 That concludes general questions. The next item of business is First Minister's questions. I intend to take some constituency-in-general supplementary after question 2 and some after question 3. Members wishing to add such supplementary should press their quest to speak buttons during question 2, and I'll keep a note of members who press and may take further supplementary discussion at the end if we have time. Members and members wishing a supplementary question on question 4 to 6. 1. Douglas Ross Thank you, Presiding Officer. Every day in Scotland, four people lose their lives as a result of drug misuse. That's four lives every day cut needlessly short. Families mourning the loss of loved ones. Every single day in Scotland. This is a crisis. It is a national shame. The longer we wait, the longer we fail to act, the more lives will be lost. People are looking to this Parliament to deliver the solutions to halt this crisis and save lives. Today I published the Scottish Conservatives' right to recovery bill to guarantee everyone who needs treatment for addiction can get it. I shared it earlier this morning with the First Minister. In June, she said that she would look with an open mind at any proposals that are brought forward, including proposals for legislation. Will the First Minister commit to her Government fully supporting her proposal to tackle Scotland's drug death crisis? I will certainly repeat what I said before. When there is a bill, we will look at that very carefully. I have received the consultation this morning. I have an open mind on that. Just in point of fact, unless I am mistaken here, Douglas Ross, as I understand it, has not published a bill this morning. Indeed, the consultation that was sent to my office states that at this stage there is no bill, only a draft proposal. I am not criticising that. It is important that legislation is properly consulted on. We will consider the proposals in the consultation. As and when that develops into actual proposed legislation, we will consider that in detail. In addition to that, perhaps it is a point of agreement. I think that speed of action is now essential. We all know that legislation takes time to go through the proper processes. Having looked briefly at the document that was sent to me this morning, it does not appear on the face of it to suggest anything that goes beyond what we are already doing, although it suggests that those things should be enshrined in legislation. If I take, for example, funding, part of the consultation regards the establishment of a new national funding scheme separate to ADPs. However, it does not appear to be suggesting additional funding. For example, it says that what is proposed is well within the £50 million annual spending already being delivered. We will continue with the action that we have set out. We will continue to take that action. I do not think that it is right to wait for legislation. I repeat again that we remain open minded to looking at the details of legislation when that comes from the consultation that has been published today. The First Minister will be aware that I am going through the very detailed process of the non-government bills unit. I am following the advice of parliamentary officials, which I am very grateful for that they have provided to me and the party. On the issue of funding, we know that the money that is currently being spent on that issue to try to save people's lives is not getting to those who need it most, which is why we are saying that there are alternative ways to do it. I hope that the First Minister continues to be positive in her response to the consultation and the legislation that comes forward. Earlier this week, the First Minister proposed that we go on a joint visit, and she knows that I immediately agreed to that offer. A key author of the bill and his colleague, the manager of Blue Vale Community Club in Hag Hill, have suggested that the First Minister and I visit them to see the need for a right to recovery. Volunteers at the club pointed out that it is in the second most deprived area in Scotland. People in places such as Hag Hill are 18 times more likely to die from drugs than people in the most affluent areas. Blue Vale is trying to build a whole community and a whole systems response to the drugs crisis. That bill would help them to get even more lives back on track. Will the First Minister agree to a joint visit with me to Blue Vale so that we can find some common ground and get around the table with those on the front line to hear why that bill is so desperately needed? I will come to that point directly in a moment, but can I complete the point that I addressed in my first answer? I was not, and I think that I said explicitly that I was not criticising the process that Douglas Ross is going through. In his initial question to me, he said that he had published a bill this morning, and I simply was making the point that that is not the case. So we will consider the consultation, we will consider that fully and with an open mind, and then when that is translated, as I expect it to be in the fullness of time, into an actual bill, we will consider that in the normal parliamentary processes that all legislation goes through. I do have an open mind, and I hope that we can find maximum common ground. I suspect that there will continue to be issues that divide us on the correct responses to the drugs crisis, but I hope that none of us in this chamber allow those issues to get in the way of the areas where we can build agreement and consensus. On