 That concludes general questions. The next item of business is First Minister's questions. Question number one, I call Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This week the Government rejected amendments to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill that would have stopped those awaiting trial for a sexual offence from changing gender. The amendment from Michelle Thompson supported by Russell Finlay would have prevented the amser manfaen nhw ynherwydd i fynd i'r rywfydd yn cael ei wneud â hynny. Mae wneud yn nhw ffasiliaid i ddull i'r bwysig, ddyn nhw'n nhw'n nhw'n nhw'n nhw'n nhw yddydd mahuaeth, yn felfwyr sylfaenol i'w ffordd o gyrfa yn gw�r fawr gan eu proffinirau yn teimlo'r eu cyfathion i'r ffordd. Michelle Thomson fel yng nghymru sydd wedi gweld i ddweud i gyd ni ffrindu rhesu ar hyn o ddwyf, rysg, gwyfodol, i brosesiawn. Rhai ddiwedd allan o gyd y gwybrae phôr o'r ffordd fawr. The Government stopped that amendment by a single vote. The First Minister's own vote means that a man standing trial for rape can claim they're a woman and force a victim to call them she. Why did the First Minister vote for this? ymddian nhw'n mynd i feddwl am iawn, ond fel rwyfwyr bod cael eu chael yn ei syrfa a ddechrau i gael i'ch ddarlleniaeth i'r oedd yn dweud. Mae'n cael ei fod yn gwneud i gael i'ch ddiogel i'ch drafodio'r ac i'chء o'r aegon i'ch cael ei gael i'ch ddiogel i'ch ddau oherwydd roi'i ddau buser ac dydag oedd yn ddim yn ffordd i'ch gweinog i'ch gael i'ch ddiogel yw rhai a'r llwy. Over the course of the past two days, we have heard set out in this chamber many of the different ways in which predatory men can abuse women. My argument is not, and it has never been and never will be that these are not very real ways in which predatory men abuse My argument is that none of these ways are created by this bill and nor would it be the case that any of these ways are addressed by denying rights to trans people. The fact of the matter is, a man who wants to abuse a woman, even a man who wants to masquerade as a woman in order to do so, does not need a gender recognition certificate to do that, nor does having a gender recognition certificate give that man any more ability or rights to do that than is currently the case. What we must focus on are the men who abuse women, the predatory and abusive men who do that, and this Government always will in a range of different ways. Where amendments were rejected over the course of the last two days, it was often the case that that was because there were alternative amendments that were passed to strengthen safeguards in this bill, but amendments that were compliant in the view of the Government with ECHR and competence issues in a way that some of those rejected were not. For example, in terms of sex offenders, amendments by Shona Robison and Gillian Martin were agreed by Parliament. Those have been serious issues seriously considered by this Parliament as is right and proper. We supported those amendments, but they were weaker than the amendment from Michelle Thompson. Roddie Dunlop, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, said of Gillian Martin's amendment, that it will not prevent harm, it will reduce the risk of harm. On ECHR, Roddie Dunlop also said on that vote, I can conceive of no sensible basis on which this amendment might be rejected. That's from the head of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, but the First Minister's point here seems to be that this won't happen, that there's no chance that a violent predatory male will ever try to exploit loopholes to attack or further traumatise women. But what if that does happen? Why would any of us leave the possibility that that could happen? One offence like that is one too many. Stopping an accused sex offender from changing gender is common sense. What is it that the First Minister and half of this Parliament thought was right to leave open the chance that that could happen? First Minister. Firstly, it is not my position and I didn't say and have never said that predatory men will not seek to abuse women. My argument is that it is not this bill that creates the opportunities for them to do. So these opportunities unfortunately exist already and it's those that we have to tackle. Nor would not passing this bill remove the opportunities for predatory men to seek to do that. The reasons for the rejection of those particular amendments and the alternative amendments that were put forward have been set out to this Parliament over the course of the debate in the last two days and a majority in the Parliament has taken a decision. That's how our parliamentary democracy operates. Let me set out again exactly what the position is as a result of those amendments that were accepted is. First, I remind the chamber that we have in place already current provisions for the management of sex offenders that are robust, but we have already, indeed before stage 3, given the commitment to expand the reporting requirements to include notification about an application for gender recognition. The amendments by Shona Robison and Gillian Martin and, of course, agreed by a majority of this Parliament at stage 3 further strengthen that, so those will mean that no further action can be taken on a GRC application where the police have applied for a sexual offences prevention order, sexual harm prevention order or sexual risk order that would prevent a GRC application. It's also my final point, Presiding Officer. Those are safeguards in this legislation that don't exist in the current gender recognition legislation because an important point that is often lost in this debate, because when you listen to this debate, it sometimes sounds as if this bill is either inventing trans