 Y dwylo i gwybod ei wneud yn gweithio'r cyfnod, i'w gweld Douglas Ross. Mae ddod am gweithio'r cyfnod, ac mae gweithio'r cyfnod, dweud i'w gweithio'r cyfnod, mae'n gweithio'r cyfrannu 96. Yn gweithio'r cwmwy, ac i'w gweithio'r cwmwyth gwybod, mae gweithio'r gwheithiau a'r monarch yn gweithio'r cyfrannu yn gweithio'r cyfrannu i gweithio'r cyfrannu. Felly, dydigon i dyfodol, ac mae'r ysgol yn ymddangos, ac mae fydd yn ei ddweud, yn ymgyrch yn ei eistedd, a'r ddannu'r lleidiaeth i ddeall, ac mae'n fyddynt yn ddigon i ddau. Felly, mae wedi ddim yn ei ddweud i ddweud i ddeall i ddweud, ac mae'n dweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud. First Minister, if she supports plans for drivers who live outside Edinburgh and Glasgow to be charged extra to get into Scotland's two largest cities? First Minister. First Minister, can I also take the opportunity to wish Her Majesty a very happy 96th birthday today? Her service has been, continues to be, an inspiration to many, not just in Scotland and the UK but across the world. I know all of us in sending her our very best wishes today will also wish her many happy returns. I think it is right that we support those who require to use our roads and that we do that in a range of ways, for example, ensuring the good maintenance of our roads, pressing for action on the part of the UK government to cut the cost of motoring particularly just now when people are suffering from cost of living, but of course we also, all of us, have a big responsibility to ensure that we make the transition to net zero and that means decarbonising our transport system, so local authorities will consult on a range of issues, and it is important that those responsibilities are kept in our minds, but also the views of the wider public are taken fully into account. Douglas Ross. The First Minister wants to support those who use our roads and her answer taxing more, because the SNP Government brought in the workplace parking tax, and the SNP group in Edinburgh has charged the head with plans to introduce it, plans that would hit anyone who needs their car to get in to work in the city, and now in their manifesto for the local election, the SNP have included proposals to charge vehicles just to come in to the capital. It is a commuter tax on people all over the country who travel to work in Edinburgh, who come to do business, to visit family and friends or to use vital services. Scottish Conservatives are completely opposed to that proposal, so why does the SNP intend on making driving in our cities unaffordable? I think that, perhaps on many issues, Douglas Ross needs to decide what his position actually is and avoid rendering himself ridiculous by having contradictory and inconsistent positions. Talking of manifestos, let me first of all quote the Tory local government manifesto from 2017, which says this. We need to empower councils and give them a renewed sense of meaning and purpose. I can hear Douglas Ross say that that is not up to date enough, so let me quote the Conservative manifesto from the Scottish Parliament election just this time last year, and again I am quoting, councils should lead post-Covid reviews of changed travel patterns in their areas and be encouraged to create more low-traffic neighbourhoods. Douglas Ross wants to empower local councils and then he stands up there and says that I should rule out the ability of local councils deciding on things that could help us with that transition to net zero, while, of course, supporting travel patterns across the country—not for the first time, Presiding Officer—and I suspect not for the last time that Douglas Ross's position is completely inconsistent and bordering on being ridiculous. Bordering on ridiculous is that dismal answer. Two things bordering on ridiculous are the fact that SNP-backed ventures think that that was a good answer, but also the complete deflection from the proposals from the SNP—nothing from the leader of the SNP or from the First Minister—about the specific question I asked and her preprepared answers on what I might or might not have said. I don't really sit well. Her preprepared answers on what I may or may not have come to this chamber to say. I don't know what's difficult for the SNP to understand. The First Minister is trying to predict what I would say at First Minister's questions. She has a script ready to answer that had nothing to do with the issue that we are raising. It's about SNP raising the cost of driving cars in cities that people rely on to get to work, to visit friends and family, to use vital services. In response to the news of this computer tax, the Federation of Small Businesses this morning urged councils to avoid additional costs for business. They make it clear that a computer tax would hit tradespeople coming from the Lothians, the Borders, Fife and further afield. It's not just those areas that will be hit with extra charges from SNP councillors. Anyone working in Glasgow also faces the prospect of extra charges for driving into their city. Glasgow SNP leader Susan Aitken has suggested capping traffic on the M8. She is also considering introducing toll roads. First Minister, a previous SNP Government scrapped those charges. Will you stand up and give a categorical answer that you will not bring them back in again? I think that Douglas Ross might want to reflect on the fact that the chamber wasn't laughing with him a few moments ago, because I was quoting from Conservative manifestos that actually put their finger on the really important issue here. I think that everybody across the country and certainly everybody in this chamber knows that all of us—not just in Scotland but across the world—face some really difficult, tough, challenging decisions in the years to come about how we