 Mae oedd gennych gwestinogi. Gweddwyd i'i dewis ei ddechrau i Oliver Mundell, gyda'i i ddefnyddaeth fel yn ddigべch yn ddegwad. Maeเทil yn ddegwadio'r gwestinogi, ac mae wedi gynnig ac yn agliffai dros. Triwfyd gan gyd-dewis yn trefnol, efo ni'n gwneud y bwlynd datblygu i Morrhaid Gwil i yw Fyrdd berth o ran i llawer o Rheigmoor i Desparadol yn Barnes. Hamza Yousaf, student in this chamber on 7 December responding to the independent review into maternity services and merri and told me that he and I quote, absolutely believed that there is capacity in place to deal with the additional women who may have to go to Rheigmoor. But that confidence isn't shared by more than a dozen clinical experts who have written to the health secretary about Felly, mae'n gilydd y gwaith oes iawn i'r gwasanaeth iawn i'r gwaith cyfnodol, a'r gwaith yn ysafodol. Ond mae'n gwybod caeth i'r Gweithraithoedd, ond ond rwy'n ers gwaith nesafodol, mae'n hyffordd fel pobl. Rydw i'r ysgol yng nghyrch angen am gyn lluniau, byw i'r prifwyr o'r granfwydhau, ond unrhyw ei mettod o wybod i gynghain i gyntafol i gael Gweithraith oeddol. i du yn y及b arig wath yn angen i gyflwysterio'n sefydledig o'i gofyniadau llawer o'i amgylcheddau? Fy introduced to that extremely important question, and I'll just take the opportunity to acknowledge that today of course is HolyCost Memorial Day, an opportunity to remember all those murdered in genocide in the holy cost of course, but more recently in Rwanda, Darfur and Bosnia. i swyddwag i ddodgwysgogi i ddodgwysgogi i weithwyrigiau, a gwyddoeth i ddodwsgwysgogh gyffredig, lle mae unig y byddai ar gael gwyddoedd, ac yn cael ei gael ddysgogu i fynd ddawn, oherwydd yn ei ddim ni'n gwybr iawn, oedd yn cael ei ddymaradweu iawn. Rwy'n credu bod arall yn newidd ar gael ddymaradwyr o'r llanfaenau a'i gymhau o'r peth absolut paramount imperative of the Government, and I know it is two of clinicians working on the front line. Obviously, a report into the issues of consultant-led maternity services at Dr Gray's and the implications for Rhaigmoor was commissioned. That report is thorough and substantial. The Cabinet Secretary has met with staff, the boards and local people, I think, before Christmas, and the Scottish Government is considering all of the recommendations very carefully. It is important that we get this right. It is absolutely important that we recognise the desire—understandable—an important desire of women to give birth as close to home as possible, but it is also really important that we do not lose sight of the issues of patient safety. I can give an assurance to the chamber, but more importantly to local people that all of those issues will be subject to the most serious and careful consideration. I echo the words of the First Minister about Holocaust Memorial Day, and my colleague Jackson Carlaw immediately after First Minister's questions will lead a member to be, and I am certain that every member will stay in the chamber for such an important debate. The future of maternity services at Dr Gray's hospital has consequences for mothers all over the north-east and the highlands. That has impacted my own family, but it has caused far greater problems for many others. Here is one example from the recent review into maternity services, and these are the words of a mum. I have been told that if I had a bleed before giving birth, the chances were slim that I would survive, and consequently neither would my baby. I spent months in constant fear that I would bleed, then the worst happened and I started bleeding at home. I was transferred initially to Dr Gray's, then to Aberdeen in a blue-light ambulance. The bleeding did initially stop and I was told that my baby had a heartbeat, but when the bleeding started again, on the way to Aberdeen, I was told that the heartbeat had gone. I therefore thought that my baby was dead and it was likely that I was next. First Minister, this is going to happen to more and more women the longer this is allowed to go on. When doctors and midwights are seeing the options on the table won't work, what is the First Minister and her Government going to do about it and why are they not responding to these medical experts? Can I understand the person that I acknowledge, the personal experience here? We all, not all, but many of us, myself included, have personal experiences around baby loss at different stages and, therefore, I absolutely understand the emotion, the sensitivity and the seriousness of those issues. The Scottish Government commissioned the report conducted by Ralph Roberts as part of a commitment to the reintroduction of consultant-led maternity services at Dr Gray's in a safe and a sustainable way, and that is really important. The report that has been published is a substantial report, it is very thorough and it is important that all of the recommendations in that report are considered extremely carefully. The Government will meet again with NHS Grampain, NHS Highland to look at practical next steps and core to that, of course, will be listening to clinicians at Rhaigmore in any further discussions. The health secretary has already indicated that, but if not, I will indicate that. Now it is of course prepared and it is important that he meets clinicians at Rhaigmore. Of course, there is the mum campaigning group who also has views on the recent review and report and that has to be listened to as well. I do not at all underplay the seriousness of this nor do I deny or challenge in any way how important it is to all women to give birth as close to home as possible. That is not just something that is desirable. There are many good clinical reasons for that as well and also good support reasons for that, but the most important thing—I think that it is acknowledged and underpins the questions that are being asked here as well—the most important thing here, because there have been experiences in the past that drive some of this. The most important