 The Auditor General last week criticised the SNP for failing to record the crucial decision, to go ahead with ferry contracts, that of so far costs the taxpayer £0.25 billion. In response, a Scottish Government spokesperson said, a thorough search has been conducted and the paperwork cannot be located. That is laughable. A few weeks ago, the First Minister was telling us that a big boy did it and ran away. Now the dog is eating all our homework. These excuses would not cut it in a primary school classroom, so do you really expect anyone to believe this? Will you tell us where has that crucial document gone? First Minister, first of all, there are more than 200 documents amounting to more than 1,500 pages relating to those decisions already in the public domain. They were published by the Scottish Government and they have been there for quite some time for anyone to read and scrutinise. There is one piece of documentation that is not there, which is the formal record of the decision to proceed with the final contract award. That is absolutely a key decision. However, there are two further points that I think it is important to make. First, there is no evidence that this has been withheld. In fact, let me quote the Auditor General. Last week, our judgment was not that evidence had been withheld from us during the course of our audit work, but rather that an important piece of documentary evidence was not prepared in relation to the judgment that ministers arrived at. Secondly, what is missing is a note confirming that ministers have considered the issues and the risks and decided to proceed. However, that is nevertheless clear in all the surrounding documentation. There was advice to ministers on 8 October. I am summarising here that we would welcome the minister's confirmation that he has considered the CMAL note to be aware of the procurement and financial risks and content to give approval to CMAL to proceed. The day after that, on 9 October, Transport Scotland writes to CMAL and says, and I quote, "...the Scottish ministers have also seen and understood the CMAL risk paper and have noted and accepted the various technical and commercial risks identified and assessed by CMAL and have indicated that they are content for CMAL to proceed with the award of the contract." So the minister's decision is actually narrated in the letter that Transport Scotland writes. So there is one link in the chain that is missing, but you can still very clearly follow the chain of events, something that Douglas Ross clearly hasn't even tried to do. Let's try and get this straight. At the time, Nicholas Sturgeon said, this was one of the achievements we are most proud of. Now we are expected to believe that there is not a shred of evidence about the final crucial decision. They were so proud of it that they didn't want anyone to know about it. First Minister, given your pride, that should have been hanging on your wall. Maybe that's it. Maybe that's where the document is, hanging up in Nicholas Sturgeon's wall in Bute House. Of course, the excuse that we have just heard from the First Minister is that there are hundreds of documents available, but wow, it's not the one that we need. It's not the one that Auditor General was looking at. The vital document has vanished into thin air. So can the First Minister say, with a straight face, that this does not look like an almighty cover-up? I'll ask again because she didn't answer. Where has that document gone? That document would have been an email or a note that would have said the minister's content on the basis of the reasons set out. Douglas Ross says, first of all, it was and is an achievement to have saved almost 400 jobs, 400 people, as we speak, working in Ferguson's shipyard right now, earning a wage supporting their families. I know that jobs don't matter that much to the Conservatives, but they matter to this Government and they always will. So let me run through it again. On 8 October 2015, a submission goes to ministers asking for confirmation that ministers have considered the seamal note, are aware of the potential procurement and financial risk. Of course, the mitigations are set out in this submission and are content to proceed. The next day Transport Scotland writes to seamal and they say, Scottish ministers have seen and understood the risk paper and have noted and accepted the technical and commercial risks and have decided to proceed. The decision is recorded there. The bit that is missing is that linking the chain in between the two things that simply say that the minister is content, but the fact that ministers were content is narrated in the document the next day. Can I suggest to Douglas Ross it might be a good use of his time to actually go and read the 200 documents and the 1500 pages that are published on the Scottish Government website? Douglas Ross? Can I say to the First Minister it might be a good use of her time and this Parliament's time if she answers the question, because again there is nothing. This is Nicola Sturgeon, who has more ministers than ever before, more special advisers than ever before, more communication staff than ever before, and none of them can find the vital link that is missing. The First Minister claims to be a master of detail. Right up until the point that the Government makes a mistake, then are memories like a sieve. Every time the going gets tough, we hear she can't recall, she doesn't know, she's not sure. We are