heat our homes and also how we travel around the country so that we can meet our climate change obligations, make that transition to net zero but have a transport system that still supports our economy and supports the travelling public. It's easy for the Scottish Conservatives to reduce those challenging decisions in the simplistic way that they have, but the rest of us know that those decisions have to be faced. That is about empowering local councils to consult on those decisions, to consider the options and to arrive at decisions. That is what we are doing. It is what the Conservatives used to support but clearly now don't. However, we as a Government continue to support the transport system across the country. Since this Government took office, we have invested in excess of £9.5 billion in managing, maintaining, improving Scotland's trunk roads and our motorway network. We are also investing over £500 million for bus priority measures to support people out of cars, so we will continue to take the tough decisions, we will continue to consult the public and come to sensible decisions and back those decisions with investments. That is serious Government as opposed to ridiculous opposition. Douglas Rock, three questions so far to the First Minister and zero answers. It would have very straightforward question, would the First Minister rule out road tools being reintroduced in Scotland and she was silent, didn't even attempt to answer that question. Of course, across the chamber all parties agree on the need to do more to meet our climate change targets. SMP members laugh about that, but in many industries and rural areas, people still need their cars. Right now, there could not be a worse time to further hike the cost of driving. We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Petrol prices are rising globally, yet Nicola Sturgeon wants to tax people off the road by hammering anyone who owns a car. The people who will be hit hardest are not the wealthiest, but ordinary working people who need their cars and who are already struggling with the cost of living. If the First Minister carries on down this road, Nicola Sturgeon and her SMP candidates are going to force Scotland's economy into the slowly. The commuter tax should be abandoned, toll charges should be ruled out, First Minister, and her workplace parking tax should be ditched. First Minister, will you drop this triple whammy of antidriver taxes? I don't support road tools, but I do support local councils being empowered to consider the tough issues that they face to consult with the public and to take sensible decisions. We will hear the First Minister, thank you. Yes, people continue to need their cars, particularly in rural and remote parts of our country, which is why the Government has invested so heavily in maintaining and improving our trunk road and our motorway network. We have delivered improvements right across the country to meet the needs of all the population, including the Queensferry crossing, the Aberdeen western peripheral route, the MA M73, M74 motorway improvements, and we will continue to do so. The final point that I would make is that Douglas Ross will not want to face up to. What is hammering people, including motorists right now across the country, is the Tory-created cost-of-living crisis. An out-of-touch Chancellor of the Czech Republic refused to do enough about perhaps we should focus on the immediate problems being faced by people and the solutions that need to come from Douglas Ross's colleagues at Westminster. Can I join others in wishing Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 96th birthday, and on that, her platinum jubilee year thank her again for her service? Before Easter, I highlighted to the £2 million that the Government wasted on a turnaround manager at Ferguson's, who left the yard in a worse state than he found it. The First Minister supported paying him nearly £3,000 a day, while Scots faced a cost-of-living crisis. However, that is not the only waste of public money that the First Minister has supported. Can the First Minister tell the chamber how much money her Government has wasted since 2007 because of delays, loan write-offs or avoidable spending? I do not have that figure to hand. I am happy to look at that. I suspect the way Anna Sarwar is characterising that might not be entirely one that I would agree with, but I am more than happy to look at his question in the detail of that and write to him with the information in due course. The answer is over £3 billion. That is the cost of SNP failure. The loss of public money due to SNP incompetence. The list is endless. £152 million on a failed credit contract at Ferguson's. £146 million fixing the Government's mistakes at the Edinburgh Sick Kids and the Queen Elizabeth in Glasgow. £40 million on rising on the molestive prosecution of rangers. Almost £200 million on failed industrial interventions and loan write-offs. Nearly £1 billion for agency workers in the health service because Nicola Sturgeon cut training places when health secretary. Over £1 billion on delayed discharge because of her failure to fix the social care crisis. £3 billion. That is the equivalent of £1,200 bill for every household in Scotland. Every penny of that wasted money could be more cash for the NHS, more cash for our schools or more cash to tackle the cost of living crisis. Rather than helping people with the cost of living crisis, why is this Government instead making them pay the cost of SNP failure? I suspected that Anna Sarwar's characterisation of this would be an utter mischaracterisation. It turns out that I was absolutely right on that. Let me, before I come on to some of the details, some of the ridiculous, I did not think that the opposition would be exceeded