 That concludes General Questions, the next item of business's first minister's questions. I call Douglas Ross. On Monday, Minutes obtained by the BBC revealed that NHS leaders in Scotland had held secret talks about privatising parts of the NHS. They discussed a two-tier health system where gyda'r prysgriptio a'r prysgriptio. Mae'r planau yn cael ei wneud o'r prinsifol yng Nghymru o'r NHS. Mae'r First Minister wedi cael ei wneud o'r prysgriptio yng Nghymru, ond mae'n cael ei wneud o'r teimlo yn y SNP-run heilserfys yng Nghymru. Mae'r First Minister yn ei wneud o'r prysgriptio, nidMUSIC que galle sgr sabemer yma anodd hynny, nid During the NHS mewn f已t passion converts doesnaraieddNHS i sut gwnaeth i ddau wneud o'r prinsfol sy'n cyfrumpwilled strateg. Rwy'n gwnaeth i sectoriaeth ydw i peolion rhai o ouran, bod fe wnaeth rhai o wneud hyn yn athwyaf neu inni, ond renwad i fynd i ddau'llu am rhen. Rwyf nodi willy, mae'n gynnwys ymhergwch, mae'r ddaeth o'u myfr? Rwyf nodi'n gynnwys ymhergwch, mae'n gynnwys ymhergwch, mae'n gynnwys sy'n gynnwys ymhergwch, oedd mae'n gynnwys ymhergwch, mae'n gynnwys ymhergwrw? Maes myfyrnyn i ddim yn gwneud yйnaen nhw ymhergwch, maes ymhergwch. Dwi ddim yn gwneud ymhergwch, maes ei fawr yn cael amgylcheddol, nid i dad bumpyf iawn i'r取adau hwnnw. Dydai i eich ddau'r wath yn amlwyd â'r Llywodraeth a'r Ileiddiadau a mae gen Yuidon yn ystod yser wedi'i gŷt i'r gapet bach a'r Llywodraeth i eu ddau i'r Llywodraeth i'i gŷnt yma? Mae gen i rodd yn ies i ddau i'r Llywodraeth, ac maeой yn ech modd yn ei gwyllwch i'r llfaenwyr, ond byddwn ni'n gweld iawn ei fawr o'r eu cyfansuol oherwydd, a wedi'i chafach i'r Cynllun I did an interview on Monday addressing the comments in the minute. The minute is there. I wasn't denying then that the conversation had took place, and I'm not denying now. It was a meeting of some leading NHS directors. As a point of fact, it wasn't NHS board chief executives, but they were conversations not to use another word that Douglas Ross used, because let me let Douglas Ross into what shouldn't be a secret, but he clearly doesn't understand it. NHS leaders, however much respect I have for them and I have considerable respect for them, do not make government policy. The Government makes government policy and the founding principles of the national health service that this government has done more than any to protect and to enhance are not, and as long as I am First Minister, never will be, up for discussion. Douglas Ross. Well, I have to say, I have to say, I think it's very bold for Nicola Sturgeon to stand up and compare Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom on privatisation when we know that in Scotland private treatment is up 84% since the start of the pandemic compared to the rest of the United Kingdom that is half of that, 84% here in Scotland, less than half of that across the rest of the United Kingdom. But as the health secretary passes her some notes, which she passes back against, that's clearly no use, Hamza, let's look at what the actual document said. It said that health boards had the green light from the leadership to come up with and present their ideas for the reforms. The reports of the document said, and I quote, areas that were previously not viable options are now possibilities. So will the First Minister reveal what areas that she wouldn't consider before are now on the table? Given that she has said that the ultimate decision would be with Government ministers, who gave NHS chiefs the green light to consider those plans going forward? Can you imagine Douglas Ross's reaction if I tried to dictate to NHS leaders what they were and weren't allowed to discuss in their meetings? Let's just imagine that for a second. But in direct answer to his question, none of those plans, none of those, and they're not plans, but none of those ideas that would have any impact on the founding principles of the national health service are being discussed or remotely considered by this Government. That can't be clearer, and certainly here in Scotland it's Government that makes Government policy, but Douglas Ross talked about some figures around private health funding, so let me give him some facts on that matter. Let's look at people who self-fund for private care. In Wales, that figure is 30 per cent higher per head than in Scotland. Sorry, Douglas Ross introduced the comparison between Scotland and the rest of the UK. In England, where just in case—and I'm sure that this is not the case, anybody has forgotten—the Conservatives are in Government, that figure is 15 per cent higher per head in England compared to Scotland. Let's look at NHS use of the private sector. In Scotland, total spend on use of the independent sector represents 0.5 per cent of the total front-line health budget. In England, where the Conservatives are in power, that figure is almost 7 per cent, £12.2 billion. This Government will take no lessons from the Conservatives when it comes to privatising the national health service. In fact, this Government will take no lessons from the Conservatives on the NHS, full stop. Douglas Ross. Sadly, in Sturgeon Scotland, no-one is getting any lessons today because teachers are on strike, but let's go back to the figures. The First Minister did not dispute that, since the start of the pandemic, private treatments in Scotland have increased by 84 per cent. In England, the increase has been 39 per cent. Sorry, in the rest of the United Kingdom, the increase has been 39 per cent. Let's go back to the point that I was making. Someone gave the green light within Government. We'd