 a we will not fund anymore. my need to position clear that possible is to look for a further Quality toPM McMurt, they want to do further extensions. Thank you. That ends the general questions. We now move to First Minister's Questions. Question 1, Johann Lamont. Thank you very much. To ask the First Minister what engagements has he planned for the rest of the day. Last week, I announced a judge-led inquiry into the Edinburgh tram project. Today I can confirm the inquiry will be chaired by the former advocate and senior judge Lord Hardy. The terms of reference for the inquiry have been agreed with Lord Hardy. It will be to inquire into the delivery of the Edinburgh trams project in order to establish why the project incurred delays, costs considerably more than originally budgeted for and delivered significantly less than was projected for reductions in scope. Lord Hardy, I can assure the chamber will establish the inquiry immediately and we look forward to a swift and thorough inquiry. Joanne Lamont. Clare Lally is a woman I am proud to know. She is a loving mother of twins, a former mother of the year. Clare's seven-year-old daughter, Katie, has multiple disabilities. Clare's experience caring for Katie has inspired her to fight for better rights for all carers and we know in this week of all weeks and carers weeks that we should reflect on how tough that fight is. The First Minister has acknowledged her as a carers champion. He has even been at her house. Why did Clare Lally deserve to have the First Minister's most senior adviser undermine her credibility and unleash a torrent of vile abuse on the internet? First Minister. Firstly, I am Clare Lally. Joanne Lamont is quite right. I know Clare Lally. I have met her twice. I hold her in the highest regard. Her views, not just in terms of her own family and, let me say, I do not regard her as an ordinary mother, I regard her as extraordinary in terms of the challenges that she has met and faced and overcome, but more importantly in terms of her contribution to society. I think that her views on carers and the challenges faced by carers in general have been substantially informative of the Government's approach, both in terms of what has been done and also what was outlined in the consultation earlier this year and which will be carried forward into legislation, which I believe and the carers organisations will improve a lot of carers across Scotland who do valuable and important work. In terms of the description of Camel Gunn, I do not accept that Camel Gunn was responsible for a, quote, torrent of abuse across the internet. I do not think that anybody who believes in those Camel Gunn would give that a moment's credence. I think that Camel Gunn made both a mistake and a misjudgment. The mistake was obvious, saying that somebody was part Lally's daughter-in-law when the clear is not is a mistake. The misjudgment is believing that drawing attention in an email to someone's Labour Party connections, whether it is member of the shadow cabinet or any other connection, was an appropriate thing to do. That was a misjudgment because Clare's views on caring and other matters stand regardless of her Labour Party connections. Because he made a mistake and a misjudgment, I asked Camel Gunn to apologise, which he did immediately and comprehensively. Joanne Lamont. For those who saw Clare Lally's tears last night on the television, I do not think that they will think much of that as an answer. If we are talking about a response being ill-judged, it could not be more ill-judged than what the First Minister has said. Clare Lally's crime, as far as the First Minister's most senior adviser was concerned, was to describe herself as an ordinary mother. That, as the First Minister has reflected, she was being modest. She is an extraordinary mother. Her crime, as far as Camel Gunn was concerned, was as a mother to say that she thought her daughter's future would be better if Scotland stays in the United Kingdom. What she did not deserve was to be undermined by Alex Salmond's most senior adviser, and then to be abused on the internet that she had to shut down her Facebook and Twitter accounts. The First Minister's office contacted Clare while she was in York Hill hospital for her daughter's appointment. They then sent her Camel Gunn's press release. Instead of sending a copy of a press release, she went to the First Minister, enforced the special adviser's code and sacked his adviser for a personal attack on a member of the public. The reason that Camel Gunn did not write personally to Clare is that she asked that that did not happen. That is why the apology, which was comprehensive, was issued in the way it was, because Clare specifically requested that it not be done directly. I said that Camel had committed, in my view, a mistake and a misjudgment. I do not think that he was engaged in vile personal attack on Clare Lally, as Johann Lamont has indicated. The reason I think that is pointing out to a journalist that Clare is a member of Labour's shadow cabinet, which is correct, and mistakenly that she was the daughter-in-law or former Labour Lord Provost Pat Lally. It is not vile personal attack and cannot be