 We now move to First Minister's Questions. Question number one I call Douglas Ross огром voluntariad… Yesterday, tragic events hit a new low with children's hospitals being reduced to rubble. Russians bombed a hospital and they targeted children. Young invent lives have been lost in the most despicable and atrocious way. Ie'n rhaid o bod cyfweld i sicrhau i gweithio i gyffredinol wrth gwrth, ym mwy ffordd o eich bod yn cymryddiol ar ein ffordd. Byddariaeth gweithio i ddisgu'r parlymyniad i gafodd Ylensgyn Gymru ond am gwerthoedd wych? Dw i'n credu i ddim, ac mae'n ddigonio. Felly mae'r cyffin amlwg i'r bod yn gofyn cynnig oedden nhw, ond mae'r rhai hyn wedi fy fflygu i'r myfio, mae'n ymddangos ei wneud yn sicrwaredd. Rydym ni'n gweithio i'r fflygu i'r fflygu i'r fflygu i'r fflygu i'r fflygu i'r fflygu i'r fflygu i'r fflygu i'r fflygu i'r fflygu i'r fflygu i'r fflygu i'r fflygu price to build the energy strategy to outline how it plans to protect our energy security? First minister. First lady, all of us are horrified and deeply distressed by what we are witnessing unfold in Ukraine, not just on a daily basis but on an hourly basis. Yesterday's developments were a new low, a low that I believe all of us hoped we would never see the targeting See the targeting of children and babies in a maternity hospital. Vladimir Putin is committing, on a daily basis, crimes against international law. He is committing crimes against humanity. He is committing war crimes. It is important to do everything that is possible to stop Vladimir Putin, but it is also important to ensure that he pays the serious price for the actions that he is undertaking and the crimes that he is committing now. On refugees, can I say firstly that I welcome the limited movement that we've heard this morning from the Home Secretary? I think that it needs to go further. I repeat my appeal to the Prime Minister to emulate the example of the Republic of Ireland of countries across the European Union to waive visa requirements to put sanctuary first and paperwork second. I intend to write to the Prime Minister later today to make that call again, and I would welcome the signatures of Douglas Ross, Anna Sarwar and Alec Cole-Hamilton on that letter, and I will laze with our offices later today. Those are important matters, although refugee entry is a reserved matter. Let me also be clear that the Scottish Government is actively working with COSLA, with councils, with the Scottish Refugee Council to make sure that we are ready and able to welcome refugees here from Ukraine and give them the support that they need. Moving on, to the question that Douglas Ross has posed. As he knows, the Scottish Government is in the process of updating our energy strategy. That work commenced prior to the horror in Ukraine that is now unfolding. However, the situation in Ukraine and the implications that it has for energy crisis is not so much in Scotland or the United Kingdom for security of energy supply, since we are not dependent on Russian oil and gas in the way that many other countries, particularly in Europe, are, but we will all bear the burden of increased prices. Those developments will now be factored into the work on the energy strategy, and that will be published when that work is complete. Douglas Ross. On refugees a week, I have been working with colleagues in the UK Government to see what more can be done. I welcome the steps that have been taken this morning by the Home Secretary, but I agree that much more needs to be done to protect people who are fleeing for their lives. The First Minister mentioned the updated energy strategy, but Russia's appalling actions have put a renewed focus on energy security. In Scotland, we have the natural resources to protect our own supply, and we have the resources to export to other countries to reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas. Last night, the former SNP energy minister said, and I quote, In principle, we do need more oil and gas. He continued, we need all the oil and gas production we can get. I agree with Fergus Ewing. We can protect Scottish jobs, Patrick Harvie last, but we can protect Scottish jobs and we can secure our energy supply. First Minister, surely now is the time to maximise oil and gas production in Scotland using the energy on our own doorstep? Those are important issues, and in light of what is happening in Ukraine, of course, we have to look carefully at all those issues. The work on our energy strategy, as I said, is under way. That will allow us to properly understand our energy requirements as we make that transition to net zero. On the issue of exports of oil and gas, of course, around 80 per cent of Nazi production is already exported, a fact that I think it is important to bear in mind. It is, of course, the case that we need to consider very carefully the implications of the changes, volatility in the energy market right now for us. Let me repeat again, this is not for the UK an issue of security of supply. Only around 3 per cent of our gas supplies and around 8 per cent of our oil and petroleum supplies come from Russia, but we will all bear the burden of global price increases for energy and indeed for food, which is driving inflation and the cost of living. I think that it is important, though, that we understand the realities here, and even if none of us should do, of course, because the climate crisis has not gone away, but even if we were to put to one side the environmental considerations, given the timescales and the practicalities involved, it is not credible to suggest that the short-term solution to this crisis lies in increasing North Sea production. Existing fields in the North Sea are not currently operating under capacity. Expanding existing fields is possible, but that would take months if not years and new fields take years if not decades to plan and develop. We should not go after solutions that might sound superficially attractive but do not stand scrutiny around the practicalities and the realities. In the short term, what we must see in terms of rises in global prices is action from the chancellor, substantial and significant action from the chancellor, to shield households across the UK from that