaf. While I do welcome the award of this contract, I am duty bound to note that the original proposal back in 2010 was not for five new vessels, it was actually for 13 new vessels. It was said then that all of that work would be undertaken on the Clyde. Yes, let's welcome it but let's not rewrite history in the process. I'll take that as being about as good as it gets for the First Minister, supporting decisions by the UK Government, because this is a massive boost to Scottish shipbuilding and is only possible because we are part of the United Kingdom. Well, they don't like it, but an investment of this scale in engineering and manufacturing jobs would not be possible if the SNP got their way. If the nationalists ever managed to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, these Royal Navy ships would almost certainly be built elsewhere and the highly skilled Scottish jobs lost. Don't just take our word for it. Earlier this week we heard from Keith Hartley, a Professor of Economics and a Defence expert. He's advised the United Nations, the European Commission and the European Defence Agency. He said and I quote, I don't see a future for a Scottish warship building industry in an independent Scotland. First Minister, he's right isn't he? Before I go into the detail of that, let me just make the general point that I've made in this chamber before. If Douglas Ross wants to have a debate about the benefits or, as he would say, otherwise of independence, then I'd really welcome that. Let's have that debate and then let the people of Scotland decide the outcome in a referendum. If Douglas Ross was really confident in his arguments then he'd have the courage to have this debate, not just in the safety of the parliamentary debating chamber but out there in towns and villages and communities all over Scotland. I do believe that the expertise and the skills of our shipbuilders on the river Clyde are world class and I believe that they would compete successfully for work across the world, regardless of the constitutional future of Scotland. That's the confidence that I have in our shipbuilding industry. Before Douglas Ross tries to argue against that, some of the work that was announced this week for Harland and Wolfe, for example, the UK Government at one point intended to hand all of that overseas and compete the contract internationally. The point is kind of made on that matter. Of course, an independent Scotland like independent countries all over the world and an independent Scotland as a full member of NATO would have naval capabilities of its own. Capabilities that can and would be served and improved upon by our world-renowned shipbuilding industry and expertise. The difference between me and Douglas Ross is that I have confidence in our industry in all circumstances. He clearly doesn't. Douglas Ross, who should the public trust on the economics of shipbuilding? A First Minister who can't build a single ferry for £250 million or a defence expert who's advised the United Nations? Of course, the First Minister has to deny the facts because the independence movement is sinking. It's absolutely sinking. She is a separation creek without a paddle and we know that there wouldn't be any major ships built as she got her way. Douglas looks at her, her own appalling record on failing to build essential ferries for Scotland's island communities. The UK Government has delivered seven ships here in Scotland during her time as First Minister. Over the same period, how many have the SNP Scottish Government delivered? Douglas Ross regularly, and rightly challenges me on the delivery of the ferries, but he should perhaps be careful what he wishes for in terms of the exchange that we are having today. Of course, the vessels that he is lodding today, and I have welcomed the announcements around, back in 2013 the UK Government said that the first of those vessels would come into service around 2020. Earlier this month it was reported that the first Type 26 wouldn't come into service until October 2028, eight years after the proposed date. Members, let's hear one another please. Let's turn to cost because the Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, has also said this in cost, that over the lifetime of the programme the cost would be £233 million more than forecast. Perhaps Douglas Ross should turn some of those questions to his colleagues south of the border if he wants to come here and make a big issue of those things in this chamber. If Douglas Ross really believed what he has just said about Scotland's independence movement, he would be desperate for an independence referendum. The fact that he is running scared of an independence referendum proves him wrong. Secondly, while I welcome those announcements for the Clyde this week, the fact is that most people across Scotland right now, and indeed the UK, who are watching television, will be watching the Chancellor on his feet in the House of Commons announce significant deep real terms cuts and tax rises. That's the price of Tory government and that's why an increasing number of people in Scotland want this country to be independent. Douglas Ross. Anyone watching the Chancellor's autumn statement will look at what that is delivering, rather than the narrative from the fibbing First Minister who has been caught out so many times, because the narrative from the Chancellor today is a UK Government that is increasing benefits and pensions in line with inflation, that is increasing spending on health and on education, that is delivering £1.5 billion of extra support to Scotland and is investing in the future of our economy. The First Minister had a very, very long narrative, but zero answers. That's what I'm desperate for in here, is finally an answer from Nicola