 We turn now to First Minister's Questions, question number one, Ruth Davidson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Earlier today, killer Robbie McIntosh was sentenced for the attempted murder of Linda MacDonald in Dundee, a crime committed while he was on home leave awaiting parole. Does the First Minister agree with me that this appalling case raises further questions about our justice system and why killers who should be in jail are instead allowed to walk free before our parole board has even ruled that they are safe to do so? First Minister. Ruth Davidson raises a very important issue. The case that she raises today is extremely distressing and, in my thoughts, I am sure that the thoughts of all of us are with the victim of what was a horrific attack. Obviously, I cannot comment directly on the decision that the court has taken on sentencing. However, I can confirm in factual terms what the sentence handed down today means. Robbie McIntosh has today been given an order for lifelong restriction. That means that he will not be considered for release until he has served the punishment part of his sentence. After that consideration of release would be a matter for the parole board for Scotland. Any decision would be made on the basis of the need to protect the public. However, if Robbie McIntosh were to be released at any point in the future, he will be subject to intensive supervision for the rest of his life. In terms of the issue of home leave, as Ruth Davidson will be aware, a system of home leave has existed for life sentence prisoners for many, many years. It is a well-established part of the rehabilitation process. A rigorous risk assessment is undertaken by the Scottish prison sentence before any offender is granted any form of unescorted leave that involves psychological assessment, social work reports and reports on the time they have spent in prison. Home leave is also always granted with very strict conditions applied. In terms of its application to this case, which I understand raises concerns, the Scottish prison service has undertaken an incident review that has considered all stages of the individual's progression in the prison system. It has also reviewed the risk assessments undertaken to make sure that any lessons from this case are learned. That report has been shared with the MAPA strategic oversight group in Tayside, who initiated a significant case review. That will consider the circumstances of the case and identify where any improvements needed can and will be made. I fully understand that the circumstances of the case raise those concerns. However, I hope that the information that I have shared with the chamber today will be of some reassurance, not just to members but to the wider public. Ruth Davidson. I thank the First Minister for her response. She is right to say that it is rare that we raise individual criminal cases in this chamber, but this example merits it. Macintosh should have been out just five days before he tried to kill again. As his victim's husband, Matthew, said, given his past conviction for a brutal murder, I cannot believe that the Scottish prison service deemed that the sick individual who attempted to murder my wife was allowed to be in the public domain. The family said that it is not enough for the Scottish prison service and the parole board to just look at what went wrong in this case, such as the incident review that the First Minister mentioned. Relatives say that they must re-examine their criteria for both assessment and release of all such criminals on home leave. Does the First Minister agree with me that this must now take place? First Minister. Absolutely, I agree. As I indicated in my previous answer, any lessons that are required to be learned in association with this case, of course, are required to be applied for the future. That is absolutely the case. Therefore, on that specific point, I agree with Ruth Davidson. I can also say that I entirely understand and sympathise with the views of the family. If I was in the shoes of the family members of this victim, I would be saying exactly the same things. I think that all of us can recognise that. If I am getting this wrong, I do not think that Ruth Davidson will tell me, but I assume that Ruth Davidson is not arguing that there should not be provision in our criminal justice system for home leave. As I said earlier, it has for a long time been an established part of the rehabilitation process. However, it is right that the most rigorous of risk assessments are undertaken by the prison service, and it is the prison service, as opposed to the parole board, to decide on matters of home leave. It is also important that strict conditions are applied. The kind of restrictions that are often applied are restricting where a prisoner can visit, stipulations on what time they must be at their residence, for example. If there are lessons to be learned from this case—and undoubtedly, I think that there will be—then, of course, those lessons must be applied for the future. Ruth Davidson. I accept that this is an extreme case, but it does tap into a wider public concern. Under current rules, criminals can be allowed out of jail before their official release. As the First Minister said, it is called temporary release, and that means that they can be let out into the community without supervision. Through freedom of information, we have discovered