construed as such. It was a mistake to do it, for obvious reasons, and it was a misjudgment for the reasons that I have already stated. That is not the area, because I take very seriously the ministerial code and the special adviser's code. I know exactly what is in the code and I know exactly why it is there. It is not a reasonable thing to suggest that Camel Gun, in any way, shape or form, is responsible for internet abuse directed at Clare Lally. Everyone in this chamber, everyone in Scottish society should condemn the few mindless idiots who commit such abuse on whoever they perpetrate it. Since we in this chamber, just about everyone, has had the privilege of knowing Camel Gun over many years, no one in this chamber seriously believes that Camel Gun was responsible or orchestrating any such abuse. None of us seriously believe that. Let us accept that Camel made a mistake and a misjudgment for which he has comprehensively apologised. That is the right way to deal with these things as opposed to accuse Camel of something that he would never, ever possibly have done. John Lennon. No, that is not a simple mistake about getting somebody's family connections wrong. That is about a woman with a proud record of campaigning. A mother of a disabled child has been called a liar, a quisling and a collaborator. It does not get much more serious than that, and the information was taken from a website that said that. We know that Clare Lally has fought for better rights for carers throughout this country. She has spoken to every party that will listen in the hope that something will be done to improve the lives of children like her daughter Katie. That is why she has been involved in politics. For Camel Gun, that passion, that care, that spirit is for nothing, because Clare Lally wants Scotland to stay in the United Kingdom. For Alex Salmond's most senior adviser, her life experience, her struggle did not matter. For him, Clare Lally could be undermined and abused because she supports the union. Personal attacks by special advisers should lead to automatic dismissal according to special advisers code. The First Minister has admitted that this was a personal attack. Camel Gun has admitted that it was a personal attack. The only thing missing is the dismissal. Does the First Minister not realise that if Camel Gun is not sacked, we can only conclude that the First Minister has the same level of contempt for people like Clare Lally, as his most senior adviser? No, I have already made it clear that I hold Clare Lally in the highest regard. I think her contribution, not both in her life story and struggle, but also in terms of the opinion that she has put forward and how we can make the lot of carers in Scotland better is a valuable and important contribution. Camel Gun has not admitted that he made a vile personal attack. He has said that he made a misjudgment and a mistake and got his facts wrong. There is nothing in Camel Gun's email that fits the description of a vile personal attack. It is said that someone is a member of Labour's shadow cabinet and is wrongly saying that their daughter-in-law, former Labour Lord Provost of Glasgow, Pat Lally, does not constitute a vile personal attack. No one seriously believes that Camel Gun is guilty of orchestrating vile abuse on the internet and it really demeans this suggestion and Camel to say that. Can I remind Johann Lamont that last year Camel Gun got a lifetime achievement award in terms of his contribution to journalism in Scotland over 46 years? That is what she said last year. Camel has proven himself to be a tough but fair journalist, thoughtful and wise observer of politics and thoroughly good company. Few reporters can claim to be in good terms of all those he writes about. That is his testament to his professionalism and good nature. Does Johann Lamont really believe that the person she spoke about in such glowing terms only last year is guilty of orchestrating the sort of abuse that the Labour press release suggested he was orchestrating? It is just not true. Nothing in the email constituted that. Johann Lamont would ever cause better if she said that the mistake and the misjudgment that Camel committed has been accepted. He has apologised comprehensively. Surely that is the right way to deal with these matters, as opposed to suggesting that he was guilty of things that palpably he was not guilty of. Johann Lamont, I recognise Camel Gun's reputation as a fine journalist. One just wonders what has happened to him since he has come in to the employ of the First Minister. A personal attack on Clare Lally was that, somehow, the fact that she wanted to engage with politicians on the issue of how she cares for children undermined her ability to describe herself as an ordinary mother. That is the thing that she has found more hurtful than everything else. Of course, from Clare Lally to J.K. Rowling, from Barrick Obama to David Bowie, there is no target too ordinary or too powerful not to be attacked. Clare Lally is the kind of person we should encourage to take part in public life, not someone who should be abused, threatened and chased out of our national conversation. Clare Lally today is not just a carers