Sturgeon. The reason she didn't answer is because her Government, in the same time that the UK Government has delivered seven warships, has delivered one ferry. Seven warships compared to one ferry. Now the UK Government will build another five frigates here in Scotland, but we don't know when the SNP will actually deliver and complete a ferry. Her failure is having a real impact on people and the livelihoods right across Scotland. Almost, yes, really Cabinet Secretary, because almost half of all businesses... Members, excuse me, I'm simply not having members shouting at one another across the aisles. Can we please hear one another when we're speaking? The Cabinet Secretary is not just shouting at me, she is shouting at the island communities who are crying out for support from this First Minister and this Government, because before I was interrupted by the Cabinet Secretary, I was going to say half, half of islands and islands businesses said that ferry cancellations are posing a risk to their future. Just this week, we've heard from islanders who are again enduring food shortages. The First Minister might not want to admit that her shipbuilding record has sunk the case for independence, but will she at least accept that her Government's failure to replace lifeline ferries is doing massive damage to our island communities? First Minister? Yes, I have said on many occasions that the impact on our island communities of the delays to the ferries is deeply regrettable, which is why the Government with Fagustin's shipyard is focused so much and so hard on delivering these ferries. Douglas Ross comes here and lods five type 26 frigates, and he is right to do so. I've welcomed that announcement, but he tries to make a comparison with ferries. I think that he probably, before doing so, should have reflected on the fact that the first of these type 26 vessels will come into service eight years after it was planned to do so and at a significant cost overrun. If he wants to trade these things, he should at least understand the fact that he's basing his argument on it. Secondly, I've already talked about the impact on our island communities and I repeat that, but what is having a significant impact on the lives and livelihoods of people across Scotland is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is currently setting out in the House of Commons. If Douglas Ross wants to talk about interruption to food supplies, for example, across the whole of the UK, caused by Brexit, then perhaps we might focus on that. Or the £55 billion black hole at the heart of UK finances largely caused by a combination of Brexit and Tory economic mismanagement that the Chancellor has just said is being filled by tax rises and spending cuts, more than half of it by spending cuts, so budgets for this Government set at a time when inflation was 3 per cent, now being eroded by inflation at more than 10 per cent. That is having a devastating impact on people, on businesses, on public services across our country. When we consider all of that, Presiding Officer, it is no wonder at all that Douglas Ross did not want to come to this chamber and talk about any of the harm that Conservatives are doing to people across Scotland. Before I move on to question 2, I would prefer if members would please avoid language that suggests that other members are being deliberately untruthful, and I call Anna Sarwar. Presiding Officer, this week the British Medical Association in Scotland sounded an alarm about the state of GP practices across the country. They say that practices are struggling with vacancies and GPs are, in their words, exhausted, burnt out and cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel. First Minister, people across the country are sick of phone lines ringing out when they call their GP first thing in the morning. Do you agree with BMA Scotland and accept their criticism that this Government is not doing enough to tackle the GP crisis? Let me come on essentially in a second to what we are doing to tackle the situation with GP services in particular. Yes, I do accept what the BMA says about the pressure on our GPs. The NHS as a whole is under very significant pressure, greater pressure perhaps than at any time in the history of the national health service. That is true for those who work in our acute sector, and it is also true of those who work in primary care, including GPs. I absolutely accept those comments of the BMA. That, of course, is exactly why. Starting from a base where we already have proportionately higher staffing in the NHS in Scotland than other parts of the UK and proportionately higher funding for our NHS, we have a target of recruiting over the next few years 800 additional GPs in headcounts. So far, since 2017, we have recruited 277 of them. In addition to that, we are supporting the wider primary care teams. In recent times, we have recruited over 3,000 primary care multidisciplinary team members to help with the pressure on GPs. NHS Pharmacy First has provided almost 3 million consultations across its network, so we continue to take action to support GPs, but to support the wider teams in which GPs operate, and it is right and proper that we do so. The First Minister says that more GPs are being recruited, and she says that she is listening to what the BMA has to say about the pressures that they face, but she is clearly not listening to what they have to say about the recruitment crisis that we have in this national health service that predates the pandemic. To talk about the 227 new GPs recruited, the BMA is saying that we are 1,000 GPs short right now. That means unbearable pressure on existing GPs, and it means that many patients are unable to access a GP. On the First Minister's target of 800, we are well