 That includes general questions. The next item of business is First Minister's question, question number one, I call Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The Covid pandemic began more than two years ago. The Scottish Government has had all that time to make our schools fit for use. Why then, First Minister, are we in the position, after so much time, that one of your Government's ideas to protect kids and teachers is to chop the bottom off of classroom doors? Firstly, our schools are fit for use, thanks to the dedication of teachers and other school staff, thanks to the sacrifices of young people and their parents. We've managed to keep our schools open during some of the most challenging phases of this pandemic, and that's a credit to everybody in our education system. The Scottish Government continues to take a range of measures to ensure that children and staff working in schools are as safe as it is possible for them to be. One of those measures, of course, is one that Douglas Ross against all logic and most expert evidence opposes, which is asking staff and pupils in our secondary schools to wear face coverings, a basic mitigation. On the issue of ventilation, Douglas Ross is shouting, chopping the bottom off of doors. When you're trying to improve ventilation in a room, there's a number of things you need to do. Partly that can be about air filtration to purify the air. Partly that is about ventilation, so mechanical ventilation systems. We are just beginning this session. I'm very keen that all members can hear the questions and responses. Partly that is the key point. It's about taking measures to ensure that the natural flow of air in a room is maximised. If you have doors or windows that are not enabling that natural flow of air in the way that you would want it to, then it strikes me as basic common sense that you would take measures to rectify that. What we've done is give additional money to local authorities to allow them to take whatever steps air filtration systems, mechanical ventilation or basic rectification of the structure of classrooms to improve the natural flow of air. That strikes me as basic common sense. If Douglas Ross wants to have serious discussions about those matters, perhaps he could start by making sure that it's a grown-up discussion. Douglas Ross. I do want to have a serious discussion about this. This is a grown-up matter an issue. It was telling in a very long answer several minutes there that the First Minister couldn't even bring herself to accept. That is chopping the bottom off of doors. However she tries to dress it up, however she tries to say it's basic common sense, it has been met with division because it is a serious issue here and there is more consequences as well. Safety issues, concerns about the risk from fire, from this plan have been raised. This morning, a retired firefighter wrote to us. He said and I quote, The doors in a school are essential for holding back heat and smoke should a fire start. The First Minister wants a grown-up and serious conversation about this, so does she agree with that quote from the retired firefighter and can she stand up and tell us what consultation her Government had with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service about those plans? This is an absurd line of questioning. I just say first of all to aid Douglas Ross's understanding of this. We are not requiring local authorities to chop the bottom off every door in every classroom across the country. However, if it is the case, I am struggling to believe that I am having to take Douglas Ross through this in such a basic manner. The first point, Presiding Officer, is this one. If a door is hung in such a way that it is inhibiting the natural flow of air, then one of the options that a local authority should have is to rectify that and we are giving them some money to do that. I am finding it difficult to hear the First Minister from here. I would be grateful if we could have just a bit of respect when people are asking questions and responding to them. I find it quite difficult to believe the infantile approach of the Scottish Conservatives to really serious issues. That is the first point. The second point is that health and safety apply to all the decisions that a local authority would make about deciding which measures to take. This is about the Scottish Government giving local authority the financial wherewithal to do what they consider necessary to improve airflow and ventilation in schools. Most of the spaces in our education estate will not need any of those measures, but where that is buying air filtration systems—hepa filters, for example—they will have the ability to do that. Where that is about deploying mechanical ventilation, they will do that. Yes, where that is about making some basic structural changes to aid the flow of air, they will do that too. That is basic common sense, which is perhaps why—I do not know why it is evading Nicola Sturgeon just to accept that it is chopping the bottom off of doors. It may be basic structural changes in the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon's language, but it is chopping the bottom off of doors. To call it an infantile approach—the questions that I am putting forward—it was interesting in that answer. The First Minister could not bring herself to respond to the retired firefighter, who is raising concerns, and to confirm to the chamber what discussions and what consultation she had with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service about the changes that her Government is asking councils to make across Scotland. However, the First Minister also said that