 Y Llywydd刻 queries a 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. Yesterday the Government finally found the missing documents in their Bowie Piasco. For a brief moment, it looked like Islanders and taxpayers here in Scotland might finally get the answers they deserve. But they didn't. For weeks, Nicola Sturgeon has stood in this chamber and told MSPs that Derek Mackay signed off the vital contract for Fergs and Marine to build replacement ferries. But operation blamed Derek Mackay has a fatal flaw. This new document, previously hidden from the public, reveals that the person who signed this deal at the final stage was the Deputy First Minister. Civil servants escalated this to John Swinney. They waited for the Deputy First Minister to give the green light. Honest John's hands are all over this dodgy deal. First Minister, how do you explain blaming Derek Mackay when your own documents confirm that John Swinney signed off this deal? First Minister, all that Douglas Ross is displaying right now is his own utter desperation, which perhaps is not surprising given events since we last all gathered here for First Minister's questions in the chamber. Let me just read from the emails that were published yesterday, the important one. Remember, and people who have listened to this will remember that I said that I thought that if this email could be found, then what it would be is a one-line email saying that the minister was content with the proposal. Here is the email from Derek Mackay's office. The minister is content with the proposals and would like it to be moved on as quickly as possible. That was the decision to proceed with the contract. The email from the official who had briefed the Deputy First Minister now understands that Mr Mackay has cleared the proposal, so it seems pretty obvious to anybody who is looking at this. The Deputy First Minister did not take the decision. He was not even copied in to the advice of 8 October that was the basis of that decision. He was simply briefed on the decision after it was taken, not even at his request but on the initiative of an official. It is not unusual—really not unusual—for finance secretaries to be briefed on all sorts of decisions that involve the spending of money. It does not mean that the finance secretary has actually taken the decision. I would say that Douglas Ross should know that that is how Government works. Of course, Douglas Ross does not know how Government works, and on recent evidence, Douglas Ross is unlikely to ever know how Government works. Douglas Ross seems from that answer that the First Minister does not know how emails work, because it is very clear in here how officials escalated it to John Swinney waiting for his green light. In those emails, civil servants state that the Deputy First Minister confirmed—this is a quote from those emails—the absence of banana skins. John Swinney could not find a single banana skin when they were absolutely littered around him. There were more banana skins in this project than there are in the monkey house at Edinburgh Zoo. Now, the latest incompetence from this SNP Government published a series of responses to the request for more information that were heavily redacted, lines blacked out. Except that they have done such a poor job at redacting the documents, if you copy and paste them into Microsoft Word, the information is revealed. In one section of the redacted document, it warns of a risk of legal challenge for this contract. It states, and I quote, that the impact of a successful legal challenge could be high. In the worst case, the contract could be declared ineffective. In other words, going ahead with this contract was such a bad idea that it could open up the Government to even more losses than they have already experienced. First Minister, it is clear to everyone now why you and your Government wanted that redacted, but it is now in the public domain. So tell us, we all knew that this was a bad deal. Was it also unlawful? I think that Douglas Ross has no doubt unwittingly just hold his own arguments below the waterline pardon the pun. Two matters here. Firstly, on the Deputy First Minister not seeing any problems with the award of the contract, that is because the Deputy First Minister had not been copied into the paperwork that formed the basis for the decision. The Deputy First Minister could not have been the person taking the decision because he was not copied into the 8th of October paperwork. He was not the decision taker. As the email makes clear, he was briefed on the decision after the transport minister had taken the decision. Secondly, on the issues of legal challenge, ministers are briefed on many issues that decisions could be subject to legal challenge. On some occasions, the minority of occasions that comes to pass on most occasions that does not. Those are issues that ministers have to weigh up in reaching decisions. Douglas Ross undermines his own case here. It did not come to pass that the contract was legally challenged. Ministers weigh up all of those issues and they come to decisions. What is now beyond any doubt whatsoever—I suspect that this is what is really annoying, Douglas Ross—is that the minister who took that decision was Derek Mackay, and that is now clear from the email chain. That is not clear, First Minister. In fact, the exact opposite is clear. Maybe the stony silence from John Swinney today, which is unusual in those exchanges, is telling in itself. There we have it, Presiding Officer. The SNP's secret Scotland is foiled by copy and paste. You cannot even read documents properly. It is little worry