 The next item of business is First Minister's Questions. At question number one, I call Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The Daily Mail has today reported that SNP Minister Jenny Gilruth just sat behind the First Minister may have broken the ministerial code. The former transport minister, who Hulmeser use have promoted to be Cabinet Secretary for Education, o'r planu bwysig i'r hunain ar gyfer 18 yma, yn ôl dim wneud â'r cyllideb yn ddechrau. Mae plantach yn ymShouldherd maen nhw'n rhesymu gyda'r cyllideb yn gŷiais i'r reilredu sylfeedhe invento'r lle bwysig i'r cyllideb yn ei ddillogun i'r awsg хочетсяio sy'n ei ddilloguaeth. Genni Gilruth yn edrych o bwysig i'r cyllideb yn fwylonig cychwyn i'r cyllideb yn gilydd at a higher cost to taxpayers and far more disruption to passengers. Does the First Minister think that it is acceptable for a minister to make a political decision for her own benefit instead of acting in the interests of all of Scotland? Can I say to Douglas Ross that he is making very serious accusations indeed. Of course, if there are any accusations of the ministerial code being broken, of course, they will be appropriately investigated. That is an accusation that Douglas Ross is making, of course, will appropriately investigate it. However, I do not believe the way that Douglas Ross has characterised that particular situation to be correct at all. Sunday, 21 May, ScotRail's new timetable came into effect this year. That is another important step towards Scotland's railways, as it continues to recover. Will those timetable changes happen regularly in terms of when they happened when Jenny Gilruth was the transport secretary? It was done for the correct reason, certainly from the investigation that I have done this morning, from when the story, as Douglas Ross has come into the public consciousness. Douglas Ross has invested heavily and significantly into railway services. We have proudly taken ScotRail back into public ownership, and every decision that we make, every decision that any transport minister under this Government has made, has been to the benefit of the entire railway network, including passengers up and down the country. I do not believe the way that Douglas Ross has characterised the situation, is how it has taken place. However, of course, I will investigate the issue further. Let us just clear up some of the things that the First Minister said. He said that he is going to investigate, but he said that he investigated this morning and sees no fault in what Jenny Gilruth did. He also questions my characterisation of what happened. Let us go through some of the pages and pages of FOI emails that we have seen. A freedom of information response makes it clear that, instead of a few days of closures after Christmas, Jenny Gilruth pushed for changes that would lead to six weeks of disruption, including four full weekends. Jenny Gilruth is very keen to intervene here, but I am just reading out what we have received. Mr Ross, if you just give me a moment, I am absolutely sure that I do not need to remind members of the rules regarding behaviour in this chamber. Just be grateful if you did hear to those, Mr Ross. Jenny Gilruth seems to have a lot to say about this, so it would be interesting to hear what she has told the First Minister, because ScotRail advised in those emails that the plans that Jenny Gilruth put forward would mean that 9,000 more customers every day would have been disrupted with her proposals. ScotRail reviewed the decision and concluded that there would be, and I quote from ScotRail, greater costs with more customers disrupted or inconvenienced with their revised access plan. Jenny Gilruth's decision to scrap those changes appears to have cost the taxpayer at least a million pounds. Scottish Rail Holding's board papers also released under FOI's state this. The board has asked to note that Network Rail and ScotRail chose to do the work at this time precisely to minimise the number of passengers impacted, and Transport Scotland were fully aware and endorsed this approach. So how can Humza Yousaf defend Jenny Gilruth when she went against the advice of Network Rail, ScotRail and Transport Scotland? First Minister? First and foremost, whenever decisions like this are made, and I remember well in my time as Transport Minister, it is so crucial that we engage with communities. It is so crucial that we engage with communities to understand from them what the impact of any potential closure will be. I can hear groans from either side of the benches when it comes to engaging with communities. We always engage with our communities when it comes to any potential disruption to our transport network, and the proposed decarbonisation works on the vital rail line would have caused significant disruption right across the whole east coast of Scotland, including for passengers travelling across, yes, Fife, but also Dundee, Perth and Aberdeen, too. The former Transport Minister first stated that she was not content that everything was being done to minimise that inconvenience over a busy festive period—a time when, of course, rightly, people are travelling up and down the country to see their loved ones, particularly in the context also of some disruption that was taking place due to industrial action at the time. Therefore, she rightly, in my view, asked Network Rail to postpone the works that it agreed to, to give time to engage with the communities that would be impacted by the closure. For me, it is vital that whoever the Transport Minister is—whether it was Jenny Goruth previously, the current Transport Minister—that the