 The next item of business is First Minister's Questions, and at question number one, I call Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First Minister, do you agree that every victim of sexual harassment should be fully supported? First Minister? Yes, I do. I believe that very strongly, and when any victim of sexual harassment considers that that hasn't been the case, then whatever organisation is involved should reflect very seriously on that and make any necessary changes. That's how I intend to proceed as far as any issues relating to the SNP are involved here. Douglas Ross. If everything the First Minister has just said is true, and she really believes that victims of sexual harassment should be fully supported, why is Patrick Grady, one of her MPs who has been found guilty of sexual harassment, still got the backing of the First Minister? First Minister? I have already been clear about those issues and I am certainly very willing to be so again today. Patrick Grady's behaviour was wrong. I have said this before, and I will repeat it again. I am very sorry that a member of the Westminster SNP group staff was subjected to an unwanted sexual advance. It shouldn't have happened, and I think it is important to be very clear about that. Patrick Grady's behaviour was investigated by an independent process that all parties in the House of Commons, as I understand, are signed up to. The findings of that independent process were, of course, published, as is right and proper, and a sanction was imposed—a sanction that was recommended by that independent process and replicated by the SNP Westminster group. In this situation there is also clearly a victim who feels that they were not properly supported in that process. Indeed, the victim in this case believes that the process exacerbated the trauma that was experienced, and I think that it is absolutely incumbent on any organisation in that position to take views of that nature very seriously. As I have already said before today, and I have already said this today, that is a matter that the SNP must and will reflect on. Ian Blackford, the leader of our group at Westminster, has already confirmed an external review of the Westminster group processes, and I think that that again is right and proper. The last thing that I would say, Presiding Officer, is this. I take these issues very seriously. It is incumbent on me to do so, but those issues are not unique to the SNP. All parties have faced those issues, and at times all parties have been criticised for their handling of those issues. All of us have lessons to learn. Obviously, I am only responsible, in a party political sense, for the SNP, but all of us in the society that we live in have lessons to learn, and it is incumbent on all of us to do so. For my part, I am determined that that will be the case. There was a ruling and a sanction from the independent complaints and grievance system within the UK Parliament, but that sanction does not have to be the same adopted by the SNP parliamentary party at Westminster. Patrick Grady has served just two days' suspension from the SNP at Westminster. Two days is an insult. Throughout this process, the victim has been disregarded, so I hope that the First Minister listened to what he had to say this morning. The victim feels betrayed. He said that Patrick Grady and Ian Blackford tried to take advantage of me being young and inexperienced. He did the bare minimum of investigation. He described his life as a result of this ordeal as torture and a living hell. Most depressing of all, he said that the SNP are punishing any victim of this sort of behaviour and punishing anyone that has come forward with a similar complaint as mine. This morning, he also said that there are lots of questions for the First Minister to answer as well, and he made it clear that they are not getting answered. He said, and these are the victims' words today. I would like to see Nicola say more on the subject. Will the First Minister now tell the victim what was her reaction on hearing the leaked recording where Ian Blackford encouraged SNP MPs to support the guilty party instead of the victim? First of all, in relation to the victim in this case, some days ago, in fact, I have already in a written message said, sorry directly to them. I have also confirmed my willingness to meet directly and personally with the victim in this case. When, as I hope it will, that interaction takes place, I will say sorry in person. It is not my behaviour that was investigated, but I am leader of the SNP, and I take that responsibility very seriously. The recording of the Westminster group meeting reveals part of what was wrong in that case. Indeed, some of the individuals who were recorded at that meeting have already said that themselves. It demonstrated—I was not at the meeting, so whether it is an accurate overall reflection of the discussion, I cannot comment on it, but what I have heard suggests that more concern was shown for the perpetrator of this behaviour than was shown for the victim of it. I think that that is utterly unacceptable, and that is something that I will be very clear about. I repeat the point that I made earlier on. We live in a society now, thankfully, where behaviour of this nature is not accepted and is not, rightly, brushed under the carpet in the way that it used to be. I am sure that everybody in the chamber remembers the two years—I think that it was in total—that I was subjected