 Before I turn to the first question, can I just advise members that I have had the opportunity to ask all party leaders, or to be in touch with all party leaders, to ask for shorter questions and answers this week. That will give more space for backbenchers to make contributions. I hope that it will also make for snappier and more effective contributions. I live and I hope that my exhortation is adhered to, and on that note, Jackson Carlaw. Well after that lengthy introduction, thousands of Scots every day commute across central Scotland into Edinburgh and Glasgow. Could the First Minister explain to them why a car park tax imposed on them by a local authority whose politicians they don't elect and in whose region they don't live is a good example of local decision making? Of course, that would be a discretionary power for councils, a power that under a Tory Government councils in England already have and the kind of localism that Tories have been demanding in this chamber for some time. I noted that Jackson Carlaw launched a campaign in Edinburgh this morning and he's mentioned Edinburgh in his question, which I thought was really interesting. Just a few months ago, there was a motion passed at the Transport Committee of Edinburgh City Council that said this, to note the merits and principle of pursuing the power for Edinburgh to introduce a workplace parking levy. It was tabled by Councillor Nick Cooke, Conservative, seconded by Councillor Scott Douglas, Conservative and voted for by Councillor Graham Bruce, Conservative. Will Jackson Carlaw care to explain that? How can I put this delicately? Inconsistency. The First Minister wants to talk about Edinburgh City Council. Tory councillors noted the need for an economic assessment. What the entire country has noted is that you want to impose a £500 car park tax on them with no assessment whatsoever. Do I support a back-of-the-fag policy that threatens low workers with a regressive tax? No, I do not. Does the First Minister not understand what that means to ordinary people across Scotland? That is the equivalent to many people's monthly rent. I assume from the First Minister's answer that she is now the cheerleader-in-chief for people being punished for going to work with no say far less a vote over that decision. The SNP's position on the car park tax is more confused than that. On Wednesday, SNP Minister Kate Forbes said that a key principle born of Adam Smith is that taxes should be proportionate to the ability to pay. Can the First Minister explain how this entirely admirable principle, which has so rightly inspired Kate Forbes, is even remotely met if a call centre worker earning less than £20,000 a year has to pay the same car park tax as a company director earning five times as much? The First Minister is well knows that the SNP Government would not impose anything on anybody. That is a discretionary power that councils in England already have. It would be a proposed levy that councils could propose on employers not employees. That is what the Tories used to believe. We believe that decisions should be taken as locally as possible and that powers should lie with politicians elected as locally as possible. I am not sure when they changed their minds on that, but I have been wondering if there was a reason other than naked hypocrisy for the Tories' position on that. I wonder whether it might be something to do with this. Just at the end of last year, the Tories on Angus Council introduced car parking charges at 33 public car parks in Cernostey, Arbroath, Forfer, Ciri Muir, Breakin and Montrose. On Easton Bartonshire Council, the Tories last year increased car parking charges and scrapped free parking. In Argyll and Bute Council, the Tories imposed on car parks in Arrecar an 800 per cent increase in car parking. So here we have it, Presiding Officer. The Tories don't want to give powers to councils because clearly the Tories don't trust Tory councils. Jackson Carlaw. So it's the Henry McLeish defence. It was, namely, a counsellor of what done it. But you are responsible, First Minister, because you and the SNP MSPs are going to vote for it this afternoon. Every single Scottish Conservative council group leader has now emphatically said that they will not support a car park tax in their area. Every single Scottish Conservative MSP will oppose the car park tax in their constituency or region. But what about the First Minister? She's a constituency MSP in Glasgow. So what's her view? If, as a result of powers voted for by SNP MSPs, the SNP leadership of Glasgow City Council proposed charging hundreds of pounds each year for workplace parking, would she support them, yes or no? First Minister. That is up to local councils to do the assessment and to make the case. That presumably is what you mean by decisions taken as locally as possible and power lying with politicians elected as locally as possible. Let's get to the heart of the Tory position here. The Tory position, as I understand it, is if the SNP Government devolves a tax to councils and councils decide to use that power, that becomes an SNP Government tax. Is it the case that, given that the Tory Government devolved income tax powers to the Scottish Government, is the Scottish Government's use of those powers a Tory tax? That sounds ridiculous, but that is the logic of the Tory position. This afternoon, in the budget debate, I look forward to all of us calling the income tax decisions of this Scottish Government a Tory tax. That is the logic of Jackson Carlaw. Jackson Carlaw. So bluntly, it sounds as if the First Minister does not know if she is in favour of her own policy being imposed on her own constituents by her own SNP council. We will oppose the budget deal when it comes before Parliament this afternoon and, frankly, SNP members should