 Rhy syst dim ddufaswythnyddio tydydd wir chlasen y dynnas de Met favosus ddiddiaeth ur Gymraeg Hyfridd y roi gall chi i fเลch â drwng失 hwn opposite sydd yn gystal y bennosiaid nifern Unionid Year Cymraeg ond rbyn credu unrhyw sydd yn menuad rhych ei redes newydd, ond sydd yn Cadw Lleithwyr lle maen nhw went wydd i ni hynny i gyd Un Dr, mae fawr yn hyn y gall i gydag yn fan'ill maen nhw'n ni wedi i gychydag yn hwnnclass ar y honna. Ruth Davidson? That's great. It's unacceptable. It won't be £1,200. What we need to know now is how many will it be. Will it be £600 or £800? Police Scotland is facing a £30 million black hole, so we know that the cuts are coming and people out there have a right to know where they're going to fall. We already know the extreme pressure that's on Police Scotland and the effects that are becoming clear. This week, we learned that 872 charges, including firearms offences, including drug dealing, including child sex crimes, had to be dropped last year because police reports were filled in too late. When action is dropped against hundreds of suspects in cases as serious as these and it's all down to officers being overworked under pressure and flooded by paperwork, it's clear that something is very wrong. If that's the case, how can any cut to front-line policing be justified? I have to admit to being somewhat bemused by Ruth Davidson's line of questioning, because she started off by saying to me that it had emerged this week. The issue about police numbers has not emerged this week. It actually emerged in June last year when policing 2026 strategy was published. I believe that the justice secretary came to this chamber to make a statement about it. What he said, among other things, was that officer numbers will remain significantly above the situation that we inherited. That will continue to be the case. However, as part of policing 2026, the police have asked for the ability to rebalance the workforce to take account of the changing nature of policing and its plans to increase operational capacity by moving officers from backroom to front-line roles. That was all set out in June last year, as it was the plans to reduce police officer numbers by up to 100 in 2018-19 and 320 in 2019-20. When Ruth Davidson says that we have to be clear about this, I would simply say to her that we were clear about this last year and it's not really my fault or the justice secretary's fault that Ruth Davidson wasn't paying attention. Of course, that has all been independently monitored and assured by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. They have confirmed that, during last year, Police Scotland made good progress in moving around 85 officers from support roles into the front line and confirmed that they were on course to increase that number. They have given assurance that Police Scotland's commitment to bringing the budget into balance in a sustainable way did not reduce operational capacity, so that will continue to be monitored and assured. On the second issue that Ruth Davidson raised around delayed police reporting to the Crown Office, that is regrettable and we want to ensure that that does not happen. Let me put it in context. The numbers that Ruth Davidson has cited today account for not 0.3 per cent of the overall number of cases, and that is the context. We will continue to make sure that Police Scotland is timious in what it does, because that is important. I am sure that Ruth Davidson would not want to give a misleading impression to the chamber. I am sure that 872 victims of crime who did not see those crimes prosecuted are delighted to hear the answer that the First Minister has just given about how little their crimes and the crimes against them matter to her. However, here is what is puzzling to police officers, because the justice secretary claims that reductions to police numbers are fine, because more police time will soon be dedicated to the front line. Yesterday, the police federation said that they were baffled by the justice secretary's claims, because they see no evidence of officers being freed up to spend more time on the front line. Who should we trust here? The First Minister and her Government that says that everything is fine, or Scotland's front line police officers who say that no, it is not? I cited her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in my previous answer, and I would hope that all of us, regardless of any political differences, would trust HMICS. Let me repeat again what I said in my previous answer, and perhaps Ruth Davidson would listen to that. They have confirmed that, during 2017-18, Police Scotland has made good progress in moving approximately 85 officers from support roles into the front line, and they confirmed that Police Scotland is on course to increase that number. Of course, it is to them that we look for independent assurance that that increase in front line capacity is being delivered. Let me repeat that the numbers that were published this week show that the number of police officers in Scotland remains 963 more than the figure that we inherited in 2007. In the rest of the UK and England, where Ruth Davidson's party is in government, we have seen a decline in police officer numbers of around 20,000 over recent years. We will continue to make sure that we keep police officer numbers above the level that we inherited, and we will