usually expect that green light to come from the health secretary or from the First Minister, but there is clearly a complete breakdown of communication between NHS chiefs and the SNP. The First Minister has literally standing up today and rubbish this meeting of NHS chiefs. She's saying that they are completely wrong. They are apparently acting on their own without ministerial direction. That is what the First Minister said, but the reports clearly state that NHS chiefs here in Scotland are worried about the prospect of a two-tier NHS. If the First Minister is to be believed, NHS chiefs are not listening to the health secretary but are going off to try and fix the NHS on their own, with no Government oversight. Is that not just another confirmation that Hamza Yousaf is out of control with Scotland's NHS? Before the First Minister responds, may I remind members of the requirement to always address one another respectfully? Respectfully, even by Douglas Ross' own standards, this is a pretty lame and pathetic line of questioning. He talks about a two-tier health service—perhaps he's talking about the one that already exists, where the Conservatives are in government in England. There will not be a two-tier health service while this Government is in office in Scotland, because we are committed to the founding principles of the national health service and always will be. NHS leaders are entitled to discuss what they want, but they do not make Government policy. The Government makes Government policy, and I could not be clearer about that. Of course, this is the Government, and I was health secretary in the early years of this Government. This is the Government that reversed the privatisation of our health service where it had taken place. I was the health secretary that brought Strocathro hospital back into the public sector after Labour privatised it. We were the Government that ended the contracting out of cleaning and catering services that moved away from the ruinously expensive Tory Labour PFI PPP contracts. We were the Government that ended prescription charges in Scotland. We support the founding principles of the NHS, and we always will. Last week, Nicola Sturgeon stood up and said that we should trust her not a shipbuilding expert who had advised the UN. This week, we have to believe that Nicola Sturgeon is not NHS chiefs who run our service here in Scotland. According to the First Minister, Humza Yousaf, apparently, has not lost control, yet nurses are on strike for the first time ever. We have been waiting times at record highs. People cannot see their GPs, and health chiefs are warning of a two-tier system in our NHS. It is quite clear that the First Minister is in complete denial about how badly her health secretary is handling the NHS crisis, in denial about the scale of privatisation in the health service that she oversees, and in denial about Humza Yousaf's two-tier system that is already becoming the norm in Scotland. She has become so distracted, focusing on her own political priorities, that she no longer realises just how bad the situation has got here in Scotland. The minutes of this meeting of NHS chiefs claim that there is a disconnect between what is happening on the front line and what the health secretary thinks is happening. She accused Humza Yousaf of, and I quote their words, being divorced from reality. They are right, aren't they, First Minister? First Minister, no, they are not. Let me set out some facts about the national health service. There is higher funding for the national health service in Scotland than there is for England's Tory run national health service. There is higher staffing per head of population in Scotland than there is in England. Of course, NHS Scotland, thanks to the dedication of every single worker who works in it, is better performing than the NHS in other parts of the UK. This Government will always work to protect the founding principles of the national health service, which is more than can be said—I have to say—when the First Minister is responding to a question, can we ensure that we can only hear the First Minister's voice? That is more than can be said for Douglas Ross, because he wants some reality. Let me give Douglas Ross some reality. Last year, there was an amendment passed in the House of Lords that would have explicitly protected the NHS and excluded it from trade deals that could undermine its founding principles. Tory MPs in the House of Commons voted to remove this protection. Guess who one of those Tory MPs was? Douglas Ross. Even when he gets the chance, he does not stand up for the principles of the national health service. This Government always will. On Monday, the BBC revealed that the NHS crisis created by this Government had got so bad that health leaders had discussed charging for treatment. In response, the health secretary said that that was abhorrent, but the truth is that there is already a two-tier healthcare system in Scotland. Can the First Minister tell the chamber how many procedures were carried out in private hospitals in Scotland in the past year? I will provide that precise figure, but as I have just said to Douglas Ross, the people who are self-fund for private care in Scotland is lower than it is in England, significantly lower. Actually, it is even more significantly lower in Scotland than it is where Labour is in government in Wales. That is the reality, because we protect our national health service in these difficult times and we always will. Anna Sarwar talks about paying for treatment. This was the Government that abolished