needs of passengers should always be front and centre when such decisions are made. That was clearly the case when Jenny Goruth made that decision. Douglas Ross. This is getting worse for the First Minister. He is now saying that Jenny Goruth was right to do this, and he also said that Jenny Goruth, as the former Transport Minister, thought that there were problems with it. We will come to another email on 19 October 2022. Ms Goruth understands why they are doing this, but it is not going to land well, so she agreed with the proposal, but she was worried about how it was going to land with her constituents. She should not even have been involved in this decision. She should have recused herself because of the clear potential for a conflict of interest. Concerns were raised about the Minister's actions. One civil servant whose name is redacted in the FOI response said this. It might be wise to be clear why this is appropriate for Fife in particular, because other areas might expect similar. This political interference may even have forced a senior executive to resign. Chris Gibb worked in the rail industry for more than 40 years. He chaired ScotRail in 2022. He resigned just a few weeks after Jenny Goruth's decision, after he advised against the change. In board papers that we have seen, he raised concerns about political interference and a quote from Chris Gibb, micromanagement by Scottish ministers, advisers and officials. First Minister, did Chris Gibb resign because of Jenny Goruth's inappropriate actions? First Minister, Douglas Ross is making really serious accusations. I am afraid without any evidence. What he is hoping to do—he will do this because he is undoubtedly desperate—is to throw as much mud as possible and hoping that some of it sticks. He will throw as much mud as possible and hope that some of it sticks. What I would say to Douglas Ross is that conflicts of interest in the Conservative Party are definitely not a combination that I think he should raise. What I would say to Douglas Ross in response to the emails that he read out, of course, he is being selective in what he is reading out. What he is forgetting to mention is that this disruption, which would undoubtedly have been caused because of those works, would not just have affected passengers travelling across Fife but also Dundee, Perth, Aberdeen and other parts of the network, too. I would expect any member of the Government to make sure that they are taking account of all those who might be impacted and all those who might be affected. What I would say to Douglas Ross is to look at the facts. Do not just throw around mud hoping that some of it sticks. Speculation, frankly, does not help anybody in here, certainly does not help passengers that we are committed to improving the rail network for. Do you know what did not help passengers was the former Transport Minister's decision. She was emailed on 7 November 2022 at 1740 and told by ScotRail that greater cost and more customers would be disrupted and inconvenienced with the revised plans. At least a million extra in associated costs and 9,000 additional passengers every day because of the decision that she took. So the First Minister can cut out all that rubbish about standing up for passengers when it is very clear that the decision taken by Jenny Gilruth led to a poorer service. Now this looks like a clear breach of the ministerial code. Jenny Gilruth is smirking at this and well she might because the First Minister already seems to believe she is innocent but the ministerial code states that you must keep separate the roles of a minister and their role as a constituency MSP. This does not just look like there was preferential treatment in the constituency, it looks like a truly awful decision that will cost taxpayers millions and lead to greater disruption. Five months on, the essential works that Jenny Gilruth delayed have still not happened. This looks like a clear cut, sackable offence, but at the very least this needs more than the First Minister looking at this over breakfast. It needs an urgent investigation now. Will the First Minister confirm to Parliament right now that he will launch an investigation into his minister today? To my understanding, this is not the first time this issue has been raised, I think it has been raised months before as well. Of course, I was not First Minister at the time. I will, as I said in my response to Douglas Ross's first question, look at the accusations that are being made. What I would say to Douglas Ross is that Jenny Gilruth was not and is not also the MSP for Dundee, Perth and Aberdeen. Of course, those decisions were taken because they were affecting railway passengers right across the network and particularly across the north-east of Scotland. With the information that I absolutely have in front of me, it seems to me pretty clear that Jenny Gilruth made those decisions so that disruption would not affect more passengers right across the network. That is something I would expect Jenny Gilruth to have done at the time. It is something that I expect. The current transport minister to do, when important vital works, particularly on decarbonisation, have to take place, how do we do them in a way that they minimise disruption, particularly during the busy festive period? What I would say to the Conservatives is that we take the issues of the ministerial code extremely seriously, not something that could be said about the Conservatives by any way, shape or form. Next month will be three years since the Scottish hospitals inquiry was announced. Those are the facts that we already know. Firstly, two children