in terms of being ridiculous in their questioning today. I will come on to that in a second, but what Anna Sarwar failed, of course, to mention is that this Government has had 15 years of unqualified accounts. That is the reality in terms of our stewardship of the public finances. Let me give them two. Obviously, they do not understand that point. It is a rather important point. Let me come on to the detail. One of the examples is talking about prosecution. Prosecution decisions, of course, are matters for the independent Crown Office, and yet Anna Sarwar is seriously saying that I as First Minister or any minister of this Government should have interfered in the independent prosecution decisions of the Crown Office. Perhaps he should clarify that matter. The second example that I will use, where he is downright wrong, is his £146 million of additional costs in relation to hospitals. The vast majority of that figure, and I have looked at that closely because I have heard Labour use it, relates to planned costs, which were in no way new, unexpected or avoidable. For example, £80 million of that related to preparatory works, which were separate to the main contract, but were budgeted costs included in the business case. Another £33 million related to the annual service payment is also part of the original business case. There is a lot of nonsense in the question that Anna Sarwar has just asked there, and perhaps he should reflect on that. I asked him about wasting money. That is a waste of an answer from the First Minister right there. £40 million in a malicious prosecution, the first time ever in Scottish history. Perhaps the Government should reflect on that. A hospital built for Edinburgh's sick kids that failed to open, perhaps the Government should reflect on that. The failures of the Glasgow Queen Elizabeth hospital, perhaps the Government should reflect on that. Right around the country, we are seeing the cost of SNP failure. At the same time, energy bills are up, petrol prices are up and the weekly shop is more expensive than ever. Right now in Scotland, there are mum skipping meals in order to feed their kids. People are knocking back items at food banks because they cannot afford to cook them. In the face of the biggest drop in living standards since the Second World War, both our Governments are not doing enough. Instead of wasting billions of pounds paying the cost of SNP failure, we should be supporting families with the cost of living crisis. The £111 million alone write-offs could have been used to top up the Scottish welfare fund. The £152 million misspent mismanaging fergusons could have been used to have rail fares for three months, not three weeks, and to cap bus fares. The £1 billion on delayed discharge could have been used to give our care workers the pay rise that they deserve. While families right now are being forced to account for every single penny of their spending, why does this First Minister think that it is acceptable for them to pay the cost of £3.2 billion and rising of SNP failure? There are some really serious issues in there. I hope that, if not during this session, then after this session, Anna Sarwar will clarify at least two points. First, this is a serious constitutional question. He has twice now referenced the rangers' prosecution and the cost of settling that. However, if he thinks that that is something that I could have influenced, is he saying that ministers should have been involved in or influencing the independent prosecution decisions or intervened in any way in that? If he is going to somehow suggest, as he has, that those costs are wasted on the part of the SNP, then he really has to answer that fundamental question. Does he think that I should have interfered in the prosecution decisions of the Crown Office? The second point, going back to the £146 million in relation to the hospital, is he saying that £80 million on essential preparation work should not have been done for those laws, because that is the logical conclusion of what he is saying. The spin in the sound bites might sound good when Anna Sarwar is rehearsing those questions, but I think that he should pay a bit more attention to the detail. First Minister, if I may, there is a lot of background contribution going on in the chamber at the moment, and I would be grateful if it could cease and we could hear the First Minister. To come on to the important part of the question, which is the cost of living crisis, Anna Sarwar has referenced rising petrol costs and rising energy costs. Can I remind Anna Sarwar that the power over energy and the cost of petrol are still reserved to Westminster, and if he wants to change that, he should argue for those powers to come here. In terms of the wider cost of living, we have increased the benefits that this Government is responsible for. We have doubled the child payment, and if we are to be able to do more, then he needs to support us in calling for greater welfare powers to come to this Parliament as well. As the cost of living soars and thousands of families across the country are already feeling the crush of grossly inflated energy bills, can the First Minister give an update on the number of families benefiting now from free childcare and how much money will save them at such a critical time? Over 111,000 children were accessing funded early learning and childcare in January of this year. 87 per cent of those children are taking up the full entitlement, and families who take up the full entitlement can save up to £4,900 each year for each child. That is the most generous early learning and childcare offer anywhere in the UK. Of course, it will also deliver better social and educational outcomes for Scotland's children. First Minister, there are an estimated 132,000 