supposed to believe a quarter of a billion pound decision was either never written down, has vanished or has been illegally destroyed. The First Minister has botched this and covered up mistakes. Those trying to get to the bottom of this have been unable to, because Ferguson Marine employees can't speak openly because of SNP gagging orders. The First Minister could change that. Will she tell us, and she's rifling through her folder, how many gagging orders were issued and will she wave them all today to end this secrecy? I'm going to keep asking where has the vital document gone. E-mail, as the Auditor General said last week, has not been withheld. It was, in his judgment, not prepared, so I am answering that question, but let me set out again. On 8 October 2015, a submission goes to ministers setting out CMAL's concern, setting out the issues with the guarantee, setting out the steps that had been taken to mitigate those risks. That was what ministers considered. Then, on 9 October, the very next day, Transport Scotland narrates to CMAL. Yes, it is a third time, because Douglas Ross doesn't seem to want to understand it, so I'm going to read it perhaps a bit more slowly. When people are asking questions or responding to questions, I would be grateful if everyone else could cease from contributing at that point. Let me read it again a bit more slowly. The Scottish ministers have also seen and understood the CMAL risk paper and have noted and accepted the various technical and commercial risks identified and assessed by CMAL and have indicated that they are content for CMAL to proceed with the award of the contracts. On the basis of the advice on 8 October, that is the decision that is narrated to CMAL on 9 October. Secondly, on the issue of non-disclosure agreements, the Scottish Government negotiated with the previous owners of the Yards administrators to secure the release of their employers who gave evidence to the committee inquiry from their terms and conditions of employment confidentiality obligations. The Scottish Government fully complied with London Scotland's inquiry and will encourage everybody to do so fully with any future investigations or inquiries. Again, I'm asking questions that Nicola Sturgeon won't answer. I specifically asked how—well, SNP members don't want to hear this, but I asked how many gagging orders are in place, so how many are there, and will the First Minister agree to waive them today? Because he has quoted the Auditor General from last week, let's quote him from this morning. He told the Public Audit Committee of this Parliament that he would speak to Ferguson employees if those gagging orders were removed, so let's allow him to do his job, First Minister. And the Auditor General also said last week, and I quote, We recommend that there needs to be a fuller review. Lessons learned feels too glib to describe the circumstances before us. But all we've heard from Nicola Sturgeon is one glib statement after another. When asked to apologise to the islanders, she dismissively said, for goodness sake, that was the response from Nicola Sturgeon to islanders who are struggling right now. Her feeble excuse for wasting quarter of a billion pounds on these ferries is it's regrettable. First Minister, it is not regrettable. It is scandalous. It is absolutely scandalous. And we know advice was given to Government ministers not to go ahead with the deal, and we know they ignored it. So can the First Minister finally come clean and tell us? She mentions Scottish Government ministers, but did she personally see that advice not to proceed with this deal before the decision was made? And for the fourth and final time today, will she tell us where that vital piece of documentation is? The leadership is in some difficulty, but this really is desperate stuff. I have quoted from the advice given to ministers. I have quoted from the Transport Scotland letter that went to Seymal narrating the decision that ministers took, but let me go back to issues of nondisclosure agreements. Nobody in the employment of Ferguson Shipyard will be prevented in any way, shape or form, from speaking to Audit Scotland and speaking in full to Audit Scotland. I can point again to the fact that it was the Scottish Government that negotiated with FMLs administrators to release employees from the confidentiality obligations that they had back then. Everybody will be fully free and unable to speak to Audit Scotland. Secondly, in terms of my views on island communities, I think—I will be corrected if I am wrong here—that the official report will show the regret that I expressed about the impact on island communities. Next, in terms of a fuller review, I think that the first exchange that we had on this issue after the Audit Scotland report was published, I pointed to the recommendation about a fuller review and said that we would be considering the terms of that. The Auditor General said last week that the focus now, the priority, must be on completing the ferries and a key milestone, of course, was delivered in that vein yesterday. Lastly, I take full responsibility for everything that this Government does. I always will, and perhaps that is the difference between me and some other leaders across these islands. Question number two, Anas Sarwar. Presiding Officer, today is workers memorial day. We pause to remember all those who have lost their lives simply doing their jobs and resolved to campaign for workplaces free