 I will answer to the question before we turn to First Minister's questions. Members will be aware of reports in the media this morning that the former First Minister Alex Salmond has been arrested. Members will also be aware, and, as applies with all such matters, that means that the parliamentary rules on subjudice apply as the case is now active. We turn now to First Minister's questions. Question number one from Jackson Carlaw. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Queen Elizabeth University hospital was the largest new hospital in Europe when it opened. It is important to say that tens of thousands of Scots have been born and treated there safely and successfully in the years since by some of the world's leading clinicians and an extraordinary number of dedicated staff. However, they and anyone visiting the hospital are entitled to operate within a safe environment, and the latest reporting of tragic events this week has shaken confidence. We welcome the review set up by the health secretary. Last year, Professor Alison Britton published her findings into the way in which all future NHS reviews should be conducted, and it made 46 key recommendations. Will the First Minister confirm that the review into the Queen Elizabeth hospital will meet those tests? Yes, we will ensure that the recommendations that were made by Professor Britton are fully taken account of in the remit and the conduct of the review that was announced by the health secretary earlier this week. The remit and the personnel for that review will be announced in coming days. I thank Jackson Carlaw for the tenor of his question. The Queen Elizabeth University hospital has treated thousands upon thousands of people safely. It is dedicated staff who do an excellent job day in and day out. However, the incidents that have been reported on in recent times are serious, and they must be treated seriously. I hope that members across the chamber and members of the public will take some assurance from the actions that the health secretary has taken this week. She visited the hospital this week and was updated on the steps that the health board had taken in light of the cryptococcus infection incident, the additional infection control measures that are in place and the healthcare environment inspectorate. It has been asked to review that incident, but, more generally, given that and other unrelated incidents that have been reported recently, it is considered appropriate that a more general review of the construction, commissioning and maintenance of the hospital is undertaken, and it is right that that is undertaken in a way that is consistent with the recommendations that Jackson Carlaw referred to. I thank the First Minister for that response and for the insurance that she has given in it. It is important that, having established those recommendations under Professor Britton, they are surely now followed in the reviews that take place. I am also grateful to the First Minister for advising that the review will be independent and that review will extend beyond the immediate incident and the incidents that have been reported in the recent past. Beyond that, however, because, obviously, some of the concerns that are immediate require immediate action, can the First Minister confirm that there are actions being taken now that will address some of the very considerable and serious concerns that have given cause to public anxiety? Yes, I can give that assurance. The health secretary, when she answered a question in the chamber on Tuesday, gave some of that information, which I am happy to go over again for the benefit of the chamber and those among the public who may be listening. In terms of the Cryptococcus incident, which, of course, is the incident that has arisen from bacteria, from pigeons, one of the things that the health secretary was being updated on by the board on Tuesday was the additional infection control measures that have been put in place since that incident. Those measures include the provision of prophylactic medication to the relevant group of vulnerable patients and the provision of what are called HEPA filters to ensure clean and clear air and, of course, additional air monitoring. These are important steps. As the health secretary said earlier this week, there is no evidence to suggest a general infection control problem at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. The statistics do not suggest that that is the case, but, nevertheless, this is a very serious incident that must be and is being treated seriously. I should, of course, at the outset have placed on record my deepest condolences. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole chamber to the families of the two patients who contracted this infection and who have subsequently died. In one of those cases, tragically, that of a child, it was found that this infection was a contributory factor in their deaths. I want to assure Jackson Carlaw and the chamber that all appropriate steps will be taken, as I said, separately to the general review that the health secretary announced. She has asked the healthcare environment inspectorate to review this particular incident fully and to recommend any further steps that should be taken. Jackson Carlaw The minister for that assurance, being the largest hospital in Europe, a tremendous catchment area of patients depend on it. Indeed, all of my constituents depend on the assurance of knowing that that hospital is a safe and secure environment. However, this alarming story has also raised wider questions about the Government's record on the NHS, because there is a £900 million maintenance backlog on NHS buildings, including hospitals in Scotland. Nearly half—almost 45%—of that is defined