 The next item of business is First Minister's Questions, and at question number one I call Douglas Ross. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last night, the Deputy First Minister was forced to admit to this Parliament that the UK Covid Inquiry Centre requested the Scottish Government for messages related to the pandemic in February of this year. But last week, the Deputy First Minister claimed that the request was made just over a month ago. First Minister, those two statements are clearly contradictory, so how can they both be true? First Minister, the Deputy First Minister was clear on her statement, and you can check the official record for this, of course, when she made her statement last week. She did mention that there were initial requests from the inquiry. In terms of my own response to Anasawa, I was talking about a very particular issue around specific WhatsApp groups, but let me be clear that the Scottish Government clearly interpreted the requests from the inquiry in a way that was too narrow. For any shortcomings on our behalf that have caused any distress to the families of those who have been bereaved by Covid, I apologise unreservedly as I did last week, and I reiterate and re-emphasise that apology this week. What we have done on the back, of course, of the request from the inquiry, has ensured that the Government has released 14,000 messages to the inquiry. When it comes to my own witness statement, that includes reams of WhatsApp messages unredacted. That is, of course, in very stark contrast to a Prime Minister who not only dragged the inquiry through courts but has refused to hand over his own WhatsApp messages. That is the third week that I have raised at First Minister's questions. If the SNP does not like it, I do not think that they would have liked the First Minister's attempt at an excuse there, because the First Minister peddled the same false claims as the Deputy First Minister. Let us be very clear what he said to this chamber last week. Hamza Yousaf said, and I quote, the messages were asked for in September just a matter of weeks ago. That is what he said, black and white in the official record. But back in February, the UK Covery inquiry asked for, and I quote, internal and external emails, text messages or WhatsApp messages held by the Scottish Government. The evidence is clear. Will he admit that in last week's session that he did not tell the truth? I absolutely refute that. I have told the chamber that, of course, they can check the official record. Clearly, I was talking about specific WhatsApp groups. Where I do accept fully from the inquiry is that we have interpreted their requests too narrowly. Subsequently, having done so, we have then supplied 14,000 messages to the inquiry. In my witness statement, I have handed over the WhatsApp messages that I have unredacted to the inquiry, in stark contrast to the UK Government, that took the inquiry to court, lost that court battle and the Prime Minister refuses to hand over his WhatsApp messages. Once again, I said to Douglas Ross, we do not fear scrutiny. I suspect his party. He absolutely does. That is a very brave answer from the First Minister, when his predecessor and others in Government have been deleting messages running away from scrutiny. Let us look very carefully, because the First Minister seems to be struggling with this, as to what was said last week. The Deputy First Minister told Parliament that it has been just over a month since messages were requested. The First Minister claimed in this chamber that the messages were asked for in September just a matter of weeks ago. That is what was said. That is in the official record of this Parliament. The two most senior people in the Scottish Government stated that the UK Covid inquiry only requested the messages in September. It was not a slip of the tongue. It was not an honest mistake. It was deliberate. Now the UK Covid inquiry, tasked with getting answers for grieving families, has had to demand that the SNP comes to this Parliament to tell the truth about the timeline of when the requests were made. So why did Humza Yousaf and the SNP make these false claims? I would urge Douglas Ross to once again read the statement from the Deputy First Minister, which, of course, says in black and white—well, if you have, if Douglas Ross has, he will see in black and white that the Deputy First Minister references initial requests. It is entirely understandable and, of course, appropriate for the inquiry to ask us to then provide the absolute full context of requests, which we did without any hesitation, without arguing back with the inquiry to ensure that we were transparent and accountable. I understand why Douglas Ross wants to obsess about the process. We have, of course, handed over the 14,000 messages. I have handed over reams of WhatsApp messages from myself, and I absolutely acknowledge the distress that has been caused to families that have been bereaved by Covid and apologise unreservedly to them. While the process is important, the substance of those messages are important too. I can say with total confidence, even though I have not seen some of the messages from individual witnesses, what I can say with total confidence is that there was not a single Scottish Government minister who said, let the bodies pile up high. That, of course, was none other than Boris Johnson, a man that Douglas Ross served under in government. A man that Douglas Ross, of course, defended to the hilt. A man that Douglas Ross claimed was honest that Douglas Ross should be ashamed of himself for his defence of Boris Johnson. Hamza Yousaf should not just