 mawr o'r reolio ymgyrch o'i argyfan hyfforddiadau? Ie, we now move to First Minister's Questions. Question number one. Kezia Dugdale. To ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day? First Minister, engagement to set forward the Government's ambitious programme for Scotland. Kezia Dugdale. It is now a week, Presiding Officer, since the First Minister was asked about the serious allegations around the property deals of our business spokesperson, Michelle Thompson.�� Fayaeon y Llywodraeth dweud have only grown. We were grateful to the Lord Advocate for him coming to the chamber on Tuesday to make it clear that the delay in pursuing the case against the law and representing Michelle Thomson was down to the law society. So we know it was not the Crown Office that delayed investigations by over a year, but we don't know who did or why. As with last week, I'm not asking her to comment on a live police investigation, But, by delaying action on this case for so many months, does the First Minister think that la society has met its responsibilities on this matter? In a long list of ridiculous questions I have been asked by Labour in this chamber, over a long series of months, that one has to take the biscuit, Presiding Officer. I'm not responsible for the law society of Scotland. The Society of Scotland is an independent regulatory body, and, therefore, if Kezia Dugdale has questions for the law society then I suggest that she would be better advised to direct those questions to the law society. As I said last week—and it is worth repeating again today—serious allegations have been made. I take very seriously. If they are proven, they would be serious, and, Those will be unacceptable. The police investigation is under way. Earlier this week, we heard a referral has been made to the Westminster Standards Commissioner. It's prejudicial for me to comment in detail on the substance of allegations that are under live investigations. Everyone, even MPs, are entitled to due process and a presumption of innocence. Let's allow the investigation to proceed and when it concludes, those are questions to be answered. Or indeed, if there is any action that I require to take as SNP leader, then that will happen. Let me make it clear. I take and will always take responsibility for any action that relates to the SNP, but with the greatest of respect I am not going to take sanctimonious lectures r пятyn ar gyfer ar gyfer y Llywodraeth, nifer, yng Nghymru'r Llywodraeth, ar gyfer y Llywodraeth o'r 5 pwysuau o ddwyganiadau a ddwyganiadau. Pesiaeth Uwg? Dyma, Dyma, Dyma. Fy gydwch arrywid o ffyrdd ganfodol gyflym i'n dangos bysaf yn per Conservatwyr ysgolfon. Fy gydwch ar IPrwyr iddyn nhw yw ein cymdeithasol has the ultimate responsibility for that justice system and this matters because people have to have confidence that the system treats everyone the same regardless of party or position. The public will not accept any perception, fear or otherwise that the Scottish establishment is closing ranks to protect one of its own. Not when vulnerable families have been taken advantage of in this way and not when we see pensioners on our TV screens talking about how they were exploited. So will the First Minister join me in calling on the law society to hold a proper independent external inquiry into this matter and to publish all papers relating to the delay? I think the law society should answer all and any questions that are directed to it. I cannot answer on behalf of an independent organisation but I would certainly welcome publication of any or all documents relating to this case. Can I just say to Kezia Dugdale that the law society, as she will know because if not her personally then I'm sure many members of her benches will have quoted them on umpteen occasions, the law society is a regular and vociferous critic of this Government on a wide range of policy issues. Can you imagine the outcry? If on one or other of those issues where the law society was taking the opposite view to this Government, I asked for an investigation into the running of the law society, the opposition rightly would be up in arms. The law society is an independent investigation. What we heard in this chamber from the independent Lord Advocate is the fact that the Crown Office acted speedily and appropriately when it received the referral from the law society. That matter has now been referred to the police. There is a live police investigation under way and I think it is incumbent on all of us to allow that police investigation to do its work. Can I welcome that answer for the First Minister and the support that she offered there for full publication from the law society? I think that that is progress and welcome progress. This is, of course—I welcome the answer and still they grown, Presiding Officer. There are more than questions of legality here. There are questions of judgment. Last week, the First Minister told us that she did not know about the case and question until she read about it in the papers, and I take her at her word. However, we still have not had an explanation for the fact that the First Minister personally appointed Michelle Thompson to lead on business policy for the SNP. There is a contradiction here. On the one hand, everybody in the SNP praised Michelle Thompson for her business experience, but then on the other hand the First Minister says that nobody in the SNP knew anything about Michelle Thompson's business experience. It does not stack up. Michelle Thompson's company boasted that the increase in the number of people struggling to pay their mortgage during their session was, and I quote, a great opportunity. If people were emotionally distant, they could make a huge profit. Is praying on desperate people ever an ethical way to run a business? No, I do not think that it is. If those allegations and any other allegations are proven, I will treat that as a serious matter. As I said last week and as I say again today, I did not and the SNP did not have any prior knowledge of the serious