 Y Θ hackur hy pools y gynllun o'i weltu'r options o'i eug stênd â'i iawn. Y quirk gw簡單 cuisine—gw ideas words—to chew them over. If I promised her to write a thousand submissions opposing her unwanted kayer plan for a second referendum will she chew that word over, and dump it as well? On education reform, which is a serious matter, I would have hoped that all members of the chamber would want to discuss in a serious way. We have had the consultation on governance reform. A tragic example we have received more than 10,000 responses to that consultation, and it is right and proper that a Education Secretary considers all of the responses, and then comes forward to Parliament with our proposals on the way forward. Of course, the Government's review is only part of the reform programme in education that we are taking forward. We have our attainment challenge now up and running. Fy Azernydd, mae'r ddefnyddio cyfnod mwy oesbryd. Fy roedd beth sy'n dydig yn eu hyn iawn i ddyn ni, a hefyd yn ddynnu i gydig i meddwl, i gydig i'n teimlo i'r ddeiligau. Fy hoffaeth yw ddiddog i'r ddysgu, oeddミhaith ath deserving. Fy hoffi'r ddillegau lleol yn iawn, i gydig i ddellog o'r cwmpas gwasiaeth o erbyn rwyng ddiwyllfa hynod speydliadol. Fy hoffi'r ddillegau lleol o'r ddillegau lleol a gwaen nhw y cwm channoddau neu aethraeoedd. Eu cychwyn am gweithio i ddoch chi, foldod, o gynllun ar hynny yn gyffredigau rhai erdoedd a os ystod, yn gyflaen. Felly felly rydyn ni'n hyn yn rhan y tri butiau o'r cwmuno o beth i gael i chi o ddïchau i ddoch chi. Rydyn ni'n hynny yn pryn yn gwym ni'n goll i gael i chi o ddoch chi aelodau cychwyn. Rydyn ni'n cyfreiddio i gael i gael i chi, rydyn ni'n cyfreiddio i chi'n cyfreiddio i chi eich gaeli, unrhyw gael naddw i'n mwyntio i ddiweddau y byddai i'ch gael ei ffordd? Felly, fyddo yn ystod wnaeth, dwy gyrs i gyd, ein chwiagrwch yn ddechrau ei fod butryd Cymru, ein gweithio i'ch cyflawni a fydd indicatesu gwirioneddol gyrweithrwyngol heddiw. Ar ddryg, dyma'r newid nhw, yw ychydig yn cynnig. Felly, yn anhyfudd i ddwyntydd eraill, byddai gydwch yn rwynt i honi ddechrau swynu. I have the letter, and it says this, we have lost our patience with this whole process. It has been a series of false tawns." The education secretary says that he needs more time, but isn't it the truth as we see from hometowns experience? For the government has made up its mind, it just won't say it. First Minister, no, that is not the case. What we have said to hometown and what we have said to other interests here are that those decisions require—rightly and properly, how would have thought to be taken in the context of the governance review. The governance review was one part of our wider programme of reform in education and when you have a consultation with the potential for some far-reaching reforms in education, I think it is absolutely right that we take time to consider the responses and to consider the way forward. That is what I would think people would expect us to do, but as we are doing that, the other strands of our reform programme are well under way. The attainment challenge, as I said, is pupil equity funding, and I do not think that anybody in this chamber should underestimate, because I know no headteacher across this country underestimates the importance of giving £120 million direct to headteachers so that they can decide for themselves and fund for themselves the measures to improve attainment in schools. Standardised assessment, which will start in schools across the country from August of this year, further informing the data that we now publish so that we know in detail how our schools are performing, we know where schools are doing well and we know where schools need to do further work to improve. That is an ambitious and serious programme of reform. Instead of coming to this chamber, while I think that Ruth Davidson has said in the past that she does support reforms to education, instead of coming here and sounding as if she opposes what we are doing, is not it about time that she got behind the reforms that we are taking forward? Ruth Davidson. The First Minister is talking about her delayed governance review and says that we all have to wait for it. In her letter, our hometown told her government that they were more than able to crack on with their pilot projects without disrupting the review at all. What was the reply that they received from our government? I also have that here. It says that John Swinney is not prepared to do it, so the deal for them is that you sit in fresh ideas for two years, you then say that they have to wait on a review, and then you announce that the review has been delayed because council elections are on their way. The First Minister said that education reform would be her defining mission. Given just this one example, who does she think that she's kidding? I have to say that I spent Tuesday afternoon in a meeting with John Swinney and our council of international education advisers. As I was doing that, I noticed that Ruth Davidson was publishing a report on the constitution, so I am not sure that I am going to take any lectures from her on priorities in government. The truth of the matter is that it would make no sense at all even for a Conservative—I know that common sense does not always characterise the decision-making of Conservatives—but it would make no sense to have a review of governance and then pre-empt the outcome by deciding already what track we are going to go down. We will consider carefully the responses to that consultation, and then John Swinney, rightly and properly, will come to this Parliament and set out the way forward. As we