by the Scottish Government itself as being high-risk. Is it any wonder that we see problems emerging, not just at the Queen Elizabeth but at other hospitals across Scotland? Why is it that, in the words of Audit Scotland, the Scottish Government has not planned what investment will be needed? The First Minister In terms of the assurances around the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Jackson Carlaw says that all of his constituents rely on the services of that hospital. All of my constituents, the hospital used to be in my constituency, so I am very well aware, acutely aware of the importance of that hospital and of confidence in that hospital to the population across Glasgow and, indeed, further afield. In terms of maintenance, at any given time, there will be maintenance requirements in the health service estate. The Scottish Government works closely with health boards through our capital allocations to health boards to make sure that we are providing as far as we can within the resources available to us capital provision to do that. One of the ways in recent years in the Queen Elizabeth hospital is an example of this that we have chosen to deal with maintenance issues in older hospital buildings is by re-providing in new purpose buildings. The Queen Elizabeth itself brings together in one location hospital services that previously were split across multiple older sites in Glasgow. Jackson Carlaw refers to Audit Scotland. The Scottish Government works to respond to all Audit Scotland recommendations. Obviously, in recent times, the Scottish Government has set out a lot of information around medium-term financial planning and other plans in terms of the medium to long-term for the health service. Capital allocations and the estate and making sure that the estate is in fit condition will continue to be a key consideration. I am not going to go into party political exchanges on this issue. It is too serious for that. Obviously, we work within a financial envelope. I think that everybody knows that that has been under pressure in recent years, and everybody knows the reasons for that. Within that, we have prioritised spending on the health service, and we will continue to do so. Jackson Carlaw The capital budget has increased, and it is going to increase further. First was right. There is always a maintenance backlog that has to be addressed. Indeed, when I exchanged with her as health secretary when I spoke in health, it was a £400 million backlog. It is now a £900 million backlog. A lot of that, according to Audit Scotland, is down to a lack of planning. Audit Scotland says that there is no long-term plan, no coherent proposals to bring our NHS estate up to the standard, so that we can all be assured. The health secretary's review will get to the bottom of what is happening at this flagship hospital and without delay, but is it not the case that what Scotland really needs is for the record investment that we know is coming to underpin a plan that commands support across this chamber and puts the NHS on a sustainable footing that we can all support for the long term? Will the Government commit to doing that? The First Minister As I assumed, Jackson Carlaw knows, but I will give this information just in case that it is not known to him or to the wider chamber, there is a commitment to bring forward a capital investment plan before the end of this financial year. The health secretary has publicly committed to that, and that is a commitment that will be fulfilled and that will be available to the chamber for discussion and scrutiny in the normal way. That will sit alongside the other plans, including the medium-term financial plan that I have already referred to. Those are difficult times in terms of public financing. One of the reasons why we prioritise investment in our health service over, for example, cutting tax for higher-paid income earners is because we want to be able to maximise the resources going to front-line health services and we will continue to do that. That does not make it easy for those working in the front line of our health service, but in the budget that the chamber will discuss and vote on in the next few weeks, it is there for all to see the priority that we have given to the health service. I assure the chamber today that we will continue to give it that priority, because that is what patients and the public, the lengths and breadth of Scotland, expect and deserve. 2. Richard Leonard Thank you, Presiding Officer. The awful news that two patients, including a child, died after contracting an infection at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow has shocked us all. Our sympathies, our thoughts are with the families who have lost loved ones. That simply should never have happened. This morning, we see reports of a second infection leaving a patient in a serious condition. The health secretary said yesterday that she believed that infection control at the hospital was good enough. Does the First Minister agree? The comments of the health secretary, which I agree with, were about what I am going to set out here. First, she was making the point and rightly making the point that the evidence, the statistics on point prevalence of infection in our hospitals or the statistics around hospital standardised mortality do not suggest that there is a general problem with infection control at the Queen Elizabeth hospital or across Glasgow more generally. Secondly, she was making the point and seeking to give the assurance to the chamber that, based on her visit on Tuesday, she was satisfied that the additional infection control measures that the hospital had put in place in light of this Cryptococcus infection incident were sufficient. Those were the control