 Maen nhw ddim y cerdynu Llyfr�edig. Of Business Is First Minister's questions come after the next item. Question number 1. I call virus homeless roads. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. E9 is a main road in Scotland stretching from the central belt to the north. It's also one of the most dangerous roads in the country. The SNP promised to fully drill the E9 from Perth to Inverness in their 2007 manifesto, 16 years ago. Campaigners were in Parliament yesterday raising this issue once more. Recently, the Inverness courier highlighted the Government's broken promise on this issue with the tombstone on their front cover. After a further death last month, the paper followed up with another somber front page. It read, and this is my question to the First Minister, that the Scottish Government has no update on its delayed dualling project, leaving us all to ask how many more people have to die. First Minister. First and foremost, my thoughts are with every single person, family, community that has been affected by the tragic loss of life on the A9. Douglas Ross, the Inverness courier and others who have raised the issue, and I know many in my own benches who have raised the issue of the dualling of the A9, are right to look at this issue, of course, through the prism of safety on our roads. It is an issue around safety. That is why, since 2007, that commitment that Douglas Ross references, we have taken action. It has been £430 million of investment in the A9. Road users are benefiting, of course, from dualled sections already. We know Cengraig and Alrady, we know Lonkarty and the Pass of Burnham, which opened in September 2017 and August 2021 respectively. We are, I am, this Government is absolutely committed to dualling the A9. In terms of the timetable that is set out, Jenny Gilruth, when she was transport minister in February of this year, she, of course, rightly gave an update to Parliament in relation to the section Tomatin-Tamoy section. She made it clear that that could not go ahead because, of course, our obligations to public finance. During that update, she indicated that work was on-going, and we will conclude in autumn of this year to update on the renewed timescale for completion. However, what I would say to Douglas Ross, of course, does not preclude us from taking action in relation to safety and road work improvements in the A9. I can give some detail of that shortly. However, what I would say to Douglas Ross is that it is so important in these infrastructure projects that value for money, of course, is an obligation that we have to adhere to. Therefore, I would say to Douglas Ross that we will give that update on the other side of the summer recess in autumn 2023. However, anybody listening should be absolutely assured that we have a cast iron guarantee to continue the dualling work that we have already done and to ensure that we dual the A9 perth to Inverness. That is perhaps one of the most disappointing answers that I have ever heard in this chamber. Last year, deaths on the A9 were at a 20-year high. The First Minister was trying to say that the millions of pounds of investment and the upgrades that we have seen are a success. In a decade, the SNP has upgraded 11 miles of that route, just over a mile a year, and somehow that is a success while still too many families grieve the loss of a loved one. During his leadership bid, Hamza Yousaf claimed that dualling the A9 would be the first thing that I will do in office, but since his election, this is what Laura Hansler, who has been campaigning for improvements on the A9, has said. Hamza Yousaf made a lot of promises, so where are those promises? This week, his Government tabled a question to announce the latest procurement timetable for the A9, but it was withdrawn at the last minute. We do not believe that that has ever happened before in this Parliament, so can the First Minister tell us why that announcement was withdrawn? Will he use the opportunity today at First Minister's Questions to tell us what his Government had planned to announce earlier this week? The GIQ was withdrawn, and Douglas Ross, I do not know if he was in the chamber or not this week or doing one of his other jobs, but if he was here in this chamber, he would have seen that, of course, we have a new transport team in place. It is only right, of course, that I have asked that transport team to look at the detail of the dualling of the A9. It is also incredibly important for Government in particular that, when we give information to this parliamentary chamber, it is the most up-to-date and, of course, the most accurate information that we can provide. Today, of all days, of course, the Conservatives should understand the value of accurate statements made to this Parliament. I will ask, of course, and I have already asked the new transport team to look at the issue of the A9 dualling and, of course, update Parliament in due course in terms of safety, because I always bring it back to that issue of safety, which is so important when it comes to the dualling of the A9. We have an on-going programme of road safety improvements, so the fact that we are taking time in relation to the timetable of the A9 this summer does not preclude us, does not stop us from making those road safety improvements. For example, last year we spent approximately £100,000 to improve safety at three sites on the A9. We have also invested almost £400,000 to refurbish the average speed system between Dunblane and Inverness. Since January is part of £5 million of investment that we have delivered by 24.25, we have delivered lining and signing improvements around Dunkeld, additional signs that are being installed at key locations too. There are a number of other interventions that we have made. Of course, I go back to what I said at the beginning in my response to Douglas Ross's first question, that a single loss of life on our roads is not acceptable. That is why we have