died because of infections that they contracted at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital. Secondly, there were serious failings at Greater Glasgow-enclied health board, which resulted in the health board being put into special measures. Thirdly, Louise Lawrence, whose husband Andrew died after contracting aspergillus, was kept in the dark by a cover-up. Despite all of this, the chair and the chief executive of the health board still have their jobs and no one has been held responsible. Now this week, the health board under the same leadership has shamefully refused to accept many of the conclusions of the oversight board and they have even called into question the entire basis of the independent review that exposes fatal infections in clinically vulnerable children. Why should people who refuse to accept even the most basic facts be trusted to run Scotland's largest health board? The First Minister said that Anasawar has raised the issues rightly on many occasions. As he has already said in his question, there was already a public inquiry taking place in relation to a number of the issues that he has raised. I think that it is important that we do not prejudice an inquiry that is taking place and, of course, wait for the outcome fully in terms of that inquiry, and then, of course, appropriate action will be taken in respect of those issues. But, of course, it is important, and we have made it clear that we are not waiting for that inquiry to finish, where we can take remedial action and we can take action to improve the situation. Across a number of areas that Anasawar is right to raise in this chamber, that is being taken. Of course, my understanding is that a number of the oversight board recommendations have, indeed, not just been accepted, but work is well under way in relation to some of those recommendations. It is important that those issues are raised here by members right across the chamber. My thoughts are with all those families that have been impacted and have been affected by some of the challenges that the health board undoubtedly has faced. However, I will continue, and I know that the health secretary will continue, to engage with Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board to make sure that those recommendations of the oversight board are indeed taken forward. I think that the First Minister misses the point. It is that we are going backwards now because the health board leadership are saying that they do not accept many of the findings of the oversight board and that they now do not accept the findings of the independent case-wrote review that highlighted those infections. I think that that is the point that the First Minister is missing, because, as health secretary, Jeane Freeman understood that grieving families needed justice. She listened to the voices of families and campaigners and put the health board into special measures and she established the inquiry. However, when Humza Yousaf took over, he was too weak and easily led and he lifted the board out of special measures and empowered those people that failed. Now, less than a year later, the leadership of the board are trying to rubbish the independent review and questioning the accepted facts. Kimberley-Darrick, whose daughter, Millie Mayne, died, says that the board is making the families' lives hell, and Louise Lawrence says this. Enough is enough. Patients have been harmed, others lost their lives, families lied to and bullied for what? To protect the reputation of Scotland's flagship hospital and that of the Scottish Government. So, First Minister, will you allow the leadership of this health board to rewrite the facts and continue to prolong the agony for those families? We will hold the health board leadership absolutely to account in relation to the oversight recommendations that have been made. Of course, the reason why the Greater Glasgow and Clyde were de-escalated in relation to special measures was because the majority of those oversight recommendations were accepted, work was under way, many of them also complete. That is why decisions around de-escalation were made. In relation to patients and those who have suffered and, of course, Annasawa again, who has raised the cases of Millie Mayne, of course, of Andrew Lawrence, in that regard, I am always happy in the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. We are also happy to meet those families involved, but we have brought forward a number of measures to improve transparency and making sure that families do get the answers when, unfortunately, in those rare cases things go wrong, such as the duty of candor, for example. We introduced that organisational duty of candor in April 2018, places that legal duty on all health and social care organisations to be open to be honest when something goes wrong. The patient safety commissioner that we have committed to is well in relation to legislation being introduced in response to that important Baroness Cumbillage report. On whistleblowing, we have made it clear, and I certainly made it clear when I was the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care that whistleblowing is an integral and important tool that should be used by staff in order to raise concerns where they feel it is necessary and where it is appropriate. I met in my time as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care every single whistleblowing champion right across health boards up and down the country, including the whistleblowing champion at Greater Glasgow and Clyde. We will do everything we can in our power. We will hold, of course, the health board