 Thank you. That concludes general questions. We will now move to First Minister's questions and at question number one, I call Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Does the First Minister agree with Pete Wishert, currently the SNP's longest serving MP at Westminster, who said earlier on this week that it was a fair point that her Government had imposed too many Covid restrictions over Christmas? I'm not sure that's a fair representation of Pete Wisher's comments, but can I first take the opportunity, Presiding Officer, to recognise that Pete Wisher is, I think, Scotland's longest serving member of Parliament, which I think goes to show what an outstanding service Pete Wisher does for his constituents. Let me take the opportunity, and I'm sure Douglas Ross will join me in paying tribute to his public service. I think we introduced a series of balanced protective measures over the Christmas period, coupled with the extraordinary response of the public, changing their behaviour and, of course, the extraordinary success of the booster programme. We are thankfully now in a better position than we might have been when we were looking ahead before the Christmas period, but we're not in a position that I think allows us any complacency. Covid rates are still high, there are still significant uncertainties ahead, which is why doctors, nurses, NHS managers and trade unions all expressed some concern with the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday to lift all restrictions at this stage, including the requirement to wear face coverings. We will continue to take a proportionate and balanced set of decisions to try to get through this next, I hope, final phase of the pandemic and keep the country as safe as we possibly can do while we're doing so. The First Minister said that it wasn't a fair representation of people's wishers' comments. It was a direct quote. He was asked, has the First Minister in Scotland introduced too many Covid restrictions over Christmas, and his response was, that is a fair point. He agreed with the premise of the question and the First Minister went on to laud his parliamentary career. Perhaps she could maybe listen to him when he, an SNP member, elected representative is saying that the restrictions imposed over Christmas were too much, because the First Minister imposed restrictions that had a massive impact on jobs, on businesses, on people's mental and physical health. We can now see that they weren't needed. It was the Scottish public's actions, not the SNP Government's restrictions that got this right. The First Minister has tried to build a reputation for caution during this pandemic, but she was far too gung-ho in imposing extra restrictions last month. Will she now accept that her Government went too far? Firstly, the public did comply. They complied with what the Government asked them to do. I think that Douglas Ross is striking rather a desperate note right now, just as if he is seriously describing Pete Wisher showing, as all the elected representatives should, some respect for the point that somebody was making to him, as evidence that Pete Wisher agrees with Douglas Ross rather than with this Government. All that says to people is that Douglas Ross is showing rather more political desperation than we even thought he might have been. We have taken a balanced approach. At the moment, I think that this cautious approach is the one that we should be taking. That is my sentiment. Those are not actually my words, though. Those are the words of Sandesh Gohani MSP on BBC Scotland on 7 January. If Douglas Ross is basing his entire line of questioning to me right now on something that Pete Wisher said, what is his response to his own MSP saying that the cautious approach is the one that we should be taking? Professor Susan Meekie, a member of the UK Government's sage committee, Scotland is doing something that is very good from a public health point of view. The Scottish approach is in line with the Welsh Government's approach and the Northern Irish Government's approach. We are taking a sensible approach through this, which is why infection levels, although dropping now thankfully in all parts of the UK, are lower in Scotland than they are in England right now. Over the festive period, the numbers of people in hospital proportionately were lower. We are not out of the woods yet, although things look far more positive. I will continue to take a cautious approach. Frankly, the price of throwing caution to the wind is not paid by Governments. It is paid by people across the country in terms of ill health and, sadly, in some cases, serious illness and death. That is a price that I do not think I should impose on the people of Scotland. Douglas Ross, Serious illness and death does not just come from Covid. It comes from restrictions being put in place that have a massive impact on people's mental health, on their physical health. We have been living with the pandemic now for two years, and I think that the First Minister would do better to respond to the points being made. She may not like them, but the points and questions being made, rather than launching personal attacks on the opposition politicians who do it. Not only did the First Minister impose unnecessary restrictions, she actually wanted to go further. The First Minister repeatedly claimed throughout December that the UK Government was holding her back from putting Scotland into lockdown again. She wanted to close down the economy, no matter the impact that it would have on Scottish jobs and businesses. However, the First Minister promised compensation when her restrictions were introduced, yet now we are coming out of the restrictions. That compensation still has not been delivered to many businesses. They have not received a single penny. This week, the Federation of Small Businesses said that thousands of Scottish businesses needlessly go under every year because of late payment. Will the First Minister accept that