to pretty gruelling investigations over separate instances. I would argue that that came about because I refused to brush certain things under the carpet. It is important that there is transparency, and it is important that any organisation facing those issues reflects and fully faces up to them. That is what I am going to ensure happens for the SNP, but I will repeat the final point that I made. It will be my final point here as well, Presiding Officer. All parties have faced this. There are two Westminster by-elections happening today because of behaviour on the part of Conservative MPs. All parties have faced this. All parties have been criticised, including in those cases, for their handling of those matters. It is important for all of us—I will simply speak for myself—that somebody in my position should not sit in a glass house throwing stones about those things. We should sort those things out when they arise in our own parties. That is what I intend to do for the SNP, and it is what all leaders should do when it arises in their parties as well. Douglas Ross I know that the First Minister wants to make this about other parties and other parts of the country. The fact that we have two by-elections today is because Conservative MPs have been suspended and resigned from Parliament. Patrick Grady has been suspended for 48 hours. The First Minister called the recording of the SNP group meeting utterly unacceptable. That has been public for almost a week, and this is the first that we are hearing from the First Minister about it. Her apology will be welcome, but the victim this morning rejected Ian Blackford's apology. He called it a cop-out and a publicity stunt. The victim said that Ian Blackford has only apologised to protect his own position. Again, quoting the victim directly, he said that it seems like the SNP and her Ian Blackford at Westminster hasn't learned a thing, and they are still trying to close ranks and discredit the victim by not really addressing any of the issues. He added that nobody can really seriously believe they are going to make improvements to the procedure as long as Ian Blackford is still in post. The First Minister has to answer that charge. This is a deep systemic problem in the governing party here in Scotland, and it is an all-too familiar tale. Last year, in similar circumstances, Nicola Sturgeon stood up and said in this chamber, and I quote, It will be a priority for me for as long as I am First Minister to ensure that lessons are learned and the trust is re-established so that anyone who considers in the future that they have suffered sexual harassment has the confidence to come forward and knows that their concerns will be listened to and addressed. First Minister, listening to your own words from a year ago and the victim's words today isn't it the case that no lessons have been learned? That's not the case, and I stand by every single word that has just been quoted. Obviously, the particular issue that we are discussing today is not a Scottish Government issue, it's an SNP issue, but in the Scottish Government we have a new complaints process in place that was put in place after a very elaborate consultation with trade unions to ensure that we have a process in place that people do have confidence in and feel that they are able to use. It's important that we reflect on this situation to ensure that if there are changes needing to be made to the process, those changes are made. In terms of sanction, as I said, an independent process investigated this in detail and recommended the sanction that it considered was appropriate in this case. That's an independent process that all parties are signed up to and I think all parties should respect. The last point that I would make is this. Douglas Ross will characterise what I say in whatever way he chooses. That is up to him. I think that people listening will hear me take these issues extremely seriously. I don't think that they will have heard me try to make it all about other parties, but what they will have heard me say is something that I think all of us should reflect on. If I was standing here saying that the SNP has got no issues here, it's all about the Conservatives or Labour, I would be showing that I did not understand the systemic nature of those issues. If Douglas Ross is absolutely rightly raising those issues with me when they arise with the SNP, but if he is really saying that this is somehow a problem uniquely for the SNP, I would argue that he is demonstrating that he doesn't understand the systemic, society-wide nature of those issues. I will take those issues very seriously whenever it is the Scottish Government or the SNP that is accused of having people that have behaved inappropriately. As I said a moment ago, I went through some of the most difficult times of my whole time in politics because I wasn't prepared to have allegations made against somebody who had been very close to me, simply swept under the carpet. It's really important that all of us face up to this for my part, I will, and I would encourage everybody else to do likewise. Last week, an investigation in the UK Parliament was made public and it concluded that a senior SNP MP was guilty of making an unwanted sexual advance to a teenage member of staff. The First Minister in response to Douglas Ross has just said that it was right that those investigations were published and it was right and proper. Over a month ago, I asked the First