very ambitious targets in relation to reducing casualties and fatalities on our roads. The longer-term trend for road casualties in Scotland has been that downward trend. Since 2000, the number of people killed on our roads has decreased by 47 per cent, but I want us to go even further. That is why, of course, the dualling of the A9 is a priority for this Government and will continue to make progress on that priority. Douglas Ross The First Minister is trying to say that the change in the transport minister was the reason his Government took, as far as we are aware, an unprecedented step of withdrawing an announcement. The question was lodged at 3.47pm on Monday afternoon. It was just a little over 12 hours later that the new transport minister was in place. It was almost a week since the previous transport minister had resigned. Something happened. From Monday afternoon, when Jim Fairlie was asked as a backbench SNP to put in this question to get an announcement from the Scottish Government for it then to be withdrawn, the fact that we were going to have a new transport minister was known to the First Minister, to the Cabinet, to the entire Parliament. Why did it have to be withdrawn? What did the SNP want to tell this Parliament and Scotland about the A9 that it now sounds like the First Minister is not going to tell us until the autumn? Those are serious questions that need to be answered. We also heard this week from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association. They said that the civil engineering sector in Scotland has known for many years that the promise to Joly A9 by 2025 would not be met. They said that the SNP-run Transport Scotland is regarded by civil engineers as, and this is a quote from them, the worst client to work for in the UK. Does the First Minister have full confidence in his agency to Joly A9 from Perth to Inverness? Will he tell us what he plans to announce in Parliament this week that now seems to be delayed for months? I have already answered the question about the withdrawal of the GIQ and the new transport team in place. They are taking a look again at the timetable in relation to the A9 dualling. Of course, as I have said, it is so important that, when we are ready to announce this to this Parliament an update on the A9, we will absolutely do that. We will ensure, of course, that the update that we provide is accurate in terms of a statement that is made to this Parliament. I saw those criticisms from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association. I take those criticisms very seriously. I have asked Transport Scotland, who has already engaged with SICA before, to ensure that it continues to engage with the Civil Engineering Contractors Association to consider, for example, what improvements can be made both to our contract delivery, which is important, but also the procurement mechanisms that we have in place to maximise market interest in the new procurement. I think that there was a lot in there from SICA that we can reflect on, I would expect, and have told Transport Scotland that they should reflect on. In terms of Transport Scotland's ability to deliver infrastructure projects—I just remind Douglas Ross, of course—it is under the Scottish National Party Government that we have seen the delivery of the Queensfrey crossing, the Aberdeen western peripheral route, M8, M73, M74 motorway improvement projects and many other infrastructure projects, not just on road, but also, for example, in rail as well. We have a proud track record of investing in capital infrastructure here in Scotland, improving roads and improving rail right across the country, and that is the progress that I will look to ensure that we build upon. A proud track record that SNP politicians applaud has seen 11 miles of the A9 dualled in a decade, despite a decade and a half ago saying that it would be fully dualled. The First Minister is getting annoyed at having to repeat answers about this withdrawn question. He must have known that he was about to appoint a new transport minister. I have said that it was Monday afternoon that his Government asked one of his backbenchers to submit a question. Will he pledge now to publish all details between Government ministers, Transport Scotland and Special Advisers on what led to the decision that is unprecedented in this Parliament to withdraw that Government-initiated question? The fact is that the SNP has broken its promises to duall the A9 for 16 years, and there is still no end in sight, with devastating consequences for so many families. People from Persia to the highlands are scathing about this Government's record. They feel that they are being forgotten by SNP politicians at Holyrood. They say that failing to get this fixed is a dereliction of duty. Campaigners say that they fear that dualling the A9 will now take to 2050. Is it really going to take another 30 years to fulfil a promise made by the SNP more than a decade and a half ago? I come back to my very first question. How many more people have to die before this road is fully dualled? It is not going to take to 2050 to duall the A9. Of course, as I said, we will give an update to the Parliament, as previous transport secretaries have said, once that work is done over the course of the summer. One of the other challenges that we have with capital infrastructure projects is the increasing cost because of high inflationary costs. Something that the Conservatives should know well about, given that they have been the architects of the sky-high inflation that we have seen because of their economic mismanagement of the public finances. Of course, it is the Conservative UK Government that has repeatedly cut our capital budget over the years while we have to make extremely difficult choices. Even among those difficult choices, let me once again reiterate the cast-iron guarantee that we have of dualling the A9, building upon the progress that we have all ready