her Government is currently the worst offender of late payments in Scotland? No, but I will say to Douglas Ross that the pandemic is causing the serious impact on individuals and businesses across Scotland, the UK, Europe and the entire world. Much as we might all like to be able to do so—believe me, I would love to be able to do so—we cannot just magic it away. No country is able to do that. I have to say to Douglas Ross that he has stood in his position in this chamber at every key juncture in the management of this pandemic, since he has been back in this chamber. He has opposed the decisions that the Scottish Government has taken, even at times when there were exactly the same decisions that were taken by his colleagues in the Westminster Government. He has decided to take an entirely opportunistic approach to the handling of a global pandemic. I think that people will judge that, and I do not think that they will judge it very kindly. If we had listened to Douglas Ross, then over the past months we would not have had sensible measures such as asking people to wear face coverings. We would not have had other mitigations in our schools, for example. We would not have advised people sensibly to work from home, and we would not therefore be in the stronger position that we are in right now, able to lift those protective measures from Monday of next week. Given that Douglas Ross has called it wrong literally at every juncture of this pandemic, forgive me if I am not going to start listening to him now. On business support, of course, much of the— Mr Hughes, Mr Hughes. Incidentally, on the issue of opposition politicians and quoting people, Douglas Ross opened his line of questioning today, misrepresenting, in my view, Pete Wisher. Then he takes issue with the fact that I give a direct quote from Sandesh Gohani, and let me repeat that direct quote. At the moment, this cautious approach is the one that we should be taking. Given the issue of business support, of course, much of this business support will not be available to businesses suffering the same impact south of the border. If Douglas Ross does not think that they are suffering the same impact, then I suggest that he really needs to get out a little bit more. All local authorities have started processing payments. Some local authorities have made very good progress and said that they have already paid almost all of the hospitality and leisure businesses eligible for support. All local authorities are on track to complete 100 per cent of payments to hospitality and leisure businesses affected by the Christmas cancellations and physical distancing by 31 January. That support is available here and is not available elsewhere, and we will continue to do the right thing by businesses. Douglas Ross. The First Minister needs to make her mind up. She is accusing the Conservatives of opposing every measure that she puts forward and then, in the same breath, she is accusing the Conservatives for wanting a cautious approach. It is simply not opportunistic to trust the people in Scotland, to trust that they can learn to live with Covid rather than having to live with her Government's restrictions, which are having a massive impact on jobs, on businesses and communities across Scotland, and they are not getting the money or the support that they were promised. The First Minister has got the big decisions wrong over the past few months. Too quick to bring in unnecessary Covid restrictions, too late to launch mass vaccination centres, too late to change the self-isolation rules, too late to get funding to businesses who need it. The First Minister says that she does not shy away from the mistakes that she has made in the handling of the pandemic, so can she finally just admit that by introducing those tough restrictions here in Scotland before Christmas and by wanting to introduce even tougher restrictions, she has simply made the wrong call. Of course, Minister. I will let the people of Scotland judge the impact of the calls that I and my Government have made, but let me say this. Right now, on first doses, on second doses, on third doses, on booster vaccination doses, Scotland is the most vaccinated part of the United Kingdom. If Douglas Ross's proposition is that we left it too late, then what on earth does that say about his colleagues in the Westminster Government? We also, in terms of the ONS figures this week, infection levels in England right now are over 20 per cent higher than in Scotland. I do not think that it is a competition, but if Douglas Ross wants to make those comparisons, then the comparisons there are the data. I say gently to Douglas Ross, because I know that he is having a tough time politically, but I say gently. It is inconsistent, entirely inconsistent. There is no consistency in saying, as his health spokesperson did, that the cautious approach is the one that we should be taking and then opposing every cautious measure that we choose to take for opportunistic reasons. Can I suggest that Douglas Ross just gets his own house in order? Perhaps suggest to more of his colleagues that they obey the rules that are in place when they are in place and leave this Government to get on with steering this country responsibly and in a mature, grown-up fashion through the global pandemic. The First Minister said that the option of major offshore wind project was one of the most significant days that Scotland has seen in a very, very long time. I welcome in-word investment, but it should not come at the cost of the Scottish economy or just transition or our values. Let us be clear about what has happened. This SNP Government has sold on the cheap the right to profit from Scotland's energy transition to multinational companies with questionable human rights records. One of the new owners of Scotland's seabed bed refined $54 million for bribing Nigerian officials and $88 million for bribing Indonesian officials. Another one was found to have contributed to human rights