that there were more than 4,000 cases in the last year alone, where, like Macintosh, prisoners had been granted such leave. A small fraction of cases such as compassionate leave might be appropriate, but does the First Minister agree with me that when 4,000 convicted criminals are walking out of prison before they have even been considered for parole, that this is something that we perhaps should look at again? The First Minister. I think that we should look at whether there are lessons to be learned from a case like this one to change or to tighten the way in which risk assessments are carried out in the future, so I absolutely agree with that. In principle, I accept that those can be difficult discussions to have, and those can be difficult things for the public, not just for those of us who are members of this Parliament. However, home leave has been an important part of the rehabilitation and reintegration process for a long time. In part, it allows an individual to be tested on how and if they can adapt to living in the community. For life sentence prisoners, home leave is the final stage in a phase programme of increasing their freedoms, and often it helps to inform the parole board's decisions on suitability for release. Home leave will only be granted after the prisoner has progressed successfully through the prison system. In principle, it is important to have a system like this, but, as I have also said, we must learn lessons from individual cases, albeit that they are extreme cases, to make sure that there is a continuous system of learning in place. I am absolutely committed, as I know that the Scottish Prison Service will be, to making sure that any appropriate lessons are learned. Ruth Davidson I do not think that it is unreasonable for the public to expect prisoners to serve their time. When cases like today's emerge, the question from the public is why again? Why is a killer let loose to try and kill again? Why are the dice loaded against victims and in favour of criminals again? Why do we only act when another family is left to pick up the pieces of their lives? Again, home leave for convicted murderers, where they are free to walk the streets before they even face the parole board, should be reviewed. Is not that simple? Ruth Davidson No, I do not—with the gates of respect to Ruth Davidson, I do not think that those issues are that simple. Ruth Davidson says that the public have a right to expect that prisoners serve their time, and in principle I agree with that. In fact, it is this Government, of course, who finally took the steps to restrict the automatic early release of prisoners. However, where prisoners are to be released, we owe it to the public to make sure that appropriate steps have been taken to reintegrate those prisoners into society. It is the steps that are taken to do that that reduces the risks of prisoners re-offending. The worst thing that the prison service and the parole board could do in terms of wider public safety is to have a prisoner that is simply released on the last day of their sentence without any steps that have been taken gradually and over a period of time to rehabilitate and reintegrate them. That is why a system of home leave, however difficult this can sometimes be to discuss and debate, is really important as a part of a criminal justice system. At the heart of Ruth Davidson's question, as is often the case for the Conservatives although, often, their actions in Government do not quite match the rhetoric in opposition, is this notion that, somehow, Scotland's justice system is soft touch? Frankly, the facts do not bear that out. We have got one of the highest prison populations in the whole of Europe. The big challenges for our criminal justice system—of course, serious criminals should be locked up, that is not in doubt, but the bigger challenge for our criminal justice system is how we rehabilitate where appropriate prisoners are, so that there is less of a risk of them re-offending. With the greatest respect to Ruth Davidson, those are not simple issues. Those are really complex issues. We have a duty to recognise the complexity with the public, but that does not take away from the fact that when something goes wrong in a case, as will always happen, unfortunately in any system, we make sure that the views of the family of course are listened to and that lessons are learned, and that is exactly the process that will be followed in this situation. 2. Richard Leonard Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister's own poverty adviser, Naomi Eisenstadt, has said that investment in good quality and affordable early learning and childcare is crucial, crucial because of the difference that it can make to children from poorer backgrounds. It was a matter of grave concern to read Audit Scotland's latest report criticising the Government's progress in expanding early learning and childcare provision last week. It says that there is no national leadership, no sense of urgency and £160 million funding gap. How does the First Minister answer that damning criticism? First of all, let me just share with the chamber the very first paragraph of the Audit Scotland report that was published last week, and I am quoting. The Scottish Government's policy to increase funded early learning in childcare is consistent with national strategic objectives around improving the lives of children and their families. The