 The next item of business is First Minister's Questions, and at question number one, I call Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This time last year, there were 648 patients in Scotland's NHS who had waited more than two years for treatment. First Minister, how many people are now enduring this long wait? First Minister, there are more people now waiting for NHS treatment, so that will be the case for those waiting the longest period of time, including over a year and over two years. That is why our NHS recovery plan is so important, which is to improve waiting times generally, but also to ensure that health boards are targeting those who are waiting longest. As we know, indeed, as the health secretary has just been narrating to the chamber before the pandemic, we were seeing progress in reducing waiting times, given the pressures at that time that were on the national health service. The pandemic obviously had a significant impact, but in terms of the statistics published most recently, we are starting to see tentative signs of improvement as a result of the actions that we are seeing. In the most recent quarter, for example, we saw an increasing number of first outpatient appointments and we saw a slight reduction in those waiting over 12 weeks. Similarly, with the treatment time guarantee, we saw an increasing number of patients seen. That is challenging for the national health service. It cannot be otherwise given the impact of a two-year pandemic, which is still making its presence felt, but the Government is supporting health boards to ensure that that recovery happens and, as part of that, those waiting the longest for treatment are seen as quickly as possible. The question was straightforward. There were 648 patients last year waiting longer than two years for treatment. What is it now? The answer that the First Minister could not or would not give is 10,613 people in Scotland who have waited more than two years for treatment in our NHS. The First Minister was speaking about tentative improvements. That is a 16-fold increase in a year. This is not the NHS recovery that her Government promised. Things are getting worse, far worse, not better, First Minister. Now we are hearing of heart patients being given appointments two years down the line. Reports today state that people are receiving appointment dates in July 2024. Is that acceptable? In terms of the particular case that is cited in the media today, I do not think that that is acceptable. I know that a review of that particular appointment, which is a follow-up outpatient appointment—not a first outpatient appointment—is being undertaken in contact with the patient. It is the case that waiting times generally and those waiting an unacceptably long time for treatment has increased over the past year. I am afraid that that is the impact of a global pandemic. Over the past year, we have seen further waves of Covid that has had a big impact on the number of treatments that can be done in our national health service. As infection control measures have had to be tightened up and, of course, as a number of staff have themselves had Covid and been off sick, that is an impact that countries across the UK, countries across Europe and the world are finding themselves at the moment. That is why we are investing so heavily. We have record numbers of staff working in our national health service up considerably just in the last year and up by almost 30,000 since the Government took office. That is why we are investing specifically in the recovery plan. Although those are tentative signs, it is encouraging that we are starting to see some of the improvements that I narrated in my earlier answer. Although I am responsible, as is the health secretary in the Government for NHS Scotland, it is the case that in very challenging circumstances, whether we look at the A&E or waiting times more generally, we see through the efforts of staff in NHS Scotland the work that is being done. For example, in Scotland, per 1,000 of the population, there are 101 patients waiting—those are the most recent statistics. In England, that is 112 per 1,000. In Wales, that is 221. That does not excuse the performance in Scotland. We have a responsibility to tackle that, and that is exactly what we are doing. The First Minister says that things are encouraging. How encouraging must it be for that heart patient to get a letter telling her to wait another two years to be seen? As expected, the First Minister speaks about the pandemic. I have a constituent in Lossy who has been waiting four and a half years from first being seen by his doctor to getting the operation he needs, four and a half years is far longer than the pandemic. In fact, it is pretty much an entire parliamentary term, and the longer and longer waiting times are a problem across every area of Scotland's NHS. Twice as many Scots are waiting over three months for key diagnostic tests compared to last year. This morning, the president of the Royal College of Radiology, Jeanette Dixon, said that for every four-week delay to diagnosis of cancer, your risk of dying increases by 10 per cent. First Minister, those are her words, so people are deteriorating. Cancers are growing. Sometimes they are becoming incurable. More often, patients are having to have more devastating treatment, treatment with bigger side effects that has a bigger impact on their quality of life for the same outcome. First Minister, if our NHS is currently in this position, how bad is it going to be by winter when so many more people need treatment? Will you act now instead of waiting