made. Douglas Ross and his party— First Minister, I have already asked if members could resist any temptation to contribute while members are putting questions or responding to them. Issue of the GIQ, of course. I have already made it clear that we have a new transport team in place, and I have asked that new transport team to once again look at this issue. This is desperate stuff from Douglas Ross, who is trying to dodge, no doubt, deflect, of course, from the serious scandal that his party has engulfed with Boris Johnson, not just lying to the House of Commons but, of course, betraying the people of this country and the UK when they, of course, could not visit a loved one, when they could not attend funerals of a loved one, and they should not be shouting this down. When they could not attend the funeral of a loved one, Boris Johnson was breaking the rules and having parties in number 10, so Douglas Ross can try to deflect, he can try to dodge, but, of course, nobody in this country will forget that Douglas Ross backed Boris Johnson to the very hilt, Presiding Officer. Question number two, Anna Sarwar. Presiding Officer, earlier today the Government released its new cancer strategy. Cancer remains Scotland's biggest killer and brings anxiety and misery to thousands of people across Scotland every year. Identifying and treating cancer quickly saves lives, but the 62-day treatment standard has not been met in over a decade, and today's 10-year strategy has given no indication of when it will be met, and the action plan does not mention it at all. Can I ask the First Minister when the Government expects to meet the 62-day cancer treatment standard? Of course, the worst challenge is, as Anna Sarwar was right to say, even pre-pandemic in relation to the 62-day target. We had, of course, been achieving the 31-day target with consistency, and there are challenges because of the shock of the pandemic, which is, of course, further exacerbated, both the 31-day target and the 62-day target. In relation to the actions that we are taking, the cancer strategy is an important plan. It has, of course, been welcomed by many stakeholders, but what I would say to Anna Sarwar, he will understand the scale of the challenge that we are facing. We had to take, I think, probably arguably the most difficult decision that the Government had to make during the course of the pandemic, and that was to pause cancer screening for a number of months. We are working through that backlog, and what I would say to Anna Sarwar, although we are not meeting, as he was right to say, the 62-day target and the challenges still remain, although we are close to the 31-day target, we are not quite meeting it. We are seeing more patients in the last quarter than, for example, the quarter before, and we are seeing more people through both the 31-day pathway and the 62-day pathway. There is a range of actions that we are taking because, of course, cancer and the recovery of those waiting times, the recovery of the NHS is of the highest priority to this Government. The First Minister did not actually answer the question about when she expected to meet the target. I remind him that Covid did not start a decade ago, and that is at the level of time that they have not met the standard. Of course, we need a strategy and a plan, but we need the Government to deliver quality cancer care. Malcolm Graham is 76 and lives on Lewis. Last year, he had a tumor removed, but last month he was told the devastating news that his cancer was back in his liver and lungs. He has been waiting anxiously to hear about when his treatment would start, but this week he received this letter. We regret to inform you that, currently, we do not have an appropriate oncologist able to see you to supervise your on-going treatment. We are in discussion with the other cancer centres in Scotland, but they also have a shortage of oncologists and, as yet, have not been able to offer any assistance. That does sadly mean that you are likely to experience some delay and disruption to your treatment until we can find a replacement. Delay and disruption—this is life and death for people across the country. There is a shortage of oncologists across Scotland when cancer remains Scotland's biggest killer. After 16 years of SNP government, why is there no oncologist available anywhere in Scotland to treat Mr Graham? I am happy to look at the detail of the case. I do not have all the detail of the case, but I am happy to look at it if Anna Sauer wishes to send those details across. Of course, there is a global shortage of oncologists. We have been working over the past 16 years to increase the number of oncologists in Scotland. Since 2007, there has been an almost 100 per cent increase in consultant oncologists from 69.5 whole-term equivalents in September 2006 to 137.2 whole-term equivalents in the last statistics in December 2022. We have increased consultant radiologists by 60 per cent as well. We have increased consultant radiologists. In fact, we have a higher rate of consultant radiologists per head than in other parts of the UK. However, given the case that Anna Sauer has raised, given issues that have been raised around, for example, Tayside breast cancer service, we know that there is still work to do. That is why I set up, as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, task force to look at what more we need to do to attract oncologists to our hospitals, to our cancer services here in Scotland. To the individual case that Anna Sauer raises, I am, of course, happy to look into the detail of that. I want him to be assured that there has been action and will continue to be action to increase the number of consultant radiologists and, indeed, consultant oncologists working here in Scotland. I welcome the First Minister to look at the case and I suggest that he does it urgently, but it should not take bringing individual cases to this Parliament for people to get life-saving