Minister to make public the outcome of investigations against ministers in her own Government. She refused, instead claiming that it couldn't be revealed due to GDPR. Despite the SNP rightly demanding the publication of investigations against Preeti Patel, the investigations of that were made public. The outcome of the investigation into Patrick Greedy was made public by the UK Parliament. Why won't the First Minister make public outcomes of investigations by the Scottish Government into the conduct of Scottish ministers? Or don't the Scottish people deserve the same transparency? Yes, I do think that people deserve transparency and I am grateful to Anas Sarwar for raising that because it gives me the opportunity to update on what I said when he last raised this issue with me. What I said in the chamber then is true, it is absolutely the case that we are limited in terms of what we can publish by legal requirements, data protection and confidentiality issues. That is not a situation that I am comfortable with. I wasn't comfortable with it as probably people could see when I answered those questions before the last time I was asked about it. Therefore, as a result of that, I sought further advice. I asked for advice on whether, in future, there would be ways of making it possible for us to report publicly the outcome of complaints involving ministers and if there was a way of doing that without breaching the legal requirements that I have referred to. The advice that I have only recently had is that, while we cannot apply that retrospectively, there is a way to do that in relation to future complaints. I can confirm to the chamber that that will involve changes to the ministerial code and probably also to the complaints procedure that is in place, but work is now under way to make the necessary changes to facilitate that happening in future. I welcome that response from the First Minister, but it is convenient that that response talks about future investigations and not previous investigations. Let's take the advice of Nick McHerald, a law lecturer at Glasgow University, who said in response to that, that, as public officials, ministers would expect all their activity and decisions to be open to scrutiny. Even in the realm of employment law, that would be the case. Clearly legal experts. The First Minister has a law degree and used to be a solicitor, so she should know that. Even legal experts believe that there is not a case to hide behind GDPR here. No one is asking to publish personal details of the victim, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask the Scottish Government to make clear the outcome of investigations against Scottish ministers. A pattern has emerged when it comes to the SNP. Close ranks, do as little as you can, and hope that difficult questions go away. On Sunday, Angus Robertson described an SNP MP making unwanted sexual advances towards a teenager as not career ending. We heard a leaked recording where SNP MPs were tearing and applauding Ian Blackford's call for them to rally round Patrick Grady. The SNP chief whip then threatened legal action against whistleblowers. Support for the perpetrator, no support for the victim. Do you agree with Ian Blackford and your SNP MPs? Do you agree with the words of Angus Robertson? Do you agree with your SNP chief whip that it is more important to protect the SNP than to protect the victim? Nobody has said that it is more important to protect the SNP than it is to protect the victim. I have made my views today very clear that support for victims of sexual harassment must come first if that does not happen and if a victim feels that they have not been supported, then the obligation is on the organisation. In this case, that is the SNP to reflect on that, not somehow suggest that it is the victim that is at fault. I could not be clearer about that. I want to have the conversation directly with the victim in this case to make sure that I have got as deep as possible an understanding of exactly the experience in that case, so that I can reflect on what changes are needed. I do not, in any way, shy away from that. On the wider issue—of course, I have a law degree, not only that. Nick McHerald and I were in the same class at Glasgow University when we studied law. He obviously has a wealth of expertise, but I have to rely on the advice that I get as First Minister. That advice in this respect, in terms of retrospective situations, is clear. However, I was not prepared to accept, without challenging that for the future. That is why I sought further advice. It is why I asked for advice on the ways in which we could be consistent with our legal obligations but consistent with what I believe is an important obligation of transparency. That is why we will now move forward to make necessary changes to the ministerial code and to the procedure to allow information to be published in the future. It is important in any situation that somebody in my position takes these things seriously. I am doing that, and I will make whatever changes is necessary to get to a position for my party and for my Government, where we live up to the standards that all of us expect. I think that every organisation, including all political parties, has a duty to do likewise. I can only imagine Nicola Sturgeon's response if the Tories were making that same defence of Preeti Patel in terms of her allegations as she is making of Scottish ministers here in this Parliament. I