for the crisis to strike like you did last year? That is not what we did last year. What happened last year is that we had further waves of the Covid pandemic, similar to countries across the world. Of course, I will mention the pandemic. There is not a health service literally on the face of the planet that has not had to deal with the impacts of a pandemic, and I think that anybody looking at this reasonably understands that. Before the pandemic, we were seeing progress. For example, before the pandemic, the number of outpatients waiting for a first appointment had reduced by more than 20 per cent. Over the same period, the numbers waiting over 12 weeks had fallen by more than 30 per cent. We were seeing an increase in the number of inpatient and day-case treatments carried out. The pandemic clearly had an impact. At the start of the pandemic, we paused all but the most urgent treatments on the national health service. The health service here, as in other countries, is having to recover and catch up, and that is what it is doing. We are starting to see some tentative signs of progress and we will continue to support the national health service. On the Royal College of Radiologists report, which is an important piece of work, let me first of all set some context, because this is important. Since this Government took office, there has been a 95 per cent increase in the consultant oncologist workforce. There has been a 63 per cent increase in the consultant radiologist workforce. As the report acknowledges, recruitment within those professions is challenging nationally and globally, made more challenging by Brexit, it has to be said. However, we are working with health boards on new approaches to maximise the capacity. As the Royal College report also says, the increasing use of imaging networks in Scotland is going from strength to strength. Those are challenges that are inescapable given what we have lived through in the past two years, but this Government continues to get on with supporting the national health service to recover and to deliver for patients. The First Minister does not like opposition politicians stating that the Covid pandemic cannot be blamed for everything. Therefore, will she listen to the president of the Royal College of Radiology, Genetics, and this morning again said this? It is not the pandemic that has caused the shortage. The pandemic has laid bare the shortages that were there before. It is also exacerbating the shortages because of diagnostic backlogs. That is from clinicians who are speaking to the Government right now, saying, do not use these excuses. It is clearly problems that have been built up for years and years. Last winter, we saw the NHS battle from crisis to crisis. Our ambulance service and A&E department struggled so much with patient demand that our United Kingdom armed forces had to step in. This year, we are not even close to winter and the situation is far worse. Scottish patients are being sent to England for treatment that they cannot get here. Well, the First Minister looks puzzled. We have spoken to Alan Turner, a 70-year-old from Kelso. He was referred for new replacement in October. He was told that he would have to wait up to three years to get that new replacement on the NHS in Scotland. Or he could go to England for private treatment paid by Scotland's NHS. He reluctantly agreed to travel south, and he was successfully operated on. Then, when he returned to Scotland, he tried to get essential aftercare and physiotherapy locally, and he was told that he could not for months. Alan is now back to square one. He cannot even bend his knee. He will need to endure the painful wait for treatment all over again. While it is welcome that we can rely on services across our United Kingdom in times of need, should people like Alan really need to go to England for treatment in the first place? I am happy to look into individual cases, but, in general terms, that is a mischaracterisation of the position. I point out to Douglas Ross again that, while I do not shy away from the challenges in NHS Scotland, which are my responsibility, waiting times are worse in England than they are in Scotland, accident and emergency waiting times are worse in England than they are in Scotland, and accident and emergency departments that were mentioned by Douglas Ross are the best performing anywhere in the UK, although performance needs to improve. Let me come to the specific point that Douglas Ross shared. I am happy to look at any more information that is available. When someone is waiting on the NHS and is waiting too long for treatment, if it is possible for NHS Scotland at NHS Scotland expense to access treatment in the independent sector, it will do that in the interests of the patient. Sometimes there are agreements in place between Scotland and other parts of the UK for more specialist treatment, and they work in both directions. The patient from what Douglas Ross has said has not gone to NHS England for treatment. We have paid for treatment in the independent sector, so they are treated more quickly than they would be otherwise. That is what happens while we continue to invest in the improvement of waiting times on NHS Scotland. We will continue to address those challenges, we will continue to invest, we will continue to support record numbers of staff in our national health service and get on with that job. When Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister, 6,200 children and young people were on a mental health treatment waiting list. 25 per cent were waiting over the target of 18 weeks, and 