 Felly, we will start with the First Minister's question, question number one from Ruth Davidson. Ruth Davidson- Thank you to ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day. engagement to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Ruth Davidson- I thank the First Minister for her answer. At the weekend her predecessor was asked on television why one in five children leaves primary school functionally illiterate, and he replied that this was just one statistic, no it is not, is thousands of lives. Ten years on to the day, from this SNP Government taking charge and with councils across Scotland being asked to run our schools tomorrow, perhaps it's worth asking the current First Minister about some more statistics. Here's one. Why is it that between 2011 and 2015, the proportion of children performing well in numeracy fell in both P4 and P7? First Minister. I've made absolutely no bones about my determination to raise performance in literacy, in numeracy, in attainment across the board. That's why we have established the new national improvement framework. It's why we have established the new attainment challenge and the attainment fund, which, as we have talked about many times in the past in this chamber, is now channeling additional resources direct to headteachers in order that they can decide the ways in which to best raise attainment. It's also why, and we will see the latest figures that are in the same vein as the ones that Ruth Davidson cites shortly, are sample surveys. I'm not dismissing them, but it's one of the reasons why we have taken the decision to start publishing comprehensive school by school, local authority by local authority data, so that we know how our schools are performing, but crucially so that we know what is working so that we drive up attainment, so that we will continue to remain focused on something that is vitally important for young people and parents right across the country. Ruth Davidson. The First Minister talked about her intention to improve but absolutely no acknowledgement that the failures are on her watch. Let's take another statistic. In science, the Sutton Trust this year has reported on the pronounced and sustained decline in able pupils' performance under the SNP. Indeed, over the last decade, since the SNP came to power, it says that this decline is equivalent to around an entire year of schooling. I know that the First Minister is going to stand in answer to every question and tell me that everything is about to be sorted soon, but can she tell me why has this drop-in standards happened on her watch? While I don't dismiss any of the statistics of Ruth Davidson's sites, I think that she does a disservice also to young people and to teachers across the country. As we have set out before, we now see record numbers of higher and advanced higher passes in our schools. We also see record numbers of positive destinations, so that is more young people going into employment, further education or training than has ever been the case before. We are seeing far fewer pupils now from our deprived communities leaving school with no qualifications. We are also starting to see—although I want to see this go much further—an arrowing of the gap between the least and most deprived areas in access to university. It is not simply a case of standing here and saying what my intentions are, although my intentions are absolutely solid in continuing to make improvement. However, I can point to, as I have just done, the improvements that we have already made. We will get on with investing the money, with conducting the reforms, with supporting teachers and headteachers to make sure that we seek continued improvement for young people right across the country. Ruth Davidson I stand next to no one in my admiration of the hard work that our teachers do, but what they do is work under guidance that they are given and is described by education experts as an I will quote self-evident lunacy, and that is what is coming out of the Government and its arms. Use what parents think is that this SNP Government has presided over falling standards and has failed utterly to ensure that we have enough teachers in our classroom to turn that situation around. Here is yet another statistic—4,000 fewer teachers in Scotland schools than there were in 2007. We know that 16 per cent of training places for English teachers are unfilled, and more than a quarter of training places for maths are vacant as well. There are possible solutions to this. We have councils in some of our rural communities in the north-east of the Highlands saying that they want more flexibility to tackle this crisis themselves in a way that suits their circumstances, but they are having to hang around for an answer because John Swinney's promised review of governance has been delayed and delayed again. It is a problem of the SNP's making. Councils saying, let us fix this now, and an education secretary saying, no, let me chew on this some more. First Minister? Firstly, in terms of the governance review, that will be published or the recommendations that we are taking forward from that will be published shortly. Once we have properly analysed—as it is right and proper to do—all of the submissions that have been made to that. One thing that I think is absolutely certain is that, if past experience is anything to go by, as soon as we set out the direction of travel over the governance review, the other parties in the chamber who have been calling on us to do it for months will suddenly decide that they oppose everything that we are deciding to do. I would absolutely lay bets on that. Of course, the governance review, as Ruth Davidson well knows, is one part of a wider package of reform—the national improvement framework, the attainment challenge, the attainment fund, the introduction of standardised assessments, which Labour used to support. However, as soon as we decided to do it, they decided to oppose the publication of school by school, local authority by local authority figures, so that we can track exactly how. There we go—the Liberal Democrats oppose those reforms. What we see in the chamber time and time again are opposition parties calling for things to be done and as soon as they are done, they decide to oppose them. We will get on and take the action backed by investment that is delivering improvements in our schools and will continue to deliver improvements in our schools. Ruth Davidson I am sorry, but Jam Tomorrow just does not cut it. With this SNP Government, it is not just one statistic or two or three. It is a 10-year record of failure. It is leaving a situation where, according to the architect of curriculum for excellence, our schools can no longer be classed as world-leading. Tomorrow, we elect the councillors whose job will be to support our schools on the ground. The SNP says that education is their top priority, but does not their 10 years of failure tell an entirely different story? The First Minister I look into the local elections tomorrow pointing to the improvements that are being made in our