 Y mae gyrraedd genedlai'r prosesiau yma. Yn ein bod yn ystod yr ystyried gyda Cyfrigeiddon, ac yn y cyfrigeiddon fyddion ein byddion, efallai ymddai Douglas Ross. Jezdyn nhw ar gyfer ddigon zwagol o gwyllfa ynghylsgau i'r gyfunigodol rhaglen o'r bylliant y byddiau ond ati fwylo'r cyfrigeiddon o'r cyfrigeiddon i gafoddiadau ar gyfer y byddai gwen ddau. Ergylm ydym yn gyfyrdd y byddai gynnol i theithiau Tomson a'r cyfrigeiddon I'n mewn ei fod ddwy yddiadau ond ond iawn. Mae gwelithau dda'r edrych ar hynirim o'ch gwaith, ond ond ni'n nodi'r gwirio unrhyw i'ch amddigol i'r rhain. Roedd yn ddingos i dyfyniad ac ar gyfer o'r cyfnodol mai o'r cynhyrchu ar gyfer argynnu. Michelle Thompson au yn ei dduf yn Llywodraeth yn hyrraedd y ffordd o hongfod i'r dduf i'r bwysig. Mae'r gofyneseth olywedod yr unig o'r cynhyrch o'r cyfnodol a'r rhain o'r cyfnodol. ogwyddo na'r hyder— she said that the government is choosing to put the rights of alleged criminals over the rights of victims. The governments stopped that amendment by a single vote. The First Minister's own vote means that a man standing trial for rape can claim to a woman and force a victim to call them she. Fe lŵr amser a eich ddweithio, roedd bod yn gweithio yn ddweithio ar y cwrs y mae'n gweithio ar y cwrs ar y ddweithio, ond mae ddweithio yn ddweithio, yn llysyn i'r ddweithio ac yn rhesaith i dodau rhoi ddych yn rhanig, yn gyfansio yn ei ddych chi'n gwc adael eu ddweithio, ac mae'n ddweithio i'r ddweithio, ac mae'n gweithio ar y proses tamu gafodau ar ddweithio ar y cwrs ddweud hynny. Over the course of the last two days, we have heard, set out in this chamber, many of the different ways in which predatory men can abuse women. My argument is not and it has never been and never will be that these are not very real ways in which predatory men abuse women. My argument is that none of these ways are created by this bill and nor would it be the case that any of these ways are addressed by denying rights to trans people. The fact of the matter is, a man who wants to abuse a woman, even a man who wants to masquerade as a woman in order to do so does not need a gender recognition certificate to do that nor does having a gender recognition certificate give that man any more ability or rights to do that than is currently the case. What we must focus on are the men who abuse women, the predatory and abusive men who do that and this Government always will in a range of different ways. Where amendments were rejected over the course of the last two days, it was often the case that that was because there were alternative amendments that were passed to strengthen safeguards in this bill, but amendments that were compliant in the view of the Government with ECHR and competence issues in a way that some of those rejected were not. For example, in terms of sex offenders, amendments by Shona Robison and Gillian Martin were agreed by Parliament. Those have been serious issues seriously considered by this Parliament, as is right and proper. We supported those amendments, but they were weaker than the amendment from Michelle Thompson. Roddie Dunlop, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, said of Gillian Martin's amendment, that it will not prevent harm, it will reduce the risk of harm. On ECHR, Roddie Dunlop also said on that vote, I can conceive of no sensible basis on which this amendment might be rejected. That's from the head of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, but the First Minister's point here seems to be that this won't happen, that there's no chance that a violent predatory male will ever try to exploit loot poles to attack or further traumatise women. But what if that does happen? Why would any of us leave the possibility that that could happen? One offence like that is one too many. Stopping an accused sex offender from changing gender is common sense. What is it that the First Minister and half of this Parliament thought was right to leave open the chance that that could happen? First Minister, it is not my position and I didn't say and have never said that predatory men will not seek to abuse women. My argument is that it is not this bill that creates the opportunities for them to do so. Those opportunities unfortunately exist already and it's those that we have to tackle. Nor would not passing this bill remove the opportunities for predatory men to seek to do that. The reasons for the rejection of those particular amendments and the alternative amendments that were put forward have been set out to this Parliament over the course of the debate in the last two days, and a majority in the Parliament has taken a decision. That's how our parliamentary democracy operates. Let me set out again exactly what the position is as a result of those amendments that were accepted. Let me first remind the chamber that we have in place already current provisions for the management of sex offenders that are robust, but we have already, indeed before stage 3, given the commitment to expand the reporting requirements to include notification about an application for gender recognition. The amendments by Shona Robison and Gillian Martin and, of course, it agreed by a majority of this Parliament at stage 3 further strengthen that. Those will mean that no further action can be taken on a GRC application where the police have applied for a sexual offences prevention order, sexual harm prevention order or sexual risk order that would prevent a GRC application. It's also my final point, Presiding Officer. Those are safeguards in the legislation that does not exist in the current gender recognition legislation, because an important point that is often lost in this debate, because when you listen to this debate, it sometimes sounds as if this bill is either inventing trans people