221 have been waiting over a year. That number is now over 10,000 on a waiting list, 44 per cent waiting over 18 weeks, and 1,300 waiting over a year. Those failures have consequences, and here is just one. A mother contacted me about her son. He was diagnosed with autism 10 months ago, but was told that he would have to wait to see a psychiatrist before medication could be prescribed. He is still waiting. In that time, his condition has become worse, and he is begging for the medication, in his words, to sort out my head. He is eight years old. First Minister, why does an eight-year-old have to suffer with no support for almost a year? First Minister, they should not, and I am not going to say that that is acceptable. Again, in mental health treatment, as in the NHS more generally, we are investing in order to support health boards and deliver the treatment catch-up with the impact of the pandemic. Again, we are seeing signs of improvement. I can again cite the most recent statistics that were published just this week. In the most recent quarter, we saw the highest ever recorded number of children and young people starting treatment in CAMHS services. That was 7.7 per cent up from the previous quarter, and a 20 per cent increase from the same quarter in the last year. We also saw an increase in the number of CAMHS patients starting treatment within 18 weeks of referral. There is still considerable work to do, but the investment that we are making, the reforms that we are making within mental health treatment services, are starting to deliver that improvement. We have also increased investment. If you look at expenditure specifically on CAMHS since 2019-20, we have increased that by almost £80 million. That is a 14 per cent increase. Overall, mental health expenditure has risen by almost 9 per cent. Those are tough challenges. Nobody says otherwise. We cannot magic away as much as we would all love to the impact of a pandemic, but we are supporting the health service to recover from the pandemic and to see more patients more quickly. That work will continue with the focus that it needs and deserves. As much as the First Minister might want to try and blame the pandemic, she cannot blame the pandemic for this one. This happened before Covid. Let me give her the stats. Between November 2014 and March 2020, waiting lists increased by over 5,000. The numbers waiting over 18 weeks more than trebled, and those waiting over a year increased from just over 200 to nearly 1,000 before Covid-19. However, those statistics do not show how broken this system is. I was contacted by another mother, whose son was seen after waiting 18 months. His treatment made a difference but ended in June last year. His condition started to deteriorate by August and he was put back on a waiting list. Despite reporting suicidal thoughts, he is still waiting 11 months on. After waiting months already, why does a 14-year-old, who has been referred, who has been seen and who is now reporting suicidal thoughts, have to start from the beginning again? I am not going to comment on individual cases. I am, of course, always happy to look at individual cases if they are sent to me. However, in terms of the treatment that young people are entitled to expect when they come forward to CAMHS services, one of the other things that has been done in recent times is the publication of the national CAMHS service specification, which sets out clearly levels of service. That is backed by £40 million of additional investment, and we are investing in more staff, but also reforming the way mental health services for young people work. Where young people need specialist services, they should be available, which is why the improvements that I have talked about in my earlier answer do not go far enough, but are important. It is also the case that we are trying to build up and are building up more community-based services so that fewer young people need to be referred to specialist services. For example, we have employed or supported the employment of counsellors in all secondary schools to support young people on an early intervention basis. We will continue to take the steps to invest in mental health services but also to reform mental health services so that they become more preventive and operate on an earlier intervention basis. The final point that I would make is that I have stood here on many occasions and talked about those issues. In particular, we were seeing significant challenges before the pandemic, which is why much of the investment that I have talked about has been happening. Partly because more and more people, as the stigma of mental health reduces, more and more young people are coming forward for help. That is something that we should encourage and be positive about, but it makes it all the more important that the investments and the reforms that I am talking about here happen and continue. That is exactly what the case will be. Two cases that I have cited are not individual cases. They are a demonstrate of a wider systemic problem. If mental health services are going to be taken seriously, we need reform of the referral and triad system. We need a mental health professional in every GP practice. Young people in every primary and secondary school need to have access to face-to-face mental health services. Those are solutions, but all the First Minister has done again today is offer year after year as warm words. In 2015, Nicola Sturgeon said that waiting times were too long. In 2016, she said that there were far too many children whose needs were unmet. In 2017, she said that long