prescription charges, something that Labour had many opportunities over many years to do and failed completely to do. Just as I won't take them from the Conservatives, I will not take no lessons from Labour on the founding principles of our national health service. Anna Sarwar Perhaps the First Minister wants to take lessons from the people who have actually paid for treatment in Scotland. There were more than 39,000 patients treated privately in Scotland in the past year. That does not include the many private treatments carried out in individual clinics such as dental surgeries. The number of people who are now paying for treatment without health insurance has increased by 72 per cent. Often, those are people who are forced to borrow money, turn to family and friends or even remortgage their homes to get healthcare that should be free at the point of need. I know that the First Minister does not like facts, but let us look at the facts. Almost 2,000 people have gone for private treatment for endoscopies and colonoscopies. Privately, those treatments cost, on average, £1,195. Over 7,800 people have gone private for a cataract surgery. Average cost £2,660. A staggering 3,500 people have had a hip or knee replacement in a private hospital. Average cost £12,500. Those figures make clear that, under the Scottish National Party, healthcare in Scotland is already a two-tier system. Does the First Minister accept that this goes against the founding principles of our NHS—a universal healthcare system—free at the point of need? No, I do not accept that. I do not accept that we have a two-tier health system in Scotland. We will always act to protect the founding principles and we have done more than any other Government to achieve that. The one thing that was missing completely from Anna Sarwar's question there, of course, was reference to a global pandemic that caused the cancellation and the pausing of elected services in our national health service for a considerable period of time. That is why we have seen an increase in those figures in recent years, but those figures remain significantly below the comparable figures in England and in Wales, where, let me remind Anna Sarwar, his own party is in government and running the national health service. As we continue to progress the NHS recovery plan, get more operations done and, within waiting times in the national health service, we will continue to see the benefits of NHS care free at the point of need for everyone across Scotland. The First Minister wants to deny the facts. I do not think that the pandemic is a good enough excuse to say that, because it was a pandemic, it means that it is okay for you to have to go privately to go and pay for treatment. The First Minister denies that we have a two-tier system. In 2021, 40 per cent of all hip and knee replacements that happened in Scotland were paid for privately. That is 3,430 people paying privately to get a hip or knee replacement. Our NHS is at risk because of this Government's choices and this Government's crisis. After 15 years in Government, there is no one else to blame. Take responsibility for your record. Hospital beds cut, nursing and midwifery training places cut, record long waits in A&E, 750,000 Scots on an NHS waiting list and people forced to go into debt to go private, undermining the very principles of our national health service, the Labour Party and our country's greatest ever public service achievement. Does not it get clearer every single day that our NHS is not safe in SNP hands? First Minister, we have record numbers of people working in our national health service significantly more than when this Government took office and significantly more proportionately than any other part of the UK, including where Labour is in Government in Wales. As Sarwar says, the pandemic should not be used as an excuse. I agree with that. Nor can it be ignored in terms of the impact on our national health service. All of the figures that he quotes, he takes no account of the impact of a global pandemic on our national health service. What are we doing? We are building up the capacity of our NHS. I referred in response to Douglas Ross to one of the things that I did when I was health secretary, which brought back into public ownership Stracathro hospital, which had been privatised by the last Labour Administration. Earlier this year, we have brought another private sector hospital, Carrick Glen, in Ayrshire, into public ownership. That facility will be developed to become one of our new national treatment centres, building up the elective capacity of our NHS to treat more people. That is the practical action that this Government is taking, and we are taking that and always will take that while we protect the founding principles of our national health service. I intend to take general and constituency supplementary questions after question 7. Members who have already pressed, please do not repress, but members who wish to put a question on questions 3 to 7, please do so at the appropriate point. To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of emergency response to flooding in the north-east of Scotland in recent days. First of all, can I say that my thoughts are with the family and friends of Hazel Nairn, who remains missing after the recent flooding? I know that there has been some distressing news on that this morning. The Scottish Government's resilience room was activated throughout the incident to support the local response. Transport Scotland also activated its multi-agency response team in Transport Scotland resilience room. We