 Rwyth Davidson. Llyr Gruffydd, last week I asked the First Minister about the justice secretary's involvement in the decision to prevent the chief constable from returning to work. She said nine times that all Michael Matheson did was to ask questions of the Scottish Police Authority's decision. In evidence to this morning's Audit Committee, the former chair of the SPA revealed that Matheson's involvement went far beyond that. He said that in their private meeting, the justice secretary told him that the SPA had made a bad decision. Which version of events is true? First Minister. I have heard extracts of this morning's committee session, I haven't managed to listen to all of it, but I don't think that Ruth Davidson is correct in her characterisation of the evidence that was heard this morning. Andrew Flanagan said, for example, that the justice secretary did not request him to change his decision. What he did was ask questions about the steps that had been taken. He also expressly said that he was not directed by the justice secretary. As I said last week, there is a clear distinction here between the operational independence of the SPA and, of course, the police in matters that no justice secretary should intervene in, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the proper role of a justice secretary in making sure that due process is followed. Michael Matheson asked legitimate questions about the steps that had been taken leading up to the decision to ask the chief constable to return to work. For example, had Perk been asked whether or not his return to work would compromise the on-going investigation? Secondly, whether the senior command had been notified? We heard the acting chief constable say earlier in the week that that wasn't the case, and thirdly whether there had been plans put in place for the welfare of officers who had raised concerns. The reason, as I heard it this morning, Andrew Flanagan felt that he had no option but to change his decision was that he couldn't answer those questions about process. It is entirely legitimate. I think that the public would have expected the cabinet secretary to do what he did. I come back to the point that Ruth Davidson couldn't address last week. If the position of Ruth Davidson is that the justice secretary should not have asked those legitimate questions, is she saying that she thinks that the chief constable should have returned to work without any of those issues being properly explained? I am prepared to bet, Presiding Officer. If that had happened, Ruth Davidson would have been standing up in this chamber saying how outrageous that was. In low circumstances, she might actually have been right. The evidence that emerged this morning might be inconvenient for the First Minister, but she cannot pretend that it does not contradict her earlier answers, because the former SPA chair was asked this morning whether he felt that the cabinet secretary had made a value judgment on the decision, and he said yes. Then, just hours after their one-to-one, Michael Matheson hauled the SPA chair back in for another meeting, this time with civil servants, where he then raised issues of process that would prevent the chief constable's return. The SPA chair called it a one-sided meeting, and he said that he felt that he had no choice but to reverse the decision of his independent board. I changed my mind based on the cabinet secretary being unhappy. The independent chair of an independent body has two meetings with the justice secretary, where in the first he's told he's made a bad decision, and after the second he's left in no doubt that he has to reverse it. How can that possibly tally with what SNP ministers have claimed in recent weeks? The key aspects of evidence are clearly inconvenient for Ruth Davidson, because, as I said earlier on, Andrew Flanagan clearly said that he hadn't been requested by the justice secretary to change his decision and that he wasn't directed to do so. Questions were asked, and as I said last week—and I repeat again today—I am absolutely of the view that the justice secretary was right to ask those questions. Again, I would invite Ruth Davidson to perhaps address this point. If she doesn't take the view that the decision to invite the chief constable to return to work without asking Perk if it would compromise an on-going investigation, without telling the acting chief constable and the rest of the senior command and without putting in place any plan for the welfare of officers who'd raised concerns and made complaints, if she doesn't think that that was a defective decision, is it her position that that was a good decision and that the chief constable the following day should have returned to work? I think that it was right to ask those questions. Again, I put it to the chamber and I put it to the Scottish people that if those questions hadn't been asked, if the justice secretary hadn't asked any of those questions. The next morning, the chief constable had turned up to report for work at Tully Allen. Ruth Davidson and other Opposition leaders would have come to this chamber demanding statements and, no doubt, demanding that the justice secretary consider his position. There is rank hypocrisy at play here, and I think that everybody can see it. The First Minister asked me what I would have done. I would have made sure that my justice secretary let this Parliament and this country know about the decisions that he was making. Here's the most damning thing of all. It's that now, on 25 January, we are still having to piece together the details of what happened at the beginning of November when this Government was involved in one of the most important policing decisions it has taken since coming to office. Only now are we getting formal evidence that the justice secretary was absolutely instrumental in preventing the chief constable's return. However, if it hadn't been for reports in the press, the