there are a range of measures in place, and some of those are much more appropriate, but they are being delivered far too slowly. Let us look at one of those, and she has just mentioned the HEPA filters. Bringing in air filters for classrooms is a far more sensible approach that has been welcomed and agreed by every party in this chamber. Again, I ask the First Minister to answer a basic question. Can she tell us how many of those essential filters her Government has distributed across Scotland, and how many are up and running in our classrooms right now? To Douglas Ross, I addressed the point about fire safety, because all of those issues have to be taken into account when local authorities are making decisions on health and safety grounds for schools. The second point that I would make is this one. Is Douglas Ross really saying to me that if it is in the judgment of the people who make these health and safety decisions for local authorities about our school estate, if their judgment is that the way a door is hanging is inhibiting the air flow, then he thinks that there should not be any rectification made to that, that is why I think that it is utterly infantile to do that. Finally, on the point about HEPA filters or air cleaning filtration units, which are temporary solutions incidentally, those are not recommended to be long-term permanent solutions for improving ventilation. We are not distributing those to local authorities. We have set up a £5 million ventilation fund in order that local authorities can take remedial measures that they think appropriate for any spaces within the education setting that require that. On the estimate for the number of spaces, the funding that we have made available would enable local authorities to use, if they thought it appropriate, air cleaning filtration units or small mechanical ventilation units or extractor fan units to allow them to be installed, or to make some basic structural changes to windows or doors if that is what was thought appropriate. The funding that we have provided for the spaces that need that kind of rectification, we have provided £5 million funding. The estimate suggests that what is actually required is £4.3 million, so we have built in some contingency for that. We have provided the funding for local authorities. We are not requiring local authorities to chop anything off of doors. We are enabling local authorities to be guided by health and safety considerations to take the actions that they consider necessary. The only thing that has been chopped off during this session of First Minister's Questions, and it is entirely self-inflicted by Douglas Ross, is his own legs at the knees. Douglas Ross. They are still here, First Minister. I would just say that this is First Minister's Questions just once. It would be nice to get a First Minister's answer, because there is nothing about the consultation that her Government has had with the Scottish Far and Rescue Service. Three times, First Minister, I will ask you just what discussion your Government has had with the Scottish Far and Rescue Service about those proposals. The funding has gone to local authorities, but surely the Scottish Government does not just give millions of pounds to local authorities and does not expect to know how many of those air filters are being disputed across the area. I would like an answer to that. The First Minister must know, surely, how many there are and how many are in place right now. Throughout this pandemic, there was a consensus across the chamber and across Scotland that young people's education should be the priority. However, now schools seem to have fallen down the priority list for her Government. Kids still have to wear face masks in the classroom when the requirements have been lifted elsewhere. The EIS union this week described the extra funding for ventilation as long overdue. On Sunday, a spokeswoman for the Scottish teachers for positive change and wellbeing said this. We have had summer 2020, we have had summer 2021, we have had two winters, we have had two periods of long lockdown where all of those things could and should have been put in place. First Minister, they are right, aren't they? Will your Government pick up the pace and guarantee all the serious ventilation measures, not chopping the bottom off of doors, will be in place by the time that schools go back after the February break? First Minister, is the responsibility of local authorities to make sure that they have taken appropriate actions around ventilation in schools? We are providing them with the money to do that. On the specific question about consultation with the fire and rescue service, we are providing local authorities with the money. It is their responsibility to assess the spaces in schools. Local authorities are responsible for that and we are often challenged in the chamber to respect the powers of local authorities, of course. They have the responsibility to do that and the expectation would be on local authorities to have appropriate consultations with fire and rescue if that was necessary before they made any changes. That is how things work and rightly and properly will be done. Douglas Ross wants to pick and choose the mitigations that he thinks are appropriate. He is talking today about ventilation and he is absolutely entitled to ask the questions. If I was in his shoes, I might try to ask some better questions but that is just a matter of opinion. Of course, when the majority of expert opinion is saying that in order to help us, as we have managed to do for most of this pandemic, keep schools safely open, it is appropriate to ask staff and secondary school pupils