be ashamed of himself for that answer, but the way he is treating this Parliament with contempt and the families of grieving victims. Let us be very clear. The UK Covid inquiry repeatedly asked the SNP Government for WhatsApp messages. It asked if the messages existed last year. It asked for the messages themselves in February of this year and again in March and in July and in August, but the First Minister and Deputy First Minister claim that none of this ever happened. They have been caught red-handed in a cover-up. They knowingly told this chamber statements that were false. Is not it beyond doubt that Hamza Yousaf and Shona Robison misled this Parliament? Not the case. I refer Douglas Ross once again to the official record where the Deputy First Minister in black and white talks about initial requests. What I absolutely fully accept is that, as a Government, we interpreted those requests too narrowly. What we have done to take corrective action is to make sure that we submitted 14,000 messages. What I have done, of course, is to make sure that I have handed over the messages that I have in unredacted form. Let us not take away from the substance instead of the process issues that Douglas Ross is so obsessed with. We had this week Simon Case describing working in Boris Johnson's Government as taming wild animals. That, of course, was a Government that Douglas Ross was a member of. I cannot even read out the messages that Dominic Cummings handed to the inquiry. However, we heard from that inquiry. Douglas Ross will not want to hear this. I can understand why he is trying to shout it down. This is an exceptionally important point. In the inquiry in the last couple of weeks, we have heard that there was a deliberate attempt by the UK Government to exclude devolved Governments from decision making. During the early days of the pandemic, Douglas Ross was a minister within the Scotland office. Did he purposely try to exclude devolved Administrations and, indeed, this Government from decision making? At a time when people needed, right across the UK, serious leadership, during a serious time, they had wild animals, according to Simon Case, running the UK Government. Breif families and their lawyers are watching these exchanges, and I do not think that we should use Boris Johnson as our major success in Scotland. It could not be clearer that the First Minister has lost control of his Government and that he appears to have misled Parliament on more than one occasion. So let us focus on the substance, because this matters. The Covid pandemic was our country's most difficult period in living memory. That is why learning the lessons and getting the answers are so important. We were promised full transparency and co-operation by this Government, but they have failed. What such messages are not the only evidence that the Government is withholding from the inquiry. The legal advice that the Government has provided has not been complete and, in some cases, almost entirely redacted. The inquiry's lawyer has said that this means that the inquiry is constrained from fully carrying out its function. First Minister, why is your Government hiding the legal advice and not cooperating with the inquiry? Whatever information we can provide, and when it comes to legal advice, obviously Anasawa knows that I cannot comment on legal advice. Where there is, of course, the ability to hand over legal advice unredacted, then I would expect the Scottish Government to do so. Of course I am more than happy after this exchange of First Minister's questions to have the appropriate conversations with the law officers, but of course we have to ensure that legal privilege is maintained where that is, our legal responsibility to do so. Anasawa says that we are not complying. I disagree with that whole heartedly. We have handed over 14,000 WhatsApp messages. I have handed over the WhatsApp messages. I have an unredacted form. I have not decided what is relevant. I have handed all of my messages over to the inquiry for the inquiry to decide what is relevant. Anasawa is absolutely right. Those families who have been bereaved by Covid absolutely want answers. What I can say with the 19,000 documents that we have handed over, with the 14,000 WhatsApp messages that we have handed over, and with the WhatsApp messages that I have handed over, we are a Government that intends absolutely and unequivocally to fully co-operate with both the Scottish and the UK public inquiries. The First Minister says that he is co-operating, but I am not sure if he doesn't understand or doesn't know in terms of the question that I asked him, because he clearly hasn't still read the transcript from the Covid inquiry. Got it there, we will read it. First Minister, read it because the council to the inquiry has made it clear that they have asked twice on 3 August and 14 August for unredacted legal advice and they have not received it. That does not seem to be a fight that the Covid inquiry is having with the UK Tory Government, because there were major decisions during the pandemic that presumably had legal advice, such as lockdowns, discharge to care homes and do not resuscitate notices. That is why this is so important. Hiding this crucial evidence is in a front to every victim of Covid, their families and everyone who lived under lockdowns and closures. In reference to the First Minister's first answer, the Government has handed over legal advice in full to judicial inquiries before, the trams inquiry, the infected blood inquiry and the Scottish child abuse inquiry. The secrecy and evasion must stop will he hand over the legal advice in full to the Covid inquiry? In Anna Sauer's question, he gets to the nub of the issue, which is that the Government has co-operated with inquiries fully in the past. Where we are able to release legal advice, we will absolutely do that. Anna Sauer has to accept that there is first of all a process that has to be gone through. Secondly, each bit of legal advice has to be looked at on a case by case basis. That is why he is absolutely right that we have provided legal advice in previous inquiries. Where we can do so in this inquiry, I absolutely expect every single document, including legal advice, to be handed over to the UK Covid inquiry and to the Scottish Covid inquiry as well. I go back to the central point. Quite rightly, for those families who have been bereaved by Covid, we want to know whether we co-operate. 