too. As it breaks their own manifesto promises on both the council tax and on the basic rate of income tax, as we learned earlier this week, it risks precious tax revenue that pays for our schools and hospitals being lost to Scotland as people take their money elsewhere. Worst of all, it is a tax that says to people across this country trying to do the right thing, trying to juggle school drop-offs with work, trying to keep Scotland going and, in many cases, working unsociable hours when there is no public transport provision, that they are to be punished. All week, we have seen SNP ministers desperately distance themselves from the car park tax, and now even the First Minister won't say whether she backs it or not. It's a simple question. If they don't back it, why should anybody, why should we? First Minister. I back councils having the power to decide, because we don't just preach localism and empowering councils, we practise that principle. A discretionary power that councils could use to help tackle pollution, cut emissions and, yes, invest in public transport. I say again, Presiding Officer, exactly the localism that Tories have been demanding and exactly the power that a UK Tory Government allows councils in England to already have. Isn't it the case, Presiding Officer, that I've got a wealth of evidence—I've gone through some of it here today—that the Tories do not oppose giving this power to councils in principle, they only actually oppose it when it is the SNP proposing it. It is, Presiding Officer, to coin a phrase, hypocrisy on stilts. I hope that Jackson Carlaw had more success when he used to sell second-hand cars than he will have in peddling that line. Just yesterday, school pupils across Argyll and Bute took to the streets to protest against cuts to local youth services. They understand the impact that £230 million worth of cuts to Scotland's councils will mean. I, as we saw last week, always applaud young people taking an interest in the decisions that affect their lives. That applies to young people in Argyll and Bute, as it does to young people campaigning for greater action on climate change. Richard Leonard is just wrong when he talks about cuts to the local government budget. This afternoon, in the budget, we will propose a budget that increases the resources that councils have to spend. We will ensure that councils have more resources in revenue terms, more resources in capital terms, more resources overall. In addition to that, we will give councils, as we have just been debating, more flexibility in the revenue that they raise. That is a good thing. It is incumbent on Richard Leonard when he did not bring forward a single proposal for any changes to the budget to say why he will vote against that this afternoon. Richard Leonard. The First Minister talks about more resources for Scotland's councils, so let us examine what more resources for Scotland's councils looks like on the ground. Later today, SNP Run Dundee Council will propose a budget that will cut children's education in the city. That will mean cutting education resource workers, cutting pupil support workers, cutting primary and early years assistants, even cutting 26 teaching posts from the city's primary schools. All of that at a time when school roles in the city are rising. So can the First Minister explain why she stands up in this chamber claiming that education is her top priority and then sets a budget that out in the real world means cuts, cuts to teachers and cuts to education? Let me just, yet again, give Richard Leonard the facts. The budget proposed that Parliament will vote on this afternoon increases local government day-to-day spending for local revenue services, including education, of £287.5 million, an increase in capital spending of £207.6 million and greater flexibility to raise revenue. Those are the facts, but I will give Richard Leonard a final opportunity. The final vote on the budget will take place at 5 o'clock today, so he still has a few hours. If he wants us to spend more on local government, which line in the budget should we take that money from? Should it be health? Should it be social care? I'm waiting. He's got the opportunity now to do it. Let's hear what his proposal is. Richard Leonard. Here's a fact. It's not just Dundee where cuts to council funding are hitting children's education. In SNP-run Clackmannanshire, Scottish Government cuts are so deep that council officers propose closing both Culls Norton and Fish Cross primary schools. Only a campaign led by parents stopped them, but children in Clackmannanshire still face cuts. School transport is being axed. Class sizes are being increased and two and a half hours is being cut from the school week. Nicola Sturgeon came into office promising to cut class sizes, but 12 years on too many children will be in bigger classes because of her budget and they will be spending less time being taught in those classes because of her budget. First Minister, if education is your defining mission and young people are your sacred responsibility, why are you imposing £230 million worth of cuts on Scotland's councils? To put it bluntly, we are not. I guess that if we wound the clock back to roundabout this time last year, Richard Leonard would be standing up again claiming that education budgets across the country were going to be cut. Here is what happened in this financial year. Local authorities set education budgets this year that were 3.8 per cent higher than the budgets that they set the year before. That is a 2.3 per cent real-terms increase in their planned spend on education. Those are the facts. No matter how hard Richard Leonard tries, he cannot negate those facts. Again, one last chance. Before five o'clock today, if he wants us to spend more on local government, he has an