waits are unacceptable. In 2018, she said that there is more work to do. In 2019, she again said that long waits are unacceptable. In 2020, she admitted that there had not been enough preventative and early intervention services before Covid. In 2021, she again said that long waits are always unacceptable, and we have heard the exact same script all over again today. Why does Nicola Sturgeon think that it is acceptable to use the same hollow words year after year for eight years, while nothing changes, families are left to suffer and kids are left to pick up the pieces on their own? That is not the case. What we see with mental health treatment is more people coming forward for treatment. More people are being seen for treatment, but we are building services. Anasawa has put forward what he describes as solutions. He has not said anything today that is not already being done and happening. For example, we are right now recruiting 800 additional mental health workers for A&E departments, GP practices, police station custody suites and prisons. We are funding 1,000 additional staff to be in community mental health to build resilience there and ensure that every GP practice has access to mental health and wellbeing services. We are recruiting 320 additional staff in child and adolescent mental health services. We already see CAMHS staff at a record high, and all of that is being done. More people are coming forward, but we are seeing more people treated. The fact that I mentioned in my first answer, which Anasawa has glossed over, is that, in the figures published this week for the most recent quarter, we saw a record high number of children and young people seen by CAMHS services. Progress is being made because of the investments and because of the policies that we are introducing. Is there much more work to be done? Absolutely, there is, which is why we are going to get on and do it. We will now move to constituency and general supplementaries. First Minister, yesterday's stagecoach announced plans to withdraw the X-34 and X-36 bus services from Addrossan to Glasgow via beef from 17 July. The loss of that vital link means beef, a town of 6,000, with no railway station, will be left entirely without a bus service to Glasgow. This out-of-the-blue decision will detrimentally affect the livelihoods of many constituents, wholly dependent on the bus for travel to work, hospitals and higher education, or for the facilities and amenities that are only available in a city, whilst increasing the social isolation of those who visit other parts of Ayrshire. That is in a week when North Ayrshire Council's new S&P— Can I have a question, please, Mr Gibson? Sorry, then I will go straight to the question. What steps will the First Minister take to ensure that stagecoach, which received £88.2 million of taxpayer's money last year, reverses its short-sighted and hugely damaging decision, which also adversely impacts on the Scottish Government's policy of encouraging the use of public transport? Well, those are important issues for people in Ayrshire, and Kenny Gibson is right to raise them. I am disappointed to hear that stagecoach is withdrawing the services that Kenny Gibson has just talked about, and I would certainly encourage them to look again at this. Of course, stagecoach is a private company, and those are decisions that they are taking on a commercial basis. In Government, we support the network with almost £100 million through the network support grant, and that includes support to stagecoach for local bus services. The Scottish Government also provides funding to local authorities to subsidise socially necessary bus services. I would encourage stagecoach and Strathclyde partnership for transport to work together to ensure that connectivity is protected in this area for all the very good reasons that Kenny Gibson outlines. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Bids to be one of the two Scottish free ports are starting to fly in and more are imminent. Those could herald a huge economic boost as we look to recover from the pandemic. However, thanks to the deliver and delay of the Scottish Government, we are significantly behind the rest of the UK, especially the likes of Red Car and Thames. Does the First Minister agree that the free ports project shows what can be achieved when both Scotland's Governments work collaboratively? Does she welcome the UK's injection of £52 million to ensure that projects get going in Scotland? I hate to be the one to break it to Liam Kerr, but had we gone with the UK Government timescale on this, we would have had significantly less money to invest in green ports in Scotland. It is only because of the negotiation of this Government of Cape Forbes in particular that it has ensured that we are getting funding on a par with free ports in England, but also that we are able to have environmental considerations and, crucially—I know that this is not something that the Tories particularly like—fair work considerations in the green port model in Scotland. We have come to an agreement with the UK Government after a lot of work on the Scottish Government's part and, of course, that process is now under way. The intimidating behaviour that is witnessed outside the Sandofford clinic in Glasgow appears to be escalating. On May 12, the First Minister offered support to councils who would introduce bylaws to establish buffer zones at abortion clinics. On May 13, after asking what Glasgow City Council could do in that regard to address those escalating issues, I was told to direct my inquiries to the relevant ministerial