people or creating for the first time a process by which somebody can legally change their gender, it is not that process exists and those safeguards that I have just set out don't exist in the current law, but they will exist in this new legislation. The First Minister speaks about majority votes, but we know on Michelle Thompson's amendment it came down to just one vote and at First Minister's questions I'm asking the First Minister about her one vote because that amendment simply asked to pause the period that people can apply to have their gender changed if they are on trial for such serious offences. What was the problem with just pausing that opportunity for someone when they are on trial for such a serious offence? It seems to be the First Minister has not taken the people of Scotland with her on these issues. Polling shows that a majority of Scots are firmly against key parts of this bill. A majority oppose reducing the time applicants must have lived in their acquired gender from two years to six months and a majority oppose removing the requirement for a doctor's diagnosis of gender dysphoria. That includes a majority of Conservative voters, but crucially it also includes a majority of Liberal Democrat voters, Labour voters and SNP voters. Lowering the age threshold for a gender recognition certificate was the most opposed aspect of this bill. Two thirds were against it and again this included 63% of SNP voters, 67% of Labour voters and 75% of Liberal Democrats. Despite this all three parties are backing the bill today. So why does the First Minister and her allies in this chamber believe they know better than the public? First Minister, we could all point to different polls on this issue. I could point to polls showing very strong support for what this bill is doing, including very strong support amongst women across this country. Fundamentally, and perhaps this is a point of agreement with Douglas Ross, all of us are elected to this Parliament and all of us have a very serious responsibility to make decisions and to be accountable for those decisions. At stage 1 we will take the stage 3 vote on this bill later this afternoon, but at stage 1 this bill was supported by members across every party in this chamber including some members of Douglas Ross's party and all of us will be accountable for the decisions we take on this bill as we are accountable for all the decisions we take here. That is democracy and I stand by the decisions I take and I will be accountable and I will set out the reasons for my decisions to people across Scotland on this and on every other issue. Removing the need for medical diagnosis for a trans person who wants to legally change their gender is actually one of the purposes of this legislation because the need for that is one of the most intrusive, traumatic and dehumanising parts of the current system. As a woman I know very much what it is like to live with the fear at times of potential violence from men. I am a feminist. I will argue for women's rights. I will do everything I can to protect women's rights for as long as I live. I also think that it is an important part of my responsibility to make life a little bit easier for stigmatised minorities in our country, to make their lives a bit better and to remove some of the trauma that they live with on a day-to-day basis. I think that it is important to do that for the tiny minority of trans people in our society and I will never apologise for trying to spread equality, not reduce it in our country. Finally, to come back to the starting question from Douglas Ross in that latest question, the reasons for not accepting Michelle Thompson and Russell Finlay's amendments yesterday were set out at length by Shona Robison because we, having carefully considered them, would not have been compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. All of our legislation has to be and therefore would have potentially compromised the bill. Therefore we sought an alternative way of achieving the same objectives and that is what I have set out already. Douglas Ross. Let's be very clear. We supported Gillian Martin's amendment but it was weaker, it is weaker than Michelle Thompson's and we had an opportunity in this Parliament and the First Minister's vote could have made a difference to strengthen that element. But let's also be clear that the public are not against improvements to support trans people. They are against this bill. The problem is not reform, the problem is the First Minister's reforms. While there may be a majority in this chamber later today to support this legislation, a majority of the public oppose the bill, including most SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters. This bill reduces women's rights and potentially risks women's safety but it doesn't need to be this way. So let me ask the First Minister and all the Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP members who support it, shouldn't they take the time to get this right instead of charging ahead with a bill that the people of Scotland do not support? First Minister. This is a bill that has been six years in the making. There have been two full consultations. Today will be the culmination of a full and robust legislative process. In the last two days alone, we have had around 20 hours of debate on amendments. This is possibly the most scrutinised piece of legislation in the history of this Parliament. The issue here, Presiding Officer, and I say this entirely respectfully, is not the lack of scrutiny. It is that the majority in this Parliament, made up of members from all parties, including members in Douglas Ross's party, have respectfully disagreed with the arguments that the Tories have put forward. Many of those