or creating for the first time a process by which somebody can legally change their gender. It is not that process exists. Those safeguards that I have just set out do not exist in the current law, but they will exist in this new legislation. Dr Stross. The First Minister speaks about majority votes, but we know on Michelle Thomson's amendment it came down to just one vote. At First Minister's questions, I'm asking the First Minister about her one vote, because that amendment simply asked to pause the period that people can apply to have their gender changed if they are on trial for such serious offences. What was the problem with just pausing that opportunity for someone when they are on trial for such a serious offence? It seems to me that the First Minister has not taken the people of Scotland with her on these issues. Polling shows that a majority of Scots are firmly against key parts of this bill. A majority oppose reducing the time applicants must have lived in the required gender from two years to six months. A majority oppose removing the requirement for a doctor's diagnosis of gender dysphoria. That includes a majority of Conservative voters, but crucially it also includes a majority of Liberal Democrat voters, Labour voters and SNP voters. Lowering the age threshold for a gender recognition certificate was the most opposed aspect of this bill. Two thirds were against it. Again, that included 63 per cent of SNP voters, 67 per cent of Labour voters and 75 per cent of Liberal Democrats. Despite that, all three parties are backing the bill today. So why does the First Minister and her allies in this chamber believe they know better than the public? First Minister, we could all point to different polls on this issue. I could point to polls showing very strong support for what this bill is doing, including very strong support among women across this country. Fundamentally, and perhaps this is a point of agreement with Douglas Ross, all of us are elected to this Parliament and all of us have a very serious responsibility to make decisions and to be accountable for those decisions. At stage 1, we will take the stage 3 vote on this bill later this afternoon, but at stage 1, the bill was supported by members across every party in this chamber, including some members of Douglas Ross's party. All of us will be accountable for the decisions that we take on this bill, as we are accountable for all the decisions that we take here. That is democracy, and I stand by the decisions that I take and I will be accountable and I will set out the reasons for my decisions to people across Scotland on this and on every other issue. Removing the need for medical diagnosis for a trans person who wants to legally change their gender is actually one of the purposes of this legislation, because the need for that is one of the most intrusive, traumatic and dehumanising parts of the current system. I know very much what it is like to live with the fear at times of potential violence from men. I am a feminist, I will argue for women's rights, I will do everything that I can to protect women's rights for as long as I live, but I also think that it is an important part of my responsibility to make life a little bit easier for stigmatised minorities in our country, to make their lives a bit better and to remove some of the trauma that they live with on a day-to-day basis. I think that it is important to do that for the tiny minority of trans people in our society and I will never apologise for trying to spread equality, not reduce it in our country. Finally, to come back to the starting question from Douglas Ross in that latest question, the reasons for not accepting Michelle Thompson and Russell Finlay's amendment yesterday were set out at length by Shona Robison, because we consider, having carefully considered them, that they would not have been compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, which all of our legislation has to be and therefore would have potentially compromised the bill. Therefore, we sought an alternative way of achieving the same objectives and that is what I have set out already. Douglas Ross Let's be very clear. We supported Gillian Martin's amendment, but it was weaker, it is weaker, than Michelle Thompson's. We had an opportunity in this Parliament and the First Minister's vote could have made a difference to strengthen that element. Let's also be clear that the public are not against improvements to support trans people, they are against this bill. The problem is not reform, the problem is the First Minister's reforms. Although there may be a majority in this chamber later today to support this legislation, a majority of the public oppose the bill, including most SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters. This bill reduces women's rights and potentially risks women's safety, but it doesn't need to be this way. So let me ask the First Minister and all the Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP members who will support it shouldn't they take the time to get this right instead of charging ahead with a bill that the people of Scotland do not support? The First Minister This is a bill that has been six years in the making. There have been two full consultations. Today will be the culmination of a full and robust legislative process. In the last two days alone, we have had around 20 hours of debate on amendments. This is possibly the most scrutinised piece of legislation in the history of this Parliament. The issue here, and I say this entirely respectfully, is not the lack of scrutiny, it is that the majority in this Parliament made up of members from all parties, including members in Douglas Ross's party, have respectfully disagreed with the arguments the Tories have put forward. Many