are doing that, as I have already said, we will go on with the other strands of reforms, reforms that are already starting to see difference across our education system, empowering head teachers, giving head teachers directly the funding that they need to make a difference and making sure that we are able to tell exactly how our schools are performing. That is the kind of action that I have said was a priority and the action that we are taking. We have seen just this week a report showing that, in the last financial year that we have got this information for, despite the moans of the Opposition, we saw real-term spending in education in local authorities going up, yet more evidence of the priority that is given to education. As I say, if this is so important—I know how important it is to me—it is about time that it got behind the reforms of this Government instead of continuing to come to this chamber in simply moaning. Ruth Davidson. If this is so important to her, why does she keep kicking the can down the road? Here is one last quote from the hometown to the letter to Mr Swinney. Let me quote this directly. This is really not a great demonstration of meaningful engagement with stakeholders or a good start in trying to empower teachers, parents and communities to achieve excellence and equity in education. They are not wrong. A year and a half ago, the First Minister staked her reputation on reforming Scotland's schools. What have we seen since then? We have seen literacy standards slipping, we have seen numeracy standards sliding, we have seen curriculum for excellence failing and now we have seen her education secretary stalling. She keeps putting her referendum on the front foot but she is putting everyone else's child education on the back burner. Hasn't her Government got their priorities all wrong on this? I don't know about this whole issue of putting something in the front foot. How it appears to me is that every time Ruth Davidson stands up in this chamber, all she managed to do is shoot herself in the foot. As I want to talk about education, she just continually tries to shoehorn in dimensions of independence and a referendum. Of course, the only reason there is any talk about that at all is the reckless behaviour of the Tories in taking us out of the European Union against our will. Let me get back to my priority, which is education. It seems to me that what Ruth Davidson is saying is that we shouldn't consult. If we do consult, we shouldn't bother to listen to what people say. Maybe that is the approach that the Conservatives at Westminster have taken, which is why they have a massive backbench rebellion on their hands over school funding right now, because they are reducing the funding that many schools will have. We will continue to take this forward by listening to people and then making the decisions about the best way forward. Ruth Davidson says, what are we doing to back up the priority? I have already told her what is happening in our schools. Maybe she should get into more of our schools and find out what is happening in our schools instead of publishing papers about the constitution. What is happening in our schools is our attainment challenge. Our pupil equity funding is going direct to headteachers. Standardised assessments have been introduced to inform teacher judgments, more data than ever before has been published, so that we can determine how well our schools are doing and what more we need to do to support those who work in the front line in our education system. I will leave Ruth Davidson moaning on the sidelines, and I will get on with my priority of raising attainment in our schools and closing the attainment gap, because that is what I have said is my priority and it will continue to be so. To ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the week. Engagement is to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. It has been 10 months since the election, yet parents and teachers still remain in the dark about the SNP's plans for our schools. As we have just heard, the education secretary has kicked the consultation on how schools are run into the long grass. The First Minister said that that is just one part of her education reforms, and she is right. There is also the education bill, the very symbol of this Government's apparent number one priority. It has been kicked into the long grass too. The SNP's power grab to centralise every school budget in the country has been kicked into the long grass as well. The roll-out of national testing, which she also mentioned, has been delayed as well. Education was the First Minister's defining mission. Isn't it the case that education is defining this Government as indecisive and distracting? I think that that question demonstrates that when a member of Kezia Dugdale's own party, after spending the weekend at their conference, described Kezia Dugdale as simply a pound shop Ruth Davidson, he was absolutely right. Maybe more like buy one, get one free. Kezia Dugdale has just said there, where is the education bill? The education bill is what is going to deliver the proposals from the Government's review. When we have considered the more than 1,000 responses to that and brought forward our proposals to Parliament, we will also bring forward a bill that we said we would do. Kezia Dugdale also said that we are centralising education budgets. Really? We are giving £120 million direct to head teachers in almost every single one of our schools across the country, giving resources and the power to use those resources direct to head teachers. Only in the world of Scottish Labour could that be described as