working group. First Minister, it appears that local and national Governments are at an impasse. I am aware that long-term planning is under way, but in the short term we need solutions to protect those women. If the Scottish Government believes that the only publicly available legal option is that, just an opinion, will it reiterate in writing its offer of support to councils and do so before the summit later in the summer? I will do that very openly today. I am happy to put that in writing as well, but this is a pretty public way of doing it. There are legal complexities around this and it does not help anybody for me to pretend that there are not. These are complexities that local authorities and indeed national government want to work through. My preference is that we would be able to legislate nationally in order that there is a consistency of approach in this. We know, though, that there is a forthcoming Supreme Court case sparked by legislation in Northern Ireland, which will undoubtedly have an impact on the legal framework here, but I am very clear on what I want to do. In the meantime, I want to work with local authorities to see what more can be done to protect women accessing sexual health services, including abortion services. I find what is happening outside hospitals and outside the Sandofford completely and utterly unacceptable. Let me make that clear. The summit that I have committed to convening will happen this month, and that will bring together a range of interests here, including local authorities, including the police, who of course operate independently, but there is legislation around antisocial behaviour that may also have an impact or a relevance here. Let me just repeat my commitment to find solutions here and to find those solutions as quickly as possible. Lastly, repeat my call to those who want to protest against abortion, to come and do it outside this Parliament where the laws are made and leave women alone and stop trying to intimidate them. Michelle Thomson, this week's OECD forecasts have shown that the UK is set to have the lowest growth of every G20 economy apart from sanctioned Russia. This is a direct result of a Tory Brexit and will regrettably have a direct impact on Scotland, given the majority of key economic levers that reside with Westminster. Does the FM share my concern about UK Government mismanagement and will our independence prospectus help the public to understand why it is critical that those economic levers are controlled by Scotland for the benefit of Scotland? Yes, I do, and I completely understand why the Tories are shifting quite as uncomfortably in their seats right now. We knew last week that, largely because of the folly of Brexit, the UK already has the highest rate of inflation of all G7 countries. I think that the rate of inflation in the UK is about double the rate of inflation in France right now. As of this week, we have the quite unbelievable situation that the OECD forecast suggesting that economic growth in the UK next year will be the lowest in the OECD with the sole exception of Russia, which, of course, right now is rightly subjected to global sanctions. That is the impact of Brexit. That is the impact for Scotland of being part of the UK. If the Tories want to argue that as a union dividend, then all I can say is good luck with that. Rather than being subject to Westminster control, we can choose a better future as an independent outward-looking country with power over the full range of economic levers to build a better Scotland. The prospect is that, for an independent Scotland, yes, we will set out the deficiencies of being governed by Westminster, and it will point to small independent countries across Europe who, with the powers of independence, are doing so much better than the UK, and that should be the inspiration for Scotland. Stephen Kerr yesterday, we heard yet again about the impact of the SNP's financial incompetence. It seems appropriate to ask this question following that last one. Public services facing drastic spending cuts in areas including education, local authorities and the police. Does the First Minister agree with the Scottish Police Federation that the spending review has been good for criminals? No, I do not. Of course, this Government has supported more police officers and we have one of the lowest rates of recorded crime in this country since, I think, 1974—a 41 per cent reduction in recorded crime since this Government took office. I am delighted that the Tories keep getting up in this chamber and elsewhere and talking about public spending, because it gives me the opportunity to remind them, to remind the chamber and to remind everybody across Scotland that the amount of money that this Government has to spend is largely decided by Tories at Westminster. That is what is wrong with the situation this year. This year, a budget that is lower in real terms by more than 5 per cent and is projected to continue to be constrained notwithstanding the rate of inflation hitting 10 per cent. The sooner this Parliament, this Government is in charge of its own finances and get them out of the hands of Tories at Westminster with independence, the better. Funding for the Scottish Personal Assistance Employers Network has been withdrawn by the SNP Government. That is the organisation that helps disabled people to pay for their personal assistance, who in turn provide care and support for disabled people to enable them to retain their independence. The immediate consequence of this closure, which is happening today, is that more than 500 personal assistants will