from harm. Yesterday, a judge at the High Court of England ruled that the policy of discharging positive and untested Covid patients into care homes was unlawful, unreasonable and irrational. It was described as one of the most devastating policy failures in the modern era that cost lives. Does the First Minister accept that her decision to send untested and positive patients into care homes in Scotland was unlawful, unreasonable, irrational and cost lives? No, I do not accept that, although those matters are now rightly and properly that will be scrutinised by the public inquiry that is under way in Scotland and, of course, the parallel public inquiry that will take place into those matters UK-wide. Of course, those matters that will be rightly and properly scrutinised should any legal cases be brought in Scotland. I think that the most important thing that I want to say today is that my thoughts are with every single family who has lost a loved one during the course of the pandemic in care homes and, indeed, across wider society. We are obviously aware of the ruling at the High Court yesterday regarding decisions made by the UK Secretary of State for England. The priority of all of us during this pandemic has been to save lives at all points. We have sought to take the best decisions based on the best scientific and clinical evidence that we had at any given time. All nations develop guidance based on what we understood at the time. The guidance in Scotland is broadly similar to the guidance that was in place in England but not identical. There were some differences in the versions of the guidance. One of the things that our guidance emphasised from 13 March and 26 March 2020 was that residents should remain in their rooms so far as possible, and routine visiting should be suspended. We also required isolation from the 26 March 2020 of anyone discharged to a care home who had been in contact with Covid cases even if they were not displaying symptoms. It is right and proper that those matters are fully scrutinised by the public inquiry. The last thing that I would say, Presiding Officer, is that—and I have said it before—there is nothing anybody in this chamber will say to me that makes me feel the weight of those decisions any heavier than I already do and will do for every day of the rest of my life. I took all of those decisions, as did my ministers, as did the Government in good faith, based on the best information that we had at the time. I am sorry, but that last part is fine in words, but it is an extraordinary and unthinkable answer that we do not accept the judgment, particularly when the almost identical thing happened in Scotland. Let us look at what the judgment makes clear. Our rational, unreasonable and lawful, given what Governments knew, is to look at what happened in Scotland. As early as 4 February, the Government's advisers were suggesting that asymptomatic transmission was a possibility. On 13 February, the Government's advisers were saying that asymptomatic transmission was likely. On 13 March, despite warnings from care home staff this Government's guidance said, do not hinder discharge from hospitals. On 26 March, this Government's guidance said that individuals being discharged from hospital do not routinely need confirmation of a negative Covid test. As late as 17 April, this Government's health secretary was saying that there was still not a strong case to test patients before discharge, even though testing guidelines had changed in England on 15 April. By the time that the Government changed its guidance and guidelines on 21 April, nearly 3,000 untested people and 75 known positive cases had already been transferred into Scotland's care homes. Does the First Minister accept, in the words of the families affected and impacted, that this was a shameful, unforgivable, criminal act that cost lives in Scotland? My thoughts will be with bereaved families every single day of the rest of my life. This is not about not accepting a judgment. The Scottish Government will look very carefully at the terms of the judgment yesterday that we have already started that process. However, that was not a case about the situation in Scotland. Therefore, that is just a statement of fact. It is not a judgment about the situation in Scotland, so it is not about not accepting that judgment. It is about recognising that very important fact. The guidance, as I have said and as anybody can look and see, was broadly similar in Scotland to England and indeed in Wales with a Labour Government. That is nothing to do with politics, but there were some differences. For example, at a time when there were mixed views, if I can put it mildly, about the risks of asymptomatic transmission, our guidance from as early as 13 March was recommending that residents remain in their rooms and from 26 March recommending isolation, 14-day isolation, of anyone discharged to a care home, even if they did not have symptoms. Clearly, the risk of asymptomatic transmission was in mind to some extent at that point. Those are matters that will be fully scrutinised by the public inquiry under the convenership of Lady Poole, a High Court judge in Scotland. If there are other processes brought in Scotland, then that scrutiny will be brought to bear there, too. Of course, there has been analysis undertaken by Public Health Scotland of discharges to care homes. The finding of that analysis was that there was no clear statistical