 That concludes general questions. The next item of business is First Minister's questions. At question number 1, I call Douglas Ross. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I remind the chamber that my wife is a serving officer with Police Scotland. My colleague, Mirdle Fraser, was the subject of a spurious complaint about a social media post that was critical of the SNP Government. He discovered that Police Scotland had recorded hefyd yn gael i ddinch niw feddliadau. Uddan yn gweld, fod yn fannyw yn mynd yn dweud, bobl yn gael yn eiiliau, yn gweld, yn gael, yn gweld, yn gweld, yn gweld, yn gweld, yn gweld, yn gweld, yn gweld. Yn cael llawer o gyrfa mor hyn, ei ddim yn gweld, yn gweld, yn ddatblygu, neu yn gweld, nid y peth yn ei wneud. Eric Davies ydi, ond mae'n rai bod mai yw'r ddiddordeb yn rwyfiau sy'n gwybodaeth when they have done nothing wrong. First Minister. Presiding Officer, let me try to provide some context on the issue that Douglas Ross raises. I think that it is important that when we are talking about hate, hate trade, hate crime or indeed the Hate Crime Public Order Act that we do so in a way that is not just considered but also ensures that we stick to the facts. Let me try to provide some context on the issue that Douglas Ross references. First, let us remember that the recording of non-crime hate incidents has come as a direct result of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. It was contained within recommendations 12 to 17 of the McPherson report. They have been around the recording of non-crime hate incidents for many, many years. Secondly, as well as being around for many years, non-crime hate incidents are recorded for other incidents as well that do not meet a criminal threshold, such as, for example, for domestic abuse incidents. I do not know whether Douglas Ross is suggesting or not that he does not think that domestic abuse incidents should not be recorded if they do not meet a criminal threshold or whether it is just in relation to hate crime or not. Thirdly, let me be clear that the Hate Crime Act is not yet enforced, so there is nothing within the Hate Crime Act that changes how hate crime or, indeed, a non-crime hate incident is recorded. Let me, if I can, make that point by quoting Professor James Chalmers, who is well known to this chamber. He says, and I quote, such recording in terms of non-crime hate incidents is a long-standing feature of police practice. Communicating clearly just how little the act changes is essential to avoid undue fears about its impact and any attempts to abuse it. Last, Presiding Officer, because I know that this is a substantial issue, that notwithstanding this, Police Scotland has made it clear last year, and again they have made it clear because of recent press inquiries, that they will be reviewing how non-crime hate incidents are recorded cognisant of the changes that have been made in England and Wales. I go back to the central point that I started with, Presiding Officer, that there is far too much hatred. We all accept that in our society. We all should come together in order to help to tackle it, and I would urge the Conservatives in particular—notwithstanding the legitimate questions that Douglas Ross asks—to come together in that effort to support the act and to support a zero-tolerance approach to hatred in our society. We all have a zero-tolerance approach to hatred in society, but my question, which the First Minister took over two minutes to try to answer, was should innocent people have a police record when they have done nothing wrong? It sounds from that answer, from Hamza Yousaf, that he believes that they should. He has previously said that this is about monitoring, about gathering data, but what will the value of that data be if we can now see that individuals can put forward multiple complaints with little or no substance in them and that data will then be stored and recorded in the way that it has with Murdo Fraser. This unacceptable incident is just the tip of the iceberg. The SNP's Hate Crime Act will come into force in just a few days' time and could lead to more cases just like this. The controversial new law is ripe for abuse. In a letter to this Parliament's Criminal Justice Committee, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents said that some individuals will, and I quote, will seek to weaponise the new legislation and associated police investigation. Does Hamza Yousaf agree with some of the most senior police officers in Scotland, and does he accept that this law could be weaponised? First Minister, Douglas Ross says that we all have a zero-tolerance approach to hate crime. I am not entirely convinced that when you take money from a racist misogynist and then refuse to give it back, that is a zero-tolerance approach whatsoever very often. In relation to the issue of non-crime hate incidents and the impact and effect they have and what is the purpose of them, I refer Douglas Ross to the chief constable, who was very clear at the Scottish Police Authority board meeting just last week, the value of the recording of hate incidents. She said, and I quote directly, that on recording reporting hate incidents they can and do give us a sense initially of community tensions, so they are useful to us in terms of engaging with communities, engaging with different groups and communities and being able to understand where there is potential for tensions to be raised. I would say that there is an understanding of the reasons in rationale why hate incidents are recorded. That is precisely why the McPherson report recommended them in the first place around about 25 years ago. On the hate crime act itself, we