that these ferries are not on time and on budget. Seymal warned you about the risks. We now know that your own legal advice was high-risk, but you went ahead anyway and taxpayers and islanders are paying the price for your failures. Those new emails state that John Swinney understands the background and the way it is clear to award. If he does not clear the deal, it does not go ahead. That is what those emails say. He went ahead, knowing, as we have just revealed, that it could open the Government to legal challenge. We now know all of this, but we still do not know why the Deputy First Minister ignored all those banana skins. The most crucial document in this affair is still missing, the one that explains why John Swinney charged the head against expert advice. Last night, Audit Scotland said this. There remains insufficient documentary evidence to explain why the decision was made to proceed with the contract, given the significant risks and concerns raised by Seymal. Why did John Swinney go ahead with this deal against the advice of experts when he knew that the contract was so bad that it could be challenged in court and rendered ineffective? In government, finance secretaries are very often briefed on decisions that involve the spending of money. In this case, of course, the budget had already been approved by John Swinney. Secondly, it is interesting, because he has to do this to sustain the cases that he is trying to make here. Douglas Ross has selectively quoted from the official who did brief John Swinney. Let me read the bits that Douglas Ross read out. The email starts just finished my call with the Deputy First Minister, who of course was Finance Secretary at the time. Douglas Ross read out these bits. He now understands the background and the way is clear to award. Let me read out the bit that Douglas Ross did not read out. After he now understands the background, it goes on to say that Mr Mackay has cleared the proposal. Had Douglas Ross read out that bit, his entire argument here would have fallen to pieces. It is a bit misleading, I think, Presiding Officer. I am not sure, Presiding Officer, that Douglas Ross should be speaking to any other leader right now about their backbenchers. I suspect that he might have issues rather closer to home. Finally, Presiding Officer, the reasons for the decision are clear. The basis for the decision, in particular the mitigations that have been put in place to address the risk of no full refund guarantee, is set out in the paperwork of 8 October. Without the email that we now have from Derek Mackay, we could have assumed that that was the case, but I accept that we did not know that for sure. However, now that we have that email, it is clear that the decision that was taken was taken on the basis of all of the information and the mitigation set out in the paperwork of 8 October 2015. That is paperwork that was not copied to John Swinney, which went to Derek Mackay as Transport Minister and Derek Mackay took the decision. That is clear to anybody who reads the emails that are now published. What is clear to anybody and everybody from those emails is that the junior transport minister agreed something and it was escalated to the Deputy First Minister for the green light, for approval, so that they can put in this email the way it is clear to award. That was from the Deputy First Minister. He had to sign it off, but the document that is still missing is the crucial one, the one that explains why John Swinney did this. The First Minister has forgotten her. Her memory has gone blank again, but the good news is that the man with all of the answers is literally sitting right next to her. If the First Minister won't tell us all of the details, let's hear from the Deputy First Minister. Let's hear why he chose to ignore expert advice. Let's hear why he forged ahead with a deal that has cost taxpayers quarter of £1 billion. Let's hear why John Swinney decided to give the green light to a deal that opens this Government up to potential legal action. The stench of cover-up and corruption is running through this whole, sorry, affair. If the First Minister won't come clean, let's get John Swinney on the stand. Will the First Minister agree to the Deputy First Minister appearing before Parliament today to give a statement in this chamber today to face scrutiny and tell the public what on earth he was thinking? It's not my job to help out desperate Douglas Ross, frankly, Presiding Officer. The Deputy First Minister on this issue was briefed as finance secretary because a decision had been taken by the Transport Minister that involved the spending of money. That's why it's finance official that briefed him. I repeat again that Douglas Ross has only been able to sustain, and I don't think that he's done it particularly well his argument today, by selectively quoting from an email, by missing out the crucial words that show that underline what is already clear in the email from Derek Mackay's office that Derek Mackay took the decision. Finally, I don't know if Douglas Ross has actually bothered to read all of the paperwork on this. I suspect from his questions that the answer to that is no. The paperwork that shows why the decision was taken has always been there. It is the paperwork of 8 October 2015. We now know that Derek Mackay took the decision on the basis of the advice set out there. That is the fact. I'm sorry if Douglas Ross cannot accept those facts. I'm sorry if he is too desperate to do so, but that, I'm afraid, is his problem. Can the First Minister confirm how many investigations into bullying by current or former