arguments have been completely unrelated to the purpose and effect of this bill. That is the reality. Douglas Ross says that he is not opposed to reform, he is just opposed to this bill. I have listened very carefully, not just in the last two days, but throughout this debate. I have not heard from Douglas Ross at any time, any explanation or any sense of what form of bill he would have been prepared to support. I suspect that Douglas Ross would have voted against this bill, regardless of what amendments had been proposed to it. That is his right, Presiding Officer. I will be corrected if I am wrong about this, but I think that I have heard Douglas Ross say that, in the past, had he been in this Parliament when we had considered equal marriage, he would have voted against that, but has since changed his mind. All of us have to consider these things carefully. I have thought very deeply about all of these issues for a long time, and I will be accountable for the decisions that I make on this bill in this Parliament. I will always stand up for women's rights, but I am proud of the fact that I hope that this afternoon Parliament will vote for a piece of legislation that will make the lives of trans people in this country that little bit better and easier. I think that that is actually something to be proud of. Question 2, Anna Sarwar. Presiding Officer, on this last day of business, can I start by wishing you and members across this chamber a very merry Christmas? In particular to the Parliament staff and all of our staff, we wish them all the best for the new year. Over Christmas, thousands of NHS staff will be working when most of us will be spending time with our family and friends. They all deserve our thanks for the work that they are doing to keep the NHS going over the winter and indeed all year round. Our health service heroes do not just deserve our thanks, they deserve better pay and conditions too. Will the First Minister commit to get back round the table with the Royal College of Nurses, the Royal College of Midwives and the GMB to listen to their concerns, act on them and avoid strikes next year? I will come directly to that point in a second because it is one that I take very seriously and the Government is, I will continue to work very hard on. Can I also take the opportunity to wish you members across the chamber and all of our staff a very happy Christmas? Can I take the opportunity, particularly as we break for Christmas this year, to thank the staff of this Parliament for the way in which they have gone above and beyond to support us in our responsibilities over the course of this week? We are deeply grateful. Can I also take the opportunity to thank every single man and woman who works across our health and care services? We do that every year but it is more important and more appropriate this year than it has ever been before. In direct answer to Annas Sarwar's question, the health secretary will be meeting with trade unions tomorrow. He was originally supposed to do that this afternoon but parliamentary business has intervened. He will do that tomorrow. Just as has been the case up until now, we will do everything that we can to avoid industrial action in our national health service. Unlike England Wales and Northern Ireland, we have so far avoided industrial action in our health service. We will do that because we want to avoid the disruption that that will bring to patients across the country. We also want to do that because we value those who work in our national health service. I want to make sure that they get the best possible pay rise that we can give them. We have maximised what we can do within this financial year. Compared to England, where there is a Conservative Government, Wales, where there is a Labour Government and the health service agenda for change staff are being offered an average of 4.5 per cent in Scotland, the offer is 7.5 per cent an average. That is a sign of how deeply we value our health care workers and we will continue to have discussions, meaningful discussions to do everything possible to reward them appropriately and to avoid any disruption in our health service. I welcome that the health secretary will be meeting with the unions tomorrow, and I sincerely hope that we can find an agreement to get through this crisis. But these trade unions are not just striking about pay. They are warning about patient safety and conditions in our hospitals. More than a year ago, the health secretary announced a catch-up plan for our NHS, but things are getting worse for patients. In August 2021, when the catch-up plan was announced, 76 per cent of people going to A&E were seen within four hours. That has now fallen to 62 per cent. In July 2021, 83 per cent of people were being seen within the 62-day standard for cancer treatment. That has now fallen to 74.7 per cent. When the catch-up plan was launched, 64 per cent of patients were being seen within the legally binding 12-week treatment time guarantee, that has now fallen to 56 per cent. Patients and staff are crying out for this Government to get a grip. The catch-up plan has failed. Why is the Government persisting with this failing plan, and when will they bring forward a new one? First Minister, just to complete my answer on pay and to reiterate that this Government will continue to make every effort to avoid industrial action. We are so far the only part of the UK that has avoided industrial action. What I am about to say is not intended as a criticism of the Government in Wales, because I know how difficult it is because it is working within the same constraints as we are constraints imposed upon us by the UK Government. We have seen industrial action in Wales where Labour is in government because there