of those arguments have been completely unrelated to the purpose and effect of this bill. That is the reality. Douglas Ross says that he is not opposed to reform, he is just opposed to this bill. I have listened very carefully, not just in the last two days, but throughout this debate. I have not heard from Douglas Ross at any time, any explanation or any sense of what form of bill he would have been prepared to support. I suspect that Douglas Ross would have voted against this bill, regardless of what amendments had been proposed to it. That is his right, Presiding Officer. I will be corrected if I am wrong about this, but I have heard Douglas Ross say that, in the past, had he been in this Parliament when we had considered equal marriage, he would have voted against that, but has since changed his mind. All of us have to consider those things carefully. I have thought very deeply about all of those issues for a long time, and I will be accountable for the decisions that I make on this bill in this Parliament. I will always stand up for women's rights, but I am proud of the fact that I hope that this afternoon Parliament will vote for a piece of legislation that will make the lives of trans people in this country that little bit better and easier. I think that that is actually something to be proud of. Presiding Officer, on this last day of business, I start by wishing you and members across this chamber a very merry Christmas. In particular to the Parliament staff and all of our staff, we wish them all the best for the new year. Over Christmas, thousands of NHS staff will be working when most of us will be spending time with our family and friends. They all deserve our thanks for the work that they are doing to keep the NHS going over the winter and indeed all year round. However, our health service heroes do not just deserve our thanks, they deserve better pay and conditions too. Will the First Minister commit to get back round the table with the Royal College of Nurses, the Royal College of Midwives and the GMB to listen to their concerns, act on them and avoid strikes next year? Directly to that point in a second, because it is one that I take very seriously and the Government is and will continue to work very hard on, but I also take the opportunity to wish you members across the chamber and all of our staff a very happy Christmas. Can I take the opportunity, particularly as we break for Christmas this year, to thank the staff of this Parliament for the way in which they have gone above and beyond to support us in our responsibilities over the course of this week? We are deeply grateful to each and everyone. Can I also take the opportunity to thank every single man and woman who works across our health and care services? We do that every year, but it is more important and more appropriate this year than it has ever been before. In direct answer to Anas Sarwar's question, the health secretary will be meeting with trade unions tomorrow. I think that he was originally supposed to do that this afternoon, but parliamentary business has intervened. He will do that tomorrow. Just as has been the case up until now, we will do everything that we can to avoid industrial action in our national health service. Unlike England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we have so far avoided industrial action in our health service. We will do that because we want to obviously avoid the disruption that that will bring to patients across the country, but we also want to do that because we value those who work in our national health service. I want to make sure that they get the best possible pay rise that we can give them. We have maximised what we can do within this financial year. Compared to England, where there is a Conservative Government, Wales, where there is a Labour Government and the health service agenda for change staff are being offered an average of 4.5 per cent in Scotland, the offer is 7.5 per cent an average. That is a sign of how deeply we value our healthcare workers and we will continue to have discussions, meaningful discussions to do everything possible to reward them appropriately and to avoid any disruption in our health service. I welcome that the health secretary will be meeting with the unions tomorrow and I sincerely hope that we can find an agreement to get through this crisis, but these two unions are not just striking about pay, they are warning about patient safety and conditions in our hospitals. More than a year ago, the health secretary announced a catch-up plan for our NHS, but things are getting worse for patients. In August 2021, when the catch-up plan was announced, 76 per cent of people who were going to A&E were seen within four hours. That has now fallen to 62 per cent. In July to September 2021, 83 per cent of people were being seen within the 62-day standard for cancer treatment. That has now fallen to 74.7 per cent. When the catch-up plan was launched, 64 per cent of patients were being seen within the legally binding 12-week treatment time guarantee. That has now fallen to 56 per cent. Patients and staff are crying out for this Government to get a grip. The catch-up plan has failed. Why is the Government persisting with this failing plan and when will they bring forward a new one? First Minister, just to complete my answer on pay and to reiterate that this Government will continue to make every effort to avoid industrial action. We are so far the only part of the UK that has avoided industrial action. What I am about to say is not intended as a criticism of the Government of Wales because I know how difficult it is because it is working within the same constraints as we are, constraints imposed upon us by the UK Government. We have seen industrial action in Wales where Labour is