to wear face coverings. No, he opposes that for political opportunistic reasons. Let us continue, as this Government is doing, to take the balanced approach to keeping our schools open and to keeping our schools safely open. That is the responsible approach that this Government has been taking. According to all evidence by the majority of people in Scotland, we will leave the political opportunism and infantile approaches to Douglas Ross and the Conservatives. Today, Off Gem announced an inflation-busting energy price increase that will cause pain and distress for hundreds of thousands of people across our country. Across Scotland, people will be wondering where they will find the extra £693 to keep the heating and lights on just months after bills rose by £139. At the same time, Shell has announced profits of more than $19 billion. That is more than £27,000 profit every minute. That is why Labour proposed a windfall tax on the profits of energy companies to help pay for measures that would save most households £200 and the most vulnerable £600. It is reasonable for those who are profiting from the crisis to help to cover the costs for the families struggling the most. Why did SNP MPs fail to vote for those measures in the House of Commons on Tuesday? I will come on to the specific issue of a levier on oil and gas in a second. First of all, I recognise the point that the Off Gem decision on the energy price cap today means that the increase in energy costs will be just under £700. The Chancellor has not heard all of the detail, because he was still on his feet as I came into the chamber. The Chancellor has just announced what sounded like welcome steps to help mitigate that, but steps that, in my view, do not go far enough. They seem to offer around £350 of help against energy bill increases of around £700. I also do not yet know what the position on consequentials will be, but I give a commitment here that, assuming that there are consequentials, which I would expect there to be, every single penny of them will go in Scotland to help people to deal with the cost of living crisis. There is one issue that we will have to deal with in Scotland, because part of the Chancellor's announcement today was about rebates for council tax. Of course, average council tax bills are significantly lower already in Scotland. On a banned sea council tax, people on average pay £525 less in Scotland than in England. However, one of the other differences is that, due to decisions that are made by the Scottish National Party Government, around 400,000 people in Scotland do not pay any council tax, because we have a council tax reduction scheme, unlike the situation in England, that can deliver up to 100 per cent relief. We will have to consider how we help those people, because those people still have energy bills that are rising as well, and we are determined that that help will be delivered. The position of the Scottish National Party is that we believe in fair progressive taxation. Those with the broadest shoulders should pay the most, and that certainly includes companies, including oil and gas companies, who are seeing rising profits. However, during the pandemic, other companies perhaps fall into that category as well. We have seen Amazon's profits rising, supermarkets have had rising profits, so we need to make sure that we have a fair approach. The Scottish Government does not have the power to do any of that. That would be a decision for the UK Government. The only caveat that I would put on this is that we need to make sure that, in rightly providing as much help as possible for households the length and breadth of the UK, the burden of doing that does not just fall on people, jobs and investment in the northeast of Scotland, at a time when we are trying to make the transition from oil and gas to renewable energy to meet our net zero targets. Westminster Governments for decades now have seen the northeast of Scotland as a cash cow, so let's make sure that whatever way the UK Government chooses to fund the help that I agree with Anna Sarwar must be provided, then it's done fairly so that all companies with the broadest shoulders get the chance to contribute to that. One company in one year, £19 billion in profit, £27,000 a minute in profit, a one-off windfall tax isn't going to mean they're going to disappear. They're not going anywhere. It's difficult to suggest that, because somehow a windfall tax would benefit people in Doncaster, we shouldn't be acting to also help people in Dundee. It just doesn't sound credible. We know that over 200,000 pensioners already live in fuel poverty. That number will only increase because of the crisis. Back in September, we warned that Scotland was facing a cost of living crisis and outlined proposals for an increase to the winter fuel payment. The winter fuel payment devolved to this Scottish Government, but rather than act handed back to the Tory-run DWP. The Labour-run Welsh Government, in contrast, did act, setting up a funding to provide £100 to help families struggling with energy bills and now they are doubling it to £200. Will the First Minister now back our proposals and increase the winter fuel payment? First Minister, I'll come on to what the Scottish Government can and is doing and will do in a moment. Just to go back to the issue of Alevi, I mean, Anasar was asking me about something that I have no power to do, but I have no ideological objection to companies who are having rising profits right now, whether that's because of the global increase in gas prices or the effects of the pandemic being asked to contribute. That includes oil and gas companies. I'm simply saying that