am going back to the Patrick Grady incident. This incident happened six years ago, and only now there is talk of change. In those six years Patrick Grady has been an SNP candidate twice. He has been promoted to chief whip and led a debate on harassment while being investigated for harassment. It has taken the victim going to the press for this First Minister to talk about taking action—an all-too-familiar story when it comes to the SNP. After 15 years in Government, there is a culture of secrecy and cover-up at the heart of this Government. This is a First Minister who is unforgiving when it comes to her opponents or anyone who disagrees with her, but expects forgiveness from everyone else. In 2002, Nicola Sturgeon said of the then Government that they have been in power for so long that they no longer think that they are accountable to anybody. There could be no better description for this Government. Why does Nicola Sturgeon believe that it is one standard for her and another standard for everyone else? The reality is that I do not. Of course, how long any party remains in Government in Scotland, in the UK and in most other countries in the world, is entirely down to the electorate. That will be true of my Government just as it is for any other Government in the UK. In terms of what Annas Sarwar describes as a pattern, I do not think that in any way is substantiated. I have answered questions in this chamber in other cases where I have been absolutely very clear that I would not brush things under the carpet or be defensive when it came to reflecting on and facing up to changes. I refused to brush things under the carpet when allegations were made about somebody who was closer to me in politics than anybody else had been. I was subjected to rigorous investigations. Many people in this chamber talked about it in terms of being career-ending for me. Would I do anything different? Obviously, I would learn lessons from that process based on everything that we know about it, but would I change the judgment that I made that it is important not to brush things under the carpet that it is important to face up to them? No, I would not. I am not going to stand here. Perhaps that is what distinguishes me from some other politicians in some other places. I am not going to stand here and defend the indefensible. I am going to say that if things are wrong, if things represent failures and processes, I am going to take the action to put them right. Just as the Scottish Government did when these issues were raised about the Scottish Government, I will make sure that it happens with the SNP as well. Question 3, Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister when the cabinet will next meet. First Minister, Tuesday. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I am very grateful for that reply. Presiding Officer, the crisis in our NHS is directly linked to what is going on right now in social care. Top doctors are saying delayed discharges are the worst that they have ever seen. There are currently 1,800 patients well enough to leave hospital, but who can't in large part because there is no care package to help them home. That is the equivalent of all of the patients in Cateness General, Borders General, the Sick Kids, DGRI and Edinburgh Royal Infirmary put together. The Government solution to this is a ministerial takeover of social care, which my party is opposed from the start. Remember, it was SNP ministers who discharged Covid-positive patients into our care homes. We can't afford to wait four years for the wrong solution. This crisis is at our gates right now. Why won't she meet that crisis now, with proper pay, fair conditions and local reform? It is right to move towards a national care service. Of course, this Parliament will scrutinise and debate the legislation that has been put forward. It is about improving the quality of services, it is about improving the consistency of services and yet it is about improving the terms and conditions of those who work in our social care sector. We are not waiting in order to establish a national care service to make these improvements now. We are already increasing the wages of those who work in the adult social care sector. In April this year, the minimum hourly rate increased and this represents a 12.9% increase for these workers in just over a year for a full-time adult social care worker. That represents an uplift of over £1,600 over the course of the financial year. These are minimum rates of pay. Many employers will pay more than those minimums. On that, we are taking action now. Of course, in the overall funding of social care, we are taking action. We are in the process over this Parliament of increasing funding for social care by 25%. That is in the region of £800 million. Parliament will scrutinise the legislation for the national care service, but let me just read the views of some this week to the publication of that legislation. Carers Scotland's director. We welcome the publication of the new bill, not least that it sets out in legislation rights for carers. Tommy Whitelaw, national lead on caring for Alliance Scotland, is really looking forward to the co-design of the national care service. The Carers Coalition, the introduction of the right to short breaks, is very welcome. Carer voices, similar comments. There is broad-based support for this, but it is important that we get the detail right. That is what the parliamentary process is for, but