short, and the BMA has made it clear that missing the target would mean, and I quote again, disastrous for Scotland and our patients. At the same time, the First Minister has decided to cut the budget for primary care by £65 million. Those cuts mean taking away the ability to recruit the health professionals that GP practices need to support their patients. Dr Bewist has this to say that this cut threatens to undermine practices at the exact moment when we should be doing the opposite. Will the First Minister reverse this cut, truly listen to the BMA and support Scotland's NHS staff? I don't like the budget situation that the Scottish Government faces, but the hard reality is that this year our budget has been eroded to the tune of £1.7 billion because of inflation. It's effectively a fixed budget. We have no levers to increase the revenue available to us within this financial year, so we have to make very difficult decisions. We have been open with the chamber about those decisions, and if any member of the chamber thinks that we should take different decisions, they can come and put that case to us. What they can't do is magic up more money for this financial year. That's a reality that Anna Sarwar's colleagues in Wales openly recognise. They are facing tough decisions as well, and they are making clear that, without additional funding from the UK Government, those tough decisions are inescapable. That is the reality that we face. None of us is like it, but we cannot escape it. We have more GPs per head of population than other parts of the UK, but we want to grow our GP workforce, which is why the target I have spoken about and the progress against that target is so important. That is the redesign and reform work that we are doing in terms of the wider primary care teams. None of those things are easy, and the impact on patients of the pressure on our NHS, I think all of us acutely understand. We will continue to support those who work in our national health service. We will try to recruit from overseas as much as we can, something that inexplicably Labour seems to have set their face against. We will continue to take the steps to support our NHS in those tough times, because that is what they deserve and what the people of Scotland expect from us. Anna Sarwar The First Minister wants to pretend that she has not been in Government for 15 years and has been in charge of setting the budget for the NHS for 15 years. Those problems predate the budget and the inflation crisis, but I recognise the inflation crisis, and that is why, when the Deputy First Minister came to this chamber two months ago with the emergency statement, we said then that we would work constructively with the Government if they opened up the books. They have failed to open up the books, rather hiding and playing politics, where I am doing right by the people across this country. Those decisions have consequences. The Deputy First Minister called the cut of £65 million for GP practices, which are already short-staffed under pressure as a reprioritisation. Let's call it what it is. It's a cut that's having a devastating consequence for staff and for patients. At the same time as cutting GP practices, the health secretary tells people to go to their GP instead of going to the A&E. Another case of the SNP telling NHS staff to do more with less, leaving patients waiting longer to be seen, longer to be diagnosed and longer to be treated. The SNP has been in charge of our NHS for 15 years and there is a crisis in every part of it. In our GP practices, after accident emergencies, in our hospitals, staff are crying out for help, patients are dying. Does the First Minister accept that this is the worst it's ever been, all happening on Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf's watch? Nothing I have said today or at any time takes away from the fact that management of the NHS is the responsibility of me and my Government. I absolutely accept that and take that responsibility seriously. Is the pressure on the NHS greater than it has been at any time in the history of the NHS? Yes, it is. That has been significantly exacerbated by the pandemic but there are other factors at play there as well. The changing demographics of our populations, for example. So these are significant challenges that Governments have to work through. The fact of the matter is though that while management of the NHS is our responsibility, the amount that we are able to invest in the national health service is determined by funding decisions that are taken at Westminster, the kind of funding decisions that are being set out in the House of Commons as we speak. Labour's Health Minister in Wales, the fact is, our hands are tied by the amount of money that we get from the UK Government. That's the situation we are in. How is it that Labour in Wales can recognise that but Labour in Scotland is so blind to the reality because they're so thrilled to defending the Conservatives at the expense of setting out the reality? In terms of primary care funding, of course, the primary care improvement fund is still increased in value to £170 million. We have opened the books. The Deputy First Minister has made two statements in this Parliament setting out the savings that we are required to make because of inflation to balance our books. Anybody who wants to say that we should be doing that differently can come forward and say that. What they cannot do is deny the reality. Even within that reality, we have proportionately higher funding for our national health service in Scotland than in other parts of the UK, including in Wales, where Labour is in government and higher staffing levels. That's the measure of the priority that this Government gives to the national health service and always will give to our national health service. I intend taking general and supplementary questions after question 6. Can I ask those members who have pressed for a supplementary, please don't repress? However, if you do want a supplementary that refers to questions 4 to 6 on the paper, please press at the relevant point. I call Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. First Minister. Tuesday. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I'm very grateful for that reply. Presiding Officer, we see the cost of Conservative incompetence measured out in the budget today. It will be punishing for families and public services alike. Those on the lowest incomes are most exposed. That includes many working in our social care sector. The First Minister is asking all of them to wait four years for the wrong solution. Organisations are now lining up to condemn the creation of the deceptively named national care service. This week, Barnardo was the latest to warn that the huge spend required risks diverting resources away from front-line services. Presiding Officer, they are right. The cost of this vast and unnecessary bureaucracy is up to £1.3 billion already and rising. That's before the Scottish ministers trigger a massive VAT bill through centralisation. If the First Minister has £1 billion to spare, then every care worker in Scotland can think of better ways to spend it. Will she withdraw the bill today and put that money into services and staff? First Minister. Alex Cole-Hamilton, as is his right, has opposed the national care service from even before the parliamentary scrutiny began. That is his position, but he shouldn't stand up here and say it's because of comments that have been made in the course of the parliamentary scrutiny so far. We will listen carefully to that and it's important that we allow that process of scrutiny to continue. The national care service is about ending a postcode lottery in adult social care that all of us accept is not acceptable. It is about better valuing those who work in our social care system. That's what we want to do. Of course we will listen to the comments that are made in the course of the parliamentary scrutiny of the bill. In time, of course, we will continue to take action to address the challenges in social care. We've committed to increase spend in social care by 25 per cent by the end of the Parliament. Of course we are increasing the wages of those who work in social care. We will continue to take that action as we will continue to progress the bill through Parliament, listening carefully to the comments that are made along the way. Question 4, Kenneth Gibson. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government anticipates impact will be in Scotland of today's autumn statement. The Chancellor had only really begun the detail of his statement when I left the office to come to the chamber, so I've not yet had the opportunity to see all of the detail. We will assess the impact of that fully. However, I think it is clear from what we know indeed from what the Chancellor had indicated before getting to his feet today that the UK Government is repeating the mistakes of the past, austerity, which they appear to be reintroducing, does not work and will have significant consequences for people, for businesses and for public services. Those plans are likely to worsen the extreme pressures already being faced as a result of inflation and rising interest rates. We have called for an alternative approach that avoids prolonging a recession that the Bank of England forecast and the OBR confirms today, as I understand it, that the UK is currently in recession. I hope that that alternative approach is listened to. However, of course, the UK is almost unique amongst wealthier countries in reintroducing austerity. It's the wrong approach and it will have a significant adverse impact on people and public services across Scotland. I thank the First Minister for that reply. On the morning of the last disaster story budget, former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney told the Financial Times that in 2016 the British economy was 90 per cent the size of Germany. It's now less than 70 per cent. Following that budget, £65 million, almost £1,000 for every person in the UK, was needed to stop a pensions fund collapse. Does the First Minister agree that the economic incompetence of successive UK Governments is why household incomes have languished since 2008, failing to keep pace with inflation as we face swinging cuts to public spending and ministerising taxes? Can she advise us of the alternative to UK stagnation that will deliver a more prosperous, equal and fairer Scotland? Kenny Gibson is absolutely right to talk about the impact of Tory mismanagement. What we are hearing from the Chancellor today are tax rises and spending cuts. More than half of the black hole, according to the Chancellor, is going to be filled by spending cuts that will have a significant impact on our public services, including the national health service. We also know that, although there are global factors at play, much of that is caused by UK-specific factors. Brexit is a long-term and permanent drag on the UK economy. The effects of that are catastrophic. Of course, Tory mismanagement through the many budget that I know the Scottish Conservatives now like to pretend never happened, are exacerbating that impact. It is people, businesses and public services who are paying the price of all of that. Finally, there is an alternative to Tory mismanagement of our economy, its self-management of our economy, otherwise known as independence. Michelle Thomson pointed out that research has proven that far from working the UK Government austerity programme after the 2008 financial