SNP cabinet ministers there have been if those investigations have concluded and what the outcomes of those investigations are? I was indeed asked this question by journalists over the course of the last few days. As I made clear to journalists, I am not in a position to get into these issues because there are very considerable legal data protection issues that I am bound by. Governments have a duty of transparency, but Governments also have a duty to abide by the law on privacy and on data protection. A complaint by its nature includes personal detail data of both the complainer and the person complained about. That personal information can only be made available out with the narrow confines of the complaint if there is a lawful basis within GDPR to do so. That is UK legislation, not legislation passed by this Parliament. Yes, there is a duty of transparency, but there is also a duty to abide by the law. Finally, on this, Presiding Officer, Anna Sarwar should perhaps confer with his deputy, Jackie Baillie, because she was one of the co-authors of a report published by a committee of this Parliament last year into complaints about another former minister. I'm going to quote from that report. The committee believes that the fundamental principle of any complaint's process is that confidentiality must be observed. The Scottish Government has a duty to ensure the confidentiality of the process. Confidentiality of an investigation is of paramount importance. That's what the committee of this Parliament said and, of course, those are the constraints that I answer those questions within. Anna Sarwar. That committee also found the First Minister guilty of misleading this Parliament. I don't think that she should forget that either. No one is asking the First Minister to reveal confidential details. What they're saying is to reveal the outcome of that investigation. The First Minister didn't answer the questions. Let me quote. We have to lead by example. We have to show leadership. We have to make it very clear that those who work in this Parliament and those who work elsewhere in society need the fullest protection from bullying. That's SNP leader Ian Blackford at Westminster in regard to the Preeti Patel case. I agree with him. After the allegations against Alex Salmond and then Derek Mackay and the bullying findings against UK Government ministers, we need to restore trust in politics. That must start with complaints being handled transparency. I ask the First Minister again, will she today confirm the outcome, not the personal details, of the bullying investigation into Fergus Ewing? Can she confirm if there have been any other investigations into current and former Scottish ministers, and will she commit to making public the conclusion of any and all complaints upheld against ministers in this Government? First Minister, I and the Government take any complaints about any ministers very seriously. That is evidenced by both the development and publication of the updated procedure for handling complaints made by civil servants, either about current or former ministers. That is not a question of any complaints if they are raised not being investigated, but that has to be done within the law. I have to abide by the law. I have a duty to uphold the law and there are laws here on privacy and data protection that apply. If I answer questions on that, I will be at risk of breaching that law. I am sure that next week or the week after that, Anas Sarwar or his colleagues will be asking for me to be held to account for doing that. Those are serious issues. They have to be treated seriously, but they also have to be treated within the confines of the law that applies. Let me be very clear. I am not asking for the data or the personal details of the person making the complaint. What I am saying is that the public deserve to know the outcome of an investigation relating to ministers and the SNP Government. That is an issue of public transparency. The fact that Nicola Sturgeon cannot escape from is that her Government and this SNP operate in a culture of secrecy and cover-up. It is not the first time that we have heard of today, but cover-up when it comes to allegations against ministers, cover-ups when it comes to the awarding of Government ferry contracts, shamefully cover-ups when it comes to the deaths of children in hospital, and a culture that is contempt for journalists and anyone who dares to ask a difficult question of this, First Minister. One standard for them and another standard for everybody else, one where an SNP MP can avoid being disciplined for sexual harassment and instead lead a parliamentary debate on the subject. In 2003, Nicola Sturgeon said of the then Scottish Government, that she had the arrogance of a party that has been in power for too long and no longer believed the common values of decency, fairness and honesty applied to them. I cannot think of a more appropriate way of describing this Government led by Nicola Sturgeon. After 15 years of being in government, why does Nicola Sturgeon think that it is one standard for her and another standard for everyone else? The people of Scotland have had two opportunities in just a year to decide whether they think that my party has been in government for too long or not, and I think that the answer on both occasions was pretty clear. On issues on the Queen Elizabeth hospital, I am so opposed to transparency there. I have actually, with my government, established a full independent statutory public inquiry into those issues. On questions from journalists, I stand to be corrected if somebody can challenge me