centralising education budgets is the exact opposite of centralising education budgets. Giving it to head teachers is decentralising it. What we are doing in our schools, through that extra resources, is empowering head teachers to deliver what they think is required to improve attainment. That is building on the work of our attainment challenge. The national improvement framework, as I have already said to the other half of the act, is making sure that we have the data to track improvements in our schools. That is the kind of work that we are getting on with day in and day out. I said to Kezia Dugdale what I said to Ruth Davidson that maybe they should get out a bit more into our schools, as I was yesterday, and see a bit more of what is happening in reality. Kezia Dugdale The SNP Government has failed for 10 years on education. No wonder she has to resort to personal attacks. That is beneath her. That is what we expected of Alex Fammond, not of the First Minister who is committed to closing the gap. It is not just the lack of progress that is the problem. It is not just the lack of progress that is the problem. It is actually the fact that things are going backwards. John Swinney spent years cutting education budgets as finance minister. He cut over 4,000 teachers, 1,000 support staff, he cut 150,000 student places in our colleges, he cut university budgets and he slashed grants for students as well. Now John Swinney faces the consequences of John Swinney's own decisions. He was supposed to be the safe pair of hands, but now we know that John Swinney is fast getting a reputation for dropping the ball on education. If teachers and parents can see that the education secretary is letting down Scotland's children, why cannot this First Minister? First Minister. True, Kezia Dugdale has come here week after week and stood up in this chamber and alleged that spending on our schools was going down. We had figures published this week for the most recent year that we have these statistics for, showing that there was a real terms increase in education spending across our local authority areas. Kezia Dugdale's scaremongering on this has been absolutely exposed. Take universities. We have record numbers of young people now going into our universities. We are not just meeting, we are exceeding our manifesto commitment in terms of whole-time equivalent places in our college sector. We are seeing the attainment gap start to narrow. We are seeing more people from deprived communities going to university was in the case when we took office. We are seeing progress because of the decisions that this Government has taken and the investments that this Government has made. However, there is so much more work still to do, which is why we will get on with the reforms in our education system that will make sure that we deliver the commitments that we have made to young people and parents right across this country. Kezia Dugdale. First Minister gave the game away there, Presiding Officer, because she said that in the last year the money for education went up. That is supposed to make up for it going down over the nine years that preceded it. The reality is that she has cut £1.5 billion from local services since 2011. That is the truth that she cannot escape from. I would not want the First Minister to think that John Swinney has not been busy. He has launched an improvement framework, a governance review and an advertising campaign. He has just not done anything to improve our schools. It is just not him as well. Since May, this Government has launched more than 120 consultations and reviews. That is three a week. The enterprise review alone has three reviews within it. The health and social care delivery plan has another four reviews within it. There is even a review into the review of fracking. That might make sense if this was a new Government, but this SNP Government has been in place for 10 years. Now, I know that the First Minister has only one thing on her mind, but when is she going to stop talking about governing and actually start doing some governing? I would advise her to listen to this. This Government will never stop talking to and engaging with and consulting with the people of Scotland, because Labour stopped doing that. It went from first place to second place in Scottish politics and then it went from second place to third place. Who knows right now where it is going to end up? Let us get back to education. Kezia Dugdale comes here and talks about education funding. I have got a very basic question for Kezia Dugdale. If she does not think that enough money has been spent on schools in council areas across our country, why is it that there are labour councils right now after spending 10 years morning about it proposing to freeze the council tax next year? Why are they using the power that they have spent 10 years asking for and refusing to raise extra money for education? That is a question that Kezia Dugdale can answer, but the other things that Kezia Dugdale does not want to talk about. She does not want to talk about the £120 million going direct to headteachers. She does not want to talk about the extra resources through the attainment challenge. She does not want to talk about the many things that teachers are doing in our schools right now to improve education and close the attainment gap, because that does not suit the narrative of Kezia Dugdale. Just like Ruth Davidson, I will not leave Kezia Dugdale whining on the sidelines, and me and this Government will continue to get on with the hard work of improving our schools. Thank you, Presiding Officer, because the First Minister posed a direct