people suffering from long Covid in Scotland, with 59,000 of those experiencing symptoms for more than a year. That is a ticking time bomb, but I think that the SNP Government is merely sticking its head in the stand, having dropped their debate on long Covid from the schedule this afternoon, preventing this Parliament from having an opportunity to discuss it. So can I ask the First Minister when are we going to see specialist long Covid clinics in Scotland? We are currently implementing the commitments in the long Covid approach paper. That is all about improving care and support for people with long Covid in Scotland. Long Covid clinics are one model that health boards can consider, but we have always recognised, and I think rightly so, that no one single approach is going to fit all areas and circumstances. So health boards have to look at a range of approaches in terms of the debate. Of course, we have made clear and given a commitment that we will have a debate in the next few weeks. At that time, we will provide a full update on progress. The intention is that we can provide Parliament at that time with a detailed update of the outcome of the planning process that has been undertaken with NHS boards to determine the first allocations of the long Covid support fund, which is what MSPs have been calling for. The anti-abortion lobby now sees Scotland as an easy target with campaigners following the Texas playbook. Last September, I raised concerns with the First Minister and the urgent need for protest-free buffer zones at abortion services. Does she regret that swift action has not been taken? Can she confirm that when telemedicine for early abortion will be made permanent as Scotland is now trailing behind England and Wales on this important healthcare matter? First Minister, on behalf of the Scottish Government, but also as First Minister, indeed personally, we are committed to ensuring that all women are able to access timely abortions without judgment. I condemn and I will do so in the strongest possible terms any attempts to intimidate women as they choose to access abortion services. People, of course, have a right to protest against abortion, but they should do that outside Parliament where the laws are made. They should not do that outside a hospital where women are undergoing abortions and, of course, experiencing, often as they do so, extreme distress. The buffer zones working group has been meeting. That is looking at ways to prevent any patients feeling harassed or intimidated when accessing healthcare. There are complex legal issues involved here and there is no way of avoiding saying that. We must make sure that what we do, the approach that we choose, is consistent with the law. I know that the minister is committed to seeing if that work can be accelerated. I think that she may have said as much to Parliament earlier today. We will keep Parliament updated on that work, but I would say again to those who take a different view on abortion to mine and to the view of many people in this chamber, by all means protest. You have a democratic right to do that, but coming protest at Parliament do not intimidate women seeking access to abortion at hospitals. Mark Ruskell. The proposed closure of 19 Bank of Scotland branches will mark the loss of the last bank in town in Dumblane and many other communities. As a result, vulnerable people in Dumblane, without access to digital banking, would need to make a 12-mile round-trip to the nearest branch. Does the First Minister agree that this move is clearly out of step with our ambition to build 20-minute neighbourhoods, regenerate our high streets and connect communities to lifeline services? Yes, I do share those concerns and I share those sentiments. I think that we all understand that the way that people access banking services has changed and changed quite fundamentally in some respects. Of course, banks have to respond to that and make sure that the services that they provide are reflective of that. However, physical presence of banks and other facilities can be very important in sustaining access but in sustaining the life of local communities. It is really important that banks try to find the right balance. I have personally and the Government generally has communicated those views to the banking sector and will continue to do so. Communities such as Eirth in Falkirk district are being left behind by the SNP Government's funding cuts to flood prevention. I ask the people of Eirth. They are caught up in a game of piggie in the middle between SEPA and Falkirk council engaged in the worst kind of buck passing. How can people in villages such as Eirth have confidence in Nicola Sturgeon to deliver flood prevention schemes given her record woeful track record of cuts to local schemes? First Minister, we have provided significant and sustained funding for local flood prevention schemes. Of course, the decisions on individual schemes and the ranking of schemes are matters for local authorities. I am more than happy to come back to the member with any more detail that I am able to provide on the Eirth scheme, but it is right that local authorities consult with SEPA but also with local communities in taking forward those schemes, and it is right that the Scottish Government continues to provide funding where appropriate. Pam Duncan-Glancy. The homeless project Scotland in Glasgow has today said that they see high numbers of families attending their soup kitchen. Shelter told the social security committee this morning that by the end of today and every day the equivalent of a whole classroom full of children will be homeless. What more will the Government do to support the project in Glasgow, including to help it find a building to bring people together rather than