evidence that hospital discharges were associated with care home outbreaks. Instead, it was care home size that was more strongly related to outbreaks. That is the analysis that has been done so far, but it is right that there is full analysis and full scrutiny by the independent public inquiry whose work is now getting under way. I remind the First Minister that, yes, families will be hearing the sympathies that the First Minister has expressed, but they will also hear the ducking and diving that the First Minister has expressed as well. I am sorry, Mr Swinney, that you are right. It is a disgrace. Disgrace to those who lost a loved one in a care home. I have already narrated the timeline that happened in Scotland, but let us look at the consequences of the shameful decision. In the first wave of the pandemic, 4,073 people died with Covid in Scotland. 1,900 of them were in care homes. That is almost 50 per cent. By the time that the Government acted, half of all care homes in Scotland had a Covid outbreak. First Minister, families have been through the heartbreak of losing a loved one. Many of them could not be there at the final moments. It seems that the First Minister is suggesting that those families should perhaps go through the court system here in Scotland to get to the truth. Do not force those families to relive that heartbreak all over again. Being dragged through the courts with the emotional toll that comes with it, having to spend thousands of pounds in order to get you to admit the truth, do you finally accept that your Government's decisions and actions were unlawful, unreasonable, irrational and cost lives? On an issue as serious as this, Anna Sarwar is shamefully misrepresenting my words. I did not suggest that people should have to go to court. What I recognised was that people have a right if they so choose to go to court and they may choose to do that. That was not a suggestion that they should. I believe that people should get the answers to the questions that they have around all aspects of the handling of the pandemic, without having to do that, which is why this Government has set up an independent public inquiry chaired by a high court judge. Jackie Baillie, from a sedentary position, is asking me how long. Can I refer her to the Inquiries Act 2005? The conduct of the public inquiry and the rhythm of reporting and the time that it takes for it to report is entirely a matter for the independence of that inquiry and not for ministers. Jackie Baillie, from a sedentary position, I think should stop indulging in political commentary and engage in the importance of those issues. I do not have to be reminded of the numbers and the consequences of this pandemic. Those facts and figures and the human consequences are embedded in my soul and will always be. That does not mean that my decisions and my actions and those of my Government should in any way not be subject to scrutiny. They should be subject to full independent scrutiny and that is exactly what the independent public inquiry is going to do. That is what families deserve and they deserve that that process takes place in a proper way and I am determined that they get that. I will now move to supplementary questions that I call Alastair Allam. It was reported this week that, despite soaring energy prices, the UK Government's working group to address the cost of living has not met since the start of the party gate scandal and also that the chancellor had said that it was, quote, silly to boost support for energy bills. Does the First Minister share the view of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation this week that the UK Government's response to the crisis has been woefully inadequate? Yes, I share that view. I think that the response of the UK Government has been woefully inadequate. Most of the resources, most of the levers to tackle this crisis lie with the UK Government. Some, not all, I accept, but some of the factors driving this crisis have happened at the hand of the UK Government to not least the impact and implications of Brexit, the removal of universal credit from the most vulnerable families. It is time that the UK Government stepped up and responded properly. The comment of the chancellor that it would be silly to provide help for people now is deeply offensive to those right now across Scotland, across all parts of the UK who are struggling to heat their homes and struggling to feed their children. It is time for Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson and the UK Government to step up and to act. Russell Finlay. A young woman called Jess Insub believes that she was spiked during a night out in Glasgow and she's bravely spoken publicly about her distressing ordeal as a warning to others. But due to a 34-hour delay in police taking a sample show, most likely never know what happened to her, let alone get justice. Instead of yet more SNP talking shops, can the First Minister tell us when her Government will start taking this dangerous and predatory crime seriously? We do take it seriously and let me put on record my sympathies to the young woman for her experience. I think that every woman in the country understands how serious offences like this are and the impact and the consequences they have on lives. Clearly how the police conduct criminal investigations is a matter for the police. It is not rightly a matter for ministers. I am certainly very willing to correspond with the chief