question, so it deserves an answer. For 10 years, the SNP has said that the council tax is unfair. The question is not why Labour councils are freezing it, it is why the SNP haven't scrapped it. For 10 years, we have had Labour councils, we have had Labour MSPs in this chamber saying, end the council tax freeze. As soon as we end the council tax freeze, what do we have? We have Labour leaders in councils like Inverclyde saying that they are going to become the longest serving leaders ever to freeze the council tax. Labour does not know what it is doing from one day of the week to the next, and that is why they are in the mess that they are in. I will continue to make sure that we do our job of delivering improvements in our education system, delivering for the parents and the children right across this country. Presiding Officer, I have been contacted by a local nursery owner in my constituency, which looks after 133 children. Was the First Minister as disappointed as me to hear that the nursery will be hit with a business rate hike of 65 per cent? That will mean inevitable cost increases for parents and is preventing mothers from returning to work. The First Minister We have introduced a business rates release scheme, as the finance secretary announced in this chamber a couple of weeks ago, making sure that seven out of 10 business premises across our country pay either the same or smaller business rates in the coming year than they do now. Five out of 10 business premises across our country pay no business rates whatsoever, but the finance secretary announced additional relief for the hospitality sector and for office premises in Aberdeensia. The reason we did that, of course, was to free up local councils to use resources that they might have to provide any additional support that they think is required, which is why it has been so disappointing that Tory councillors in some councils have voted against local rates relief schemes. Instead of coming here and asking me that question, perhaps we should direct it to Tory councillors in his own area. Question 3, Patrick Harvie. To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. I think that everybody in this chamber and everybody outside the chamber wants Scotland to be successful in closing the attainment gap in our schools, but that gap is not the result of merely one simple phenomenon. It has many complex causes. One of the most significant is the additional support needs that many young people have. Because of the way that we recognise far more of those needs now—and that is welcome—one in four of our young people in Scotland is now recognised as having additional support needs. Yet evidence given to the Education Committee here in Parliament this week was shocking about the lack of provision to meet those needs. One in seven reduction in additional support needs teachers since 2010, one in 10 reduction in additional support needs assistants and the shocking suggestion that a teacher in a Scottish school was told that in lieu of training that they genuinely need to develop their skills to support young people with additional support needs, they were told to go away and watch the big bang theory. Was the First Minister as shocked to hear that as I was? First Minister, I think that Patrick Harvie is right to raise the issue of additional support needs. He is also right to say that we have extended the definition of additional support needs, so we capture more people in that definition to ensure that they get the support that they need. What we have seen, I referred earlier on to statistics published this week showing increased spending on schools within that. We also saw increased spending in terms of additional learning support. There is quite a fundamental point here, and it may be a point of difference between Patrick Harvie and I, although I would ask him to consider this. Something like 95 per cent of all children with additional support needs are taught in mainstream schools, so we must not see the support that they need as just being support that they get from additional support teachers. Every single teacher working in our schools has a responsibility to provide the support that those young people need, so it is not simply a case of looking at dedicated additional support teachers. That is why it is so important that spending has increased in the statistics that I spoke about and that we have seen in most recent figures the number of teachers being maintained and slightly increasing as well. The last part of Patrick Harvie's question was in relation to some evidence given to a committee this week. What he has just narrated there in terms of the evidence given would represent, in my view, a practice that is completely unacceptable. That is why the Scottish Government has supported development of resources for autism, for example, so that teachers have access to those resources. The autism toolbox is there to help teachers and educational support staff to meet the needs of pupils with autism, so it is important that we make sure that teachers are aware of that, because the resources are there for the training of teachers and it is important that they all have access to that. Patrick Harvie? It seems fairly clear to anyone who has looked at the evidence that was given to Parliament this week that the specialists working in this field do not feel that teachers have access to the resources that they need. The Scottish Government is right to want to recruit more teachers, absolutely, but there have been concerns expressed by EIS, for example, that they will not have the time to develop the skills that they need to do the job that