if the UK Government is going to do that, they should do that fairly, so that all companies that can make a contribution do and that we don't just have another Westminster Government seeking to use only the north-east of Scotland, because it is people and jobs and investment, so it's about only using the north-east of Scotland for benefit that rightly should be shared across the UK. If that's what the UK Government decides to do, I'm certainly open to seeing the companies that can contribute making that contribution. On what the Scottish Government can do, let me talk about what we are already doing. I said earlier on that council tax bills in Scotland are already significantly lower—bancy £525 lower than in England. On the difference in Wales with a bancy council tax £376 lower on average in Scotland than in Wales, we have a council tax reduction scheme that gives 100 per cent relief to around 400,000 people in Scotland. That is not available in most parts of England, for example. On payments during the pandemic, around 500,000 households just towards the end of last year have a £130 support payment because of the pandemic. More recently and more relevantly to this issue right now, we have established the £41 million winter support fund, which is helping people to keep their homes, helping people with rising food costs and will allow support to be given to those who most need it. We will continue to do everything that we can, including passing on any and all consequentials that come from the Chancellor's announcements today. First Minister misses his point. Things are getting worse right now. People are getting pressure on their bills right now. Those are proposals that predated the cost of living crisis. The First Minister says that we should look at that tax across the board. The proposal was there on Tuesday that SNP MPs fail to vote for a tax on companies that are profiting $19 billion in one year. This is a Government that would rather play politics of the cost of living crisis rather than take the action using the powers that they have—a Government lacking ambition and failing to use this Parliament—a Government that stands with energy companies making £27,000 a minute and not with people struggling to pay their bills. They have refused to use the powers of this Parliament to top up winter fuel payments. They have refused to back Labour's proposals on a windfall tax on energy companies and they have refused to stop rises to rail fares and water charges. The SNP is siding with the Tories and big energy companies, Labour on the side of hard-pressed scots. People are struggling right now. When will the First Minister stop commenting on the cost of living crisis and start doing something about it? I know that the script was written before my answers, but Anasarra could still have listened to my answers. I am not opposed to oil and gas companies making a contribution because their profits are rising. I am not opposed to that. I am simply saying that those approaches should be fair and equitable. That is the point that I am making. I am also making the basic point that I do not have the power over that. If Anasarra wants to join me to demand those powers to come to the Scottish Parliament, we might make some progress. On the issue of what the Scottish Government can do, again, I am telling Anasarra things here that I am sure. I certainly hope that he knows. We have acted ahead of other Governments to try to deal with the cost of living crisis and particularly the energy cost crisis. The winter support fund that I spoke about a moment ago that we have recently established £41 million in total and £10 million to help people who are struggling to pay fuel bills, including access to top-up vouchers, better support for those in remote and rural areas, £6 million for third sector partners so that they can support directly low-income families, £25 million of flexible funding to help local authorities to support people in financial insecurity. We have already acted ahead of other Governments. If there are consequentials coming to us as a result of the Chancellor's announcements today, we will take further action and continue to look across our budgets to make sure that we are maximising the support that we have given. Scottish Water will announce its decision on increases shortly, and affordability for customers will be at the heart of that. Average water charges are lower in Scotland than in other parts of the UK, as are rail charges lower in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. We will continue to take the decisions that are necessary to support hard-pressed people, and we do far more of that than any other Government across those islands. We will now take supplementary questions, and I call Christine Grahame. First Minister, I would like to raise the issue of financial help to those who are qualifying for care and repair in installing heat and smoke alarms. What can they do if, in my constituency in part of Midlothian, there is no care and repair service? The council says that it has got nothing to do with them, and they have directed me on behalf of constituents to approach care and repair Scotland. I am not surprising that our phone is constantly engaged and emails go unanswered. We have already provided additional funding. We are also in discussion with care and repair about what further support can be provided. I take the point that Christine Grahame is making about people, including in her constituency, who do not have access to that, and I will ensure that the social justice secretary takes that into account and provides an update to Christine Grahame as soon as possible. Over six weeks