constable on this particular case to seek an explanation such as he is able to give for the situation that has been narrated in the chamber and to ask the justice secretary to write to the member in due course. Those are serious crimes and I know that the police take them very seriously and the Government does too. Jackie Baillie Delayed discharge is increasing. The number of people dying while waiting to be discharged is also increasing, almost 400 people in the last year alone. Each of these statistics is a loved one who died unable to get the care package that they needed. The SNP promised to end delayed discharge over seven years ago, but three health ministers later have simply failed to do so. Despite initiatives that I am sure we will hear a list of from the First Minister, delayed discharge has gone up by 57 per cent, so it is clearly not working. Does the First Minister agree that this is a scandal and the human cost of the SNP's failure to take effective action? Jackie Baillie says that three health ministers later, what she admits to say of course, is a global pandemic later, which has impacted on these things in Scotland, in England, in Wales, in Northern Ireland and probably in literally every country in the world. Delayed discharge is unacceptable and that is why she is right to say that I will talk about the actions that we are taking because the actions are important. 62 million pounds to enhance care at home, 48 million pounds to increase the pay of those working in the social care sector, 40 million pounds to support interim care arrangements, 20 million pounds to enhance multidisciplinary teams, two new programmes that have been launched, the interface care and discharge without delay programmes supported by a further 10 million pounds. We will continue to take the action and make the investments to get delayed discharge down in our NHS as we recover across society from the impact of the global pandemic. Christine Grahame has had to restrict its timetables and essential services in my rural constituency due to a shortage of bus drivers following Brexit. The UK Government refuses to place bus drivers on its shortage occupation list as the UK Migration Advisory Council does not consider this occupation meets the threshold. I think that that is completely wrong. Does the First Minister agree? Christine Grahame is highlighting an issue that is relevant in her local authority area, but it is, sadly, all too evident in other areas and in other industries as well. We are experiencing a shortage of bus drivers and haulage drivers and workers for many parts of the food and drink industry and in the health service and in social care. Scotland is, as we warned, paying the price for a Brexit that we did not vote for. Despite repeatedly asking for a formal role in determining what occupations are in shortage in the devolved nations, we have been denied this, so we have been unable to ensure that bus drivers are included in the shortage occupation list. I understand that the UK Government will be reviewing this list later this year and we have asked for full involvement in that process, but we have also set up our own group involving operators, COSLA and other public agencies to find ways to resolve such workforce issues. Those issues are caused by Brexit. They are the fault of the Conservative Government, and it is high time that it took action to address those issues. I have been contacted by many students who feel sick with worry because of the decision of their college lecturers to go on strike during the most critical phase of their studies just before their final assessments and exams. With classes being suspended, students face getting no feedback on assessments. They are unsure if exams are going to go ahead as planned, and they even face taking exams without having completed their courses. It is clear to see that students are the real victims in this dispute. What support is the Scottish Government prepared to offer students who have been left hanging for the second year in a row due to the failure of management and unions to settle their dispute? I know that the member is aware that colleges are independent institutions. It is for employers to negotiate with unions' pay and conditions. I would expect to see employers get round the table with the college unions and come to an agreement that takes away the risk and the reality of strike action. The Scottish Government will continue to work closely with all parties to ensure that there is a process with constructive conversations on both sides. However, I would say to colleges and employers in this matter to ensure that they are engaging to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. We will continue to support students in every way that we possibly can, but the way we will support students best is to ensure that employers get round the table with the unions and resolve this dispute. In making a successful bid to host the Global Seafood Alliance Conference in autumn of 2024, Scotland has been selected to host a major international event. This will put the spotlight on the world-class and highly sought-after produce that comes from Scotland's seas and oceans. Last night, I had the pleasure of sponsoring an event in Parliament, celebrating the tastes, sounds and culture of the island of Bute, including smoked trout and salmon. Will the First Minister join with me in congratulating Seafood Scotland for putting this bid together and