has not been the same negotiations that led to a higher pay offer than has been the case elsewhere in the UK. The reason I say that is because people should take that as a very clear signal that we will do everything within our power and resources. Those resources this year are expended, but we will continue to do everything that we can to avoid industrial action. Part of the offer to NHS workers includes offers around non-pay elements, and we will continue to explore how far we can go there as well. On the catch-up plan, of course, since the catch-up plan was published, we have had further waves of Covid. The pressures on our NHS have increased, and we have seen waiting times deteriorate as a result of that in many respects. That said, we are seeing progress in reducing the numbers who are waiting longest. If we look at inpatient day-case treatment, the longest waits have been reduced by almost a quarter. We are seeing progress in CAMHS waiting times. We covered that in some detail last week. Those are the toughest of times for our health service. As we go into this festive period, not just Covid but flu, other respiratory illnesses and cold weather, we are all posing for the health challenges. Our job is to continue to support the health service, and that is exactly what we will do. The fact that the First Minister cannot escape from is that performance is getting worse not better since the catch-up plan. Failures have consequences. Patients are being asked to accept the unacceptable, and staff are being asked to do the impossible, and lives are being lost. On nearly every measure, things are worse than when the health secretary launched the catch-up plan. Let's look at this Government's report card against their own performance standards. A and E waiting times failed. Delayed discharge failed. CAMHS waiting times failed. 12 weeks first outpatient appointment failed. Eight weeks referral to treatment failed. Cancer treatment times failed. Detect cancer early failed. GP waits failed. Treatment time guarantee failed. When will the First Minister wake up and realise that when it comes to the national health service, that this First Minister and this health secretary have failed? First Minister. Sound bites and full anger will not address the challenges in the health service. Patients and the public have a right to be angry and frustrated right now, but they also have a right to expect a Government that is addressing these issues. I have not stood here and suggested that there are not significant and over recent months increasing challenges on the NHS and therefore on the performance measures that we have in the national health service. We are seeing that across England, Wales, Northern Ireland health services across the world as the continuing impact of the pandemic and the other pressures on our NHS right now mounts. That is why we are increasing investment beyond any consequential funding next year for the NHS. A billion pounds extra, asking those who earn the most in this country to pay a bit more in tax so that we can give more resources to our national health service. We are continuing to support record recruitment and numbers of staff in the national health service and we are starting to see progress on the longest waits. What is happening here is that demand is going up and many of these performance indicators, the NHS is treating more patients but there are more patients coming forward for treatment. So nobody knows better than I do the health secretary, the Government, the challenges that we face here which is why we remain focused on supporting our NHS through these challenges in the various ways that I have set out. Question 3, Arianne Burgess. To ask the First Minister what actions the Scottish Government will take forward as a result of COP 15, the 15th conference of the parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. First Minister. I welcome the outcome reached at COP and of course that now must be followed up by all parties and at all levels with immediate and urgent plans for implementation. Our draft biodiversity strategy which was published last week sets out how the Scottish Government will do this. It establishes our long term ambition and vision for a nature positive future and sets out some of the immediate actions we will take to halt nature loss by 2030. I'm also proud that the Edinburgh process which was led by the Scottish Government on behalf of the convention on biological diversity culminated at COP 15 with over 300 sub-national, local and regional governments joining our call for action. The resulting plan of action on biological diversity was adopted as part of the framework agreed in Montreal this week. Ariane Burgess. I thank the First Minister for her answer. It's great to see Scotland playing an influential role on the world stage and supporting global progress to tackle the nature emergency. The Montreal agreement could be a turning point in our fight to protect and restore our natural environment to stop the declines and distinctions and protect the life support systems we all depend on. My agreement is only worth the actions that results in Scotland can help make the new global diversity framework a success by moving quickly to implement it. That means big change to how our land and seas are managed and looked after for current and future generations. One of the key actions in the new framework is to protect 30 per cent of our land and seas by 2030. However, recent reports have shown that many seas in Scotland are already protected and are in poor condition. Can the First Minister confirm that, as part of delivering 30x30 in Scotland, the level of protection will be improved and nature recovery will be supported in these important places? That