whole thing would have been kept under wraps, and this Parliament would have been kept in the dark. We were told when the national force was set up that transparency would be its watchword. Can the First Minister really stand there and claim that this episode has shown that to be true? I think that we are getting a clear picture today that, in the unlikely event that Ruth Davidson had been or was the First Minister, the chief constable would have come back to work that day without any relevant questions being asked. That is not the kind of governance that the people of Scotland expect and deserve. However, on this issue about what Parliament knows, there is nothing that Ruth Davidson has brought to Parliament today that is different to what she brought to Parliament last week. The reason for that is because there is nothing in what we heard this morning that changes what was already known, because the justice secretary came to this Parliament and gave a full statement and answered questions from across the chamber on exactly what had happened. Nothing that we have heard since then has changed the facts that the justice secretary put to Parliament. Of course, we also had a debate in this chamber yesterday, brought by the Tories, where they lost the vote because they had not made the argument that they are trying to make. The point here is that the justice secretary, discharging his responsibilities, asked legitimate questions. If those who are saying that he should not have asked those legitimate questions are really taking that position, then what they have to explain to the Scottish people is why they think that it would have been right for the chief constable to return to work with no consultation with the organisation that is carrying out an investigation, without the acting chief constable even being told about it and without any concern for the welfare of other officers. That may be Ruth Davidson's position. That is not my position and my position is that the justice secretary acted entirely appropriately. Let's cut through all of this. Last week, the First Minister stood there and told this chamber nine times that her justice secretary did nothing but ask a few questions, but we now know that that is not true. We know that he made it clear that the SPA's decision was wrong. She says that Mr Matheson did not instruct the process, but we now know that the SPA's former chair left his second meeting with the justice secretary feeling that he had no choice but to overturn the authority's decision. Last week, the First Minister stood here and told me that Michael Matheson did not intervene, but doesn't the evidence of this morning show that it's a different story there? Doesn't it make clear that, bluntly, the justice secretary leaned on the SPA? First Minister. The greatest respect it shows is no. Andrew Flanagan, the former chair of the SPA, said at the committee this morning that he hadn't been requested by the justice secretary to change his decision. He had no option in his view but to change his decision because he couldn't answer the most basic question about the process that had been followed. Again, we come back to the nub of this issue. Ruth Davidson has changed ground with every single question that she's asked today, but the nub of this issue is this one. If Ruth Davidson is saying that the justice secretary should not have asked these questions, should not have acted in the way that he did, then by definition she must be saying that the chief constable should simply have been allowed to return to work, no matter the fact that none of these basic steps had been followed. Ruth Davidson keeps saying that nine times last week that I said that I thought that the justice secretary had behaved entirely appropriately. I've said it several times again today, so let me say it one more time. The justice secretary acted entirely appropriately. He acted in the interests of the people of Scotland and, faced with the same circumstances again, he would do the same and ask the same legitimate questions all over again. 2. Richard Leonard Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last week, I raised with the First Minister the Save Our Beals campaign. Those are elderly people facing eviction from their homes. The First Minister said that her health secretary would meet with the campaigners as a matter of urgency, but today's Courier newspaper reports that campaigners are still waiting. Can the First Minister update the chamber on what progress has been made? The First Minister Yes, I can. Shona Robison's private office has, over the course of the last week, made a number of offers of meeting times that the group, for no doubt understandable reasons, was unable to accept. Last night, the health secretary spoke directly to one of the campaigners, seeking to organise a meeting that she wanted to ensure that she had their views before she met with Beald, as she did earlier this morning. However, during that meeting, the health secretary arranged to meet with representatives of the campaign, and that meeting will take place on 6 February. Richard Leonard I thank the First Minister for that answer, and I hope that we can see an early and satisfactory resolution to this. When a Government makes a promise to the people, it is important that that promise is kept, not least when it comes to the wellbeing of people's families. On 1 May 2016, the First Minister told Gordon Clark on national television that there were no proposals to close the children's ward at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. And now, less than two years later, her Government is closing the children's ward down. Mr Clark is here today in the gallery, so will the First Minister take this opportunity to apologise to Mr Clark for misleading him? It is interesting that Richard Leonard today said that, back in May 2016, I gave a commitment about the Royal Alexandra hospital and the children's