champion. She is a champion of everyone who believes in free speech. She is a champion for every woman in Scotland who has had the courage to lean in and offer a view despite the sexist abuse. She is a champion for everyone who believes that a bullying Government should be stood up to, everyone who refuses to be shouted down by thugs with an iPad. Does the First Minister not realise that if he does not sack Camel Gun, we can only conclude that all the bullying that goes on wherever it comes is done by order, by design, by him? I hope that at some point John Lamont likes to reflect on these last remarks. If she has evidence for it then to bring it forward, if not then she should desist from making such remarks. Can I just remind John Lamont what the code for special advisers says and why it says what it says? It was drawn up three days after the resignation of Damien McBride. It was drawn up because Damien McBride, the special adviser to Gordon Brown, was caught disseminating material across the internet and making up stories about the private life of opposition politicians. It was described by the Labour Party as conduct that was vile and evil. The code says that disseminating inappropriate material will read to automatic dismissal. The email that Camel Gun sent to the Daily Telegraph in no way could be construed as being vile and evil. It was an email that pointed out that Claire Lally was in the Labour Party shadow cabinet and wrongly the daughter-in-law of former Labour Lord Provost of Glasgow Park Lally. Is anyone seriously saying that that email is equivalent to the activities of Damien McBride? That is nonsense to suggest so. Secondly, to conflate what Camel Gun did and the mistake and misjudgment that he made with abuse in the internet does not serve this argument at all. All of us, every single one of us should condemn abuse in the internet. Every single one of us should condemn that handful of mindless idiots who engage in such things in the early hours of the morning. However, nothing in Camel Gun's email could be construed in terms of vitriolic mindless abuse. It was a mistake and a misjudgment. John Lamont does herself no credit and no service by trying to conflate the issues. Rather, we should, as a Parliament and as a society, stand up against that handful of people who are attempting to pollute this independence debate. We have the most invigorating and liveening debate almost in political history taking place in Scotland. If all of us condemn such intimate abuse and stand together, then we have a good chance of driving out of the debate. We shall not do that by attempting to suggest that Camel Gun is the equivalent of the activities of Damon McBride. Nobody believes that. John Lamont shouldn't say it, and instead we should stand together and condemn true evil in society. Rwf Davidson, to ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. The code of conduct for special advisers is unequivocal. It is unequivocal on what breaches the rules and what the sanction should be for that breach. It says that the preparation or dissemination of inappropriate material or personal attacks has no part to play in the job of being a special adviser, as it has no part to play in the conduct of public life. Any special adviser ever found to be disseminating inappropriate material will automatically be dismissed by their appointing minister. In this case, the First Minister, the First Minister, who has stood here and repeatedly stated that the special adviser disseminated material that was both a mistake and a misjudgment. The code here doesn't just prescribe what is right and wrong. It actually states what the sanction should be. The code says that, when a special adviser breaks the rules in this way, he should be automatically dismissed. What part of that does the First Minister not understand? I have already said that Campbell's mistake was obvious. He wrongly suggested in an email that Clare Lally was the dothan law, a former Labour Lord Provost, Pat Lally. The misjudgment was in believing that drawing attention to Clare's Labour Party connections in an email was somehow to be construed as undermining her views and across society. That was the mistake and the misjudgment, but to write to point to what leads to sacking under the special adviser's code is disseminating inappropriate material. Can I remind Ruth Davidson what that was drawn up for? It was drawn up for Dame McBride's activities in engaging in the systematic and deliberate smearing of political opponents and their families. In the most disgusting terms, his activities were described by Tessa Gill from his own party as malign, vile and evil. No one who looks at Campbell Gunn's email could possibly put it in the same category as Dame McBride. Therefore, it was not disseminating inappropriate material in terms of the special adviser's code of conduct, what it was, a misjudgment and a mistake for which Campbell Gunn has comprehensively apologised. Ruth Davidson, this is not the first time that questions like this have been raised in this chamber. In 1999, Donald Dure dismissed a special adviser for giving misleading briefings to the media. Leading the prosecution was Alex