ago, an open letter signed by over 50 North East councillors and business leaders was sent to both Scotland's Governments, decrying the potentially devastating impact of recent statements on oil and gas and North East jobs. Within four days, a detailed response backing the industry was received from the UK minister of state. The Scottish Government has not responded. When will the Scottish Government respond, or is this further evidence of how far the North East has fallen from this Government's concern? I think that everybody in the North East would have preferred it if, rather than writing a letter, the UK Government had reversed its decision on carbon capture and storage and actually made the investment in Aberdeen and the North East that people there want to see, investment that would support jobs and also aid our transition to net zero. Perhaps a bit less letter write from the UK Government and a bit more action and a bit more investment would go a long way. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today is time to talk day, which is the nation's biggest mental health conversation supported in Scotland by CME and the co-op and promoted by Trades Union such as us. Will the First Minister join me in congratulating all those groups who are organising time to talk events today? Does she agree that family, friends and communities coming together to talk about mental health is vital in supporting people? Further to that, what actions is her Government taking in response to the growing mental health crisis in Scotland, which is seeing more than one in five adults waiting in the excess of 18 weeks for support? First, I would take the opportunity to thank everyone involved with time to talk and encourage people across the country to engage with that campaign to talk to others if they are perhaps struggling a bit with their own mental health, but to look out for those in their own lives who may be doing so and to offer that help to them. It is a really, really important campaign and initiative. The Government is investing heavily in mental health services and we need to continue to do that. We obviously had rising demand putting pressure on services before the pandemic. That will even more be the case, even more the case now. We are increasing investment. We are also seeking to reform how services are delivered, not least for children and adolescents, and we will continue that work. However, we increasingly have to look at different, more innovative ways of providing mental health support. I had the privilege yesterday of visiting Scottish Opera in Glasgow to welcome the opening of the culture and entertainment sector and heard a lot about the work that it is doing with people who have been struggling, people with long Covid, for example, using the power of song and music and culture to aid people. I think that there are lots of organisations and people out there, as well as the Government investment in NHS services, that we can harness to ensure that we are a society emerging from this pandemic, recognising the trauma and the mental health impact of it and acting in an overall way to deal with that. It is a responsibility that the Government takes extremely seriously. Good to move to question 3. I am back to supplementaries as time allows. I call Brian Whittle. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to recent reported criticism of its plans for its deposit return scheme. The deposit return scheme, which is the first in the UK, will increase recycling cut litter by a third in Help Meets Scotland's climate targets. Among the most environmentally ambitious and accessible schemes anywhere in Europe, it will include online deliveries and tens of thousands of return points for plastic, metal and glass containers. It is disappointing that, due to the impact of Covid and Brexit on businesses and indeed the UK Government's decision to charge VAT on the deposits, that delivery this year is not possible. However, I have full confidence in the steps that industry, including Circularity Scotland, is taking to deliver DRS and look forward to seeing significant progress in the course of this year, including sign contracts to deliver infrastructure and logistics work beginning on counting centres. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Repeated delays, the use of a private company to avoid scrutiny and accountability, a staggering lack of detail about how the scheme will work in practice has left the public baffled and businesses worried. A recent pilot by the Welsh Government of a digital scheme allowing homeowners to participate in the DRS using kerbside collection and avoiding the need for bottles to be transported to the reverse vending machines has yielded some interesting results, yet the Scottish Government scheme has no facility for that. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government Minister for the Circular Economy has spent more time announcing delays than she has addressing the public's concern. From the outset, the Scottish Government has seen more interested in headlines crowing about beating the rest of the righted kingdom to the DRS than they have about settling out the details of how their system will work. Will the First Minister now accept that a practical and effective UK-wide system that takes a little longer to arrive would be a better option than the rust ill-thought-out mess that she and her Green Party partners are presiding over? I am not sure whether waiting for the shambles of a UK Government to get their act together or anything would be a wise decision for the Scottish Government to take. I am interested in Brian Whittle's criticism of what he described