thing is that maternity services are safe for women and for their babies and that is the principle that will drive all of the decisions that are arrived at. Those decisions will, of course, be informed by all those who have opinions or clinical expertise to bring to bear. The First Minister is saying that the health secretary will now respond, but those clinicians wrote directly to him. They kept that private because they wanted to put across their views and get his response. When that did not happen, when the health secretary did not reply to those front-line experts, they went public in the local papers. When they still did not get a response, I am raising it in First Minister's questions. It should not have to come to the chamber here in Parliament to get a response, because this issue does not just affect mothers in worry. Over the last 15 years of this Government, the temporary or permanent closure of maternity units has reduced services in Inverclyde, Paisley, Skye, Caithness, Angus, Perth and Dunfries. It is unacceptable to force pregnant women into lengthy and distressing journeys. We have heard from Cara Williamson, who was transferred from Aberdeen to Cercodi because of a lack of beds. She was told that she would not be allowed to go with her newborn twins as they were transferred to the neonatal unit at Ninewell hospital in Dundee, and she would have to wait for a separate ambulance. All Cara wanted was to get closer to home to her family, but she was left alone hundreds of miles away. First Minister, shouldn't families in every part of Scotland deserve better than this? Let me say two things in addition to what I have already said. First, in terms of the letter from clinicians, I am certainly more than willing to look into the reply or why a reply was not sent there, but the health secretary has said publicly that he is going to meet with Regmore clinicians and that it is inconceivable that decisions would be reached around this without properly engaging clinicians on the front line who, of course, have the responsibility to implement those decisions, and I will give an assurance to those clinicians and indeed to the populations affected here that that will absolutely happen. In terms of the more substantive issue here, and it is one that I do not need to remind the chamber, I was health secretary for a number of years and so many of these issues are issues that I grappled with while I was health secretary. Everybody wants, and this is the starting point, every woman to be able to give birth as close to home as possible, but often there are challenges and they are safety and sustainability challenges associated with that, and we have to consider those issues carefully. For example, in some of the smaller units in our country, sometimes the issue is that the small number of births means that it is not possible to have the specialisms to support some of the complexity of care that is required. There have also been over these years some recruitment challenges in some of the units that have added to those challenges. It would be completely wrong and irresponsible for a Government or clinicians on the front line not to have regard to those very serious issues as we try to strike the right balance between quality specialist care and care as close to home as possible. That is a balance that we have to grapple with in many aspects of NHS care, but it is particularly important here when we are talking about the safety of pregnant mothers and their babies. Those are really difficult issues. I absolutely understand the views of families and women giving birth, but it is so important that we get those decisions right. I absolutely acknowledge that, in getting those decisions right, the views of front-line clinicians are essential. We have also just my last point here, given commitments to continued investment in Rhaigmore, as we take those options and any recommendations forward. The health secretary will engage directly with clinicians, as is right and proper, and we will continue to treat all of those matters with the utmost seriousness. Douglas Ross The First Minister mentions the small number of babies born in some of our smaller hospitals. That is because they are being downgraded. We have seen an 80 per cent reduction of babies being born in Murray because of decisions taken by the local health board and the Scottish Government. The First Minister said that the health secretary will fully engage with clinicians in NHS Highland. That should have happened by now. I am raising this today because they are at the end of their tether, trying to get a response. They are worried if he is really going to listen, because I go back to the quote from the 7 December that the health secretary stood in this chamber and said that he absolutely believed that there is capacity in place to deal with additional women who may have to go to Rhaigmore. It does not sound like he is open to listening to the clinicians when he is already made up his mind. It is fine. Another woman that we spoke to was Billy Cowie, and she described her experiences. Late in her pregnancy, over Christmas, she had to make the journey of over 60 miles from her home to hospital on Aberdeen. She described those journeys as awful late in her pregnancy. Over the Christmas break, she was admitted to hospital repeatedly, each time forced to make that same journey. It is 2022. Nobody anywhere in Scotland should have to go through that, let alone repeatedly. The First Minister was elected on a manifesto that promised to restore a consultant-led maternity unit at Dr Gray's hospital in Elgin. Will she keep that promise, and will she make a commitment that there will be no further downgrades to maternity units anywhere in Scotland? The manifesto commitment stands, but it is important in relation to all services that we deliver those commitments in a way that is safe and sustainable. That could scarcely be more important than in the issue