cancer treatment right across the country. There is a shortage of oncologists across Scotland and we have been raising the NHS workforce crisis for years. The strategy that he published today says that the workforce review will not conclude until 2026. People with cancer cannot afford to wait. The crisis is now. The 31-day standard repeatedly missed. The 62-day standard is not met in over a decade, and staff shortages are putting people's lives at risk. The SNP has been in government for 16 years, and today they have published a 10-year plan. Why does HUMSA use to think people across Scotland have to wait 26 years to get adequate cancer care? First Minister, I do not think that. Of course, pre-pandemic, we were consistently meeting the 31-day standard, although we have dipped just below the 95 per cent performance. The latest performance was 94.1 per cent. That means that over 9 out of 10 people are, of course, being seen within that 31-day target. The median waiting time for treatment remains at five days in relation to that particular pathway. I do not believe that people should have to wait longer. I go back to the point that I made in response to Anna Sauer's very first question. That is that we are treating over 35 per cent more people in the 62-day pathway than was the case, for example, 10 years ago. We are seeing more and more people through those pathways. Of course, we are doing everything that we possibly can and I will continue to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that we improve the performance on both the 31-day and 62-day pathways. We are also looking at how we can redesign our cancer services and what more we can do to add additional capacity. For example, we also have mobile MRI scanners, mobile CT scanners, which again are providing some additional capacity, often to hard to reach remote rural and island communities. The Government and I are entirely focused on the NHS recovery, but the highest priority is on the recovery of our cancer services. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the future and viability of rural schools. Rural schools play an important part in our communities, like many Western European countries. In particular, Scotland is facing a set of long-term population challenges. We know that that is particularly acute in some remote rural and island communities. That is why, in 2021, the Scottish Government published Scotland's first population strategy. In Scotland, there is a presumption against the closure of rural schools where local authorities plan to close the rural school. They are required to undertake a thorough and lengthy consultation process. That includes demonstrating the educational benefit of the closure, considering the impact of the school closure on the local community, and school travel arrangements in consulting the community on alternatives to closure. That process ensures that the impact of any decision is properly considered and options are explored. No school closure decision, of course, is ever and should ever be taken lightly. Last weekend, the Herald newspaper revealed that 40 mainly rural schools have been closed or mothballed in recent years. Colleagues across all parties in this Parliament have described those numbers as alarming and evidence of the blatant disregard that this Scottish National Party Government has for the rural and remote areas of Scotland. Families with young children in rural Scotland are being left high and dry by the SNP's neglect, and the SNP Government still has no plan for any of that. Now there are 15 more schools at risk of closure, including Blackness School in my constituency. Will the First Minister, like his predecessor, turn his back on rural Scotland, or will he take this opportunity to send a strong message of support for our rural schools? I simply do not agree at all with Stephen Kerr's characterisation, but let me take the issues in turn. First or foremost, these are decisions for local authorities to take. It is usually the Conservatives who are the first to complain if they perceive or believe that the Scottish Government is in any way interfering in local decision making. Let us allow and empower our local authorities to make the decisions in consultation with the local communities that they believe are right for them. Of course, it is the SNP that brought in further additional protections for rural schools. Those include, for example, clearly demonstrating that local authorities have considered alternatives to closure and assessment of the likely impact, of the community impact, on travel to school arrangements for local pupils, for example, that the local authority must set out educational benefits of the closure. If the proposal to close schools is rejected, then the local authority cannot repeat that process for another five years. A whole host of protections have been brought in by the SNP. Of course, depopulation is a serious issue, and that is why we have a range of actions that we are taking to address depopulation. In 2021, we published Scotland's first population strategy. The delivery of the strategy is overseen by a ministerial population task force, but what has not helped depopulation in remote rural island communities is a hard Brexit being imposed upon Scotland against our very well. That has seen that hard Brexit that has been imposed by Stephen Kerr and his colleagues, of course, has not helped with European migration to Scotland. If only Scotland had the powers to rejoin the European Union, perhaps we could reverse depopulation for good. Many rural communities are facing complex and long-term population challenges. Schools need pupils in order to be viable and school roles rely on communities retaining or attracting families into their area. Many rural communities are dealing with a legacy of out-migration and depopulation, much of which predates the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Can the First Minister set out what