schools and, crucially, pointing to the £120 million of additional resource that is now in the hands of headteachers to drive further improvement. I am standing here wondering why it is the case that, if education was of any priority to the Conservatives, they are putting out around the country right now leaflets—I have this one through my door—this leaflet mentions me or the SNP or independence a grand total of 43 times. It mentions Ruth Davidson or the Tories just nine times—one of those is her signature. It mentions her policies on education zero times. In this election, the Tories have not put forward a single policy on our schools, on social care, on roads, on transport, on anything. They have a constitutional obsession, so I will get on with raising standards in our schools. To ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the week. I have even more engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. In 2015, the First Minister said that she supported a 50p top rate of tax for those earning more than £150,000 a year. In 2016, she changed her mind and said that she did not support it when she had the power to deliver it. Now, in 2017, without any sense of irony, the First Minister claims to support it again. Does she really expect people to believe her this time around? Kezia Dugdale should maybe listen a bit carefully. In 2015, I said that I supported that across the UK. In 2016, I said that if we only did it in Scotland without the powers that we do not have to tackle tax avoidance because they lie at Westminster, the advice that we had taken was that that could potentially lose revenue. I do not think that anybody in this chamber seriously would stand up and argue that we should put up a tax if the advice says that it would actually lead to a reduction in the revenue. We are going into a UK-wide election in a few weeks' time and we will publish our manifesto in due course. Of course, this is Kezia Dugdale, the leader of the Labour Party, who just a few weeks ago published a local government manifesto saying that the council tax freeze had crippled local government and yet is leading eight Labour-led authorities into this election, promising to freeze the council tax. Perhaps Kezia Dugdale would comment on that before coming here and asking me about the issue of taxation. For the First Minister, who spent 10 years in two elections promising to scrap the council tax. I have just heard the First Minister say that we should not bother trying to tax the rich because they will just find a way around it. The same argument that the Tories have been making is that we can't reach out for years. The truth is that the SNP has voted against a 50p top rate of tax in this chamber no less than eight times. There is so much for stronger for Scotland and there is a pattern developing here. Nicola Sturgeon has spent her entire career comparing for more powers to stop cuts to public services. As she has the power to do so, she refuses to use it. We have the ridiculous situation where a nationalist First Minister says that she wants to tax the rich, but only if England does it first. Isn't it the case that Nicola Sturgeon has plenty of principles when she is campaigning but nothing but a list of excuses when she is in power? I said that the problem was that we do not have the powers in this Parliament to stop the wealthiest potentially trying to avoid a higher rate of tax. I want those powers. Kezia Dugdale argues to keep those powers in the hands of a Tory Government at Westminster. That is the difference between me and Kezia Dugdale. Kezia Dugdale cannot really expect to be taken seriously on the issue of tax because she has come here week after week saying that I should raise taxes not just on the rich but on ordinary working people as well. She has come here week after week saying that the council tax freeze is wrong and yet we go into an election tomorrow with eight local authorities across this country promising to continue to freeze the council tax and each and every one of those councils is a Labour-led council. How can Kezia Dugdale have a single shred of credibility on tax? I think that voters tomorrow will make their own judgment on Labour right across this country. The council tax is unfair and regressive. How do we know that? The SNP has been telling us that for 10 years. There we had it, just another excuse as to why she won't ask the richest people in society to pay a bit more tax. What a shame it's the same one that the Tories have been using for years. She claims to back a 50p tax rate but she won't implement one here in Scotland where she has the power to do so. She claims to be protecting the NHS but local services across the country face cuts and closure on her watch. She claims that education is her number one priority but spends every waking minute plotting how to force another independence referendum. Does Nicola Sturgeon feel any guilt at all during the country warning against austerity when it is her Government that has cut £1.5 billion from council services? I will continue to do what I have done for the past few years, which is to argue against austerity at source. That is what I will be coming and paying for in this election. The difference between me and Kezia Dugdale is that she doesn't want to scrap austerity, she wants to transfer the burden of austerity onto the shoulders of low-pay people right across this country. Why is that? She prefers to allow a Tory Government at Westminster to take the big decisions about our economy rather than have them made here. Kezia Dugdale is wrong in what she says about the NHS and council services. The NHS budget is more than £3 billion higher today than it was when this Government took office. The number of NHS staff is 10 per cent higher almost than it was when we took office. We have got the best-performing accident emergency departments anywhere in the UK. We have got £120 million going into the hands of headteachers. I will come back to the central question. If Kezia Dugdale, albeit wrongly, is accusing this Government of short-changing local authorities, then the question remains this one. Why is it only Labour councils going into this election promising to freeze the council tax? Why are they not doing what SNP councils are doing, choosing to raise revenue for schools and for social care? Kezia Dugdale has no credibility in this issue, and I think that from looking at her, she knows it. Can the First Minister offer any hope to my constituents having to endure very lengthy orthopedic waiting lists, in contrast to what she has just said about the NHS? Let me give her an example. Mr Howey was told that he was to have a knee operation at the Golden Jubilee only for funding to be withdrawn by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. He is virtually unable to walk and is in constant pain. At the start of the financial year, when patients are in severe pain and their waiting time has been badly breached, why are Greater Glasgow and Clyde rationing treatment and denying people the opportunity to have operations at another NHS