 o'r ddorifwng hwn. Os y dyfodol cyffredinol yng Nghydroedd yng Nghymru yw disgwynt? Diolch yn fawr angen i ddim yn,eddwn i'w gwybod eich gweledig cynhoeddau ymgwrdd plants o'r thym heddorol o'i gweld bod gyrfa gymaint yn i chi i'ch gyddiadol i'r ddim yn ddigwyddol i gael'r mynd i gwybod will get the chance to do so. I would be grateful for all members' co-operation in keeping their contributions brief and to the point. To ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day. First Minister, later today and ahead of a summit of humanitarian and civic organisations, I will host in Edinburgh tomorrow. I'll be writing to David Cameron to again urge that the UK plays its full part in helping refugees in desperate need. Presiding Officer, I'll also have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Presiding Officer, this week we've seen pictures of women in the sea desperately trying to keep their babies afloat. Fellow human beings left to suffocate in the back of lorries because of evil traffickers, and refugees, perilously packed onto boats, unfit for the tides ahead. This morning almost every paper in the land carries a picture of a boy washed onto the shore. We have a Prime Minister who says that showing more compassion, taking in more refugees is not the answer. The First Minister has said that Scotland is ready and willing to do more than our share. Can I therefore ask her whether she'll convene an urgent meeting with Scotland's council leaders, party leaders and people in this Parliament and other relevant Government agencies, so that Scotland can speak with one voice and match our compassion with the action that we are all willing to take? I have already taken the step of convening a summit tomorrow to which I have invited humanitarian organisations, including the Scottish Refugee Council, leaders of councils and civic organisations, and, indeed, our churches. I extend today an invitation to the Opposition Party leaders to attend that summit as well. As First Minister of Scotland, I pledge that I will ensure that Scotland does everything possible to help this refugee crisis. I will be far from the only person reduced to tears last night at the picture of a little boy washed up on a beach. That wee boy has touched our hearts, but his is not an isolated tragedy. He and thousands like him whose lives are at risk is not somebody else's responsibility. They are the responsibility of all of us. So, yes, I am angry—very angry—at the walk-on buy on the other side approach of the UK Government. I implore David Cameron to change his position and change it today, and I pledge as First Minister of this country that we stand ready to help offer sanctuary to refugees who need our help. I can assure the First Minister that the Labour Party stands with her in doing everything we can to tackle this humanitarian crisis. I would like to pay tribute today also to all the police officers and staff across the country who spend every day keeping us safe. Tragically, this summer, we saw one emergency call not responded to for 72 hours. John Ewell and Lamarabelle lost their lives. At the time of the launch of the inquiry, the justice secretary said that there was no evidence that the M9 accident had anything to do with the call centre being overburdened and pointed the finger at one individual. Today's interim report recommends that plans to close call centres in Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness should be suspended, something Scottish Labour called for months ago. Can the First Minister confirm that those recommendations will be accepted? Yes, they will be. Can I also acknowledge that the review being carried out by HM Inspectorate does arise out of the tragic incident on the M9? We were all shocked and saddened by the circumstances surrounding the deaths of John Ewell and Lamarabelle, and my and all our thoughts continue to be with their families. Police Scotland has already apologised, and on behalf of the Scottish Government, I also want to say how deeply sorry I am for what those families are going through. The review that the inspectorate is carrying out, of course, and I would ask members to remember this, was instructed by the justice secretary to look at specifically the capacity and the capability of control centres and the processes within those control centres in short to identify whether there are any systemic issues that we need to address. As Kezia Dugdale has indicated, the interim review, and I stress that it is an interim report that has been published today, has one recommendation. It says that detail planning towards the end-state of modernisation process should continue. However, the current service centres in Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness should not close until Governor Motherwell and Bilston Glen are fully capable of taking additional calls from the north, and until the area control centre, the new one in Dundee, is fully operational. We accept that recommendation unreservedly, and the justice secretary this afternoon will outline how we will support Police Scotland to fully implement it. That is indeed welcome news, and I thank the First Minister for it. Today's report also, however, seeks assurances on workforce planning. The First Minister sits in the seat today because of populist policies like 1,000 extra police officers, but we know that civilian staff numbers have paid the price for that policy. The latest figures show that, since 2011, the total number of staff in the police force has dropped by nearly 2,000 individuals. The police force in Scotland is weaker under this Government. Does the First Minister not realise how damaging that has been to the police in this country? Does she not understand how much harder that has made her jobs? Kezia Dugdale seems to criticise the Scottish Government for taking the decision to integrate our police services in order to protect front-line police officers. Before we have a complete rewriting of history, I just want to remind the chamber what was in Scottish Labour's manifesto in the 2011 election. It said that it