Scottish Government and councils have worked well together to expand provision and parents are positive about benefits. We have, of course, already expanded early learning in childcare from the situation that has been inherited from the last Labour-liberal administration. The plans that we are pursuing now are the most ambitious plans to extend childcare in early learning that this Parliament has ever seen. Inherent in ambitious plans, there will be challenges, but we are working through those challenges. We are on track to deliver the expansion. We are discussing with councils a multi-year funding package. It is not unusual with policies such as this, for initially there to be disagreements between local and national government about the amount of money that is required. We are fully planned to have agreement with COSLA by the end of April on this. Let us not forget the purpose of this policy. It is to improve the experience in the early years of our youngest children to prepare them better for their school years and beyond. It is also about helping parents to work without massive childcare costs. That is the right policy. Yes, delivering a policy of this scale has challenges, but we are determined, as we were, with the 600-hours expansion to deliver this, because it is in the interests of young people the length and breadth of this country. Richard Leonard It is there in paragraph 66 of Audit Scotland's report. The Scottish Government has not led a national approach to help the expansion in funded hours. It is not just the depth but the breadth of the problems in this Government's early learning and childcare policy that are a cause for concern. Audit Scotland also reports that the Government, and I quote them again, has not yet done enough to ensure that the 12,000 additional staff needed to deliver this new entitlement will be in place on time. Where is your plan to find the additional 12,000 nursery workers needed to meet your childcare promise? In terms of the overall policy, I remember when—to be fair, not Richard Leonard, because he was not a member of the Parliament at the time—I remember other members of Labour benches telling us that we would not deliver the 600 hours that we committed to. We have delivered that, showing the track record in delivering expanded childcare, and we are on track to deliver the next expansion. In terms of the workforce, Richard Leonard says where is the plan, which is a question that could be asked about every aspect of Scottish Labour's policy, but we will leave that to one side. Where is the plan? Let me outline the workforce plan. Firstly, the national recruitment campaign launched in October last year. We are developing phase 2 for summer this year, which is focused on career changers. We have already increased capacity in early years' courses in colleges and universities to support the first phase of the workforce expansion. The Scottish Funding Council is offering around 1,500 additional places on a one-year HNC course in 2018-19. We are funding 435 additional graduates to work in nurseries in our most deprived areas and island councils by August this year. Skills Development Scotland has committed to increasing the number of modern apprenticeships in early years and childcare by 10 per cent. When Labour is actually getting the detailed answer to their question, you notice that they do not actually want to hear it. Let me go back to the answer. Skills Development Scotland is increasing the number of modern apprenticeships in early years and childcare by 10 per cent, year on year, up to 2020. Of course, we are also enabling payment of the living wage to all childcare staff, delivering that funded entitlement. To Richard Leonard, let me say quite clearly that there is the plan. In amongst that avalanche of statistics, the First Minister did not even address the huge shortfall in capital funding. Councils need almost £750 million to buy land, adapt and build all the premises that are needed to deliver that policy, but the money is not there for that either. The Government rightly made childcare its flagship policy, but as it stands, there is not enough money, not enough staff, not enough buildings to keep that promise. Scotland's parents cannot even access their existing rights. One parent has told the campaign group Fair Funding for Our Kids, and I quote them, "...it costs so much to have the kids looked after, while I'm working, it's not worth working." Another said, "...when I had my second child, it was cheaper for me to be at home than at work." So that policy might well fit on an election leaflet, but, First Minister, your delivery of it is not fit for purpose. No one can believe your childcare promises for the future because your policies in the present are failing. Local councils say it, parents say it or did Scotland say it, when will you start to listen? First Minister, let me apologise to Richard Leonard for clearly providing more facts in my last answer than he could cope with, and giving him more of a plan than he actually wanted. Unfortunately, I'm going to do the same all over again. In terms of our past commitments, we have delivered the 600 hours that we committed to delivering. We also see flexibility increasing, so we see the proportion of council settings providing funded care before, during and after school has increased. The proportion of council settings operating during school holidays has