in government because there has not been the same negotiations that led to a higher pay offer than has been the case elsewhere in the UK. The reason I say that is because people should take that as a very clear signal that we will do everything within our power and resources. Those resources this year are expended, but we will continue to do everything we can to avoid industrial action. Part of the offer to NHS workers includes offers around non-pay elements, and we will continue to explore how far we can go there as well. On the catch-up plan, of course, since the catch-up plan was published, we have had further waves of Covid. The pressures on our NHS have increased and we have seen waiting times deteriorate as a result of that in many respects. That said, we are seeing progress in reducing the numbers that are waiting longest. If we look at inpatient day-case treatment, the longest waits have been reduced by almost a quarter. We are seeing progress in CAMHS waiting times. We covered that in some detail last week. Those are the toughest times for our health service. As we go into this festive period, not just Covid but flu and other respiratory illnesses and cold weather, briefly, our job is to continue to support the health service, and that is exactly what we will do. The fact that the First Minister cannot escape from is that performance is getting worse not better since the catch-up plan. Failures have consequences. Patients are being asked to accept the unacceptable and staff are being asked to do the impossible, and lives are being lost. On nearly every measure, things are worse than when the health secretary launched the catch-up plan. Let us look at the Government's report card against its performance standards. A and E waiting times failed, delayed discharge failed, CAMHS waiting times failed, 12-week first outpatient appointment failed, eight weeks referral to treatment failed, cancer treatment times failed, detect cancer early failed, GP waits failed, treatment time guarantee failed. When will the First Minister wake up and realise that when it comes to the national health service that this First Minister and this health secretary have failed? Sound bites and full anger will not address the challenges in the health service. Patients and the public have a right to be angry and frustrated right now, but they also have a right to expect a Government that is addressing those issues. I have not stood here and suggested that there are not significant and over recent months increasing challenges on the NHS and therefore on the performance measures that we have in the national health service. We are seeing that across England, Wales and Northern Ireland health services across the world as the continuing impact of the pandemic and the other pressures on our NHS right now mounts. That is why we are increasing investment beyond any consequential funding next year for the NHS—a billion pounds extra—asking those who earn the most in this country to pay a bit more in tax so that we can give more resources to our national health service. We are continuing to support record recruitment and numbers of staff in the national health service and we are starting to see progress on the longest waits. What is happening here is that demand is going up. In many of those performance indicators, the NHS is treating more patients, but there are more patients coming forward for treatment. Nobody knows better than I do, the health secretary and the Government, the challenges that we face here, which is why we remain focused on supporting our NHS through those challenges in the various ways that I have set out. To ask the First Minister what actions the Scottish Government will take forward as a result of COP 15, the 15th conference of the parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity? I welcome the outcome reached at COP. Of course, that must be followed up by all parties and all levels with immediate and urgent plans for implementation. Our draft biodiversity strategy, which was published last week, sets out how the Scottish Government will do this. It establishes our long-term ambition and vision for a nature-positive future and sets out some of the immediate actions that we will take to halt nature laws by 2030. I am also proud that the Edinburgh process, which was led by the Scottish Government on behalf of the Convention on Biological Diversity, culminated at COP 15 with more than 300 sub-national local and regional Governments joining our call for action. The resulting plan of action on sub-national Governments was adopted as part of the framework agreed in Montréal this week. I thank the First Minister for her answer. It is great to see Scotland playing an influential role on the world stage and supporting global progress to tackle the nature emergency. The Montreal agreement could be a turning point in our fight to protect and restore our natural environment, to stop the declines and the distinctions and protect the life support systems that we all depend on. However, any agreement is only worth the actions that result in. Scotland can help to make the new global diversity framework a success by moving quickly to implement it. That means big change to how our land and seas are managed and looked after for current and future generations. One of the key actions in the new framework is to protect 30% of our land and seas by 2030. However, recent reports have shown that many seas in Scotland are already protected and are in poor condition. Can the First Minister confirm that, as part of delivering 30x30 in Scotland, the level of protection will be improved and nature recovery will be supported in these important places? That was a really important question, not just in the here and now, but for the future of our nature and the