our modern education system requires quite rightly of them. It is vital, yes, that all teachers have access to a level of training in additional support needs. The committee heard this week that, in the view of many people, it is less degree of training provision than was in place 25 years ago, but we also need to be investing in the specialists who can give the additional support where it is needed. That specialism also needs to be an attractive and well-supported career path for teachers. Has the First Minister read the evidence that was given to the committee this week? If she has not had time yet, will she commit to doing so very soon? Will she ensure that the next time we discuss this, we are not talking about the level of provision going down as the level of demand goes up and teachers are being told to go and watch sitcoms? Yes, I have looked at the evidence and I will make sure that I study all the evidence that is given to the committee on this issue very carefully. If there is further action that the Government needs to take, I will make sure that I work with the education secretary that we do that. However, it is important that we recognise the trend in terms of investment that I referred to earlier on, but we also recognise that this is not simply a case of teachers, specialist teachers, important though they are and vital and valuable though they are. This is about making sure that all teachers in our schools have the training and are equipped to support children with additional needs in the way that they need to be supported. In terms of the comment about teachers being asked to watch the big bang theory, that is totally unacceptable. More than being unacceptable, there is absolutely no need for that to happen. I have already referred to the resources that are available. This toolbox is already very well used, but we will of course now re-engage with local authorities to ensure that they are aware of that and are promoting it within all of their settings. We do the right thing in terms of having a wide definition of young people with additional support needs. We also do the right thing in supporting as many of those young people as possible to learn in mainstream education. Patrick Harvie, although we might have some disagreements around the right way to do that, is right to raise this issue. It is an issue that is of huge importance and an issue that the Scottish Government will continue to pay close attention to. Question 4, Willie Rennie. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Matters of importance to the people of Scotland. Now that she is thinking again about her plans for education, will she think again about national testing too? She told me before in this chamber that she would avoid league tables. Has she kept that promise? We do not publish league tables and we will not publish league tables. Willie Rennie will ask me if I will change my mind on national testing. No, I will not change my mind on national testing. I do not support national testing and we are not going to introduce national testing. What we are introducing is standardised assessment that will be used to help. The teachers and the professionals understand very well the distinction between the two. I suggest that Willie Rennie might want to talk to one of them to educate himself a bit more on that distinction. Standardised assessments will inform the judgments that teachers make right now about whether or not a young person is meeting the required level of curriculum for excellence. It is really important, and this is perhaps just a fundamental disagreement that Willie Rennie and I have. I think that it is important that a teacher, as well as all the other judgments that they bring to bear, have an objective source of information to inform that judgment. We will continue to introduce standardised assessment and we will continue to publish the data. I think that all parents and indeed all members of this chamber have a right to see how our schools are doing in terms of the performance of young people against the required levels of curriculum for excellence. If we do not know that, how do we know whether we are doing well or whether we need to do better? The worst thing that any First Minister or any Government could allow to continue is some kind of flying blind situation where we just hope that we are doing the right things. I want to make sure that we have the information to make sure that we are doing the right things. Willie Rennie. The First Minister is wrong. We already have national school league tables. We have the information here. Every local authority, every school, every test result is published by the Scottish Government, her own Government that has published this information, on experimental information on national school league tables. She promised that that would never ever happen, but that is exactly what is happening. The National Institute for Education has made it clear that standardised testing crushes creativity, both for learners and for teachers, does not take full account of pupil progress and causes unnecessary stress for the children and young people who are subjected to it. Is it not time that she abandoned the implementation of national testing that was brought in by Michael Forsyth under Margaret Thatcher's regime? Is it not about time that the First Minister recognised that she has got this wrong? No, I think that Willie Rennie is 100 per cent wrong on this. He is 100 per cent wrong on lots of things, but he is certainly 100 per cent wrong on this. I would go further than that. Willie Rennie, perhaps inadvertently, is trying to mislead people about what is