Salmond. In the chamber, he challenged the then First Minister, stating that the culture started at the top. I will quote his question directly. Mr Salmond asked the late Mr Dure, will the First Minister accept that what is required is not just a change of personnel but a change of political culture? Will he accept responsibility for allowing a culture to develop? We have an unacceptable culture of intimidation and de-legitimisation that reaches all the way to the First Minister's office. Will he now answer his own question? The First Minister said that drawing attention to Clare Lally's Labour Party connections was a misjudgment and a mistake but cannot be construed as a vile personal smear as the Opposition has tried to do. It was a mistake and a misjudgment for which Campbell Gun has apologised. Can I point out, as last year, when Campbell was getting his long service award, Ruth Davidson said that he was a scrupulously fair journalist who gives everyone, irrespective of a party, a fair crack of the whip. He is also one of the most interesting and engaging people at Holyrood. Is it really conceivable that someone whom Ruth Davidson heaps such high praise last year has turned into the sort of assumed dreadful person that Ruth Davidson now describes? If Campbell Gun gave Ruth Davidson and every other politician in this chamber a fair crack of the whip, are we not due to look at what was in the email and not conflate it with the vile abuse of behaviour ire on the internet or indeed the activities of Damian McBride? Campbell Gun made a mistake and a misjudgment for which he has comprehensively apologised. A lot of fair-minded people will say that that is a reasonable thing to do when people make mistakes and misjudgments, and they will not try to conflate it with what we should all unite against, which is vile abuse in the internet, which can pollute our political debate. Why cannot we just say that that is not the prerogative of any one Government or party or side of this argument? It is something that we should unite against as a Parliament and as a society. The First Minister will be aware that because of CO2 emissions in Newbarr's Crescent Gore bridge in my constituency, 64 households will almost certainly have to be evacuated and their homes demolished, causing great distress. Can I ask the First Minister, while dealing with those issues, is primarily for the council if his Government will engage with the council should it request support? Yes. I will ask the Minister to seek a specific meeting with the council to see if, in governmental terms, there is something that can be done to help. She quite rightly identifies this as primarily a council responsibility, but I will ask Derek Mackay to seek a specific meeting with the member attending to see if there is anything that can be done in addition to help her constituents. Question 3. Will it any? To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Issues of importance to the people of Scotland. Willie Rennie. The First Minister just doesn't seem to get it. He was satisfied with an apology but continues to defend the criticism of Clare Lally. What is depressing is that no matter what his softer tone today, he is continuing to do so. When what he just said to Ruth Davidson, I have to say, just doesn't wash, the intention from the special adviser was not to help with the Lally family tree. The intention was a personal attack on Clare Lally, and that is a clear breach of the code. Why does the First Minister not understand that? Well, I have said that it is a mistake and a misjudgment. I have said why it was a mistake and why it was a misjudgment. If it is said to be defending someone to point out the difference between what Campbell Gunn did and Damian McBride did and why it does not constitute the dissemination of the inappropriate material as governed by the code, that is an entirely reasonable thing to do. Most people will not regard drawing attention to somebody's Labour Party connections as anything other than a mistake and a misjudgment. It is certainly not vile personal abuse. One of Willie Rennie's colleagues, Danny Alexander on radio this morning, said that vile outpourings, whether on the internet or from the First Minister's office, should be condemned. How on earth can that be construed as a vile outpouring? How on earth can it be equated with the abuse that takes place on the internet? At some point, when mistakes are made and Willie Rennie makes one or two of them himself, it is not an apology, the appropriate thing to go forward. I have made it clear what I expect from my special advisers. That is what I will do, but is not this apology a reasonable response to something that was not vile personal abuse, but was a mistake and a misjudgment? Willie Rennie does not think that it is reasonable. She did not think that it was a reasonable apology. The First Minister has got to realise that to stand by Campbell Gunn is to defend this kind of behaviour. It is a matter of how we carry ourselves and how others see us. Claire Lally has got something to say about carers. She has got something to say about our country, but in Alex Salmond Scotland you have to be careful about what you