impact, including, as I am hearing, from a sedentary position behind me, action on reducing VAT. The reality is—in fact, I have heard UK ministers make this point, as well as the European Commission makes this point in recent days—the action that the world needs to take to reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels is exactly the same action that the world needs to take to address the climate emergency. We must accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels to renewable and low-carbon energy, and that is what the Scottish Government remains focused on. First Minister started her answer by saying that she and her Government would look at all of the issues and all of the options but refused to say if she agrees with myself and the Scottish Conservatives that we have to maximise oil and gas production in Scotland at the moment to help with the crisis and the crisis going forward. Of course, the First Minister has previously said that no new oil fields should be developed. That is just not a realistic solution. It will simply lead to more imports from other countries. Right now, we purchase £3 billion of oil and gas every year from countries including Russia. If the First Minister is not prepared to move on domestic oil and gas supply, then what are her alternatives? The Scottish Conservatives support the increased use of nuclear energy. It is low-carbon and it is safe. Shouldn't nuclear be in Scotland's energy mix if we want to stop relying on Russian oil and gas and move to net zero? I think that Douglas Ross had listeners. I am sure that he did. What I am trying to do is explain the practicalities in the short term. It is also worth his quoting my colleagues at me, which is perfectly legitimate. Let me quote one of his colleagues at him just from Sunday past, the UK energy secretary, quasi-quarting. He said, and I am quoting now, for as long as we depend on oil and gas, wherever it is from, we are all vulnerable to Putin's malign influence on global markets. That is true. That is the reality. Douglas Ross's colleagues recognise that. Perhaps he should as well. He is right to say what are our solutions and all of us are grappling with what the right, best and deliverable solutions are to this. In the short term, in terms of rising prices, it is inescapably the case that we need to see a substantial financial intervention from the chancellor to shield households across the country from the impact of rising inflation. Of course, we need to look at our energy mix going forward, but I come back to the practical point that I was making. Increasing production from the North Sea in the short term is not a practically deliverable solution. We take cambo and we disagree perhaps in this chamber on whether cambo should get the go-ahead, but even if cambo got the go-ahead, 2026 is when it would first produce any oil, nuclear as well. Even if—and it is not a position that I support for the avoidance of doubt, but even if we were to give the go-ahead to new nuclear energy today—it would be years if not decades—before any of that came on stream. That is the practical reality. Therefore, we need to find the solutions now and we need to make sure that we are accelerating that transition to renewable and low-carbon energy, because that is the solution to dependence on Russian oil and gas over the medium to long-term, but it is also frankly the responsible action to take in response to the climate emergency, which I repeat, has not gone away. It has not gone away, which is why I have mentioned the drive towards net zero in my questions, but we have also got to see the situation has changed fundamentally, not just in months and years but in recent weeks. The First Minister's position does not seem to recognise this new reality. Russia's war has changed the situation and we have to accept that. Scotland could deal a blow to Vladimir Putin by increasing domestic oil and gas production. We could increase that production now. We could end the need to import foreign oil and gas and export more to reduce international reliance on Russian energy. It is not the time to be ideological. It is the time to be practical and realistic. We have heard that from SNP voices. We have heard that from Fergus Ewing. We have heard that from Ian Blackford. Why do not we hear it from the First Minister? I am not being ideological. I am trying to set out hard, practical reasons why what Douglas Ross is calling for. I recognise that, because we all feel this desire right now to find the solutions to what is happening on a humanitarian level, even on a military level and in terms of the implications for energy and for inflation and for the impact on all of us. We do not do anybody any favours if we put forward solutions that do not provide that panacea in the short term. What I have said to Douglas Ross and he has not engaged with this at all, if we were to give the go ahead to Campbell, for example, right now, 2026 would be the earliest that could start producing oil. With new nuclear, if we were to give the go ahead today, it would be years, if not decades before that would come on stream. Even if I was to agree, and I do not agree on all of these matters, they were the right things to do. They do not offer the solution that Douglas Ross is trying to suggest that they do. That does not do anybody any favours. Instead, we have to look at what the solutions are. In terms of the immediate term, financial intervention to shield people from the impact of inflation is essential and necessary. Perhaps we would be better advised to come together in this chamber to call on the chancellor to do that, to act in the way that he acted at the start of the pandemic and provide that assistance. To come together to look at every opportunity to accelerate the transition to renewable and low-carbon sources of energy. The other point that Douglas Ross did not engage in in his latest questions is the quasi-acquarting quote that I have just shared. As long as we remain dependent on oil and gas, we are all dependent and vulnerable to Putin's malign influence. That is the point. Let's not be ideologic. Douglas Ross is saying to me that let's produce more domestically. I have twice now set out to