increased, but it is to increase flexibility further that we are going from 600 hours a year right now to the 1140 that we are committed to. In terms of funding, this is funding that will be delivered over a number of years up to 2020. In this year, we are providing £76 million in revenue funding to local authorities—sorry, in the year about to start. Of that, £52 million is new. Richard Leonard talked about building the premises. We are providing £150 million in capital funding in 2018-19 specifically to support the next phase of infrastructure investment. Finally, it is a bit rich for Richard Leonard to come here today and complain about the funding for this policy when that funding, for the coming financial year that I have just outlined, Richard Leonard and all of his colleagues voted against in this chamber yesterday. Thank you. There's a number of constituency supplementaries. The first from Liam Kerr. Recent figures revealed by the press and journal showed that my region, the north-east, had the highest number of school pupils caught with knives. First Minister, I have here a letter from December 2017 from the Justice Minister in which he promised me that he would publish statistics on school exclusions for carrying a weapon in January 2018. As at today's date, the statistics have not been published. Why not? First Minister. I'll ask the Justice Secretary to write to the member to update him, but we've had exchanges on this issue before. I've had exchanges with Ruth Davidson on this before. We are now publishing more statistics around the carrying of weapons in schools. The Police Scotland statistics that are published now distinguish between different categories, and I think that that is right and proper, of course. Equally importantly, as published in the data, which is important, we have a number of programmes of work, many of them funded by this Government, to reduce violence on the part of young people, not just in our schools and generally. This is important work. I'll ask the Justice Secretary to give him a specific update on the point that he raises. I think that this is something that members across the chamber will be united in committing to doing as much as we can to tackle and to challenge. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Under the contract sign between the Scottish Government and Serco Northlink, Orkney's lifeline ferry service across the Pentland Firth has been provided by a freight vessel over recent weeks. Does she believe that that is acceptable? If not, can she explain what steps her Government took to ensure a more appropriate replacement vessel was identified? Could she also apologise to those who have been unable to travel on this route during the refit period, including my constituent Terri Jane White, a UHI student rep with Fibromyalgia, who asked the very legitimate question, how a replacement ferry in 2018 is not accessible for wheelchair users? Obviously, I don't know the details other than what Liam McArthur has just shared with me about his particular constituency case. Of course, it is deeply regrettable if any person, particularly somebody with a disability, felt that they didn't have the standards on a transport system that they have a right to expect. Obviously, we want and expect the highest standards, whether they are on Northlink ferries or any other part of our transport system. In terms of the specific issues about the vessel being used during a period of refit for the normal vessel, of course, there will be a number of issues that Serco has had to consider there. I am more than happy to ask the transport minister to speak further with Serco on this particular point and communicate directly with the member on the detail of it. Jenny Marr Presiding Officer, Channel 4 News led with a heartbreaking report from Dundee this week. Our city suffered 12 drug deaths in January alone, compared to 38 in the whole of 2016. Dundee has the highest drugs death rate in Scotland. Scotland's rate is far above the UK average, and the UK's drug death rate far exceeds the European average. That is a human crisis deep in the heart of our communities. What can the First Minister's Government do to help to reduce drug deaths in Dundee and across the country? First Minister, that is a really important issue. I think that everybody would be distressed at any drug death and distressed at the contents of the Channel 4 report earlier this week. If I can address Dundee specifically first of all, Jenny Marr will be aware that Dundee alcohol and drug partnership are proposing to hold a commission specifically on drug misuse in Dundee to identify best practice and consider issues that will have an impact on drug use, including mental health deprivation and social inclusion. I think that that move is to be welcome. More generally—I know that this has been debated widely in the chamber previously—data indicates that the rise in drug deaths is predominantly being driven by an older cohort of chaotic drug users experiencing multiple comorbidities. We had, of course, the NHS Health Scotland report last year establishing links between the rise in drug deaths and the legacy of social policies going back to the 1980s, but it is absolutely important that we do everything that we can now to tackle and address that. That is why we take a public health approach to problem drug misuse. We are reviewing our national drug strategy, so it is founded