it is also what the co-design process is intended to deliver as well. We will now move to constituency and general supplementaries. Essential infrastructure works are due to start on Uyg Harbour this October. Interim arrangements put forward by CalMac would see the removal of all the ferry services to Tarburt and the loss of a third of the capacity to Lochmadi during the six-month closure period. Given that there are still a great many unknowns and unresolved issues, what consideration has the Scottish Government given to the option of postponing the works until viable interim arrangements can be put in place? I know that the transport minister is very aware of the concerns that communities have in relation to the planned Uyg Harbour closure. That is a project that is ultimately led by Highland Council, but the transport minister has agreed to meet with Alastair Allen in addition to meeting with the community board to discuss what further mitigations we might be able to support. The suggestion to postpone the port closure and delay the completion of works is an option that continues to be considered, but it comes with considerable risks. The clear focus of the project remains the safe and efficient replacement of infrastructure that is life-expired to use the technical term and improvement of capacity, reliability and resilience of the port at Uyg for the longer term benefit of routes to the western isles. My constituent, Samantha, received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on 20 June stating his reassurance that both the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland remain committed to ensuring women who have experienced complications as a result of transvaginal mesh have access to the best possible care. The letter left Samantha upset and lost for words. She told me and I quote, I was heartbroken when I tried to access this care only for my hospital gynaecology department to tell me the NHS would not honour most of the measures. They were unwilling to refer me to the Glasgow unit and scared me half to death by saying that people like me will never be 100 per cent mesh-free. It is as if they are trying to put us off mesh removal surgery. First Minister, you stated that we will do everything possible to get these women the treatment and the care that they need. Where is the evidence that this is happening? There is a wealth of measures that have been taken to improve the experience of women who have suffered because of mesh. That includes, for example, a complex pelvic mesh removal service. We continue to take forward changes to improve that experience and to ensure that women have access to the treatment that they need. I have previously met groups of women—I did so with the then chief medical officer and the then health secretary—and continue to be committed to taking forward all those changes. Obviously, I am not aware of Samantha's particular circumstances, nor have I seen the letter that she received from the health secretary, but I am happy to look at that. If we can provide further information that would be of assistance to Samantha, I am happy to ensure that that is done. The First Minister must agree that it is totally unacceptable for freight capacity to use to be cut by a third during the six months when the Uig harbour is closed for redevelopment. There is a solution. It is possible to put in place a temporary link span during this time, so will she commit to that today to make sure that ferries can operate to their normal timetable while the harbour is being redeveloped? I will not repeat everything that I have said to Alistair Allan except to say that, firstly, I understand the importance of the issue, and I understand the concerns that communities have. I am not going to commit today to a particular solution without the proper consideration that that would require and merit, but, as I said in my answer to Alistair Allan, any options and solutions that are put forward will be properly considered. That is why the transport minister has agreed to meet not just with Alistair Allan but with the ferry community board. Any possible mitigations that the Government might be able to support will be properly considered. On the specific one that she has put forward, when that consideration has happened, I am happy to ask the transport minister to feed back directly to her. Fiona Hyslop. With British Railways in Kiosk, an RMT representative has referred to Westminster Tory Government's intransigence by saying that I repeat the quote, perhaps the UK Government should take a feather out of the Scottish Government's hat and actually propose a 5 per cent, along with a 5-year no compulsory redundancy agreement. Does the First Minister recall that, some weeks ago, at First Minister's questions, I warned of the UK Government's deeply damaging approach to industrial relations? Now we learn that it is proposing to legislate to allow use of agency workers during a legally balloted strike action. Does the First Minister share my view that this is dangerous Tory ideology designed to inflame rather than resolve this extremely damaging dispute? I do recall very well Fiona Hyslop warning about the dangers of this dispute escalating if it was not resolved. Of course, people across the UK are paying the price for that right now. They are paying the price for the Tory anti-trade union rhetoric—in fact, the Tory anti-trade unionism, which I completely deprecate. We should respect workers