will now work with partners to reflect on the response and ensure that any lessons identified are taken on board and built into contingency planning and response arrangements for the future. As the cleanup continues, I want to take the opportunity to thank our emergency services and all local resilience partners, including the voluntary sector, for their on-going work to ensure that those communities that are most affected are kept safe and urgently get the support that they need. I associate myself with those remarks from the First Minister. Please allow me to pay tribute to Hazel Nairn, who tragically went missing during Friday's adverse weather. As the search continues, my thoughts are with her family and the responders on the ground. First Minister, in Berykin, two of the pumps belonging to the town's £16 million flood defences failed, flooding homes and causing extensive damage. Villagers raised concerns with me about the safety of an electrical substation in Inchbear, which was half submerged in water for days. Communities rallied together over the weekend, but improvements need to be made to the organisation of the emergency response to weather events like this. How will the Scottish Government work with local resilience partnerships to expedite the process and reassure people in my region that every possible step has been taken to protect them? I thank Tess White for raising those issues. They are extremely important issues to any community affected by severe weather incidents. In terms of Berykin, again, an important issue to raise. The main flood defence in Berykin contains the south-eisk river held, and that is despite river levels provisionally reported by SIPA being the highest ever on record. It is worth pointing out that, had those defences not been in place, there would have been widespread and potentially dangerous flooding of an estimated 332 properties beyond anything yet experienced by Berykin. However, two of three pump stations that removed surface water from River Street, from run-off and other sources did not start automatically when water was detected. As soon as that was identified, a council officer attended and the pumps were at that stage successfully started. We work closely with local resilience partnerships on an on-going basis, and it is very important that we do so. Anytime there is a severe weather incident like this, we ensure that any appropriate lessons are learned, and that will be the case here, and that will be done as quickly as possible. If there are any issues raised by locals about concerns that I have not touched on today, if those are passed to the Government, we will ensure that they are fed in to that process of reflection and learning of lessons. We are already seeing the effects of the climate emergency with further extreme weather events becoming more likely. The National Infrastructure Commission has argued that Governments should set resilience standards that operators would be required to meet. The UK Government is set to introduce a national resilience strategy, so will the First Minister make the case for the development of resilience standards for vital public infrastructure? I am very happy to look at it. Of course, it is important that those principles are included in all the work that the Scottish Government does as well. The member is right to raise the climate emergency because those severe weather events are being caused by climate change. It is really important that everything that we do recognises that the climate emergency is central to all our infrastructure planning work, and it is important that we continue to develop it in that way. However, I will certainly take that particular proposal and ask the minister concerned to write to the member with further detail about how we will liaise with the UK Government on it. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that gender-based violence is being tackled in Scotland in light of the start tomorrow of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. First Minister, violence against women and girls is abhorrent. That is why equally safe, our strategy to address violence against women and girls is so vital. We have already strengthened legislation, taken action to address the social drivers that perpetuate gender-based violence and invested record levels of funding in front-line services and in supporting survivors. The Domestic Abuse Scotland Act criminalises coercive and controlling behaviour, and we have taken forward work to ensure that those working in the public sector can confidently and sensitively work with those affected by violence against women and girls through equally safe in practice. The delivering equally safe fund provides £19 million this year to support over 120 projects that focus on early intervention prevention, as well as on support services. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Research continues to show an enormous prevalence of gender-based violence in all areas of life. For example, the trade union congress found that more than half of women in the workplace have experienced sexual harassment, but 80 per cent of them did not report it. What is this Government doing to ensure that misogynistic abuse is taken seriously and survivors feel able to report it? This is an extremely important issue. Baroness Helena Kennedy's report on misogyny and the criminal law commissioned by this Government and published earlier this year made several recommendations to address gaps in the law that could be addressed by new criminal offences to tackle misogynistic behaviour. Some of those are, of course, controversial and we are committed to consulting on proposals that would give effect to those recommendations in this parliamentary year. The TUC report underscores the importance of ensuring that victims of misogynistic behaviour do feel empowered to report with confidence that their concerns will be taken seriously by their employer and where criminal activity is alleged by the police as well. This week, a United Nations expert on violence against women has condemned the SNP's gender recognition reforms. The United Nations claims that the bill could allow violent males to access women-only spaces, pausing a risk to the safety for both women and trans women. The expert appealed to the Scottish Government to set aside more time to consider the bill's possible unintended consequences. Does she agree with the United Nations expert that the bill should be postponed so that the legitimate concerns about the women's safety can be addressed? I believe that those who are responsible for violent attacks on women are those who perpetrate those attacks. Where that is, as is very often the case, violent men are violent men that we should be focusing on. They continue to pose the biggest risk to women and I do not believe that we should further stigmatise the trans community because of the actions of violent men. Right now, violent men who want to access women-only spaces do not need a gender recognition certificate to do that. Let us focus on the problem, and when the problem is violent men, that is the one that we should focus on. In terms of the comments by the person from the UN, of course we will respond in full to that. I am not sure that the comments are quite as they were characterised in the question, but the social justice secretary will respond in detail on the issues raised. Many of those issues have been discussed and addressed already by Parliament during stages 1 and 2 of the bill, and of course Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss the bill again at stage 3 of the legislative process shortly. To ask the First Minister how much the Scottish Prison Service has spent on providing free mobile phones to all prisoners. At the start of the pandemic, we took the decision to provide mobile phones to those in custody to maintain vital family communication, including and perhaps especially with children, during what was an incredibly challenging period and when normal visiting, of course, was not possible. Between then and April, the amount spent to date is £4.12 million. First Minister, your Government is slashing budgets for our courts and prisons. Money is tight, we get that. How on earth can mobiles for prisoners at a cost of £4 million and rising be a priority? Taxpayers' money should be spent in front-line services, not freebies for criminals. Those phones have been misused nearly 5,000 times. They have been used to order firebombings, drug dealing and to threaten crime victims. Prison officers tell me that those SNP-issued phones are putting them in danger by fueling violence between inmates. When, First Minister, will you bin this costly and dangerous policy? First Minister? Russell Findlay is right about one thing. Budgets are extremely tight. They are tight because of Tory economic mismanagement and Tory erosion of our budgets. Coming to the issue at hand, prison is yes about punishment but prison should also be about rehabilitation. It is important that we do not lose focus on that. The mobile phone provision, which I think—I will be corrected if I am wrong about this—is something the UK Government did during the pandemic. That is about ensuring connections between prisoners and families, including children, which is important to rehabilitation, which is important to reducing offending and re-offending. We will continue to consider all those issues carefully, but we will consider them in the context of a justice system that punishes criminals. That is extremely important, but one that seeks to rehabilitate those who commit crimes and reduce re-offending, because that is in the overall interests of communities across the country. Question 6, Stephanie Callaghan. I am suspending business for a moment. We will resume. At question 6, I call Stephanie Callaghan. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the Supreme Court decision regarding legislating on an independence referendum. Of course, I am disappointed by it. I respect and accept the Supreme Court's judgment on the Lord Advocate's reference regarding the Scottish Parliament's powers to legislate for an independence referendum. However, the denial of democracy by Westminster parties demonstrates now beyond any doubt that the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations is not now if it ever was a reality. It remains open to the UK Government to respect democracy and to reach an agreement with the Scottish Government for a lawful constitutional democratic referendum. However, regardless of attempts by Westminster to block democracy, I will always work to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard and that the future of Scotland is always in Scotland's hands. Stephanie Callaghan. Yesterday's ruling has profound implications for the UK and Scotland's democracy, particularly as you mentioned the notion of the UK being a voluntary partnership of nations. If the UK Government wants to evidence that this is a voluntary union, all they have to do is stop standing in the way of democracy, come to the table and reach an agreement over holding a legal referendum with the Scottish Government. Why does the First