on this, but I have probably answered more questions from journalists over the past couple of years than any other political leader anywhere on those islands. Thirdly, I, in my view, ended up the subject of investigations over the last couple of years, because I was not prepared to cover up accusations against a former minister. The fact is, though, that I have to abide by the law, all parties, whether I like it or not, have rights under data protection law that protects their personal data, and that includes the fact or the detail of complaints. Processing of that data can, under the law, only occur if there is a lawful basis to do so, so that is the legal position. Yes, Governments have a duty of transparency, and I take that very seriously, but Governments also have a duty to abide by the law on privacy and data protection. If we breach that law, Anas Sarwar would be one of the first standing up here to accuses of doing so. Will my move to constituency in general supplementaries? The First Minister and others across the chamber will, I am sure, join me in condemning reports of sexist, racist and homophobic comments at the Scottish Football Writers Association gala dinner and offer support to those who walked out in protest. Whilst recognising the apology that has been issued, does the First Minister agree that this appears to be a shocking illustration of the outdated discriminatory attitudes that still exist in football and, indeed, in journalism that need to be eradicated? I very much agree with those sentiments from what I have read of what occurred at that particular awards dinner. It was unacceptable, and I would pay tribute to Ailey Barber and others, whom I think very courageously took a stand against that and spoke out. It is not easy ever for any woman in particular in a traditionally man's world to speak out in that way, and I think Ailey and her colleagues deserve credit for doing so. I think that we have seen over the past week that is one example. I think that there has been another reported that sexism and misogyny still run far too deep in our society. It is a reminder that it must be tackled, but it is also a reminder that it starts with male behaviour and its male behaviour that we must see change. The First Minister may be aware that the timetable for the new residence station in my constituency does not include adequate evening services. This is a problem for my constituents. Rages have said that there are no plans for ScotRail to provide evening services, and it is for Transport Scotland to confirm. We have got an issue with 40 per cent of cancellations of trains to Tweed Bank from Edinburgh, which is caused by the pay dispute. Now we have no evening services for my constituents. Will the First Minister confirm that she will work with Transport Scotland to ensure that there are evening services, and does she think that that service is adequate for my constituents? I supported the people in all parts of the country who have access to real services that are appropriate, so I agree on that general point. I am happy to raise this issue with Transport Scotland and come back to the member in due course. My constituent, Ryan Caswell, has been a resident patient in Corsview mental health unit in Dundee for two years and three months as a result of delayed discharge. Ryan has autism spectrum disorder and learning disabilities. Ryan's parents are beside themselves with worry due to the lack of appropriate medical care being provided to their son. They fear for his life. Ryan struggles to communicate for much of the last year that he has been crying out in severe pain, which has led only to restraints and sedation. After many months of suffering without help, he had five impacted molars removed. The staff available to him do not have sufficient medical training to diagnose patients in their care. There have been two damning reports into mental health services in Tayside. The second of the strong reports has been described to me as the most worrying report in Scottish public life. That has gone on for years as people suffer and people die. First Minister, when will it change? Those are really important issues. The independent oversight group for mental health in Tayside is providing scrutiny and assurance on the implementation of the trust and respect recommendations to improve mental health. That group continues to work with partners, third sector and people with lived experience to deliver improvements to mental health services and achieve outcomes that local communities and individuals have a right to expect. I am not familiar with all the details of Ryan's case from what has been described there. It sounds to me to be unacceptable. In fairness to Ryan and to his parents who are understandably anxious and distressed, I want to look further into that. When I have had the opportunity to do so, I or the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport will reply in more detail to the member. To ask the First Minister if she shares my disgust at the comments made by Tory MP Lee Anderson in the House of Commons that those who are using food banks across these islands do so because they cannot cook and they cannot budget and that this demonstrates clearly that the Tories are completely out of touch with those suffering from the cost of living crisis that they created. First Minister, those comments were despicable and disgusting. It seems to me that every time a Tory MP opens their mouth right now, they simply demonstrate how out of touch they are with the suffering of too many people across Scotland and the entire UK. People are having to go