ward there. It is interesting because this is what Labour said about that after that debate. They said that, during that debate, I had been asked to give a guarantee to protect those services and I refused to give the guarantee. That was Neil Bibby for the avoidance of doubt, but on the substance of the issue—this is a far more important issue than simply political interchanges and exchanges. The health secretary updated Parliament earlier this week on the decision around ward 15 at the Royal Alexandra hospital. She said, and I think that she was right to say it, that it is possibly the most difficult decision that she has had to make as health secretary, and that is entirely understandable. Every decision that affects the interests of children and particularly the health of children should be a difficult one for ministers to make. She arrived at the decision that she made, having taken into account a range of views, including the very important views of parents, but arrived at that decision based on clinical evidence. It is worth noting what the lead paediatric clinicians, the chief nurse for paediatrics at the Royal Alexandra hospital and the Royal hospital for children, said earlier this week. They think that the change will help to implement the standards that the Royal College of Pediatricians and Child Health set to ensure that high-quality healthcare is delivered to children and that the implementation of those standards will contribute to better outcomes for children and young people. That is the clinical advice that drove the decision. Of course, the health secretary attached conditions to that decision. First, the board must maintain and develop community-based paediatric services and maximise local provision. Secondly, they must work directly with families from the Paisley area on specific individual treatment plans and those plans must be in place before any service changes are made. As the matter moves forward, the interests and the health of children will be absolutely paramount at every stage. I hope that the First Minister listens to expert opinion when it comes to things such as mesh implants. The First Minister needs to understand the depth of anger about that. That is not just about party politics, it is about her integrity. People feel betrayed. People feel betrayed with good reason. Campaigners who were accused of lying. SNP politicians who were more interested in saving the local McDonalds than saving the local children's ward. When a decision was finally made, it was sneaked out on a Friday afternoon and the Government tried to bury bad news in the middle of a snowstorm. So, First Minister, why should the people dependent on the Vale of Leven, the parents dependent on the children's ward at St John's, why should they trust you now and why should the people of Paisley ever trust you again? First Minister? First, on the manner of the announcement, the health secretary stood up in this chamber earlier this week, set out the reasons for her decision and answered a range of questions from across the chamber. That is exactly right and proper. On the issue of substance here, as we have always done, as we did when first in government we saved Monklin's and Ayr accident and emergency services from the closure planned by Labour, we will always take those decisions and they are never easy decisions for any health secretary on the basis of best clinical evidence. Let me quote Philip Davis, a consultant pediatrician, who, when he was interviewed after the health secretary announced the decision. He said that if children are seriously unwell, then having the back-up facilities of things such as the paediatric intensive care unit, theatres, specialist medical and surgical specialties at the Royal hospital for children, things that are not available in ward 15, that means that we can start definitive care for sick children at a much earlier stage. That is the clinical evidence that underpin and drove the decision. The charity action for sick children Scotland said that the compelling argument is that clinical standards are there to support the best quality healthcare, and we feel that that would best be achieved by moving ward 15 to the Royal hospital for children. That is the evidence that drove the health secretary's decision. The concern about local access is an important one, and absolutely the concerns about parents require to continue to be addressed. That is why the conditions that the health secretary attached to the decision are so important. First, it is about development of community-based services, and secondly, the board is requiring to work with individual families on individual treatment plans. Those conditions are important, and the health secretary will ensure that those conditions are met before any service change proposal goes ahead. On Monday this week, Murray and Murray Ltd, a kitchen manufacturer in Glennothys, went into liquidation with the loss of 40 jobs. The company has also left several customers in the lurch as they demanded upfront payment. Can the First Minister advise me what support the Scottish Government can give to my constituents affected by those job losses and by Murray and Murray's unfinished work? I thank Jenny Gilruth for raising the issue. Obviously, at a time like this, our thoughts are very much with those who work for a company in these situations, Murray. We will look to work with the company to minimise any threat to employment. Of course, if there are redundancies in prospect, we will pay our organisation that deals with those things and will work with affected employees to make sure that we help them into alternative employment. However, this is a difficult time for all concerned, and the Scottish Government will do everything that it possibly can to assist. Tom Mason Thank you, Presiding Officer. The latest quarterly figures show that 536 referrals to a pain clinic in the Grampian health board, only 51, were seen