allegations that have been made. If Kezia Dugdale gets evidence to the contrary, she should bring that to the chamber instead of simply indulging in insinuation. I picked up on Kezia Dugdale's comment about judgment, and I think that that is important. The judgment that I take seriously—in fact, the only judgment that matters to any of us in here—is the judgment of the Scottish people. I think that Kezia Dugdale should occasionally look at what is happening outside of this chamber. For the last eight years, all that we have had from Kezia Dugdale and her colleagues is SNP bad, SNP bad, SNP bad. All that has happened in that time is that SNP support has risen and Labour support has declined. I think that it is perhaps time for a new tactic for Kezia Dugdale before it is far too late for a party that is dying on its feet. I came to this chamber to ask questions about businesses that make their money from exploiting vulnerable people. The First Minister's response was to refer to a poll and tell us that everyone loves her. That is really quite incredible. This is the last First Minister's questions before SNP conference. We know that Michelle Thompson was due to play a starring role at that conference, hosting a fringe event called What is Stopping UK Businesses from Exploring New Markets? The First Minister personally endorsed her as a candidate saying that Michelle knows what she is doing. Now we all know what Michelle was doing. Isn't it time for the First Minister to admit that Michelle Thompson's business dealings were wrong, that she was wrong to appoint her, and that it would be wrong for Michelle Thompson to return as an SNP MP? I will continue to take the approach that I set out last week and set out again today, which is allowing investigations to take their course and acting on the conclusion of those investigations. It is because those allegations are serious and because those allegations are being treated as serious that right now Michelle Thompson is not a member of the SNP. She does not hold the SNP whip in Westminster. She is not a spokesperson for the SNP and she will not be attending the SNP conference. That is what happens when serious allegations are raised that concern the SNP. If only Labour down the years had always acted as appropriately as that, we might be in a different situation. I will continue to act appropriately. I would say to Kezia Dugdale that she should do likewise, because if she continues to indulge in the behaviour that we have seen repeatedly from her and her colleagues, then I think that the fortunes of her and her party will continue in the same direction that they have been going in for quite some time. To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. No plans in the near future. Ruth Davidson Political interference, suppression of critical thought, meddling, devastating, dramatic and harmful. That is what academics think of the Scottish Government's bill to increase political control over the way universities are run. The reputation of our universities has been founded on their academic independence. Their sustainable funding depends upon their charitable status. The bill, at a stroke, threatens to demolish both of those foundations. It is a bill that can cause huge harm but does not appear to give us any gain. In education, our primary schools literacy and numeracy rates are falling, our secondary school teacher numbers are plummeting and our further education college places have been slashed. Can the First Minister see why people might be worried about her plans for Scottish universities? The First Minister Firstly, college places have been protected as per the commitment in the SNP manifesto. Atainment levels in our education system are actually improving, but we said that they are not improving fast enough to our satisfaction, which is why we put in place such an impressive and substantial body of work to improve them further. Let me turn to the important matter of the higher education governance bill, because I think that it is important that we, as a Government, engage with and listen to the views that are expressed from the higher education sector, and we will continue to do that. Let me be very clear that this bill is not about introducing ministerial control over universities. I make no apology for this. It is about ensuring that the governance of our universities is transparent and inclusive. That is why the bill has been welcomed by students and by trade unions. I believe that even Labour managed to welcome something that the SNP has decided to do, but universities are autonomous bodies. Ruth Davidson particularly mentioned charitable status. It is therefore probably quite important that she is aware of the comment that the office of the Scottish Charity Regulator made when it made a submission to the original consultation, and I am quoting from it. In our view, the proposals in the bill would not affect the constitutions of higher education institutions in ways that would give ministers the power to direct or control these institutions' activities, and they have raised no concerns in terms of the charitable status of universities. In my view, why are they important? Our universities are an amazing success story. We saw just last week that we have got five universities in the world's top 200. That is more per head of population than any other country on the face of this planet. We will continue to work with our universities to make sure that they continue to be that fantastic success story. The First Minister says that she does not want to increase ministerial control over universities, but that is completely at odds with what is contained within the actual bill, and the warnings from the university sector could not be clearer. The First Minister talked there of charitable status. I have here University Scotland's independent legal advice on the impact of the SNP's proposals, and it says that the SNP's reforms contain significant risk that Scotland's universities could lose their status as charities, threatening