opportunity to come forward and say where that will come from. The only proposal that came from Labour benches was ruled out by Richard Leonard. He has no credibility in asking for more money if he won't say where that money is going to come from. We have a number of constituency questions. The first is from David Torrance. Yesterday, Ellis Laundrie announced a closure of its factory in Cercodi by the beginning of April with an unanticipated loss of 86 jobs. Can the First Minister please advise what the Scottish Government can do to support employees' face from redundancy? I was very concerned that Ellis Laundrie has announced the closure of its factory in Cercodi with the potential loss of many jobs. I understand that the proposals at the site will close at the end of March, and the business will transfer to in Shinnon. The PACE partnership has already engaged with Ellis Laundrie and has worked with the employees affected over recent weeks. I can assure David Torrance that the partnership will continue to provide the support that employees need to help them at this very difficult time. A constituent in Highland Perthshire has asked me to raise concerns about ambulance cover in the area. On 20 January, a 999 call for an ambulance in a life-threatening situation took one hour and 46 minutes for a rapid response unit to attend, and two hours and 14 minutes for an ambulance to follow up. Fortunately, the patient in question has recovered, but does the First Minister consider that those timescales are acceptable, and what steps will be taken to improve the level of ambulance cover in rural Perthshire? I am grateful to Murdo Fraser for raising that. Can he please pass my good wishes back to his constituent? Our ambulance service does an excellent job, and I am sure that members across the chamber would want to recognise that. I do not know all the details of that particular case, certainly from what Murdo Fraser has narrated. That kind of response time does not appear to me to be acceptable. However, I will ask the health secretary to look into the circumstances to discuss them with the Scottish Ambulance Service and to write to Murdo Fraser when she has more information. Monica Lennon, to be followed by Brian Whittle. First Minister, after the clinical waste company healthcare environmental services limited ceased its services to the NHS, boards continued to pay the company, and it has been reported that boards still owe HES £450,000. Meanwhile, HES workers still have not been paid their final wages after they were let go at Christmas. Does the First Minister agree with me that any outstanding payments from the NHS boards to HES should be used to create a special fund for HES staff who cannot afford to be out of pocket any longer? I understand the sentiment behind her question. I think that we would all share the sense of anger when any employees are treated less than ideally, which is certainly the case here. On the issue of the payments, my understanding is that any payments that were made to this company were for services that had already been delivered before the companies went into its administration, and therefore health boards were contractually legally obliged to make those payments. I am sure that Monica Lennon can understand that position. We will continue to do everything that we can to help the employees concerned. I am sure that the health secretary would be happy to talk to Monica Lennon further about the further actions that the Scottish Government is able to take. Brian Whittle, to be followed by Rhoda Grant. I would like to draw the First Minister's attention to the Tobolton landfill site, which has now gone 250 days since the company that was running that site went into liquidation. Since then, pumps have been switched off and there has been no flaring, and there is increasing evidence of contaminants leaching into the ground and into the air and into the water. At a recent stakeholders meeting, it was unclear where the responsibility lay for that health and safety. I wonder if I get the opportunity if the First Minister could tell me where those lines of responsibility lie in keeping that site safe. I am not able to give all that information to Brian Whittle right now. I will undertake to raise this with the environment secretary and to come back to him as quickly as possible about our understanding of where lines of accountability are and also the action that the Scottish Government can take to try to reach a resolution of what certainly seems to be a deeply unsatisfactory situation. I can understand that people in the local area will be very concerned about any prospect of contamination, and it is absolutely necessary that all relevant agencies and organisations respond as quickly as possible. Rhoda Grant A woman in Caithness has bravely shared her experience of giving birth under the current maternity provisions there. She was pregnant with twins when she was into labour at 30 weeks. She went to the Caithness general hospital to be told after examination that she would be transferred by road to Inverness over 100 miles away on a two and a half hour drive. Halfway into that journey, they had to stop at a community hospital in Galsby, where the first twin was born, Breach. The air ambulance was then tasked, but because it would take two hours to arrive, the first twin would be sent by road to Inverness. The helicopter could not land. Another air ambulance was tasked, but that would take too long. Therefore, a second ambulance resumed the journey to Inverness where the second twin was born. Thankfully, after a prolonged stay in hospital, all are now doing well. However, it begs the question why was the air ambulance or emergency retrieval team not tasked initially air lifting the mum from Caithness? Will the First Minister investigate