measures that I spoke about to Jackson Carlaw, the prophylactic medication and the additional filters. That was the context of the comments that she was making in no way, shape or form. Was that intended to suggest that this incident or the unrelated infection incident that Richard Leonard has alluded to is not serious, very serious and has not been treated seriously? I hope that the actions of the health secretary this week have underlined how seriously the Government is taking this. One of the very difficult things for anybody to come to terms with—this is something that I experienced on several occasions when I was health secretary—is that, unfortunately and regrettably, on occasion infections do happen in hospitals and the implications of that for acutely ill patients can be very severe. That is why we work so hard to reduce infection and have the appropriate infection control measures in place. When things like this happen, it is right that we review that intensely to make sure that any additional steps that are required are taken. I can give Richard Leonard and the chamber the assurance that both the health secretary and I and Jean Freeman have kept me extremely updated on this in the course of recent days, that we will continue to ensure that the health board is taking all of the steps that people would expect it to take. Richard Leonard. The answer to my question is that the First Minister does think that infection control at the hospital is good enough. The health secretary visited the hospital on Tuesday, so let me ask this. Can the First Minister explain why, as of last night, the facilities management workers, including the hospital's cleaners, had still not received a briefing from infection control? That is a matter that I will look into and ask the health secretary to look into, because if that is the case then clearly they should have done. I would expect those working in this field in any hospital across any part of the health service to be properly briefed in terms of the challenges that are facing. I say this to Richard Leonard in all seriousness. He is mischaracterising both what the health secretary and I have just said. What we were saying, what the health secretary said, and what I have repeated today, is that the evidence suggests that there is no general problem with infection control. We are not complacent about that and will continue to monitor all the relevant statistics very carefully, not just for this hospital but for all hospitals. In particular, she was talking about the additional measures that have been put in place in light of the particular infection incident. I think that she was taken to see some of the measures that had been taken and was satisfied on the basis of the advice given to her that those were the appropriate steps that have been taken. However, there will be no complacency at all. I was health secretary as Jackie Baillie, if she is in the chamber, will recall during the seadiff outbreak at the Vale of Leven hospital. I know how devastating these things are for families, I know how devastating they are for staff in hospitals and I know how damaging they can be to confidence in the health service. I personally, Jeane Freeman as health secretary and the entire government will always treat these instances with the utmost seriousness and I hope that that is an assurance that Richard Leonard will take in the good faith in which it is offered. The First Minister says that she is not complacent, but this is Scotland's biggest hospital and it is not even four years old. Within months of opening, in October 2015, there were reports of elderly patients having to lie in their own excrement because there was no clean linen. Just a few weeks later, in November 2015, a premature baby died after picking up an infection in the neonatal unit. In February 2016, sewage leaks forced the cancellation of operations in January 2017 and inspection found traces of blood and feces on patient trollies and mattresses. In March 2018, 22 children became infected as a result of bacteria in the water supply. Last October, 16 children's chemotherapy had to be cancelled because of contaminated drains at the hospital and this week we learn that there have been further infection outbreaks at the hospital. The cabinet secretary for health thinks that this is good enough. The First Minister thinks that this is good enough, but does the First Minister really expect the public to believe that this is good enough? Can I say in all sincerity to Richard Leonard? I think that he is better than that last statement that he has made. Nobody on any side of this chamber, in any part of the political spectrum thinks to quote Richard Leonard, is good enough when there are infection outbreaks in a hospital. That is why we take those issues so extremely seriously. Generally, and I am talking generally here not about these incidents in particular, generally since the Vale of Leave and Seadiff outbreak, infection rates in Scotland have fallen dramatically because of the infection control measures and policies that have been put in place. Those are issues that everybody across Government and across the health service treats with the utmost seriousness. While it is absolutely right and proper that we debate those things and that there is a lot of scrutiny on those things, I hope that we can all recognise that nobody thinks that it is good enough for any patient to get an infection in hospital. One of the difficult things that I said a moment ago—and it is difficult to say this—is that infections do happen in hospitals. There is probably not a hospital anywhere that has not had some kind of infection outbreak and the implications for very ill patients can be severe. That is why it is so important