have to do it outside? What will you do to pick up pace on building new homes in Glasgow? First Minister, I am happy to engage with the homeless project to see if there is more we can do as government to try to help them find a building. The work that they do is extremely important. We all wish that it was not necessary, but I want to pay tribute to them for that. Over and above that, the Scottish Government will continue to do all that we can to help people with this cost of living, which is heaping misery upon people who, in many cases, were already living in poverty. The increase in benefits I have already referenced is the doubling of the child payment support for the welfare fund. All of those policies will continue. Glasgow City Council working, of course, with its partners has a very good record in terms of delivering affordable housing and we will see what happens in a couple of weeks, but I know for my part the current administration has plans to continue to build on that progress, but it is incumbent on all of us with any influence and power right now to do everything that we can to help people suffering with the cost of living crisis. Of course, for us to do as much as we would want to do, it necessitates having more powers over crucial issues lying in the hands of this Parliament and not in the hands of Boris Johnson and Ritchie Sunack at Westminster. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I, on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, echo the good wishes expressed by the Chamber to Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her 96th birthday? To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. I'm very grateful for that reply. In January, the Scottish Government announced that it had sold the lion's share of Scotland's seabed for £700 million. On it will be built huge wind farms. What ministers didn't tell Parliament that day was that the Scottish Government and Crown Estate Scotland explicitly stopped companies paying a vast amount more. There was a cap on bids of £100,000 per square kilometre. That's despite a sale in England and Wales where there isn't a cap, achieving four times that in initial deposits alone. We know when farm jobs are going overseas. That happened again in Murray last week, so the First Minister can't tell Parliament this is about employment. Scotland's seabed can only be sold once. The sale price matters because if it is cash that flows straight to the Scottish Government's budget for schools and hospitals, the Scottish Government has sold those national assets on the cheap. They have thrown away our fortune. I ask the First Minister when the auction south of the border netted four times more, why was she still determined to limit how much companies in Scotland should pay? The process used by county states in making those decisions was fully transparent to right and properly so. Secondly, we have to be careful in making comparisons between the Scottish auction round and similar rounds elsewhere. There are differences in the complexity of those projects in Scotland, partly to do with the depth of the water that those projects are taking place in. The other point that I would make is that, although Alex Cole-Hamilton's points about £700 million are correct, that is not the only income from those projects. There will be annual rental costs as well. Of course, if we do this correctly, which we are determined to do, then there is going to be very significant economic benefit. My final point would be to remind the chamber of the vast potential of this. We went into this auction round with a planning assumption of 10 gigawatts of offshore wind power. We have come out of that auction round with potentially 25 gigawatts of offshore wind power. This is a massive opportunity for Scotland and one that all of us should be extremely positive about. To ask the First Minister what assurances the Scottish Government has had from the UK Government that the reported privatisation of channel 4 will not negatively impact on the development of the creative sector across Scotland and the growth of new Scottish talent. The Scottish Government strongly opposes the privatisation of channel 4. In its present form, channel 4 makes a significant contribution to the creative sector in Scotland, investing more than £200 million in Scottish-based production since 2007 and, of course, opening a creative hub in Glasgow in 2019. Since the announcement of privatisation plans by the UK Government on Twitter, no further information has been forthcoming from the UK Government. As soon as they provide clarity, we will seek assurances about how they will ensure that there is no negative impact on the creative sector in Scotland. Does the First Minister share my concern that channel 4 is currently under threat from a Tory Government that appears to be doing all it can to undermine the principles of public service broadcasting for its own narrow political interest? Yes, I do. That is absolutely what is happening. Those proposals represent cultural vandalism, but they also represent an attempt on the part of the UK Government to undermine public service broadcasting. I cannot see any reason whatsoever why channel 4 should be privatised, and especially not at the very time that it has shown resilience in weathering the pandemic and strengthened its content spend and investment in Scotland. The current model is a good one, is a successful one, and it is one that upholds the principles of public service broadcasting, and I think that we should all get behind it and seek to see off those misguided conservative proposals. To ask the First Minister whether she can provide an update on the Scottish Government's strategy to include libraries in the policy to address the attainment gap. First