happening through standardised assessments. I know exactly what the Scottish Government is publishing. We are not publishing league tables, and we will not publish league tables, where we rank schools in terms of their performance. However, what we are publishing and what we will continue to publish—and I make absolutely no apology for that—is information that tells us, school by school, how young people are performing. I think that parents, teachers and those of us who are accountable for the education system have a right to know that, because if we do not know, for example, what percentage of our young people in primary 4 are meeting or not meeting the required level of curriculum for excellence, how then are we supposed to take the action to put it right if things are not as good as they should be? How are we supposed to take the action before that young person gets further into school when it becomes too late to rectify it? I make no apology for that. I think that parents have a right to know how their young person is doing, and I think that those of us who have the responsibility for policy-making in education need to know that as well. It is not national testing, it is standardised assessment to inform teacher judgment. I said once before to Willie Rennie when he raised that when we had the last meeting of the council of education advisers. Larry Flanagan of the EIS gave what I thought was the best articulation that I had heard of, the difference between testing and assessments. Perhaps Willie Rennie should talk to him. It is standardised assessment to inform teacher judgment, and it is information that, frankly, we should be publishing to allow us to know whether or not we are doing as we should be doing by the young people of this country, and I will never ever make any apology for that. The First Minister agreed in December with concerns about the openness and transparency of the Scottish Police Authority. Now, a member of that authority has resigned reportedly because of the reaction to her having dared to raise a dissenting voice about the way that it conducts its business. This morning, at the Public Audit Committee, a Scottish Government official said on the matter that it requires further discussion, but does the First Minister agree that it is not further discussion that is needed, but for the Scottish Government to tell Andrew Flanagan that his damaging governance review is failing the SBA, failing Police Scotland and failing the public, and what will the Scottish Government do to ensure that this vital scrutiny body can become proportionate, accountable and transparent, as required by the Police and Fire Reform Act? The Government's review is about improving governance and accountability and transparency. I am very clear that the decisions taken by the Scottish Police Authority should be made in public session and that papers and agendas for those sessions should be available to the public and indeed to the media. The member will be aware or certainly should be aware that in January there was a report that Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary would inspect the Police Authority during 2017-18. That will be the first such inspection since the SBA was established and it will look at not just the state, the efficiency and the effectiveness of the body but also specific areas of focus will be around the transparency and effectiveness of the way they do their business. I would hope that all members would welcome that, but transparency and accountability is vital. I say again what I have said in this chamber before. The Scottish Police Authority must make sure that they operate in line with those principles. Marie Todd Today's Times reports in not just a Westminster power grab on devolved matters such as farming and fisheries but a cash grab, too. Can I ask the First Minister for her reaction to these latest Tory attempts to undermine and weaken this Parliament? The First Minister We have two important revelations from Ruth Davidson in this morning's editions of the time. First, she seems to suggest that in areas where Westminster currently has no power over Scotland at all—for example, agriculture—they intend to use Brexit to seize such power. It is clear undermining of the devolution settlement if ever there was such a thing. On money, instead of Scotland getting its fair share of any savings that Westminster makes by no longer having to pay EU contributions, Ruth Davidson's suggestion seems to be that the Treasury should keep all that money and that the Scottish Government should be left to raise taxes in order to fund farm payments. That is absolutely outrageous and completely unacceptable. I hope that, before the date is out, the Tories will have clarified this and make sure that A, there will be no power grab and B, there will be no cash grab on the Scottish Government by the Westminster Government. I really do not know whether this morning's interview was just inept or whether it was a window into the thinking of Westminster—or probably both, actually—but I tell you what is clear. Westminster has got no intentions of giving new powers to this Parliament. All it wants to do is to muscle in on the powers that we already have. Last weekend, the First Minister was quick to respond to comments made about nationalism by Sadiq Kahn, the mayor of London, at the Scottish Labour conference in Perth, to describe those as spectacularly ill-judged and an insult. According to last Friday's Perthshire advertiser, the deputy leader of the SNP Administration on Perth and Kinross Council, councillor Dave Duggan, until recently employed by Deputy First Minister John Swinney, told