continue to support the police, of course, with real terms increases in the resource budget, to make sure that they can continue to do the excellent job that they are doing in keeping crime at historically low levels. You always know when the First Minister has had to go on the back foot, because then she looks to England or Wales or anywhere apart from her own responsibilities in Scotland. The facts are these. We were all told—the country was told—that the creation of a single force would free up resources and provide huge savings to spend on front-line policing. The reality is that, five years on, we have a £30 million black hole in their accounts, we have officer numbers going down and we do not know how many more are for the acts. We have front-line officers saying that they are not getting the equipment or the time that they need to do the job. We have hundreds of crimes that are going unprosecuted because police are overworked. While money is short, this is the moment that the SNP is proposing to spend £0.5 million per officer on merging British transport police with Police Scotland, a move that raises serious security risks. Scotland's police officers are asking how can they be expected to do their job in those circumstances? Can the First Minister answer them? Police officers are doing a fantastic job up and down the country, but let's inject some reality into this exchange. I have already cited Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Let me do so again, quoting from their most recent annual report. This is the reality across Scotland. Operational performance remains strong for the fourth year of the single police service, with officers and police staff at all levels committed to providing a good service to communities across Scotland. Users of policing remain positive about their experience. Of course they do. The vast majority of people in Scotland experience no crime whatsoever. Crime is at a 43-year low in Scotland. The majority of people believe that their local police do either a good or an excellent job, and the Scottish Crime and Justice Service shows that crime has fallen by more than a third just since 2008-9. Of course, our police service, like our other public services, partly because of the austerity being imposed by the Conservative party, faces real challenges. Under this Government, they are getting real terms and increases in their resource budget. We are going to continue to protect police officer numbers significantly above the level that we inherited, and we are going to continue to support our police officers to do the excellent job that they do every single day of the week. Yesterday, the Samaritans warned that suicide prevention was not being taken seriously enough by the Government that it is not a top priority. First Minister, are the Samaritans wrong? First Minister? No, I would not for a minute say that the Samaritans are wrong. We are looking to work closely. I think that we are working closely with the Samaritans and with other organisations as we finalise the new suicide prevention strategy. That is a strategy that is intended to make sure that we have the best facilities in place for those who need help, and we will continue to do that. Maureen Watt, the Public Health Minister, has already been clear that the feedback from the draft strategy will be listened to and built on in shaping the final strategy. I hope that all those with an interest in that feel able to contribute in that way, and I thank those who have done so so far. Scotland's suicide rate is more than twice as high as the rate for Britain as a whole. In Dundee, suicide rates have increased by 61 per cent in a year. Behind each of those statistics are real people and real families who have lost loved ones, such as the family of David Ramsey. In the autumn of 2016, David made three separate attempts at suicide in the space of a week. After harming himself after attempting to take his own life by overdosing, David's family convinced him to seek urgent help from his doctor. His GP referred him to the Cassview Centre in Dundee because the GP believed that, in her words, he required admission. Twice he had emergency assessments and twice he was turned away. It then took over 32 hours for him to get his medication. A care plan was supposed to have been drawn up for him. It has never been seen and is now missing. David hung himself on the morning of 9 October 2016. Four days after being turned away by the centre, he was 50 years old. Tragically, David's story and the experience of his family is not unique in Dundee. When I was in Dundee in March, I backed the call by families for a public inquiry into mental health services at NHS Tayside. First Minister, why has your Government remained silent on this crisis and silent on this demand for a public inquiry? First Minister. First Lady, can I take the opportunity to convey my deep condolences to the family of Mr Ramsay? I understand that a member of his family has been in touch with the Scottish Government. I understand that the Public Health Minister sent a reply to that relative last month. Richard Leonard raised his issues relating to car's view in NHS Tayside. I do not think that it is right or fair to say that the Government has remained silent. I know that the health secretary has visited car's view on a number of occasions. The mental welfare commission, as