that we are talking about right now. I appreciate that, although I am talking about a number of different maternity units, the issues of distance are much more acute in the area that he represents than they will be in other parts of Scotland. I absolutely do not deny the experiences, views or wishes of the mothers that have been quoted in the chamber today. I absolutely understand that, but, likewise, I have spoken to and I know that there are some women who, in Jackie Baillie's chamber right now, we have had these discussions around the Vale of Leven and Inverclyde in the past. There are some women who choose to go to bigger centres. Those are issues that are difficult. We have to strike the right balance between local access and safety, and specialism, particularly for cases of more complex care. We need to do that carefully and take account of the views of clinicians. To repeat the point that I made earlier on about investment in Rhaigmore, if that is necessary, that is an important part of that commitment. We will continue to take those issues forward carefully, listening to mothers who have given birth, to mothers who will give birth in the future, to clinicians delivering those services to get to the best balance that does ensure local access and avoids the need for travelling long distances, but makes sure that our maternity services are rooted in safety as the absolute guiding principle for pregnant women and for their children. 2. Anna Sarwar On Holy Cross Memorial Day, we remember the millions of Jews who lost their life to prejudice and hate in all victims of genocide. We cannot be complacent. There can be no hierarchy of prejudice. We cannot pick and choose. Hate against one is hate against all. The pandemic has had a devastating impact, and nowhere has that devastation been felt more than in our social care sector. Less than 1 per cent of our population live in a care home, yet they account for a third of all Covid deaths. Today, a report from Audit Scotland makes clear that the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the long-standing challenges facing the social care sector. It goes on to state that the services in the near crisis and that a lack of action now presents a serious risk to the delivery of care services for individuals. What urgent action is the Government taking now to address those challenges? I welcome the report from Audit Scotland today. In many respects, I do not think that it tells us anything that we all have not been aware of. There is an urgent need for reform of our social care services, and that is what we are taking forward through the proposals for the national care service. In the meantime, before I move on from that, it is important to recognise that the findings of the Audit Scotland report published today largely add in line with the independent review of adult social care that Derek Feely led from. Indeed, that is why we are moving to establish a national care service by the end of this Parliament. In the meantime, we are increasing investment in social care. We are increasing the pay of those who work in social care because recruitment and retention and the valuing of the social care workforce is an important part of what we need to do. That work will continue as we continue to take forward the plans for the national care service over the course of the next few years. The plans, of course, that everybody across Parliament will have the opportunity to contribute to. The report also states that, regardless of what happens with reform, some things cannot wait. We had a staffing crisis even before the pandemic. Now that services are reporting, they do not have the staff, they need 60 per cent of housing support services. 59 per cent of care at home services. 55 per cent of care homes for older people, not having the staff they need. That is a stark report that makes clear that a lack of action now presents serious risks. Social care staff, according to Audit Scotland, are under immense pressure, are not adequately valued, engaged or rewarded for their vitally important role. Does the First Minister accept that we need an urgent, credible workforce plan and that a 48 per cent pay increase simply will not cut it? Will she back our plan for an immediate increase to £12 per hour for care workers, rising to £15? First, we are taking action now as we progress the plans for the national care service. We have a commitment to increase public investment in social care by 25 per cent over the Parliament, and we have started on that journey. We are also taking steps, taking steps to increase the pay of those in the adult social care workforce now. Anasarwar, in referring to 48 pence, misrepresents the scale of that. It represents 48 pence an hour, and the increase is 12.9 per cent compared to March 2021. As the first step to increasing substantially pay in the adult social care workforce, an increase of 12.9 per cent is actually what we have already delivered. Does that go far enough? No, and we have said that we want it to go further. Interestingly, though, it is more than the part of the UK where Labour is currently in office, which of course pays the real living wage. We recognise the need for action immediately. We are taking action immediately. We are also working with partners to attract more people into the sector that we launched in November last year, a national marketing campaign to attract more people, to recruit more people into the sector. As I hope Anasarwar would acknowledge, there are real pressures on recruitment across health and social care, and across the wider economy, because of the Brexit impact and the ending of free movement. That is a significant challenge, but we will continue to make the investments that attract people into that sector to invest more in that sector as we take forward that longer-term reform of a national care service. The SNP Government for 15 years, there is no one else to blame. A social care