that everything possible is done to reduce infection and everything possible in this case will be done to ensure that there is no repetition of that. Richard Leonard cited a range of different instances that are all unrelated and none of them are acceptable. I am not saying that they are, but it is because there have been a number of unrelated incidents in this particular hospital that Jane Freeman announced the more general review to look at the design, the commissioning and the maintenance of the hospital. First, if there are any systemic problems there, they are identified and rectified. If there are not, we can, through the process of that review, give the public the assurance that they deserve. I would expect absolutely scrutiny on that to continue, but I really do hope that every member across the chamber would recognise and appreciate the seriousness with which not just the Government but everybody across the health service is responding to those serious incidents. We have a number of constituencies supplementaries, the first from Angela Constance. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, West Lothian received yet more devastating news on the jobs front, as McRae's, owned by Young's Seafood, announced their plans to shed 50 jobs. Now, while they confirm their on-going commitment to Livingstone and attribute the proposed job losses not to a loss of business, but to an investment in machinery, this will be of absolutely no comfort to 50 families who are now facing an uncertain future and, of course, raises important questions about the role of automation in their economy. Can the First Minister confirm that Scottish ministers will engage personally and directly with Young's and others to ensure that everything possible is done to support the workforce and to boost the West Lothian economy at this difficult time? I thank Angela Constance for raising the issue, which is of extreme importance in her constituency. I absolutely agree with the comment that she made when we face the situation of job losses. The reasons for those job losses are never of any comfort to those who face potentially losing their jobs. Because of that, my thoughts are very much with McRae's workforce. This will be a very worrying time for them and for all of Young's employees. I can give Angela Constance's assurance that the business and fair work ministers spoke to Young's yesterday to discuss the implications for the workforce and to ensure that staff are being properly supported. Our multi-agency PACE team stands ready to support the workforce. As is the case in all situations like this, I can assure Angela Constance that the Scottish Government will do everything possible to try to minimise job losses and to support anybody who faces losing their jobs. A constituent of mine, Margaret Boffwick, has been a patient in the Royal Victoria hospital for over 18 weeks. The hospital acknowledges that she was well enough to return home in November but the lack of an appropriate care package has prevented her discharge. Recent figures show that three quarters of delayed discharge were for health and social care reasons. As progress of IJBs continues, how can the Scottish Government ensure that the money invested in integration will bring about a consistent level of improvement and will the First Minister intervene on behalf of my constituents so that she can go home to be with her family? I will first deal with the general and then I will come on to the specific constituency case that Jeremy Balfour raises. First on the general point, reducing delayed discharges is a high priority and progress is being made in that. One of the reasons for integration of health and social care is to make how health and social care services work more seamless so that people do not fall through the gaps and we are seeing improvements in how delayed discharges are minimised and dealt with and we will continue to invest and support integration authorities to continue that work. In relation to the particular constituency case, I do not know all the details of that if the member wishes to, with the consent of his constituent, make those details available to the health secretary. I will undertake today that we will look into that and discuss that with the integration authorities and see if there is any further action that could be taken to assist in that particular case. I hope that that offer is helpful. The First Minister may be aware that Five Gingerbread, an award-winning organisation that she has worked closely with, is facing a funding crisis after what she has described as a perfect storm. As a result, more than half the workforce may lose their jobs and 253 of the 348 vulnerable families are currently supporting, and almost two thirds of their families may see that vital help end. Can I ask the First Minister if there is any support that her Government is able to provide to Five Gingerbread and the families that they help, and will she commit to working with Five Council and relevant partners to try to find a solution? The First Minister is right to say that I know the good work that Five Gingerbread does. I know how important that work is and how many families rely on the services that they provide. I do not know all the details lying behind the situation that Clare Baker has outlined in the chamber today. I will ask the community secretary to engage with Gingerbread and Five Council to see whether there is any further support that the Scottish Government can provide to ensure that it can continue to do the valuable work that it does, and I will ask the community secretary to liaise with Clare Baker once we have had the opportunity to do so. John Finnie The First Minister is aware of the perilous financial state of Murray