say, unless you work for him. Is not it the case that Scotland is a little bit less of a free society today than it was last week? First Minister? Even in Willie Rennie's terms, I think that that is something of an exaggeration. What I object to in the way the opposition are dealing with is twofold. I do not think that it is reasonable, given what all of us know about Campbell Gunn and his conduct over so many years, to suggest that Campbell Gunn has been in any way, shape or form, orchestrating vile personal abuse, which, understandably, whether it is in Claire Lally's case or any other case, upsets the person who is the recipient of it. To conflate what Campbell Gunn did with that vile personal abuse is unreasonable. What Campbell Gunn did was a mistake and a misjudgment for which he has apologised, which is the appropriate thing to do. Clare's contribution that I take enormously seriously, along with other carers, has led to changes already in government policy. It has led to the consultation that achieved a huge number of substantive contributions across Scottish society. It has led to the proposals that are going to be affected into legislation later this year. Amazingly enough, this is the first time that First Minister's questions, after questions on this basis, that I have had this put forward to me by any of the Opposition leaders. Let's salute Claire Lally's contribution whatever our politics to bringing the contribution of carers to the note of Scottish society. Let's go forward with that legislation and make Scotland a better place for the carers of this country. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the Ernst and Young 2014 UK attractive finis survey. The Ernst and Young survey was one of many substantial and encouraging reports that were released this week in terms of the Scottish economy. It shows that Scotland was once again the top-performing area for the United Kingdom outside London for foreign direct investment in 2013, with the number of projects reaching a 16-year high. That is an immensely encouraging news. It contrasts, of course, with the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer some three years ago when he warned Scotland that the debate on the constitution was going to put off foreign direct investment. Now we know that foreign direct investment is surging in Scotland. Now we know that this exceptional achievement has been achieved by Scottish Development International. Perhaps that is one of the scare mongering armory of Better Together, which finally will be put to bed. I thank the First Minister for that response, and we welcome the 16-year high. Does the First Minister agree with me that the continued dominance from London, perhaps as was suggested in the Ernst and Young statement, risks overshadowing the rest of the UK and the only way forward for an economic prosperity of Scotland in the future, and to put Scotland first, is to vote yes? It is certainly true that the independent research from Ernst and Young goes that Scotland is a greater share of projects, not just in terms of average, not just second only to London across the UK, but also in terms of key areas. Research and development, manufacturing, a very substantial percentage of our inward investments last year were in these key areas, which helped to shape the Scottish economy for the future. I really do think that the Opposition Party should bear this in mind. It is not that long ago, since they were repeating the claims of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that inward investment would be deterred, that investment in the Scottish economy would be deterred by the constitutional debate. Now we have these figures, not for one year but over the last three years. Will they finally move away from scaremongering and embrace instead the success in the Scottish economy and salute the progress of Scottish Development International and our other agencies? To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the survey published by Transform Scotland to mark the launch of its Fix It First campaign. The Government is committed to delivering a well-maintained transport network. The targeted programme of major road improvements is addressing, perhaps at McLaughlin, much-quoted claim that there have been decades of under-investment in our motorways and trunk roads. It is exactly these decades of under-investment that we are now addressing, and in doing so, with the M74, the M80, the A96, the Queensford crossing and the A9 dueling, we see substantial projects under way. We are the First Government committed to linking all of our cities by motorway or dual-carriageway, and it will have seen yesterday that the preferred bidder for the Aberdeen-Western peripheral route Balmerie to tip of the NPD contract brings us another step closer to completing a project that will create an estimated 14,000 jobs and contribute over a period over £6 billion of added production to the economy of the north-east of Scotland. I know that Mark is an MSP from central Scotland, but I am sure that, just as he applauded the great projects in central Scotland, he will applaud the western peripheral route starting in the route to Balmerie to tip of the NPD. First Minister, for that answer, 84 per cent of people want pothole fixed as a matter of urgency. That was 79 per cent in the north, where those projects were going ahead. That is no surprise since the report that we had from the AAA told us that 44 per cent of people had their vehicles damaged in the past two years as a result of potholes. When will the Scottish Government step up and commit the resources to address the £2.25 billion worth of road maintenance backlog that local government is struggling to cope with? As Mark Griffin rightly knows, the maintenance priorities are split between local government and central government. Can I address the area under our direct control? In 2014-15, the budget for motorways and trunk roads is over £677 million. 