that, and will she make sure that the air ambulance treats such situations as a priority? First Minister. Yes, I will investigate that specific question. First, I can ask Rhoda Grant to convey my good wishes to the family in her constituency. As Rhoda Grant knows, mothers about to give birth would be transferred from Caithness only when that was considered to be in line with patient safety. Why the air ambulance was not immediately tasked in this case is not something that I have the information on now in the chamber, but I will ask the health secretary to look into that this afternoon and come back to Rhoda Grant, both with an explanation of that, but also any further consideration that we think is required in light of that to ensure that where possible the right method of transferring mothers is tasked at the earliest possible opportunity. New information suggests that John Yew could have survived if the police had responded to an emergency call in time. However, we know that he and Lamarra Bell died when they were left at the side of the M9 motorway for three days. The accident happened four years ago, but there is still no fatal accident inquiry. They are not alone. Our research has found that families across Scotland wait for up to eight years for a fatal accident inquiry into the death of their loved ones. Can the First Minister tell those families why on earth it is taking so long for them to get the answers that they deserve? I thank Willie Rennie for raising the issue. I would take the opportunity, given that he had raised the issue, of once again placing on the record my deepest sympathies to the families of John Yew and Lamarra Bell. What happened in that case was unacceptable. There has been a great deal of investigation and lessons learned that will be applied for the future. On the specific issue of fatal accident inquiries, I absolutely understand the frustration that families will often feel about the length of time for fatal accident inquiries to begin. I do hope that Willie Rennie understands that point. I am sure that he will. The decision to hold a fatal accident inquiry but also the timescale for initiating the inquiry is a matter entirely for the Lord Advocate. In that capacity, the Lord Advocate operates independently of Government, so it would be wrong for me to seek to second guess that decision-making process. Depending on the circumstances of a case—I am not talking about any particular case here—a death investigation can be complex, technical and can often involve a number of different agencies. I know that the Crown Office is committed to prompt investigations but I also know that it accepts that in some cases the time taken to complete an investigation has been too long. Finally, the Government has made additional funding available to the Crown Office, and it is using some of that to allow the Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit to try to reduce the time required to complete death investigations. I hope that that is helpful in the way of an answer. I hope that Willie Rennie is assured that this is an issue that both the Crown Office and the Government take seriously. I understand that, but how can any lessons be learned when it takes years to get the answers? It may be that the failure to maintain experienced call handlers in the Bilston Glen Police Service Centre is one of those lessons from the M9 crash, but mistakes are about to be made again at Bilston Glen, alongside other centres in Motherwell and Govan. Police staff on night and back shifts are about to lose thousands of pounds a year in changes to their shift allowances. I am told that morale is at rock bottom. We cannot afford to drive experienced call handlers out of the police, so can the First Minister step in to prevent those damaging changes? That is a change that is still under discussion. The majority of police staff will see an increase, but, nevertheless, those are important issues that the Government must properly consider. On the points about fatal accident inquiries, I have answered that as fully as I can. I will not repeat what I have already said. It is in the interests of everyone that investigations and inquiries take place as quickly as possible, but it is also important that the right processes are followed. We know that the average number of days to complete fatal accident inquiries is reducing. That is of no comfort to any family who is still waiting for one to start, but those are issues that we take seriously and continue to work with the Crown Office to address. That is the case in terms of the other changes that Willie Rennie has mentioned. The First Minister may be aware that the Conservative Party's spokesperson on social security this morning stated that there is no such thing as the bedroom tax. Given that the Scottish Government provides an average of £650 in bedroom tax relief for over 70,000 families in Scotland, is the First Minister concerned, as I am, that the Tories would take away the support for families in Scotland because they believe that that tax does not even exist? I am aware—I have not seen the details myself—that Michelle Ballantyne, the Tories' social security welfare spokesperson, said at a committee this morning that the bedroom tax does not exist. I think that that will come used to the many people that are subject to the bedroom tax or would be subject to the bedroom tax, but for the mitigation action that the Scottish Government is taking to make sure that nobody in Scotland has to pay the bedroom tax. Perhaps Michelle Ballantyne later on this afternoon will want to explain her comments. I would hope that Jackson Carlaw would want to take a very close look at her comments, but it does not augur very well if the Tories do not even understand the basics of what people across the country