abuses at one of its construction sites, of destroying villages in Myanmar, of relying on forced labour and using slavery to build pipelines. Surely those are not people that the Scottish Government should be doing business with. Countessates Scotland made the decisions on the companies, the consortiums that would award the status to develop projects around our coast. They have appropriate processes in place to do due diligence, but this is one of the most exciting things for Scotland in a long, long time, which is probably why Scottish Labour has been so negative about it. Why does this give us the potential to meet our own energy needs from renewable sources? It positions us with the ability to be a major exporter of renewable energy, including green hydrogen. It gives enormous potential for our supply chain. The estimate is that for every gigawatt of power that will be generated from those projects, there will be £1 billion of investment in our supply chain. For the first time, companies have had to set out in statements what they will do to support our supply chain. That is good news. There are complicated consenting and planning processes that lie ahead, but that offers massive potential to Scotland and its potential we intend to seize with both hands. I agree with the opportunity, but values matter. Just last week, the SNP was right to accuse the Tory Government of tolerating human rights abuses as a price worth paying to secure deals for the UK. This week, the SNP has done the same. What Nicola Sturgeon in effect is saying is that it is bad when the Tories do it, but it is okay when the SNP does it. There is another concerning part of the deal. One of the new owners of Scotland's seabed is the Swedish-owned state-owned energy company. That state-owned Swedish energy company can now use its part of the Scottish seabed to keep energy bills down for people in Sweden. The First Minister once promised a Scottish state-owned energy company. In fact, this SNP Government spent almost £500,000 of taxpayers' money on the project before scrapping the plans. Why is it that people of Sweden now own a bigger stake in Scottish energy supply and distribution than the Scottish people? The SNP, not stronger for Scotland but stronger for Sweden. The First Minister Yes, Sweden is also an independent country with full control over energy, which, of course, this Government and this Parliament do not have. However, that is a matter that Anasar War might want to reflect on a little bit more. Today, the cabinet secretary for net zero is talking about the opportunities around consultation for our plans for an energy public agency to steer those kinds of developments in the future. That is a thoroughly positive opportunity for Scotland. No wonder, then, that Scottish Labour just wants to gyrn about it and be negative. That is what has characterised Scottish Labour for a long time, and it is why it is sitting over there these days, not there and certainly not here. Let me just repeat the opportunity. The opportunity to meet our own energy needs from renewable sources and to keep energy costs down, the opportunity to export renewable energy to other countries, the opportunity to grow a supply chain and create thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of jobs and, of course, the opportunity to raise revenues for the Scottish Government, for public services here in Scotland from the lease options alone £700 million. Then, when those projects are operational, there will be rent fees in addition to that. That is a thoroughly positive opportunity. Perhaps Anasar War, just for once, could find it within himself to be positive about the potential of Scotland. Anasar War, I have said I welcome your investment, I have said I welcome and recognise the opportunity, but this is such a desperate, poor reply. The First Minister often likes to accuse Opposition parties of demonstrating a brass neck. That was a brass neck from the First Minister in that reply. Acuse the tories of bad values on human rights, accept human rights values as being part of the price worth paying for Scottish opportunities here, because this is about the Scottish supply chain, Scottish companies and Scottish jobs. The sad reality is that this is an SNP Government that does not understand economic development. Scottish bridges built with Chinese steel, Scottish wind farms with turbines built in Indonesia, ferries not built with Scottish shipyards built in Poland and Turkey and now Scotland's seabed owned by foreign multinationals with woeful human rights records. We have heard the list of promises from the First Minister before. A state-owned energy company promised never delivered. Scotland's becoming renewables like Saudi Arabia promised but never delivered. A 130,000 green jobs promised but never delivered. After 15 years, isn't it the case that this is an SNP Government that has sold out Scottish jobs, sold off Scottish assets and now has sold out Scottish values? I am just sitting here reflecting. Almost unbelievably, the Anasarwar has just accused me of behaving like a Tory. The day after, his party threw open the doors to a Tory MP. There is now so little difference between Labour and the Tories that their MPs are just interchangeable, so Brasnek, I would say to Mr Sarwar, I think he will be polishing his for the rest of the day. Anasarwar and his many predecessors as Scottish Labour leader—I have to say, I have forgotten how many predecessors Scottish Labour leader Anasarwar has had—have been trotting out those negative, top-down Scotland tropes for years. All that has happened is that they have gone further and further down in the ratings in Scottish politics. They have lost more and more votes and my party's share of the vote has increased. I came into the chamber expecting political desperation from Douglas Ross today. I think that I have seen even more from Anasarwar, which probably says all we need to know. I will get on with encouraging the potential for