him the timescales, and existing fields are not operating under capacity. That is about new production, and I have set out the timescales of that. We all want to find the solutions, but let's look at realistic solutions. Let's avoid the tendency to use this as a way of having a go at each other, instead of coming together and finding sensible solutions in the interests of the people that we serve. I join other party leaders in expressing our continued solidarity with the people of Ukraine. We all continue to be horrified and heartbroken by the scenes that are rolling on our screens of the tragedies that are taking place in Ukraine—people suffering, people fleeing—but nothing more heartbreaking than the sight of seeing a maternity unit bombed by Russian forces. Vladimir Putin must fail, but let's also be clear that Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, and he must face justice. I want to express just two other points. I want to thank you to all those across Scotland and the UK who continue to donate to the appeals to support the people of Ukraine, but also all those who are doing collections to try to send supplies to Ukraine. There are frustrations, though, about how those supplies actually get to Ukraine and the neighbouring countries, so I think that we all need to do more to encourage the free flow of supplies. The second one is on refugees. This goes beyond party politics. This is about people fleeing war and needing not just sanctuary, but home here in Scotland. I am willing to join with every other party leader to make sure that we are calling on the Home Secretary and the Home Office to do everything necessary to allow those to flee and make home here in Scotland. Today, my thoughts and the thoughts of everyone in this chamber will also be with the family and friends of Brett McCulloch, Donald Diney and Christopher Stucbury, who died in the Stonehaven rail crash in 2020. Their deaths were a tragedy and they were avoidable. This morning's report should shame Network Rail and Crillion, but there are questions for Abelio and the Scottish Government, too. The train that was operating on this route was decades old. It was first introduced into service in the mid-70s and didn't comply with safety standards set in 1994. This is what the report says about them today. It is more likely than not that the outcome would have been better if the train had been compliant with modern crashworthiness standards. It goes on, that the damage to the train was very extensive. A significantly higher casualty toll would have been likely if the train had been heavily loaded with passengers. Why did the Government agree to run trains that were over 40 years old and didn't meet modern safety standards? Will the Government now listen to staff and unions and withdraw them from service? My thoughts are very much today with the family and friends of Donald Diney, Brett McCulloch and Christopher Stookbury. Indeed, all those who were injured and affected by this dreadful crash will be an extremely difficult time for the families of the three men who tragically lost their lives. I think that we should all be thinking of them today. This will be of no comfort, I am sure, to his loved ones, but it is important to point out that a key finding of the report is that there was nothing in the way Brett McCulloch was driving the train that caused the accident. He was driving within the rules and the instruction given to him, and it is important to record that today. I want to thank the rail accident investigation branch staff for their important work, for their thorough approach and the clarity of findings and recommendations. It is important now that those recommendations are implemented. It is important, in relation to the specific point that Anna Sarwar raised, to say that, as indeed the report notes, the refurbished high-speed train that derailed was fully compliant with legal requirements to operate. However, since it was designed and constructed, railway standards have continued to improve, reflecting lessons learned from investigations of this type. The train operator, in this case ScotRail, has the statutory duty to ensure that the trains operate are safe. Of course, it is the statutory duty of the Office of Rail and Roader's regulator to oversee that duty with enforcement, if and when necessary. The Office of Rail and Road will monitor the work that has been undertaken to address recommendations of the rail accident investigation branch. That duty will pass to the new publicly-owned and controlled ScotRail on 1 April, but ScotRail, at the time of the crash, was not owned by the Scottish Government in the way that it will be in the future. The final point that it is important to make is that, while the report is very important, it will not be the last report into the tragic incident. There is a further report being undertaken by the Office of Rail and Road. That is a joint investigation with Police Scotland and the British Transport Police, and that will report to the Procurator Fiscal later this year. That will allow prosecutors to consider questions of criminal prosecutions and a fatal accident inquiry. However, those, of course, are matters for the Lord Advocate. I think that it is safe to say that we should not have allowed unsafe trains or trains that did not meet standards to be on our railways. I would hope that, when we do have, under public ownership, that that is corrected immediately. Priority laws of three families have been failed. Staff are continued to be failed because they are being asked to operate on trains that do not meet safety standards. I repeat, they are set in 1994. We know that network rail plans have plans to make over 2,000 staff redundant across the UK. That is unacceptable. The Scottish Government, which takes ownership of ScotRail on a few weeks, is still refusing to rule out compulsory redundancies here in Scotland. Let's not forget that those are workers who kept us going during the pandemic, and we can't have a safe railway if we don't have a properly staffed railway too. In light of today's report, will the First Minister commit to no compulsory redundancies, and failing that, will she at least commit to no compulsory redundancies in