take seriously what is said by the Scottish Police Federation asps or any other representative organisation representing police officers. It is incumbent on me to say that the new offences in relation to stirring up are hugely important. Those stirring up offences for racial hatred have existed since 1986. We are simply extending those protections to other marginalised groups. I think that it is important for Douglas Ross to be honest to tell people in this chamber and the people of Scotland who he thinks is not deserving of those protections in the same way that I have been protected because of my race since 1986. Douglas Ross, the problem is, First Minister, that people will not be protected if the police cannot do their job. We have warnings week after week from officers on the front line, from the Police Federation and now from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. Their line at the top of their letterhead says that, representing the operational leaders of the police service in Scotland, they are giving as stark a warning as possible to this SNP Government that the bill is flawed. It is not going to do what MSPs who supported it wanted it to do, and those warnings are being ignored by Hamza Yousaf. However, let's see if he will also ignore others on this. Katharina Casper is the chair of the Scottish Police Authority's Complaints and Conduct Committee. She said that an investigation itself can become a punishment that may have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression. Hamza Yousaf has directed his comments today at me as a Conservative leader and the Conservative Party. What does he say to one of his most senior SNP MPs, Joanna Cherry KC? She said this and I quote, For many, the process will be the punishment. Being under police investigation will be stressful, costly, damaging to reputations and could lead to problems in the workplace. The police should not be dispatched to people's doors to check their thinking. Does the First Minister not recognise the chilling effect that his law will have on free speech? These issues were rehearsed last week, but to emphasise and reiterate to Douglas Ross that there are protections for freedom of expression and freedom of speech explicitly in the bill. In fact, there is a triple lock protection, because there is explicit reference in the bill itself in relation to freedom of expression. There was a matter of compromise between the Government and members of the Opposition. I think that there was a good example of how we do legislation here in this Parliament. Of course, there is a reasonable person defence within the legislation itself, and our legislation has to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights and the important articles in that in relation to freedom of expression. Secondly, I have absolute faith in police's ability to weed out the Vexatius complaints. They unfortunately have to do with Vexatius complaints. Of course, there is a whole range of legal matters and complaints that are made right across the legal landscape. I have absolute faith in the ability to address those issues in ways that are appropriate. Let me go back to the central point here that stirring up offences are not new. They have existed since 1986, for most of my entire life. Therefore, I have absolute confidence in Police Scotland's ability to be able to police new stirring up offences in the ways that are appropriate. Let me say again to Douglas Ross that his party, the Conservatives, did support stirring up offences when those offences were extended in England and Wales in Westminster. If they are okay in order to protect people in England and Wales, why are they not okay to protect people here in Scotland? I go again to Douglas Ross. If he believes in a zero-tolerance approach, if he believes that somebody who is Jewish or elderly or gay or disabled should be protected from behaviour that is threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred, then why is he opposing that legislation? From my view, it certainly looks like just for the sake of opposition. Before we move to Mr Ross's next question, of course, there are many members who would like the opportunity to put questions to the First Minister today, and therefore I would be grateful if we could have more concise questions and responses. Douglas Ross. I'm so used to seeing absolutely no flaw in his legislation that he took through this Parliament despite the overwhelming evidence we are getting from front-line officers and many others. The Hate Crime Act will come into force on April Fool's Day, but it is no joke. The Scottish Conservatives opposed it at the time and still do. It is so flawed that whatever its intentions it is likely to create more division. Overworked, under-resourced police officers will be forced to deal with hundreds of malicious complaints. Hamza Yousaf's law could be weaponised against people with opposing views. Police investigations will tarnish the names of innocent people and could silence them. This law is overreach by the SNP. So how long will it take before the Hate Crime Act goes the same way as name persons, offensive behaviour of football, gender recognition reform and every other flawed SNP law? The Hate Crime Act is one that not just I am proud of but this entire Parliament should be proud of. Of course every single political party came together to support that act except the Scottish Conservatives. Why should they be proud of it? They should be proud of it because it was supported by a number of groups that represent some of the most marginalised in our communities. The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities stated and I will quote