on the principles of seek, keep and treat. The nature of Scotland's drug problem has changed, and that is one of the reasons that we are introducing a combined drug and alcohol treatment strategy. We are also investing significant sums of money to tackle problem drug and alcohol misuse. Of course, we announced in the budget additional funding for alcohol and drug treatment services, so those are important issues and we must work as hard as we can to tackle them. I suppose that I can endow on a more positive note that I think should give us encouragement for the future. Latest figures indicate that drug taking in the general population is falling and it remains low for young people. Latest figures indicate that the number of adults aged 16 to 59 using drugs in the last year has decreased. I am not saying that that should make us complacent, but it does underline the fact that that is an issue about a legacy of older drug users who are now suffering serious health problems, and that must help us to target the interventions that we need to take to address that more effectively. Question 3, Willie Rennie. I am with the First Minister on our ambition to expand nursery education, but I am deeply concerned that she will not be able to deliver it. I hope that she understands when so many organisations have spoken out recently. Look at who is speaking out. We have fair funding for kids who talk about the lack of flexibility. We have the Accounts Commission, who spoke of a significant risk, a lack of clarity, poor planning and the funding shortfall. We have the Child Minders Association, who say that the sector is potentially facing a crisis. Why does the First Minister think that all those organisations are wrong? That is a mischaracterisation of my position and the position of the Government. We are working closely with local authorities. We will address fully all the recommendations of the Audit Scotland report last weekend. In fact, Child Minders will be absolutely central to delivering the expanded provision that we are committed to and that we have already been talking about today. Willie Rennie describes the lack of flexibility. As I said earlier, we are seeing increasing flexibility in the current system, but it is a recognition that the current system is not flexible enough or that it has one of the things that led us to give the commitment to doubling provision. It stands to reason that, if you have whole-day provision as a matter of right, the ability for that to be provided more flexibly increases. I readily acknowledge that, when we made the commitment, the challenges in delivering such an ambitious policy are one of the many policies that the Government is committed to that have the potential to be genuinely transformational. We will continue to take the action, put in place the plans, even if they are more detailed than Richard Leonard wants them to be, to make sure that working with our local authority partners is a commitment that is delivered just as our previous commitment was delivered because it is for the benefit of young people in every part of the country. I want to repeat that I agree with her ambition. I really want that to work, but if everything is okay, why are so many organisations speaking out? When fair funding for kids warned her in 2015, the First Minister said that she would fix it. In 2016, they warned again and the First Minister simply repeated the same words. They are back again this year. At the current rate of progress, it will take another 20 years to recruit the staff that is needed, and it will take 45 years before places are available everywhere during the school holidays. Three years after the First Minister made this promise, why is the Government so far behind? We are not far behind. Some of the claims that Willie Rennie has just made there are ridiculous and will seem to be ridiculous in a few years' time when we have delivered the commitment just as we delivered the 600 hours when many people across the chamber were sceptical that we would do so. In terms of fair funding for our kids, I do not want to put words into their mouth and they will speak for themselves, but many of the frustrations that they have are about the current system and the lack of flexibility. I gave statistics to Richard Leonard about the increase in flexibility that we have seen over the past few years, but that does not go far enough. It is the recognition of that that has led to the commitment to double provision. We want to increase the provision in the way that we have set out. We want to make that provision inherently more flexible. Of course, crucially, which, interestingly, neither Richard Leonard nor Willie Rennie have raised today, we want to make sure that the provision is of a very high quality. Fundamentally, although the benefits to parents are important, fundamentally this is about improving the early years' experience of our youngest children. That is one of the key policies of this Government. I fully expect to be scrutinised on the delivery as we go through the next few years, but it is one that we are determined to deliver and determined to put the funding and the planning in place to make sure that we can and we do. Some further supplementaries. The first is from Ivan McKee. Just eight months ago, the Scottish Tories boasted about championing Scottish interests at Westminster, but now it transpires that their MPs take their