absolutely to account. In my conversations with the leadership of Greater Glasgow and Clyde, they certainly understood the seriousness of the issues here. What we will ensure that we do on behalf of the people of Scotland in government is to make sure that when things go wrong, in the rare times that they do, the vast majority of people will get a good service for their health service. In the rare times when things do go wrong, we will make sure that families get the answers that they deserve. Anna Sarwar The First Minister has not held these people responsible to account. He has empowered those people that have failed these families. Frankly, staff at the hospital, patients that have been failed and families will listen to that answer from the First Minister with rage and think that he is completely out of touch with the reality that they face every single day, because six years into the scandal and the established facts are being denied by a health board leadership who are prepared to do anything to protect their own jobs. However, that is what we have come to expect from this SNP Government. No one ever takes responsibility and failure is rewarded with promotion. The chair of the health board is still in his job. The chief executive awarded an excellence in leadership award. The health secretary, when the hospital was opened and when Millie Main died, now the Deputy First Minister and the health secretary who took the failing board out of special measures, now the First Minister. Under the SNP, failure is rewarded, incompetence is excused and the Scottish people are left suffering the consequences. First Minister, if you are too weak to stand up for those grieving families fighting for justice, how can the people of Scotland trust you to stand up for them when it really matters? I think that this is the point that Anasawar can spin in any way that he wishes to do so. However, the people of Scotland, of course, have continued to trust the SNP with the health service time and time and time again. Why have they done that? They have done that because we have invested record amounts into our health service. They have done that because we steered this country through the biggest shock the NHS has ever faced in its 74-year existence. They have done that because our NHS staff are the best paid here than anywhere else in the UK. We value our staff. I seem to remember quite well doing a debate here when Anasawar was leading a debate for the Labour Party on Health, where staff at Greater Glasgow and Clyde, doctors and nurses criticised the politicisation that Anasawar was doing at the time in relation to, of course, the health service here in Scotland. What I would say to Anasawar is that the decision to de-escalate Greater Glasgow and Clyde was made because of the evidence that we had in front of us. I am happy for him to see that evidence once again and to provide him with detail once again. What we will continue to do is make sure that, as I say, in the rare times that things do go wrong, we will continue to make sure that we do everything in our power to make sure that there is absolute transparency, that families get the answers that they want. I am more than happy, as First Minister, to meet with the families that Anasawar mentions that have undoubtedly been affected by where that failure has happened. 3. Alex Cole-Hamilton Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister for what reason, only 4 per cent of Scotland's sewage discharge points are monitored compared with 91 per cent in England. Our approach to assessing sewage discharges is more effective than that. In England, Scottish Water has completed a more extensive environmental study programme to monitor and model the impacts of its facilities on water quality. Data from monitoring is also being used to determine any actions needed to improve Scotland's water environment. Scottish Water has already invested £686 million since 2010 in improvements and has committed a further half a billion pounds during 2021 to 2027. That has contributed to SEPA's most recent classification, showing that 66 per cent of Scotland's water bodies are in good ecological condition. That compares to just 16 per cent in England. That is in line with Ames to achieve 81 per cent by 2027. 4. Alex Cole-Hamilton The problem for the First Minister is that the money that he has identified for those extra monitors 70 per cent of all dumping point pipes in Scotland will still go unobserved, whereas in England every single pipe is due to be monitored by the end of this year. When on earth will we catch up? Look at what we have discovered in the last few weeks. Human waste dumped around Scotland's best love beaches, wetlands of international importance and special protection areas from Shetland to the Clyde. The First Minister should take particular interest in the most used sewage dumping outlet in Scotland. That recorded 127 releases last year, and that is enough to run 100 million baths. He will know that site well because it is on the bank of the Clyde in his own Glasgow Pollock constituency. Perhaps that is why he moved to Brottyferry. I ask the First Minister will he commit today to the introduction of legally binding targets to tackle sewage dumping in Scotland? I moved to Brottyferry so that my stepdaughter could see her father more recently. That is actually the reason why I have moved there, which is not a state secret by any stretch of the imagination. When it comes to the serious issue that Hamilton does raise, we know that combined sewer overflows are a serious issue. He is right to raise them in his question to me, but they are also