as repeated delays. The reason that I am interested in that is that it strikes me as utter hypocrisy, because here is what his colleague Annie Wells, Scottish Conservative MSP, said previously. I am quoting here, and this was in response to a previous announcement. Scottish Conservatives support the delay of implementation to July 2022 in light of Covid, but we do not think that that goes far enough, and she argued for it to be delayed even further. That strikes me as a bit of a change of position and yet another example of the utter opportunism and lack of any consistency or any principle at the heart of the Scottish Conservative Party. We are taking forward a scheme that will be the most environmentally ambitious and the most accessible scheme anywhere in Europe. We are working on the detail of delivery of that right now. Over the course of this year, we are going to see significant progress. We are going to see the contract signed. We are going to see the infrastructure start to take shape. We will have the first scheme in the UK, and I suspect that, if it is out of its current shambles, the UK Government might still only be thinking about it. To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on the Scottish Government's plans to hold an independence referendum. First Minister, we intend to. The People of Scotland, of course, elected this Government last May. Their democratic decision was to elect a Parliament with the biggest ever majority of MSPs in favour of an independence referendum. In line with the clear mandate given by people in that election, priority work is under way so that a referendum can be held, as I have said, as the Covid crisis passes and Covid permitting within the first half of this parliamentary term. The People of Scotland will have the choice to take her future into her own hands instead of being at the mercy of a disrebutable, discredited UK Government. I thank the First Minister for that reply. The First Minister will be aware that, since the referendum in 2014, a number of promises made by the no campaign, including Mr Sarwar's party, have been broken, including remaining in the EU, and also protecting the lower costs of food and energy. This week, through Graves report, it said that the parties that the Prime Minister and his colleagues put on were difficult to justify, and they were failures in leadership and judgment from within number 10 and the Cabinet Office. That is before the Met judges whether there was any criminality involved. Does the First Minister therefore agree with me that, as the SNP and Scottish Green Party manifestos offered, it is time to deliver on what the people voted for, have a referendum, win that referendum and then deliver our independence from a wretched and certainly seemingly corrupt Westminster? It is correct to say that I can say this without fear of contradiction that virtually every promise made by the no campaign in 2014 has since been broken. The crowning one of all those, of course, was the fact that, according to them, the only way to protect Scotland's membership of the European Union was to vote no to independence. Here we are ripped out of the EU against our will. Colleagues, can we please have a bit of quiet so that we can hear the First Minister? There is a key point here, because independence is about aspiration, empowerment and taking our destiny into our own hands so that we can build a better future. I think that it is because they fear the power of that positive argument that Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats want to deny Scotland the choice. Of course, what is the alternative right now to be governed by the First Minister? The First Minister is responding to the question. No one else in the chamber is responding to the question at this moment, and I am sure that we would all like to hear the answer. Any political party in this chamber that was confident in their arguments around independence would not be desperate to deny the people of Scotland the right to make that choice. The alternative to independence is to continue to be governed by parties at Westminster that we do not vote for. Right now, that is by a disreputable, discredited Government and a Prime Minister, frankly, with no integrity, no shame and no moral compass. A Prime Minister that even Douglas Ross does not think is fit for office. Scotland can do better than that, and with independence we will do better than that. Is it really now the SNP position that pensions in an independent Scotland would be paid by taxpayers in England? First Minister, I think that he should pay more attention to the UK Government's position on that. He might find that it gives him a bit of a shock, but let me set out the position. The Tories are really, really nervous about this argument. You can feel the discomfort coming from them, because they know that when the people of Scotland get the chance to escape Westminster Governments and take our future into our own hands, they are going to say yes to independence. When Scotland votes for independence, as was the case in 2014, the distribution of existing UK liabilities and assets, including those related to pensions, will be subject to negotiation and Scotland will fully pay its way in that. However, the key point here is for those in receipt of pensions, and it is what the Minister for Pensions at the time in the UK Government, Steve Webb, confirmed that people with accumulated rights would continue to receive the current levels of state pension in an independent Scotland. People will notice no difference. Perhaps the difference is that an independent Scotland might be able to improve the level of pensions