the issue of a visit, I am glad that Douglas Ross accepted my suggestion earlier in the week that we go together to a working-class community. My office will be in touch to take that forward shortly. I am certainly willing to meet organisations and individuals, as I have previously affected by drugs misuse. Of course, and I think that this is an equally important point, Presiding Officer, and I hope that it is one that will be accepted by Douglas Ross. The issues that are faced by working-class communities go beyond drugs. Indeed, drug misuse can, in some cases, be a symptom of deeper issues—poverty, for example. I am sure that Douglas Ross will agree with me that, if we are to undertake such a joint endeavour, it will also be important to meet, for example, those who have just had their universal credit withdrawn, driving them deeper into the poverty conditions that sometimes lead to the other issues that we are talking about. I look forward to finalising the details of that. I look forward to meeting with people who will, no doubt, have things to say about Scottish Government policy, about what we are doing, about what more they think we should do, but also people who are being deeply affected each and every day right now by UK Government policy that is doing a lot of damage in working-class communities the length and breadth of the country. I am grateful to the First Minister for that answer, and I give an unconditional acceptance to meet any community anywhere at any time, because that is an issue of national importance. I am raising the issue about drugs deaths today because of the consultation that I have brought forward. I know that the First Minister has said this a couple of times. If I could just lay a bill right now—I think that it is just important that everyone understands this—if I could lay a bill right now, I would, but the non-government bills unit, which the Parliament supports, sets out a very specific process for those not in Government to go forward with. However, we have heard from the drugs minister and others within the Government that they were waiting to see our proposals. Our proposals are in the consultation document that was launched today. The bill has been built by front-line experts, such as Favour Scotland. It has the backing of recovery groups across the country. One of those is a really serious issue, because I was saying that what we are putting forward has been backed by recovery groups across the country. One of those is recovery enterprises in Kilmarnock. The founder, Mark Gallagher, says that people have, and those are his words, given up trying to access treatment because they see the system as broken. That is why he believes that we need to take forward the proposal that I have launched today. Will the First Minister listen to those experts and, instead of delaying any longer, commit her Government to backing our bill at stage 1 so that Parliament can properly scrutinise, because the First Minister's concerns seem to be the lack of scrutiny? By saying right now that she would approve our proposals at stage 1, we would give Parliament the opportunity to look at them in detail. First Minister, I am genuinely trying to be helpful and to build some agreement here. I have said twice that I understand the process that Douglas Ross is going through. My comments are not meant to be a criticism. I would simply ask him, in return, to understand that the proper and due process any responsible Government has to go through in considering legislation. I cannot engage with a bill that does not yet exist for the reasons that we have heard. We will engage with the proposals in the consultation. I, having looked at it briefly already this morning, would immediately welcome that, for example, when it comes to treatment, the consultation seems to recognise that we need a range of different interventions and services and that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. I think that that is a welcome step forward from the Conservatives, who have previously appeared to suggest that the only residential rehabilitation was a solution. Already, I can see the emergence of some common ground. I genuinely want to treat that with the respect that it deserves. Equally, Douglas Ross must know that I cannot stand here and say, carte blanche, that I will vote for a bill when, by his own admission, for understandable reasons, the bill does not yet exist. Let us try to move forward here with a genuine determination to build consensus where we can. The last point that I would make is one that I made earlier. There is a real need here to move forward at pace with the best will in the world, and I think that we are demonstrating this here today. Legislation takes time, and it takes time for good reason. I do not want to wait for legislation. However, merited legislation may or may not turn out to be, I do not want to wait for that. We have set out a very detailed plan of action backed by significant additional resources that has, as its heart, guaranteed standards of treatment, including access to same-day treatment. We are going to get on with that. If we think as a Parliament that legislation can help to underpin that in the future, as I have said many times, I am open minded to that. However, if we want to build that consensus, let us both understand the processes that we have to go through in order, hopefully, in the interests of people across the country that we can get there. Douglas Ross. That is a fair comment, but stage 1 of a bill is agreeing the general principles. The