safety critical roles on Scotland's railway? I repeat that all of our thoughts are with the families who have lost loved ones. That was a tragedy, and nothing that any of us can say, nothing that any report can say will remove or lessen the pain that they are going through, but it is important that lessons are learned from any tragic incident like this, and it's important that that will be the case here as well. I won't repeat what I've already said in that regard, but it is important, I think, just to underline this point, that the accident, according to this report, was caused by a failure of the infrastructure, not the train, which was confirmed to have been properly licensed and approved to operate, albeit I would refer back to the comments that I made earlier. In terms of the transfer of ScotRail to public ownership, something that I'm very proud that this Government is undertaking, we will of course continue to negotiate with the unions around all of these matters, as I think would be expected of us, and I will not pre-empt any of that. What I will say is that this Government has a very strong record of no compulsory redundancies within those agencies that we have responsibility for. I think that commitment is important across a whole range of our responsibilities, and the principles that have guided us to date will continue to guide us as we take over ownership and responsibility for ScotRail next month. Anna Sarwar I think that the real unions will welcome an unequivocal confirmation from the First Minister that we know compulsory redundancies, particularly those in safety critical roles. Despite this report today, there are still unanswered questions. We can't allow this to be a report where people say one word but no meaningful action follows. The First Minister is right that we still have criminal investigations to conclude. There remain questions about the standard of trains and the levels of staffing. However, we must never forget that the heart of this is victims and families who have been failed by powerful corporations and public bodies, and they should not have to wait years to get answers. We cannot allow this to become yet another in a long line of public scandals and tragedies in Scotland, where no one is held to account and where institutions protect themselves rather than the public. As Kevin Lindsay from As Left, the Trains Average Union, said, we must do everything that we can to bring those responsible for this catastrophic event to justice. Will the First Minister do the same? I have read As Left's comments this morning. I totally understand them. I understand without hesitation why they feel as strongly about this report and its findings. The real family in Scotland, as it is in many countries, is a very close knit one. They have lost one of their own in this tragedy, and I absolutely understand why they are making the comments that they are making. It is important to stress this point. Anna Sarwar poses his questions rightly to me, but it is important to stress the independence of those investigations. It is important to repeat, and Anna Sarwar has acknowledged this, that the report today is not just the final report, but the remit of the real accident investigation branch is to investigate those incidents on a no-blame basis. It is not there to apportion blame, it is there to establish the facts, and that is what it has done. The further investigation that is under way with the Office of Rail and Road in parallel with Police Scotland and the British Transport Police, that will report to the Procurator Fiscal and then it will be for law officers and the Crown Office to determine whether there should be criminal prosecutions or whether there should be a fatal accident inquiry. Of course, that would be the moment to consider any wider issues of accountability, but it would be completely wrong for me to pre-empt those investigations or to try to curtail those investigations in any way in terms of commenting about the appropriate timescale for that. That latter investigation is due to report, as I understand it later this year. The final point that I would make, Presiding Officer, the comments that have been made about the trains, of course, are for the operating company, ScotRail, from 1 April. That will be a publicly owned ScotRail, but the comments in the report about the infrastructure and there was a failure in terms of infrastructure on matters for network rail. I would point out again that network rail remains a reserved body accountable to the UK Government, not directly accountable to this Government. Railway safety is also reserved. Perhaps one of the wider longer term lessons we will want to reflect on in this Parliament is whether that is right or whether we could come together as a Parliament and make the case for that to change so that we can have devolution not just of the operation of the railway but of the infrastructure that it operates on as well. There are lots of lessons to learn here and I am certainly committed to making sure that I do everything possible to ensure that they are learned. I will take some supplementaries and I call CooCab Stewart. When talking about emergency visa waivers at Westminster yesterday, the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK told the Home Affairs Committee that, at particular times, drastic measures should be taken, I believe that something like dropping everything could be considered as well. In the light of that direct plea from the ambassador to our war ravaged European neighbours, does the First Minister agree that the UK Government should adopt the position of the Irish Government where all visa barriers have been removed to allow refugees to be welcomed quickly, safely and securely without delay and post-arrival paperwork and biometric work is conducted in concert with the Ukrainian Council so arrivals can securely settle anywhere across the UK's common travel area? Yes, I strongly support that position and it has been adopted by the Republic of Ireland and by countries across the European Union. I spoke to a Ukrainian living here in Scotland, a man who lives in Glasgow. I spoke to him yesterday and this will be one of many stories. He spoke to me about the