I understand it, carried out an unannounced inspection of car's view in March and made a number of recommendations. Let me be very clear today, as I know the health secretary and mental health minister will already have been, that we expect NHS Tayside to fully respond to those recommendations within three months. They have also, as I understand it, been shared with Healthcare Improvement Scotland. We will pay very close attention to NHS Tayside's response, and if there is further action that we consider is required, that action will be taken. Richard Leonard. First Minister, dozens of families want this inquiry. David's niece Gillian and his father David are in the gallery today. They have had to come to Edinburgh because this Government has ignored them. Gillian wrote to you directly, First Minister, in June last year, and then again in February of this year. But nothing has changed. This is yet another family, failed by your Government. So, First Minister, how many more families must be failed? How many more families need to suffer before you finally recognise that now is the time for change? First Minister. First, again, I convey my condolences to the family, as I have already said, that there has been communication with the family of Mr Ramsey. I think that it is important to say, though, that I am going to repeat what I said earlier, because it is simply not the case that no action is being taken. As I said previously, the Mental Welfare Commission has carried out an unannounced inspection. Recommendations have been made. It is now the Government's expectation, and it should be everybody's expectation, that NHS Tayside responds to and implements those recommendations. We will monitor that very carefully. In terms of a wider inquiry into the individual case or any other cases, of course, it would be open to law officers to order a fatal accident inquiry. That is a matter for law officers, not for ministers. However, we will continue to monitor the changes that are made by NHS Tayside. In addition to that, I know that there is going to be additional investment in locally-based preventative mental health treatment, as well as additional investment in Carseview to improve the quality and standard of care that is provided to the population of Tayside. Returning to my earlier answer about the new suicide prevention strategy, that is extremely important. Richard Leonard referred to suicide rates in his first question, or his second question. My view is quite simple. One suicide is one too many, but it is important to recognise that, while those numbers will fluctuate from year to year, the five-year rolling average shows suicides on a downward trend in Scotland. Our responsibility is to make sure that we accelerate that progress and make sure that action and investment are being taken to support that. I hope that we can agree that this is the kind of issue that all of us should be prepared to work collaboratively on. We will continue to do our job in making sure that NHS Tayside responds to recommendations and also take action to ensure that we have the best possible suicide prevention strategy in place, which is expected to be published in the summer of this year. A number of constituency supplementaries is the first from Kenneth Gibson. The First Minister will be aware that EDF owners of Hunterston B power station in my constituency have shut down reactor 3 until the end of 2018 for repairs as a precaution after expected new Kiwi root cracks were found in the reactor core to be happening at a slightly faster rate than expected. Rightly EDF has put the safety of its workforce and local communities first. I understand that the First Minister will meet EDF's new chief executive, Simone Rossi, at 2 p.m. today. Will she seek assurances that safety will remain EDF's number one priority and that once repairs are fully completed, Hunterston B will continue to operate at least until its plan closure in 2023 prior to the commencement of decommissioning? Yes, I will raise those points. As the member mentions, I have a meeting with EDF this afternoon that was arranged some time ago. We are in regular contact with EDF, as well as with the Nuclear Safety and Security Regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, on this very important issue. I know that the company is seeking to reassure the public about safety at Hunterston. For our part, we are always very clear that the Scottish Government expects the strictest environmental and safety standards to be met at Scotland's nuclear power stations, and I will be happy and indeed keen to seek the company's further assurance on this point when I meet them today. Claire Baker Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today is the third anniversary of the death of Shekou Bayou in police custody. We are still waiting for full details of what happened that morning and three years is a long time for a family to wait. Is the First Minister confident that the park has the appropriate powers, capacity and leadership to investigate death in custody? Following the independent inquiry into the deaths in England and Wales, which was chaired by Dame Elish Angiolini, will the Scottish Government now commit to undertaking inquiry into death in custody in Scotland to restore confidence in the system? I thank Claire Baker for raising my thoughts, and I am sure that the thoughts