19,000 documents have been handed over. 14,000 messages, mainly messages, have been handed over. My messages, as well as messages that I know of other ministers who have been public about the messages that they have handed over, have been submitted to the inquiry. We take seriously our responsibility not just to provide documents, but where possible, the legal advice. Of course, there are legal issues around legal privilege, which have to be considered. Anna Sauer It is clear from that answer again that the First Minister is sinking, not swimming and is completely and utterly out of his depth. It is not me saying that the legal advice has been redacted and not handed over. It is the Covid inquiry on 3 and 14 August, asking for the information and still not provided by this Government. That is what that message is deleted, legal advice redacted and a different story every day. Even now, questions remain that the First Minister refuses to answer. He will not tell us how many people have failed to comply with their do not destroy notices, even though the inquiry says that there is no confidentiality issue. There is more. It has been reported that SNP ministers and special advisers use SNP and private email accounts to communicate. What is not clear is that those emails have been handed in full to the Covid inquiry. Can the First Minister tell us in the spirit of full transparency if any emails from SNP accounts have been handed to the Covid inquiry? If so, how many and if not, why not? Can I remind the First Minister again that this is about families and those who have lost loved ones during Covid? Before he answers, can I remind him that we need accurate answers the first time? I am not arguing with him about the point that the information has been redacted. I am saying to him that the reason why it has been redacted is because of issues that I can confirm around legal privilege. Of course, discussion would have to take place with our law officers in relation to what can be unredacted. Where we can absolutely send information unredacted is my full expectation as the individual who leads the Government that that information is provided in full in unredacted form. To give him an example of that, the way that I am leading by example, is that the WhatsApp messages that I have handed over have been handed over unredacted. The information that has been provided has been provided by me in unredacted form. As for any other form of communication and any other email address or informal or formal communication, it is fully my expectation that that information is handed over. Of course, I do not have sight of individual ministers or witnesses' statements. From a corporate position, of course, I can confirm that any relevant information that we hold will be handed over. Let me say once again that for the families of those who have been bereaved by Covid, this Government will fully comply with both the UK inquiry and the Scottish public inquiry. Question 3, Gillian Mackay. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is supporting renters who are struggling with the cost of living. I am acutely aware of the pressure-facing renters. I am pleased that this Parliament voted to extend the cost of living act for a final six months to March, which continues to provide protection and reassurance to renters by capping private sector rents. That is alongside our agreement with social landlords to keep rent increases this year well below inflation. Scotland is leading the way in support for tenants. This year, we are making £83.7 million available to local authorities to spend on discretionary housing payments more per person than any other UK nation. That is why I repeat my call to the UK Government to scrap its on-going freeze on local housing allowance rates, which hits hardest on tenants on the lowest incomes. Gillian Mackay. I thank the First Minister for that answer and, like him, I strongly support our emergency legislation to cap rents and reduce evictions led by Patrick Harvie last year. I welcome last week's court of session decision to reject a challenge to that legislation, saying that the challenge fell far short of what is required in order to demonstrate that the act disproportionately interferes with the property rights of landlords. With that court decision in mind, does the First Minister agree with me that it is time for landlord bodies to accept the overwhelming need for action to control high rents and to improve tenants' rights? Work constructively with this Government on the housing bill when it has introduced this parliamentary year. I welcome the court's decision last week. I want to work constructively with all stakeholders to deliver a system of rent control that works for Scotland. I am pleased that a number of landlord representatives bodies are working with us through the private rented sector stakeholder group, and a range of organisations representing the views of tenants, investors and developers are represented. I am keen that this approach continues as we move towards the introduction of the bill. The Deputy First Minister, myself, Mary McAllen, had a good session with our investor panel last week. It was made very clear from that investor panel that those who want to invest in property and affordable housing will do so in places that have rent controls. We have seen that in fact in Europe. We are keen to engage with everybody in relation to this very issue. There is no other Government in the UK that is as ambitious as this Government with our emergency legislation. That was on top of course of our legislation to end no-fault evictions in 2016, a move that the UK Government is now also considering. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to alleviate poverty in Scotland in light of reports that the UK is in violation of international law in relation to poverty levels. The Scottish Government is allocating almost £3 billion to support policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible during the on-going cost of living crisis this year. That includes delivering a game-changing Scottish child payment, tripling our fuel and security fund to £30 million. While the Westminster Government signed up to prolong austerity, it will continue to use every single lever available to lift people out of poverty. We know the devastating impact that UK Government measures are having on driving more people into poverty. That is why it is frankly no surprise to hear the UN's special rapporteur on poverty state that the UK Government is in violation of international law over poverty levels. However, that is shocking. We agree with the UN that universal credit is grossly insufficient. That is why we continue to call on the UK Government to introduce an essential guarantee that ensures that social security adequately covers the cost of vital essentials. Yesterday, the Trusill Trust released astonishing figures showing that 1.5 million emergency food parcels were distributed across the UK between April and September. The most parcels that the network has ever provided over the summer months—a 16 per cent increase UK-wide but mitigated to 9 per cent in Scotland. That is further evidence of the utter misery caused by what the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty called the Tory's quote, grossly insufficient welfare system. Does the First Minister agree with me that the UK Government must introduce a universal credit essentials guarantee immediately and that the only way to protect people in Scotland from Westminster's cruel policies is for this Parliament to have the full powers of an independent country? Collette Stevenson articulates powerfully about some of the evidence from the Trusill Trust and all we get is groans and moans from the Conservative benches. When the Trusill Trust is mentioned or poverty is mentioned, that tells its own story, does it not? I agree with Collette Stevenson that the UK Government must urgently fix the fundamental flaws with universal credit that are driving destitution and driving up food bank use. The Trusill Trust report is astonishing, as Collette Stevenson says. It makes clear that the UK Government's social security system is one of the driving factors pushing people towards hunger. That is why I support this. The Government supports the calls for an essential guarantee to be applied to universal credit and other reserve benefits, ensuring that social security benefits adequately cover the cost of vital essentials. Wouldn't it be better, far better, if we were able to extricate ourselves from a Westminster system that is causing such immense harm to our people? Far better have we stopped having to take money from health education transport to mitigate Westminster harm and instead had the full powers of an independent country not just to reduce poverty but to eradicate poverty. Question number five, Miles Briggs. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government is offering to NHS Lothian to contact the parents and guardians of over 23,000 children who reportedly may have received substantive testing to identify deafness, including support to identify other young children who have not received the required standard of auditory response testing. First Minister. Firstly, I want to say that I recognise the anxiety and the anger that children and families affected by this situation will quite reasonably feel. Miles Briggs and I met when I was previously Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care when this issue first emerged and I understand the anger not just of the families and the children involved but those advocating for them. The Scottish Government is working in partnership with NHS Lothian to ensure continued progress against the actions of the British Academy of Audiology report. The BAA advised that not all of the 23,000 children seen during the period between 2009 and 2018 required to be reviewed. Those who did were offered a retest by NHS Lothian based on the timeline association with the Scottish Public Service ombudsman investigation and the sample size of the BAA reviews. I understand that families are being directly contacted and offered a meeting with the NHS Lothian senior management team to discuss and agree an appropriate care plan with a focus on ensuring the right support is in place. Miles Briggs. I thank the First Minister for that answer. The series of failures in NHS Lothian that have denied children with hearing loss, the chance to be identified early and receive