First Minister has already looked at some of the principles that we are putting forward. She has already looked at the issues around funding. She has already looked at the areas where there is agreement. Although there seems to be opposition from her back benches, I am more encouraged by her response than I have heard from those behind her, because our proposal is also supported by grieving families. If SNP members want to talk about grieving families, then shame on them, because I want to give a case about Vicki. Vicki has lost two brothers to drugs. She lost Stuart just last year. He was a father of twins. He was only 43, and Stuart came from a loving family. Vicki said that he tried to get treatment, but, and I quote her words, he was moved from pillar to post. He was passed about the system. He was treated like he didn't matter. Vicki is backing our proposals. She can't know for sure that it would have saved Stuart, but she told us, if we had this bill, I wonder how many people would still be here. The First Minister was absolutely right to say that we have to move forward at pace. Will she listen to the experts, the grieving families and the proposals that we are bringing forward and ensure that there is urgent parliamentary time given to consider the proposals on such an urgent issue? I am genuinely trying not to make this exchange a politically divisive one, because I think that we all agree. We perhaps don't agree in all of the detail of this. We certainly don't necessarily agree on all of the background to this, but I think that we do agree that this Parliament, and I certainly accept that this Government has got much work to do. Let me try and make some progress here. I can't agree to vote for a bill that doesn't yet exist, because I don't know what that bill in detail is going to say. On the look—I only received the consultation this morning—I have had the chance to have a brief look at it. I will study it in more detail. However, if the broad proposals there translate into the general principles of a bill, I think that it would be likely that we would want to give that bill a fair wind through Parliament to see whether, on the detail, we can reach consensus. I think that any reasonable person, when we are talking about a bill that is not yet in existence, would think that that is not an unreasonable response for a First Minister who has a duty to make sure that we go through all the right processes to give. I hope that we can agree that that is a reasonable starting point. On the fact that we have a duty—I feel very strongly—to make sure that what has not worked well in our drug treatment services in the past is rectified for the future, we have an obligation to make sure that we are listening to lived experience and that we are using that lived experience to drive proposals to my condolences. My sympathies are with Vicki and the loss of Stuart and with every other family that has lost someone to drugs. They are the ones that we must keep in mind, but part of keeping them in mind and part of living up to our responsibility to them is making sure that we are thinking seriously about what has to be done and that, as we are considering, because we are demonstrating today in the time that it takes, understandably, to even get a draft bill before Parliament that legislation takes time, that we are moving on with various things now. That is the commitment that the Government has given and will continue to take forward. I just seek clarification, Presiding Officer. My objections when Douglas Ross was speaking for a sedentary position were that he seemed to be trying to bypass the Northern Government of Wales unit processes, which we all have to go through, which is a proposal consultation that a bill laid. I seek clarification from his exchanges. Is Mr Ross trying to bypass the other members who have to go through? I thank Ms Graham for her point of order. The member and other members will be well aware of the processes that a bill has to go through and that will apply in this case, as it would to any other bill. I take Anna Sarwar, question number two. Two years ago, I stood in this chamber and reviewed what brave NHS whistleblowers had uncovered about water contamination at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow. It was met with denial, delay and attempts to build in silence by the health board. Two years on, we have had a discredited independent review, a case note review, the commencement of a public inquiry and on-going police investigations. Every step of the way, we have had to fight the system to bit by bit, piece by piece, uncover the truth. Thanks to the case note review, we know that two children's deaths were linked to hospital infections. There is now a criminal investigation into one of those deaths, Millie Mayne, but the health board only referred Millie's case to the Crown when Millie's family applied for a fatal accident inquiry. They did not take the opportunity then to refer the second child and did not take the opportunity when the case note review was published. I met with the Crown, they did not know the details of the second child and had to ask me to provide those details. Again, thanks to the bravery of whistleblowers. That case note review was commissioned by the Scottish Government. Why was not that child's death reported for investigation? First Minister, those are really serious matters that the Government has and continues to take seriously. The Government commissioned the independent review. I do not accept that it is a discredited