to food banks not because they cannot cook. People are having to go to food banks right now because they do not have enough money to feed themselves and their children. My Government is and will continue to do everything we can to get money into the pockets of the lowest income families across the country, the Scottish child payment being the chief example of that, but it is well past time that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the UK Government stood up, stepped up and took action to get money into the pockets of those who need it to stop people having to make decisions about heating their homes or feeding their children. First Minister, midwifery services across Scotland are at breaking point. A survey conducted by the Royal College of Midwives has revealed that three quarters of midwives in Scotland are thinking of leaving the profession due to understaffing, burnout and fears that they cannot provide safe care. Despite the Scottish Government's providing £12 million of funding to support the mental health and wellbeing of the workforce, that is clearly having little effect. First Minister, lives of women and babies are at risk. That is not safe, that is not sustainable and that is not acceptable. What urgent action can the Scottish Government put in place to rectify the situation? First Minister, midwives play a key role in making sure that women receive the care that they need when they need it and we value the role of the RCM and its members, the role that they have played in our on-going response to the pandemic that the health secretary actually met with the RCM this week to discuss the report and its recommendations and we will continue to work with the RCM and midwives generally to address the pressures that they and other health professionals are working under. Of course, overall, nursing and midwifery starting in Scotland is at a record high. It has increased by 14.5 per cent since this Government took office and that is the facts of the matter, but of course all of our health professionals are working under extreme pressure and through our investment support and reforms we will continue to support them in the invaluable job that they do. The First Minister will be aware that this week is Mental Health Awareness week with a focus on loneliness. Findings from the mental health foundation showed that in Scotland 25 per cent of people surveyed had felt lonely some or all of the time over the previous month and, concernily, 31 per cent of people said that feelings of loneliness had negatively impacted on their mental health. Action is needed and, despite having 15 years in office, the Government has failed to deliver an effective mental health strategy that supports the well-being of the Scottish population. Why has the First Minister failed so badly in this regard and what steps can she set out today, both in prevention and intervention, to address the crisis that is in our mental health services? Mental health is and will continue to be a priority, as I have said many times in this chamber. The fact that more people feel able to come forward with mental health problems now is something that we should continue to support, but we must make sure that the services are there for them when they need them. The focus of Mental Health Awareness week is loneliness and isolation. In that regard, the Scottish Government is supporting a range of work. Last year we provided more than £20 million to local communities through the community's mental health and wellbeing fund for adults. Earlier this month we announced that a further £15 million would be available in this financial year. That fund is supporting almost 2,000 local community projects, many of them addressing loneliness and isolation. We are investing £10 million over the course of this Parliament, specifically to tackle social isolation and loneliness. We will continue to make the investments and do everything that we can to support the many organisations across the country that do such good work. 3. Alex Cole-Hamilton Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. First Minister, Tuesday. Alex Cole-Hamilton I'm very grateful for that reply. Presiding Officer, raw sewage is released into our rivers every single day. It is routinely done by Scotland's government-owned water company. Thanks to investigations by the ferret, we now know that this happened more than 10,000 times last year—that's 30 times a day. Scottish water is only required to monitor 3 per cent of sewage release points, so the true figure will be much, much worse. Scotland is way behind England on this. This is an SNP green coalition that claims to champion the environment. However, the Environment Minister herself described the routine dumping of untreated human waste in our rivers as vital. Presiding Officer, this shouldn't be allowed to happen. We're talking about excrement, wet wipes and sanitary towels. In West Edinburgh, right now, there are otters, fish, children and dogs playing in the river Armond, where sewage has been dumped hundreds of times. So can I ask the First Minister why aren't there targets to end the release of sewage into our rivers and how long does she plan to allow this to continue? This is an important issue that Alex Cole-Hamilton has raised. The cleanliness of our rivers and our seas is of paramount importance and how we deal with waste of all forms in our country, of course, is a big challenge for Governments everywhere. I have not, my apologies to Alex Cole-Hamilton, I have not seen the investigation by the ferret. I will take steps to ensure that I do see that and I'll come back to him with more detail about what the Government is doing and what more the Government needs to do, like all Governments across the world, to tackle what is a serious issue. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the report published last Friday, owning the future, a framework of regulations for decarbonising on or occupied homes in Scotland, commissioned by the Existing Homes Alliance. The Scottish Government welcomes the publication of this research by the Existing Homes Alliance. Heating our homes and places of work is the third-largest cause of emissions in Scotland. In light of that, our heating building strategy, published in October, set out over 100 different actions to support households and businesses to make energy efficiency improvements and transition from fossil fuel heating systems. The strategy includes a commitment to regulate for minimum standards in homes and will consult in detail on our proposed approach in the coming year. The Existing Homes Alliance and others have worked positively and constructively with us on this to date and will continue to engage with the organisation and others as we finalise our approach. I thank the First Minister for her detailed reply. This is a highly complex area with very detailed recommendations, including the need for legislation if we are fully to decarbonise our buildings by 2045. Scottish solutions identified in the report include the installation of low-temperature heat pumps, distigating and for some homes at biomass boilers. The key driver will be improving building fabric efficiency. Can the First Minister confirm that as we focus more on decarbonisation, her Government will prioritise a fabric first approach, introduce a fabric energy efficiency standard, begin the phase out of fossil fuels for heating and act to ensure that we have the skilled workers in our communities necessary to deliver on our vital climate change targets? We have a very long-standing commitment to a fabric first approach that is critical to reducing demand, making homes warmer and preparing them for zero emissions technologies. We have committed to regulating minimum energy efficiency standards in homes by 2033. The standard will be equivalent to EPCC, reformed to focus on fabric measures. Fabric improvement alone though will not get us close to net zero, we need a strong focus on heating system change. We will phase out the need to install newer replacement fossil fuel boilers in off gas from 2025 and in on gas areas from 2030. The opportunity presented by the heat transition will require further capability and capacity in our supply chains. We are also developing a new heating building supply chain delivery plan with industry so that we can deliver the work at the pace and the scale that is needed. Daniel Johnson I thank Kenny Gibson for raising this, because 28 per cent of people in Scotland live in tenemented dwellings. The proportion is even higher in my constituency. On page 3 of the report, it sets out very clearly that we need to look at existing forms of heating beyond air source heat pumps because they quite simply will not work for people in tenemented dwellings. Likewise, the legal framework right now makes it difficult for tenement owners to do the sorts of retrofitting that are required. Will the Scottish Government give consideration to plans for investment in municipal heat networks and for a change in the law to make it easier for tenement owners to come together to fit the retrofitting that they require to heat homes sustainably even for people who are living in tenemented dwellings? Yes, we will do all of that. I certainly have a lot of sympathy with the points made. I also represent a constituency, albeit in a different city that has a high number of tenemental properties within it. In terms of the heat network fund, the £300 million heat network fund will support both large networks suited to urban environments as well as small rural and community-led heat networks and communal systems. Those are complex issues. I recognise that in my response to Kenny Gibson and the issues that we are working through in partnership with industry, but it is important that all of those points are borne in mind as we continue to do so. Liam Kerr, the cost of the heat and building strategy is £33 billion. This Government has offered £1.8 billion towards it. Who will pay the rest? I think that Liam Kerr should know the process that we have under way right now. Of course, the £1.8 billion is over the course of this Parliament. That is significant investment. It will support those that are least able to pay. It will support our Scotland's heat network fund and the social housing net zero heat fund, for example. However, we have also established the green heat finance task force to recommend ways to increase private sector investment and to look at contributions from individuals that we all want to keep to a minimum. As the minister set out when he launched the strategy, it will require us to lever significant private capital investment. I was at the All Energy Conference yesterday and I heard Keith Anderson of Scottish Power make this point. The good news is that there are significant amounts of private capital looking for ways to invest in the net zero transition. The task force has an important job to do and that work is under way. To ask the First Minister what meetings the Scottish Government has had with the private and voluntary nursery sector regarding delivery of its early learning and childcare strategy. We continue to engage with the childcare sector in open and constructive discussions as we develop a new