sector neglected before the pandemic, failed during the pandemic. A workforce ignored, overstretched and undervalued. Those in need of care at home neglected and struggling to cope. Unpaid carers, disproportionately women, carry the burden of this Government's failures. We have been calling for a national care service for over a decade, but it cannot now be used as a Government slogan to delay action until 2026. Carers and those who need the care cannot wait another four years. There are things that you can do right now. Will the First Minister take the burden of family carers by restarting respite services, pause commissioning to allow focus on the delivery of social care, end non-residential chair charges now and finally reward our front-line heroes with a pay increase that they deserve? I think that those who are listening to my first answer to Anna Sarwar would not have heard me blame anybody. They would have heard me talk about the things that this Government is doing, building on the action that this Government has taken in years gone by. However, I cannot allow this moment to pass without reminding Anna Sarwar that, yes, we have been in office in national government in this Parliament for 15 years. For much of that, in, for example, Glasgow City Council, Labour were in administration denying female workers the equal pay to which they were entitled. It took an SNP administration in that council to deliver equal pay to women workers across Glasgow. Forgive me, Presiding Officer, if I am not prepared to take lectures on that point from the leader of the Scottish Labour Party. We will continue to increase the pay of adult social care workers. We have already taken the step that I have spoken about. Just this month, in terms of unpaid carers, we have announced additional investment to help them with respite, for example. We will take forward the plans to deliver that national care service. That reform that I hope future generations will look back on with as much significance as this generation looks back on the establishment of the national health service. We will go on with doing the hard work of supporting those in adult social care who do such a sterling job on behalf of all of us. Let me also take the opportunity today to thank them for what they do. I will now take some constituency and general supplementaries. I call Eleanor Whittam. We have a more compassionate and dignified social security system in Scotland. Can the First Minister outline the improvements that this new benefit will deliver for the people across Scotland? I am absolutely delighted that the adult disability payment regulations were passed and passed unanimously this morning. Starting in March and being phased in ahead of national roll-out in August, that will be the 12th benefit that we will deliver and indeed the most complex to date. It is a major milestone for our social security system and will mean a very different approach from the current adversarial DWP process. We will put an end to the anxiety of undignified physical and mental assessments and an end to private sector involvement will also end the stressful cycle of unnecessary reassessments. Starting from a position of trust, adult disability payment will provide disabled people with a compassionate system designed around what they have told us is important and, crucially, it will be rooted in our values of dignity, fairness and respect. Jamie Greene. North Ayrshire is one of five areas shortlisted for a new prototype fusion power facility through the UK STEP programme. It really has the potential to generate a huge chunk of zero-carbon energy, which is much needed, without the dangerous waste that is so often cited in this chamber, but more importantly generate up to three and a half thousand jobs, much needed jobs for the local area. Given that it takes so many of the First Minister's own economic energy and climate ambitions, will she support North Ayrshire's bed? If so, what will the Scottish Government do to support that bed? We will continue to discuss with North Ayrshire Council and other councils their ambitions across a whole range of areas, including this one. This is very, very early stage technology. My concerns about nuclear power are not just the waste that is generated from current nuclear technology, but the real doubts about value for money are well known. We will discuss with councils any ambitions that they have, but in the meantime, we will continue to invest in renewable energy, where Scotland has vast potential to support our transition to net zero. Pauline McNeill. After the first Glasgow School of Art fire in 2014, the report noted that the legacy ventilation system was a major contributor to the rapid spread of the fire. The report released this week into the 2018 fire and noted that the construction layout and high fire loading allowed the fire to spread unchecked in all directions, leading to 50 per cent of the building being well alight within 38 minutes of the Scottish fire and rescue service arrival. The Glasgow management has claimed that their approach to the protection of the building was gold standard, but we find that the fire alarm did not work. Does the First Minister agree that lessons appeared not to have been learned from the original fire? Does she agree that we owe it to the arts community and the residents of Garnett Hill, devastated by two fires, locked out of their home for four months after the fire, so that there should be third party independent oversight of the management of their rebuild to ensure that confidence is restored? First Minister, I take the opportunity to thank the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service for its work on an incredibly challenging and complex investigation. Unfortunately, we all feel frustration at this, although it is not the fault of the fire and rescue service due to the extensive damage that is sustained at the site and the physical evidence that