was a really important question, not just in the here and now but for the future of our nature and for the future of the planet. I think that it was really good to see the headline target to protect at least 30 per cent by 2030 in the new global framework and, of course, we are committed to implementing this in Scotland. Let me reiterate that we are committed to the expansion and improvement of areas managed for nature and our 30x30 programme will promote ecological restoration and safeguard at a scale never seen before in Scotland. Although almost 80 per cent of features at protected areas are in favourable or recovering condition and the long-term trend is one of improvement, I agree that we can and must do more. We are committed to working at a landscape scale and taking a collaborative approach to tackle the negative pressures on protected areas and we are currently working with NatureScot to take forward a co-design process with stakeholders to develop a framework through which our 30x30 commitment will be delivered. Liam Kerr. Crucial to biodiversity is peatland restoration and the Climate Change Committee recommends restoring 45,000 hectares per year by 2022. The Government's target was a mere 20,000 hectares. However, in 2020-21 this Government restored 8,000 hectares and it is reported that 80 per cent of Scotland's peatlands are degraded. The First Minister said earlier that the biodiversity strategy sets out actions the Government will take. What actions is the Government taking right now to restore those peatlands and in which year will she meet the restoration target? We are investing records amounts and we are committed to record investments in peatland restoration. I am happy to write to the member with more details of the timescales and our expectations around that. However, we are recognised as setting the pace and peatland restoration is one of the key levers and the key tools that we have at our disposal. The final thing I would say is something for all of us but particularly those in Government to reflect on very seriously across all of these areas no Government anywhere is yet doing enough or doing as much as we need to do. Therefore, it is really important that we continue to challenge ourselves and that we continue to be challenged. I welcome this line of questioning and want to see the maximum possible challenge on this Government to make sure that we are not just setting the targets but making the investments and taking the actions to meet those targets because there are a few more important areas of work for any Government anywhere on the planet right now. I apologise for not being in my space from the outset at First Minister's Questions. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will set a clear ambition in its planned energy strategy for delivery of 4 to 6 gigawatts of solar power by 2030. Energy generated from solar can, without a shadow, make a very significant contribution both to the decarbonisation of our energy supply but also to the just transition that we need to make to a net zero emissions society by 2045. A draft energy strategy and just transition plan will be published very early in January when we return from the recess and will contain a clear vision for the future development of solar energy. That will include the action that the Scottish Government is taking to remove barriers to solar deployment and we will also seek views and evidence on whether and at what level a deployment ambition should be set. It's vital that we ensure any deployment ambition is appropriate, stretching but also achievable and I would encourage all stakeholders to engage with the draft vision and consultation process. Fergus Ewing. Your answer to First Minister will be received very warmly by those across all parties that support developing Scotland's solar potential so I'm very grateful for that. I wonder if I can just pursue one aspect however and that is that in the planning system and the national planning framework precedence is given to those forms of renewable energy where there is a clear identified ambition and target. No target, little development the opportunity may slip through our fingers like mercury so in order to achieve the enormous potential that solar energy can contribute to our transition to a clean electricity system of generation will the First Minister bear this point in mind so that precedence is given to solar power by having a very clear practical deliverable achievable target? First Minister I'm sure I know Fergus Ewing would have been listening very carefully to what I said I think without going further before we've published the consultation what I was very clearly indicating in talking about consulting on whether and at what level we set a deployment ambition that I do recognise the importance for the reason Fergus Ewing set out but for other reasons as well not least activating a supply chain of importance attached to targets that's why we already have targets for offshore and onshore wind for hydrogen for example so I hope Fergus Ewing will take that positively and the final thing I would say what she has already alluded to and this is a reason for consulting on this it's important and go back to the previous question here it's important not just that we set a target but that we make sure that is both stretching and achievable so the consultation will be a success which is why I would encourage all those with an interest to take part in it Question 5 Morris Golden To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reported warnings that the implementation of the deposit return scheme will be an I quote ruinous for consumers and businesses First Minister I don't agree that the deposit return scheme will be a major part of our