Minister think that they are continuing to shy away from this? Well, unionist Westminster politicians want to silence Scotland's voice because they are scared of what Scotland might say. It is quite simple. Any politician who was confident of their case and confident of being able to persuade others of their case would not be trying to block democracy. They would be embracing democracy. I think that we know everything that we need to know about the views of Westminster unionist parties by their determination to block Scotland's democracy, but it will not prevail. Unionist politicians, with some critical faculties and perhaps the power of independent thinking, probably understand that yesterday's judgment raises profoundly uncomfortable questions about the basis and the future of the United Kingdom. Any partnership in which one partner needs the consent of another to choose its own future is not voluntary and it is not even a partnership. Within the UK right now, it is the case that England could decide to become independent, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland supposedly cannot. That is not a partnership, that is not voluntary and that is not equal, but Scotland's voice will not be silenced. Scotland's future is up to the people of Scotland and that will always be the case. First Minister Douglas Ross keeps saying that no-one on these benches is asked how he would stay in the union, while the answer is simple. Win an election with that in the manifesto and you get to dictate the terms. With that in mind, this Scottish Parliament has the biggest ever majority for an independence referendum in the history of the evolution, but it has been blocked from enacting that mandate. Can the First Minister inform the Parliament if she has had any indication from the UK Government as to how the people of Scotland can exercise their democratic right and have a choice in their future? The mandate for an independence referendum in this Parliament is undeniable. There is a clear majority for that. In any other measure of democracy in any other country, we would not have politicians seeking to deny that. I stand ready to discuss this issue with the UK Government at any time. I fully anticipate, though, that their democracy denial will continue, at least in the short term, because they are scared of the outcome of a democratic process. However, I watched Douglas Ross and others squirming on this issue yesterday on television. On the one hand, I am trying to say that the United Kingdom is a voluntary union, but on the other hand, I am gleefully trying to defend the fact that Scotland has no way of choosing a different future. It is not democratic, it is not sustainable. Let us have a proper process and let the people of Scotland decide our own future. When asked by Glenn Campbell during a BBC debate two days before the Hollywood election, what voters should do who, and I quote, want you, Nicola Sturgeon, as First Minister, but do not want independence, the First Minister confidently said that she should vote for me? Why now are her colleagues claiming that these voters support independence? Is this the same deep-seated duplicity that we can expect to see in any de facto independence referendum at the next general election? If the Tories are now reduced to suggesting that people in Scotland did not know that I supported a referendum, then the Tories are even more desperate than I thought they were. Douglas Ross is saying that it is just quoting my own words. Let me offer this, Presiding Officer. If the Tories do not think that my words were clear enough in the election last year, how about their words? The Tory message could not have been clearer. They said that if the SNP wins the election, there will be a referendum. The only way to stop it is to vote Tory. That seems pretty clear to me, Presiding Officer. Guess what? The SNP won the election. It is time to have a referendum. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that refugees from Ukraine have suitable accommodation on arrival in Scotland. With more than 21,500 arrivals from Ukraine with a Scottish sponsor, Scotland continues to provide sanctuary to more displaced people from Ukraine per head than any other part of the UK. I want to thank people across Scotland for their efforts in achieving that. Our priority, of course, is to ensure the immediate needs of those arriving are met, though we are clear that we do not want anyone to spend more time than absolutely necessary in welcome accommodation. While we are ensuring that we have that welcome and temporary accommodation, which is safe and suitable, we are also taking forward a number of actions focused on providing sustainable longer-term accommodation for those who are here and still arriving. That will include a new Scottish-led host recruitment campaign that will launch at the end of the month. I thank the First Minister for that answer and refer members to my register of interest. The First Minister will be aware of the acute housing crisis in Edinburgh. The current contract for MS Victoria is due to end in January 2023. Figures published by the Scottish Government show that more than 1,200 people are currently on the ship. How will the Scottish Government ensure that the capacity provided by the ship is retained? Will she urgently look to expand the criteria for the £50 million housing fund for local authorities, which is largely unspent, to include purchasing property from the market and working with agents to retrofit buildings? Will the First Minister confirm continued funding for the city's welfare hub? We