benefits the Scottish Government's rural visa pilot proposals could offer to schools in our rural communities? It is, I have to say, quite depressing to listen to the UK Conservative Party. At times, I am afraid, the UK Labour Party is competing a race to the bottom when it comes to the issue of migration. Let me state unequivocally that migration to this country has been good for Scotland. It has been good for years, for decades, to this country, and we welcome migrants to Scotland. Our rural visa pilot proposal, which was described by the UK Government's own Migration Advisory Committee, was described as, quote, "...sensible and clear in both scale and deliverability. It would enable rural and remote communities to attract migrants in line with their very distinct local needs, including, of course, bringing family members with them. That would offer an opportunity to bolster school communities in pilot areas, and pilot areas would also be enabled to address discreet local public sector workforce needs, for example, around teachers and further supporting communities to flourish." We continue to urge the UK Government, in the strongest possible terms, to engage with us and deliver the pilot scheme or even better. Just give us the powers over immigration, so that we can do it ourselves. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government plans to mark clean air day. We want and have the ambition that Scotland has, the cleanest air in Europe. While there, of course, is always room for improvement, clean air day is an opportunity to highlight the great progress that Scotland is making on improving air quality. For example, for the first time outside of recent lockdown periods, all monitoring sites in Scotland are meeting air quality objectives. This year, clean air day will see a variety of activity taking place from poster competitions for schools run by SEPA to local authorities running vehicle idling campaigns and businesses engaging with staff on eco-friendly commuting. Scottish Government is supporting clean air day through funding environmental protection Scotland and global action plan to provide the resources to organisations delivering clean air day activity. I wonder if he would join me in thanking Health Air Scotland Coalition for their work and share my enthusiasm for the LEZ in Glasgow and the help that it is giving for people with respiratory problems. Would he also congratulate Glasgow City Council on that? Would he share my concerns that the UK Government is potentially revoking the European Air Pollution Regulations under the amended retained EU law? I welcome the work of the coalition. I also congratulate Glasgow for the work on the LEZ. I can hear Jackie Baillie opposing the LEZ, but that was not, of course, Scottish Labour's position when they voted for the LEZ, neither at their local level or, indeed, a national level. Of course, we know that the Scottish Labour Party will oppose anything that the SNP brings forward just for the sake of it. LEZs are being introduced to improve air quality and support Scotland's wider emission reduction ambitions, as well as to protect Scotland's health. That is, of course, the point. That is at its heart a public health issue. That is why the likes of Asma and Lung UK Scotland have supported the introduction of the low emission zones. We are very concerned at the UK Government's decision to revoke the UK-wide national air pollution control programme provisions through the retained EU law bill, especially as they appear to have no plan in place to replace those crucial provisions. Scottish Government officials do continue to engage with counterparts across the UK to try to resolve that. However, we will not hesitate to act to protect Scotland's devolved interests and the health of the people of Scotland. Liam Kerr. Very grateful. Reducing car travel is key to clean air, yet the Scottish Government cut bus funding by £37 million by ending the network support grant plus, and recently dismissed my campaign to reopen coven Newton hill stations to slash traffic entering Aberdeen. When will the Scottish Government deliver a route map to the 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres and stop discouraging people from taking public transport? Of course that was Covid funding that we gave to the sector, understandably so, to support them during the course of lockdown and the course of the pandemic. It was, of course, the UK Government that unilaterally withdrew Covid funding. I know because I was, of course, the health secretary here in Scotland at the time when they took that decision to unilaterally withdraw any Covid funding. So we have a good record in relation to helping not just the bus industry but investing in public transport. What doesn't help is every time we look to bring forward a measure that helps to tackle the climate emergency, it's supposed time and time and time again by the Scottish Conservatives. Question number five, Brian Whittle. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reported concerns that its proposals to ban gas and other direct emission heating systems in new-build homes from next year could have a serious adverse impact on the housing sector. As the First Minister is right on cue, the new-build heat standard will apply to all new buildings with a warrant from next April. It means that new homes will be fitted with a climate-friendly heating system at the outset and so will be future-proofed against having to be retrofitted a few years later. The standard is just one part of Scotland's programme to meet our legal climate change targets, targets that every single party in this Parliament voted for. Lord Devin, a former Conservative Secretary of State in his role as chair of the Climate Change Committee, has highlighted that England will follow the same path a year later and has urged the UK Government to meet the same timescales as here in Scotland. There has been extensive consultation, extensive