independent review, but the Government also accepted that there had to be further process in order to ensure that parents and families affected by what had happened at the Queen Elizabeth hospital was fully and properly investigated. This Government established the public inquiry, which is now under way, and that inquiry will take its course and is completely independent of Government and, of course, of Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board, as Anna Sarwar has also said. There is a live police investigation into some of the cases that have been discussed in this chamber before. For all of those reasons, it would not be right, appropriate or indeed helpful to the family's concern for me to get further into the detail of any of those cases, given the independent processes that are under way. However, I want to leave no one, as I have done before, in any doubt about how seriously I take those issues, how seriously the Government takes those issues and how determined we are through the processes that we have established in the form of the public inquiry to get to the answers, to get to the truth, and then all of us, as a Parliament, will have the opportunity to reflect on those findings and consider what further action is necessary. Anna Sarwar, I thank the First Minister for that answer, but I think that she misses a fundamental issue here, which is that this is still campaigners, families and whistleblowers having to take on the system to get answers rather than the system working in their favour, because at the heart of this are grieving families. We know that one of the families hadn't been told the truth about why their child died and hadn't been contacted. The First Minister gave this chamber a personal commitment to every effort that we made to contact that family, so I would appreciate an update on progress with that. However, there is a fundamental issue here. In one case, Millie's family is fighting for answers. They now have a criminal investigation into her death. The other family has been kept in the dark, and up until now there has been no criminal investigation into their child's death. Those cases shouldn't be treated differently. It shouldn't take a family publicly fighting for answers. That's not acceptable. There should have been criminal investigations launched into both deaths as soon as the circumstances became clear. Why, First Minister, is it still falling to whistleblowers, families and campaigners to the job of the health board and the job of the Scottish Government for them? I simply don't think that I have the greatest respect for whistleblowers, I have the greatest respect and obviously the greatest of sympathy for the families, and I would absolutely not hesitate to say that. I go again to the point that I made earlier on. It was this Government, it was the previous health secretary, Jeane Freeman, who commissioned and established the public inquiry. The public inquiry is now under way. There are criminal investigations under way. It is not up to me what cases are investigated from a criminal perspective, and rightly that is not up to me. That is up to the police and the Crown Office. I know, and again, just as in the previous, it is important to try not to divide on these issues, but to recognise the actions in this case of Anasawa. I know that he cares deeply about the families involved here, and that's why I also know that he will recognise—at least I hope he recognises—that the worst thing that I could do, standing here as First Minister right now, in light of the independent processes that are under way, a statutory public inquiry, and criminal investigations, would be for me to, in any way, inadvertently prejudice either of those processes by getting further into the detail of that right now. We've done what I think is the right thing to establish the independent inquiry. It is entirely for the police and the Crown Office to determine what criminal investigations are undertaken. I think that it is incumbent on all of us who take those issues seriously, who want to get to the answers here, that we allow those processes to take their course. Of course, when we have the findings of them, this Parliament will have not just the opportunity but a duty to reflect on any further action that is necessary. I know that the First Minister didn't give an update on the progress in finding the family. I would appreciate that in response to this question, but I think that she is also missing the fundamental point, that it should not take a family having to campaign in a newspaper in order to get a child's death investigate. That is fundamentally what has happened here. The reason why Millie Mayne's death is being investigated is because of the bravery of Kimberly Darick to go on to the television and speak in a newspaper about what happened to her daughter. The other family does not have the opportunity to do that because they do not know what happened to their child. That cannot be a reason not to have a criminal investigation into that child's death. Months ago, I asked the First Minister to help to find the family, and years ago, I asked her to hold the health board to account. Every time we ask them to take action, little happens. Every bit of progress has been fought for by the families and the campaigners. I know what she says about the public inquiry. That public inquiry was hard fought and won by the families and the campaigners, frankly, not by the Government. Nicola Sturgeon was health secretary when the hospital was commissioned, she was First