would increase administrative efficiencies and free up resources for the front line by legislating to deliver a single police force for Scotland. In other words, Labour called on the Scottish Government to do exactly what we have. I hope very much that we can continue to discuss this in an appropriate tone. I certainly welcome Kezia Dugdale's tone in some of her earlier questions. There have been recruitment issues around Bilston Glen in particular, but since March, Police Scotland has had an active recruitment campaign. It has had 1,600 applications received. Recruitment and training is now under way, and around 40 new starts are undergoing training each month. Improvements are being made. I do not take the view that it is simply a case of looking at response times when calls are made. We also have to look at the quality of the response, and that is a point that the inspector makes. Nevertheless, response times are improving. The Government will not shy away from taking the action that requires to be taken in. Michael Matheson will set out more detail of how we will resource and support the police to implement the recommendation in full. Kezia Dugdale The Scottish Labour Party manifesto supported the creation of a national police force. What she will not find in that manifesto, though, is any plans to cut 2,000 civilian staff. The First Minister might call them administrative efficiencies. We think that they are hardworking people just trying to do their job to keep people safe. In the two years since Police Scotland has been established, we have seen searches on children spiling out of control. We have seen police counters closed. We have seen allegations of spying on journalists. Police are armed without the consent of this Parliament or the Scottish people and two tragic deaths. Men and women are daily putting their personal safety on the line to keep people safe, and I think that they have been let down. This has been an unnecessary crisis and tragedy caused by a blinding adherence to a Government policy demanding savings. This summer, her Government closed ranks with the top brass and lent rank and file police officers to take the blame. After years of denying that there is a problem, can I ask the First Minister? Does she now accept that her plans to reform have major shortcomings and that the case for a truly independent and effective police authority is now unanswerable? The First Minister I would simply remind Kezia Dugdale that her party's manifesto called for cost efficiencies to be made and recognised the necessity of that given the budget constraints that we face. To the best of my knowledge and the finance secretary will be able to correct me if I'm wrong here, Scottish Labour has never come to the Scottish Government during a budget process and asked for more money to be spent on the police. I simply point out these facts as background and context to Kezia Dugdale's line of questioning, but can I also say that I highly value and appreciate the efforts of all of our police officers and all of the civilian staff who work in our police? All of the issues that have been raised by Kezia Dugdale today demand and will get a serious response, but let's not forget something else. Our police service has helped to bring crime in this country to a 40-year low. Because of what we've done to protect officers on the front line, this country is safer as a result and the credit for that goes to police staff right across our country. Ruth Davidson Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister when she'll next meet the Prime Minister. First Minister I have no plans in the near future. Ruth Davidson Thank you, Presiding Officer. This morning's police watchdog report into the deaths of John Yule and Lamar Abel shows that staff shortages and call centres are creating, and I quote, an additional risk that vital calls to the police are not being handled properly. We know from last week that thousands of routine calls to the Dundee control room are still not answered in time due to staff shortages and absence. Presiding Officer, those events did not come out of the blue. They were predicted as a direct consequence of this Government's centralisation agenda. The then Justice Minister was warned that this would happen, the Scottish Police Authority was warned that this would happen and the Scottish Government was warned that this would happen. Why did nobody take any notice? Well, again, just in the interests of making sure that people remember the background to Police Scotland. Let me also remind people of the Conservative 2011 manifesto. We are committed to maintaining police numbers in order to ensure that we can achieve this at a time when the public sector has to make savings. We will merge Scotland's eight police forces into one now. I am not doing this for any other reason and to make sure that people are listening to this debate in a full context. Far more importantly, this is an issue that demands and is getting a serious response. The interim report of the inspectorate today has come about because the justice secretary asked the inspectorate to look in detail at the capacity, the capability and the processes in the call centres. We also see in that report that there have been improvements in the response time to both 101 and 999 calls. Although I readily say, as I said to Kezia Dugdale, that it is the quality of response, as opposed to just the time of the response, that is important. We will fully implement the recommendation that HM inspectorate has made today and we will implement any recommendations that come from the final report. I think that that is the right response to what was an extremely serious and tragic incident and the Government will continue to respond in this way. I think that the 23,000 members of staff at Police Scotland do a heroic job given the hand that they were dealt with by this Government, but the warnings could not have been more explicit. The First Minister has talked twice now about context, so let me give her some. In January of 2014, more than 18 months ago, Assistant Chief