hearing and speech and language therapy has been catastrophic for children and families here in Edinburgh. NHS Lothian has never confirmed how many parents or guardians have been contacted or indeed how many of the 23,000 children have been reassessed to date. It is unacceptable that families here in Edinburgh are having to fight for their children to access health services and the educational support needs which they will need as well. I ask the First Minister if the Scottish Government will today agree to all parents and guardians being contacted and if needed urgently reassessed. Given the many outstanding concerns that have been contained within the inquiries to date, what consideration have ministers given to the need for a public inquiry into the audiology scandal here in NHS Lothian and other cases that are being reported in other health boards? There are a number of questions that Miles Briggs asks me and I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care provides full detail in terms of those questions. In relation to how many families have been contacted, I will ensure that if we can provide that information that it is provided to Miles Briggs, my understanding of the BAA review that was done is that they ended up stratifying and ensuring that those children affected were in various categories, seven categories. Of course, those children where there were significant concerns reported were brought in for additional retesting or indeed there was additional clinical oversight given to their particular case. In terms of all of the children, the 23,000 children, I will ensure that Miles Briggs has given more information about that stratification, that categorisation, but I want him to have a level of assurance that those who are most seriously impacted, therefore highest at risk, were indeed given additional clinical care. In terms of lessons learned, it is a very important point that Miles Briggs raises. We ensured that the lessons from this unacceptable catalogue of failures were cascaded to health boards right across the country. Of course, we continued to make sure that health boards are vigilant to learning any of the lessons from this very sorry episode, but I will ensure that the information about how many children have been seen, if we are able to provide that information and make sure that it is provided to Miles Briggs. The issue that we face is that, despite detailed answers, there are continued to be parents who feel that they have been missed and who struggle to get help. What we do know is that the 23,000 children are potentially affected, but less than 2,000 have had a detailed review. What work is being taken to ensure that the sampling techniques that have been used are comprehensive? Do we know what number of children on the basis of that sampling have yet to be identified? Do we also have to look at the time period, because nobody before 2017 has been looked at at all? I will ensure that we give full answers to Daniel Johnson on the 23,000 children. Of course, I understand that that was not necessarily taken by NHS Lothian, but we know by the British Academy of Audiology that it designed and conducted the audit. As I have said, the children were categorised into various different categories, with, of course, those who were the most high-risk then being given further clinical oversight. If there are particular parents and families who feel that their child has not had the appropriate level of attention or care and are experiencing significant impacts or any impact, frankly, because of this sorry episode, I would ask that Daniel Johnson does bring that to the attention of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and I am sure that he will take that up with NHS Lothian. I am sure that Daniel Johnson has the contact detail, but I am more than happy to pass the contact detail on to Daniel Johnson of the appropriate individuals in NHS Lothian who I know are taking this matter with the utmost seriousness. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reports. The Scottish Water has issued bonus payments to executives in excess of public sector payrolls. The criteria for paying bonuses to Scottish Water's executive members are agreed by ministers ahead of each regulatory period. Those are in line with public sector payrolls, which state that we need to attract and retain highly experienced personnel to run vital public services. The current remuneration package for the CEO and senior management team is significantly smaller than that, paid by comparable utilities both in terms of salary and indeed bonus incentives. My apologies. I think that we can afford Pauli McNeill a supplementary question. It was reported this week that three executives of Scottish Water had received nearly 1.1 million bonuses in 2021, but that is on top of a six-figure salary. Despite the fact that there have been 14,000 sewage spillages in last year alone, which begs the question why they did qualify for performance bonuses. However, the same executives are withholding a pay rise from their workers unless staff accept a new pay structure and the poorest would be losing as much as 5,000. I have to ask the First Minister what has gone wrong here that a public sector body is paying public sector executives who seem to be allot into themselves, paying themselves vast amounts of money, where there are existing failures and customers to be asked to pay even more for the infrastructure. Can the First Minister justify that in a public sector body? I think that Pauli McNeill's characterisation of Scottish Water is deeply unfair. First and foremost, I understand when it comes to the