that they support the bill, strongly support the introduction of this new offence. That is a stirring up offence and its application across all protected characteristics. Why is it important? It was important because Lord Bracadale, who led the independent review, which then of course helped us to develop the Hate Crime Act, said that stirring up offence may lead to violence or public disorder. It may incite people to commit offences such as assault. He called it conduct that is morally wrong and I think he is absolutely right to do that. So we have freedom of expression at clauses within the bill that protect people's right to freedom of expression but what we do with this Hate Crime Act is we ensure that Scotland does send a message, this Parliament sends a message, this country sends a message to those who are often the targets of hatred that we truly have a zero tolerance approach. That is something that I am very proud of indeed. Our country faces serious challenges that demand serious leadership but in the past year we have had a government led by Humza Yousaf with no vision, no strategy and no plan. Not my words but the words of many in his own party and leading figures across the country. On the two biggest issues facing our country Audit Scotland has said that the First Minister's Government has no vision for the NHS and is lacking political leadership on the economy. In the midst of a housing crisis Shelter Scotland has said that the First Minister has no credibility and as our country grapples with the climate crisis the climate change committee says the government has no comprehensive strategy and no credible plan. So does he agree with the verdict of the experts that this is a government with no strategy, no vision and no plan? I tend to believe in the verdict of the Scottish people who time and time again have trusted the SNP to be the Government of Scotland and have rejected Anna Sauer and his Labour Party time and time and time again and Anna Sauer who is famed for his hubris is already putting up the bunting, is already telling people of Scotland that their votes have been taken for granted whereas this Scottish Government, this party that I lead, will never ever take the people of Scotland for granted in any election whatsoever. Let me say to Anna Sauer on some of the issues that he references. Let's hear the First Minister. They don't want to hear the record of this Government. Let me tell them the record, Presiding Officer, of this Government. When it comes to the NHS of course we have record investment of over £19.5 billion in this health service. We have statistics this week showing that we have record numbers of junior doctors joining the NHS, Presiding Officer. Record levels of staffing under this Government in the NHS and of course, Presiding Officer, we are making improvements. We are helping our NHS through recovery. How by investing in our NHS staff to the point where they are the best paid staff anywhere in the UK and of course what is markedly different in Scotland and compared to Conservative run England or indeed Labour run Wales is in Scotland we haven't lost a single day of NHS activity to strike action. Anna Sauer. Record levels of denial and bluster from the First Minister right there. No vision, no strategy and no plan failing on the basics of government and this incompetence has consequences. In health NHS waiting lists have gone up in the past year with tens of thousands of more people added. On the economy a complete failure to deliver growth and businesses struggling and cancelling investment. In justice green lighting plans to let crimes go uninvestigated and police stations closing across the country. In education standards falling, violence rising and teacher numbers being cut and in housing a cut of £190 million when tonight nearly 10,000 children will go to sleep without a home to call their own. First Minister, this is your record after just a year in the job. How can Scotland afford another two years of this? First Minister. My record in last year has seen of course an estimated 100,000 children lifted out of poverty here in Scotland. That record of course has seen a record number of junior doctors joining the NHS in Scotland. That record sees the best-paid NHS staff anywhere in the UK. It sees not a single day of NHS activity lost to strike action, which is very different this week, where in Labour-run Wales were junior doctors have once again been forced to go on strike. In terms of the key economic indicators under this Government, GDP per head has increased at a greater rate in Scotland than it has in the UK. Productivity has increased at a greater rate per head in comparison to the rest of the UK. Just last month statistics have shown that we have greater private sector employment growth better than any other nation or region of the UK. What is Annas Harwar's record? The only consistency over the past year is that he is completely inconsistent, U-turned, dumped every single principle or policy, and fallen into line behind Keir Starmer. Let's hear Mr Sarwar to listen to me or to the experts or business leaders across Scotland, so maybe he'll listen to his own sight. In just a year of his leadership, three defections, nine SNP MPs abandoning ship and his own deputy leader saying that SNP MPs might not turn up to work. He has been called authoritarian by one of his longest-serving MSPs, accused of lacking vision by Kate Forbes, called the commentator not a leader by Alec Neil, and his general election strategy has been trashed by Pete Wisher, his party's longest-serving MP. In one short year, Humza Yousaf has lost every electoral test that he has been set. Is he worried that