efforts to get his family members, his sister in particular to this country. She managed to get to Poland after an arduous journey and the wall of bureaucracy that met her and trying then to get to the UK was mind-boggling and inhumane in the circumstances. I welcome, as I said earlier on, the movement that we appear to have heard from Pretty Patel in the Home Office this morning, as I understand it. When I came to the chamber, I was still trying to absorb all of the details of it. As I understand it, Ukrainians with a Ukrainian passport will be able now to apply for a visa, but only through the family route, which is the only route open right now, online rather than have to go to a visa application centre. That is movement and I understand that, for them, the biometric processes will be completed when they come to the UK, but it is still requiring a visa application process and that is not good enough. We need to waive that process, allow people to get here and then do the paperwork after that. That's not just the humanitarian thing to do, that is what other countries are doing as well. Finally, we hope that we will have confirmation over the next couple of days from the UK Government of the opening of the community sponsorship route. That has been overseen by Michael Gove rather than the Home Office. I have had constructive discussions with Michael Gove in the last couple of days about this. The Scottish Government has put a proposition to him and his officials that would allow the Scottish Government in partnership with the Scottish Refugee Council with COSLA effectively to run that scheme here in Scotland so that we can make sure that people coming through it get the right support, because I think that the vast majority of people in Scotland want to welcome them with open arms. That is what we are intent on doing if we possibly can, if the UK Government procedures allow us to do so. Scottish Borders Council papers reveal that the Scottish Government seek removal of any indication of a preferred route for a Borders rail extension from Tweedbank to Carlisle via Hwyke. Can the First Minister give my constituents assurances that the Scottish National Party Government will not derail the project and the route will go via Newcastleysan? As I understand it, as I recall, those are matters that have been looked at in terms of the Borderlands deal. We want to encourage the greatest possible connectivity and to get the greatest possible benefits from the Borders rail link and any extension from that. I will ask the Transport Minister to write in greater detail about the processes that will be followed. Christmas Eve IVF treatment was suspended across Scotland for women who were not up to date with their Covid vaccinations. Scotland was the only part of the UK to do so, and it was the only service in the NHS on which treatment was conditional on vaccination. The chief medical officer announced that the service would resume last week, which is welcome. However, women arriving for IVF treatment were sent away because a consent form from the Scottish Government's central legal office had not yet been processed. That is causing a continuing delay to treatment, which is reducing the chances of women falling pregnant. Will the First Minister intervene to ensure that IVF treatment is not delayed any further? It is really important to stress that the recommendation to temporarily defer fertility treatment for women not fully vaccinated was taken as a clinical decision in response to emerging evidence and clinical concerns raised by lead clinicians in the four NHS-assisted conception units about the risks to mothers and babies of not being vaccinated. Those concerns were based on patient safety, and the decision affected a small number of patients, although I understand the distress and trauma that will have been caused. However, for the vast majority of women, treatment was able to proceed without delay. The chief medical officer is now recommending that fertility treatment for unvaccinated patients no longer needs to be deferred. That is a decision that will be given immediate effects so that treatment of patients can recommend the administrative issue that Jackie Baillie is raised. I am not aware of that, but I will look into that and make sure that, if that is an issue that subsists, it is rectified as soon as possible. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government will do to mitigate the impact of volatile gas prices. Rising gas prices are causing many people to worry about energy bills, especially with the price cap increase coming in April. Alongside a wider package of cost of living support, the Scottish Government is providing a further £10 million for our fuel insecurity fund to ensure support remains available for people at risk of self-disconnecting or severely rationing their energy use. However, energy markets are reserved, so we must and do urge the UK Government to do much more, significantly more now, to support consumers. That should include a cut to that on energy. Longer term, the gas price, such as I was reflecting earlier, reinforces the need to end our dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the green transition, something that the European Commission and indeed UK Government ministers have also been calling for this week. First Minister, for her response, the Conservatives have shamelessly used the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an excuse to further expand fossil fuel production. Indeed, Douglas Ross has just called for the Scottish Government to ignore climate science and ramp it up. Not only does that dismiss the advice of the UN, the international energy agency and the climate change committee, but it also contradicts the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, which states that ensuring the supply of secure, affordable and clean energy is essential to the UK's national interests. Isn't it the case that the best way that we can promote peace and security, tackle fuel poverty and secure our energy supply is by reducing our reliance on gas through the net zero building strategy and by supporting a scaling up of renewable energy? Yes, I do agree with that. I am not going to repeat all