Constable Mike McCormick wrote in a report on the likely consequences of a reduction of call handling centres. He said that any reduction to the number of sites creates challenges in retaining existing experienced staff. We know what happens when the calls get covered by staff without this experience. We end up having to commission reports like today's. Two years in, and this Government's record on police reform is call centres cut to the bone with tragic consequences, a stop-and-search policy that may not even have been legal, and a hand-picked police chief who has walked away from it all. Is this a record that the First Minister is really proud to stand on? I take the view that this Government was right to move to a single police force, because in doing that, we have been able to maintain the extra officers on the streets of Scotland that I believe people want, and indeed that the Conservative Party called for in its manifesto. Unlike Labour, it is fair to say, called for in successive budget discussions. Those issues are serious. That is why the serious response that Michael Matheson has taken is the right one, and we will respond to all the recommendations that are taken. However, I am not surely hearing either Ruth Davidson or Kezia Dugdale say today that, having been in favour of a single police force, they would have left the number of call centres that serviced eight police forces exactly as they were. We have taken the difficult decision to reform our police force. It is now absolutely right that we properly support the police to implement that change, and we will implement the recommendation around the timing of the remaining phases of the modernisation process. I and Michael Matheson will ensure that the police are appropriately supported to do that. As I said earlier, Michael Matheson will go into greater detail about that this afternoon. Since it has been raised twice, I have not yet responded directly to it. I also thank John Scott for the report that he has published today on stop and search. Again, a report that was asked for by Michael Matheson recommends a statutory code of practice in stop and search. I indicated on Tuesday in my programme for government that we would do that. It also recommends, although not unanimously, that the practice of non-statutory stop and search would come to an end. It would be our intention when that code of practice is in place to bring an end to non-statutory stop and search. Have luck Europa has just announced a 10 per cent reduction in its workforce, a major employer in my constituency. Can I ask the First Minister what assistance the Scottish Government can give these employees who will face redundancy? I very much share the member's concern regarding developments in respect of have luck Europa and the potential impact that it will have on employees, the families and the surrounding area of Fife. I can confirm when the announcement was made on Tuesday. We immediately contacted the company to offer support for affected employees through our PACE initiative and Scottish Enterprise is meeting with the company today to discuss support for the business to minimise any negative impact. I am happy to keep all interested members up to speed on the Government's involvement in the situation. I can tell the First Minister that I will join her tomorrow at the humanitarian summit and I think that we can help individuals in desperate need and we absolutely must help them. The pictures over the last 24 hours have been dreadful and we must do all we can to help. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. First Minister, will there be any for that? The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss matters of importance to the people of Scotland. After repeatedly warning about Police Scotland, the Scottish Government is finally beginning to act. An end to industrial scale stop and search, a proper examination of the serious problems in police call handling and a review of how Police Scotland should be held to account, progress at last, but my fear is that her plans do not go far enough. Individual officers have told me that the pressure is on them to meet the nationally imposed targets rather than concentrate on the specific needs of their community. Before the new chief constable is appointed, will the First Minister agree to an independent look at the top-down target culture within Police Scotland? Let me make absolutely clear that I have no interest in a police service that is meeting targets at the expense of keeping communities safe. I do not believe that that is what our police service does. It is because of the sterling work that our police service does that we do have crime levels today at a 40-year low. I indicated in the programme for government on Tuesday that we would take the opportunity of the appointment of the new chair of the Scottish Police Authority to have a review of governance at national level, and Michael Matheson will outline more details of that this afternoon. We will also take steps to enhance local scrutiny and accountability. I set out the plan to require the chief constable to attend local scrutiny sessions. Michael Matheson will convene a summit on local scrutiny later in the month, and we would be very happy to hear further views and ideas about how we do that. I believe that what we have put in place in terms of the single police force is right, but I also believe that, as a Government, we have a sacred duty to make sure that we learn lessons and where action is required, that action is taken. That is my job as First Minister, that is Michael Matheson's job as Justice Secretary, and we will not shy away from it. That is good to hear, because concerns on call centres and stop and search were initially dismissed but were completely justified. Top-down targets are what led to industrial scale stop and search, so I do not want the First Minister to dismiss the concern about the target culture in Police Scotland that exists today. The staff survey report will not make comfortable reading. She heard the concern when she was with me at the Scottish