wishing them well in showcasing some of the very best seafood available anywhere on the planet? I thank Jenny Minto for that question, and I would take the opportunity to congratulate Seafood Scotland for its work. The prestigious event will be held in Scotland in 2024, the first time it has been held anywhere in the UK, and it will be a global showcase for Scotland at its best. The seafood sector has faced enormous challenges as a result of Brexit, and it is really heartening to see our investment deliver innovation, sustainability and quality be recognised internationally. Our recent launch of the Blue Economy vision underpins our commitment to help producers continue to deliver high-quality produce from clean, well-managed Scottish waters. It is a great recognition of the dedication that our seafood producers have demonstrated and a platform for Scotland to continue to shine globally. I hope that everybody in the chamber will join me in congratulating Seafood Scotland on such a success. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on whether Police Scotland's procedures and training for responding to cases of domestic abuse are sufficient. The training and development of officers and the operational delivery of policing is, of course, a matter for the chief constable. That said, I am assured that Police Scotland is committed to proactively targeting perpetrators and protecting victims and their families from the horrors of domestic abuse and the significant harm that it does. To support implementation of the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018, the Scottish Government provided funding for the training of 14,000 police officers and staff and the appointment of 700 domestic abuse champions to embed training and sustain organisational change. Officers in Scotland are therefore more aware and informed now about the dynamics of domestic abuse. Police Scotland is also undertaking divisional reviews on their policing response to domestic abuse across the country, which includes partnership and multi-agency engagement and working. Today, Caroline Lyons, mother to Louise Attson, who was murdered in 2020 by her boyfriend, who had convictions for abusing women, is here in Parliament calling for a swift fatal accident inquiry after Police Scotland admitted to 18 separate errors, meaning that her daughter was never notified of her partner's violent history. Does the First Minister therefore agree that the current system is simply not doing enough to keep victims safe and that a measure, such as domestic abuse register, is needed to ensure that any potential victim knows where, sorry, when they are at risk? First Minister, can I take the opportunity to welcome Louise's mum to the chamber, although I am sure that she does not want to be here in the circumstances in which she is? I absolutely understand her desire for a fatal accident inquiry and for that fatal accident inquiry to be taken forward as quickly as possible. It is the case, of course, and I know members across the chamber understand that the Lord Advocate is constitutionally responsible for the investigation of deaths in Scotland and conducts that responsibility independently of Governments, so decisions on whether or not a fatal accident inquiry is held and the timing of the initiation of such an inquiry is also a matter for the Lord Advocate, but I will make sure that the detail of this exchange is brought to the attention of the Lord Advocate later today. On the other parts of the question, which I think are entirely reasonable, the proposal for a domestic abuse offender register, we keep the law under continual review and we are always open to exploring options to reduce crime, particularly crime of this nature, so we will look carefully at the detail of any measure put forward and the Justice Secretary, I know, would be happy to engage on that. Of course, there already is a domestic abuse disclosure scheme in place in Scotland. The purpose of that scheme is to allow people to make informed decisions about their situation when they may be at risk in a relationship, and that scheme also allows Police Scotland to tell people that they may be at risk, and that information can be given even if it has not been asked for. Finally, I think that we always have to be open to improvements here. There is a real need for us to do everything possible to protect women and children in particular, because they are most often the victims of domestic abuse to protect women and children as much as possible, so the Government will remain open to any suggestions and proposals that are brought forward. In terms of this particular case, it is of course right that any issues there are properly scrutinised in the course of the fatal accident inquiry process, which as I said is a matter for the Lord Advocate. As the regional MSP is a privilege to host Louise Aitson's family in Parliament today on what is the second anniversary of Louise's death, I want to thank them for giving all of us the opportunity to remember Louise, because she is a person that matters today. In life, Louise gave so much love, care and service to others. This is Louise. We should remember her, and saving other women's lives will be her legacy. As the family are in the gallery today and look forward to meeting other MSPs after questions today, will the First Minister join me in paying tribute to Louise's mother Caroline Lyon and also to Marion Scott in the Sunday post for their