of everybody across the chamber, particularly today, are with the family and friends of Mr Bayou. That, of course, is a live investigation and therefore members will understand that I require to be careful about what I say. The Crown Office has to undertake further work before a decision can be made as to whether or not there should be any criminal proceedings. It is a complex investigation but I know that the Crown Office has indicated that a decision will be made as soon as possible. The previous Lord Advocate made clear in 2015 that, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, a fatal accident inquiry will be held. That will, hopefully, provide public scrutiny into the circumstances of the tragic incident. Claire Baker asked me two further points. First, whether I was satisfied that the park has sufficient resources to meet the demands placed upon it—yes, I am—in recognition of the additional demands that are faced by the park, we acted already to ensure that its budget for this financial year has increased by more than £1 million. Lastly, in relation to Dame Elish Angiolini's review of deaths in police custody in England and Wales, there are robust structures in place in Scotland. The Lord Advocate is the head of the investigation of deaths system here, and the Crown Office can already ask her to carry out an independent investigation into a death in police custody. Custody arrangements in Scotland are distinct from those in England and Wales. For example, since 2014, healthcare in police custody has been delivered by the NHS to ensure that services are as effective as possible. The Angiolini report urges the UK Government to implement that approach in England. We will continue to consider whether any further action is necessary, but I hope that my answer gives some reassurance to the member today. Annie Wells Thank you, Presiding Officer. On Tuesday, a car crashes in Springburn, which has now been treated as attempted murder. A few weeks ago, a man got shot and killed by a masked gunman in Maryhill Road, only a couple of hundred yards from my office, and in March a man was shot at and stabbed in a residential street in Springburn, very close to my home. Those are extremely serious and violent crimes that have happened within weeks of one another within a relatively small area. Obviously, local residents are very concerned. What reassurances can the First Minister give to the community that the Scottish Government is working alongside Police Scotland to prevent crimes such as that taking place? First Minister, those are all very serious incidents. I know that Annie Wells will appreciate that some, if not all of them, continue to be the subject of police investigation, and therefore it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail. Suffice to say, the police are very active in tackling serious and organised crime. The Justice Secretary and I are regularly briefed by the police in their efforts in progress. In that, the Crown Office has had some very recent success in bringing serious and organised criminals to justice, and I can give an absolute assurance that the Scottish Government will continue to work closely with the police and, indeed, with the Crown in making sure that that happens, and that the public can be assured that those crimes are treated very seriously. Colin Smyth This week, Professor John Cole published his independent inquiry into the flawed construction of the DG1 leisure complex in Dumfries. There are lessons for the council. He concluded that full responsibility for the defective construction lay with the contractor care construction. From breaches in the law, when it came to building warrants, to a fire escape strategy that completely compromised safety, their actions, in my view, were criminal. Does the First Minister therefore believe that it is still acceptable that care construction continues to rake in millions of pounds from the taxpayer building schools and hospitals for the Scottish Government? Given that Professor Cole concludes that there are striking similarities in the safety-related failings by a major contractor exposed in this inquiry and the one that he carried out in the construction of Edinburgh schools, surely the time has come for a fundamental review into the way that we plan, procure, design and manage public sector construction projects to stop cul-boy construction firms, ripen off the public and, frankly, put in lives at risk. The Edinburgh schools situation is a very serious one that involves PFI schools. Of course, the form of PFI that was used by previous Labour administrations is no longer used to build public buildings in Scotland, and I hope that the member would welcome that. In terms of the wider issues, those are really important issues. We are required to openly procure those projects. Of course, some of the issues that are raised are for the particular local councils, not directly for the Scottish Government, but we will pay very close attention to the findings and the recommendations of the report that the member cites. If that requires us to take any further action, then that is exactly what we will do. Question 3, Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I suspect everybody in Parliament and everybody throughout the country wants Scotland to have a great education system where teachers feel supported to do their jobs and where