crisis resulted in one of the lengthiest and slowest recoveries, yet the UK Government seemed determined to repeat the same mistakes. Does the FM agree that, given the economic evidence proves that smaller independent states recovered best, it is actually the only sensible choice to follow their path and gain full control of our economy? First Minister. Absolutely. What we are experiencing right now is what happens when we allow others to take decisions for us instead of taking these decisions for ourselves. No matter how the Tories try to dress up today's statement, all of the spin that they will use, what they are doing is reintroducing austerity. They are doing that at a time when our public services haven't yet properly recovered from the last period of Tory austerity. That is the reality and there is no denying that by the Conservatives. The countries across the world, of course, go through difficult times and some of those issues are global, but most countries do better when they control their own destinies and their own future and that too will be true when Scotland does become independent. Question number five, Pam Gossel. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government supports the introduction of a domestic abuse register. First Minister. I am aware of the consultation on a proposed domestic abuse bill and certainly take the opportunity to confirm that we will consider any proposals that would further our commitment to do more to support victims of domestic abuse and of course we will consider that when the consultation has concluded. It will be important of course to look at how any proposals would interlink with implementation of Equally Safe, a strategy for preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls, but certainly we are open minded to any reasonable proposals that come forward. Pam Gossel. I thank the First Minister for that response. The consultation for my bill, which would introduce a domestic abuse register, closes on Monday. That bill proposal would help to protect victims of this appalling crime. Here is an example. I have spoken to one woman who told me she suffered numerous acts of violence and awful physical abuse for years. Her abuser has allegedly attacked five other women. She believes that my proposed bill could have prevented some of those women from going through a horrific ordeal. Will the First Minister agree to meet with me and this brave woman to hear why a domestic abuse register is necessary? First Minister. Of course we will listen and meet when appropriate with anybody who wants to put forward those suggestions. I absolutely understand why somebody in that situation would consider that a proposal like this would make a difference. The Justice Secretary, of course, did meet with Pam Gossel, I believe at the end of August, to discuss the launch of the consultation on her proposed domestic abuse bill. We will consider those proposals when the consultation has closed, which I know it does shortly, and the proposals in that consultation have been properly analysed. We are open minded to that. Of course, the Disclosure Scheme for Domestic Abuse, the Police Scotland Disclosure Scheme, is in place right now. That has an important impact, but none of us, absolutely none of us should be complacent about domestic abuse or the need to do more to protect victims and potential victims of domestic abuse. I hope that the member will take those comments in the spirit that they are intended to signify a genuinely open mind. We have a number of initiatives in place, many of them under the ambit of Equally Safe that are about protecting women and girls. We need to consider carefully any proposals to ensure that they fit with that, but our minds are open and we will have further discussions as appropriate. Pauline McNeill. Almost 80 per cent of women prisoners in Scotland have a history of significant head injury, but mostly through domestic abuse. The University of Glasgow has shown that in research, 66 per cent of female inmates have suffered repeat head injuries and for many years, 89 per cent of participants said that domestic violence was the most common cause. It is concerning that many might return to their abusers or release from prison. Can I ask the First Minister what further action the Scottish Government can take to consider that specific point about female prisoners who had a history of being victims of domestic abuse while they are in prison, but, importantly, when they are released from prison? I am certainly happy to give further consideration to that point and to look carefully at the research that underpins Pauline McNeill's question. I think that it is the case and it is also well understood that many women who are in prison will be victims of abuse and will be vulnerable in many respects. There are similar vulnerabilities, of course, for many men who are in prison as well, but we are rightly focusing on the issue of women right now. The number of women in prison has reduced over recent years, of course, and we want to see that trend continue so that those who do offend are treated appropriately. The points about the support for women who have suffered domestic abuse while they are in prison but also upon their release from prison is important. We will certainly undertake to give the points that Pauline McNeill has raised today proper consideration and come back to her when we have had the opportunity to do so. Question 6, Richard Leonard. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the report Health Inequalities in Scotland by the Fraser of Allander Institute. The report confirms what I suspect most of us already know is that socio-economic inequalities drive wider inequalities, and that is exactly why this Government is using the powers and resources that we have to tackle that within the limits, of course, that we operate within. We are doing that in a range of ways, for example through social security, including the Scottish child payment, through provision of free childcare, free school meals, concessionary travel, free prescriptions and investment in affordable housing. We are doing that and this is just a statement of fact. We are doing that with one hand tied behind our backs without the full powers to tackle poverty, and while we are shackled to a Westminster system and Tory government, which has caused economic chaos and savage reductions in real terms in our budget. I hope that today we hear something different from the Chancellor, but as I said earlier on, I fear that the continued or reintroduced austerity that we are hearing today will deepen these impacts but also strengthen the case for more of these decisions and more of these powers lying in the hands of this Parliament. Richard Leonard. This week's report confirmed that almost half of Scotland's personal wealth is owned by just 10 per cent of households and that there is a direct link between extreme wealth inequality and health inequality. Does the First Minister accept that the Scottish Government has the power to redistribute land ownership and wealth that does not use that power? That the Scottish Government has the power to abolish the regressive council tax, introduce a land value tax, make land and building transaction taxes much more progressive but has failed to do so? That a wealth tax set and administered by the Scottish Parliament through an order of council could be pursued but she has decided not to. When will the First Minister use the tax powers that the Scottish Government has got to reduce Scotland's extreme inequalities of wealth and to fund our public services properly and progressively? I agree with a lot of what Richard Leonard has said. I suspect to agree with more of it than Anna Sarwar, whose face was pretty impassive as Richard Leonard recounting all of these policies, which I suspect are not Scottish Labour policies. The fact of the matter is that if it is Scottish Labour's policy to replace the council tax with a land value tax, I will be happy to hear that and hear the detail of that. The fact of the matter is that with our limited tax powers, of course, we do have a more progressive system of tax, so income tax, which is our main tax power, far too limited in terms of the overall sweep of tax powers, then if you earn more in Scotland, you pay slightly more and if you earn at least, you pay slightly less tax than you would elsewhere in the UK. Richard Leonard wants us to be able to consider and introduce a wealth tax, and he really needs to argue for the powers to lie in this Parliament to do exactly that, so we will always favour progressive taxation, but we need more powers over taxation in this Parliament to give effect to that. What we have done this week, of course, is both increase the value of and extend the reach of the unique Scottish child payment, putting money directly into the pockets of those at the lowest end of the income spectrum and lifting children out of poverty. A shining example of how we can use powers when we have powers in the hands of this Parliament. Thank you. We move to supplementary questions, and I call Stephanie Callaghan to be followed by Miles Briggs. Presiding Officer, as the First Minister has just mentioned, the Scottish child payment has been increased to £25 and extended to under-16s this week. That has been described as a watershed moment by anti-poverty campaigners, but does the First Minister share my frustration that, while this Scottish Government is using the limited powers that it has to support people, those efforts are frequently undermined by the actions of the UK Tory Government? First Minister. Yes, that is not just a matter of opinion, that is a matter of fact. So, while we are putting £25 now a week into the pockets of the lowest income families per child, the Tory Government in power right now, not that long ago, took £20 a week away from the poorest through the clawback of the universal credit uplift. So, that is just a fact, but we will continue to act to use the powers we have. This week was a watershed moment. The Scottish child payment, that payment does not exist anywhere else in the UK, and it is an example of what can be done when we prioritise lifting children out of poverty and investing in their future. As anti-poverty campaigners have said this week, if the Scottish Government can do that, then why on earth can't the UK Government follow suit? To be followed by Paul King. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the early hours of Monday morning, a war memorial in front of Edinburgh City Council in what was a mindless act of vandalism and absolutely appalling insult towards our fallen war heroes. This is both shocked and angered local community here in Edinburgh, and I hope those who are responsible will be held to account in due course. Sadly, those attacks on war memorials are increasing in Scotland. That is why my Scottish Conservative colleague, Megan Gallagher, is bringing forward a bill to impose tougher penalties on those who attack and deface war memorials. Can I ask the First Minister if she will agree to consider Scottish Conservative proposals around this issue, and what update can she provide with regard to the investigation around Monday's incident? First Minister. Firstly, yes, we will consider any proposals that are brought forward. I have not seen the detail of those proposals yet, but when they do appear, we will give them due consideration and that is certainly important to do. In terms of the attack on the war memorial in Edinburgh, less than 24 hours before that despicable attack took place, I amongst others was privileged to lay a wreath at that war memorial in remembrance of those who had made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country and to allow us to enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted today. What happened in the early hours of Monday morning is almost beyond words, absolutely despicable, sickening and disgusting. It is beyond my comprehension, I am sure it is beyond the comprehension of any of us in this chamber, how anybody could attack a war memorial at any time of the year, but particularly just hours after remembrance Sunday. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on an on-going police investigation, obviously that is for the police to take forward, but where I will end those remarks in agreement with the member is that I really do hope that those responsible for this despicable attack are identified and face the full force of justice. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On Sunday international teams will begin to compete for the biggest prize in world football, but they will do so in a state that denies the rights of LGBT plus people, suppresses the rights of women and has demonstrated quite clearly in regard for the lives or wellbeing of migrant workers. Only a few weeks ago, Qatar's World Cup ambassador branded being gay as damage in the mind. Senior figures of the SFA will be attending World Cup events on the day the tournament kicks off. LGBT plus people, many of whom are passionate football fans, are allies and stands across the country, the tartan army, the STUC and Xander Murray of Gallifery Dean Rovers, of whom I think we should all be immensely proud to have voiced concern and disapproval of the World Cup and have called on the SFA to think again. The SFA has said that it is, and I quote, supportive of all measures to improve human rights conditions in Qatar. Does the First Minister believe that our football governing body attending this World Cup can send any other message than the validation of the human rights record of Qatar and what message does she think it sends particularly to LGBT plus people in Scotland? First Minister. Firstly, as the World Cup gets under way later this week in Qatar, I think it is a really important moment for all of us, regardless of party, regardless of anything else that might divide us, to stand in solidarity with the LGBT plus community in Scotland, in the UK, in Europe and right across the world. I hope that that will unite all of us today. In terms of attendance or otherwise of SFA officials, that is a matter for the SFA. Governments should not intervene in decisions that sports governing bodies take, but I would certainly hope that anybody attending the World Cup in Qatar in any capacity would take the opportunity to express solidarity with our LGBT plus community. I think that that is what is even more important over the next few weeks than sport that we take the opportunity to stand up for human rights and the dignity of those in that community and that we unite around that sentiment today and right throughout the period of the competition in Qatar. Natalie Dawn, to be followed by Alexander Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Figures published this week show that the number of young Scots aged 18 to 24 sanctioned by the DWP has nearly doubled since 2019. That's over 2,500 young people being denied vital support in the midst of a cost of living crisis. Does the First Minister share my view that this is immoral and that the welfare system should be there to support people not penalise them? Natalie Dawn is absolutely right to raise this issue. These figures are really alarming. They are DWP figures and they show that the universal credit sanction rate is more than double the pre-pandemic level with over 42,000 sanctions being applied across all claims in July this year. The data also shows that sanctions are applied most to young people between the ages of 18 to 24. Despite substantial evidence showing that sanctions simply do not work and that they have long-term detrimental effects, this UK Government's sanctions policy is pushing more people into hardship and doing that during a cost of living crisis. I take the opportunity today to call in the UK Government to urgently review its sanctions policy along with the other punitive policies within the universal credit system such as the five-week wait, the two-child limit, the benefit cap and focus instead on supporting people rather than punishing them when they are already struggling so much. Alexander Stewart. First Minister, you are aware of the difficulties that are facing the 4th Valley hospital, with five consultants leaving in the space of two weeks and the facility being described as a war zone and toxic environment. The health board say that any concerns raised by clinical or other staff groups are taken seriously and there is no attempt to cover up, but the reality is that I continue to have to make representation to the board as further whistleblowers come forward seeking assistance. They are saying that the culture within the hospital regarding bullying continues and there is no meaningful change by the senior management. First Minister, this is frankly a shocking situation to occur in any hospital so what action can be put in place to ensure that the facility is safe and fit for purpose? The safety of any hospital is of paramount importance. Let me make two points and I know the health secretary is engaged fully on these issues. Firstly, when a whistleblower raises a concern that must be treated with the utmost seriousness and thoroughly investigated. Secondly, the chief operating officer of NHS Scotland has met the fourth valley chief executive to discuss the