councillors the following. Let us not reflect on concerns that we have been under the heel of foreign influence and power for 300 years. The island of Britain is no longer subject to the actions of quizlings who may seek to see smaller cultures extinguished on an island of coffins by redcoats. Given the First Minister's comments about Sadiq Kahn's language, does she believe that councillor Duggan's comments were appropriate, or does she apply one standard to members of other parties and a different standard to members of her own? I apply the same standard to everybody. Let me be very clear. I condemn any comments or any language, no matter who it is from, that is in any way shape or form racist or anti-English, or in any way seeks to divide people on the basis of their ethnicity. That is not what my party or my movement, the movement that I am part of, is for or represents. However, let me also say this and ask people to reflect on this quite carefully. Right now in the United Kingdom, the SNP, the Scottish Government and the wider independence movement are right now amongst the loudest voices in the UK for diversity, for tolerance, for freedom of movement, the loudest voices standing up for the benefits of migration. We still have a Tory Government that will not even guarantee the rights of EU nationals to live here. That is what is disgraceful. I will practice the values that I hold dear, and I would expect everybody to do likewise. To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government will take to ensure that there is appropriate social housing to meet the requirements of disabled, vulnerable and frail older people. We are committed to expanding social housing in communities across Scotland, that is why 35,000 of our 50,000 affordable homes target will be for social rent. Good social housing is important for disabled, vulnerable and frail older people, and the homes delivered through this programme will match councils' local housing strategies. We will shortly publish our refreshed age home and community strategy, which will take account of changing needs and demographics and help address issues of isolation that older people can face as well as improving access to suitable housing. I thank the First Minister for her reply. While the integration of health and social care to help people to stay at home instead of hospital is welcome, it hits the buffers if appropriate housing is in short supply. Notwithstanding what the First Minister has just said, is she aware of a recent report highlighting the death of sheltered and very sheltered housing, especially for the frail elderly, calling for a commission to consider and report on long-term funding and the provision of supported accommodation. Will the First Minister commit to that? Yes, indeed. It is important that we have that strategic approach in place, but we also commit to sustainable funding as well. We share the concerns that the housing sector has right now about the UK Government's changes to funding for supported accommodation. That is part of a broader approach to welfare cuts that is having a considerable impact on people across the country. We will very carefully consider the recently published report on the effective supply of supported housing and will look at its recommendations, including setting up a commission to ensure that older people can access the housing and support that they need. We are also absolutely committed to working with the sector to protect the most vulnerable and to ensure that supported accommodation is put on a sustainable and secure financial footing. Question 6, Brian Whittle. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's responses to reports that sports funding is set for a 20 per cent reduction over the next three years, which has been described by Sports Scotland as heartbreaking. The sport and active living budget has not been set beyond 2017-18, but I am happy to confirm that we have no plans to reduce it by 20 per cent by 2019-20. We are providing Sports Scotland with as much flexibility as possible within what we all accept is a tight settlement. We want to give it that flexibility, not least in light of projected reductions in lottery funding in the coming years. The Sports Minister has written to the UK Government seeking to address that issue, and I hope that Mr Whittle will give her his support in doing so. Of course, beyond the core sport budget, we are also working to increase support to active living. For example, since 2010, we have increased the budget for active travel to encourage more walking and cycling by 116 per cent, from £18.1 million to £39.2 million in 2016-17. We will ensure that we continue to deliver the policies and the funding to support people to live as healthily and as actively as possible. Brian Whittle. I thank the First Minister for that answer, but this decimation of the sport's budget, along with the major curtain council funding, means that more of those in challenging circumstances will find sport and activity out of their reach. People are not just entries on Derek Mackay's balance sheet. Attempting to save money in this way delivers outcomes requiring interventions far costlier than the savings that the Government is attempting to make. That kind of policy will not tackle health inequality. It will drive it. Can I respectfully ask the First Minister will she please take another look at the issue because the potential damage to sport, activity, the third sector and therefore communities will take years to repair? We will continue to work with sport, Scotland, with governing bodies and with everybody with an interest in sport and