pay negotiations that these are on-going. My understanding is that they were on-going until the early hours of the morning, and I am pleased that discussions are on-going. I do hope that strike action can be averted even at this last hour, because this Government, of course, has a very strong track record of when it comes to ensuring that workers are paid fairly. On remuneration, I had mentioned that Scottish Water has to be competitive. If I looked at, for example, the CEO's salary, it is, of course, a high salary of £245,000. Compare that to Welsh Water, where the base salary is £341,000, or United Utilities, where the base salary is £971,000. The reason why I mentioned that is because those are from salary comparison tables for £2223. We have to make sure that Scottish Water is able to attract the best talent right across the country and, indeed, right across the world. When it comes to the bonus element of any remuneration package, bonuses are only paid in the event of outperformance of demand targets that are, and this is crucial, verified by independent regulators. The First Minister will be aware of the damning report on drinking water by the drinking water quality regulator for Scotland. Sue Pech, the regulator, called out a backlog of maintenance, neglect of the maintenance of assets and said that this posed a, quote, real danger to human health and is issued in enforcement order. The First Minister is accountable for Scottish Water, so what is the First Minister going to do to ensure that this enforcement notice is carried out and that this backlog is properly dealt with? We will ensure that Scottish Water invests significant amounts of money over the coming period. In fact, Scottish Water will invest £4.5 billion across 21 to 27 period. That investment programme is supported by Government borrowing of up to £1.03 billion and £880 million was invested in 2020-23 upgrading essential treatment works, water supply and sewer networks. In terms of Scotland's water quality, we know from SEPA that 87 per cent of Scotland's entire water environment is assessed as having either a high or good classification for water quality. In terms of the enforcement notice, which Stephen Kerr is right to raise, it is my full expectation that Scottish Water will comply. There is much demand, of course, for supplementary questions. If we can keep our questions and responses concise, we will get more members in. I call Willie Rennie. Sewage dumped 14,000 times last year. Fecal bacteria 50 times the legal limit in lower Largo. Dry sewage dumping in St Andrews. How on earth can the First Minister justify such whooping bonuses when those Scottish Water bosses are responsible for such failure? I have just mentioned the fact that 87 per cent of Scotland's entire water environment is assessed by SEPA as having high or good classification. I have also made the point, which Willie Rennie clearly did not listen to, that when it comes to the remuneration of the awarding of bonuses, they are for where performance targets have been met and exceeded, and they are independently verified by regulators. It is important that, for a public company, a publicly owned company such as Scottish Water, they are able to compete. The CEO's base salary is far lower than many other comparative water companies or utility companies across the UK. We move to general and constituency supplementaries, and I call Rona Mackay. The news of 450 jobs being cut at reach PLC is deeply concerning and speaks to a wider issue of resourcing and journalism. Does the First Minister agree that with senior executives withdrawing bonuses in the millions of pounds while hardworking journalists are thrown in the scrap heap, the real loser in this is our very democracy? Yes, I agree with that wholeheartedly. Reports of any job losses are, of course, concerning, especially for the workers involved and, indeed, their families. More than that, in this particular case, we know that free and vibrant independent press is the very bedrock of a functioning democracy. We want to do all we can to support the sustainability and the diversity of journalism in Scotland. We urge media organisations to be investing in the sort of quality journalism that is so important in an open society, not making the cuts that have been reported and that Rona Mackay is right to raise today. There is a protest happening outside Parliament today for new routes home to recognise those who are locked up in hospital. I welcome families of these patients in the chamber today, including constituents of mine, Tracy and Natalie, mother and sister of Kyle, who have been locked up for 14 years. Hundreds of autistic people and people with learning disabilities are stuck inappropriately in out-of-area placements, hospitals and secure units, dozens of whom have been there for over a decade and a millennium of lost years in captivity. As we approach the March 2024 deadline in becoming home report, can the First Minister say what the Scottish Government has done to get these patients home? I credit Alexander Burnett, who raised his issue on many occasions on behalf of his constituents. We are, as a Government, absolutely committed to delivering the coming home recommendations to reduce inappropriate hospital stays and out-of-area placements, experienced by people with learning disabilities and complex care needs. What have we done? I can ensure that we get a fuller answer to Alexander Burnett, but, to give him some examples, we have launched a new dynamic support register, which is one of the very key recommendations to improve local case management of people with learning disabilities and complex