Minister when the hospital was opened and has been in charge throughout this scandal. Surely there must come a point when it stops being whistleblowers, families and campaigners taking on the state in order to get answers, and instead the state takes the side of the whistleblowers, families and campaigners to find the answers and get justice, because we cannot wait for the outcome of the public inquiry for families to get justice. That could take years. Words of sympathy from the First Minister are, frankly, wearing thin. What is it going to take for Nicola Sturgeon to take responsibility, own this crisis, get a grip of this rotten health board and get the families, the truth and the justice that they deserve? First Minister, before I go on to that question, I apologise for not addressing the point about the efforts to trace the second family. The last time I was asked about this, I set out the steps that the health board had taken to try to locate the family. I have not located the family, as I absolutely understand that that is not for the want of trying and effort, and appropriate steps will continue to be taken. This is a fundamental point of constitutional democracy. It is not up to the First Minister of the country at any time, whoever he or she may be, to determine what cases are and are not subject to criminal investigation. It would be deeply improper if that was the case. On the question that I was just posting again, a Government that has established a full independent statutory public inquiry cannot be said to be a Government that is somehow trying to hide away from getting to the truth. We want the answers in order that if there are issues to be addressed with the health board, they can be addressed. If there are issues around Government policy, they can be addressed and fundamentally so that the families, the most important thing of all, get the answers that they want. However, it is not credible for Anas Sarwar to say that a public inquiry was fought for in campaign for, and I accept that, although the Government did establish the public inquiry, and then in the next breath just to say, well, it doesn't matter, we can't wait for that, we have to somehow do something different. This is an independent statutory public inquiry. Those who have a genuine interest in getting to the answers in the truth now have a duty to allow that inquiry to properly do its work. That is what the Government is going to do, and I would suggest that that is what Anas Sarwar needed to do as well. The First Minister will be aware of the Prime Minister's outrageous and condescending response on the Andrew Marshall and others regarding the cull and incineration of pigs, which should have gone into her food system. Does she agree with me that this waste is unacceptable, as is the financial and emotional toll on the farmers involved, and that having a robust supply chain is completely undermined by a lack of a trained workforce? Yes, I think that it was deeply regrettable that the Prime Minister treated the very serious issues of animal welfare with such disdain on Sunday, just as I think it was outrageous that he made an entire speech to his party conference yesterday and did not mention the fact that, on that very day, his Government had taken away £20 a week from the poorest families across the country. In terms of the specific issue that Jim Fairlie raises, the Government is monitoring this very carefully. At the heart of it are labour shortages, which are impacting on many sectors of our economy. Those labour shortages have been significantly exacerbated by the ending of freedom of movement that came about because of Brexit. We will do what we can through employability and skills work to try to address that, but fundamentally the answers and the solutions have to lie with the UK Government. I would call on them to take urgent action to make sure that those problems that are being experienced already do not get even worse as the winter progresses. There have been long-standing issues with mental health treatment in my region. It is therefore troubling to learn of reports of inappropriate admission of children under 18 into adult psychiatric wards. First Minister, it is vital that young people with often complex needs get the help that they need and deserve. Therefore, what action will the Scottish Government put in place to address those failings? It is important that everybody who needs mental health treatment gets that treatment in the best possible setting. That is particularly important when we are talking about children and adolescents. The Government is already taking a range of actions to further develop community wellbeing services for children and young people, and, for example, to provide funding for councillors in schools so that there is much earlier intervention for young people and that more of them do not require the services of more specialist provision. There is a range of work under way here that we will continue to progress with additional funding over the months to come. Yesterday, an employment tribunal upheld former police officer Rona Malone's claims of victimisation against Police Scotland. The judgment was damning. It found that the firearms unit in which she served was an, I quote, absolute boys club, and the culture was horrific. It also found evidence provided by officers from the professional standards department, the department responsible for investigating complaints within the police as implausible and wholly unsatisfactory. I am sure that the First Minister, like me, has