Minister Libraries deliver a range of benefits providing vital access to learning materials and resources, helping to improve literacy and tackling the attainment gap. While local libraries are the responsibility of local government, the Scottish Government is committed to directly supporting libraries. As part of our programme for government, we launched a £1.25 million public library Covid relief fund supporting 30 projects across Scotland to remain open and tackle the attainment gap. That is over and above the money that was invested since 2017 through the school library improvement fund and the continued annual public libraries improvement fund, which supports new projects in libraries. As part of the £1 billion Scottish attainment challenge, the framework for recovery and accelerating progress encourages collaboration across local authority services, including education and local libraries. The First Minister made great store by the national strategy for school libraries, which was launched in 2018, as she just said. Both the Scottish Library, Information Council and SPICE tell me that the advisory group met on four occasions in 2018, but there are no records of any recent meetings, no updates on progress made, particularly in terms of how effective the school library fund is being spent, and that a large number of primary schools remain without a library or just as importantly without a librarian. First Minister, this strategy was supposed to be a key component in the schools when it comes to addressing the attainment gap, but we know that, between 2018 and 2021, the curriculum for excellence achievement levels in P1 to P7 literacy actually declined. Why has there been no formal parliamentary update on this strategy and why are primary school literacy levels going backwards, not forwards? We are seeing improvements in attainment in Scotland's school. All of us understand the impact of Covid after the past couple of years, and that makes it all the more important that we focus on initiatives to improve attainment. I will ask the education minister to write to the member with more details on the work around school libraries, but I did, in my answer, talk about the investment that we are making through the school library improvement fund, which I think demonstrates the commitment of this Government to supporting libraries in schools and to supporting local community libraries as well. It is absolutely right to highlight the importance of libraries to closing the huge attainment gap that we have in Scotland. What does the First Minister have to say to the young people of Kirkton in Dundee, an area of deep deprivation with among the lowest attainment in Scotland, for whom the SNP Government is cutting 79 per cent of attainment funding and for whom the SNP council is closing the library? Of course, in the decisions that we have taken in terms of the attainment funding are in recognition of the fact that we see deprivation in all parts of the country, and those changes to the allocation of the attainment fund were, of course, fully supported by COSLA, including the member's own colleagues on COSLA. In terms of libraries, we continue, as I have said in my earlier answers, to support school libraries through the school library improvement fund, and we will continue to do that. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to bring down the cost to tenants of private rent in the coming year. We are all aware of the significant pressures facing private renters, which is why our commitment to introduce rent controls is so important. That means, of course, doing detailed work to ensure that we implement an effective system of rent controls that is right for Scotland, robust against challenge and one that will stand the test of time. Our housing bill will begin that process and also strengthen existing rights by ensuring that anyone who believes that their rent increase is unfair can apply for adjudication without fear of their rent being put up. We are also providing immediate financial support for people who might be struggling. That includes doubling the Scottish child payment, as I have already referenced from the start of this month, and investing up to £86 million this year in discretionary housing payments. The Scottish Government's commitment to introduce rent controls is, of course, welcome. Rents are rising right now, so tenants cannot afford to wait three or more years for action. The First Minister has rightly called for more action from the UK Government to help to tackle the cost of living crisis, but this Parliament has powers to address one of the biggest pressures facing people in Scotland right now, which is rising rent costs. Some councils have already taken the positive step of introducing rent freezes for social tenants. Will the First Minister commit today to exploring the implementation of an emergency rent freeze to support all renters in Scotland? As a matter of good faith, I will undertake to explore any suggestion that is made in the chamber. We all want to do everything that we can to help. I think that the member will understand that to legislate particularly on a complex matter like this does take time. I think that that was recognised by her colleague in the debate before Christmas, Mark Griffin, when he said that we certainly do not expect legislation to come into force in year two of this parliamentary session, but we look for details of the framework for the rules. We will continue to look at how we can, if it is possible, accelerate progress here, but, in the meantime, take further action. We have already strengthened tenants' rights in recent years, and it is not the case that we are not providing help in the meantime. We have the £10 million tenant grant fund, focused on helping