engagement with the industry since 2019 on the proposals and we will continue to constructively work with them to overcome any remaining barriers to delivery. I thank the First Minister for that reply, but the Scottish Government's plans for zero carbon heating are shaping up to be another Scottish green-led mess. On new homes, the housing sector are warning that fewer homes will be built and prices will rise. On retrofitting, the industry has serious doubts that the supply chain can even produce the 1 million heat pumps that the Scottish Government has pledged to install by 2030. Even if it can, there are not enough people qualified to install them. The construction industry has told me that Scotland needs over 20,000 new engineers and tradespeople by 2028 to have even a hope of meeting that goal. Instead of thousands of new students in training, we have Patrick Harvey crowing about another world-leading target. Big targets are not a substitute for detailed plans and it is obvious to everyone, but the First Minister, his Green Minister's contribution to net zero, is mostly hot air. What is more important to the SNP, a green Scotland or the Scottish Greens? What is most important to the Scottish Government is making sure that we have a sustainable planet to hand on to our future generations to come. Let me respond to Brian Whittle on the response from the industry. He is wrong to categorise it as universal opposition. That is not the case. Let us see some of the reaction from some of those in the house building industry. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, and I quote directly, is supportive of the need to improve the energy performance of new buildings and minimise the negative environmental impacts associated with heating our homes. Our members have already built high-quality homes that exceed the minimum standard of the building regulations. We are therefore supportive of plans to regulate all tenures through changes to building standards. Let us look at what Barrett Development's PLC has to say. Barrett Development's PLC supports the Scottish Government's efforts to meet its statutory climate change targets, and the new buildings should be sustainable and fit for the future. Tullock Homes says that, from our direction within the Springfield group, we have already embraced the shift away from direct emission heating systems and have been delivering ASHP and other associated technologies within the group across the country for over 15 years. We are supportive of the Scottish Government's principal intentions on new build standards and the net zero heating pathway. The trouble, of course, for the Scottish Conservatives is that they think that when it comes to the climate emergency, we can just wish it away. They voted quite rightly so for those ambitious world-leading targets, and then they oppose every single action that we bring forward to do something about it. The Tories oppose measures to reduce city centre traffic, the U-turn on glass recycling, and they now oppose new heating standards. Therefore, the Scottish Conservatives should get off the fringes, join the consensus in this Parliament and in this country, and take serious action that is required to tackle the climate emergency in this country. The First Minister agreed that the many benefits of the new build-heat standard will only be fully realised when the UK Government does what it has been promising to do for many years now and rebalances fuel prices to stop electric heating, which is over three times the price of gas from being penalised. Wella Coffey is absolutely right. I believe that the new build-heat standard will deliver a range of benefits as it stands. However, I agree on the importance of this particular issue. We have been urging the UK Government for some time to deliver on its commitment to publish proposals to rebalance fuel prices, which would make the running costs of zero-emission heating systems lower than those of gas boilers. However, I am afraid that, time and again, when it comes to serious action, when it comes to bold action, when it comes to radical action, all that we see from the UK Government, I am afraid, is inaction. Willie Rennie There are several housing estates in my constituency in North East Fife in recent years that have had gas boilers installed on them, which I think is idiotic, especially when we are trying to deal with climate change. However, can the First Minister agree to send his minister to discuss with the sector their concerns about the installation of gas boilers? I think that it is important that we use new technologies, such as air-source heat pumps, to try to deal with the big challenge that we face. It might be hard, but we need to get on with it. I am absolutely happy to engage. He is right. It will be hard. The action that we have to take in tackling the climate emergency is not easy. That is why you can take the path that the Conservatives choose to take, which is not taking that tough action. We can take the action that I think is supported by Willie Rennie and the mainstream and, indeed, most of this Parliament, which is taking that tough action. There are real challenges in relation to the ambitious targets that we have in relation to climate friendly heating systems. One of those issues, for example, is the skills that are needed to install those heating systems. Of course, the supply chain is required. Those are very serious issues that are well raised by Willie Rennie. We will engage with him and the sector, as we have already done, to ensure that we overcome those challenges together. Question 6, Christine Grahame. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I declare an interest as a member of the SSPCA and convener of the cross-party group on annual welfare. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reports that Scotland's leading annual welfare charity, the Scottish SPCA, is in financial crisis. The Scottish Government takes very seriously the issue of animal welfare. I thank Christine Grahame for drawing this important matter to my attention and to Parliament's attention. I think that anybody would recognise that Christine Grahame has had a long-standing record in raising issues around animal welfare for many, many years in this Parliament and, indeed, out with this Parliament. Sadly, I am afraid to say the often callous approach by the Conservative Government, which is failing to help people, failing to help communities, failing to help charities to cope with unacceptably high inflation levels, is all too pervasive. Chatties like the Scottish SPCA, which are in the front line of the impact of the cost of living crisis, are no exception. So I do share Christine Grahame's concerns. I have asked officials to liaise with the Scottish SPCA to provide support and to fully understand the issues that it faces. Christine Grahame, I thank the First Minister for his answer. Companion animals in particular play a huge role in helping people's mental well-being, but inflation, as the First Minister's reference, has put huge pressures on the costs of providing them and heartbreak for those who find they simply have not the resources to keep them. That puts more pressure on the Scottish SPCA and other animal welfare charities. At the same time, those charities have themselves to cope with inflation. For the Scottish SPCA, for example, it costs £56,000 a day to run 14 per cent up on last year. Will the First Minister, following the discussions that his officials are having with those charities, report back and let us see where those discussions have gone? I just heard, while I was giving my response to Christine Grahame's initial question, the Conservatives mumbling what has this got to do with the UK Government. If they haven't figured out what the cost of living crisis has got to do with the Conservative Government, I suspect that, when it comes to the next general election, they will find out in pretty brutal fashion. No one should have to give up a loved family pet. Keeping pets and people together is the best way to protect animal and human welfare. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the work that is delivered by the Scottish SPCA's pet aid scheme. The initiative aims to support people and pets who are struggling by providing essential food supplies for animals through a network of food banks right across most of Scotland. Officials hold regular meetings with the Scottish SPCA to discuss current issues and provide support where appropriate through policy advice, through sharing of wider communications. I will update Christine Grahame on the latest discussions that I have asked officials to have. Finally, I urge anyone who is struggling to care for their pet to call the animal helpline in strictest confidence, because there is help, advice and support available. Yesterday was World Blood Donor Day, and I am delighted to be hosting the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service in Parliament immediately after FMQs. I would like to ask the First Minister if he shares my view about this immense NHS service. I thank all those who give blood to save lives, and I encourage others to consider doing so. I absolutely agree with Russell Finlay. On that, I will come down to the photo call and try to do my bit to raise awareness of World Blood Donor Day. Of course, this Government has a really proud track record on extending and increasing the eligibility of those who can give blood something that I am personally proud of. We should all be proud of as a Parliament, as a country, and anything that we can do collectively to raise awareness and promote awareness is exceptionally important. Many of us—most of us, I suspect, in this Parliament—have given blood at some point or another. It is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that we should continue that very good habit indeed. Paul Sweeney. The First Minister will be aware that I have been contacted as he will have been as well by constituents in Firefighters in Glasgow regarding the proposed cuts by the fire service to facilities in the city and provision. As well as the withdrawal of three fire engines, it is proposed that Polmody's station's dedicated rescue boat crew, which covers the River Clyde, will be removed and 15 positions will be lost from the station. So, rather than having dedicated 24-hour rescue boat crew cover for the River Clyde, there will only be one crew at Polmody to cover both the fire engine and the rescue boat simultaneously. 22 river rescues were carried out by the dedicated boat crew last year alone. Next week is drowning prevention week, so, in that spirit, will the First Minister commit to keeping the dedicated, life-saving Clyde rescue boat crew? I am, of course, happy to look at the issue that Paul Sweeney raises in more detail. Of course, many of the matters he does raise are operational matters, but I am happy to look at the issues raised by Paul Sweeney when it comes to the Scottish Fire and Rescue service. We have continued our commitment to support SFRS delivery and reform with a further uplift of £10 million in resource this financial year 23-24. In recognition of the pay and inflation repressions that I have already referenced, we have provided SFRS with additional budget cover of up to £4.4 million on top of the allocation. We remain supportive of reform of our public services, and that includes the Scottish Fire and Rescue service. In common with all public bodies in Scotland, it is right that SFRS does continue to review its operations, ensure that what it is doing is effective, delivering value for money and, of course, SFRS would ensure that they are doing that in collaboration, in conjunction with communities, and, of course, safety is of the highest priority to the Scottish Fire and Rescue service. I will look at the issue again in further details that Paul Sweeney has asked me to do. It is