are experiencing in terms of their welfare policies. What chance do we have of persuading them to change them? It is an appalling comment, if indeed it was made, and I hope that Michelle Ballantyne will retract it at the earliest opportunity. Discrimination is more than just about hate crime. It impacts life chances and outcomes. Today, with the support of SPICE, a publisher report that shows that Scotland's diverse minority communities are chronically underrepresented in the civil service and public sector bodies. Only 1.8 per cent of civil servants are from a diverse background. Only 10 of the most senior posts are from a diverse background, and two thirds of local authorities employ less than 1 per cent from a diverse background. Will the First Minister commit to a full and regular audit of Scotland's public sector? Will she support the implementation of the Rooney rule, which means that at least one ethnic minority is shortlisted when a vacancy arises? Will she agree to expand the very welcome general representation on public boards act to ensure that a public sector bodies reflect Scottish society? I absolutely agree with the sentiments behind Anna Sarwar's question. In terms of the specifics that he has asked me there, I will ask the permanent secretary to consider all of them, and I will be happy to ask the permanent secretary to write to him on how we will take forward all the specific points there. However, let me assure him and the entire chamber that the Scottish Government, as an employer, is absolutely determined to increase the numbers of ethnic minorities working within the organisation. They are underrepresented in the Scottish Government right now, as will be the case for many organisations and employers. Just as it is important that we redress that imbalance in gender, it is also vital that we do so for ethnic minorities. The Scottish Government, as an employer, is committed to doing so, and committed to encouraging other employers to take similar action. The First Minister will recall that the Saltire prize for marine energy was first launched in 2008 by her predecessor Alex Salmond amid characteristic fanfare. Mr Salmond then went on to relaunch the prize on a regular basis over subsequent years before it was quietly abandoned and unclaimed in 2017. Given the role that tidal energy needs to play in our future energy mix, as well as in meeting our climate change targets, what assurance can the First Minister give that the latest version of the Saltire prize is actually winnable and not simply an exercise in window dressing? The First Minister I think that this is a legitimate question for Liam McArthur to have raised. The reason that we have recast the prize is to make sure that it matches developments in tidal energy. The Saltire prize was not doing that. That was nothing to do with the situation when that prize was launched. The developments of tidal energy have not developed in a way that people then thought. We are determined to ensure that the recast initiative helps those who are seeking to develop tidal energy. Over the past couple of weeks, as I have been promoting Scotland internationally, I have spoken to a number of people active in renewable energy, and certainly some of them that I have spoken to were very warmly welcoming of those changes, because they thought that it better reflected the work that they were doing. So, hopefully, Liam McArthur can be reassured by that and we can all get behind renewable energy generally in Scotland, but tidal energy in particular. Annie Wells Thank you. On Saturday, another shooting took place in Glasgow in Springburn, the area where I live. That was almost a year after the victim's brother was shot in the same street in one of the many shootings that I have taken place in Glasgow over the last two years, something that I have raised in the chamber before. What action will we take to reassure residents that steps are being taken to clamp down on gun crime? First Minister Well, that is primarily an operational matter for Police Scotland. I know from the discussions that I have with Police Scotland that gun crime and gang-related crime in the city of Glasgow is something that is a real priority for them. For the Government's part, we have a duty to support police, which is why we are increasing the revenue budget of Police Scotland to enable them to do the job that they are tasked to do. The justice secretary and I are regularly briefed by Police Scotland on developments around serious and organised crime, and that is an issue that I am sure will continue to be one of great priority, because I think that that is required in order to give the reassurance to people living in Glasgow, which is where I live and where my constituency is, and that is an important point to have raised. Question 4, Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on our recent visits to Canada, the United States and France. In the face of Brexit, it has never been more important to demonstrate that Scotland is an open, outward-looking country, and that we are open for business. I visited the US, Canada and France markets that are worth more than £8 billion to Scotland's economy to promote us as an attractive place to invest, visit, work and live. During my visits, I opened new hubs in Canada and France, part of our programme for government commitments to grow our relationships with other countries, and hosted events to promote Scottish food and drink. I met with companies including Marriot, Accor, Morgan Stanley, IBM and BNP Parba, all important stakeholders in some of our key economic sectors. I also spoke at an event at the UN that was hosted by the Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights to discuss Scotland's commitment to gender equality and human rights. Kenneth Gibson. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Does he agree that by promoting trade and investment and launching new innovation in investment hubs in Orton and Paris, the Scottish Government is working to show Scotland as an attractive place to invest, visit, work and live, and that Scotland is building positive international relationships as we are taking it of the European Union against our will? Instead of taking the isolation's view of the parochial Tories who quibla any attempt by Scotland to raise its profile on the international stage, even as we strive to attract investment and jobs into Scotland? It has always been important for First Ministers to represent and promote the country abroad. By coincidence, at Edinburgh airport, when I was going to France on Monday, I ran into Jack McConnell, who was reminding me about how important it was when he was First Minister. It is even more important now because of Brexit, so I make no apology. I will continue to do everything that I can to promote Scotland abroad. Interestingly, the Tories have been criticising it. I noticed that the Secretary of State for Scotland seems to agree with me rather than with them. In the last couple of years alone, David Mundell has visited Iceland, the USA, Uruguay, Chile, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Japan, Norway, Paraguay, Argentina, Germany, Belgium, Myanmar and Singapore. Do you know what I back him to do it? I think that the only question is, why did nobody notice that he was gone? To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's responses to reports that alterations have been made to ScotRail's satisfaction targets over the last two years. The Government puts the interests of the passenger first, which is why the franchise contract includes requirements to meet passenger satisfaction targets. Only a few rail franchises require that. The Government holds ScotRail to account for matters within the franchisee's control, but it is only reasonable and required contractually that we also take account of impacts beyond the control of the franchisee. The targets for overall satisfaction have been adjusted as required by the contract for two reasons. First, to take account of a change in survey methodology by passenger focus, and secondly, to take account of increased disruption levels from extended route closures due to track renewal works in the Queen Street tunnel and delayed electrification works. The extent and impact of the disruption was not known at the time of the bids for the ScotRail franchisee. ScotRail's contractual satisfaction target is 88.5 per cent, but over the past two years, the Scottish Government dropped those targets to 84 and 85 per cent. Surprise, surprise, the operator met the newly lowered targets, and thus avoiding triggering an event of default. We also know that ScotRail is unlikely to meet its PPM performance targets perhaps for months, if not years to come. The First Minister told her chamber in December that services were unacceptable and she apologised to passengers for dismal performance. What message does the First Minister think that it sends to any franchisee holder that moving the goalposts and lowering the targets is how this Government will deal with it not meeting its contractual obligations? Given that satisfaction is at 15-year low, passengers have had repeated apologies from this Government. What is the First Minister's message to passengers today? First, as I said a moment ago, the ScotRail franchisee is one of just a very few rail franchises to require them to meet passenger satisfaction targets. That is a good thing. In terms of amendments or adjustments, I am not sure if Jamie Greene is seriously proposing that ScotRail should be held to account for factors that are outside of its control, factors that are down to the failure of network rail, for example, which is not devolved to this Parliament. Thirdly, and finally, we continue to hold ScotRail to account. The results of the national rail passenger survey led to a formal remedial plan notice being issued by Transport Scotland on 8 February, requiring them to submit a remedial plan. We have robust arrangements in place, and the Scottish Government will do what requires to be done to ensure that ScotRail is held to account against them. Can the First Minister give an indication of what proportion of any delays are linked to network rail? Would the First Minister agree that it is high time that Opposition members, MSPs and the Scottish Parliament join in the call for the full devolution of Scotland's railways? The Opposition does not like that, but Richard Lyle's question is absolutely on the money. The KPI's target for overall satisfaction was adjusting to take account of increased disruption caused by the delay to network rails electrification works. The adjustment also took account of the delay to track renewal works in the Queen Street tunnel. Again, that is the responsibility of network rail. Those issues are outwith ScotRail's control. They are outwith the control of the Scottish Parliament, given that responsibility for network rail is not devolved. Overall, more than half of the delays on the network over the past year have been the responsibility of network rail. If the Opposition wants to be able to do more about that, it needs to get behind our calls to devolve network rail to this Parliament. Mike Rumbles First Minister, there is no good blaming network rail. Half of the problems of network rail are down to weather, and they do not change. Can you hear the question, please? We have heard that customer satisfaction rates have dropped to a 15-year low. That is the customer. Performance indicators are still well below the level with financial penalties that should have been levelled by the Government, and they provide an unacceptable