the points that I made in response to Douglas Ross. However, while I do not agree with the UK Government on all of these matters, those are arguments that are being made by UK Government ministers as well. Anybody who thinks that the horror in Ukraine, while of course it is taking all of our attention rightly at the moment, means that the climate crisis has gone away and he would only read the IPCC latest report published last week. It has not. Indeed, the impacts of climate breakdown are accelerating and we have a duty to take that extremely seriously. We have to accelerate the transition to clean sources of energy. That is right for the sake of the planet, but it is also right in terms of wider issues of energy security as well. We have all got to focus on doing that and that, of course, is what the Scottish Government is doing. Fergus Ewing in MSP has said that voluntary ceasing exploration in the North Sea would actually increase Scotland's carbon footprint by making it more reliant on fossil fuels from other countries. Alan Smith has said that its legitimate question whether North Sea oil and gas production should be extended amid the war in Ukraine. Ian Blackford has pointed out that we can bring maximum pressure to be felt by Putin by cutting off Western demand for Russian oil. Does the First Minister recognise that support for her opposition to further North Sea exploration is now crumbling within her own party and that it is time to change course? Members of my party are engaging in an intelligent way about those issues, which I think is incumbent on all of us to do. In terms of Ian Blackford's comment, we should cut off demand for Russian oil and gas. For as long as states or companies are buying Russian oil and gas, we are, however, inadvertently helping fund his illegal war and probably in the process of prolonging that war. I call for import bans on Russian oil and gas by states and by countries. I welcome the albeit still limited action that the UK Government announced in this regard earlier this week. I do not know whether Douglas Lumsden was listening to the answers that I gave to Douglas Ross. If I was to stand here right now—I take a different view on some of those things—even if I was to stand here right now and say, let's increase North Sea production, the timescales and the practicalities of that do not mean that that offers a solution to the immediate challenges that we are facing. I set out in some detail the timescales that would be involved. Campbell, the one that is closest to being given approval, potentially by the UK Government, would be the earliest that it started producing oil. Let's not grasp at false solutions. Instead, let's focus on our obligations. Oil and gas is part of our energy mix right now. It will continue to be part of our energy mix during the transition. It is important to recognise that, but existing fields are not operating under capacity. However, we must now focus on making sure that it is a just transition, that we are investing in the alternative, that we are protecting the jobs, because that is in the interests not just of helping defeat Putin but of ensuring energy security and also protecting our planet. Research from Energy Action Scotland shows that nearly 40 per cent of households will no longer be able to afford to heat their own homes adequately due to rising energy prices. Yet the Scottish Government has rode back on their promise to create a publicly-owned energy company despite the outline business case showing that it would have produced annual savings for customers. I am seeking some clarity from the First Minister. Does she believe, as I do, that essential resources such as energy must be available to everyone on the basis of need not ability to pay? We have set out before the position in terms of a publicly-owned energy company why we changed our pre-existing position and what we are focused on delivering now. I am not going to rehearse all that today, but I agree that energy is not a luxury. People have to be able to heat their homes. That is why it is so important now that we are doing everything that we can within our powers and resources to help people with that. However, those matters still remain largely reserved to the UK Government and therefore it is incumbent on all of us to ask the Chancellor to take the requisite action that we need to see right now. Labour—I cannot understand why the Tories might be grown in at that answer. I really do not understand why Labour—because there are exactly the same arguments that Labour's colleagues in London are making right now. The Chancellor must step up and act to protect households, the length and breadth of the country. We are calling for that. The question and the mystery is why Labour is so upset by the fact that we are calling for that action. Question 4, Bob Dorris. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the MND Scotland report, No Time to Lose, addressing the housing needs of people with MND, which highlights the barriers faced by people with MNDs during adaptations or accessible homes. I welcome the report produced by MND Scotland and recognise that more needs to be done to ensure people with degenerative illnesses such as MND have choice, dignity and freedom to access suitable homes. We know that there are issues with the way adaptations are being accessed and delivered locally and are considering how the process can be streamlined and made easier for people who need adaptations. We are also working to increase the supply of accessible and adapted homes and wherever possible all new affordable homes that are designed to be flexible to meet people's needs as they change over time. We are also delivering a programme to retrofit homes in the social rented sector to make them more accessible. Bob Dorris. Thank you, First Minister, for that answer. The report tells of one man who was being washed on his decking because the family were awaited accessible shower facilities. Average life expectancy with MND is just 18 months from diagnosis. Some will never get the adaptations that they need. As the report rightly states, people with MND should be making precious memories with friends and family the time that they have left, not