private and social tenants who are struggling financially. We are providing £86 million in housing support this year, and we have provided £39 million of additional funding to avoid evictions as a result of the pandemic. We will continue to make support available, but we will also continue to look closely at any suggestions for further action that might be made. I am very proud of the record of Glasgow and Glasgow-Kelvin, in particular of supporting asylum seekers. What is her reaction to sending asylum seekers arriving in the UK to a detention facility in Rwanda for processing? I think that this decision is utterly abhorrent, morally and ethically abhorrent. It is a total abdication of the UK's moral and international responsibilities to asylum seekers and refugees. It will also make it more challenging and prolong for people to seek safety from war and persecution. In this decision, the UK Government is ignoring the welfare of extremely vulnerable people. For all those reasons, the policy has rightly been condemned by many. When you hear Theresa May stand up in the House of Commons and remember that she was the Home Secretary who sent go-home vans around Glasgow to describe the policy as morally, ethically and practically wrong, then all of us have to realise how far from any moral course the UK Government is going on this issue. First Minister, a recent review by Sir Peter Hendy for the UK Government has found that the A75 is the road most in need of an upgrade anywhere in the country. Will you admit that the failure to upgrade this dangerous road, often referred to as a goat track, represents a broken promise by the SNP to the people of the south-west of Scotland and the haulage and ferry companies that depend on the route to move goods to and from Northern Ireland? No, I do not accept that. The STPR, too, of course, recommends that safety, resilience and reliability improvements are made on the A75 corridor to support access to Strunrar and to the ports at Cairnryan, and we will continue to take decisions that do indeed support that access, which all of us accept and agree is extremely important. Given the rising costs of living, can I ask the First Minister if she welcomes the announcement yesterday that the newly publicly-owned ScotRail will be slashing off-peak ticket prices in half for the month of May? Yes, I absolutely welcome this half-price fare offer that, of course, newly publicly-owned ScotRail announced yesterday. That was originally postponed due to Omicron, but people will now be able to book discounted tickets between 9 and 15 May for outward travel between 9 and 31 May, with return travel to be completed by 30 June. The ScotRail's kids for a quid discount will also be able to be used in conjunction with the offer, which means that up to four children can travel for £1 return each with each adult. We want people to return to travelling by rail, but we know that we need to make it affordable to be a truly attractive alternative to using the car. Public ownership of ScotRail means delivering a service that listens and responds to passenger need, and we will continue to develop further initiatives that make rail a better choice as we work towards our ambitious net zero targets. The Auditor General has said today that an independent audit was unable to conclude that governance at South Lanarkshire College in East Kilbride was satisfactory over the last year. There have been serious issues at this college. Whistleblowers have made a number of allegations with reported claims of fraud, theft and general malfeasance. The principal, Ailey McKecney, ordered an audit report, which the college is refusing to publish. She and the interim clerk to the board were then suspended. I suspect she was ruffling feathers. The college has now published an action plan that says procedures should be changed in areas such as procurement, preventing bribery and carrying out supplier due diligence. A light needs to be shown on what has been happening at this college. Will the First Minister order an investigation and commit to making its findings public? I have some sympathy with the sentiments of that question. I know that there are significant issues that have been raised. Colleges, of course, are self-governing institutions, but the Scottish Funding Council has an important role. If the Scottish Funding Council considers it appropriate for there to be further enquiry or investigation, then, of course, it is able to do so. I am happy to consider whether there is any further action or procedure that the Scottish Government can initiate. I will come back to the member in writing if I conclude that that is the case. Russell Findlay. The parole board issued warning letters to 25 life-sentence prisoners accused of breaching their licence conditions. Does the First Minister seriously think that murderers and rapists will care about a warning letter, or will she back our plans to recall lifers who breach parole and block their future early release? I think that it is right that we have a robust system of parole. If, on any occasion, it is concluded that that system needs reform, that should happen. However, as we have covered in exchanges in this Parliament before, it is right that people who commit heinous crimes are properly punished for that, for the sake of punishment, but also to keep the public safe. However, we also have a justice system that supports rehabilitation, because that is in the wider public interest. We will continue to ensure that the parole system is fit for purpose. That concludes First Minister's questions. The next item of business is a member's business debate in the name of Katie Clark. There will be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and public gallery to do so before the debate begins.