work in securing this important fatal accident inquiry? The First Minister has recognised the importance of that work continuing or starting at urgent pace so that lessons can be learned. Will she also confer on when domestic homicide reviews will be introduced? On that latter point, I will return to the member with a specific answer to that so that I am giving the right information. I thank Monica Lennon for remembering Louise and the way that she has in the chamber. I want to pay tribute to Louise's family, not just for being here today but for raising those issues. I can only imagine how incredibly difficult it must be for any bereaved family bereaved in those circumstances to do that, but doing it makes sure that we can act to reduce the risk that other women are subjected to domestic abuse and suffer as Louise did. I want to not just pay tribute to them but to thank them for the courage and the bravery that they are showing. There are clearly questions around Louise's situation and we have heard them already in this exchange. That is why it is right that the fatal accident inquiry takes place, but it is also right for me to say that the conduct of that must be allowed to be independent and I hope that it gives the family answers and comfort. For my part, I will continue to ensure that the Government acts in all possible ways to do everything that we can to protect women from domestic abuse. I believe that Louise's family's bravery and courage at such a sad time and on such a sad day for them will help with that. I did not know Louise, but I am sure that she was a wonderful young woman, but I am sure that she would be very proud of her family today. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the climate change makers impact report from the Scottish Children's Parliament. I welcome the impact report. A fundamental part of Scotland's climate assembly process was the involvement of children. I am pleased that the impact report recognises the Government's work to ensure that children's voices are heard. We are committed to upholding children's rights, demonstrating, of course, through our approach to incorporating the UN convention. This inclusion of children reflects our commitment to empower children and to respect, protect and fulfil their rights. In the impact report, children ask us to do more and that is what we intend to do. At COP26, I committed to on-going meaningful engagement between the Scottish Government and children and young people, and I remain committed to that. I am very grateful for the children's hard work and for their creativity and commitment. I thank the First Minister for her answer and also a warm welcome to all the young people in our public gallery today. Can I ask more broadly what role does she see organisations such as the Children's Parliament and the Scottish Youth Parliament playing in shape in future policy, particularly in areas such as addressing the climate emergency, where we see time and time again the value of bringing younger generations into the conversation? Both the Youth Parliament and the Children's Parliament do a fantastic job and have a key role to play. Our annual Cabinet meeting with children and young people demonstrates, I hope, the on-going commitment of the Government at the highest level to meaningful engagement with children and young people on the issues that matter most to them. The Scottish Government core funding, which is over £580,000 this financial year of the Children's Parliament and the Scottish Youth Parliament, will continue to support children and young people to participate in climate decision making. The Scottish Youth Parliament's work at COP26 was very successful and that includes partnership working with the Scottish Parliament and the Children's Parliament on the moment. Their work, as Scottish Delegates for the Conference of Youth, led to the public commitment that I gave to work with children and young people to tackle climate change going forward, and I want to reiterate that strong commitment today. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will investigate the reported increasing number of children being referred to the gender specialist clinic in Glasgow in light of reports of a similar inquiry that is planned by the UK Government. We are aware that referrals for young people's gender identity services have increased in Scotland, as they have throughout the UK. The recent interim report from the CASS review into those services in NHS England highlighted the importance of robust data collection and the impact of long waiting times. We have already in Scotland recognised the need to improve services, including for young people. That is why we plan to provide £9 million over three years to support improvement in service delivery, data collection, research and support. We do not look to replicate the work of the CASS review, but, as we have previously said, we will carefully consider its findings in the context of NHS Scotland's services. I thank the First Minister for her answer. According to recent reports, 263 patients under the age of 18 are being treated at the Sandyford Clinic in Glasgow. Almost 1,000 are on the waiting list for their first appointment, including 86 prepubescent children. At least 98% of children who consent to take puberty blockers go on to have sex hormone treatment that can cause irreversible changes to their body. Those figures are alarming. We need to balance up the need to