fighting for the adaptations that accessible homes they urgently need. Will the Scottish Government meet MND Scotland to discuss their recommendations and do all that it can, in collaboration with partners in local government, to ensure that people with MND can live in accessible homes with the care and dignity that everyone is entitled to? Of course. We want everyone, particularly at a time in their life when they are living with ill health or a condition such as MND, to be given the support that they need to be able to live in their own home and to have their own home suitable for them and for their needs. As I said a moment ago, I know that the adaptation system requires improvement and I recognise the particular need for speed for those with MND. I, or indeed the housing secretary, would be happy to meet MND Scotland as we take forward the review of the adaptation process to listen to their views and hear more about their report and recommendations. Last night, the Glasgow Film Festival premiered a film about a man with MND, Andy Barthman, and his activism I commend it to all across the chamber. At present, only 1 per cent of housing is fully accessible for wheelchair users. Around 10,000 disabled people are on waiting lists, and I have constituents disabled people who have waited over six years for an accessible home. Does the First Minister agree with me that that is unacceptable? What urgent action will the Scottish Government take to meet disabled people's housing needs? I think that more action is needed, I have already made that point. In 2021, 95 per cent of new-build homes were delivered by housing associations and councils, where information was returned on housing for varying needs. The standards set out in those accessibility standards, but much more needs to be done across all 10 years of housing. We are currently reviewing the housing for varying needs design guide. That is a good standard, but it is now over 20 years old. We have also flexible grant funding arrangements in place, ensuring that specialist housing provision, identified by local authorities as a priority, can be supported. We will continue to focus on all those issues. I have already recognised how important they are for everybody who has particular needs, but particularly those living with conditions such as MND. I will make a point of looking and watching the film that Pam Duncan-Glancy has brought to my attention. 5. Donald Cameron To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on the spring roll-out of the Covid-19 booster vaccine. First Minister, vaccination remains a critical component in our Covid response. To date, 86.3 per cent of eligible people aged 18 and over have received a third or booster dose of vaccine in Scotland. Indeed, we continue to deliver the highest vaccine delivery rates anywhere in the UK. We welcome the JCVI's recommendation to offer some of the most vulnerable groups an additional vaccine dose in spring of this year. Indeed, from the start of this week, we began the process of initially delivering this within care homes and also started to invite all of those who are now eligible for their additional booster. Those vaccinations will continue over the next few months, as those individuals become eligible. That is when they reach six months from the date of their last dose. We continue to act on JCVI advice and are planning for a number of different scenarios, including an annual booster programme for those who are most at risk. The First Minister will recall that, during the previous vaccine booster campaign, there were several issues with the roll-out in the Highlands and Islands, including incorrect details on letters going out to the public in terms of where people should go to get their booster. Given that spring campaign is targeted at the most vulnerable groups in society, what action has the Scottish Government taken to prevent such mistakes happening again? We have had engagement dialogue with NHS Highland about the experience previously, and I would hope that that would not be repeated. It is important to point out that the NHS Highland uptake among JCVI priority groups has generally been very good, particularly among care home residents, with 98 per cent having received a booster or third dose. The delivery roll-out has gone well, but we take action to ensure that any administrative difficulties are learned from and not repeated. That is the case with NHS Highland and any other health board. I welcome the programme for roll-out of boosters in the spring. I declare an interest, and I might be lucky enough to be in one of the cohorts. With the potential removal of mandatory phase coverings and social distancing and the increasing prevalence of Covid infections, does the First Minister agree with me that lateral flow tests should remain funded and free in request? What discussions has the Scottish Government had with the UK Treasury in that regard? Given that I know the age at which we are offering these additional boosters right now, I am too scared to suggest whether or not Christine Graeum is likely to be included in these groups. I think that I will err on the side of caution on that front. In terms of testing, it is an important issue. As I set out in the chamber a couple of weeks ago, we are developing a managed transition plan to ensure that Scotland continues to have an effective, albeit proportionate, testing response and an effective surveillance infrastructure. Access to PCR and lateral flow tests will continue to be supported throughout the transition phase, and lateral flow tests will remain free of charge for any purpose that we continue to advise that testing is required. The health secretary and I have been in regular dialogue with the UK Government about the future of the UK testing programme, but unfortunately still do not have clarity on the impact to Scottish Government funding, but we continue to engage urgently with it to gain clarity, and I hope that we will do so soon. Question 6 has been withdrawn. I will take a couple of supplementaries if they are brief. The First Minister will be aware that, two years ago, the housing agency in the Western Isles last week announced that it would no longer be able to administer