integral to ensuring that sewers don't during periods of heavy rainfall back up and then end up flooding homes, businesses and streets across our country. Our monitoring is more comprehensive, and I am happy to provide Alex Cole-Hamilton with more detail of that. In terms of the monitoring that was done by Scottish Water, I have the detail of it that I can send to Alex Cole-Hamilton. It has been done over a number of years. What it allows us to do is to comprehensively monitor where the spill overflows are happening. However, Scottish Water is not just sending on its hands or resting on its laurels. What it has done is to publish that and to improve urban waters route map. That outlines how we intend to invest in the Scottish Water environment. We have a number of projects that are currently under way to monitor, but also to ensure that we make improvements to our sewer network. That is an issue that we take extremely seriously. I would end just on the point that I started on with Alex Cole-Hamilton's response to his first question. Notwithstanding the very serious issues that Alex Cole-Hamilton raised, our water quality in Scotland is very good. It shows SEPA's most recent classification, which shows that 66 per cent of Scotland's water bodies are in good ecological condition compared with 16 per cent in England. We are aiming to improve that by 80 to 81 per cent by 2027. Scotland's natural environment is not just the envy of the world, it is also vital to our health. It is no surprise that reports of more than 14,000 sewage spills have prompted protests across the country, including in Stonehaven in my region this Saturday. In December 2021, Scottish Water vowed to increase storm drain monitors to more than 1,000 by the end of 2024, but, according to an FOI response obtained by the I newspaper, as of 1 March this year, not a single new device had been installed. Can the First Minister tell us today exactly how many of those 1,000 he expects to see installed by the end of this year? It was always the plan that the installation programme would take place over the course of the summer 2023 and then into 2024. We are still confident that Scottish Water remains confident that we will have those 1,000 spill monitors in place by the end of 2024. I am happy to provide Mercedes Villalba with further detail if she wishes, but I go back to the point that there has been comprehensive monitoring. The studies done by Scottish Water were done between 2015 to 2021. We have extensive computer models that can allow Scottish Water to understand when those combined sewer overflows will spill under what rainfall conditions, for example, and what impact those spills will have on the natural environment. There is a whole host of data because of the excellent extensive work that Scottish Water has done. To answer Ms Villalba's question directly, we are still confident that 1,000 spill monitors will be installed by the end of 2024. To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the work of the Scottish Government to address potentially dangerous cladding on residential properties. The safety of residents is, of course, an absolute priority for this Government. We are acting decisively to protect lives through a programme of cladding assessment and remediation. The current programme includes 105 buildings, which will each go through a comprehensive technical assessment. While we expect that the majority will be safe, if that assessment identifies an immediate fire risk, we will act without delay, as we have already done. As assessments are completed, we will agree plans and take action to deliver full remediation. That means that I also expect developers to take responsibility to remediate their buildings so that the public purse is not needed to do so. While I urge them to do so voluntarily, we will use all the levers at our disposal, including legislation, if necessary, to remediate buildings and protect residents. I thank the First Minister for that answer and he will understand that people's lives have been put on hold and some of them are at the end of their tether. Local authorities are asking for building warrants for remediation work. Developers are putting safety measures in place that are severely imposing on the lives of people living in those buildings, and yet many residents in my constituents feel that remediation is not moving quickly enough. First Minister, my constituents just want their lives back. What further measures can the Scottish Government take to further encourage local authorities and developers to work co-operatively to remove unsafe cladding from those buildings more quickly? Cro-Cab Stewart is right to make a couple of key points here. One is that the frustration of her constituents—perhaps in other parts of the country too—do not seem to move as quickly on the ground as they would like. I understand that frustration. Cro-Cab Stewart is also right to mention that we are trying to take a collaborative approach with developers, local authorities and others in relation to that particular situation. I can understand how worrying the situation is for those living in buildings with unsafe cladding. That is why we put the safety and wellbeing of residents at the very heart of the cladding remediation programme. Developers must also do the same. They must step up and fix their buildings. Our preference has always been that voluntary agreement with developers and getting agreement of the accord. Let me be clear that we are putting the safety of residents first. For most, we will use all the powers that we have. I reiterate what I have already said in response to the first answer to Cro-Cab Stewart that, if necessary, we will use legislation to ensure that developers do the right thing, so that we can get on with remediating buildings in line with Scottish building standards. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to a recent poll that found that more than a third of people in Scotland would consider relocating if income taxes were increased further. The Scottish Government is proud to have the fairest and most progressive tax system in the UK. Consideration of behavioural changes are, of course, a vital part of our tax policy decisions. Our evaluation of the move to a more progressive tax system in 2018-19 found no evidence of significant behavioural change, including cross-border migration. That should come as no surprise because our social contract with every citizen goes significantly beyond the provisions that are provided in the rest of the UK. It includes free prescriptions and includes free higher education, supporting more than 400,000 children eligible for the Scottish child payments. We will continue on that path of progressive taxation and, of course, we will have robust analysis behind any changes that we make to the tax system. Thank you. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Business, the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Institute of Fiscal Studies, Archangel Investment Bank and DJ Alexander Scotland are just some of the warning of the dangers of widening the tax differential with the rest of the UK. Sandy Bigby of Scottish Financial Enterprise is warning of the resulting effects on Scottish productivity and economic growth. Will the First Minister give a categorical assurance that he accepts and understands the widespread and serious concerns amongst the business community and that the future tax policy of Scottish Government should be fully focused on making Scotland the most competitive part of the UK rather than the highest tax part of the UK? What was fascinating from that question from Liz Smith is that she did not mention a single anti-poverty campaigner in the list of people that she mentioned and why was she not, because of course if we want to invest money in tackling poverty then we have to have the money to be able to do so. That is why progressive taxation that allows us to, of course, increase revenue to spend on poverty measures or tackling poverty is so crucial. What I would say to Liz Smith, of course, will listen to those organisations. Many of them I have already met and we will continue to listen to them where we possibly can. However, we will have robust analysis behind any decision that we make in relation to taxation. I have never seen a conflict in my mind to growing the economy. Something that is front and centre is part of the prospectus that I published in the first couple of weeks of being First Minister. I have seen no conflict in growing the economy and also ensuring that you have a progressive tax system so that you can invest, as I say, in anti-poverty measures. We will continue to make those very careful balance decisions in relation to taxation. We will make sure that we are informed by robust analysis and evidence from many of the individuals and organisations that Liz Smith mentions, of course also from the Scottish Fiscal Commission as well. However, of course, if we had listened to Liz Smith, if we had listened to the Conservatives, and if we had given tax cuts to the wealthiest, we would have much less money to spend on things such as free prescription charges, on ensuring that higher education is free and, of course, on that game-changing Scottish child payment plan. Data shows that, regardless of tax rate changes, Scotland continues to attract more working-age people from the rest of the UK than move in their old direction, about 20 per cent more on an annual basis in fact. I know that, while the Government will do the due diligence and sensitivity analysis for any proposed tax changes, I make the point that a modest increase in inward migration from the rest of the UK to Scotland could significantly increase tax revenues by hundreds of millions of pounds, potentially, to spend on public services in Scotland and support Scottish businesses with skills and by attacking their challenges. I can ask what is the Scottish Government doing to proactively attract more workers from the rest of the UK to come and live and work in Scotland? That is an excellent point that is made by Ivan McKee. I am not sure why the Conservatives are laughing from the fact, of course— Thank you, members. They do not like to listen to the facts, and the facts, of course, as Ivan McKee has presented to them, are absolutely right. We have seen that modest increase in inward migration from the rest of the UK, and that is an important point. Scotland's record on inward migration from the rest of the UK dispels much of the hysteria from the Conservative party on the impacts of our tax policy, but it is important to recognise what more we can do, which is why we are committed to establishing a talent attraction programme in migration service for Scotland. That will help us to build upon the success that we have had already in this space. The talent attraction and migration service will improve Scotland's ability to attract and recruit workers from outside Scotland with the skills that our economy needs and supports international workers in that migration and relocation process. What we will also do is ensure that, of course, where we have the levers to overpay over terms and conditions, we are embedding fair pay. We are ensuring that our staff are some of the best paid in the UK. We will do that, for example, when we are doing that, in relation to the NHS, where our NHS staff are the best paid anywhere in the UK. That helps to, hopefully, attract them up here in Scotland. We will put progressive taxation and fair pay at the heart of everything that we do in the Scottish Government a very stark contrast to the approach that is taken by the Conservatives in England. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I refer to my register of interests as I am a member of the GMB Trade Union. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will reintroduce the social care staff support fund or take other action to improve sick pay provision for social care workers. In light of reports of a survey by GMB Scotland, stating that 80 per cent of social care workers in the private sector have considered quitting and wider warnings that the care sector is on the brink of collapse. Libby recognise that Monica Lennon has often rightly raised these issues around adult social care in particular and that, of course, the issues that she raised are incredibly important. In Covid-19, we all know, it created an enormous challenge for the social care sector in the United Kingdom right throughout the UK and, of course, including here in Scotland. That is why we introduced the social care staff support fund to support the workforce and protect our most vulnerable people. I want to thank the social care workforce for all the vital work that they have done in the course and the height of the pandemic but also, of course, that they currently do in still under extreme pressure and significant challenge. Our fund continued for longer than any other UK nation but it was always a temporary measure, particularly when self-isolation rules were in place. Fair work is central to improving recruitment, it is central to improving retention and staff wellbeing in the sector and so we will continue our work to promote those practices and improving pay and improving conditions and, indeed, the workers voice. To that end, we have guaranteed an additional £100 million to uplift pay to £10.90, which took effect from April this year. I have made a commitment to reaching £12 an hour for adult social care workers delivering direct care. Careers in the gallery, their colleagues and the people they care for deserve much better than this First Minister. The fund was time limited but the crisis in social care is getting worse by the day. As highlighted in the Sunday post, carers are urging the Government to reinstate the fund because they cannot afford to get sick. Removing the financial safety net now without an alternative solution will accelerate the collapse of social care and push the NHS further into crisis. To her credit, Jeane Freeman listened to the workers' work with Scottish Labour to introduce the fund in the first place. Will Humza Yousaf's Government listen, meet with the workers and our unions and do the right thing? Of course, we will be happy to meet with trade unions as we do that. On a regular occasion, I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care will do that. Of course, I am happy to continue my engagement with trade unions. We are taking action to address pay. That is why we funded a further pay increase to the tune of £100 million this financial year. It is also why the work that is being done through the national care service in order to introduce that legislation and get a national care service up and running to me is so vital, because at the heart of the national care service are fair work principles, as sectoral bargaining for example. We are not going to wait for the national care service to be in place. There is already work that is going on through the fair work and social care group. They have developed a set of minimum standards for terms and conditions that reflect fair work principles. Those standards include sick pay, maternity and paternity pay to assist with recruitment in the sector, but that is exactly why we want to make continued progress with the national care service. Because of the landscape of adult social care in the country, with private providers, with in-house local authority providers and third sector providers, it is fragmented. How much better to have national consistency right across the country and we can only really do that with a national care service? I move to general and constituency supplementaries. I would ask for brief questions and responses, and I call Megan Gallacher. Scotland's social care watchdog has said that children as young as 12 are allowed to consent to puberty blockers. That guidance fails to acknowledge the interim cash review of gender services in England, which identified several failings in the management of the Tavistock Centre and a lack of evidence supporting the use of puberty blockers. More and more brave young people are coming forward to talk openly about de-transitioning. They are harrowing stories of surgery and the lack of mental and emotional support that they received. Can the First Minister clarify if he supports puberty blockers being prescribed to 12-year-olds? I support these decisions being made by clinicians and those who have clinical knowledge. That is what we should be doing. We should be trusting those with clinical expertise, as opposed to standing up here in the chamber, where we do not have those expertise, making judgments about what is best for young people who are in need of gender identity services. In terms of the cash review, that is an interim report. It is well understood that health services in England and Scotland differ quite significantly. We have taken