Police Federation conference in Spring. Will the First Minister just think again and agree to that independent look at the target culture before a new chief constable is given free rein for five years? I make very clear. John Scott makes in his report today, and it is a point that has always underpinned policing in our country, but it is worth reiterating. Operational matters are for the police, but the limits of police authority are matters for Parliament to define and to decide. That is the right balance of responsibility. I have said that we will, given where we are with the merger of the police forces and the experience to date, have a review of national governance. Michael Matheson will outline the remit of that this afternoon and the process of that. All members of this Parliament, as well as all people working in our police service and members of the public, will have a due opportunity to feed into that. I want to make sure that we have in this country—what I believe we have and what we have always had—a police service that is focused on keeping people and communities in our country safe. I repeat again that we have crime at a 40-year low. That does not mean that we dismiss or not listen to concerns that are raised and that we will not do that, but it does mean that, as we do that, we should remember the achievements of our police service and make sure that we thank each and every one of them for it. What role the Scottish Government is playing in discussions regarding the BBC Charter renewal process? As I set out at the Edinburgh International Television Festival last week, the Scottish Government is committed to playing a full and constructive role in the process of BBC Charter renewal, as agreed in the recent memorandum of understanding between the UK Government, the Scottish Parliament, the BBC and the Scottish Government. The Government is engaging with a range of interested stakeholders and the rest of the UK to ensure that a range of perspectives can inform the development of priorities for Scotland in the setting of the next charter. That is critical to ensuring that the BBC delivers for the people of Scotland, and it is truly representative of our needs and requirements. Richard Lyle? First Minister, for our response, I am sure that the First Minister will agree with me that the powers over broadcasting should be devolved to this Parliament. In the meantime, can the First Minister set out what the Scottish Government's vision is for the future of the BBC through the charter renewal process, and what role can we play as Parliamentarians to help to engage the wider public on the future of the charter? First and foremost, this is a fundamental point. Everything that the BBC does should be underpinned by editorial and creative independence, but I want to see a BBC that does better serve the needs of people across Scotland and, indeed, the other nations and regions of the UK. I set out a number of proposals last week, and I hope that they are considered seriously in the process of charter renewal. I think that there is a need for changes to the BBC structure, a more federal structure. I think that there is definitely a need for fair funding of BBC Scotland. I think that we need an additional TV and radio channel so that we can better represent the different interests of Scotland, and all of those are proposals that we have put forward in good faith. It is no secret that I think that control of broadcasting should be devolved to this Parliament, not because this Government wants to control broadcasting. This is not a debate about whether a Parliament sets the framework for broadcasting. It is a debate about which Parliament sets it, and I think that the Scottish Parliament is better than the Westminster one. The BBC is facing a very tough licence fee settlement, and we want to be ambitious for the BBC, but we need to maintain quality. Does the First Minister recognise that, while an additional channel may be her preferred option, there will be a number of options needed to be considered, and we need an open debate that is led by licence fee payers? Will the Scottish Government's engagement reflect that? We are engaging with a range of stakeholders. We have put forward some proposals. I am absolutely open to the idea that there are other proposals out there to be discussed, and maybe a good starting point in that process would be Labour stopping just criticising the SNP proposals and maybe bringing forward some of its own. To ask the First Minister what scientific evidence the Scottish Government used as the basis for its recent announcement on GM technology. The Government has always taken a precautionary approach on GM cultivation, and following the introduction of new EU rules, we have announced our intention to opt out of growing GM crops. Our main consideration, as it has always been, is that allowing GM crops could risk Scotland's clean green status and the £14 billion food and drink sector that it supports. It is also interesting to know that this decision is being mirrored in other EU countries, such as Germany, and welcomed by key agricultural and environmental stakeholders, as well as some scientists who have warned of the uncertainties and potential negative biodiversity and environmental impacts associated with growing GM crops. I am grateful to the First Minister for that answer. The First Minister, while I am sure, has read the open letter that has been sent to Richard Lochhead, signed by 28 research organisations, including some scientists, expressing their extreme concern that this decision risks constraining Scotland's contribution to research. It is an approach to evidence that surprises and disappoints many scientists and non-scientists alike. Can the First Minister tell us what steps she will take to engage with the Scottish scientific community who have expressed those concerns? Given that the decision was taken without the input of a chief scientific adviser, what effort will the Scottish Government now take to filling that very important vacancy? Of course, we have a chief scientific