marching orders from Jacob Rees-Mogg, not Ruth Davidson. How can any Scottish MP justify support for the hardest of hard Brexit to their constituents? Very briefly. The member has to tell to make a point, but it is not massively a question for the First Minister. The First Minister may respond briefly, but she will have an opportunity in the next question to respond at length on Brexit. With the greatest respect, I do think that Brexit is very much a matter for the First Minister, given the risks that it poses. The question was about Conservative MPs. I do not believe you have responsibility for Conservative MPs. First Minister, you have a chance to answer this question in a few minutes. We will move on to the next supplementary. The next supplementary is from Jackson Carlaw. At a recent meeting with the Asian community in my Eastwood constitu— Please be quiet so that Mr Carlaw speaks. At a recent meeting with the Asian community in my Eastwood constituency, Police Scotland confirmed that there has been a sustained series of forensically aware, gang-related, targeted attacks on Asian households. I understand in Eastwood and in Easton Bartonshire. My constituents make no complaint about the actions of Police Scotland or the efforts that it is making. However, one point that Police Scotland did make, and those attacks are taking place between 12pm and 6pm, fortunately but not exclusively when households have not been occupied, is that there is a reluctance in the part of the public who believe that information that they may have will be regarded as either trivial or circumstantial. Will the First Minister join me in assuring people that they are not wasting police time? If we are going to tackle this particular and very pernicious attack on the Asian community, it requires all the public to give whatever information that they have immediately to the police so that they can act on it. As Jackson Carlaw is aware, I represent a very large Asian population in my constituency. I am very well aware of the issue and the attacks. They are targeted on the Asian community. They are absolutely unacceptable and should be completely condemned by all of us. I know people personally who have been targeted in recent weeks. That is a serious issue. It is one that I will be on a constituency basis, be raising again with Police Scotland although they work very hard to support the community. Jackson Carlaw is right to say that anybody in the community who has concerns should come forward and share those concerns. The information that they give will never be treated as trivial because it is not trivial. Those attacks are pernicious and they must be tackled. I know that Police Scotland is determined to do all that it can to tackle them. All of us should give all the support that we possibly can to a very valued and valuable part of our community as they face attacks on them that are so completely unacceptable. In 2017, a rare and beautiful young golden eagle was raised in the Scottish Borders by the only pair of freezing adults there. He was satellite tagged and last month left home for the first time. Less than a week later, he disappeared in the Pentland Hills near Cury. His tag stopped sending data for three days, then started again this time in the North Sea off St Andrews. RSPB Scotland and Raptor Persecution UK regard that disappearance as highly suspicious. I believe that it is likely that this young eagle has been illegally killed. Donald Dure described the persecution of birds of prey as a national disgrace, but it is still going on. What is the Scottish Government doing in response to those reports and will the First Minister finally commit to licensing regime for game bird shooting? I agree that the persecution of birds of prey is unacceptable and would absolutely associate myself with the comments that Alison Johnstone has made in that regard. The Government treats and sees that as an extremely serious issue. There is a group, as Alison Johnstone will be aware, that was set up following a report that was commissioned and published last year on the issue, which is looking at various aspects of licensing and the impact of ground shooting on that particular issue. I am very happy, and I am sure that Roseanna Cunningham is the responsible minister, to meet Alison Johnstone to discuss his work in more detail, but I am sure that all of us across the chamber are united in agreeing that this is something that is unacceptable and requires to be robustly tackled. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on negotiations regarding Scotland's place in Europe. The joint ministerial committee on EU negotiations was meeting this morning. I understand that it broke up just before the session of First Minister's questions started and there will be another meeting next week. In our discussions with the UK Government, we continue at all times to seek to protect both the devolution settlement and Scotland's place in Europe. That said, the UK Government still refuses to listen to the case for retaining single market membership, despite the clear evidence, including from the UK Government itself, of the damage that will be caused by a hard Brexit. Decisions on the future relationship with the EU continue to be taken without the proper involvement of all the Governments of the UK. I wrote to the Prime Minister on this very issue on 6 February, to which I am sorry to say that I am yet to