strategic plan for our childcare commitments for the remainder of this Parliament. Providers in the private third and child-minding sectors are playing a crucial role in the successful delivery of the transformational 1,140 hours offer through which over 111,000 children are accessing high-quality funded early learning and childcare. Scotland has the highest ELC funding rates across the UK as a result of the expansion. Average rates paid to providers for three to five-year-olds receiving funded ELC have increased by 48 per cent between 2017 and 2021, so we continue to work closely with partners in local government to ensure that providers are paid sustainable rates that reflect the cost of delivery. Scottish Conservative MSPs have met with concerned nurseries across the PVI sector who have continuously raised concerns over the relationship with local authorities. We have tried to range a meeting with the Minister of Children and Young People to raise those concerns on their behalf, in particular the funding formula that creates inequality between local authorities and the PVI sector. Regretfully, the minister has now rescheduled two meetings that were due to take place. First Minister, those matters are pressing, so if the minister cannot meet with concerned MSPs, will you? The Scottish Government officials have already met with representatives of the ambition 1140 hours group recently to discuss specifically their concerns. A commitment has been given to a further meeting in the near future to continue those discussions. Of course, there will be ministerial engagement as required. I think that it is important to recognise that the funding agreement between the Scottish Government and COSLA supporting the expansion that has been delivered so far allows local authorities to pay sustainable rates to private and third sector nurseries who provide free early learning and childcare places and also to childminders, but I know that there are concerns and we want to address those. The financial sustainability health check that was published in August 2021 found that 88 per cent of private and third sector providers delivering funded ELC plan to pay all staff in their setting the real living wage from August last year, and that compares to a position before the expansion in 2016, where around 80 per cent of practitioners were paid less than the living wage at the time. Of course, public funding accounts for around 33 to 45 per cent of overall income for private childcare services. The majority also provide private services, so there are bigger issues here that need to be addressed, but we will continue to engage with those in that sector and have a determination to do so. With energy bills and inflation skyrocketing unchecked by the UK Tory Government, thousands of parents are having to resort to skipping meals to ensure that their children can get fed first. Can I ask the First Minister, as more and more young families struggle to stay afloat through the cost of living crisis, what further action the Scottish Government has taken to help new parents to make ends meet so that neither them or their children need to go hungry? I remind members of the needs to ensure that supplementaries reflect the substantive question. Is a really important issue. The difficulty people are having feeding their children right now is perhaps one of the most important issues that any politician and any Government has to address. The free childcare expansion is very relevant here because it is worth up to almost £5,000, £4,900 each year for eligible children. It is one of the significant interventions that the Government has made. In addition to that, our five family benefits include the Scottish Child Payment, which is now £20 per week and is set to extend to under 16s and rise to £25 per week by the end of this year. The problem is that there is a massive exodus of staff from the private and voluntary sector as a result of the fact that those nurseries cannot compete with the wages from the council because there is not a fair funding formula. That has a direct impact on the capacity but also on the flexibility that the First Minister will remember that she promised that there would be available for parents across the country. This situation is stark now, so will the First Minister intervene and fix this situation? The fact of the matter is that parents across the country have more funded childcare available and available more flexibly. The funding agreement between the Scottish Government and COSLA to support the expansion did allow local authorities to pay sustainable rates. I have recognised, however, the issues that those in private and voluntary sectors are facing, and I have given a commitment that we will continue to engage with them to seek to address them. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will convene an emergency summit on abortion healthcare in response to anti-abortion rights action in Scotland and around the world. First Minister, women have the right to access abortion without fear or intimidation. To that end, let me say again to anyone wanting to protest against abortion, do it outside Parliament. Protesting outside hospitals or sexual health clinics targets women, not lawmakers, and it causes stress and anxiety to those accessing healthcare. That, in my view, is deeply wrong. I strongly support the introduction of buffer zones and the Government is actively considering how this Parliament can legislate in a way that is effective and also capable ofwithstanding legal challenge. I am also aware that Gillian Mackay may shortly consult on a member's bill. On that latter point about legality, members will be aware that the law on buffer zones passed in Northern Ireland has recently been referred to the Supreme Court. The outcome of that may have relevance for any steps that we take here. In the meantime, as we consider and hopefully resolve issues around national legislation, we will support any local authority that is willing to use bylaws to establish buffer zones. Finally, I am very happy to convene and, indeed, I will personally chair around table summit to discuss buffer zones and, indeed, any other matters that need to be addressed to ensure safe and timely access to abortion services in Scotland within the current law. I warmly welcome the First Minister's agreement to convene an urgent summit that more than a dozen women's organisations have called for. Her personal commitment to chair the talks and facilitate politicians, campaigners and healthcare experts working together is hugely important. I thank her for that. Does the First Minister agree that we must use that forum to actively demonstrate our solidarity with women in America and around the world who fear that their legal rights are slipping away, whereas urgently taking action to deal with the challenges facing those who are accessing and providing abortion healthcare here in Scotland? Although operational policing matters are for Police Scotland, does she agree that it is important that any member of the public experiencing harassment or intimidation when seeking to access or provide abortion healthcare must feel confident that if they come forward to the police with any complaints that they will be properly investigated? I agree with all that, but let me briefly try to address each of the points made. I agree that it is important to show solidarity on those issues. The attack that we are seeing on abortion rights—let's call that for what it is—is an attack on the right of women to control our own bodies. The attack that we are seeing chiefly in the United States as a result of the concern about the overturning of Roe versus Wades, but we are seeing that in other countries, is deeply concerning. I believe in a woman's right to choose, and I believe that those of us who hold that view have a duty to show solidarity with those in other parts of the world, where it is coming under more significant attack. On the issue of police powers, of course, those are operational matters for the police, and it would be wrong for me to say how the police should use those powers. However, there are powers under antisocial behaviour legislation that are there for the police should they judge that it is appropriate to use them. Finally, everybody, without exception, should have the right to access healthcare without fear and intimidation. That applies to any woman, and no woman does that lightly. However, that applies to any woman seeking to access abortion services completely within the law. To those who want to protest, it is in a democracy absolutely a right to protest, but to Parliament and to protest against lawmakers do not cause women fear, anxiety and intimidation. Can I ask the First Minister if there is going to be a summit on abortion healthcare with the 24-week limit being under review? I think that science and medicine have moved on since 1990, and many children are surviving at 23 weeks. On the agenda of the summit, I have agreed to convene today that I do not support a reduction in the current time limit for abortion. On the contrary, I think that the challenge in Scotland is to ensure that women who need to and let me repeat that it is something that no woman does lightly can access that right in a safe and timely manner. As we have heard, the First Minister will be aware of the loud protests outside the Sandyford clinic in Glasgow yesterday. Not only do those protests intimidate many of the people who use those services, clinicians have contacted me to say that it also forced the clinic to close particular rooms on one side of the building due to the amplification system that the protesters were using. As part of the summit that the First Minister has just committed to, would the First Minister ensure that clinical representatives and trade unions are present, as well as patient representatives, to ensure that clinicians are not subject to harassment when simply doing their jobs? Yes, I will give that commitment. I would also take the opportunity to pay tribute to Gillian Mackay for the work that she has done in this, and I hope that she will agree to take part in the summit that we are talking about today. In terms of the protests outside the Sandyford clinic, even if it was only providing abortion services, those protests, in my view, would be wrong because they cause women intimidation and anxiety. However, there is a range of sexual health services provided by the Sandyford clinic. The last thing that anybody should be doing is making it harder for people to access those and make it harder for clinicians to go about the jobs that they do. I will appeal again to those who want to protest, and let me underline this. It is a right in a democracy to protest. I am not questioning that in any way, shape or form, but the place to protest is where the laws are made. The people to protest too—or us, parliamentarians, lawmakers—allow people to exercise the right to access healthcare in the way all of us have a right to do, without any fear and intimidation and without added stress and anxiety. That is the decent thing to do. That concludes First Minister's Questions. The next item of business is a member's business debate in the name of Maggie Chapman.