is destroyed in the fire. The fire and rescue service were unable to determine its likely origin and cause, but it is nevertheless really important and I agree with Pauline McNeill that, wherever possible, all lessons are learned because of the importance of the art school, the importance of the McIntosh building to Glasgow to Scotland, to the arts and culture community. We will continue to consider how the Scottish Government can support that. Lessons learned exercise and support the art school as they take forward plans for the future. Of course, all higher education institutions must comply with terms set out by the Scottish funding councils and the principles of good governance set out in the Scottish Code of Good Higher Education Governance. We expect the highest standards of propriety from organisations that receive public funding, but I will give further consideration to Pauline McNeill's suggestions and come back to her in due course. As the First Minister will be aware, Energy Company OVO, who have a major presence in my constituency, have announced that they intend to lose 1,700 jobs, including up to 700 in Perth. She may also be aware that myself and the Deputy First Minister in Perth, your North MP Pete Wishart, met with CEO Adrian Letts last week. Unfortunately, the owner of the company, Stephen Fitzpatrick, refused my invitation to attend. The conclusion of that meeting left is all very concerned that compulsory redundancies will be forced on the workforce, which could result in vital skills being lost to the economy. Can the First Minister tell me if there is anything that the Scottish Government can do to impress upon the company how damaging those losses will be to my constituents and to the wider economy? I thank Jim Fairlie for his question and, indeed, for his efforts on behalf of his constituents. I know that he is joined in those efforts by Pete Wishart and, indeed, by the Deputy First Minister. Obviously, we are really concerned about the proposed job losses at OVO Energy. That is an anxious time for the staff who work there, for their families, but it is also a really anxious time given the importance of this company to the local area for the wider community. The Business Minister spoke with the CEO of OVO retail last Wednesday, exploring and interrogating the rationale behind the decision. OVO advised that the voluntary redundancy programme had not been open for long and that it was speaking to staff and the United Union. The Business Minister will continue to press OVO on all relevant points and has asked that it remain in contact with Scottish Enterprise to explore ways of mitigating the impact on jobs. We will do everything that we possibly can, if it is possible, to seek a reversal of the decision or a mitigation of the decision. Of course, we will also do everything that we can through pace to support those who might be affected by redundancy. However, I would appeal to the company—indeed, I would say that it is an expectation of the company that they do engage with local representatives with the Scottish Government and make sure that their decisions are fully transparent to their workers and to the wider community. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Equality and Human Rights Commission wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Local Government and Housing about the Gender Reform Act. The outline the need to improve healthcare services for transgender people and the potential consequences of self-advocation such as collection of data, participation and drug testing in sports, measures to protect barriers facing women and practices within the criminal justice system. Does the First Minister acknowledge the concerns raised by the EHRC and which part of society does the First Minister believe will bear the brunt of those consequences and how does she propose to mitigate those impacts if her Government maintains its current plans? I note the letter that was received yesterday from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The other thing that I note is that it represents a significant change in the position of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It responded to both of the Scottish Government's previous consultation in its response to the 2017 consultation. It said that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is far removed from reflecting best practice and has a significant negative impact on the lived experience of trans people. In the 2019 consultation on the draft bill, it said that the commission considers that a simplified system for obtaining legal recognition of gender would better support trans people to live their lives free from discrimination and support the aims of the draft bill. Obviously, it is for the commission to say why its position has changed, but it is important for me to narrate that it is a change in position. I am also slightly concerned at some of what I consider does not accurately characterise the impact of the bill. What the bill seeks to do or will seek to do is simplify an existing process. It does not confer any new rights on trans people, nor does it change any of the existing protections in the Equality Act, so it does not change the current position on data collection or the ability of sports organisations to take decisions, for example. We will continue to engage with a range of organisations, but let me stress again that the bill is designed to simplify an existing process to reduce the distress, trauma and anxiety, and often the stigmatisation that trans people suffer in our society. Of course, the Government will set out its plans for the timetabling of that legislation in due course. Apologies, Presiding Officer. I want to come in for a later question. I have unpressed my button for that. Thank you, Ms Chapman. We will move on to question 3, and I call Alex Cole-Hamilton. Presiding Officer, on Holocaust Memorial Day, I say