adviser for rural affairs, food and the environment in post, but can I also say that this decision does not affect research in Scotland? I would ask Drew Smith to look at it just a little bit more closely. The types of GM science that are undertaken in many of our universities and research institutes are unaffected by this decision, which relates only to the potential cultivation of EU-authorised GM crops in the open environment. That is a decision taken because we value the clean green environment that supports our food and drink sector. That is the Scottish Government's position. I have to say that I am more than a little bit surprised to learn that Labour is in favour of GM crop cultivation, but I am sure that some of them are shaking their heads, so maybe there is a need for Labour to clarify its own position here, because I think that it would come as a surprise to the albeit dwindling number of Labour supporters in Scotland to hear that they were advocates of GM crops. Nardog Fraser? Not only do we not have a chief scientific advisor—I have not had one since December last year—but there are eight vacancies on the Scottish Science Advisory Council and have been since January. When will those vacancies be filled? Given that the First Minister has just mentioned Professor Louise Heathwate, who is the chief scientific advisor on rural affairs and the environment, can she tell us whether she consulted prior to this announcement on the banning of GM crops? I have outlined the rationale and the basis of the Scottish Government's decision here. I will defend that decision because I think that it is right for one of the sectors that is hugely important to our economy. I visited a farm just last week to hear directly about some of the issues that are being faced by our primary food producers. Our food and drink sector is hugely important to our economy and if we want to support it then we need to ensure that our clean green reputation is enhanced. That is the position that I will leave it to other parties to argue their own position and allow the people of Scotland to draw their own conclusions. To ask the First Minister what assistance the Scottish Government can provide to the UK Government in relation to the refugee crisis. First, I welcome Rod Campbell's clear description of what we are witnessing as a refugee crisis. People fleeing Syria are not economic migrants. They are seeking refuge and asylum and, above all else, they are human beings. We have repeatedly made clear to the UK Government our determination that Scotland plays a full part in efforts to offer sanctuary to those in desperate need. The UK Government's refusal to take part in the EU's collective efforts on relocation and resettlement is, in my view, utterly shameful. As I have already covered tomorrow, I will host a summit of humanitarian organisations and civic organisations and I have already extended the invite to Opposition leaders to look at what Scotland can do to support refugees who are seeking safety. It is my intention that we then put forward specific proposals on what Scotland can do and wants to do to the UK Government. As First Minister, I repeat again, I am determined that Scotland plays its full part. For us to take refugees as I want us to do, the UK Government first has to accept to take its fair share and I call on David Cameron to do so. Roderick Campbell. I welcome those comments and, indeed, her earlier comments, but does she agree that fortress Britannia is the very opposite of what is required here, what is needed as a pan-European approach? Does she also agree that we in Scotland could perhaps learn from the example of one of the smaller countries in Europe from people in that small country in Iceland? I think that we could learn from many other European countries, Iceland, Sweden and Germany, to be very frank, to take a lead on moral grounds here. I do believe that if there is to be a proper response to this refugee crisis, then it takes the European Union and all member states of the European Union to come together to find that solution. I also think that there is something else that David Cameron and the UK Government must stop doing. They must stop using their party's stance on immigration to get in the way of a human response to a humanitarian crisis. David Cameron and I do not always see eye-to-eye on immigration, but this is not about immigration, this is about refuge and asylum, and we must respond as human beings. We simply cannot walk by on the other side or that little boy that we all were so touched by last night will just become one of many, many more. We cannot, must not have that on our consciences. I thank the First Minister for her comments concerning the appalling situation facing those of our fellow human beings seeking refuge in Europe. This week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not just welcome people to her country, she also stood in front of a group of right-wing protesters and told them they were wrong. She said that there is, in this country, no tolerance of those who question the dignity of other people. The action is, in my view, of a leader. Does the First Minister agree with me that it is time that David Cameron demonstrated similar leadership and compassion instead of continuing to turn his back on what are the most desperate people on the planet? Yes, I do, and I 100 per cent echo the comments of Angela Merkel that Patricia Ferguson has just read out. The first thing that David Cameron has to do is show some compassion, because when I watched him on the television last night, I did not see any of that. Let us start with compassion and then let us join it with leadership. If we show both of those things, then we can demonstrate that the proud traditions that Britain has in welcoming refugees have not died in the depths of a Tory debate about immigration. They are alive and well. This is a welcoming country and will not turn its back on people who need us. Thank you for that answer, First Minister's questions. We are now moving on to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.