for the first appointment within the 18-week target. Clinations in NHS Grampian have confirmed that waiting time for the new routine appointment is now 40 weeks. Can I ask the First Minister when should patients expect to see reductions in their waiting times? The Scottish Government will, as we already do, continue to work with health boards to make sure that patients who need care achieve that care. I know in terms of pain clinics how important it is for patients to access those services and to access them speedily. I will ask the health secretary to look into the specific issue that the member has raised and get back to him in writing. I absolutely readily acknowledge that those are important issues that are raised. First Minister hides when she has been found out. She usually hides behind the NHS in England or the NHS in Wales. Today, it is a new law. She is hiding behind Scotland's doctors. Doctors may have advised her to close the children's ward at Paisley, but they did not force her to lie in that election TV debate. Is she not ashamed of blaming the doctors for her broken promise? Mr Rennie, just be careful with the use of your language, please. I am not sure that anybody heard the end of your question. There was so much noise. If you just finish the end of your question, I will ask the end of my question again. Is she not ashamed—is the First Minister not ashamed—of blaming the doctors for her broken promise? I think that all we have learned from that question is that Willie Rennie is a pathetic attention seeker. Given the state of his party, it is perhaps not surprising. Let me return to the substance of the issue. The proposal on the children's ward at the Royal Alexandra hospital came to the Scottish Government almost a full year after the debate that Willie Rennie is talking about. Secondly, Willie Rennie accuses me of hiding. I am standing in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament asking questions on this and a whole range of other issues, but I happen to think—maybe that is just the difference between Willie Rennie and I—that when decisions are being taken about really important matters of health service provision, it is important to listen to the experts on the front line and to listen to the doctors and the nurses who, with the greatest respect to Willie Rennie, know probably more than he does about how best to care for some of the sickest children in our society. So, yes, we listened to the doctors and, Presiding Officer, I am sorry if it upsets Willie Rennie, but I am not prepared to apologise for listening to doctors who know best about how to treat sick children in this country. I am sorry, but indulging that level of clapping does not impress anybody. Please keep that to a minimum. At the moment, what we have just had—to both participants and to the chamber—is that the use of language does not do anybody any favour whatsoever. Personal accusations, the use of the word lying in particular, Mr Rennie, is a word that you have to be extremely careful about, but it does not help for the First Minister to rebut by using personal accusations back. I should not have to remind anybody in this chamber that you should treat each other with respect. You are here to talk about the issues, not to indulge in personal accusations across this chamber. Please, would both participants bear that in mind in framing the question and in framing the answer? Mr Rennie. Presiding Officer, I was there. I was standing right next to Nicola Sturgeon when she said what she had said. The First Minister led everyone to believe that the children's word at Paisley was safe in her hands. That is what was pathetic. She said that she would always stand up for local services, but now she is shutting them down. Let me ask her this. Does she feel guilty for misleading the parents of sick children? The First Minister said in that debate that there was no proposal on that word. There was, at that time, no proposal on that word. There had been no clinical evidence presented. That changed over the course of the months that followed. It is quite a similar exchange to the one with Ruth Davidson in some ways. I suppose the Opposition is so intent, as it is, on attacking the Government. It failed to follow through on the logic of what it is saying. Ruth Davidson is so keen to attack Michael Matheson that she forgets the logic of her question, which is that she would have allowed something indefensible to happen. What Willie Rennie is saying is that we should have the health secretary stood against all the clinical evidence of the nurses and the pediatricians who care for sick children. I know how difficult those issues are. I know how difficult they are for parents. There can be nothing worse than being the parent of a desperately sick child, but that makes all the more important that we listen to expert advice to make sure that we have the best possible services in place for sick children, and that is what the health secretary has done. Thank you very much. We have a number of supplementaries, I should say. The first is from Jamie Greene. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This week is proving to be quite a miserable week for rail travellers in Scotland. Landslip has closed the Glasgow to Edinburgh line. The West Highland line was closed after derailment. Landslides are affecting cross-country services near Kilmarnock, flooding and debris is causing problems right across the network, all causing disruption to tens of thousands of commuters. We cannot control the weather, but can I ask the First Minister if she is confident that our rail network was adequately winter-proofed and ready for this adverse weather, and can she provide an update to Parliament when these services will be operational again? It has been an incredibly difficult week for those who work on railways and, indeed, for those who travel on our railways. The member has gone through some of the reasons for that, mainly weather-related. That is why it is such a tribute to those who are working on our railways. As of 8.30 this morning, performance across the rest of the Scottish network, with the exception of Adam Triglasgow, which I will come on to in a second, against the performance measure, was 91 per cent. That is a good performance, and I think that those who have delivered deserve our credit. Of course, there have been challenges caused by the weather. The most serious and significant of those, of course, is the closure of the Adam Triglasgow railway line because of the landslip that occurred in a cutting near the village of Filpston, which was caused by very heavy rainfall around Noon yesterday. A work plan has been agreed and implemented for the reinstatement of the railway. That is planned to be completed this afternoon, however, as members will understand. That will be subject to an inspection of the signalling cables that were buried in the landslip. Those are difficult circumstances for passengers. I want to thank the travelling public for the patience that they display. I deeply regret when there is inconvenience caused, but I am sure that most reasonable people know that some of those weather-related incidents cannot be avoided. Our job is to make sure that things get back on track as quickly as possible, and that is exactly what is happening. Kezia Dugdale First Minister, the Scottish Sports Association is an independent, member-led organisation that supports voluntary sport, and the Government's decision to remove their funding has been met with widespread dismay and anger. Every single Opposition member of this chamber has signed a motion to that effect. Given that there is no majority in this chamber for this decision, will the First Minister urgently revisit this cut and live by her personal promise to champion Scottish sport? The Scottish Government has a good relationship with the SSA. We strongly appreciate the support that it provides. This week, the Sports Minister met the SSA and indeed represented the cross-party group on sport to discuss how we develop a sustainable financial future for the SSA. Eileen Campbell has been clear that we continue to consider ways in which the SSA can have a sustainable future. That supports collaborative working to create the act of Scotland that all of us want to see. We will continue to take those deliberations forward, and I hope that we can get to a good position that is good for the SSA as well as sport in general. I remind the chamber that we invest heavily in sport generally, with the draft budget committee, to increase the funding for sport Scotland by £2 million. We have also pledged to underwrite any potential shortfall in the national lottery funding for sport Scotland, up to £3.4 million, to provide certainty for the sport sector in the absence of action from the United Kingdom Government. We will continue to take decisions that are in the interests of developing sport across our country. Miles Briggs First Minister, GPs across Scotland, especially in rural Scotland, are concerned at the impact that the new GP contract will have on their practices. Under the proposed contract, one rural GP in Argyll and Bute is set to lose 87 per cent of their funding. I think that all of us would agree that that is an unacceptable situation. Many GPs feel that the Scottish Government is set now to set rural GPs against urban GPs. Can I therefore make a positive suggestion to the First Minister and the Health Secretary to pause the contract until this Parliament's health and sport committee has had the opportunity to properly scrutinise the new GP contract so that we can make sure that it does not destabilise what is already a crisis for general practice across Scotland? First Minister. Of course, last week, the overwhelming majority of GPs voted to accept the new GP contract, and I warmly welcome that. I think that that is good for the profession, and I also think that it will be good for patients. On the issues around rural GPs, of course we must listen to those, that is why a short-life working group has been established to look specifically at those issues. Members do not have to simply listen to the Scottish Government on this. It is the position of the BMA that those concerns being expressed by rural GPs are unfounded and that no GP will lose funding as a result of the new contract. That is the reality of the situation, but I accept that we have to convince rural GPs that that is the case, and we will continue to work collaboratively with them to seek to do exactly that. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to increase the uptake of screening for early diagnosis of cervical cancer. First Minister. Cervical screening saves around 5,000 lives a year. It prevents up to eight out of 10 cervical cancers. We have invested in a national campaign to promote screening generally. £5 million of funding from our cancer strategy has been invested in our screening programmes, including cervical screening, to encourage those who are eligible to take up their invite. We are also supporting the work of charities such as Joe Cervical Cancer Trust to increase awareness of screening and address some of the barriers. To enable the charity to extend their reach, we are funding their new outreach service that targets women who are less likely to attend. Thanks to cervical screening and the HPV vaccination programme, cervical cancer is now preventable, and that is a good thing. Kenneth Gibson. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in women under 35, and yet a recent survey by Joe Cervical Cancer Trust found that more than three out of five, some 61 per cent were unaware that they are in the most at-risk age group for the disease. Indeed, a quarter of eligible women aged 25 to 64 do not currently take up their invitation for a smear test, rising to one-third among 25 to 29-year-olds. The reason behind that is largely self-consciousness and embarrassment. Are there any measures that have been taken to reduce the apparent stigma that seems to surround cervical screening, especially among younger women? We would agree with the health secretary as she simply put it that screening does save lives. First Minister. Yes, I absolutely agree with that. We know that there are barriers to women accessing cervical screening. Those barriers include fear, pain, often embarrassment. As a woman, I not only understand those concerns, I absolutely identify with them. That is why it is very important that we continue to talk to each other and support and encourage each other to understand the importance of screening. At government level, to help overcome some of those barriers, as I said a moment ago, we are investing in a high-profile awareness raising campaign, helping to generate conversations about those issues. We are also supporting the work of local activities and communities to open up dialogue about cervical screening, helping women to fully understand why the test is so important and to make it the norm to attend when appointment letters are issued. We will continue to raise awareness and work to address stigma as taking up screening for many women. It is nothing short of a matter of life or death. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to reports that two thirds of teachers do not feel that they have had sufficient training in supporting the mental health of their pupils. We believe that every child and young person should have access to emotional and mental wellbeing support in schools, so we want to ensure that all teachers and staff are confident in supporting their needs. Mental health first aid training is currently being delivered to school staff within secondary school communities by Education Scotland in partnership with NHS Health Scotland. In addition, as part of the 10-year mental health strategy, we have begun work to implement and improve mental health training service for everyone who supports young people in schools. Thank you First Minister for that answer. I would like to push a bit more, if I may. Schools across Scotland are understaffed and overstretched, and teachers want nothing more than to support their pupils. Therefore, given that only one in 100 teachers recall doing any detailed work on mental health in their initial teacher education, will the Scottish Government give a commitment to this chamber for mental health to be comprehensively covered in all teacher education? I will ask the education secretary to look at what more we can do around teacher training. I think that it is an important point. I think that it is vitally important that teachers at the very early stage of their career understand the importance of mental health. We continue to take the action. I spoke about it in my earlier answer. In December, we also announced funding in a youth commission on mental health, which will be delivered in partnership between SAMH and Young Scot, which will provide recommendations on the way forward for CAMHS services and support. We also provide funding to Childline to provide confidential advice and information to children and young people. Those are important matters that we will continue to take forward. It is because those matters are so important that we are putting forward a budget to this Parliament that increases funding for our national health service and ensures that teachers get more funding directly to them in our schools. I will simply say to the member that if he believes that our schools are stretched as he said, then he please should not support proposals in the forthcoming discussions of our budget that would remove £500 million from the money that this Government has got to invest. I refer members to my register of interests as a registered mental health nurse. Can the First Minister outline what other actions her Government is taking to improve the mental health and wellbeing of our children and young people? What role does the mental health strategy play in that? The mental health strategy plays a key role in that. Of course, that strategy is backed by investment of £150 million over five years. It sets out how we can improve early intervention and ensure better access to services, including for young people. As I said in response to the previous question, we are also funding a range of initiatives to involve young people in the discussions about mental health funding. I spoke about it a moment ago in the Youth Commission and the funding for child lines, so we will continue to take steps like that to make sure that we are focusing on prevention, which is the most important thing, but also making sure that we have the services in place for those who need them. To ask the First Minister when the children's ward at the Royal Alexander Hospital will close. As I said earlier on, the health secretary approved the board's proposals on two conditions. First, the board maintains and develops community-based paediatric services and maximises local provision. Secondly, it must work directly with families on specific individual treatment plans. Those plans must be in place before any service changes are made and will ensure that there is a full understanding of what services and support will be available to local families and from where. The board has given an assurance that there will be no change made to the service until those individual patient plans are in place. Neil Bibby My community understands that there is a debate to be had about localisation and specialisation, but in an area as sensitive as children's services, the least they deserve is an honest debate. During an election, the First Minister gave a calculated and cynical answer that she thought she could get away with. You are right. I did not trust your answer. I thought that you were trying to mislead people and I have been proven right. Over the last week, the