concerns raised. The Scottish Government is supporting fourth valley to develop a robust cohesive action plan for improvement and national planning and performance oversight group met earlier this month to discuss next steps and I know the health secretary will continue to keep members updated. Thank you, that concludes First Minister's questions. Point of order, Liam Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On Tuesday the 15th of November I asked Tuesday the 15th of November I asked Minister Lorna Slater When did ministers first become aware that they were using a figure that to quote Scottish Government officials hadn't been properly sourced? She responded Ministers became aware of the issue on Tuesday the 8th of November. Emails in the public domain reveal that civil servants actually wrote to at least two Ministers in October 2020 saying quote the 25% estimate has never to my knowledge been properly sourced. So the information provided to Parliament by Minister Slater two days ago does not apparently accord with the facts. Parliament has been misled again. On Tuesday I also quoted the ministerial code at section 1.3C on how ministers who mislead Parliament should respond. To the best of my knowledge the only correction to the record has been by the First Minister after I called her out on her previous use of misleading energy consumption statistics. None of those who misled Parliament on the 25% claim have apparently acted. This is a Government which appears to hold the ministerial code and the honour and privilege of office in utter disdain. The implications of ministers consistently and brazenly misleading this Parliament are huge as are the implications of ministers not acting in accordance with the ministerial code having done so. I am concerned that a perceived lack of integrity in Scottish ministers in not abiding by our processes and codes risks bringing this Parliament into disrepute and risks undermining your position as Presiding Officer. Is there any way therefore that you can preserve the trust placed in us in this Parliament by ensuring Government ministers abide by all aspects of the ministerial code particularly section 1.3C? Thank you. The member will be aware that the ministerial code is a matter for the Scottish Government but it is clearly of paramount importance that members, including ministers, give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Now this chamber I believe is fully aware that the Parliament has a corrections procedure to be aware how that works. The current mechanism that is available to me through standing orders reflects the procedures and practices that have been agreed by the Parliament itself. If there is a view that they should be revisited this matter should be raised with the SPPA committee. That concludes point of order Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you very much. I seek your guidance on the procedures surrounding the correcting of the official report after what we have just heard. What we have just heard from Liam Kerr is frankly astonishing. The energy minister at the time and the current trade minister were informed that this statistic of 25% had no basis in 2020. It is important that Parliament gets the proper facts. At the same topical question exchange on Tuesday 15 November the minister said that the figure relating to Scotland having 25% of Europe's offshore wind potential was first set out in a 2010 publication. It is now outdated. The First Minister's spokespeople have also said that it was calculated accurately at the time. How can the Scottish Government confidently say that the figure was correct in 2010 when civil servants told them in 2020 that it had, and I quote, and as Liam Kerr said, never been sourced. Put simply, Presiding Officer, nobody knows where this figure came from. In truth, this statistic has always been made-believe. So to suggest that it is outdated would sound to any reasonable person that it had been true at some point. Presiding Officer, in an attempt to excuse the original falsehoods I am concerned that the Government are now creating fresh falsehoods to cover their tracks. Can I seek your guidance on what mechanisms exist to correct the record on whether you have been approached by the Government on this point, that rather being outdated, this statistic was never accurate to begin with? I thank Mr Cole-Hamilton for his point of order. I have already ruled on this issue in relation to my response to Liam Kerr. It is the case that the procedures that are in place have previously been agreed by this Parliament. The corrections mechanism exists, and I am sure that members understand what that is. The member has made his points on the record. That point of order, Russell Finlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On Tuesday you provided a statement to Parliament in response to a woman being ejected because of the colours of her scarf. You apologised and explained that this had been an error but we still do not know why this happened to an innocent member of the public. I would like to ask you, Presiding Officer, if any form of investigation is being done into this sorry episode. A key question would be that any members or parliamentary staff order or indeed encourage the security staff to act in this way. I thank Mr Finlay for his point of order. Some of the matters the member raises are not matters for the standing orders and therefore are not matters for me to rule on from the chair. I made my views on this matter very clear in my statement to the chamber on 15 November and I would refer the member to the official report of that date. We will now move on to members' business. There will be a short suspension to allow those who are doing so to leave the chamber and the gallery.