help those who are definitely suffering from gender dysphoria, with the need to protect vulnerable young people who are unsure of their identity and risk embarking on gender hormone treatment prematurely. Will the First Minister commit to a similar inquiry that is announced by the UK Government to ensure that our young people are safeguarded? I think that safeguarding is important, but it is also important that we properly understand and apply principles of safeguarding. The Scottish Government and I hope that everybody would recognise that it is really important and right that trans people or anyone who is questioning their gender identity should have access to the right support at the right time for them. One of the biggest issues here is the waiting times for access to NHS gender identity services for both adults and young people, which is why we are making the investments that I referenced in my original answer. It is also important to recognise that, in Scotland—this is a matter of law under the Age of Legal Capacity Scotland Act 1991, an act that predates the life of this Parliament—any person under 16 can consent to a medical procedure or treatment where the qualified practitioner attending them considers that they are capable of understanding the nature and the possible consequences of that procedure or treatment. Decisions on the type of treatment to prescribe are rightly for clinicians to make in consultation with any patient following an individual assessment. On the issue of puberty blockers, it is also important to narrate this. The Sandyford Young People Service has reported that, in the period from 2011 to 2021—a period of 11 years—in total, less than 193 young people were referred for an appointment with a hormone specialist. That is an average of eight per year. The numbers being prescribed hormones was even less than that. Let us take those issues seriously. I think that we owe it to everybody also to treat those issues incredibly, sensitively and to have at the heart the rights of all young people to get the advice that they need at the time that is right for them. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government can take to encourage more women to stand for elected office. First Minister, I think that it is important to record the good news that this Parliament now has a record number of women MSPs, although it is not yet 50 per cent. I think that we should aspire that all our parliaments should have representation at national and local level to properly represent the society that we live in. There is no doubt at all that women in society, including women in public life, continue to face unacceptable levels of sexist and misogynistic behaviour. I believe that that does and is putting many women off standing for elected office. It harms democracy, it harms all of us and it is completely unacceptable. Those things need to change. To change that, we need to see men ending their sexist and misogynistic behaviour and to be much more aware of their actions and words and the impact of them. In terms of the Scottish Government's role, we fund projects to support and equip women to stand for elected office. That includes in gender's equal representation project to help political parties to increase their diversity and the young women lead programme and elect her, which empower women to stand for elected office. I thank the First Minister for her answer. The comments directed at Angela Reiner reported that the weekend were deeply sexist and misogynistic. Indeed, misogyny is something that women face not just in elected office but daily. Can the First Minister outline what work is under way to eliminate prejudice and misogyny in Scotland? Will she join me in condemning the comments made towards Angela Reiner? I am glad to hear the support across the chamber for Angela Reiner. I stand in solidarity with her and condemn unreservedly the comments that were reported on Sunday. I, like everybody else, or most other people, were absolutely appalled both by the male Conservative MP who thought that it was okay to make those pathetic and derogatory comments but also by the fact that we still live in a society where it is deemed acceptable for a story like that to be published in a major newspaper. I think that there is a lot of reflection needed on both of those points. Unfortunately, I am all too familiar with, in my case, the daily male's tactics of attempting to reduce women politicians to their legs, a tactic that, to the best of my knowledge, is never used to dismiss and degrade male politicians in the way that happens to female politicians. Sadly and depressingly, the story just highlighted what women already know and many women already experience on a daily basis. There is deep-seated sexism and misogyny in society, and it needs to be addressed. We will continue to take the actions that I set out in my earlier answer, but I am also pleased that, in a response to the work of Baroness Kennedy's misogyny working group, we also committed to consult on draft legislation in advance of introducing a bill to specifically tackle misogyny. That is something for all of us, but men, in particular, to reflect on, we will rule the day that we make it more difficult and less attractive for women to come forward for election to public office. It is time to draw a line in the sand, and it is time for men—not all men are misogynists—but misogyny comes from men, and it is time for them to change.