not be getting paid this week. I have seen the emails between the Government and the organisation, and I am appalled, frankly, at the lack of understanding by the minister and his officials. No alternative has been suggested, and this crisis for disabled people is entirely the fault of this Government. You have the power to do something about it. It is about independence, the independence of disabled people in Scotland. What urgent action will the First Minister take to halt this impending crisis? I have come aware of this issue today. I am asking Kevin Stewart, the relevant minister, to meet with the organisation as a matter of urgency. There are a number of complexities here, which I will not go into now, but I want to see a solution found, and the best way of moving things forward is to facilitate that discussion as quickly as possible. To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on work to close the attainment gap. The Scottish Government remains committed to tackling the poverty-related attainment gap. Evidence, of course, by our increased investment in the Scottish attainment challenge of £1 billion up by £250 million from the last parliamentary term. Progress is being made. We can see that, for example, in the record high proportion of full-time first degree entrants to university coming from the 20 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland in 2020-21. There is, however, more to do. The challenge has, of course, been exacerbated by the pandemic, which is why we continue to support headteachers through pupil equity funding, and why, of course, we are funding all 32 local authorities to develop strategic approaches, including setting their own aims for progress. You stated in 2015 that excellence in education is essential to our prosperity, competitiveness, wellbeing and to our overall success as a nation. Despite this laudable ambition, your Government's spending review cut the education last week by 5 per cent in real terms. Spending on children and families is set to be slashed in real terms by £15 million, on skills and training by £23 million and on higher education and student support by £30 million. Have you completely abandoned your promise to make education your top priority? Before I come on to what the Government is doing, let me remind the member what the calculation of real terms depends on. It is the rate of inflation that determines whether something is increasing or decreasing in real terms. In real terms this year, the total Scottish Government budget has declined by more than 5 per cent in real terms. The rate of inflation, of course, in the UK, thanks to the UK Government policy decisions, including Brexit, is the highest of any G7 country double the rate of inflation in France. Perhaps a bit of self-reflection might not go amiss on the part of the Conservatives. The spending review is not a budget. It allocates, over the next few years, the funding that we have available. I hope that funding envelope increases. Yes, I do. Unfortunately, that depends on decisions taken by the UK Government. It is not my choice that this Parliament is dependent on Westminster decisions. That is the choice of unionists across the chamber. Education budgets have been increasing. The final point that I will make in this context is the most important point. We are increasing the funding for the Scottish attainment challenge to £1 billion, up to £250 million, from the amount that we invested in the last parliamentary term. That is the commitment. That commitment remains, and that commitment is strong. Notwithstanding, the hurdles put in our way by the Tonys at Westminster. Willie Rennie In 2016, with a tear in our eye, the First Minister said that she wanted all young people to have the same advantages as her. She put her neck on the line for education. Now, the word barely passes her lips. She promised to substantially eliminate the attainment gap in a decade. Now, our Government says that it would be top down in arbitrary to set such a date. We have the First Minister setting a date, and the education secretary saying that it would be wrong to set a date. The Government is all over the place on education. However, young people want to know why she has given up on them and closing the attainment gap by 2026. We have it. Let me quote from the manifesto commitment of the 2016 election that the Scottish Government would support the substantial closure of the attainment gap by 2026. I stand by that. That remains the policy and the objective of the Government. We are seeing progress. I am always very mindful of the fact that I was the first member of my family to go to university. I am particularly mindful of that when a Liberal Democrat is questioning me because, of course, I benefited from free tuition, something that this Government continues to protect and something that the Liberal Democrats, of course, have a shameful record on. That is why, while there is still work to do, I am so proud of the fact that we are meeting our targets in terms of improving the numbers from the most deprived community going to university, something that the commissioner for fair access to university described last week as an unambiguous success. We will continue to get on with the job building on the progress. Willie Rennie questions that. That was the independent commissioner for fair access describing our achievements in access to university from young people from the most deprived communities. Question 4, Stephanie Callaghan. Thank you. To ask the First Minister, in light of reported findings from the Children's Charity Aberlore