service still. Will the First Minister accept that the public has lost confidence and a belly hole as the operator of the £7 billion ScotRail franchise, and that the franchise should be ended at the first breakpoint in the contract? First Minister. First Minister, ScotRail should be held to account where it fails. It is held to account where ScotRail is appropriate for failures in its performance. Of course, it is only down to the actions of this Government. It was opposed for a long time by the unionist parties in this Parliament. We now have the power to ensure a public sector bid for franchises in future. Mike Rumbles is not seriously suggesting, as I think he was there, that when more than half of the delays on the network are the responsibility of network rail, then we should not blame network rail. Let us hold ScotRail to account when it is their failures to blame, but let us hold Network Rail to account when it is them to blame, and let us give ourselves the ability to properly hold them to account by devolving responsibility to this Parliament. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government plans to take to help vulnerable energy consumers. First Minister. We are disappointed that the UK Government continually fails to create an energy market that serves consumers fairly, particularly the most vulnerable. As the member knows, fuel costs are the biggest driver of fuel poverty, not one that we have power over. When we do have powers, we are taking action, including bringing forward the fuel poverty bill and our energy efficiency route map. We are pleased of GEM's latest findings show that no customers were disconnected in Scotland in 2017, and fewer Scottish customers are repaying energy debts, but I still believe that more should be done. That is why we have recently written to the CEOs of the big six energy companies, urging them to build on that and inviting them to engage with us on how we can support more people. Almost one-quarter of people are already living in fuel poverty, but on April 1, more than 1 million households in Scotland are looking at an average, £110 increase a year rising their bills after the energy watchdog of GEM increased the cap for those on the default, otherwise known as the variable tariff. It questions whether or not you can argue that there is a cap any longer, but the energy companies are supposed to have a priority services register, but there is currently no standard qualifying criteria for a vulnerable household. I am pleased that the First Minister has said that she has written to the big six companies. Will she further pressurise them to ensure that they have a strategy for vulnerable customers and try to force them to take them on the highest tariffs to protect their interests? I agree with Pauline McNeill. I agree with her point about the cap. The cap is controlled by the UK Government. We do not have control over that, but we will continue to engage with the energy companies to persuade them to do everything that they can to help vulnerable customers. We will take whatever other action that we can within our power to help vulnerable customers, because the increases that she has referred to are completely and utterly unacceptable. To ask the Scottish First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the youth strike for climate. The threat of climate change can sometimes seem overwhelming, but we should all be optimistic about Scotland's record in almost halving our emissions and the actions of young people last week. Given the impact that climate change will have on young people, it is essential that we listen to them carefully. I would certainly be happy to meet with the students and I have asked my officials to work with them to try to facilitate that. The targets proposed in our climate change bill mean that Scotland will be carbon neutral by 2050. Last week, the Committee on Climate Change informed us that its next advice on targets will be published on 2 May. If they say that we can now responsibly and credibly set a date to achieve net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases, then we will do so. Ross Greer. I thank the First Minister for that answer and for her words of support for the young people who took strike action, both on the day itself and today. However, as the First Minister herself has previously acknowledged, we are well beyond the point where words are sufficient to deal with this crisis. The young people that I was with in Glasgow on Friday had one key demand, keep it in the ground. On their behalf, can I ask the First Minister if she acknowledges, if the Scottish Government acknowledges, the indisputable scientific reality that the overwhelming majority of all gas reserves in the North Sea and elsewhere must stay there unburnt? We certainly understand the importance of the transition from fossil fuels to a carbon neutral economy, and we support that in so many different ways. At the heart of our proposals, of course, is the concept of just transition to make sure that workers in one industry are not left behind as we make that transition. I absolutely hope that all members in this chamber would understand the importance of getting that balance right. However, absolutely, in terms of tackling climate change, there is no bigger priority. Scotland is already leading the way, and we want to make sure that we continue to do so. Thank you very much. That concludes First Minister's questions. I thank the First Minister and most of the contributors for their brevity. We are going to move on to members' business in the name of Jamie Greene on delivering sustainable and renewable transportation for Scotland. We will just take a few moments, but that will have a short suspension while the member administers and the gallery changes. A short suspension.