future of the planet. It was really good to see the headline target to protect at least 30% of the world's land and sea by 2030 in the new global framework. Of course, we are committed to implementing that in Scotland. Let me reiterate that we are committed to the expansion and improvement of areas that are managed for nature, and our 30x30 programme will promote ecological restoration and safeguard at a scale that was never seen before in Scotland. Although almost 80% of features at protected areas are in favourable or recovering condition and the long-term trend is one of improvement, I agree that we can and must do more. We are committed to working at a landscape scale and taking a collaborative approach to tackle the negative pressures on protected areas. We are currently working with NatureScot to take forward a co-design process with stakeholders to develop a framework through which our 30x30 commitment will be delivered. Crucial to biodiversity is peatland restoration, and the Climate Change Committee recommends restoring 45,000 hectares per year by 2022. The Government's target was a mere 20,000 hectares. However, in 2020-21, the Government restored 8,000 hectares, and it is reported that 80% of Scotland's peatlands are degraded. The First Minister said earlier that the biodiversity strategy sets out actions that the Government will take. So what actions is the Government taking right now to restore those peatlands and in which year will she meet the restoration target? As a Government, we are investing records amounts and we are committed to record investments in peatland restoration. I am happy to write to the member with more details of the timescales and our expectations about that. However, we are recognised as setting the pace in some of this. Of course, peatland restoration is one of the key levers and the key tools that we have at our disposal. It is something for all of us, but particularly for those in Government to reflect on very seriously. Across all those areas, no Government anywhere is yet doing enough or doing as much as we need to do. Therefore, it is really important that we continue to challenge ourselves all of the time and we continue to be challenged. I welcome the line of questioning and want to see the maximum possible challenge on this Government to make sure that we are not just setting the targets but making the investments and taking the actions to meet those targets, because there are a few more important areas of work for any Government anywhere on the planet right now. I apologise for not being in my space from the outset at First Minister's Questions. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will set a clear ambition in its planned energy strategy for delivery of 4 to 6 gigawatts of solar power by 2030. Energy generated from solar can, without a shadow, make a very significant contribution at both to the decarbonisation of our energy supply and to the just transition that we need to make to a net zero emissions society by 2045. Our draft energy strategy and just transition plan will be published, I can tell the chamber, very early in January, when we return from the recess, and it will contain a clear vision for the future development of solar energy. That will include the action that the Scottish Government is taking to remove barriers to solar deployment, and through the consultation we will also seek views and evidence on whether and also at what level a deployment ambition should be set. It is vital that we ensure that any deployment ambition is appropriate, stretching but also achievable, and I would encourage all stakeholders to engage with the draft vision and consultation process. The answer, First Minister, will be received very warmly by those across all parties in this chamber that support developing Scotland's solar potential, so I'm very grateful for that. I wonder if I can just pursue one aspect, however, and that is that in the planning system and the national planning framework, precedence is given to those forms of renewable energy where there is a clear, identified ambition and target. No target, little development, the opportunity may slip through our fingers like mercury. In order to achieve the enormous potential that solar energy can contribute to our transition to a clean electricity system of generation, will the First Minister bear this point in mind so that precedence is given to solar power by having a very clear, practical, deliverable, achievable target? I know, Fergus Ewing would have been listening very carefully to what I said. Without going further before we published the consultation, what I was very clearly indicating in talking about consulting on whether and at what level we set a deployment ambition. I recognise the importance for the reason that Fergus Ewing set out, but for other reasons as well, not least, activating a supply chain and benefiting the economy. There is an importance attached to targets. That's why we already have targets for offshore and onshore wind, for hydrogen, for example. I hope that Fergus Ewing will take that positively. The final thing that I would say, which he has already alluded to—this is a reason for consulting on this—is important. I will go back to the previous question here. It's important not just that we set a target but that we make sure that that is both stretching and achievable. The consultation is an important part of the process, which is why I would encourage all those with an interest to take part in it. Question 5, Maurice Golden. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reported warnings that the implementation of the deposit return scheme will be, and I quote, ruinous for consumers and businesses. I don't agree with that. The deposit return scheme will be a major part of our efforts to reduce litter, cut emissions and build a more circular economy. Good Progress is being made by industry ahead of the scheme's introduction in August 2023, and that indeed is reflected in the most recent gateway review, which noted that good progress has been made and that successful delivery of the scheme is now achievable. I am very aware of business concerns and some outstanding issues, and we take those seriously. That's why we've committed to a pragmatic approach to implementation and are taking action to help make the scheme more efficient and to reduce costs. Last week, for example, fees for drinks producers were substantially reduced by the scheme administrator and we committed to lay regulations so that only the largest grocery retailers will be obliged initially to provide a take-back service for online and distance sales. Maurice Golden. I thank the First Minister for that answer. The deposit return scheme has been scaled back, but we all want it to succeed. Understandably, businesses are worried about the potential for it to go wrong. That worry is fuelled by the confusion, secrecy and lack of information that surrounds the scheme. I know that none of us wants that, and we must make sure that the scheme is more transparent to increase confidence in it. The Scottish Government has the power to make the scheme administrator subject to freedom of information requests. Will the First Minister do that? I will give consideration to any request and any suggestion that is made in the chamber, so I will take that away and give that consideration and discuss that with colleagues. I believe that there is transparency around the work that has been done around the scheme. We had a review carried out just in October, concluding that the programme has gained increased momentum, is in an improved position and that go live date in August is feasible. That is testament to the efforts that have been made by industry, by Circularity Scotland, working together to ensure that the scheme is implemented. Last week, the minister wrote to the committee setting out the further steps that we are taking, listening to the concerns of industry to make the scheme more efficient and to reduce costs. The day 1 payments are being reduced. Last week, we published new producer fees that are lower than previously indicated, and other changes have been made to try to take account of the concerns of industry. That is positive, and we will continue that collaborative approach as we go through the months leading up to implementation. Has the Scottish Government asked those conducting the gateway reviews into the deposit return scheme to interview representatives of organisations who are running successful deposit return systems, especially those who have most recently set up their systems that are much cheaper for producers and have come online more quickly? I am certainly happy to check the detail to that question. I am not sure exactly which individuals or organisations the member is alluding to, whether here in Scotland or in other countries that already have schemes in place. I would expect any gateway review to take broad-based evidence, but in terms of what particular organisations have been spoken to and what detail has been attracted from that, I will come back to the member with fuller detail in due course. To ask the First Minister what progress the Government has made in ending the use of hotels as temporary accommodation for children and families. Local authorities have used hotels to discharge their duties as part of the emergency response to Covid. The data on that is held by local authorities rather than by the Scottish Government. However, our homelessness in Scotland statistics showed that although there was an increase in the number of children in temporary accommodation in 2020-21-22, the social sector was the most common type of temporary accommodation used. 20 local authorities have reduced the number of households living in temporary accommodation when compared to 2021, and 10 of those have reduced the number of children in temporary accommodation. The housing minister has asked an expert group for an action plan to reduce the numbers of people in temporary accommodation and the length of time spent there with a strong focus on households with children. I thank the First Minister for that answer, but in response to a recent written question, her cabinet secretary acknowledged that hotels are unsuitable accommodation for people seeking asylum and condemned the home office's use of bed and breakfasts. However, I understand that lone children who may be seeking asylum and are in the care of Scottish local authorities and not the home office are also being placed in an unregulated hotel accommodation among adult members of the wider homeless population and without cooking or laundry facilities. The Scottish Government condemning the home office's use of hotel accommodation means nothing if devolved care services are acting in the same manner. Can the First Minister advise what steps this working group is taking to urgently relocate those lone children to supported accommodation and can she make a commitment that no further children who are alone will be placed at risk in these unregulated hotels? I agree absolutely with the sentiment of that question. If Paul Sweeney has any more information that he wants to pass to us about instances that he is talking about here, I would be keen to look at that. None of us want to see any children who are alone, where we can possibly avoid it, in temporary hotel or bed and breakfast accommodation, but certainly not lone children in the kind of circumstances that have been narrated to the chamber. We will look further into that specific point more generally. None of us want to see hotel