active living to make sure that we are making the right investments. We have invested heavily in sport over recent years and we will continue to invest heavily in sport, not just at the elite end of sport but in community and grass roots sport as well. That is why the legacy of the Commonwealth Games, community hubs being established in many parts of Scotland, was so vitally important. As I said in my initial answer, we will also invest in the wider landscape to ensure that we are promoting active travel, encouraging people to walk more. One of the things that I think is most fantastic about what we are doing in our schools just now is the daily miles, supporting schools to have the daily miles. We will continue to make sure that we work closely with all those with an interest to support those aspirations. I can simply say to Brian Whittle that I would be equally respectful in return. We have a situation in which we are seeing real-terms cuts in our budgets because of decisions taken at Westminster and in this Parliament we also have a situation in which, when we made a different decision on the higher rate of tax to try to protect public services, the Conservatives opposed that as well. They instead wanted to see us give a hefty tax cut to the top 10 per cent of income earners. It is not enough, week after week, for Tories to come to this chamber and request more spending on this, that and the other, if they are also asking us to deliver tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society. I think that it is about time that they decided what their position actually was and when they decide that, then they will have a bit more credibility raising these issues in this chamber. To ask the First Minister how many children the measures in the child poverty bill will lift out of poverty by May 2021. The child poverty bill will require ministers to meet four targets by 2030. Those are fewer than 10 per cent of children living in relative poverty, fewer than 5 per cent of children in absolute poverty, fewer than 5 per cent of children in combined low-income and material deprivation and fewer than 5 per cent of children in persistent poverty. The bill, of course, will make Scotland the only part of the UK with statutory targets to reduce and ultimately eradicate child poverty. However, and this is an important point, it is not targets in themselves that will reduce child poverty, it is the policy and action that we take. That is why the bill also requires the Government to have a child poverty delivery plan with specific measures to lift children out of poverty. The first plan will be published next year and then updated every five years. With the First Minister that we do need action and not just targets, Labour lifted 120,000 children in Scotland out of poverty in Government while lifting incomes not just setting targets. We are ready to make the child poverty bill a success. That is why we backed the calls by the child poverty action group in Civic Scotland to top up child benefit for families in Scotland to take thousands of kids out of poverty. I think that if the Scottish Government has any hope of making its child poverty bill a success, it has to give that bill some teeth and start using the powers of this Parliament. Will the Government support the child poverty action group in Civic Scotland's call to top up child benefit? Will the Government do it by making sure that the child poverty bill can deliver that increase now? First Minister. Firstly, we will always seek to have a close dialogue with the child poverty action group. It was the child poverty action group, among other organisations, of course, that asked us to extend the provision of free school meals, something that this Government did and I seem to remember Labour voted against in this chamber. We have already also brought forward plans to use the additional powers that will come to this Parliament to introduce a best start grant, where we will target resources on low-income families, giving an enhanced grant to parents when a child is born, for every child that is born, not just for the first child, and then payments during that child's childhood when they go to nursery and then again when they go to school. We have already set out clear plans about how we are going to increase the incomes of those families with children who most need it. Of course, we will continue to talk to others—the child poverty action group, other organisations and other interests across the chamber—about what further action we can take to tackle child poverty. I hope that that is an area where we can all agree—I agree with Mark Griffin—that targets are important. That is why it is important that they are in this bill, but it is the policies that we introduce that will make the biggest difference. That concludes First Minister's Questions and a point of order from Mike Rumbles. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A few minutes ago, the First Minister accused a member of this Parliament of deliberately misleading Parliament. You know, as well as every other member of this Parliament knows what that phrase actually means. I was wondering whether you could advise us whether the First Minister will be given an opportunity at some point to withdraw her remarks. Thank you, Mr Rumbles. Yes, I did hear the remark and I considered it at the time. In this particular case, I would ask all members to treat each other respectfully and be careful about their language, but in this case it was not an use of unparliamentary language. We move on to the member's business, Fulton MacGregor, I believe. I will just take a few minutes to change the