will continue to provide support. Yes. Those are very real issues, and Sarah Boyack is right to raise them. They are issues that all countries that have stepped up to help Ukrainians are facing right now. I was speaking with the T-shirt at the British Irish Council just a couple of weeks ago. The Republic of Ireland is dealing with those issues, too. I know that the Welsh Government is well and, indeed, the UK Government in respect of England. It is right that we have welcomed as many Ukrainians as possible. It is right now that we work through those challenges. I know that Neil Gray has been keeping members and Parliament as a whole updated. The £50 million longer-term resettlement fund is important. Of course, we will continue to look at the eligibility for that. That is helping us to bring void properties back into use. We are also investing heavily in our wider affordable housing programme, and we will continue to do that. Specifically, in relation to those displays from Ukraine, of course, we will continue to work with Edinburgh City Council and local authorities across Scotland to ensure that that support can continue. Let me take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to local councils who have done fantastic work on that. Those are not easy challenges for any Government to navigate, but we have a model obligation to do so, and we will continue to work hard to ensure that we are doing right by those from Ukraine who need our support and help and welcome. Members know that, as part of the UK, Scotland's budget is tied to the poor decisions made by the Tory Government at Westminster. However, there is another strain on public finances in Scotland, namely the repayment of private finance initiative debts, designed by the Tories, and rolled out by an enthusiastic Labour party. Can the First Minister set out the current annual bill for Scotland's health service from Labour's decision to build hospitals, including hair mayors, in my East Kilbride constituency, using this reckless and costly scheme, as well as any impacts of the current cost crisis on these debts? Just for clarity, this is general and constituency supplementaries. This question highlights one of the ironies of previous lines of questioning in the session of First Minister's Questions. Since 2006-07, the cumulative bill to taxpayers for the cost of Tory Labour's ruinously expensive PFI-PPP contracts is £3.2 billion. That is £2 billion over and above the initial capital value of those projects, with costs increasing because of inflation. Right now, we are currently paying every year more than £250 million for those contracts commenced under previous Administrations. That includes, of course, Hair Mayors hospital. The record of this Government, in line with our record of protecting the national health service, is one of unpicking Tory Labour PFI-PPP contracts. Adrien McCartney spoke to the Sunday Post last year and shared her harrowing story about how time after time the police and prosecutors let her down on a case of domestic abuse. The Sunday Post revealed last Sunday that, sadly, Adrien has since passed away. Her solicitor said the following. She should be here today and the fact that she's not is an indictment of a system and how it addresses domestic abuse. First Minister, one leading academic believes that the statistic for those who are dying of domestic abuse could be six times higher than official statistics due to ill health and, of course, suicide. Given that we are putting such a focus on the elimination of violence against women this week in the Parliament, can I ask quite simply why is the justice system currently in Scotland failing so many vulnerable women? Secondly, what legislation is the First Minister and her Government proposing to bring forward to address those horrific crimes against women? First Minister? Firstly, can I take the opportunity to convey my deep heartfelt sympathies to the family and friends of Adrien? Obviously, police and prosecutors operate independently of government, so I won't go into details that would stray upon their independent roles. What I will say, and I've said many times before, I don't believe that Scotland or any country for that matter yet does enough when it comes to preventing and responding to domestic abuse. The justice system has got a very large part to play in all of that, but as I was reflecting earlier on today, we need to do more to tackle the behaviours that cause domestic abuse and prevent it in the first place. I know that the Lord Advocate is a big advocate for and champion of this. The justice system has to respond better to support victims of domestic abuse as well, and I know that this is a real priority for her. I've already spoken about the Helena Kennedy report on misogyny. We have proposals from Lady Dorian on how the justice system deals with cases of sexual violence, sexual fences and that will include domestic abuse. The Government will bring forward many of those proposals in legislative form over the remainder of this Parliament. Some of them will be controversial and I would expect very rigorous debate and scrutiny in this Parliament, but I hope that, as we are considering those proposals, that very good question from Jamie Greene will stay in our minds and that we will find ways to unite to make the necessary improvements to our justice system so that victims of domestic abuse are not let down here in Scotland, as they are here too often and indeed as they are in countries across the world. Jackie Baillie to be followed by Clare Adamson. The breast screening programme was