accommodation being used as temporary accommodation unless that is absolutely necessary. I know that I have situations in my constituency where that is an issue for both homeless people and communities as well, but there have been demands on local authorities, particularly during Covid. It should be stressed that most temporary accommodation is in the social sector, and as I said, many local authorities are now seeing a reduction in that. However, there is much work to do here, which is why we are investing in more affordable housing, investing more in homelessness services and prioritising the housing first model. Those are really important issues, and I know that the housing secretary would be happy to engage further about some of the particulars behind the question. Nearly 2 million UK households are behind on bill payments as Christmas approaches, according to a new survey from which, as the Tory cost of living crisis runs out of control, can I ask the First Minister what support is the Scottish Government providing to people to help them to stay afloat this winter? What more could the Scottish Government be doing if it had the full powers of our tax, welfare and energy pricing? Many people, as we go into this festive season, are finding life more difficult than at any time that most of us can remember. We have to be very aware of that. The cost of living crisis is hurting many individuals, families and businesses across the country. The Scottish Government is doing—and we will continue to do everything we can to help people deal with that. As has been set out many times in the chamber, we are investing around £3 billion in this year on initiatives and measures that will help people with the cost of living. We have taken new initiatives, such as the Scottish child payment, for example. We have spoken and I have personally convened summits with the energy companies and advice agencies to ensure that we are doing as much as possible. Although it is true to say that many of the root causes of what we are dealing with right now lie out with the powers of the Government, full control over the tax and the benefits system, and regulation of the energy sector. If we had those powers, it is undoubtedly the case that we would be able to do much more in a more coherent and joined-up way to help people not just to deal with the consequences of this but to deal with the root causes too. May I ask again if the First Minister will finally grant a full independent inquiry for the former patients of Professor El Jamil. There are now 50 former patients who have come forward each with their very harrowing stories. The First Minister will be aware that several other MSPs, including Michael Marra and Willie Rennie, believe that this is the only way to get to the truth and deliver justice for those former patients. We will continue to give consideration to that call, to absolutely understand the views of those who have been affected and the ordeal that they have suffered. The cabinet secretary has met the health board leadership, the review commissioned already by the Scottish Government, including detailed reviews of care. Of course, we understand the desire of patients to ensure that any process that can lead them to an assurance that they have all of the answers that they can possibly get. We understand that desire, and while we are not at this stage convinced that a public inquiry would lead any more to that, we will continue to give consideration to those issues. I would like to raise with the First Minister the case of a constituent who has contacted me after being told that waiting list for a young laser capsule tommy treatment can be as long as 70 weeks. This constituent is going blind, struggling to care for disabled children and having difficulty sleeping because he needs this procedure. I have already raised this matter with the cabinet secretary for health, who blamed the pandemic for their waiting times. Contrary to his response, NHS Lothian has told me that these waiting times are not in effect down to the Covid but instead down to lack of laser available to perform the treatment. Could I therefore ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that NHS has the equipment, it needs to tackle the waiting list, and if it is acceptable that people should be told they are on a 16-month waiting list with failing eyesight for a treatment that typically takes only a few minutes? I appreciate the member who has already written to the cabinet secretary. I will look at the detail of that case, particularly if the health board is saying that there is an issue with lack of equipment and if there is action that we can take there. We will certainly give consideration to that. The more general point is a point that I made earlier in response to Anna Sarwar. We are focusing on reducing, in these times, of significant pressure on the times of those who have been waiting longest for treatment, and that is where we are seeing progress. I appreciate that. That is no comfort to somebody who is still waiting, but we have seen a 24 per cent reduction already in the longest waits for inpatient treatment, and that is why we will continue to focus on the longest waits because we know the distress that that can cause. In the particular case that has been raised, I will look at the circumstances and if there is more information that I can offer, I will write to the member. Travellers throughout the UK are going to experience disruption over the festive period as a result of what the STC General Secretary, Ross Foyer, described as the competitive approach to negotiations taken by the UK Government. Can I ask the FM what representations she has made to the UK Government to get round the table and engage constructively with trade unions to secure a rail with the