we successfully tackle the poverty-related attainment gap that our country still experiences. Yet this week, the Government released the analysis of yet another consultation on its plans for education reform, which have more to do with regional structures than with schools and teachers and the resources that they need. This is the Government's third time of asking. For the third time, it has been told that its plans do not have the support of teachers, of parents, of education professionals, and we know that they do not have the support of Parliament. Is not it time to say three strikes on your out for those proposals, and the Government should return with a change of direction that is more about the resources that our schools and teachers need than about the reforms that nobody else but the Government seems to want? Regional structures that Patrick Harvie refers to and he is talking about the regional improvement collaboratives. They are all about providing the support for front-line teachers to do exactly what all of us want to see, which is to improve attainment and standards in our schools. Our reforms of education are all about putting teachers and parents at the heart of decision making in the life of a school, because we know that decisions that shape the education of young people are those made by the professionals who know them best, the teachers and also parents as well. Patrick Harvie mentions resources. We have increased the resources going to our schools, not just the real-terms resource increase in local authority budgets, but the pupil equity fund, which is putting more than £100 million directly into the hands of headteachers. I am sure that Patrick Harvie is visiting schools as I do and as the education secretary does regularly. He will be hearing, as we are, the very positive feedback about the way in which pupil equity funding is allowing teachers to transform what they do about raising attainment in schools. Patrick Harvie should not be a matter of party political point scoring. It should be one of us all uniting in the changes that our schools and our education system needs. Greens are by no means the only people to agree, for example, with the teaching unions, who say that the equity fund is no substitute for the cuts that have been experienced in our education system for year, after year, after year. Scotland has lost thousands of not only teachers, but additional support needs specialists, librarians, councillors and the others. Those are the people that our schools need, their talents and their professionalism. Does the First Minister understand that, if she changes direction on that and focuses on the resources, skills and professionals that our schools need, she will not only gain support in Parliament, she will not only gain support among those who are working in schools up and down the country, but she will help to make teaching the fantastic, attractive profession that we all want and need it to be. Will she ask her Cabinet Secretary for Education to change direction and come back with a plan that is focused on those resources that our schools need? In terms of teacher numbers, for two years in a row now, we have seen teacher numbers in our schools increase. Many of the additional teachers are directly down to the pupil equity fund, which is helping—labor obviously does not like—to talk about additional teachers in our schools. Many of those additional teachers are funded directly by the pupil equity fund, and we will continue to ensure that those resources go directly to head teachers to allow them to do the good work that they are doing. However, we will continue to pursue reforms that are all about empowering teachers and head teachers and parents, because the evidence says that that is how we will make the biggest difference in school to the poverty-related attainment gap. Of course, there are things that we need to do outside of school to help to close that gap as well. Much of that will be done through our reforms around social security and child poverty, but we will continue to focus on how we make sure that power lies where it should lie in our education system with front-line teachers and head teachers. Finally, I am delighted to hear Patrick Harvie say that it is not a party political issue. It is certainly not one from my perspective or the education secretary's perspective. However, time and time again, I hear opposition parties across the chamber call for action to be taken to close the attainment gap in our schools, but every time proposals are brought forward to do that, they always seem to manage to oppose those. That is what does not quite add up. There are a number of supplementaries up to four if we have time. Miles Briggs. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, we learned that one of the world's leading experts on cot deaths and adviser to the Scottish Government had raised significant safety concerns about the safety of the Scottish Government's baby box scheme. We have also learned for the first time that he had raised those extremely serious concerns with the Government early last year. Will the First Minister agree today to set out in full all the advice that the Government has received from experts on the safety of these boxes and can she confirm today whether or not they have been accredited in full by the British Standards Institution? First Minister. Let me address this point, because I think that the Tories should be deeply ashamed of themselves for needlessly trying to frighten parents. I saw Miles Briggs tweet this morning calling for all of the safety accreditation publications to be published. That was done months ago. I do not believe that Miles Briggs does not know that. The question therefore is why is he trying to wilfully mislead people about that. Let me briefly address this, because this is really important to parents. The baby box conforms to all relevant safety standards. There is not yet a specific British standard for baby boxes, but the baby box conforms to the standards in place for a crib or a cradle for domestic use. That includes passing all of the necessary stability, static load and strength safety tests. There was some focus yesterday on the fact that the safety certificate that is published says that materials under clause 4.1 of the standard were excluded from testing. If you go and read clause 4.1, it has three parts to it. One relates to materials made of wood, not relevant to the baby box. Another relates to products made of metal, not relevant to the baby box. The third requires materials to conform to another standard. The baby box conforms to that further standard. There has also been concerns raised about fire risk. The baby box complies with all relevant safety standards. There are clear instructions in the box not to place it in the vicinity of open fires. The mattress in the box is fully compliant with British standard 1877 on flammability. The construction complies with British standard 7177 on specification for mattresses for children's cots. I hope that that helps to allay if not the concerns of the Tories, then any concerns that the Tories might have caused in the minds of parents. What is it about the baby box that so offends the Conservatives? Is it just because it is SNP policy or is it because it is giving state support to families when the Tory preference is always to take that away from families or is it because we have not insisted on a rape clause for eligibility for the baby box? The baby box is a good thing and the Tories should stop unfairly criticising it. Gillian Martin Thank you, Presiding Officer. Has the First Minister had a chance to review David Mundell's comments from the committee this morning, where he refused to confirm that the UK Government will respect his decision of the Scottish Parliament on legislative consent for the EU withdrawal bill? Is it fair to conclude, then, that the UK Government is prepared to ignore the bill of the Scottish Parliament? First Minister. I am sad to say that I did not have the opportunity to watch David Mundell at the committee this morning, but I have heard reports of what he said. I think that two things are relevant, that the Secretary of State refused to say that the UK Government would respect any decision that this Parliament takes around legislative consent for the withdrawal bill. In the absence of a commitment of that nature, how can we be expected to take the UK Government at its word that would respect our decisions on consent when it comes to any future orders that might be laid at a later stage? The Secretary of State also seemed to confirm that, even if every single member of this Parliament was to vote in future to withhold consent on a regulation that was being laid to reserve power at Westminster, it could still take that as consent and do it anyway. That is not a definition of consent that I think anybody across the country will be familiar with. We want to get to an agreement on that, but we will not do so if the UK Government is insisting on rounding roughshod over the powers of this Parliament. Lewis MacDonald Thank you very much. As the First Minister is aware of, the Health and Safety Executive I talked last week about major hydrocarbon releases every year, putting the lives of multiple offshore workers at risk of researchers at Robert Gordon University reporting substantial fatigue and psychological distress offshore as a result of changes in on-off rotas and of Quality Assurance Company DNVGL. Reporting this week that 46 per cent of professionals in the sector believe that there has been under-investment in inspection and maintenance of infrastructure offshore and saying that they would not rule out the possibility of catastrophic failure as a result. In the run-up to the 30th anniversary of Piper Alpha, what reassurance can she give to offshore workers that her Government is alive to those concerns and will support trade unions and UK and Scottish regulators in seeking to ensure the safest possible working environment for Scottish workers offshore? The First Minister My overriding message is that safety in the North Sea is absolutely paramount. Nothing is more important than making sure that the safety of those who work offshore is absolutely paramount. That was a regular area of discussion at the oil and gas task force, and the Scottish Government has and will continue to support trade unions in raising any concerns with operators in the North Sea. I would expect any recommendations made by the Health and Safety Executive to be taken seriously and implemented. If there are specific concerns that Lewis MacDonald wants to raise, I would be very happy to look into them further. 