on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats that, although the actions in the murderous regime of the Nazis has passed out or is passing out of living memory at Honesys still, we have a duty to remember and to pass on that knowledge to future generations and to work together to ensure that atrocity and genocide can never happen in this world. Do you ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet? I am very grateful for that reply. Anas Sarwar has already pointed to the Audit Scotland report published today, which shows the crisis in our care sector. Care needs not being met, poor pay and conditions, and a staffing workforce that has been hollowed out and cannot wait for action. There is also a frightening symmetry between that report and a report published yesterday by the Royal College of Nurses, who say that six out of 10 in that profession are considering leaving it because they too feel that they cannot provide adequate care to the people in their charge. That is really serious. Retention is almost as important as recruitment because we need to stop them leaving. That is why we have called for burnout measures, but we also need to listen to them, too, and that expertise is not being heard. They are not felt listened to. I offer a suggestion and an ask of the First Minister. Will she possibly instruct an NHS and care staff assembly, modelled on the citizens assemblies, that we both support so that we can close that important gap? I will obviously consider any proposals made in the chamber, but we are getting on with the job now of supporting the NHS and, indeed, social care workforce. Obviously, Alec Cole-Hamilton will have heard my responses to Anna Sauer about our long-term reform plans and the action that we are taking now to invest in adult social care and to increase the pay of those who work in it and to support them in a wider sense. Let me turn, though, to the issue of the Royal College of Nursing report. Of course, this has been a Tory time for nurses and others working at the front line of our national health service, but nursing and midwifery staffing right now is at a record high in NHS Scotland. It is up by almost £7,500 since this Government took office. That is staff in post, so none of those numbers are vacant. We have also announced staff expansion in the last year alone to create nearly £5,000 extra nursing and midwifery posts, more than half of those are already filled. We are taking action now to increase those working in the national health service and to support those who are already working in the national health service, backed, of course, by record funding. Of course, I will consider a proposition for further discussion about how we do that in the longer term, but what is more important is the action that we are taking now, and that is what we will continue to focus on. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the findings of a recent report by the Virtual Trials National Project Board, which states that specialist online courts should be set up to deal with domestic abuse cases. We welcome the share of principal piles report and support the recommendation, which could deliver significant benefits for victims by reducing the traumatising impact of the court environment. I recognise the potential for the proposal to mitigate the impact of the pandemic and court delays, which is clearly to be welcomed for this category of vulnerable victims in particular. The court programme is, of course, a matter for the Lord President. I hope to see those courts utilised more widely as an element of the court's recovery programme. I will be happy to consider the possibility of future primary legislation to support the proposal in due course, subject to consultation and, including further discussions with victim support organisations. Thank the First Minister for that response. Victims of domestic abuse have for many years said that, given evidence in front of the person who has abused them, has been highly re-traumatising, as the First Minister has said. I am pleased to hear that reports have been viewed positively by the Scottish Government. The model suggested that the report should be dedicated to virtual domestic abuse trial courts in each sheriffdom. Given that we currently have around 33,000 summary trials outstanding, those dedicated courts would ease pressure on the court system, but they would require additional sheriffs, sheriff clerks, prosecutors and defence agents, and all of them will have to be trauma-informed. Can the First Minister say what has been done to ensure the development of trauma-informed practices and procedures for everyone working in justice, regardless of the type of case, and should this virtual model work for domestic abuse cases, might there be the flexibility for it to be extended to other types of cases where victims have suffered extreme trauma, or indeed, for geography or victim mobility is an issue? Those are all really important points on the specific issue of trauma-informed practice, so the work of the victims task force, which of course is informed by the voices and experiences of victims and survivors, we recognise the impacts of trauma on those giving evidence in court and have committed to developing a trauma-informed and trauma responsive workforce within the justice system. Our programme for government commits to a new framework, specific to justice to give staff the knowledge and skills to understand and adopt a trauma-informed approach, and that has been taken forward by NHS Education Scotland with direct input from victims. Current legislation allows the virtual trial model to be used in any category of case, and while, as I said a moment ago, the court programme is a matter for the Lord President, it is the case that the model does have the potential to benefit a range of victims and witnesses in the justice system. Maggie Chapman It is clear that emergency legislation and this trial project board gives us real