paused for all women during the pandemic and paused even longer for women over 70. It would appear that a further restriction has been applied and women over 75 are being denied breast cancer screening. My constituent who raised this with me describes this decision as discriminatory and agist. Can the First Minister advise whether the restriction is just in Greater Glasgow and Clyde or does it apply Scotland-wide? If so, will she reverse the decision? I will ask the health secretary to write to the member on the detail of that, because it is important that we make sure that that is right. On the restoration of the breast screening for the age groups for which breast screening is advised, that has already happened. In terms of the older age groups, which are on a self-referro basis, that has been done in a phased way, but I will come back to Jackie Baillie via the health secretary on the detail of that. I say one thing finally, as somebody who is responsible for all the decisions that were taken during the pandemic. Those decisions were not taken lightly. The pausing of the screening programmes, including the breast screening programme, was one that I know was agonised over by the then chief medical officer and by others, of course, responsible for those decisions. It is important that we get those right and that we prioritise those for whom breast screening is recommended, which is what has been done. Of course, as part of the overall recovery plan for the national health service, our priority is to get all services back to functioning, as they were before the pandemic and as people have a right to expect. Following the UK regulations adopted by the Financial Conduct Authority for funeral planning companies, a number of companies have subsequently gone into administration, including safe hands, funeral plans and One Life. Some of my constituents are left worried as to whether they will get any of their money back. Research shows that such saving schemes are overwhelmingly used by the most financially vulnerable. Can the First Minister offer any advice and support that is currently available for those affected? Has the Scottish Government had any engagement with the UK Government in relation to calls for a UK support scheme to be set up? I thank Clare Adamson for raising what is not just an important issue but an extremely sensitive issue. We welcomed regulation of this sector, which we had been pressing the UK Government to do for some time. The UK Government's action, however, has come rather late and too late for some people. I understand that dignity is currently honouring safe hands, funeral plans and I welcome that support. Regulation is a reserved matter and I encourage the UK Government to look at the situation and consider whether it should provide additional support. If Clare Adamson wishes to pass on any details of affected constituents, I will ensure that the relevant minister looks at it and raises it with the UK Government. The Scottish Government also provides support for funeral costs through funeral support payment and I encourage anyone who may be eligible to apply. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Martin Whitfield. In February, I asked what action the Scottish Government was taking after a survey showed that nearly half of our dedicated, hard-working teachers in Aberdeen were considering quitting due to high levels of physical and verbal abuse. At best, the First Minister's answer was vague and non-committal. Yesterday evening, following physical and verbal violence, Northfield Academy in Aberdeen escalating, teachers at Northfield voted in favour of industrial action over concerns for the safety of staff. Teachers should never be subjected to violence whether verbal or physical. As nothing has apparently changed since February, I ask again what is this Government doing now to stop this appalling abuse? The First Minister. No teacher should ever experience abuse in the classroom, and I hope that that is something that would unite us across this chamber. Of course, the employer of teachers are local authorities, and I would expect—I know that local authorities take this seriously—them to have support in place for teachers and to support the wellbeing of teachers. I am indeed meeting with the president of COSLA later today, and we will happily discuss what more the Scottish Government can do to support that. It is vitally important that we support teachers in a range of ways and, indeed, other public sector workers and other workers generally who interact with the public to ensure that they are free from and safe from any abuse or attacks whatsoever. Martin Woodfield. I am very grateful. Following the First Minister's correction to the official report on that energy consumption, will the First Minister's new understanding of the facts cause the Scottish Government to reconsider its stance on all forms of net zero energy, for example nuclear powers in the south of Scotland, which, as the First Minister can see, plays a vital role in energy security? My understanding of Scotland's energy potential is, as it has always been. Scotland is blessed with vast renewable energy potential, and this Government will focus on not just talking that up instead of talking it down, like so many of the other parties in this chamber do, but we will focus on supporting the growth of renewable energy, offshore wind, onshore wind, hydrogen and green hydrogen energy. The fact of the matter is that Scotland is one of the luckiest countries in the world when it comes to energy, and it is our job to maximise that potential.