care needs. That is a very important step towards achieving the coming home vision, which will help local areas to plan for people with learning disabilities and complex care needs to live in their home communities. We have also developed a practitioner peer support network in a national support panel to support local areas to share best practice, and we have provided £20 million under our community living change fund to integration authorities to design community-based solutions that avoid or limit future hospital use and, indeed, out-of-area placements. We all want—I know Alexander Burnett will agree with this—to ensure that people are supported to be in a home that is absolutely right for them and is close to their families and in their communities as possible. Jackie Baillie The First Minister may be aware that NICE and the SMC have determined that cystic fibrosis drugs that are literally life-saving will no longer be available on the NHS, because they consider the drugs to be clinically effective but not cost effective. It is important to say, though, that those already receiving or can be, SIMCeVie and CAFTRIO will continue to do so, but new patients will not. The First Minister knows that cystic fibrosis is a life limiting condition. So can I ask the First Minister will he meet with CF families and work with the UK government to negotiate a more acceptable cost from the drug manufacturer Vertex to literally save lives? First Minister. Can I thank Jackie Belly for raising a very important point indeed and of course we will continue our engagement with drug companies, with the UK government and of course the cabinet secretary for health regularly meets with families that have been impacted and affected. What I would say to Jackie Belly is that existing patients, of course, it is important to make this point and to reiterate the point that Jackie Belly made, existing patients on a treatment for cystic fibrosis will continue to have access to the existing treatments after NICE has issued its final recommendations irrespective of the outcome. However, I know that there are discussions that are on-going, and I know that the Scottish Medicines Consortium is collaborating with NICE on a joint multiple technology appraisal of several cystic fibrosis. Medicines, including CAF Trio, the SMC will publish final recommendations aligned with NICE guidance for health boards in Scotland to consider. However, I think that the suggestion from Jackie Belly is certainly one that we will seek to take up in relation to those conversations and engagement with the drug companies themselves. I was delighted to see the new and updated British Sign Language Action Plan released this past week, and I want to thank the First Minister for his help and support with my continued work in this area. Can I ask the First Minister how this plan will support British Sign Language use in Scotland? The whole chamber can recognise the incredible work that Can Adam has done in relation to British Sign Language. I want to pay tribute to her efforts in this regard. We are absolutely committed to making Scotland the best place in the world for British Sign Language users to live, to work, to visit and, indeed, to learn. The BSL national plan 23-29 contains 45 actions to help us to meet this very ambition. We recognise that, to deliver our aims, we need to ensure that the BSL community is at the very heart of the decision-making process. That is why we are establishing an implementation advisory group to support this plan. Hold us to account but also to inform our thinking in the delivery of each action. This group will be made up of organisations representing BSL users, the deaf and the deaf-blind community. It is important to note that this is not a static plan that will continue to evolve to ensure that our actions tackle the barriers that BSL users face in their everyday lives. Alarming figures from Fife have shown that violence and bullying within our schools is at unprecedented levels. The local authority staff reported almost 3,500 physical attacks and threats in just the last year. 6,480 pupils reported being bullied during the same time period. The response from Fife Council's anti-bullying policy is that punishing bullying is counterproductive, so nothing will happen. First Minister, do you agree with the policy and what do you have to say to the thousands of young people in Fife who are victims of bullying? I think that it is really important for an issue of this magnitude that we are characterising the situation absolutely correctly and accurately. Ross McAll, of course, is right to raise the very worrying issues and concerns that we have about violence and bullying in schools. I know that the education secretary has had two summits on school behaviour and there is another one that I think Drew very shortly. She has also met parents, with teaching unions, children's organisations and representatives right across the education sector. On 25 October last month, attendees shared their experiences of relationships and behaviour approaches and discussed potential solutions to ensure safe and consistent environments in schools. As I said, that followed on from the very first meeting that took place in September. The discussions at the events have been constructive and there have been some very good suggestions that the education secretary will seek to take up. In relation to more specific issues that Ross McAll may have, I would ask her to continue to engage with the education secretary on those points. Paul Sweeney, community link, worker poster set to be reduced from 64 to 42 in Glasgow from next year. One Glasgow GP this