that over £1 million is owed in school meal debt, whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on its plans to expand universal free school meal provision in order to support families struggling with the cost of living crisis? First Minister. I am aware of the Aberlore report, which indicates that over £1 million in school meal debt is owed across Scotland, while the data in the report is incomplete. From December last year, I have asked Scottish Government officials to look more deeply into this issue. Scotland's offer of universal free school meals at this stage to all primary one to five pupils and those in special schools is the most extensive universal offer in the entirety of the UK and provides around £400 of support per pupil to families. In addition, we have continued to support eligible families during school holidays, and we will work with partners and local authorities over the coming months in preparation for the further planned expansion of free school meals. Stephanie Callaghan. I thank the First Minister for her response. It is concerning that at this time arising costs that families with school pupils have been chased for debts by councils. Does the First Minister agree with me that local authorities should write off this debt? Households right across the country are facing a Tory exacerbated cost of living crisis, which is pushing up food prices, and we know that those on the lowest incomes are hardest hit. I am deeply uncomfortable, as any decent person should be, with families being pursued for debt for school meals, especially in the economic climate that exists right now. I am very sympathetic to calls for this debt to be written off and as part of what I have asked officials to do is to look at that. It should be said that local authorities do usually write off school meal debts for families, but, as I have said, I have asked Scottish Government officials to talk with COSLA about what more can be done. Local authorities also have flexibility to offer free school meals to families who do not meet eligibility criteria, but are experienced in financial hardship. I encourage anyone who thinks that they have become eligible for free school meals to apply as soon as possible. To ask the First Minister what changes have been made since the 2018 report by the Children and Young People's Commissioner regarding concerns about the restraint of children in schools. I work closely with partners, including the Children and Young People's Commissioner, through the physical intervention working group to develop new human rights-based guidance to address the concerns raised in the report and minimise the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. I can advise the chamber that we will consult on draft guidance later this month. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Freedom of information requests suggest that 3,000 children in the last year have been restrained in schools. Without statutory regulation, there is no need for local authorities to report or monitor restraint, no statutory training, even when the restraint involves face-down restraint of young children in schools and care settings. Can I ask the First Minister to review the Government's approach with regard to just guidance being provided? Would the First Minister also agree to meet with myself, families and campaigners to take forward those changes? I will ask the relevant minister to meet with the member and campaigners and families. I am absolutely happy to do that. Let me make a couple of points, which I hope are helpful. First, I am sure that all of us agree with that restraint and seclusion should only ever be used as an absolute last resort to prevent harm and only when in the overall best interests of the child and young person. That is something that we all agree with. As I said in my original answer, we are currently preparing to consult on draft guidance. We will do that later this month, however. I hope that that is helpful. We are committed to looking further at the options to place that guidance on a statutory basis, particularly if the guidance itself does not have the desired effect, although I hope that it will make a difference. We will not rule out legislation and will actively consider the options for that. Question 6, co-captures. To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on the Scottish Government's super-sponsor scheme for displaced Ukrainians. As of today, there have been 12,861 applications for a visa with a Scottish sponsor, and over 11,500 visas issued. Around 4,200 displaced Ukrainians with a Scottish sponsor have now arrived in the UK. 2,035 of those have an individual sponsor and 2,236 have the Scottish Government as super-sponsor. In partnership with local government and third sector partners, we have established a network of welcome hubs with access to meals, accommodation and support for anyone who arrives here. They have now triaged more than 2,100 people. A national matching service being delivered by COSLA is working hard to find longer-term accommodation using all options, including the generous offers of accommodation that have been made by the public. This has been a national response, developed and delivered at pace. Of course, we will continue to ensure that all those arriving are treated with compassion and care. Thank you, First Minister, but it continues to be the case that local authorities welcoming displaced people through the Ukraine family scheme receive no funding at all from the UK Government, and even the 10,500 pounds per person under the homes for Ukraine is not much considering