across our economy, we should respect public sector workers and we should seek to negotiate fair resolutions to disputes, particularly at a time of soaring inflation—inflation being so exacerbated in the UK, of course, by the folly of Brexit. The real strike that is crippling the UK right now is not the result of a dispute with ScotRail. It is a dispute with Network Rail and with English train operating companies. Therefore, it is entirely a reserved matter. The other thing that I remember from a few weeks ago in this chamber was the potential for a ScotRail dispute, Tory MSPs, getting up and demanding intervention from this Government to resolve it. So let me repeat the call today for the UK Government to start doing their job to get round the table to bring a resolution to this and to drop their anti-trade unionism and show some respect for workers across the economy. Liam Kerr. I am very grateful, Presiding Officer. Last week, the Courier's headline, Dundee Killer Robbie McIntosh, to get parole hearing this summer, related to a murderer who, whilst on home leave from serving a life sentence in 2017, carried out a brutal attempt to murder a random lone female dog walker in Templton Woods in Dundee. In October 2017, he was sentenced to a lifelong restriction order with a minimum of five years before being considered for release on licence. Now we learn that this dangerous individual will be given a parole hearing on or around August 8, the day after the anniversary of the attack and less than five years from sentencing. First Minister, what message does this send to women like the victim of this shocking attack other than that this Government's justice system will not protect you? First Minister. Can I, firstly, before responding to the question, acknowledge again Mrs McDonald's bravery and continuing to raise those issues? I know that she wants to ensure that all parties learn from this case, and certainly that is what I want to see and I am determined to see as well. There was, of course, a significant case review into this matter. The Scottish Government and the SPS accepted all of the recommendations for them in that significant case review, and the Scottish Prison Service has taken a range of action already to respond to those recommendations. Only for prisoners—obviously I am not talking about this particular case at the moment, I am talking about the general situation—only for prisoners is unnecessary and accepted part of the rehabilitation process. Prisoners are subject to assessment and review and rightly so. Where a situation arises that shows that this has not gone in the way that it should have done, it is absolutely vital that lessons are learned. In terms of parole hearing, the sentence imposed following the conviction in any case is a matter for a court, and in turn that determines when someone's sentence to an order for lifelong restriction may be considered for parole under licence conditions. It is then a matter for the independent parole board to consider when and whether an individual can be released. To ask the First Minister, in light of the increase in Covid-19 cases, what measures the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that everyone eligible for the spring booster vaccine receives it. As of 20 June, 91 per cent of those aged 75 and over and 86 per cent of elderly care home residents have received a fourth dose of the Covid vaccine, the majority of which have been administered as part of the spring booster programme. I want to again express my gratitude to all NHS staff and partners who have helped to achieve that uptake. We have been working closely with health boards to encourage uptake and have introduced a range of outreach activities to build trust or remove barriers for people who might not otherwise take up the vaccination offer. Those include using mobile outreach units provided by the Ambulance Service, creating Covid sense posters in multiple languages and formats, and developing a culturally sensitive vaccine explainer video informed by insights from organisations representing different communities. Given the current high number of cases that we are experiencing right now, I would again take the opportunity to urge all those who are eligible for the vaccine, including from the spring booster, to come forward and get that protection. I thank the First Minister for her detailed answer. As someone who has had her spring booster, I would indeed endorse the statements that she has made and especially as we see cases now rising. Further to that, with cases reported at 1 in 30, and undoubtedly that is an understatement and hospital admissions rising, we can all see where we might be headed if we throw caution to the winds. I am a sick of restrictions as an ex-person, but what should we be doing as individuals and, in fact, in commercial situations? What should we be doing to try to nip this in the bud and not head towards a restrictive winter? We are seeing a rising trend of cases at the moment. We consider that that is being driven by the BA4 and BA5 sub-variant of Omicron, and it is important that we continue to monitor that. The Scottish Government will continue to monitor that very closely. None of us want to see a return to restrictions of any nature. We are not at this stage seeing the translation of cases into hospital cases in the way that we did at earlier stages of the pandemic, particularly before vaccination, but that does not mean that this illness