receive a response. It is the devolution element of that that I would really like to focus on, because a founding principle of devolution is that the powers of this Parliament can only be amended with the consent of this Parliament. As the finance committee's cross-party report made clear, as it currently stands, the EU withdrawal bill is incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland. In the First Minister's view, are the new proposals from the UK Government which would essentially give them a supervisory role over Holyrood, now compatible with devolution? First Minister? No, I do not think that they are. I think that it is right to recall that there is a unanimous view in this Parliament that the cosy living of the withdrawal bill is incompatible with devolution. There has been movement from the UK Government, and I welcome that, because I think that it is a recognition of how unacceptable the initial proposals were. However, that movement does not yet go far enough. I think that, just to try to simplify this, it does not just give the UK Government oversight of this Parliament in government. It would, in matters that are devolved to this Parliament, effectively give the UK Government powers of imposition or powers of veto. I do not think that that is acceptable. The Government of Wales does not believe that that is acceptable, and that is why there must be further movement from the UK Government if we are going to reach agreement. I hope that we can reach agreement. I think that it is being asked by the UK Government to take it on trust that it will not exercise those powers in a way that is unacceptable. I am not casting aspersions on the good faith of any individual, but we should not forget that this is a UK Government right now that, at times, seems willing to ride rough shod over the Northern Irish Good Friday agreement. I do not think that we can simply take it on trust that the same Government would always respect the devolution settlement. That is why we must have guarantees that the powers of this Parliament and the devolution settlement must be protected, and that no Scottish Government worth its salt would accept anything less. Presiding Officer, can the First Minister respond to the SRUC report out this week? It said this about leaving the EU. In every scenario, Scotland's farmers would be worse off compared to under the current trade arrangement with somewhere all producers facing lower returns. There is absolutely no doubt that Brexit will have a significant impact on the day-to-day running of every farm and every croft across the country. This important study reaffirms what previous studies have shown, such as those carried out by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute in Quality Meet Scotland. The report is yet further confirmation that the Scottish Government's position of remaining in the EU or failing that staying within the single market and customs union would be in the best interests—not just of Scotland, but the whole of the UK. That is why it really begs our belief that this week we have seen a third of the Scottish Tory MPs sign up to a letter that is effectively calling for the hardest possible no-deal Brexit. It is absolutely shameful, because it is against the interests of the country that they are supposed to represent. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the recent Audit Scotland report, which states that its childcare plans face significant challenges. Our commitment to double free nursery education is the most ambitious expansion of funded early learning and childcare that this country has ever seen, providing all three and four-year-olds an eligible two-year-olds. With 1140 hours of nursery education, we will ensure that children get the best possible start in life, while also supporting parents and families into work training and education. We will, of course, carefully consider the recommendations in the Audit Scotland report and address the issues that it raises, but we remain on track to deliver our expansion plans. I welcome Audit Scotland's recognition of our good working relationship with local authorities and other partners to deliver our shared objective, and I am assured that we will reach agreement with COSLA on a multi-year funding package by the end of April. As the First Minister indicated earlier, the quality of childcare provision depends on the quality and availability of good staff. The Scottish Government has estimated that they need between 6,000 and 8,000 additional whole-time equivalent staff to deliver the planned expansion, and presumably the Government's funding estimates are based on that. Audit Scotland's report, however, reveals that the council estimates place the number significantly higher with an additional 12,000 staff required. Can the First Minister please tell me which figure she believes is correct? The figures that the Scottish Government has put forward are the ones that we believe are required. As I said to Richard Leonard earlier on, we have a plan, a very detailed plan, in place to recruit the additional staff that are required for this policy. Of course, we will continue on an on-going basis to discuss those issues with COSLA. We must not miss the massive opportunity that is involved in the policy. As I said earlier on, it is about improving the early years experience of children, which will help them in attainment later on in school. It is about making it easier for parents to get into work, but it is also a massive opportunity for greater availability of jobs in the sector, not just for young people, but particularly for young people. Every aspect of the policy is positive. Yes, challenges are inherent in it because of the ambitious nature and scale of it, but we will continue to work, as we have been doing, to make sure that, just like the last commitment that we gave, it will be delivered and it will be delivered in full. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response says to reports that the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator is aware of multiple allegations of abusive behaviour and misconduct in the third sector. I am appalled to hear reports of abuse and misconduct by staff in the third sector. I am very clear that the Scottish Government will not tolerate human rights abuses wherever they take place. We expect all organisations to monitor their work closely and any reported incident must be dealt with firmly and thoroughly. Oscar's regulatory focus is to ensure that Charity trustees are dealing appropriately with any allegations of misconduct and other serious incidents affecting their charity, where complaints have been made to Oscar. I am assured that the trustees have acted promptly in line with their legal responsibilities and that safeguarding policies have been put in place. Monica Lennon I thank the First Minister for her reply. Scotland's Charity sector plays an important role in creating a fairer Scotland, and we are all grateful to them for the work that they do. Recent reports about sexual misconduct in Scottish charities are worrying. There is no legal requirement for charities to report notifiable events to Oscar, so it is left open to charities to decide whether an event merits reporting. Since 2016, 8 per cent of all cases notified to Oscar related to sexual misconduct. We know that stigma and poor understanding of legal rights stops victims from reporting sexual harm, and coupled with charities applying discretion to what they tell Oscar, the true scale of sexual misconduct in the charity sector could be higher. What steps will the First Minister take to ensure that the current charity regulations and Oscar procedures are robust and fit for purpose? Can she update the Parliament on other steps that the Government is taking to speed up a change in culture to ensure that sexual harassment and sexual assaults are not played down and are not rooted in victim blaming? The First Minister On the first part of the member's question, we will continue to discuss with Oscar and listen to any views that they have about any changes that they consider are necessary to the procedures in place, but, as I said, they already have a regulatory focus to ensure that charity trustees are dealing appropriately with any allegations of misconduct. The second point that I would make is one that Monica Lennon alluded to, is that notwithstanding the quite horrendous revelations that we have been reading about and hearing about in recent weeks, we must remember the good work that our charity sector does. There are literally thousands of people, many of them volunteers, the length and breadth of the country contributing their time and efforts to help make this country a better place. I was very proud yesterday, as I was last year, to officially open the SCVO gathering in Glasgow. That is an opportunity to recognise the efforts of our charities and third sector generally. Finally, on the more general point, all of us have an obligation in this regard. At the moment, one week, we are facing allegations in politics or Hollywood. More recently, it has been the charity sector. Underlying all of this is not a particular sector or a particular organisation. It is the fact that we have a culture in our society where some men—and I stress that some men—still abuse positions of power that they hold. That is what is unacceptable. Those things are not easy for any of us, but all of us have a duty to stand up and do the right things to make sure that the fundamental underlying culture is one that we are challenging and changing for good. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister, in the light of recent reports, has agreed that, although children die for lack of food and women, men and children across the world are disadvantaged in ways that we cannot begin to imagine, we cannot allow the appalling behaviour of the few to jeopardise the aid commitment to those who need it most. I hope that that is something every single member of the chamber would unite behind. We should never condone or diminish individual cases such as the ones that we have heard of, but our charity sector generally and our international aid sector in particular do valued and valuable and vital work, and we must support them in doing that. We all know that there are some politicians—hopefully not in this chamber but perhaps in other parts of the UK—that would use those revelations to undermine the very commitment to international aid that we are proud of. We must not allow that to happen. We have a duty to help the most vulnerable and poorest across the world, and I want to see us continue to do that. Thank you very much, and that concludes First Minister's questions. We will move on to members' business in the name of Graham Day. We will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.