week told the BBC that these cuts could result in lives being lost. I understand that the Government has put a funding offer to the health and social care partnership in Glasgow, but that was rejected. Can the First Minister please provide an update on discussions with the health and social care partnership and advise what options remain to save these critical and cost effective roles in some of our most deprived communities? Can I join with Paul Sweeney on recognising the importance of community link workers? All of us that have community link workers in our constituencies have seen the invaluable service that they provide. Every single GP practice that I have spoken to sees them as a valuable and critical member of their staff. Paul Sweeney was right to recognise that the Scottish Government has offered additional funding. That does not seem to be enough according to the Glasgow health and social care partnership in order to continue with the full provision of community links workers. We are continuing to engage with them and expect to be able to update Paul Sweeney and those in the chamber that have an interest in this, hopefully at some point next week. The First Minister will be aware of the serious fireworks-related disorder in Nidry just a few days ago. Constituents have written to me and told me about how terrified they were during that time. Will the First Minister join me in condemning the violence, particularly the attacks on our emergency services? I would also like to take this opportunity to stress that incidents such as those should not be used to talk down the communities that I represent. Will the First Minister agree with me that a ban on fireworks is only possible with the full powers of independence and that the Government should implement the Fireworks Act 2022 as a matter of urgency? Will he consider additional resources to hotspot areas such as my constituency of Edinburgh Eastern? First and foremost, we condemn, in the strongest possible manner, the violence and the reckless actions that we saw, not just in the member's constituency but in other parts of the country as well. Let me also then pay tribute to our emergency workers, in particular our fire officers and police officers who were on the front line, and say just how despicable it is, of course, that they were under attack in this way. In relation to a wholesale ban, it is my understanding that it is not within our competency, but we will seek to do more. Whatever we can do within legislation, we will seek to do. That is why we have brought forward legislation and regulation over the years, of course, most recently in relation to the fireworks and pyrotechnics article act 2022. We will continue to work with our local authorities to see what more we can do in relation to additional resource. That is a fair request. What I would say finally is that it should not require Government legislation or regulation to know that you should not be firing fireworks at police officers or fire officers. Those who are responsible, of course, my hope is that, as the police investigation is on-going, if they are found to be guilty of such behaviour, they feel the full force of the law. You are responsible for protecting the reputation of this Parliament, but last night it was reported that an MSP in this chamber racked up a bill of £11,000 through data roaming charges whilst on holiday, a tab that has been picked up entirely by the taxpayer. For clarity, that is £65 an hour, 24 hours a day. For the seven days, he was on holiday in Far Flung, Morocco. This incident has damaged the reputation of the Scottish Parliament and it is incumbent on you, Presiding Officer, to repair and defend this. Therefore, I urge you to conduct a full investigation into this matter, including publishing the full bill that was incurred by Mr Matheson, to explore why the Parliament has appeared to break its own rules of a cap of £200 on roaming charges by paying the bill entirely and exploring whether Mr Matheson himself has broken any parliamentary rules by claiming for such a large sum. Parliament seeks your advice, Presiding Officer, and our constituents seek your reassurance. Thank you, Mr Hoy. Of course, points of order are intended to confirm that correct procedures are or have been followed, therefore this matter is not a point of order. However, if the member wishes to write to me on this matter, I will provide a response. I am very grateful, Presiding Officer, for students to rule 8.17. I would like to raise a point of order about how we can seek pursuant to rule 13.2, a ministerial statement from the Scottish Government law officer regarding questions and answers that were received today during First Minister's questions. There have been specific questions raised about redacted and unredacted legal advice that has been sought from the Covid inquiry, and it should be for the law officer to represent what the facts of this case are with regard to the Scottish Government. Thank you, Mr Whitfield, for his point of order. Under rule 13.2.2, a minister wishing to make an urgent statement may give notice to me, and if I consider the matter sufficiently urgent, I can make an adjustment to the business programme. As yet, I have received no such request. At this point, a point of order. My apologies, Presiding Officer, and are you aware yet of any requests being made by Scottish Minister to make an urgent statement? At this point, as I said, perhaps Mr Whitfield did not pick me up. At this point, I have not received any such request. Thank you. Now there will be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so before we move to Members Business.