Council. Clearly, there is a role for the Scottish Government. Will the First Minister outline what steps will be taken to ensure that my constituents enjoy essential council services? Obviously, Murray Council is responsible for the decisions that it takes, but the combination of the draft budget resources provided and, indeed, Murray Council's own potential around council tax will have £4.3 million more revenue funding in the coming financial year and the last financial year. However, as I said in another context to Jackson Carlaw, those are difficult financial times and I understand the pressures that local councils, including Murray, are operating under. As I have said many times in the chamber before, in the draft budget, we have sought to protect local government as far as we can within the resources available to us. Obviously, we are approaching the next stages of consideration of the budget and we remain open. I know that there have been discussions with others about whether or not there are areas of the budget where we can redirect money from to further help councils, but, as I have said before, it is simply a statement of fact that we have no unallocated money. If we are going to increase money for local authorities, then that money has to come from somewhere else in the budget, and I am sure that those discussions will continue over the next couple of weeks. I support an action that works to change the behaviour of young people who get into trouble. I do not support 13-year-olds being branded as criminals for the rest of their lives for mistakes in their childhood. From everything that the Government has said, the First Minister will next week instruct her MSPs to vote against our amendment to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14-years-old. Is that true? As Willie Rennie knows, we have proposed raising the age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 12. I know that there are others across the chamber who think that that should go—if there are some across the chamber who think that that goes too far, there are others who think that it should go further to 14. Those are legitimate debates to have, and we will continue to listen to the views and the evidence that is brought forward. There are not just issues in principle, but in the decision between 12 and 14. There will also be practical issues in terms of the sheer volume of cases that would be affected by that. That is something that the education secretary is looking carefully at. It is something I and the Cabinet will continue to look carefully at. We think at the moment that our balance judgment is that 12 at this stage is the right age, but, of course, we remain open to hearing views and opinions from Willie Rennie and others. Willie Rennie is incredibly disappointing. The First Minister better make up her mind pretty soon, because it is before the committee next week. Scotland's children's commissioner said this week that Scotland is failing children and falling far behind international standards. Scotland will be behind those bastions of human rights, Russia and China. United Nations and the European Commissioner for Human Rights have pleaded with the Scottish Government to see sense. Just last year, Nicola Sturgeon claimed that Scotland would be a world leader on human rights, but the First Minister should know that she cannot lead the world from the back of the pack. Will she think again? Will she raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14, or will she stand isolated in the world on human rights? Actually, I do not think that Willie Rennie does much justice to his own arguments here, because it completely misrepresents and mischaracterises the overall way in which Scotland deals with young people who commit offences. I spent Monday afternoon this week visiting a secure unit—Kibble Secure Unit—seeing for myself how we deal with young people, either on welfare grounds who have committed offences, and I have been told by the staff there that, in the broader sense, Scotland is seen as a world leader in how we deal with young people who offence. The age of criminal responsibility is important, but the overall way in which we deal with young people in the system is what is really important. In terms of the decision about 12 or 14, I will simply point out that, when we consulted on this, I think that 88 per cent of respondents in the consultation were in favour of the age of 12, but we will continue to listen. I think that the Lord Advocate gave evidence to the committee at stage 2. What he said then is one of the considerations that we require to take account of, and it is a practical and principled consideration. If we are to move to a higher age, we have to have confidence that the responses that are available in the children's hearing system are sufficient for any case, even the gravest of cases. That is an important and serious and, at times, quite sensitive issue. I would simply appeal to those across the chamber who have different views in both directions. Let us all be grown up about how we deal with this and treat the issues with the respect that they deserve. Some further supplementaries, the first from Gordon Lindhurst, to be followed by Maureen Watt. Edinburgh Airport, in the region of Lothian, is Scotland's busiest, and its chief executive at the weekend called for a cut to air departure tax, a policy that the SNP previously supported. Will the First Minister end the excuses and confirm that the SNP will meet its manifesto commitment and cut ADT in this parliamentary term? Well, cutting ADT remains our policy, but, as the member is aware, we cannot do that right now, because without getting into all the technical detail of this, the UK Government has devolved this not in a fit