opportunities for changing things and doing things differently in the future. One issue that has been raised on this issue is how child contact proceedings can be used by perpetrators as a form of control and ongoing abuse. Does the First Minister agree that online courts could play a role in securing justice and safety for vulnerable women and children and not allow perpetrators to abuse child contact proceedings? The First Minister Yes, I do in principle acknowledge the reality of that and agree that the model could offer at least a partial solution. It is another reason why it is important to treat it very seriously. Of course, in terms of children in the criminal justice system, we are also developing the Barnahouse model, which is also really important in terms of trauma-informed practice. Would I agree absolutely with Maggie Chapman, and it is a more general point, is that none of us wanted to live through a global pandemic, but we should open our minds to doing things differently as we come out of it compared to how we did them going into it. There are some things that we have had to do by necessity because of the pandemic that we would all reflect, perhaps, are better ways of doing things. That is one area where that may absolutely be the case. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to encourage rail travel in Scotland. We continue to invest in Scotland's railway and support operators throughout the pandemic. We have allocated a record £4.85 billion to maintain and enhance the railway in the current control period. We have supported our rail franchises with around £1 billion, including more than £450 million of additional funding via the emergency measures agreement. We are committed to ensuring that rail fares are affordable and that Scotland rail fares are still, on average, 20 per cent cheaper than those in the rest of the UK. Work is also well under way, and I know that Stephen Kerr will particularly welcome this, to provide passenger services within the public sector under Scottish Government control from April. I know that he, like me, will be very much looking forward to that transition. Stephen Kerr Indeed, in a few days' time, Nicola Sturgeon and her Government become fully responsible for the operation and performance of ScotRail. If you were travelling from Falkirk to Edinburgh and back every day of the working week, it would cost you £72.50 a week. If you were travelling from Falkirk to Glasgow and back every day of the working week, it would cost you £85.50. Those fares are outrageous. The RMT union has called out her Government for a 38 per cent increase in fares since 2012. What is the First Minister's plan to reduce fares and get more people out of their cars and on to trains? I am not sure that Stephen Kerr's fondness for the RMT will be reciprocated, but that is a matter entirely for them. We will continue to make the investment in our railway to improve passenger services, because it is really important for the country's connectivity that we have good-quality railway services. I believe that bringing the railway into public ownership will help us with that. Yes, that will be under Scottish Government control from later this year. I have not noticed before that the Scottish Government has escaped responsibility or accountability for those matters, but we will perhaps have more ability to shape things in future. Part of a high-quality railway is affordable fares. We need the investment in our railway, and I think that less of the investment in the railways in Scotland comes from passengers through fares than is the case in other parts of the UK. More of it comes from Government subsidy. Of course, we want fares to be affordable and as affordable as possible, but I come back to the point that I made earlier on. On average, rail fares in Scotland are 20 per cent cheaper than they are in the rest of the UK, where, if memory serves me correctly, Stephen Kerr's party is in government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Does the FM share my view that if the Scottish Conservative Benches sincerely want to support Scotland's railway network, its passengers and employees, that they should lobby their colleagues in the UK Government for full devolution of Scotland's railway to this Parliament? I think that we have probably seen in recent weeks that the Tories at UK level do not pay that much attention to what their Scottish Tory colleagues say, but the important point is that we have long called for those powers to be devolved, and there is a serious reason for that. If the whole rail system in Scotland, including network rail, is fully accountable to this Government and to this Parliament, we will be better able to provide the railways services that people in Scotland want and expect. Anyone with a genuine interest in those matters in ensuring the future prosperity of a railway should get behind us on that and demand the devolution of those full powers to this Parliament. To ask the First Minister how much has been spent on private sector contracts in the preparation of the proposed national care service. I refer Jackie Baillie to the Public Contract Scotland website where the details that she has asked for are published. It is entirely appropriate for the Government to procure specialist services to support the development of our national care service proposals. We must ensure a robust review of the evidence and future principles for outcome-focused person-centred design to ensure success. All contracts awarded by the Scottish Government are subject to robust contract management and adhere to the principles of transparency. Any outputs procured in relation to the national care service will be published to make sure that they are publicly available. Can I thank the First Minister for her response? I also welcome her support for Labour's proposals for a national care service, which she rejected 10 years ago, but I always welcome late