rather than have, as the UK does, one of its lowest pension levels in the whole of the developed world. To ask the Scottish Minister whether the Scottish Government will give a commitment to keep ferry services in public ownership. I will be very clear in the commitment that we have no plans whatsoever to privatise public service ferries. Contrary to concerns that were expressed in recent press reports, we have no plans whatsoever to split up the CalMac network. Those ferry services are delivered through public contracts in line with relevant procurement, requirements and guidance. That ensures control over service levels, timetables and fares, and the contracts, of course, are operated right now by CalMac and Cerco Northlink. The report that gave rise to those concerns has yet to even be received by ministers. Once we have it, we will study it with interest but, by definition, it represents the views of the authors, not ministers. Katie Clark. I am pleased that the First Minister seems to have ruled out privatisation. Will she commit to publishing the report once she has it, rule out any parts of the current CalMac contract being awarded as a private contract as well as the full privatisation of CalMac? Does she accept that the current ferry's crisis is as a result of a failure to invest in new fleets since 2007, with more than 1,000 ferry salings delayed over the last five years due to mechanical issues? Will she commit to a long-term ferry plan to invest in new fleets as part of an industrial strategy to build in Scotland? Over the years of our Government, we have invested more than £2 billion in the Clyde and Heavies ferry service and in ferry infrastructure. Of course, we have also announced investment of £580 million in ports and vessels to improve ferry services over the next five years. That is part of the wider infrastructure investment plan. To come back to the thrust of the question, I did not seem to rule out privatisation. I did rule out privatisation. We have no plans whatsoever. We will not privatise our public service ferries and, equally, we have no plans to split up the CalMac network. That is the position of the Scottish Government and we will continue to invest in our ferry network to give people on our islands the service that they have every right to expect. Jenny Minto, as the First Minister has just said, the Scottish Government has committed £580 million to fund new ferries and port investments over the next five years. The soon-to-be-deployed MV Loch Frisa is the most recent example of the Scottish Government's strong commitment to our islands. Given the fragile nation of many island communities and their dependence on ferries, does the First Minister share my view that Labour's scaremongering on the future of ferry services is extremely unhelpful at a time when the Scottish Government is taking positive steps to combat the trend of depopulation in many Scottish islands? I absolutely agree with Jenny Minto that it is unhelpful for anybody to erroneously speculate about the future of our ferry services. That does a disservice not only to island communities but to the crews and staff at CalMac who strive to deliver lifeline services throughout the pandemic in really challenging circumstances. Let me take the opportunity to thank them for all their efforts. As I said in my previous answer, we fully recognise the need to invest properly to support the lifeline ferry network. That is underlined by the commitment that I have already referred to, the £588 million as part of the infrastructure investment plan. As has just been noted, that includes the purchase of the MV Lockfriza and will also support two new vessels for island infrastructure on the sky triangle and many other important projects. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is working with local authorities to reduce air pollution. Our new air quality strategy, which was published last year, sets out a series of actions to reduce air pollution over the next five years. We work closely with COSLA and local authorities on the delivery of those actions and provide £2 million per year in direct support. We are also introducing low-emission zones in Scotland's four largest cities, supported by £3.8 million of direct funding and additional £9.9 million is available for businesses and public transport and those most in need affected within those cities in this financial year. In addition, we have a £500 million funding commitment to active travel over the next five years and are committed to reducing motor vehicle kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030. The First Minister will be aware of the recent Friends of the Air Scotland report showing how far we have to go to protect public health from air pollution. East and Bartonshire Council in my region actually intend on removing the air quality management area covering Drummond Road and Bearsden, which includes Bearsden primary. That is on the basis of disputable conclusions about air quality improving in recent years, i.e. during periods of lockdown. Scottish air pollution limits are based on guidance published by the World Health Organization in 2005, but updated WHO guidance published last year explains why limits have to be far lower to protect people from harm. Bearsden's air quality management area even now is recording air pollution three times the WHO's new recommended limit. I ask the First Minister if the Scottish Government will delay consenting to the removal of any air quality management areas while it considers whether to adapt air pollution limits to better reflect the WHO's expert advice. Before I come on to the particular important local