state because of the state aid issues around the Highlands and Islands exemption. So we continue to try to persuade the UK Government to work with us to resolve this. If Gordon Lindhurst wants us to move more quickly on this, perhaps he could pick up the phone and speak to his colleagues in the Tory Government at Westminster and ask them to get their finger out and help us to resolve it. Maureen Watt, to be followed by James Kelly. EY's new report this week showed that every single one of the Scottish businesses and trade associations that it consulted has concerns over Brexit, the highlighted risks to competitiveness, profitability and, in some cases, even their survival. For the sake of Scottish jobs, it is in high time that the Tories rolled out no deal. The EY study that Maureen Watt referred to was stark, although it should not come as a surprise to anyone. Concerns about the implications of Brexit have been long-standing, but are growing with every day that passes. Of course, there is a growing concern about the prospect of no deal. That is a concern that could be removed by the UK Government if they decided to take no deal off the table and say that they simply would not allow the UK to leave the EU with no deal. Mike Russell and I, when we met with the Prime Minister and David Lidington yesterday, again made that case. The Prime Minister refused to do so, as she refused to really listen to any of the concerns that are being expressed across Scotland and more widely. It is time for no deal to be taken off the table. It is time for a request to extend article 50, and it is time to put this issue back to the electorate so that people can choose not to have Brexit at all, so that Scotland and, hopefully, the whole of the UK can stay within the European Union. The Glasgow Evening Times has reported that one person a month, one homeless person a month, dies sleeping rough on the city streets. Last Thursday morning, a young woman living in a tent was found dead in the Gallagate. In addition to that, Glasgow City Council reports that, between October 2017 and October 2018, 47 people with open homeless assessments died. That is a shocking situation that should concern Nicola Sturgeon, not only as First Minister but as a Glasgow MSP. What action will the Government take in its budget to properly fund homelessness services to put an end to the scandal of people dying on the streets? First Minister. I agree with James Kelly on this. It is of huge concern to me that anybody in any civilised country would die while sleeping on the streets or while homeless. As long as there is one person in that position, that is not a situation that any of us should tolerate. I know that James Kelly is aware of the work that we have been doing through the homelessness and rough sleeping task force, which, of course, has come up with a number of recommendations that are about tackling homelessness and rough sleeping. We have also established, in reference to his question, budgetary steps. We have established the £50 million tackling homelessness fund, which is about tackling the problem in a very targeted and direct way. We have had some of the best experts in the field helping us to bring forward those recommendations. I know that there is a real determination in the part of Glasgow City Council and local authorities across the country, backed by the third sector and certainly by the Scottish Government, to get to a point in which we eradicate homelessness and rough sleeping, because it has no place in any civilised society. I, certainly, as First Minister, will not rest on that issue until we get to that point. I hope that we have the support of people right across the chamber. How the Scottish Government is marking Holocaust Memorial Day? We must never forget the horrors of the Holocaust and other genocides around the world, which are a stark reminder of the inhumanity and violence that bigotry and intolerance can cause if left unchallenged. Last year, as I have noted in the chamber, before I joined young people from 89 Scottish schools on a Holocaust educational trust's visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau, I know that I will never forget what I saw there, and I am sure that the young people who were with me will not either. We must not ever forget where antisemitism and what antisemitism can lead to if it is not challenged and why education about tolerance, compassion and respect is so important. Next week, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities will be speaking at this year's national event to mark international Holocaust Memorial Day, which will take place in East Renfrewshire. There will also be a member's debate in Parliament I know later today, and I also had the honour of signing the Holocaust Memorial Day Book of Commitment in Parliament earlier this week. The most important lessons of the Holocaust are the capacity of human beings to systematically inflict suffering and death on other human beings, and such actions can take place in what had been regarded as an advanced society. A third, as the First Minister referenced in her answer, is the consequences of hate and discrimination that are left unchallenged, because what began with casual antisemitism, laced with conspiracy theories and pseudo-science, traversed a darkening spectrum of increasing social and economic marginalisation, which led ultimately to the factories of death at Helmo, Maginec, Treblinka, Bergeck, Stobby Bore and Outchwitz Birkenhow. As the Holocaust slowly passes from living memory, can the First Minister advise a chamber on how the Scottish Government will continue to support work to ensure that the memory of the Holocaust is preserved for future generations and that they are taught those