health secretary tried to sneak her decision out on a Friday afternoon. Local SNP politicians, who once accused campaigners of scaremongering, now applaud the decision in the chamber. On two occasions, the health secretary has snubbed an invite to meet the parents who will have to live with her decision. Does the First Minister understand why so many people, such as Gordon Clark, who is here today, feel betrayed? What will she learn and change from the disgraceful way that her Government and her party have treated the people of Paisley? I do not agree with or accept that characterisation. In actual fact, the substance of the issue is what matters most. The health secretary met parents twice before reaching the decision. I understand that the chair of the health board wants to organise a meeting with parents to discuss the individual patient plans that will be put in place. The health secretary is happy to attend that, so on-going engagement with parents is vitally important. Neil Bibby asked me what lessons are learned all along in those decisions. As everybody who has been in the position of taking those decisions knows, those are never easy decisions. Health secretaries have to look at the evidence in the round. The views of parents are hugely important, but, ultimately, that is about providing the best services for six children. I have already quoted a number of clinicians. I am sorry that I do not think that views like that from experts from specialist clinicians should be ignored. That is the basis of the decision. However, what is also important is the community services that are provided. That is where parents are absolutely right to continue to ask questions. That is why the conditions attached to that decision are so important, and why the health secretary will make sure that both of those conditions are met in full before any service change proceeds. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is marking Holocaust Memorial Day. We must never forget the horrors of the Holocaust and other genocides around the world. They are a stark reminder of the inhumanity and violence that bigotry and intolerance can wreak if left unchallenged. Last night, I was honoured to speak at this year's national event to mark international Holocaust Memorial Day, which took place at Glasgow Caledonian University. I commend Interfaith Scotland and the Holocaust Memorial Trust for their excellent work in organising this event. I know that members across the chamber will be marking the day in different ways. We must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder in challenging hatred and promoting a world where everyone lives with fundamental human dignity. I thank the First Minister for that answer and recognise the support that the Scottish Government gives to the Holocaust Educational Trust. I also thank, if you do not mind, the Presiding Officer for his support of the Holocaust Educational Trust in Parliament this week. I stated earlier that the Deputy First Minister was deeply affected by his recent visit to Auschwitz with 200 Scottish school pupils. Colleagues from across the chamber have been moved by their visits to Srebrenica and other sites of genocide and persecution across the world. Such terrible atrocities are reminders of man's inhumanity to man, but those lost to us will never be forgotten. Will the Government continue to support projects in our schools, giving Scotland's young people the chance to remember, to learn and to play their part in consigning intolerance and genocide to the history books forever? As the Deputy First Minister said just in advance of First Minister's questions, I think that the role of education here is vitally important and can never be overstated. I listened again last night to a very impressive young woman who had been part of the school's programme visiting Auschwitz. I have heard the testimony of many of those young people who have done so in the past, and it never fails to have an impact and to deeply move. I have not had the opportunity yet to visit Auschwitz myself. The Deputy First Minister did so recently. I certainly hope to have that opportunity in the future. Around 18 months ago, I took the opportunity to visit Srebrenica. I knew in theory a lot about the Bosnian genocide, but it was not until visiting the site of it to visiting the memorial to talking to some of those affected, some of those bereaved, some of the survivors that the true impact of that is really felt. That is an experience that I know others across the chamber have also had that will live with me for the rest of my life. I think that it becomes more important with every year that passes from the Second World War in particular that this remembrance continues. We must make sure that the next generation never forgets, and that is why the Holocaust Memorial Day and all the events that go around it are so important. The theme of course this year is the power of words. Perhaps all of us—I have been reminded today, Presiding Officer, that we could all learn lessons about that. Words have great power, so we should be careful all of us how we choose them. However, let us perhaps at the very end of First Minister's questions today, notwithstanding all the many things that divide us as a chamber, that divide us as a country and as a society, come together and remember the power and the importance of our common humanity. This is Holocaust Memorial Week. Today is also the day that we celebrate the birthday of our national bards, and it is quite appropriate that those two things are in such close proximity, because in many ways Robert Burns personifies that humanity. So, man to man, the world or shall brothers be for all that. Thank you very much, I would thank all members for their participation. That concludes First Minister's questions. We turn now to members' visits in the name of Morris Golden. We'll just take a few moments for members to change seats.