Government-funded insulation projects, not for any lack of funding, but because of PES 2035 regulations on ventilation that have caused demand for such schemes to collapse in the islands. Given that the Western Isles is almost certainly one of the most fuel-poor communities in Europe, what can the Scottish Government do to urgently ensure that those vital insulation installations can continue? I understand that what is a new UK-wide set of retrofit standards have created challenges in the Western Isles. Over the past week, we have followed that up with the housing provider and the council to restate our commitment to finding a solution that enables them to continue to improve the warmth and ventilation of people's homes. I know that Dr Allan has raised this issue before today, and I believe that he has received a copy of the most recent correspondence. Officials are also working with the British Standards Institute to further improve the new retrofit standards to ensure that circumstances in remote rural and island communities are taken fully into account. We value the housing work done in the Western Isles and hope that the issue can be reconsidered now in light of our further discussions, and we will continue to see that expertise applied in the Western Isles. First Minister, Clackmannanshire, out of our GP services, is in crisis. Assurances were sought regarding this late last year, and reassurance was given by the local MSP and the council group leader that NHS 4th valley remained committed to providing services in Clackmannanshire. The service, despite the rhetoric, is being eroded. GPs who have been appointed to the service are being told that they are no longer required, and NHS 4th valley regularly goes into code black. That is jeopardising the safety of patients. Therefore, what action can be put in place to maintain, retain and sustain the services for the people of Clackmannanshire? I am aware of the difficulty that NHS 4th valley has faced, and I have been assured that it is working hard to continue to provide a service, and it remains committed to doing so. That is important. The Scottish Government is currently working with NHS 4th valley to review the service. The review is in its early stages, but the aim will be to ensure a safe and sustainable service is moving forward. Officials are also following up with the chief executive as a matter of urgency to identify and secure solutions for the current situation and develop longer-term plans. The cabinet secretary, I know, has asked for further details this week on how the board intends to address those shortages, and I am sure that he would be happy to correspond with the member with further detail when he receives that. Today's announcement from the UK Government on the Ukrainian humanitarian scheme is significant, but I agree with the First Minister that it does not go far enough. Ukrainian seasonal workers across Scotland, many of whom are my constituents in Fife, are still barred from bringing their family members to safety and are still subject to the abhorrent no-recourse to public funds conditions. What further support and assistance can the Scottish Government provide to Ukrainian seasonal workers who are still at the harsh end of the UK Government's hostile environment? We are trying to influence UK Government decisions on this every day right now. Currently, the only route open for Ukrainians is the family reunification scheme. It is still too limited in my view, but it is also, as we have seen painfully in recent days, horrendously bureaucratic. We are asking for that to be streamlined. We are asking for visa requirements to be waived, but we are also seeking assurances. I hope that those assurances will be given that people coming here, whether they come under that route or the community sponsorship route that I hope will open in the next few days, will be able to work, will have access to public funds and that the Scottish Government will be able to work with our partners to ensure full support for everybody who comes here. Those are the discussions that we continue to pursue with the UK Government. I hope that it should not take this and no country right now should have to be shamed into doing right by refugees. It is appalling that this is the case, but I hope that we do get to a position where we are, as I said the other day, not just opening our hearts to people in Ukraine. I think that we have all done that, but we are opening our doors as well, allowing people to come here and then ensuring that they have the support that they need to recover from their trauma and to try to rebuild some lives while we are all hoping for peace in their own country. Jack Mackenzie, Katie Allen, William Lindsay, Robert Wagstaff and Liam Kerr. Those five young people took their lives, their own lives, at moment, all within the last five years. The Children and Young Persons commissioner believes that the conditions for children in prison were in breach of the UNCRC and the prohibition on torture in human and degrading treatment or punishment in terms of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. How many more damning reports will be published? How many more young people will have to die before the shameful situation comes to an end? I make very clear, Presiding Officer, that we fully support a presumption against any people under the age of 18 being dealt with through the criminal justice system. Since the shift towards prevention in 2007, there have been positive changes in youth justice. According to official statistics, at 30 June 2007, there were 221 young people under the age of 18 as of Tuesday this week there were 15. Between 2009 and 2019-20, there was an 85% reduction in the number of children and young people prosecuted in courts and a 93% reduction in 16 and 17-year-olds sentenced to custody. There is more to do in line with our commitment to keeping the promise. We are committed to reducing the number further. We all want Scotland's young people to be safeguarded within the youth justice system and to be kept out of young offenders' institutions. We will be consulting shortly on necessary legislative changes to underpin the changes in practice that I have just narrated.