estimated that 90,000 fewer children will live in relative and absolute poverty this year as a result of Scottish Government policies. That is a significant achievement, given that the Scottish Government has limited powers and a fixed budget. What further actions could the Scottish Government take to tackle child poverty if key welfare, tax and employment powers were held in this Parliament? Collette Stevenson makes an incredibly important point indeed, and I have mentioned on many occasions in this chamber that the defining mission of the Government that I lead will be on reducing poverty and child poverty, in particular building upon the excellent progress that was already made by my predecessor. That progress report that was published this week shows our focus on tackling child poverty is making a significant and tangible difference. As Shirley-Anne Somerville said earlier this week, it is like having one hand tied behind our back. There is only so much that the Scottish Government can do. We can take all the action that we possibly can, and we will, to pull people out of poverty. Frankly, we have a cruel Conservative Government of Westminster overseeing not just a hard Brexit, not just mishandling our economy, but regressive welfare cuts over years and years and years that have plunged people into poverty. If I just take one example, the Tories reversed the welfare reforms that they have already imposed since 2015, they would lift an estimated 70,000 people out of poverty, 30,000 children out of poverty. There is no doubt that our ambition is to tackle child poverty. They are restricted, which is why we continue to argue for the full powers to tackle inequality to be in our hands as opposed to in the hands of a Conservative Westminster Government. Can the First Minister update the chamber on the Scottish Government actions to campaign for the approval of emergency use of Azulox for Bracken control in Scotland? Will he commit to reversing the appalling decision to remove support for Bracken control through the agri-environment scheme? If reinstated will improve biodiversity, it will protect heather for pollination and it will protect walkers and workers against Lyme disease, which the ticks carry. As I said previously, we are willing to look at the issue, but we are following, of course, the agreed process, the process that has been followed for many, many years. We have, of course, as a Scottish Government, provided a submission to the health and safety executive. I think that we are waiting for other Governments across the UK to do so similar. Of course, I will look at this issue because it is an important issue that has been raised by many members right across the parliamentary chamber. We do know about the potential risk of uncontrolled Bracken. If there is an update from the health and safety executive, I will ensure that this Parliament is informed expeditiously. I lodged the final proposal for my safe access zones bill, and I want to thank campaigners, those who contributed to the consultation and MSPs across the chamber for their support. Could I invite the First Minister to take this opportunity to reaffirm his support for the bill and encourage others to sign the final proposal this afternoon to show that this Parliament will not just stand up for reproductive rights but will advance them and strengthen them? I agree with every single word of Gillian Mackay's question, and I am very happy to reaffirm my support. Women should be able to access abortions without judgment. It is simply not acceptable for anyone to experience harassment, intimidation or unwanted influence as they access what is essential healthcare. I would not have been the only one that was moved from—it was a video made by one of the doctors, Dr Greg Irwin, at the Glasgow facility when he was talking about our own mothers, our own sisters, our own nieces accessing healthcare, trying to access healthcare in the face of that intimidation. I am delighted to see that Gillian Mackay has published the consultation analysis and the final bill proposal on safe access zones. That represents the next stage in bringing forward this essential legislation. I congratulate her for the amount of work that she has put in to get to this point. She can be absolutely assured of the Scottish Government's commitment to giving her our full support, and I urge members across the chamber to back her proposals. In February this year, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety confirmed that the car wash sector was high risk for labour exploitation. The Minister also confirmed that 39 premises were attended by police across the country, and a number of offences were detected and persons safeguarded. In light of this, can the First Minister advise whether the Scottish Government would consider implementing a licensing scheme for a car wash in Scotland to ensure practices such as human trafficking and modern slavery are prevented in this trade? I thank Faisal Troghry for raising what is an incredibly important issue that I know and an issue that is very close to his heart and that he has raised on a number of occasions publicly to this Government. I am pleased to say that the vast majority of this Parliament shares our ambition to eradicate all this Parliament and to eradicate human trafficking. We will work right across the UK with other Governments where necessary, where some of those powers are reserved to do what we can to eradicate human trafficking. The very specific issue that Faisal Troghry asked me in relation to looking at a licensing scheme, I will take the issue that he raises away. I will give it the due consideration that he asked me to do, and I will make sure that the appropriate Minister writes back to him in due course. That concludes First Minister's questions. The next item of business is a member's business debate in the name of Emma Harper. There will be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.