hundreds of millions of pounds of borrowing, of private finance and of income from donations. The bill is a mess. The universities hate it. They say that they have not been properly consulted on it. The legal advice says that it could threaten their charitable status and that it risks blowing a gaping hole in higher education funding, and all for reasons that the Scottish Government struggles to explain. The First Minister is absolutely right when she says that Scotland has five universities in the world top 200, and every single one of those five has raised serious concerns about this Government's plans. Isn't it time that the First Minister recognised this and she drops this damaging bill? First Minister? I think that there is opportunity for us to be very constructive around this. Ruth Davidson asked me her questions the reasons for this bill. I think that there is a very good reason and good argument to say that we want staff, teaching and non-teaching staff, students to be properly and appropriately represented on the governance of their institutions. That is what this bill is about, and I think that that is an important objective. She also cites legal advice, and I said in my first answer that we will continue to engage with and discuss those issues with universities. However, the quote that I gave to her was actually from the Charity's regulator—the person, the body—that decides whether or not an institution has charitable status. I do not think that it is possible for Ruth Davidson simply to sweep that aside as if it does not matter. There are serious issues here. All of us across this chamber—I know that I certainly do—want to see our successful universities go on to be even more successful in the future. That is in the interests of the Government. It is in the interests of our country as a whole, and it is ridiculous to suggest that this Government would do anything that would put that at risk. We will continue to engage with our universities. We will do so positively and constructively. If Ruth Davidson wants to be a constructive part of that debate, I would warmly welcome it. The First Minister will be aware that, last night, the wood group announced a consultation to cut 90 of its 250 staff at the Sulunvoil oil terminal, and Billfinger industrial services will potentially lose 170 of their 290 members of staff. Will she ask Highlands Islands Enterprise to conduct a full assessment of the impact on the local economy and on local businesses? Would she also agree to meet the Office of the Oil and Gas Regulator, who are pressing the case for the Shahalyan oil production to use the Sulunvoil terminal rather than Rotterdam, as it currently will do? First, I am very happy to discuss the specific request that Tavish Scott has made of Highlands and Islands Enterprise with Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I think that that is a constructive suggestion. On the oil and gas regulator, John Swinney has very recently met them. If memory serves me correctly, I think that I am due to meet them soon, and I would be very happy to discuss that issue as well. Obviously, we are concerned to learn of the developments at Sulunvoil, and it is important to say that this will be an anxious time for the workforce and for their families. The Government, as we always do in these situations, stands ready to provide support for affected employees through our pace initiative for responding to redundancy situations. More widely than that, through our oil and gas jobs task force, we are fully committed to supporting the industry during what are challenging times. I am sure that John Swinney or Fergus Ewing would be happy to meet Tavish Scott to discuss those issues in more detail. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the findings of the first-ever Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland officer and staff opinion survey. I welcome that the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland have undertaken the first post-reform opinion survey of the entire police workforce. While there are some positive findings, there are also issues of concern and many areas for improvement. Police Scotland will address the outcomes of the survey with a detailed action plan, and there will be on-going scrutiny by the Scottish Police Authority to measure progress. Addressing the results of the survey will also be a key test within the assessment and appointment process of the new chief constable. It is important to say that we continue to thank all the dedicated members of our police service for providing the lowest level of crime in a generation. I thank the First Minister for that response. Police officers and staff service all, and they put their lives on the line, as we saw tragically this week, with the death of PC Phillips, who is in her thoughts today. Last week, the Scottish Police Federation said that you cannot deliver a world-class service purely on the goodwill of the men and women who work in it. The force-wide survey revealed that just 8 per cent of officers and staff thought that the national force was genuinely interested in their wellbeing—8 per cent. The First Minister surely cannot believe that this has nothing to do with her part—the part that her Government played in rushing to create a top-down, target-led, centralised national force, can she? I think that Alison MacKinnon is, to be fair to her, although we do not always agree on those things. I think that she has an excellent record in raising issues around police and justice, but I do not think that she could have taken anything in my original answer that would have led her to the conclusion that these are not findings that the Government, the police and the Scottish Police Authority take very seriously indeed. The survey, as I said, is an important part of the process for measuring progress in an organisation that is still relatively new. Addressing the results of this survey will be a priority for the police, the SPA and the new chief constable. I mentioned the action