the people of Scotland, like many people sitting behind him, believe that Alec Neil is right that the strategy is mints? Again, another display of Annas Sarwar's famed arrogance and hubris in this chamber, taking the people of Scotland for granted, and he talks about vision. He talks, Presiding Officer. Let's ensure that we can hear one another. Presiding Officer, when it comes to vision, let me remind Annas Sarwar that it was just last week that his colleagues in UK Labour were praising Margaret Thatcher for her vision, Presiding Officer. In the year that I have been First Minister, Presiding Officer, I can stand here and say that I have stood by my values and my principles. Those values and those principles will see an estimated 100,000 children lifted out of poverty. Those values will see record investment in our NHS, record numbers of junior doctors joining the NHS. They have seen the implementation of a fully funded council tax freeze, despite Labour's best efforts to thwart it. Those values have seen private sector employment grow in Scotland higher than any other UK nation. As I say, the only consistency that Annas Sarwar has is this inconsistency. Is you turning and dumping of policies from the true child limit to, of course, the lifting on the cat of bankers' bonuses? Most shamefully, Presiding Officer, is the latest betrayal of the Waspie women that Annas Sarwar promised to campaign for, and he's now turned his back on. Unforgivable, the Waspie women won't forget nor will they forgive, Presiding Officer. Question number three, Stephen Kerr. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government plans to take following the publication of the University of Stirling study, highlighting the reported risk of crumb rubber infill on artificial pitches. At local sport and leisure facilities, including, of course, artificial grass pitches, are vital in supporting the physical and mental health of the nation. We will, of course, give full consideration to the new research in this area and we're supportive of efforts to examine evidence that have been commissioned by DEFRA on the wider impacts of microplastics. This report, expected early next year, will be material in helping shape regulation that we will take forward in that area. One factor that will also help to shape our future action is the work of the EU to phase out the use of rubber crumb in 2031. Sport Scotland is also working with others to explore alternative artificial pitch systems and more suitable infill products to replace the spread of microplastics in the environment. Stephen Kerr. Well, I thank the First Minister for his reply, and it is important to say that we aren't talking about all artificial playing surfaces. For example, there's an excellent new artificial pitch at Falkirk stadium, which is installed after the UK Government working with the SFA provided funding through the leveling up fund. What we are talking about is one particular type of artificial pitch, the type that uses artificial turf crumb rubber infill from shredded end-of-life vehicle tyres. It is terrible for microplastics and is highlighted in the Sterling University report potentially bad for health. The obvious question is, do we know exactly how many such pitches there are or indeed where they are? Will the First Minister commit the Scottish Government to co-ordinate and work with local authorities to determine the state of artificial pitches across Scotland and to publish the results? I will consider Stephen Kerr's suggestion seriously. We will look to see whether or not that is a worthwhile endeavour, given the recent research that Stephen Kerr indicates. I would go back to the response that I made to Stephen Kerr on his opening question, which is that we are very supportive of the efforts to examine the evidence, and there is that work being undertaken by DEFRA on the wider impacts of microplastics. I don't understand that Sport Scotland is also working with other home nation sports associations to explore what the alternative artificial pitch systems are that are more sustainable in the longer term. That work is on-going. I am happy to write to ensure that the appropriate minister writes to Stephen Kerr with the detail of the work that is already being undertaken, even while we are waiting for that research. We are supportive of the research to understand the impacts of this rubber crumb infill, getting a better understanding of the use of rubber crumb infill right across Scotland. First, I declare an interest as convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare. To ask the First Minister further to the regulations relating to XL bully type dogs coming into force, to whom a dog owner can apply for advice and whether their dog fits the confirmation of the XL bully type. In light of reports, a substantial number of dog owners in England are now applying to deregister their dogs having established retrospectively that their pet does not conform to the defra definition of an XL bully type dog. The Scottish Government's website provides the definition used for an XL bully dog, provides a guide for owners to check if their dog is an XL bully, if they are not sure, and to determine whether their dog falls within the definition if they need to apply for an exemption certificate by the end of July. The Minister for Community Safety has written to all MSPs to provide further information about the exemption scheme, which opens on Monday 1 April, all the way till 31 July. I thank the First Minister for his reply. In England and Wales, 55,000 applications have been made for registration. 