efforts to reduce litter, cut emissions and build a more circular economy good progress is being made by industry ahead of the scheme's introduction in August 2023 and that indeed is reflected in the most recent gateway review which noted that good progress has been made and that successful delivery of the scheme is now achievable I'm aware of business concerns and some outstanding issues and we take them seriously that's why we've committed to a pragmatic approach to implementation and are taking action to help make the scheme more efficient and to reduce costs. Last week for example fees for drinks producers were substantially reduced by the scheme administrator and we committed to lay regulations so that only the largest grocery retailers will be obliged initially to provide a take back service for online and distance sales Morris Golden Minister for that answer the deposit return scheme has been scaled back but we all want it to to succeed but understandably businesses are worried about the potential for it to go wrong that worry is fuelled by the confusion secrecy and lack of information that surrounds the scene. I know none of us wants that and we must make sure the scheme is more transparent to increase confidence in it. The Scottish Government has the power to make the scheme administrator subject to freedom of information requests. Will the First Minister do that? First Minister, I will give consideration to any request in any suggestion that is made in the chamber so I will take that away and give that consideration and discuss that with colleagues. I do believe though there is transparency around the work that has been done around the scheme. We had a review carried out just in October concluding that the programme has gained increased momentum, is an improved position and that go live date in August is feasible. I think that is testament to the efforts being made by industry by Circularity Scotland working together to ensure that the scheme is implemented. Last week the minister wrote to the committee setting out the further steps that we are taking listening to the concerns of industry to make the scheme more efficient and to reduce costs. The day 1 payments are being reduced. Last week we published new producer fees rather Circularity Scotland published new producer fees that are lower than previously indicated and other changes have been made to try to take account of the concerns of industry. I think that is positive and of course we will continue that collaborative approach as we go through the months leading up to implementation. Thank you. Has the Scottish Government asked those conducting the gateway reviews into the deposit return scheme to interview representatives of organisations who are running successful deposit return systems especially those who have most recently set up their systems that are much cheaper for producers and have come online more quickly? First Minister I'm certainly happy to check the detail to that question. I'm not sure exactly which individuals or organisations the member is alluding to whether here in Scotland or in other countries that already have schemes in place I would expect any gateway review to take broad based evidence but in terms of what particular organisations have been spoken to and what detail has been attracted from that I will come back to the member for detail in due course. Question 6 To ask the First Minister what progress the Government has made in ending the use of hotels as temporary accommodation for children and families. First Minister Local authorities have used hotels to discharge their duties as part of the emergency response to Covid the data on this is held by local authorities rather than by the Scottish Government however our homelessness in Scotland statistics showed that although there was an increase in the number of children in temporary accommodation in 2020-21-22 the social sector was the most common type of temporary accommodation used 20 local authorities have reduced the number of households living in temporary accommodation when compared to 2021 and 10 of those have reduced the number of children in temporary accommodation the housing minister has asked an expert group for an action plan to reduce the numbers of people in temporary accommodation and the length of time spent there with a strong focus on households with children I thank the First Minister for that answer but in response to a recent written question her cabinet secretary acknowledged that hotels are unsuitable accommodation for people seeking asylum and condemned the home office's use of bed and breakfasts however I understand that lone children who may be seeking asylum and are in the care of Scottish local authorities are also being placed an unregulated hotel accommodation amongst adult members of the wider homeless population and without cooking or laundry facilities the Scottish Government condemning home office's use of hotel accommodation means nothing if devolved care services are acting in the same manner so can the First Minister advise what steps this working group are taking to urgently relocate these lone children to supported accommodation and can she make a commitment that no further children who are alone will be placed at risk in these unregulated hotels First Minister I agree absolutely with the sentiment of that question if Paul Sweeney has any more information he wants to pass to us about instances that he is talking about here I would be very keen to look at that none of us want to see any children where we can possibly avoid it in temporary hotel or bed and breakfast accommodation but certainly not lone children in the kind of circumstances that have been narrated to the chamber and further into that specific point