is mild for everyone. Having recently had Covid, it is a nasty virus and can affect people seriously. Christine Grahame is right to remind us that it is important to continue to take precautions to try to limit the potential for transmission of the virus, and it is important, above all, if you are eligible for any dose of the vaccine and you have not yet had that dose of the vaccine to get it because it provides significant protection against serious illness. Covid cases have been rising, hospital admissions are rising, too, and long Covid cases are going up. It is over six months since many people have had their third vaccination, including people who are in the shielding category because of their health condition. Protection from vaccination is now waning. Will the First Minister bring forth the autumn vaccination programme to this summer, given that we are facing another wave of Covid infection? In light of the press conference held by Long Covid Scotland today, what urgent action will she take to improve services and research for the condition? First, on vaccination, we continue to monitor very carefully informed by expert scientific and clinical opinion the effects of vaccination. It is important to be responsible about the terminology and the language that we use about the impact of vaccination. On timing and the coverage of any vaccination programme or phase of a vaccination programme—this applies to the autumn campaign—we will continue to be guided by the advice and recommendations of the JCVI. That is the responsible thing to do. The Government has acted quickly to ensure that recommended vaccination gets to all eligible people as quickly as possible, and we will continue to do that. On long Covid, we are investing this year to support NHS boards and partners to improve the care and support available for people with long Covid. For example, the investment that we are making will enable boards to introduce care co-ordinator roles so that there is a single point of contact for people with long Covid. It will provide extra resource to support person-centred thorough assessments of the needs of people with long Covid to make sure that they can then be supported to access the most appropriate support for them. It will provide additional capacity for community rehabilitation services to support people who are suffering from long Covid with the issues that affect their day-to-day lives. To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of reports that incidents of bullying in NHS Scotland have risen by nearly 50 per cent in five years. Bullying is always unacceptable. We want people to have avenues available within health boards to raise any experiences or concerns that they have. That is why a new bullying policy was introduced in 2020 to ensure that more support was available. The Government also commissioned John Sturrock QC to review the culture in NHS Highland in particular. One outcome of that was the establishment of a ministerial working group to examine the issues of culture more broadly. That is work that happened previously that was impacted by Covid. However, I can confirm today that we are now developing a new national leadership development programme for health, social work and social care sectors to carry that work on and help foster an open and welcoming and supportive culture in the NHS where all staff are valued and treated with dignity and respect. First Minister, in the north-east the picture is particularly alarming with reported cases having tripled in NHS Tayside and doubled in NHS Grampian. Those cases will have had a deeply damaging effect on the mental health of staff at a time when recruitment and retention are an endemic issue in our NHS. The First Minister mentions the Sturrock review. What assessment has been made that lessons from the Sturrock review into bullying in NHS Highland have been implemented by health boards? What urgent steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that health boards foster an open and tolerant workplace culture going forward? Before I come back again to the very serious issue that has been raised here, let me acknowledge that recruitment is a challenge in the national health service, as it is in many parts of our public services and indeed our economy more generally. One of the reasons that recruitment is such a challenge, and it is appropriate to say this, this is six years to the day since the Brexit referendum, is because of Brexit, the ending of free movement, for example. Those issues should remind us all of that folly, and I hope it particularly reminds us of that. On the issues of bullying in the national health service, we should all be very clear that bullying is unacceptable. It has no place anywhere, it certainly has no place in the national health service, and we should unite those politicians to send that message loudly and clearly. On John Sturrock's review of cultural issues in NHS Highland, which goes to the specific question that was raised, the health secretary asked all health boards to consider the recommendations, review their internal assurance mechanisms and advise the Government of actions that they have undertaken. We will continue to monitor progress on that closely, and, as I said in my original answer, we are also developing a new national leadership development programme that we will launch later this year. First Minister, in the last Parliament you agreed or your Government agreed to debate the Sturrock