300 dogs were put down, healthy and well-behaved dogs as a result of media UK legislation following horrendous but very few fatal dog attacks, not even wholly attributable to an XL bully type. There is yet no UK guidance on how to deregister. The pet owner decides if their pet conforms to the defra definition, 20 inches in height for a dog, 19 inches for a bitch to be registered, and if it does not conform to that, you need not check the other confirmation characteristics. I suspect that the Scottish Government provides clear guidance to the public at large on a publicity scheme, on the definition and on deregistration, given that we are stuck, frankly, with this wholly unnecessary and unjust legislation. First of all, I note Christine Grahame's criticisms of the way that the UK Government brought forward the legislation. I know that she has concerns about the Scottish Government's action in that regard, but, nonetheless, she has been constructive in her challenge and I welcome that approach. I think that her ask for the Scottish Government to be crystal clear about the guidance but also seeking to look at some kind of publicity campaign is one that I will absolutely take away and give it weighty consideration. I know that the member is absolutely passionate about this issue and we are seeking to, as she recognised, close a loophole that has been created by the UK Government legislation. Therefore, it is important that the definition of anexial bully dog is consistent across the UK. On deregistring and the exemption process, we are again looking to try to have a consistent approach across the UK, and we are in discussions with the UK Government on that. Nonetheless, I will take away what Christine Grahame has said and suggested in terms of crystal clear guidance and any potential publicity that we can make that we can do around that guidance, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Much of the current confusion could have been avoided if Scotland had kept pace with other parts of the UK on regulations of this nature. Yesterday, in fact, the community safety minister reiterated the Scottish Government's position that it is deed not breed. However, that is breed-specific legislation by its very nature. In the number of weeks that we have seen attacks on people, we have had dogs killed, there are armed police, we have had to restrain this type of dog and there have been a series of very serious incidents that are sometimes fatal to humans and to other pets. Therefore, the problem is clear. What I would like to know from the First Minister is how can the Government maintain its deed not breed position that it currently holds, but more importantly, what will the Government do to enforce those new regulations and ensure that there is clarity to the public? First Minister, he makes the point that we did not keep pace with the UK legislation. We were not informed about the UK legislation. The first thing that we were ever told about was that it was via BBC News' website on 15 September, as it was being reported. It was two weeks later that the Scottish Government then received a letter from the UK Government on 29 September on the actual issue, but I had no detail at all on the specific approach and, crucially, no detail on the potential impact on Scotland. Then, on 14 November, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety wrote to the UK Government to seek clarity on controls on English and Welsh X or Bully dogs in terms of selling or gifting dogs in Scotland. On 14 December, a month later, the relevant UK Government minister replied, giving no clarity whatsoever on the issue at all. Scotland has a dog control notice that the member knows. It does not exist in England and Wales. It is a regime and a system that I have great confidence in. There is more than 1,200 active dog control notices at the moment, and X or Bully dogs represent 2 per cent of the DCNs that are in force. I stand by the deed not breed. The departure from the deed not breed approach is not one that we have taken lightly at all. We have had to respond to the circumstances in other parts of the UK. What would make our life much easier and be more consistent in terms of our approach would be if the UK Government did not just announce legislation that could have an impact in Scotland without telling us, but would engage with us beforehand? To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to expedite the restoration of the Glasgow School of Art in light of it being nearly a decade since the first fire. The Scottish Government does recognise the cultural and historical significance of the Macintosh building, its world-renowned status, the importance of the Mac to the School of Art, the city of Glasgow and, indeed, to Scotland as a whole. We have welcomed the Glasgow School of Arts plan for a faithful reinstatement of the Macintosh building. The Macintosh building is, of course, owned by the Glasgow School of Art, who has responsibility for their own strategic and operational decision making. The Glasgow School of Art's ambition is to rebuild the Mac and eventually reopen it as a graduate school for the benefit of staff, for the benefit of students and, indeed, for the benefit of the local community and the city is, I am sure, something that will be welcomed right across this chamber. Paul Sweeney, the Glasgow School of Art's Macintosh building is indeed one of the world's most revered art nouveau buildings. It is an intrinsic part of Glasgow's identity, yet the shell of the building has now been left languishing for 10 years after the devastating second fire of June 2018, as chronicled by the Herald newspaper this week. Like the French president did with Notre Dame, will the First Minister now personally intervene to expedite