plan that will be developed by Police Scotland, and there will be on-going scrutiny through the SPA's governance structures, which will be led by its human resources and remuneration committee. Progress against the action plan will be a standing item for review at that committee. It may be worthwhile pointing out to the chamber that areas that are identified within the action plan will be the subject of a further survey of a sample of the workforce in a year's time so that progress can be measured, and a comparable full workforce survey will be undertaken in the summer of 2017, so the 2015 survey will provide a baseline on which we can measure improvements. I hope that that reassures Alison MacKinnon that the results of the survey are taken extremely seriously. I hope that we can absolutely agree that our police service does a sterling job. She was right to point out the tragic case of PC Phillips this week, which brought to all of our minds just how much danger our police officers put themselves in the line of duty. We all owe it to them to make sure that we provide the support that they so thoroughly deserve. The survey also indicates that a major contributor to the fall in morale and commitment is a direct result of the increase in pension contributions, and that is, of course, reserved. Now, there is 14.25 per cent of salary. Does the First Minister agree with me that this increase is a direct consequence of fewer officers south of the border contributing to the UK fund? Currently, there are 14,500 fewer, and that is to be regretted for England, but there is now every reason for police pensions to be devolved. Like all of the matters that currently lie with the Westminster Government to be devolved to this Parliament, Christine Grahame is right to point out that 49 per cent of respondents highlighted changes to their pension as one of the factors that was driving some dissatisfaction. Obviously, we did not want to introduce some of the pension changes, but because of the financial penalties that we would have faced for not doing so, those are required to go ahead. It is important that we look at the survey in the round and respond to all aspects of it so that we can make sure that, in the surveys that follow in the years to come, we see significant and material improvement. Margaret Mitchell One of the key reasons for police considering leaving the force has been the pace of change, with other officers stating that it was now time to take stock. What cognisance has the Scottish Government taken of this in terms of new legislation affecting police, including the provisions within the criminal justice bill relating to police powers of detention arrest and charge? We take very careful cognisance of all the factors and deciding the content of any legislation. The criminal justice bill that the member refers to as she will be aware is going through the parliamentary process right now. Many of the issues around the powers of police, detention and time limits are all subject, because I am keeping a close eye on it to very robust and substantive debate in the justice committee. That is the proper process for determining those things. In terms of the survey, we will reflect very carefully on the results of the survey. I will repeat what the police and the Scottish Police Authority are going to do, but those survey results will be our being and will continue to be taken extremely seriously. To ask the First Minister for an update on the Scottish Government's response to the refugee crisis. The Scottish Government remains firmly committed to doing all we can to support refugees. We have made an initial £1 million available to ensure that services across Scotland are prepared to deal with the arrival of refugees. We are coordinating that work via the refugee task force, which we will meet for the fourth time this afternoon. The Minister for Europe and International Development, Hamza Yousaf, as members will have seen and visited last weekend to meet refugees and aid agencies in person. I know that he is keen to share the learning from that visit with the task force later today. I thank the First Minister for her answer. The First Minister may be aware that I am leaving for Serbia tomorrow with Glasgow to Caring City—a charity that she knows well. To see what difference the 19 tonnes of aid that the people of Glasgow collected will make to the refugees and to hopefully arrange further aid. Does she agree with me that the scenes just witnessed by my colleague Hamza Yousaf and that I, unfortunately, expect to see in the Balkans? Just highlight the need for the UK Government to hold out a hand of friendship to the many thousands of refugees and docked into the EU relocation scheme. I am sure that that is a sentiment that will find support right across this chamber. I would take the opportunity to pay tribute to the generosity that is shown by people in Glasgow and indeed people across the country in the face of what is a growing humanitarian crisis. I thank James Dorn particularly for highlighting the tremendous contribution that Glasgow, the Caring City, is making to supporting refugees. As he said, it is a charity that I know well. It does absolutely sterling work. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has been able to provide the charity with £10,000 to assist with the transportation of aid to the Balkans. I am sure that the member's experience in Serbia will bring into sharp focus the suffering and the human tragedy of the refugee crisis in Europe. We, as I said, remain firmly committed to doing all that we can to support refugees and to hold out a hand of friendship. While we welcome the change in view of the UK Government since this matter was last raised at First Minister's question, we will also continue to press for the UK Government to participate in a co-ordinated EU relocation scheme. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the report by the Child Poverty Action Group on the cost of the school day. First Minister, I think that this is important research and I welcome its publication. It outlines the difficulties that children face from low-income households. It was exactly because of this issue that we launched the access to education fund in June last year, which has today provided £3 million of funding to just under 700 schools across Scotland to help their pupils overcome barriers to learning caused by poverty. Of course, we will consider carefully the recommendations made in the report and continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that we support schools to do all that they can to help all children and young people to achieve their full potential. The report highlights the number of areas that limit the educational opportunities within the school day that can affect attendance, health and wellbeing, confidence and eventually attainment of pupils from more deprived backgrounds. Other issues that affect attainment are that pupils from more deprived backgrounds do not attend after school clubs if they rely on free school transport. They cannot attend additional supported study sessions for the same reasons, while their families move into catchment areas for better performing schools, and others use the placing request system to move their child into better performing schools because they can pay extra transport costs. What practical steps have the Scottish Government taken to respond to the report to open up access to the same opportunities that I have just mentioned? The main step that we have taken, and we took it in response to the issues that were raised last year, was, as I said in my initial answer, the establishment of the access to education fund. That fund is designed to support schools to help children and young people to overcome the barriers that Mark Griffin has outlined to learning the barriers that are often caused by poverty. It might be worth looking at some of the examples of the projects that have been funded, the purchase of technology for pupils at a school in Glasgow, which also supports school family learning clubs, waterproof clothing to allow children in another school to take part in outdoor activities, transport for outdoor trips and other aspects of support that help children to take part in extracurricular activities. There is a whole range of things that the access to education fund does. The fund has been designed so that it is flexible, so that it is able to respond to many of those things. We will look carefully at this recent report to see whether there are additional things that we want to do through that fund or in addition to that fund. I do not mind saying, one of the things that worries me greatly right now is that we try to address the issues that the looming cuts to tax credits shamefully being introduced by the Conservative Government, which will affect perhaps 200,000 families with children in Scotland to the tune of about £3,000 a year. Those cuts will make problems like this worse, but we will continue to do everything that we can to help children overcome the barriers that are caused by poverty. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to report from the Auditor General that it underspent its budget by almost £350 million in 2014-15. I welcome the conclusion of the Auditor General that, yet again, provides an unqualified audit opinion on the Scottish Government's 2014-15 consolidated accounts. That has been the case every year of this administration. The Deputy First Minister announced the provisional outturn for 2014-15 in June, and that position has not changed. The full cash underspend for 2014-15 has been carried forward into the current financial year, 2015-16. The Government's approach will continue to represent sensible budgeting, reflecting fluctuations in cost and demand across the spending review period and will ensure that there is no loss of spending power in Scotland. I thank the First Minister for that response. In June 2009, the finance secretary announced a then underspend of £31 million and said this. Long gone are the days when hundreds of millions of pounds of Government money would be underspent each year, doing nothing to help communities across the country. What will those communities make of an underspend more than 10 times the amount in 2009? I might be worth giving a little bit more context and detail here, otherwise known as Facts. Of the figure that Murdo Fraser is citing, it is worth pointing out that round about £150 million of that is what is called non-cash. What that means is that that cannot be spent on services and it can never be spent on services because what it represents are differences in accounting estimates, for example, in depreciation of assets. The rest of the underspend comes about because this Government has to manage its budget within a context of a not legally being able to overspend and secondly not being able to borrow. We have to manage our budget through the year to make sure that we do not overshoot our budget, but every single penny of the underspend that is capable of being spent is transferred into the next year and spent on public services. So not a penny of it—Order—not a penny of—Order—my deputy here is shouting that the Conservatives are fiscally illiterate. I could not possibly comment. Not a single penny is lost to the public purse, but the final point that I want to make may be of particular interest to Murdo Fraser because the amount that we underspend and can spend and therefore carry forward amounts to not 0.7 per cent of our fiscal deal budget. The UK Government underspend when you take out spending and devolved administrations amounts to 1.2 per cent of its fiscal budget, which means that the Scottish Government is much better at managing its money than Murdo Fraser's Westminster colleagues. I thank First Minister for having outed the depth, First Minister. Can I remind First Minister that you should not be making comments from a sedentary position? That is First Minister's questions. We are now moving to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.