report. You did in fact agree in this Parliament to debate the Sturrock report. Do you think that the fact that you have not has not helped this bullying going on in NHS and that you should now fulfil your promise and provide that time as you have undertaken twice before? I am certainly happy to consider Government time for that. Opposition parties can choose to debate in their time any issue that they want to debate. I think that it is important that we have vigorous and robust debate in this Parliament, but I think that it is more important or as important on these issues that we ensure the recommendations from John Sturrock's review are actually implemented, which is why the work that I referred to in my earlier answer is so important. These issues do matter. It is vital that everybody who works in a national health service has a culture that supports them, not one that in any way allows them to be bullied or intimidated and John Sturrock's recommendations certainly will help to ensure that that is the case. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government plans to appoint a women's health champion in light of the appointment of a women's health ambassador for England. We will be appointing a women's health champion or ambassador this summer. This will be an important step in the delivery of a women's health plan, which, of course, was the first women's health plan published by any Government in the UK. I understand that the UK Government is still developing its women's health strategy for England and that the Welsh Government has committed to drafting a women's health plan, but that has not yet been done. Through the Scottish plan, we have prioritised improving services and information for women, including initiating use research on endometriosis, launching a new women's health platform on NHS Inform and increasing the choices that women have to access contraception at community pharmacies. Women across Scotland face the significant challenge of health inequalities on a daily basis. For many women, those inequalities can define their lives, in some cases simply because they are women and in others because they are women who live in areas with higher levels of deprivation. It is clear that many of the short and medium-term actions in the women's health plan are in need, and I thank the minister for confirming that the appointment will be made. If the First Minister truly recognises the urgency of this matter, will she give women across Scotland the answer that they not only want but need and ensure that the appointment will be meaningful and will take forward the important short-term actions from the women's health plan, which have not been forthcoming so far? Yes, the appointment will be meaningful. I am not entirely sure what is intended by that question. Of course it will be meaningful. Anybody appointed to this role will have expertise that is required. It is important that we take forward all the action points and recommendations in the women's health plan. As I said, we were the first Government in the UK to produce a women's health plan. Since the launch of the plan, we have seen progress made on a range of actions. The development of the women's health platform on NHS Inform is an important source of information. The jointly funded research call with the women's health plan on endometriosis research is also important. We have established a menopause specialist network, which is meeting regularly to provide peer support and support for primary care teams. It is something that is really important. We have made progress on access to contraception in pharmacies and action on menstrual health, including menopause. It is now included in the Scottish curriculum. A range of things have already happened, but it is important that we drive forward all the recommendations in this, which is why the appointment of a women's health campaign is such a key part of it. As I said in my original answer, that appointment will happen this summer. I will return briefly to general and constituency supplementary questions. I will take one final question from Maggie Chapman. Yesterday, in the Commons, the Deputy Prime Minister laid out his plans for a so-called British Bill of Rights. In reality, this is a rights removal bill. It would rip up the European Court of Human Rights from domestic law and rewrite the Scotland Act. In that place, we are supposed to rely on Mr Robb's common sense. It becomes clearer every day that only by becoming independent can we build a fairer and more equal Scotland. Will the First Minister join me in opposing those dangerous plans and can she outline what impact that might have on our plans to introduce a Scottish human rights bill during this Parliament? I could hear the discomfort from the Conservative benches as Maggie Chapman was speaking, and I am not surprised that they are so deeply uncomfortable. Having a UK Government that Scotland did not elect a UK Government that has already taken us out of Brexit against our will, now ripping up, removing or at the very least diluting human rights, absolutely is yet another argument for Scotland becoming independent. The bill will impact on devolved responsibilities, and it is therefore important that the UK Government properly consults with us. I do not hold out much hope of that happening in reality, but we have plans for a human rights bill, and we remain committed to taking that forward over the course of this Parliament.