lessons that we must never forget? I thank Tom Arthur firstly for reminding us so eloquently and powerfully of the horrors of the Holocaust and other genocides, but also reminding us, particularly in the world that we live in today, of the importance of no one being a bystander in the face of intolerance and hate when you stand in Birkenhow at the end of the railway line, as many others in this chamber will have done. You realise very powerfully that the Holocaust did not start there, it ended there and it got to that stage because hatred, antisemitism and tolerance was tolerated by many, many people. We mustn't be bystanders and that's the most important message as we mark this year's Holocaust memorial day. In terms of future generations, it's vital as the Holocaust passes out of living memory that the next generations remember and learn the lessons. Learning about the Holocaust is part of international citizenship education, which of course is central to curriculum for excellence. In addition, the Scottish Government supports the Holocaust Educational Trust's lessons from Auschwitz programme. That programme includes a visit to Auschwitz, Birkenhow and aims to increase knowledge and understanding of the Holocaust. I have made a very public commitment to the Holocaust Educational Trust that, as long as I am First Minister, we will continue that support and I am sure across all parties that would be the commitment to continue it long, long into the future. Participating students in that also become Holocaust ambassadors within their own schools and communities and they do excellent work to keep remembrance alive. It's important that all of us in our roles as constituency and regional MSPs support those fantastic young ambassadors as the ones who not just keep the memory of the Holocaust alive but also help to pass that message about not being tolerant of hatred to the next generation and beyond. Brian Whittle To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that partner providers are part of a sustainable solution for the roll-out of 1,140 hours of funded childcare. It is very clear that we value highly the role of private providers in delivering high-quality, flexible early learning and childcare to families across Scotland. The funding follows the child model and powers parents to access their child's 1,140 hours entitlement from any high-quality setting in the public, private or third sectors which meets our new provider-neutral national standard. We've established a partnership forum to ensure that providers' voices are heard and responded to. We've also set out a range of actions to help providers to transition to 2020 in our delivery support plan, which was published in December. The funding deal that we reached with COSLA to deliver the expansion secures sustainable and significantly increased funding rates for all providers, and that is exactly what providers called for in a recent member survey from the National Day Nurseries Association. Brian Whittle Can I thank the First Minister for that answer and can I assure her that we in these benches fully support the principle of increasing supporting childcare and recognise, as the First Minister has stated, the crucial role that partner providers must play if the policy is going to be successful. However, I want to bring to the attention of the First Minister and the Scottish Government that the investment that it has provided for this policy in many cases is not creating the collaborative working between many councils and partner providers. Repeatedly, it has been brought to my attention in that of my colleagues, that partner providers are being frozen out of the process and are being valued at a rate far less than that of council-run facilities. The result is that they and after-school care providers are losing key staff to council-run facilities at an alarming rate and, in short, the remuneration that they are receiving for the excellent service that they continue to provide does not allow them to compete the salaries that are being paid in the public sector. With that in mind, can the First Minister further commit her Government to ensure that, as part of the 1140 hours childcare roll-out, partner providers across all councils are fairly treated because, if we lose them, the important policy will fail? I do not disagree with the substance of that question. I am very aware that there are concerns on the part of private providers about the roll-out of the policy and potential implications for them. That is why we are working very hard through some of the arrangements that I spoke about in my initial answer to make sure that there is the proper collaboration between local authorities and providers in the private and indeed third sectors, because this policy will only be delivered with the contribution across the different sectors. We will continue—Marie Todd, of course, is leading this work for the Government and is working really hard to ensure that those concerns are understood, recognised and responded to. In terms of funding, the funding agreement with COSLA, which, of course, took a lot of time and negotiation to reach and involved the Government, giving more money than had originally been considered, includes funding for the payment of sustainable rates to providers from 2020. Hourly rates across the country will significantly increase over the period to 2020. The funding package is underpinned by a shared commitment to pay sustainable rates to providers in the private and third sectors, which reflect the cost of delivery. That is an important part of ensuring and assuring providers in the private sector that they will remain competitive when it comes to attracting staff. We recognise those concerns, and I hope that the