more generally none of us want to see hotel accommodation being used as temporary accommodation unless that is absolutely necessary I know I have situations in my own constituency where this is an issue both for homeless people and for communities as well but there have been demands on local authorities particularly during Covid it should be stressed though that most temporary accommodation is in the social sector and as I said many local authorities are now seeing the situation in that but there is much work to do here which is why we are investing in more affordable housing investing more in homelessness services prioritising the housing first model so these are really important issues and I know the housing secretary would be happy to engage further about some of the particulars behind the question Thank you, we will now take general and constituency supplementaries and I call Paul McClennan Nearly 2 million UK households are behind on bill payments according to a new survey from which as the Tory cost of living crisis runs out of control, can I ask the First Minister what support is the Scottish Government providing to people to help them to stay afloat this winter and what more could the Scottish Government be doing but had the full powers of our tax, welfare and energy pricing Many people as we go into this festive season of course are finding life more difficult than at any time that most of us can remember and I think we have to be very aware of that. The cost of living crisis is hurting very many individuals, families businesses right across the country The Scottish Government is doing and will continue to do everything we can to help people to deal with that as it has been set out many times in the chamber we are investing around £3 billion in this year on initiatives and measures that will help people with the cost of living we have taken new initiatives such as the Scottish child payment for example we have spoken I have personally convened summits with the energy companies and advice agencies to ensure that we are doing as much as possible Although it is true to say that many of the root causes of what we are dealing with right now lie out with the powers of this Government to full control over the tax and the benefits system of course regulation of the energy sector and if we had those powers it is undoubtedly the case that we would be able to do much more in a more coherent and joined up way to help people not just deal with the consequences of this but to deal much better with the root causes too Thank you, Liz Smith Thank you May I ask again if the First Minister will finally grant a full independent inquiry for the former patients of Professor El Jamil There are now 50 former patients who have come forward each with their very harrowing stories and the First Minister will be aware that several other MSPs including Michael Marra now believe that this is the only way to get to the truth and deliver justice for these former patients First Minister We will continue to give consideration to that call to absolutely understand the views of those who have been affected and the ordeal that they have suffered The Cabinet Secretary has met with the health board leadership the review commissioned already by the Scottish Government including detailed reviews of care but of course we understand the desire of patients to ensure that any process that can lead them to an assurance that they have all of the answers that they can possibly get we understand that desire and while we are not at this stage convinced that a public inquiry would lead any more to that we will continue to give consideration to that Thank you, Presiding Officer I would like to raise with the First Minister the case of a constituent who has contacted me after being told that waiting list for a young lizard capsule tommy treatment can be as long as 70 weeks This constituent is going blind struggling to care for disabled children and having difficulty sleeping because he needs this procedure I have already raised this matter with the Cabinet Secretary for Health who blamed the pandemic for the waiting times but contrary to his response NHS Lothian have told me that these waiting times are not in effect down to the Covid but instead down to lack of leisure available to perform the treatment Could I ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that NHS has the equipment it needs to tackle the waiting list if it is acceptable that people should be told that they are on a 16-month waiting list with failing eyesight for a treatment that typically takes only a few minutes Can I say two things one particular and one more general on the particular I appreciate the member says he has already written to the Cabinet Secretary I will look at the detail of that case myself particularly if the health board is saying there is no lack of equipment and if there is action we can take there we will certainly give consideration to that the more general point is actually a point I made earlier in response to Anna Sarwar we are focusing on reducing in these times of significant pressure on reducing the times of those who have been waiting longest for treatment and that is where we are seeing progress I appreciate that is no comfort to somebody who is still waiting but we have seen a 24% reduction already in the longest waits for inpatient treatment and that is why we will continue to focus on the longest waits because we know the distress that that can cause but in the particular case that has been raised I will look at the circumstances and if there is more information I can offer I will write to the member Bill Kidd Travellers throughout the UK are going to experience disruption over the festive period as a result of what the STC