huge respect for the work that police do, both locally and nationally. However, I am concerned that the experience of Ms Malone is not unique. In recent years, I have been approached by female officers raising issues regarding culture, out-of-hours behaviour, deployment rotors and equipment. There are complaints often being lost in a system that is difficult and stressful to navigate, ultimately leading to those officers resigning from the force rather than pursuing their complaints. I know that Rona McLean has spoken to her, so I ask the First Minister to join me in commending her for her bravery in pursuing her complaint. In light of the Sarah Everard issues, does she feel that there is a need for a fuller investigation and inquiry into the culture and practice within Police Scotland regarding sexism and misogyny? First Minister, can I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Rona Malone and to say how deeply troubling I think the findings of the tribunal were? I would commend her bravery in taking that case. The findings, though, do paint a picture that should trouble all of us. I think that it is really important that, in confronting those issues, as we all must do, we do not consider that any case like this is necessarily an isolated incident. Secondly, we do not assume that any organisation in our society, however well respected that organisation is by all of us, is somehow immune from the misogynistic culture that pervades our whole society. The findings of this tribunal must be taken seriously, and I welcome the response of Police Scotland yesterday to accept the findings and express its seriousness in addressing those issues. More generally, though, this is a further reminder, and there have been too many painful reminders of this in recent weeks, that, on the spectrum of unacceptable experiences on the part of women—and it is a spectrum that goes from inappropriate comments through to discrimination in the workplace, through to violence and serious sexual assault—behind all of the experiences on that spectrum lies unacceptable behaviour on the part of men. That is the problem that has to be addressed and rectified. I am old enough and have seen, like all women, at some stage of that spectrum. I have experienced this over the years. I do not say that lightly because it has taken too long to get to this point. I hope that we are finally at a watershed moment and at a turning point where we stop expecting women to fix those problems. We put the full glare where it belongs on men who behave in a deeply unacceptable and misogynistic way. I would say to all men in this chamber and all men across the country challenge it if it is on the part of other men that you know. Challenge your own behaviour and then let us collectively, as a society, turn the page and turn the corner so that women can live free of the fear of harassment, abuse, intimidation, violence and, in the worst cases, death. To ask the First Minister when the cabinet will next meet. I am very grateful for that reply. Muscle spasms, chronic fatigue, diarrhea, air hunger to the point of gasping for breath. Figures released today show that 79,000 people in Scotland are now living with long Covid. It could be the biggest mass disabling event since the end of the First World War. The Scottish Government's initial intervention could only help 60 people a month, which is why the much delayed long Covid plan that was published last week should have been transformative. However, I have spoken today with the constituent who suffers from long Covid. He was, in his words, devastated to discover that nothing has changed. I have warned before that people with the condition are better off moving to England where there are well-established clinics in a care pathway and nothing in this document will match that. Long Covid Scotland has been trying to meet the health secretary, but he has refused them at every turn. If he hasn't met them, how can he possibly know what they need? Will the First Minister either meet them herself or instruct her health secretary to do so at the earliest possibility? I believe that the health secretary has met long Covid patients and I am sure that he would be more than willing to meet others. That is a serious issue and one that we are going to be living with the impact of for some time. I am not going to comment because I am not an expert on the arrangements south of the border. I suspect that they do not always live up to how they are talked about here in some of the detail, but that is another matter. We have published the long Covid strategy that Alex Cole-Hamilton refers to. There are 16 different commitments in that. All those commitments are backed by a £10 million funding commitment. Part of that is to further our understanding of the reasons for and the implications of long Covid so that the services that are then developed are properly addressing that. There is nothing to stop health boards establishing specialist provision right now, but what we also want to do is make sure that, through all of the more generalist NHS provision, clinicians are capable of addressing the impacts of long Covid as they are presented. Again, that is a serious issue now, and it is going to continue to be an obligation on the part of government, which is why the commitments in that paper are so important. I call Bob Doris. I call Peter Larrs and the Scottish Homes by February 2022. Is the First Minister aware that several retailers are still serving the previous generation of smoke in Peter Larrs, which cannot be