member will be assured that there is a considerable amount of work being done, both to recognise and respond to those concerns in the appropriate way. Mary Fee Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many private providers in nursery education regrettably cannot match the staffing costs of local authorities. If a partner provider pays the living wage, that could increase the cost of childcare over and above the 1143 hours, especially for children below the age threshold for a funded placement. What specific steps can the Scottish Government take to prevent childcare costs rising in private nurseries as a result of providers paying the living wage? The funding settlement that we reached with COSLA has as part of it the commitment to pay the living wage to staff in any sector that is providing the 1148 hours. That is an important commitment, and it is supported by people across the chamber. That will involve an increase in the hourly rates paid to private providers. Those are inevitably discussions between individual local authorities and providers in their own areas, but the funding settlement envisages that increase in hourly rates. In order that private providers or third sector providers are able to pay the living wage, they are being paid at a sustainable level so that they can attract the staff and deliver the quality service that we are asking them to do. Let me just reiterate this point, because I think that it is an important—it is in everybody's interests to take private providers with us on this journey, because the policy will not be delivered without their valuable contribution. We recognise the anxieties and concerns that they have, and we will continue to work with them to address and respond to those concerns in a systematic and patient way. I hope that the chamber takes some assurance from that commitment. Question 6, Pauline McNeill. To ask the First Minister what assistance the Scottish Government is giving EU nationals to apply to the EU settlement scheme. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has belatedly seen sense and accepted our argument that the unfair settled status fee should be scrapped. We are very clear that we want EU citizens to stay in Scotland while there is still a requirement to apply for settled status, and I do not think that there should be a requirement for people who already have their home in Scotland to apply for the right to stay here. I think that that is grotesque, but while there is that requirement, the Scottish Government's advice service, which will be delivered in partnership with Citizens Advice Scotland, will help to ensure that EU citizens feel welcome, supported and valued. In addition to that, we have funded the EU citizens rights project to deliver outreach and awareness-raising events with EU citizens across the country. Of course, dropping the fee, as I said a moment ago, does not change the fact that the UK Government is making EU citizens apply to retain their current rights. I think that the Prime Minister's approach to this and to migration more generally makes it all the more clear why it is time for this Parliament to have powers over immigration. Pauline McNeill. I can see that the First Minister does agree with me that the approach of the UK Government to European citizens who have made their home in Scotland and the UK is a slap in the face to their commitment to the United Kingdom, and many who have lived here in Scotland longer than they have a country of birth. What the UK Government does not seem to recognise is the rejection that those EU citizens feel. Jill Rutter, think tank director of Britain's futures, said that the Home Office must invest in getting the EU settlement scheme right from the start. A failure to do so, she said, could cause massive problems in years to come on a far bigger scale than the wind rush scandal. In view of that, can the First Minister just reassure me and the Parliament that everything will be done within the powers of her at her disposal to ensure that those who are harder to reach, because many will not be documented when the scheme is finished, especially those who have language barriers under the elderly, all that can be done to ensure that they are able to say here. Yes, I can give that assurance. From the day after the Brexit referendum, I have been at pains to say to EU citizens that they are welcome here, this is their home, and we want them to stay. As far as we can within our limited powers in this area, we will back that rhetoric up with the kind of action that I have spoken about. I regret deeply that people who have built their homes here who consider this to be their home as much as I do, or any of us in this chamber do, are being made to apply for the right to stay here. I think that that is awful and I cannot begin to imagine how that makes any EU national feel. There is also the practical point, a point that Mike Russell and I were making again to the Prime Minister yesterday, and unfortunately with no appearance of her really listening to this. In Scotland, we need people to want to come and live here and work here and study here. We need to grow our working-age population. As well as what the UK Government is doing, being wrong in principle, it is practically damaging for Scotland. That is why, as I said, the sooner we get those matters into our own hands, we are able to take decisions here in Scotland rather than have those decisions taken in Westminster the better for all of us. That concludes First Minister's questions. We will move on shortly to members' business in the name of Richard Lyle on remembering the Holocaust. Before we do that, we will just suspend briefly to allow the gallery to clear, as well as members and ministers to change seats.