General Secretary described as the competitive approach to negotiations taken by the UK Government can I ask the FM what representations she has made to the UK Government to get round the table and engage constructively with trade unions to secure a rail with the benefits users, staff and the wider public First Minister I appreciate Bill Kidd raising this issue I mean as he has said but it is important to underline this this is not a Scottish dispute the Scottish Government has maintained constructive discussions with trade unions and we have settled pay negotiations here by embracing the concept of fair work despite that passengers in Scotland are still facing severe disruption as a result of the on-going UK-wide rail dispute between Network Rail the UK Government and trade unions Network Rail employees in Scotland face entering the new year still with no pay rise and the travelling public face further disruption so while this is not a matter in which the Scottish Government has any direct look is unfortunately I yesterday joined with the STUC in calling for the Secretary of State to intervene immediately to avoid further disruption for users, staff and taxpayers and to deliver a fair pay deal for those who work on our railways and I hope that's something the entire Parliament can get behind and Sue Whipper First Minister MSPs have been sitting in this chamber for the past two days in a row on Tuesday as the stage 3 gender recognition debate was under way, one woman was thrown out of the gallery and another law abiding woman was threatened with arrest legislation rushed, criticism ignored and women silenced does the First Minister agree that events of this week have reflected badly on this bill's passage through Parliament First Minister I think some of the elements of our proceedings this week have reflected badly on the Conservative Party neither I recognise different and sincerely held views on this bill but notwithstanding that what we saw from the Conservative Party were deliberate attempts to filly buster, to delay and to frustrate the decision making process neither yesterday or the day before where we timetabled to go beyond midnight or anything like it the reason it took so long was the filly bustering and other actions of the Conservative Party Beyond that as you well know I am not responsible for policing the public gallery I support those who do that very difficult and important job but that is not for me what I do believe are different views on this legislation or any matter all of us should always treat this Parliament with respect and allow it to do its work properly and perhaps the Conservative Party might want to reflect on that over the recess that concludes First Minister's questions point of order Rachel Hamilton may I seek your guidance in relation to rule 9.12 of standing orders which sets out the provisions for financial resolutions for bills at all stages before any amendments were lodged to the bill the Scottish Government's own cost and that's the GRR bill own cost estimates were half a million pounds for the legislation which as members know is the threshold for triggering the need for a financial resolution and given the nature of several amendments which passed at stage 3 I am concerned that these costs will now have increased for example Gillian Martin's amendment imposed additional requirements on Police Scotland when they apply for sexual offence prevention orders there are currently no costs mentioned in the financial memorandum incurred on Police Scotland but this will clearly add one there are amendments adding in new offences of fraud which will require our judicial authorities to receive more resources to deal with the additional offences that we have to interact with as a result of this bill's passage again no costs are mentioned in the financial memorandum about costs to deal with new offences created under the bill so this needs to be factored in a new section was added in at stage 2 of the bill allowing sheriffs to make an order applying to revoke a gender recognition certificate application upon request to the register general this would impose an additional case load on sheriffs which are not mentioned in the financial memorandum furthermore the Scottish Government are required to produce further guidance as a result of amendments passed during this bill's proceedings and the register general must publish information on the website neither of which are mentioned in the financial memorandum and will add further costs to the Scottish administration so I seek your guidance in commencing the following debate I believe that we would be in breach of standing orders rule 9.12.3 and 3A states and I quote no proceedings may be taken on the bill at any stage after stage 1 unless the Parliament has by resolution agreed to the expenditure we would not deem to pre-empt your ruling on this matter do you agree that proceedings should at least be suspended in order to examine the cost implications of these amendments and provide a ruling on any new requirement for a financial resolution thank you I thank Ms Hamilton for her point of order a financial resolution is of course required indeed if the likely expenditure arising from the bill would be above £500,000 in any one financial year in the case of this bill at introduction I determined that the likely expenditure arising from this bill would not exceed that figure a series of amendments lodged at stages 2 and 3 potentially had cost effects for future financial years but I can confirm that none of these amendments either on their own or cumulatively were considered to take the costs above the threshold in any one contribution a new payment a new payment a new. A new payment a new payment a new payment a new payment