4. Mary Gougeon Wether the Scottish Government will seek the devolution of all immigration powers? The First Minister Yes, we will. UK Government immigration policy is not just inhumane, but it is harming Scotland's interests. It is damaging communities, breaking up families, and if targets of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands are pursued, it could cost Scotland's economy up to £10 billion a year by 2040. In February, we published a paper demonstrating why migration is essential to Scotland's prosperity and how a different approach with new powers for the Scottish Parliament could operate. We outlined options for devolution within a UK framework to create a new route for people who want to settle in Scotland, and that proposal would be in addition to the current routes that the UK has in place. The numerous scandals coming to light in recent weeks caused under consecutive Tory Home Secretary's, I think, reinforced the urgency for Scotland to have its own system and control over immigration. In the past week, we have seen the Home Office back down after threatening to deport a family in Fulton MacGregor's constituency by mistake. We have had the Home Office minister resigned for misleading Parliament and the public over the setting of immigration targets. There is the continuing fallout from the Windrush scandal, claims that the Prime Minister herself blocks requests from her own Government to allow more doctors from overseas into the UK. That is a Home Office that we expected to believe can handle over 3 million applications for settled status for EU citizens. That is for those who either already have not felt compelled to leave the country or who now just do not want to come, which would leave shortages, for example, across farms in Angus, where there is expected to be around 15 to 20 per cent shortfall in the numbers of seasonal workers this summer. So how bad does it have to get before the Tories accept that they are failing the people in Scotland on immigration and put those powers in the hands of this Parliament? Mary Gougeon is absolutely right, and I hope that people across the chamber will support those calls. I had the opportunity to briefly meet the family from Fulton MacGregor's constituency when they attended First Minister's questions a couple of weeks ago and heard directly from them the stress and anxiety that they have suffered because of Home Office ineptitude. Of course, the other scandals that we have seen come to light in recent weeks just underline the fact that cases like that are the tip of the iceberg. I said ineptitude a moment ago that much of this is not just ineptitude, it is the result of deliberate policies being pursued by this Tory Government. The hostile environment policy, which is the Prime Minister, the previous Home Secretary's policy, is dehumanising migrants to this country. It is casting suspicion over anybody who chooses to make this country their home, and it is absolutely despicable and it must end. I hope that the new Home Secretary will change the culture and the policy fundamentally, but above all I hope that soon we see more powers over immigration coming to this Parliament so that we can exercise them humanely and exercise them in the interests of the economy of this country. Question 5 Liz Smith To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that all pupils irrespective of their social background have full access to arts education. Curriculum for excellence recognises the value of the expressive arts as one of the eight curriculum areas in Scotland. Local authorities are, of course, responsible for ensuring that all children and young people have access to the full curriculum, including expressive arts. For our part, we are supporting them by delivering a real-terms increase in both revenue and capital funding to local authorities. Thank you, First Minister. On a recent visit to the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, the principal Geoffrey Sharkey assured the education committee that his institution is wholly committed to diversity of intake and widened access. He warned that this commitment was being seriously undermined by the fact that a diminishing number of pupils in Scotland have access to quality arts provision, especially music tuition. Will the First Minister agree with Professor Sharkey's assertion that this is a very serious issue that is having a, quote, a detrimental effect on the cultural life of the nation and on the creative potential of young people? Will she undertake within the review that I think the Scottish Government is about commission to examine all possible channels of additional funding, including those that might be offered via private sector partnerships? I thank Liz Smith for raising an important issue. Let me say just a couple of things as briefly as possible. As I said in my original answer in Scottish Schools, music as a subject is part of the expressive arts area of curriculum for excellence. Instrumental music tuition is an additional and, yes, discretionary service provided by local authorities. Local authorities decide what and how to provide instrumental music tuition depending on their priorities and traditions. However, the second thing I would say is this. I do share concerns about a number of local authority decisions to reduce access to instrumental music tuition for young people. The Deputy First Minister has asked his officials, while respecting