benefits users, staff and the wider public? I appreciate Bill Kidd raising this issue. As he has said, but it is important to underline this, this is not a Scottish dispute. The Scottish Government has maintained constructive discussions with trade unions and we have settled pay negotiations here by embracing the concept of fair work. Despite that, passengers in Scotland are still facing severe disruption as a result of the on-going UK-wide rail dispute between Network Rail, the UK Government and trade unions. Network Rail employs in Scotland face entering the new year, still with no pay rise in the travelling public, face further disruption. So, while that is not a matter in which the Scottish Government has any direct locus, unfortunately, I yesterday joined with the STUC in calling for the Secretary of State to intervene immediately to avoid further disruption for users, staff and taxpayers and to deliver a fair pay deal for those who work on our railways. I hope that that is something that the entire Parliament can get behind. First Minister, MSPs have been sitting in this chamber after midnight for the past two days in a row. On Tuesday, as the stage 3 gender recognition debate was under way, one woman was thrown out of the gallery and another law-abiding woman was threatened with arrest. Legislation rushed, criticism ignored and women silenced. Does the First Minister agree that events of this week have reflected badly on the bill's passage through Parliament? I think that some of the elements of our proceedings this week have reflected badly on the Conservative Party. I recognise different and sincerely held views on this bill, but notwithstanding that, what we saw from the Conservative Party were deliberate attempts to filibuster, to delay and to frustrate the decision-making process. Neither yesterday or the day before were we timetabled to go beyond midnight or anything like it. The reason it took so long was the filibustering and other actions of the Conservative Party. Beyond that, Presiding Officer, as you well know, I am not responsible for policing the public gallery. I support those who do that very difficult and important job, but that is not for me. What I do believe is that no matter our different views on this legislation or any matter, all of us should always treat this Parliament with respect and allow it to do its work properly. Perhaps the Conservative Party might want to reflect on that over the next six months. May I seek your guidance, Presiding Officer, in relation to rule 9.12 of standing orders, which sets out the provisions regarding financial resolutions for bills at all stages? Before any amendments were lodged to the bill, the Scottish Government's own cost, and that is the GRR bill. Own cost estimates were £0.5 million for the legislation, which, as members know, is a threshold for triggering the need for a financial resolution. Given the nature of several amendments that passed at stage 3, I am concerned that those costs will now have increased thereby requiring the need for a financial resolution. For example, Gillian Martin's amendment imposed additional requirements on Police Scotland when they apply for sexual offence prevention orders. There are currently no costs mentioned in the financial memorandum incurred on Police Scotland, but that will clearly add one. There are amendments adding in new offences of fraud, which will require our judicial authorities to receive more resources to deal with the additional offences they will have to interact with as a result of this bill's passage. Again, no costs are mentioned in the financial memorandum about costs to deal with new offences created under the bill, so that needs to be factored in. A new section was added in at stage 2 of the bill, allowing sheriffs to make an order applying to revoke a gender recognition certificate application upon request to the register general. That would impose an additional caseload on sheriffs, which are not mentioned in the financial memorandum. Furthermore, the Scottish Government are required to produce further guidance as a result of amendments passed during this bill's proceedings, and the register general must publish information on the website, neither of which are mentioned in the financial memorandum and will add further costs to the Scottish Administration. I seek your guidance, Presiding Officer. In commencing the following debate, I believe that we would be in breach of standing orders rule 9.12.3 and 3A states and I quote, no proceedings may be taken on the bill at any stage after stage 1 unless the Parliament has by resolution agreed to the expenditure. We would not deem Presiding Officer to pre-empt your ruling on this matter, but do you agree that proceedings should at least be suspended in order to examine the cost implications of these amendments and provide a ruling on any new requirement for a financial resolution? I thank Ms Hamilton for her point of order. A financial resolution is, of course, required indeed if the likely expenditure arising from the bill would be above £500,000 in any one financial year. In the case of this bill at introduction, I determined that the likely expenditure arising from this bill would not exceed that figure. A series of amendments lodged at stages 2 and 3 potentially had cost effects for future financial years, but I can confirm that none of those amendments, either on their own or cumulatively, were considered to take the costs above the threshold in any one financial year. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 7 312 in the name of Shona Robison on gender recognition reform Scotland's bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons, and I call on Shona Robison to speak to and move the motion up to 12 minutes, cabinet secretary.