issue, let me deal again with the general point. The number of monitoring sites exceeding air quality objectives in Scotland is reducing. Targets are being met across the vast majority of Scotland, although there are some pollution hotspots in some of our cities and town centres. We work closely with local authorities and other partners to address those hotspots as quickly as possible. Of course, the commitment to low-emission zones in the four largest cities is an important part of that. The Scottish Government will await Eastern Bernthire Council's formal application to revoke the Bearsden air quality management area should that be forthcoming before making any final decision. I can assure Ross Greer that any decision that requires to be taken and falls to us to take will be very carefully considered and all the relevant data and advice will be taken into account. Of course, should revocation take place—I emphasise the word should—that is hypothetical, we would expect the council to continue air quality monitoring in the area and to continue implementing the measures set out in the Bearsden air quality action plan. First Minister, a recent report identified that thousands of women could be at risk from gambling harm in Scotland. That has been exacerbated during the pandemic. Gambling can have a serious detrimental effect on families, psychologically and physically. Can I ask what the Scottish Government can do to support those women to end the stigma attached to gambling, which can prevent them from seeking the urgent support that they require? That is an important issue. Certainly in the past, there have been complications around the devolved reserved split of responsibilities here. Nevertheless, the Scottish Government will consider any action that we can reasonably take. We will consider the report very carefully. Gambling can be a very damaging addiction, and I note the findings about women in particular being affected by that. We will consider that report carefully and consider what further actions we can take. I will ask the relevant minister, in due course, once we have had the opportunity to do so, to update the member accordingly. Despite the pain and suffering that we know to have been felt by many who have had surgical mesh implants, on January 25, the Scottish Government signed a deal with mesh providers to provide more mesh surgery for the next 24 months at a cost of £3.5 million. Given that we know the extent of post-operative problems with mesh, is the First Minister aware of any alternatives offered such as natural tissue repair? Given the experiences of mesh campaigners, will she commit to an independent review into all mesh use in Scotland so that we can better understand the scale of what seems to be an increasing problem? That is an important issue. In one, the Government has been working hard on a range of different ways with the contribution of MSPs from parties across the chamber to try to deal with the impact of mesh on women. I am going to study, if Carol Monaghan will allow me to study the detail of her question there and come back to her in writing, in case I do not deal with all the aspects of it in this answer. Of course, all surgical mesh has been suspended at the moment. Transvenginal mesh, the position introduced by Jean Freeman, stands. We have recently, in this Parliament, legislated to help to deal with some of the impact and we will continue to take all possible steps. I met, just before the pandemic, two groups of women with Jean Freeman and the then chief medical officer, Catherine Calderwood, for lengthy periods to hear directly from them about the impact. This Government is determined to take the action necessary to alleviate that and to learn lessons as well as we go forward. Thank you, Presiding Officer. ONS confirmed today that 100,000 Scots are living with long Covid, but a parliamentary answer that I received last week tells astonishingly that fewer than 1 per cent of them have been referred into Scotland's long Covid support service, fewer than 1 per cent. This is the principal Government-funded service for sufferers. Chess Heart and Stroke Scotland, who deliver the service, I know, are desperate to help more sufferers, but the Government has yet to instruct the care pathways that will see people referred into the service. Can I ask the First Minister to intervene and to sort this out? There is no need to intervene, because this work has been taken forward. Of course, people with long Covid will be receiving support at different levels and parts of the national health service. Many people will be receiving support from their GP, for example, and it is right that support is provided on a holistic basis. In terms of the additional action, the £10 million long Covid support fund is targeted specifically at areas where additional resource is needed and where it can make the biggest impact for people who need additional care and support. NHS national services division is currently establishing a strategic network to help identify those areas and also support the delivery of the framework that we outlined in the approach paper that we published recently. We have also launched a long Covid information platform on NHS Inform to help people to manage their symptoms, but it has also helped to ensure that people know about the support that is available to them. We will need to continue to develop the approach for a long time, given the nature of long Covid and to look at different ways—obviously, first and foremost, within the national health service—but different ways that people with long Covid can be properly supported. Thank you. That concludes First Minister's questions.