account of the interim report. We will look to see the final report once that is ready to do. I go back to my initial point. It is so important that we trust clinicians, those with the medical expertise and knowledge, on such important decisions. Renfrewshire Council's education policy board meets today to discuss school provision for children in Dargavo following the council's catastrophic school role miscalculation. The last time I raised this, the expected cost to fix the mess was £20 million. It is now an incredible £75 million. Parents are looking for the Scottish Government to help to resolve the situation. Does the First Minister agree that no child in Renfrewshire should have to pay for the council's incompetence and lose out because of the resulting shortfall in school budgets? If so, what will the Scottish Government do to ensure that there is accountability for the failure and that the appropriate primary and secondary provision is in place as a matter of urgency? I will ask the current education secretary to make sure that we will have those discussions with Renfrewshire where we can. I know that the previous education secretary was involved in discussions. Those are local authority matters. What Bibby is asking me to do is take money out of the current school building programme and redistribute that to another project. He would have to say what school we would take that away from because, of course, every single penny is accounted for in terms of the current budget. We will continue to have discussions with Renfrewshire council as we have done already, but I will ask the education secretary to retouch base with Renfrewshire council because ultimately I agree with Neil Bibby's premise that no child should feel that their education or their educational attainment suffers as a result of any decision that is made by national government or local government. The First Minister will be aware that this week marks mental health awareness week, which has a particular focus this year on anxiety. As the cost of living crisis deepens and household bills are soaring, what action has the Government taken to mark this important period? We know that poverty is a key driver of poor mental health. We are prioritising work to support those who are the most at risk. It is part of mental health awareness week. The Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport met with money advice in mental health organisations just yesterday to hear first hand the impact that the cost of living crisis is having on mental health in Scotland. We have developed advice for front-line advisers, we have created resources for the general population on the mind-to-mind wellbeing website, and we will continue to work with money and mental health partners to look at what more can be done. We continue to do everything that we can to urge the UK Government to use all the powers at its disposal to tackle this cost of living crisis because of the serious impact that it has on mental health of the population. Myles Briggs. Wistleblowers and campaigners have called on the First Minister to support an independent inquiry into the mishandling of complaints surrounding child protection here in Edinburgh, East Lothian, the Borders and Aberdeenshire. Campaigners believe that a wider independent inquiry is now needed to investigate safeguarding concerns. The way reports from parents, guardians, carers, professionals and the public have been mishandled in relation to on-going, unresolved child abuse and child protection concerns. The current on-going Scottish child abuse inquiry remit is narrow and only focuses on historic abuse and specifically to children living in care. I ask the First Minister if he will firstly agree to meet me personally and campaigners to discuss their concerns and whether or not the Scottish Government will take forward an independent inquiry now into those concerns. First Minister. I will ensure that the appropriate minister does meet me with Myles Briggs and, of course, I am more than happy to consider a request that comes from Myles Briggs representing the families. I should pay credit to Myles Briggs who has raised the issue on a number of occasions in this chamber on behalf of those families that have been affected and this Government takes the issues of child protection absolutely seriously. In reference to the issues that Myles Briggs has raised, as I have said, I will ensure that the appropriate minister does meet as soon as possible and I will also consider an invitation to meet from Myles Briggs and the families involved. In the middle of the cost of living crisis, St Andrews University is increasing rents in their student halls by 8 per cent. Students are at risk of being plunged into poverty as the university lines its own pockets. Does the First Minister agree with me that a rent increase of this scale is completely unacceptable? Will he join me in calling on the university to reverse this decision? Of course, this is a decision for the university to make, but I can completely understand why Mark Ruskell does, of course, raise this important issue. We have introduced legislation, as Mark Ruskell knows, only to well in relation to ensuring fair rents where appropriate, but there may be areas where we can go further, so we are exploring that quite actively. What I would say to Mark Ruskell is that I agree with him that everybody, including of course our fantastic higher and indeed for other educational institutes, but higher educational institutes in this case, should absolutely be aware of the responsibilities that they have in terms of students who are undoubtedly suffering.