converts. However, how disappointing that so far, £700,000 has been outsourced to big private sector consultancy firms to develop the national care service. KPMG alone awarded a contract of £0.5 million to develop the business case, and now I discover that the private sector is lining up to benefit from a multi-million-pound contract for IT and data services for the national care service. Why is that happening at a time when KPMG is not bidding for UK Government contracts because those have been suspended pending investigation? Why is the First Minister using private sector consultancies when there is a wealth of expertise in the social care sector that understands what needs to be done? Finally, why can the First Minister find millions of pounds for private sector contracts but hardworking social care workers have to settle for a measly £48 pay rise? Will it make sense to use external expertise to fee up civil servants to focus on the policy development and implementation? We will do that, as other Governments do that too. Let me give one example of the kind of contracts that Jackie Baillie is talking about—a contract to analyse the consultation responses. It is routine for analysis of consultation responses to be undertaken independently. This work is often put out to an open fair procurement process, and that very independence is normally considered a good thing. I can only imagine the howls of bias that we would hear from Jackie Baillie had we decided to analyse the consultation responses internally instead of having it done independently. Jackie Baillie talked about changes of heart, so I want to just briefly come on to that point. Jackie Baillie now seems to think that Government should always do work like this itself. As a minister, she did not have that view. When Community Scotland was being set up, the Labour social justice minister at the time told this Parliament that external consultants were part of the tens of thousands of pounds of cost to establish that. The minister responsible back then was, Presiding Officer, in case you have not guessed it by now, one Jackie Baillie. The First Minister is making the same mistake that our predecessor, Alex Salmond, did with the formation of the national police service, with the formation of the national care service. Does she realise that wasting millions of pounds of taxpayer's money on a national care service, a big bang reorganisation, is disrespect to the workers who deserve a decent pay rise now? She should be investing in the care service rather than creating this national care service monolith that is not going to help people right now. When I listened to Willie Rennie there, I can only conclude that if this Parliament had existed and he had been in it back in the days of the establishment of the national health service, he would have opposed it. The same arguments are ones that no doubt he would have used then. The opportunity now to create a national care service, to mirror the national health service, is one that I think we should seize and grasp with both hands. It is vital that we get it right, and all Members of this Parliament will have the opportunity to contribute to that. Can I suggest that Willie Rennie should listen to more people around the country about what they want to see in the future of a care service and reflect on that? In the meantime, we will get on with increasing investment in social care and also increasing the pay of those who do such a fantastic job working in it. I can hear groans already because they know what is coming. I wish to raise a point of order under section 7.6 of the Standing Orders Code of Conduct regarding Emma Harper MSP's deliberate mischaracterisation of my position in chamber on Tuesday, January 25. There is moans because it is true when the member accused me of upholding an assertion made in a newspaper article, spreading misinformation, disrespecting the convener and caused targeted abuse of members. The member spoke for three minutes and 27 seconds and I will be much briefer as the truth is often quick and simple. Having provided the journalist with statements of fact regarding the SNP's record on managing Scotland's health service in response to a question on consideration of future healthcare pathways, I did not have sight of the article ahead of publication so cannot be accused of upholding its editorial position. I have no control over the article subsequently written after I have given comment. I am glad that the Government have control over what is written in the press. Furthermore, if the member would actually read the words attributed to me such as the SNP's and I quote, lack of forward planning have resulted in key personnel shortages across the NHS, including A&E staff and GPs, she would conclude that this is fact not spreading misinformation. Nowhere in the article did I disrespect the convener, the convener has never spoken to me directly on this matter and I will state here that I do respect the convener. Finally, as a member of Indian descent who was born in England, now proudly living in Scotland, I am well aware of abuse and to accuse me of causing the targeted abuse of another member, it is outrageous. Presiding Officer, there seems to be targeted misrepresenting coming from the Government benches seeking to undermine me with Emma Harper misrepresenting me just weeks after her leader. I seek the Presiding Officer's help in securing anapology from the member. I thank Mr Gilhane for advance notice of his contribution. As I said on Tuesday in terms of the code of conduct, those are matters for the committee in the first instance. With regards to the contribution of another member, that is not a point of order but a mechanism does exist as the member may be aware by which any inaccurate contribution can be amended. That concludes First Minister's questions and we will now move on to Members Business, a debate in the name of Jackson Carlaw. There will be a short pause.