30 per cent of that budget has been allocated for maintenance spending on the roads. That is £214 million, which is 28 per cent higher than the £166.4 million, which we inherited in 2007-08. I am sure that Mark Griffin will accept that, as far as central government spending is concerned, that priority, leading to a 28 per cent increase in maintenance spending on the trunk roads in the face of the extraordinary austerity programme from Labour and Tory central government, is no mean achievement as far as central government is concerned, and therefore will accept that those figures demonstrate our priority, not just to building new roads for the great NPD programme, but for maintaining the existing trunk roads and bringing about some of the improvements that we both jointly want to see. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government last met members of the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee and whether access to the special reserve was discussed. The Scottish Government meets Glasgow 2014 organising committee frequently to discuss a wide range of issues relevant to the delivery of successful games. In fact, I am told here, and I find this difficult to believe, but Liz will correct me if the information is wrong. Just yesterday, Liz Smith attended a meeting where the director of finance was present, but apparently she did not take advantage of the opportunity and asked no budget questions of the director of finance or indeed the cabinet secretary. Everything that I know, I have to say about, Liz Smith would tell me that Liz would have taken such an opportunity, so I will give her full and fair opportunity to correct that information if it proves to be incorrect. However, it does seem that both the cabinet secretary and the director of finance were available yesterday, and I am sure that if Liz did not ask a question, there must be a very good reason for it. Liz Smith, thank you, First Minister. I would be delighted to take the opportunity with the First Minister now. A Scottish Government official stated that the special reserve fund was only to be used in what I quote, really unexpected left-field events. However, in a parliamentary answer to my colleague John Lamont, Shona Robison confirmed that the recent request to allocate 0.8 million from the special reserve fund has been allocated for potential pressures that are associated with venue fit-out. Could the First Minister, as the person who sanctions the use of special reserve funds, define the criteria by which meet the special circumstances test, as defined by Audit Scotland, and why, given that this is taxpayers' money, it was only through investigative journalism that the public was first alerted to those changes to the Commonwealth Games budgeting? Right. I see it confirmed that Liz did not ask the question yesterday, which I have to say shocks and surprise me, but I can confirm to her that the situation has not changed from when the cabinet secretary answered the identical question from one of her colleagues just last week. That is that the games continue to be delivered on time and on budget. I point out to Liz Smith that the total games budget is £575.6 million, including the £90 million security budget and the two contingency budgets, the operational contingency and the special reserve. I do not want to get into Donald Rumsfeld's mode about predicting known unknowns and unknown unknowns, but the special reserve is exactly there because it is recognised that there can be events in the proximity of the games that require this budgeted for amount to be accessed. The protection for the public and for this Parliament is that it has to be exercised by ministerial approval. However, it is part of the games budget, which has been broadcast to this Parliament elsewhere innumerable times. The games budget is £575.6 million. The games in Glasgow are being delivered on time and on budget. This is one of the few international events in history that can make that claim. I think that ourselves, our partners in Glasgow Council, the organising committee have done an amazing job to achieve what virtually no other games or world events have achieved. Is it possible at some stage, perhaps in the enthusiasm when she attends the games herself, that Liz Smith will give credit where credit is due to the organising committee? The First Minister's questions. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.