restoration of the Glasgow School of Art by following international best practice and establish a new statutory delivery authority with specific responsibility for developing and delivering the restoration project in concert with the Glasgow School of Art by 2030? I recognise the good work that Paul Sweeney does as a trustee of Glasgow City Heritage Trust. I know that he has a genuine interest in seeing the building as we all do, restored for the benefit of the city and the country as a whole. I would say that there are differences between the Macintosh building and, indeed, the Notre Dame Cathedral. The Notre Dame Cathedral is owned by the French Government, and the Mac is owned by the Glasgow School of Art. I would say that some of the delays—it is absolutely right for Paul Sweeney to question and other members to question the length of time that restoration is taking. It would be fair to say, as part of the context, that for a number of years the building was under the control of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service as it continued to conduct its investigation into the fire because of the complexities that took a number of years. The Glasgow School of Art continues to have responsibility for the Mac. I do not think that the Scottish Government commandeering that building is the right approach. What the Glasgow School of Art has explained in the Outland Business Case is that it expects funding for the Macintosh building to come from a whole range of sources from, say, fire insurance proceeds, donations and pledges, capital receipts and reserves. It has not made a request to the Government at this stage, but, of course, we will look to seek to ensure that we can support the Glasgow School of Art in the restoration of the Mac, because it is of critical importance. I will, after First Minister's questions, ensure that we continue to reach out to the Glasgow School of Art to see what further support we can provide. To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on what action the Scottish Government is taking to deliver the new deal for tenants. I am delighted that, on Tuesday this week, the Housing Scotland Bill was introduced to this Parliament, marking a huge milestone in our commitment to help to deliver that new deal for tenants that we are extremely proud of. The bill creates new tenants' rights. It introduces powers for longer-term private sector rent controls. It will also introduce new duties aimed at the prevention of homelessness. A fairer, well-regulated private rented sector is in the interests of both tenants and, indeed, of responsible landlords. Our proposals will help to improve affordability for tenants in the private rented sector who are recognising the importance of landlords investing in property quality. Thank you, First Minister, for his answer. The Housing Bill's publication is an important step in delivering the new deal for tenants. It includes key policies that Scottish Greens consider vital. Protections against evictions, a framework for long-term rent controls, new rights for tenants to have pets and decorate their homes. I know that many want it to go further, but vested interests say that it is already too radical. Can the First Minister say how the Scottish Government has sought to make those proposals robust against legal challenge and can he commit to ensuring that the voices of tenants are heard as loudly as those of property investors? First Minister, I am very proud of the Housing Bill and the additional protections that we are bringing forward for tenants. Let me also recognise that this is an important point to make. The vast majority of landlords are responsible and will undoubtedly have a good relationship with their tenants. I am really grateful for everybody's engagement—tenants, landlords, the private rented sector, investors and others—for their engagement over the past two years, since we first consulted on the new deal for tenants. We will of course continue to listen to the voices of tenants, as we have done throughout. Tenants who have clear rights, which they know how to exercise, feel empowered to use. It is not just good for tenants, but, as I have mentioned already, it is good for landlords and I would suggest it is good for letting agents too. I recognise that there are strong feelings around some of the measures being proposed in the bill. However, the Government believes the rented sector reform measures continue to safeguard the reasonable proportionate use of landlords' property for rental purposes, seeking to deliver a fair balance between the protection for tenants, which I think that we all accept, agree and support, and also the rights of landlords as well. I hope that we can all agree that a fairer, well-regulated rented sector is good for both tenants and responsible landlords. Yesterday, the National Tenants Union living rent described the proposed housing bill as a huge step forward for tenants. Can the First Minister outline how this new legislation will help to prevent homelessness and build on Scotland's already strong housing legislation? Scotland already has the strongest rights in the UK for people who are homeless, but we know that we can do more than we want to build on this record, hence the legislation that has been introduced. The bill brings a renewed focus on prevention so that households do not have to go through the trauma, the disruption of homelessness in the first place. Relevant bodies such as health boards will be required to ask and act about a person's housing situation, and local authorities will be required to act earlier to prevent homelessness. Matt Downey, chief executive of crisis, has, I quote, strongly welcomed the bill, saying that plans hold the potential to create a truly world-leading homelessness system. Our job, of course, is to make sure that potential translates into reality, and we are committed to working closely with stakeholders in ensuring that the guidance and training to support the new prevention duties will be fit for purpose. We move to constituency and general supplementaries. Let's keep them concise and the responses too, and I call Miles Briggs. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Two years ago, in the coming home report, ministers pledged that by March 2024 we would see real change with out-of-area residential placements and inappropriate hospital stays for young people end, and that we would see a proper care package put in place for families and families and individuals having that choice taken into account. The Government has failed to deliver that, so when will the Minister update Parliament on the promise that was made to some of the most vulnerable people and their families in our country? First of all, I recognise that Miles Briggs has a long-standing interest in the issue that he has raised at many times. I remember him raising it to me in previous ministerial guises, and what I would say to Miles Briggs is that we take the issue incredibly seriously. I will look at the latest progress in relation to the update that we have promised, but we want to make sure that we are doing right in terms of the proper care packages that those who are most vulnerable—Miles Briggs rightly describes them—are given the appropriate care. I will ensure that he is given a written update after FMQs. Colin Smyth Thank you, Presiding Officer. This week, South Lanarkshire Health and Social Care Partnership voted to close two care homes, including the climate house in Lanark, to help plug a £33 million funding shortfall. The closures will save just £600,000 next year, but are devastating for residents, older, vulnerable people who now face being kicked out of their homes. The partnership, including councillors and his own party, have written to the Scottish Government with a last-minute appeal to provide additional support to save those care homes. While the First Minister is doing the right thing, will he listen to families whose loved ones will soon lose their homes? Will he intervene and save my climate house and your house's care homes? In terms of the closure of your house and my climate house in South Lanarkshire, of course, no-one wants to see the closure of good-quality care homes. I should say that the context of that is that we have increased local government settlement for 24, 25, and, of course, we have met our ambition to increase social care spend by 25 per cent two years earlier than we said we would as well. No-one wants to see the closure of good-quality care homes, but care homes can close for a number of reasons. That is why we are committed to that national care service, which provides that national, consistent, high quality of social care support. I would say to the members that it is disappointing that South Lanarkshire Council, run by its party, is choosing to disinvest. We will be seeking assurances that alternative arrangements are put in place to support the people of South Lanarkshire. I go back to the point that we are giving a real-terms increase to a local government in budget 24, 25. The First Minister may be aware of a Glen Almond group that was limited to administration earlier this month. That led to almost 100 people being made redundant with no notice, including 94 people at Valve Components Ltd in East Kilbride. Can the First Minister outline what support has been or can be provided to the workers there? Can he also talk about his vision for the future of manufacturing in Scotland? That is a proud part of our history, but it is a sector with a key role to play in our future. I am very concerned about Valve Components Ltd's limited part of the Glen Almond group that it has entered administration with 95 immediate job losses. My immediate thoughts, of course, are with the affected employees and their families at such a difficult time. Scottish Enterprise has been lazing with the administrators and has alerted them to a number of businesses in the East Kilbride area, which have expressed an interest in recruiting some of the impacted staff. In addition to PACE information being provided to employees, a PACE event was also heard last week with a view to minimising the time that individuals affected by redundancy are out of work. I am happy for the appropriate cabinet secretary to write to Collette Stevenson with details, but we are investing in the manufacturing sector's future—notably £75 million—in the flagship building of the National Manufacturing Institute in Scotland, which I was proud to open last June. I write book festival, which has been running in Glasgow for nearly 20 years, and has been cancelled this year just weeks before it was due to return after its funding bid was rejected by Creative Scotland. This company just weeks after it was revealed that the quango initially awarded an explicit film £85,000. Can the First Minister clarify Creative Scotland's prioritisation process in cultural funding decisions, and what steps the Scottish Government is taking to safeguard the diversity and vibrancy of Glasgow's cultural landscape? I write a fantastic festival that has had the pleasure of being able to attend its events in the past and knows the value that it brings not just to the city, but to the country. Of course, Annie Wells will be aware that those decisions are for Creative Scotland to make and to make them independently of the Scottish Government