interlinked and cannot meet the new standards that are being brought in? Does she agree with me that such stores should be clear with customers about the February 2022 regulations ahead of any purchase being made? Can I ask if there will be any support for homeowner struggling to pay for the cost of installing such smoke and heat alarms? You heard enough of the question. I think so. I apologise to Bob Doris. I missed the start of the question. The sound could not be heard here in the chamber, but I think I got the general thrust of it. Those are obviously important issues ahead of the expected demand for smoke alarms ahead of 1 February next year, when the new standard is due to come into force. There is significant public interest because of the public awareness campaign, but we do know that some retailers may have short-term supply issues. We have been assured by manufacturers that there is a sufficient supply of alarms available to meet that expected demand. We will continue to consider whether there is more that we need to do to support homeowners, be compliant with that standard and take a range of actions should we consider that that is necessary. However, the public awareness campaign was important in making sure that people have that increased understanding of what will be expected as of 1 February next year. A report published by the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service for Scotland reported 33,425 charges of domestic abuse in 2020-21. That suggests on average 91 incidents of domestic abuse every day in Scotland, the highest level since 2015. That is only the number of reported cases. I know that the First Minister has taken interest in this unacceptable situation. If she agrees that the Scottish Government needs to review policies currently in place, will she investigate the establishment of family violence courts? We will consider any reasonable proposal. I know the new Lord Advocate who, as people will know from, her background has a strong interest in ensuring that victims of domestic abuse and women who are victims of male violence get appropriate and speedy access to justice. I know that she is keen to ensure that all the Crown Office policies and procedures are helping to ensure that that is the case. We have commented on the underlying driving reasons for domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, but where women and girls experience that. While some men experience domestic abuse and it is important to recognise that, the majority are women. The justice system responds appropriately. The numbers, while they are deeply troubling—anybody being victims of those crimes is deeply troubling—we have to remember that increases in numbers may mean that people now feel more able to come forward and support those crimes, which is something that we should welcome. Of course, the Parliament, to its great credit, passed a new law making certain behaviour that was not previously criminal in terms of coercive and controlling abuse. We have to bear those things in mind when we are looking at the numbers, but making sure that people have access to justice is an important part of the overall approach to reducing the impact of domestic abuse and violence on women. Question 4, Christine Grahame. To ask the First Minister, in light of this being libraries week, what the Scottish Government's response is to reports that some libraries remain closed? Libraries week is an opportunity to celebrate the contribution libraries make to our communities. A small number of libraries across the country have not yet reopened after the Covid closures. There are a number of reasons for that, including the fact that some are still being used as Covid test centres, some are co-located within schools or, in some cases, there is a requirement for refurbishment before reopening. However, I hope that most of the others will reopen soon. I can say, though, that of the 481 libraries across Scotland, 432 of them are open as of Monday, and a further 24 have announced reopening dates that will be forthcoming. Well over 90 per cent of all libraries across the country are already open, and that is something that we should welcome. In the programme for government, we announced a £1.25 million public library Covid support fund, which is intended to give local authorities and libraries support in getting open again and staying open, because libraries are a vital and integral part of communities across our country. I thank the First Minister for a detailed response. Many libraries are indeed open, though some are reduced hours, including in Midlothian, South Tweedale and Lauderdale. Does the First Minister agree with Pamela Tulloch, chief executive of Scottish Libraries and Information Council, who administers that welcome 1.25 million libraries recovery fund targeted at libraries and areas of deprivation? That helps, but part of the problem has been the council's understandable redeployment during Covid of staff elsewhere. Does she agree with me that, as we move out of Covid, full staffing of libraries should again be possible and, therefore, all libraries are fully open? Yes, I agree with that. It is important. I think that everybody recognises or everybody who has been reasonable recognises the impact of Covid, not just in libraries but on many of the other services that local authorities deliver. There is a period of getting back to normal, of reconfiguring services that had to be reconfigured going into Covid. It is important that libraries can fully reopen, unless there is a very good reason and a need for refurbishment, for example, or being used as a test centre when that cannot happen. Libraries are important to give young people in particular access to books. It was access to a library that fueled my own love of reading. When I was younger, that is vitally important. However, libraries are used for many other things as well. It is important that community provision is there, which is why, in Glasgow, where my constituency is, the vast majority of libraries are open again. That is welcome, as is the case across the country, but it is important that we support councils to get the remaining ones open as quickly as possible. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will review the implementation date for changes to allow parents to defer their child's start at primary school. Entry to school can be deferred if a child is not yet five on the first day of primary school. Not all deferred children are yet automatically entitled to a funded place in early years education. However, we have introduced new legislation to guarantee funding for early learning and childcare during any deferred year. That legislation will come into force from August 2023. That is on a timetable that has already been approved by Parliament. There are no plans to change this timetable because it has been developed in partnership with COSLA so that it is realistic and achievable. In the meantime, we have already committed £3 million to fund five authorities to deliver in 2021-22 as part of a pilot programme to support wider roll-out of that commitment, and the Minister for Children and Young People will shortly announce additional pilot authorities for 2022-23. Despite legislation being approved by Parliament, parents are still being refused the right to defer their child's school start. Indeed, the Scottish Government has opted for a child approach, meaning that it has become a postcode lottery where a council will grant permission for a child to start school one year later. School deferrals were not even mentioned as part of the Scottish Government's recovery plan. First Minister, why has the full implementation date been delayed until 2023 and will the Scottish Government commit to bringing that date forward so that all parents have the same rights to make the best possible decision for their child's education? On the issue of the August 2023 implementation date, I appreciate that the member was not in Parliament when that was agreed, but that implementation date of August 2023 was agreed by Parliament on 3 February 2021, and unless I am mistaken, it was supported by all Conservative members of Parliament at that time. The reason for that is a pragmatic one. We have to work with COSLA to make sure that that date is achievable and that it is deliverable, and that was the consensus that was reached and, as I said, backed by Parliament. Along the way, we are piloting, as I said in my initial answer, a number of local authorities to deliver on that commitment and to support the wider roll-out. I understand that parents want that to happen straight away and I understand the reasons for that, but we are doing this in the proper way so that it is deliverable, it is properly delivered and all children, when we get to that implementation date, should they want to defer or should their parents want to defer their entry to primary school, we will have that right. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the announcement that the SQA has entered a two-year agreement with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to improve equality's practices after the commission established, the SQA was not routinely assessing the impact of its policies and practices against the three needs of the public sector equality duty. The education secretary met the chief executive of the SQA earlier this week and impressed upon her the need to deliver against this section 23 agreement. The EHRC's findings referred to historic emissions at the SQA. Learners can be assured that all required equality impact assessments regarding the awarding of national qualifications over the past two years were completed and published indeed by the SQA and the Scottish Government. I welcome SQA's action plan and their commitment to completing outstanding equality impact assessments for all of their current policies and practices with 28 new equality impact assessments already published since August. Martin Whitfield. I am grateful. The First Minister spent the whole of the last Parliament telling us that it was education. Education was her number one priority. One of the causes of the attainment gap she claims her government are working so hard to close is infamously inequality. So can she tell me if it was her absolute priority, why did she never think to ask her an education governing body were they looking at the question of equality? I would expect the SQA in all bodies, whether they are government agencies or otherwise, to have quality at the heart of everything that they do. That has been impressed upon the SQA, as I said, in my opening answer. As I also said, this finding of the EHRC refers to historic emissions. Over the last period, since the current chief executive was appointed, any new SQA policy or practice that has been introduced has been subject to an equality impact assessment in line with duties under the Equalities Act. The SQA is right now to go back and make sure that that applies to all current policies and practices, and the Government expects them fully to do so in line with their action plan.