Scottish renewable energy, Scottish jobs and revenue for the Scottish Government. I will be delighted at the next time I ask him to put that record before the Scottish people. I am not so sure that Anasarwar will be quite so keen. We will now take supplementary questions, and I call Fiona Hyslop. First Minister, increasing energy prices are of very real concern. What discussions has she had with the Westminster Government on help for families to combat the spiralling financial cost of the energy crisis? The energy crisis, the cost of living crisis, is increasing on a daily basis at the moment. It is of deep concern to this Government. We are taking a range of measures ourselves through our £41 million winter fund, seven new benefits aimed at low-income households and, of course, shortly we will double the Scottish child payment. Of course, key powers do remain reserved to Westminster. We have written to the UK Government countless times about poverty and also just last week set out further actions, which we have outlined that they must urgently take to tackle rising energy bills. If a Government, as is the case with the Westminster Government, is so busy trying to deal with self-inflicted sleaze and scandal and daily defections and deflections, then its focus is not on the cost of living crisis, it is on themselves. That is deeply regrettable and deeply serious, because it is right now neglecting the real issues that people are facing across the country. First Minister, diabetes rates are rapidly increasing across Scotland, with diagnosis more than doubling in the last 20 years. Diabetes Scotland reported last week that access to the correct diabetes technology, such as instant pumps, can be a life changing for patients, but just over 10 per cent of 18-year-olds use them. The gap in diabetes outcomes between affluent and deprived areas in Scotland is widening, so can I ask the First Minister what urgent action can be put in place to ensure that this worrying trend is reversed? It is an important issue. We will work with Diabetes Scotland to take forward the findings of the report, making sure that access to insulin pumps for young people, but for people of all ages, is important, but also that they are used and they are used effectively is vital. We have made improvements in years gone by in this, and we will continue to focus on making further improvements for the sake of people across Scotland who live with that condition. The First Minister will be aware of the anger in local authorities across Scotland that the Scottish Government is not planning to compensate them for the upcoming raise in national insurance, as councils in England and Wales are being compensated. That will inevitably cause further cuts to already stretched services. How does the First Minister justify living Scottish local authorities worse off for this change than their English counterparts? The UK Treasury block grant to the Scottish budget does not identify consequential funding for national insurance contributions, so there are no identifiable consequentials to pass on. However, we are providing a settlement to local government that is fair and crucially affordable. The overall local government funding package of more than £12.5 billion represents an increase in real terms of 5.1 per cent in revenue alone. It is a real terms increase of 4.9 per cent, so we will continue to treat local government as fairly as possible and support local government as far as we possibly can in delivering the services that people across the country rely on. As the First Minister will be aware, my Dogs Protection and Livestock Amendment Scotland Act 2021 is now in force and provides police Scotland and the courts with greater powers to investigate those who allow their dogs to worry, attack or kill livestock in Scotland's countryside. Livestock worrying can have serious animal welfare implications as well as significant financial and emotional impact on farmers. Can the First Minister, in light of lamb and season approaching, outline what action the Scottish Government has taken to promote public awareness of the updated legislation? I congratulate Emma Harper on her success with the legislation. It is an extremely important legislation. The Scottish Government, I can assure her, will take appropriate steps to raise awareness of it. Of course, we will do everything that we can working with partners as appropriate to ensure appropriate enforcement of it, but it is a significant step forward and one that I know will be particularly welcomed across rural Scotland. Since the extension of free personal care for people under the age of 65, no data has been recorded on the number of people who have now received this care. Given the problems that we have seen during the pandemic on people accessing care packages and, in fact, with many being removed or cut for individuals, we are finding that more and more people are reporting that people with complex needs and life-limiting conditions are not getting that care. Will the Scottish Government agree to establish a national recovery group alongside COSLA to make sure that people who are entitled to free personal care get that and that it is fully restored and delivered across Scotland? Everybody who is entitled to free personal care should get free personal care and, of course, the entitlements to free personal care in Scotland can go far beyond the situation in other parts of the UK. I am not going to give a commitment today to the proposition. I will consider it carefully, but I am not going to say right now before having the chance to consider it that I think that that would be the right way forward. I will also, however, look at the issue of data and come back to the member with an indication of when data is likely to be published, which will give a sense of how many people are taking that entitlement. Constituents of Lansfield Key in Glasgow are living with what has been deemed 22 intolerable risks to life as a result of flammable cladding on their building. They have been struggling to get a single building assessment on it, which was promised in June 2021. Can I ask the First Minister what she and her Government could do to assist my constituent in obtaining that information as a matter of urgency? Obviously, I know from my position as constituency MSP here how important this is. The Government is taking forward steps to ensure single building assessments. I will ask the housing minister to write to the member with full update on that work and what the next steps in it are. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for having a hiccup with my glasses and the mask. Can the First Minister indicate what the Scottish Government's response is regarding the impact on Scotland of reports that the BBC licence fee will be cut after the current funding deal ends in 2027? I am sure that every member across the chamber from time to time will have gripes with or criticisms of the BBC, but the BBC is an important part of our broadcasting framework. We should all defend the principle of public service broadcasting. I am deeply concerned with the hints or announcements that we saw earlier this week from the UK Government. I suspect that there is some evidence that those were an attempt to divert attention from the Prime Minister's troubles, but, nevertheless, I think that all of us have to stand up for those principles and guard against the Government and the damage it seems willing to do to key institutions, often just to try to save its own skin. To ask the First Minister what impact the UK Government's nationality and borders bill will have on devolved functions. The Scottish Government has profound concerns about this bill. We are currently considering its potential impact on areas that are devolved. If we conclude that there is an impact on the legislative competence of this Parliament, we will lodge a legislative consent memorandum setting out the relevant provisions. There is no doubt, however, that the bill will have significant impacts on devolved services at local authorities and communities. The Scottish ministers have written to the UK Government in relation to this bill five times outlining our significant concerns, including with the Welsh Government, who shared those concerns. I also note that the House of Commons joint committee on human rights yesterday said that the reforms of the asylum system proposed in the bill, and I am quoting, would fail to meet the UK's human rights obligations and risk exacerbating the already unacceptable backlog. We will continue to urge the UK Government to introduce a humane, effective and efficient system that delivers for people living in Scotland, including those who are fleeing war and persecution. The Prime Minister's intention to use the military to prevent asylum seekers from reaching the UK is deeply immoral, as is the possibility of trading access to Covid vaccines for the right to open detention centres in other countries. The First Minister will be aware of the appalling circumstances faced by many asylum seekers in Scotland, including in Aberdeen in my region, accommodated in hotels but not given basic support or things like toiletries, culturally sensitive food, language classes and so on. While we do not have the powers to counter these racist policies, we can make sure that asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland are treated better. I am sure that the First Minister will join me in condemning the plans by the Prime Minister and his cruel and inhuman home office. Will she also outline what lessons have been learned by the tragic death at Park Inn in Glasgow and say what more we can do to prevent the growth of the use of institutional accommodation across Scotland and improve the support available through local authorities so that asylum seekers are treated with dignity? There is a lot of detail in that question, and I will undertake to ask the relevant minister to write with more detailed answers than time will allow me to give today, including, for example, on the question of lessons learned from the dreadful circumstances around Park Inn in Glasgow. The UK Government plans to divert vessels in the channel, dangerous, and it is important that we are all clear that it will significantly increase risk to life. Medicine Sun Frontiers stated that, pursuing a policy of forced returns and engaging in push-back tactics is dangerous, inhumane and in breach of international law. It puts lives at risk at sea. In my view, people seeking asylum in the UK should be accommodated within communities where they can begin to rebuild their lives, where they have access to essential services and the support and advocacy that they need, and where they can make a contribution to the communities that they are living in. The UK Government is failing to provide that. The Home Office has not shared yet its review of the tragedy at the Park Inn, but, as I said a moment ago, I will ask the Scottish Government Minister responsible to write further about that. The comments that we saw at the weekend for example about use of military a bit on the BBC were an attempt to divert attention from the troubles—the self-inflicted troubles—of the Prime Minister, but we should not be using the BBC and we should absolutely not be using refugees and asylum seekers in that way. The UK Government should not be using refugees and asylum seekers in that way. It is utterly despicable. I think that it is another sign of the moral decay at the heart of the UK Government. Question 4. Stephanie Callaghan is joining us online. Thank you. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to public health Scotland census data, which states that three out of four care home places are now provided by private companies. First Minister. Although the percentage of private sector care homes has increased, the overall balance of provision in care home places between the public and private sector has not changed markedly over the past decade. The number of care home places has remained relatively stable, which reflects our policy to support people at home for as long as possible. As we move towards the creation of the national care service, an ethical approach will be at the heart of how we commission and deliver services. All social care providers across Scotland, from the independent third and public sectors, will continue to be subject to the same regulations, standards and guidelines, ensuring that the continuation of high-quality care home provision is and will continue to be the priority of the Scottish Government. Stephanie Callaghan. I thank the First Minister for her response. Given the prevalence of private care home provision across Suddingston-Bales hill constituency in wider Scotland, how will the national care service deliver improved terms and conditions for private care home staff and ensure that high-quality care for residents? There is no doubt that the national care service will be the most significant change in public services since the establishment of the national health service. We are committed to delivering a service by the end of this Parliament in order to ensure that everybody gets the high-quality care that they are entitled to, regardless of where they live in the country. The consultation on the establishment of the national care service proposed that it will oversee the delivery of care, improve standards, ensure that it will enhance paying conditions for workers and provide better support for unpaid carers, as well as supporting ethical commissioning of care. All that will lead to better outcomes for those who rely on our care services. It is important work, it is difficult work, it is in many aspects controversial work, but I hope that by the end of this Parliament this will be a significant public sector reform that future generations will come back and look on as fondly as we look on the establishment of the national health service. Jackie Baillie Irrespective of the status of the sector, the employees in social care are predominantly female and they are predominantly low paid. It is still the case that you can get paid more by working in hospitality and retail. There were vacancies before the pandemic, made worse by the pandemic, so will the First Minister back the GMBN Unite in their campaigns to pay care workers £15 per hour, starting with an immediate rise to £12 per hour in April? We are increasing the pay of those who work in the care sector. It is important that, while Jackie Baillie, as she always does, sets out the problem, it is this Government that is delivering the solution. We are increasing the pay of social care workers. We will continue to do that. Of course, we have to do it within the bounds of affordability and we will do that, but we are also committed to a national care service that will have collective bargaining and better paying conditions for social care staff absolutely at its heart. We will continue to get on with doing the hard work that delivers the outcomes that Jackie Baillie calls for. To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on the delivery of Lot 1 of the R100 programme. Of course, broadband investment is reserved to Westminster, but given the UK Government's failure to deliver on that alongside its failure to deliver on so many other things, we have had to step in and make a difference. The R100 north contract was signed in December 2020. Despite the pandemic, a huge amount of property work has been completed since. A remodelling exercise ensured that every connection delivered will be full fibre and survey work for over 5,000 properties and 16 subsea cables, which will deliver vital backhaul connectivity to 15 Scottish islands. We anticipate that by the end of June, the northlock contract will have delivered over 4,000 connections. The R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme also ensures that everyone who wants a superfast broadband connection now can have one with around 750 connections already delivered in the north of Scotland. I am not surprised by your response. I have no doubt that you will continue to try to throw the public into believing that the roll-out of broadband is reserved. That line is wearing very thin. The practical roll-out of broadband is devolved to the Scottish Government. That line, as I say, is wearing things like the patience of the people in rural Scotland. The SNP talked up the scheme as reaching 100 per cent, but rural communities are not getting what they are expected. Nearly 37,000 properties in lot 1 will not get fibre from the main scheme. The voucher scheme that you talked about is delivering nothing, with only 4 per cent of uptake so far. The First Minister should surely rename the R100 scheme that is promised by the SNP as the R40 scheme, and it is five years late. The SNP promised that its flagship R100 scheme would be delivered to everybody by 2021. Will the First Minister now apologise to people and the businesses in rural and remote communities who might not get connected at all, and most of them will not get connected until 2027? Through the R100 contracts, the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme and commercial coverage as well, we have ensured that every premises in Scotland can access a superfast broadband connection, despite telecoms being reserved. That is not a matter of opinion, that is a matter of fact in the Scotland act, which the member is free to go and check. To date, the UK Government's contribution to the R100 programme totals £31.5 million, 5 per cent of the total compared to £579 million invested by the Scottish Government. The UK Government's own project gigabit has yet to award a single procurement contract. The Scottish Government is getting on with the job of delivering connections, while all the Scottish Conservatives can do is gripe and ghern about it. Before we move on to question 6, I remind members to desist from shouting across the chamber when we are trying to hear questions and answers. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to Scotland's plans to cut ticket office opening hours at 120 stations and to close free ticket offices entirely. The aim of this review is the modernisation of railway stations. Clearly, to most people, technology has changed how people want to access information and tickets, but we also need to acknowledge the importance of local staff services on the ground where and when they are needed. The consultation offers the public the chance to have their say on how to provide an efficient modern service for the future, and we would encourage people to get involved. We will await the consultation findings before any final decisions are made on the proposals. Ticket office staff play a crucial role in making our railway safe and accessible, many go above and beyond such as Dalmure workers whose quick thinking recently saved a life. A properly staffed rail network is central to reducing car use and meeting Scotland's climate ambitions, yet under this Government rail is being undermined. ScotRail is cutting 300 services per day, fares will be hiked up by 3.8 per cent next week, ticket des are shutting and there is still no fully integrated smart ticketing for passengers. To drive modal shift, rail network must be more attractive and more accessible to passengers, so will the First Minister stop those ticket office closures? Consult on what a modern system of railway stations and offices looks like. I absolutely agree about the importance of ticket office staff and where they are necessary. It is important to recognise that, but everybody knows that at many railway stations now the ticket process is automated. We have to reflect that on how those services are delivered in the future, and it is right that we consult properly so that we come to the right balanced decisions. We are investing heavily in our railways. We will continue to do so to ensure that it provides a service that people in Scotland need and have a right to expect and that they deserve. Also, to continue the theme of Opposition parties calling for things, but this Government getting on with delivery, of course, is this Government that is in the process of bringing ScotRail into public ownership, delivering the nationalisation that Scottish Labour only talks about. Given that passenger numbers are dramatically down on the railways and ScotRail therefore depends on the public purse for an increased subsidy, does the First Minister agree that ScotRail does have to look at its costs and reduce them if possible? We have to make sure that we have a modern service, that we have a service that is efficient and, of course, for taxpayers that we have a service that provides value for money, but we are supporting a rail franchise right now with more than £1 billion, including £450 million of additional funding via the pandemic emergency measures. We will continue to do so to ensure that Scotland does have the railways service that it needs and deserves. Of course, as I said earlier on, we will bring it into public ownership, which I think is something that the majority of people will welcome. First Minister, 50 per cent of lung cancer patients are diagnosed at stage 4 with mortality rates high for this cancer. During Covid restrictions, there were 25 per cent less people diagnosed and 25 per cent less people in treatment. Does the First Minister recognise that Covid restrictions have a significant impact on many other conditions that will be felt long after the Covid pandemic has passed? Yes, I do. If memory serves me correctly, we had an important exchange on this issue last week. Early diagnosis of cancer and the earliest possible staging of cancer is vital. That is why we are investing so heavily in the detect cancer early programme. That is why we have established or are establishing fast track cancer diagnostic centres so that people with symptoms—that are not the most common symptoms of cancer—can get the same fast track access and fast track diagnosis as those on the urgent suspicion of cancer referral pathway. That is really important. We are absolutely committed to ensuring the earliest possible diagnosis. Of course, staging is not the only thing that is important. We then need to make sure that people get quick access to high-quality care and treatment. That is a big part of our focus in terms of cancer services too. With UK inflation hitting a 30-year high and energy costs spiralling for households with no action from the UK Government, and the standard rate of universal credit having been cut by £20 per week by the UK Government, can the First Minister outline what impact that has all had on her Government's ability to meet her child poverty targets, and whether or not she supports the poverty alliances campaign to see the punitive welfare cap scrapped by the UK Government? Yes, I fully support that poverty alliance campaign. I will be blunt about it. The UK Government is making the poorest poorer. It is doing that knowingly and it is utterly despicable. The removal of the £20 a week universal credit uplift has impacted some of the poorest families in our society, and those actions are making it more difficult for the Scottish Government to live up to our responsibilities to tackle child poverty. However, we are doing more doubling the Scottish child payment. A child payment like the Scottish child payment does not exist in any other part of the UK. Having established it, we are now taking steps to double it, so we are doing everything that we can. However, if we weren't up against the Government pulling in the opposite direction, we would be able to do more and have a much greater impact, which is, of course, the powerful argument for having all of those levers in the hands of Scottish Governments and the Scottish Parliament not leaving them in the hands of Westminster Governments. That concludes First Minister's questions. There will be a short pause before members' business.