ministers. Nonetheless, having been alerted to the news, I will look at what potential support the Scottish Government can provide. Annie Wells is right that I write it as a fantastic festival, and I would say that it is something with a cultural icon and institution within our festival and cultural landscape. I will examine the issue and, of course, be happy to keep the member updated. How does the First Minister respond to reports today that Brexit has cost Scotland up to £100 million a year in salmon exports? Companies have faced increased costs due to the hard Brexit that the Tories forced on Scotland, and Labour 2 has now reported the late road back on its pledge to renegotiate the UK's Brexit deal. Does the First Minister agree that, in continuing to endorse Brexit, both the Tories and the Labour are showing little regard for this vital industry? I can agree more. There is no doubt, and almost all of the independent research shows, that Brexit has been an absolutely unmitigated disaster for our economy. Complete and utter disaster OBR's forecast suggests that the UK economy will reduce by 4 per cent because of the impacts of Brexit. I expect the Conservatives, who are hard Brexit-ears, to continue down that disastrous path. I cannot understand why Labour is falling in behind the Conservatives and supporting a hard Brexit. Scotland's food and drink sector has borne the brunt of Brexit, which has disrupted supply trains, created new barriers to trade and driven up food prices. Anna Sauer and Jackie Billie are laughing at the damage that is done at the food and drink sector. It is no laughing matter, because it is crystal clear that there is a Westminster consensus in favour of Brexit, no matter what the cost to Scotland. The only way to stop that damage and re-join the European Union is for Scotland to become an independent nation. Neil Bibby Thank you, Presiding Officer. Good journalism is absolutely crucial to a healthy democracy. No-one here would claim to relish being confronted by a microphone by the likes of Bernard Ponsomay over the last 34 years he has shortened the career of many politicians, but we all recognise the crucial job he has done and his excellent colleagues across our media continue to do. However, normal service will be disrupted today, as National Union of Journalists members at SDV take strike action for the first time in over 20 years. Counter-up to perceptions, I understand that half of the newsroom are paid less than a teacher's starting salary. Despite SDV posting £20 million of profits, they are the only broadcaster not to be passing on a percentage pay increase that meets inflation to all of their workers. In the context of its fair work responsibilities, can I ask the First Minister what representations the Government has made to SDV on this matter and to encourage meaningful negotiations, a fair deal for the journalists and an end to this dispute? Let me start with Neil Bibby. Let me praise and pay tribute to Bernard Ponsomay, his long standing Korean journalism of over 30 years. I wish him well in his retirement. I am grateful that I do not have to be on the other end of a tough interview from him. Although it is not for the Scottish Government to directly intervene in this dispute, I would absolutely urge, as Neil Bibby has asked me to do, to get around the table with the employees and their union to try to ensure that a satisfactory outcome can be reached. I was speaking to some SDV journalists again on the other end of an interview just yesterday, and I was being told that one of the areas and reasons for concerns is the disparity between how ITV is treating its employees versus SDV and its employees. It is our long standing position that a progressive approach to industrial relations along with stronger protections for workers and fair pay is at the very heart of a more successful society. We will continue to support trade unions right across a variety of sectors and we would encourage SDV, in this instance, to immediately get around the table in order to get a fair pay settlement for SDV employees and, of course, crucially, journalists too. News yesterday that Visit Scotland planned to close its iCenter network across the country by 2026 and pursue a digital first strategy has come as a shock in the Northern Isles, which rely on tourism. Does the First Minister share the view of some in the tourism sector that this is a retrograde step, and is he able to indicate if any impact assessment has been conducted on island communities affected by Visit Scotland's decision? Of course, it is really important for Visit Scotland to continue its engagement with the tourism sector. It has done that in relation to this decision. Visit Scotland's own research shows that 99 per cent of visitors now book accommodation in advance of travelling, and 67 per cent of global travellers book their whole itineraries in advance of arriving at their destination using online tools, social media or, indeed, travel intermediaries. A number of visitors using iCenters have significantly dropped over several years, but particularly after Covid, and the decrease from 2019 to 2023 ranges from 16 per cent to 57 per cent across 25 locations. Notwithstanding that, the points that Beatrice Wishart makes are important, and I would expect Visit Scotland to continue to engage in what is an important sector for Scotland, the tourism industry, which is worth so much to us, but also opens Scotland up to the rest of the world. That concludes First Minister's Questions. The next item of business is a member's business debate in the name of Christine Grahame, and there will now be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.