the autonomy of local councils, to identify ways to ensure that instrumental music tuition remains accessible to people regardless of background in the future. In fact, I understand that, after the intervention of the Children's Commissioner, West Lothian Council is already looking again at its decision. This is an important issue and one that the Scottish Government pays close attention to. Over and above that, although I appreciate that the programmes that I am about to mention are not the equivalent of music, tuition and schools. However, over and above that, the Scottish Government has invested since 2007 more than £100 million in the youth music initiative, which has made an impact on helping young people to access opportunities to make music. Since 2012, we have provided more than £2 million to Systema Scotland, a charity providing opportunities for young people to get involved in big noise orchestras. Of course, there is one base in my constituency, and across Scotland that reaches 2,000 children every week. As I say, I absolutely appreciate that those programmes are not equivalent to tuition in schools, but I hope that they reflect the Scottish Government's commitment to ensuring that young people get the opportunity to experience music in all its forms. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with Asda and Sainsbury's on their merger and any impact that it might have on jobs in Scotland. The rural economy secretary held a call with representatives from Asda on Tuesday this week where it was made clear that the proposed merger will result in no-store closures in Scotland. We were also informed that Asda intends to keep its two distribution centres at Falkirk and Grangemouth open and that there are no indications of job losses. However, we will continue to engage with both supermarkets to ensure that those promises are followed through, that Scottish consumers benefit and also, crucially—and I think that this is a really important point—that Scottish suppliers benefit and do not lose out. Jackie Baillie Can I very much welcome the First Minister's response? It would appear to be the case that local managers in Asda have been briefing their staff that jobs in stores are safe for a year. Whilst that is welcome, it is pretty meaningless as the competition's market authority won't report on the merger until the end of 2019. That said, I have not heard any guarantees about the future of jobs at the Asda distribution centres and, of course, the First Minister will be aware that they employ something like 1,100 workers in Falkirk and Grangemouth. I understand that the GMB trade union, representing thousands of Asda staff, has written to the Scottish Government, asking them to get involved. Will the First Minister continue to ensure that there is transparency about Asda's plans for jobs, both in their stores and in undertaking about their continued commitment to Grangemouth and Falkirk in particular? The First Minister Jackie Baillie is right to refer to the competitions and markets authority. It has indicated that it will be likely to review the merger, so that is a process that has still to be undertaken. Fergus Ewing is telling me that he has already written to the relevant unions offering meetings. Those will be taken forward and we will do everything we can to make sure that the unions are kept fully up to date. I have already outlined the commitments that Asda has given to the Scottish Government. They are commitments at this stage and we will be monitoring that very closely to make sure that the promises that are being made, including promises about the two distribution centres, are followed through on. We will, of course, be seeking the same discussions and commitments from Sainsbury's as well. Emma Harper Thank you. Asda and Sainsbury's play a significant role in enabling the sale of quality Scottish produce that supports farmers and food and drink producers all over Scotland. What assurances has the First Minister had about her continuing commitment to promote and sell locally produced, locally sourced Scottish food and drink? I remind members that I am the PLO to the cab sex Fergus Ewing. The First Minister I think that this is an important point. Given particularly the existing concerns that there often is in the food and drink supply chain and concerns on the part of primary producers that they do not always enjoy the benefits of the huge growth in food and drink, I note and understand the concerns that have been expressed by the NFU in Scotland that the immense purchasing power that would be generated from a merger of that nature could give the organisation an opportunity to bargain even harder with suppliers throughout the supply chain. Both Asda and Sainsbury's have provided assurances to us that they think that significant opportunities will be created for Scottish suppliers to develop new product ranges and grow their businesses. It is important, as with the commitments around jobs and the distribution centres, that we make sure that those promises are followed through on. That is what the Rural Economy Secretary will be focused on. Thank you very much and that concludes First Minister's questions. We will move on to members' business in the name of James Dornan on Save the Hamden Roar campaign. We will just take a few moments first for the minister and for the members to change seats.