all the provisions that need to be put in place to support those who are seeking refuge. Will the First Minister urge the UK Government to urgently put in place appropriate financial support for all local authorities, no matter the scheme someone has arrived through, to ensure that those settling here can have all their needs met? Yes, that is an important and a serious issue. There have been acknowledgments from UK Government ministers, principally Michael Gove, that those are serious issues. Both Neil Gray and I have repeatedly raised it and will continue to do so in the strongest terms. The 10,500 pounds per person tariff does not provide adequate funding for local authorities and public services. That tariff is not even provided to local authorities for people who arrive through the family visa route, and I do not think that that is acceptable. Our local authorities and public services are supporting people regardless of their visa route. There is a clear need to provide appropriate funding that reflects the unique impact of the various UK Government schemes implementation on public services and local communities. That is, of course, a reserve matter, but we take our responsibilities seriously, and the Scottish Government wants to do as much as we can. For our part, the Scottish Government has committed £11.2 million to local authorities to support resettlement and integration and the refurbishment of properties. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government will take to ensure that victims of rape and domestic abuse are not retraumatised as a result of plans to alert them to formally meet those who have harmed them. We recently launched two hubs to support the national roll-out of restorative justice services that enable safe, voluntary, facilitated contact between people harmed by crime and those responsible for the harm, but let me stress that it is voluntary and only where the victim of crime wants this to happen. It is important to note that the needs of people harmed are at the heart of the process. Even if they choose to do that, they will set the pace at all stages and can stop the process at any time. I recognise that victims and survivors in very sensitive cases involving sexual harm and coercive control may request access to rest of justice, and we are working with partners to design services to respond appropriately to those requests. A trauma-informed and comprehensive risk framework will be created for those cases with the individual needs and safety of the person who is harmed at the centre. I thank the First Minister for that answer, and she is quite right to reiterate the words of Sandy Brindley, who rightly said that no one should ever feel that they have to do this or pressurise in any way. I also believe that we must improve the experiences of the justice system for victims of sexual violence that disproportionately affects women and girls. I know that the First Minister is very strong on that point. At the criminal justice committee, we heard from survivors of rape and sexual assault who said that they felt as if they were being treated as the guilty party, and long delays in the current court system mean that they are often left in the dark as to what happens in their court cases. I ask the First Minister if she thinks that perhaps more support should be given to those victims, but, interestingly, legal advice before they go to court. As the First Minister, if she would consider a proposal or even enter into some dialogue about a means-tested independent legal representation scheme for victims of rape and serial sexual support in the pre-child period as a way of radically altering the experiences of rape victims and survivors of sexual assault. I will give consideration to that. Issues around independent legal representation of victims of rape and sexual violence in the criminal justice system have been raised in particular contexts in the past, for example, where information about the history of the victim has been requested as part of the court process. Those are important issues. I agree, and I think that this is simply a statement of fact, sadly even in our society today, that many survivors of rape and sexual assault are often left feeling undersupported and as if they are somehow the guilty parties. That is partly down to attitudes within society. Right now, there is also an impact there of backlogs in the court system because of the pandemic, which is why we are working so hard to address that. Anything we can do, we are obviously funding organisations to deliver the equally safe initiatives. Anything we can do to better support those affected by those crimes, I think that we have a duty to consider. I will give consideration to the specific proposal that I made today, but let me, in terms of the subject matter of the actual question, reiterate again the voluntary nature of that. It is one thing, and this is something that I have certainly raised within Government, it is one thing to say it is voluntary, but we must make sure that the process, even in offering people that option, is not heard by the victims, is somehow something that they are expected to do or being pressured to do. How that is taken forward is really important. The First Minister may not be aware that Kevin Stewart is in fact ill and self-isolating with Covid. I am sure that we wish him a speedy recovery. Can she therefore ensure that, in his absence, the cabinet secretary meets today with the speed network instead? As the member will be aware, that is not a point of order for me, however, the member's point is on the record.