hospital at the Golden Jubilee? What action will the First Minister take to ensure that Mr Howey and many others like him get the treatment that he needs and deserves, and that we put patient care first? Any NHS boards across the country are investing to make sure that we have short waiting times, and waiting times today are much shorter than they were when this Government took office. Health boards are also focusing on making sure that those waiting longest get priority in terms of treatment. I would say that what Jackie Baillie has outlined is certainly something that I want to know the detail of. I do not have all the details of the patient case. The health secretary has told me, however, that she has spoken this morning to the chief executive of Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board about this particular case, and it is being looked into. Once we have the detail of that, I will ask Shona Robison to write to the member with the full details of the case, and I hope that that would be welcomed. To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. The First Minister accuses Opposition parties of demanding changes on education and then complaining when the Scottish Government implements those changes. The Greens have never argued that standardised testing or reviews of governance structure are the root of the problem. The Greens have never supported the stripping of local authorities of their power to make decisions about those matters. We have consistently argued that resources are at the core of the question. If we want to recognise the thousands of teachers that have been lost in Scotland, the hundreds of additional support needs teachers, school librarians, classroom assistants and the lack of resources that are available to our local authorities, is it not very clear that that has to be the core of the solution if that is what has been causing the problem? The Greens forcing the Scottish Government to reverse £160 million of cuts to local councils was an important and essential first start, but is it not clear that it has to be the beginning of a change that puts resources back into our local authorities so that they are able to support the people, the professionals, who are doing the job around the country? Patrick Harvie and I have a disagreement when it comes to education reform. I certainly concede that that is the case. I think that it is important not that we strip local authorities of their responsibilities—that is not our intention—but that we give greater flexibility and autonomy and control to local schools, because much of the evidence around how you drive improvements in education say that that, along with the capacity of teachers and the quality of learning and the involvement of parents, is how you do that. That is why we are taking forward those reforms. I also think that it is vitally important that we have more rigor around both how performance is assessed of pupils but also how that is reported publicly. That is why we are introducing standardised assessments not to replace teacher judgment but to inform teacher judgment so that there is more rigor around that. Then we want to make sure that there is transparency around the performance of schools. For the first time ever, we are going down a road where we are publishing not sample surveys based on a couple of pupils per school but comprehensive school by school data so that we can properly assess how we are performing. I think that those are the right reforms. I will continue to carry on with them, because I believe that they are essential to improving the attainment in our schools, which everybody across the chamber says they want to see happen. However, where I have an agreement with Patrick Harvie is on the issue of resources. We have always said that resource in the hands of headteachers is a vital part of our attainment drive. That is why, as I have said on a couple of occasions already today, the £120 million that is going direct to headteachers is a crucial part of that. Headteachers are then free to decide how that money is invested, and if they want to invest that in additional support for learning staff, that is up to headteachers. That £120 million fund is part of the wider attainment fund, which totals £750 million across the Parliament. Yes, resources and investment are crucial, but I believe that we need to couple that with the reforms that will allow us to drive improvements faster. I make absolutely zero apology for that. I am afraid that I still do not believe that the Scottish Government has yet countered the concern that standardised testing, whatever its motivation, will end up being used for the same purposes as league tables if they were called that. However, I also do not accept that teachers want to be managers or that headteachers want to be chief executives or chief financial officers of their schools. I think that they want to focus on what they are passionate about and what they are talented at, which is teaching and education and the life chances of young people. However, if we want to reverse that decline—4,000 teachers lost—if we want to reverse the decline in those other important professions, additional support needs librarians and classroom assistants, the overall level of resource needs to go higher. Over the successive years, we need to be resourcing local councils to make those decisions. The Scottish Government is willing to cap council tax rates at national level without legislation. It is willing to tell England and Wales what its income tax rate should be, but it is not willing to change it in Scotland more than an inch. Is it not very clear that we need to reject the Tory notion of Scotland as a higher tax part of the UK and make sure that people like the First Minister and myself pay a bit more tax into the pot to produce the resources that will go into education and make a difference in the life chances of every child in this country? First Minister? Because of decisions, we have taken higher-rate taxpayers, which account for the top 10 per cent of income earners in Scotland, who are paying a bit more than higher-rate taxpayers elsewhere in the UK. Those are the right balanced tax decisions that it is appropriate to take. I do not think that at a time when inflation is rising and living standards are under a lot of pressure, I do not think that it is right to increase income tax for those on the basic rate. Again, people are willing and free to take a different view, but that is my view, on the issue of education and local government funding more generally. In the financial year that we are now in, there is available to local services additional spending power of £400 million. As Patrick Harvie rightly said, some of that is down to the discussions that his party and my party had leading up to the agreement of the budget. There is more resource in local government supporting local services, and specifically in education there is more resources going direct to headteachers. Let me assure Patrick Harvie that we have no intention of seeing headteachers become bureaucrats. The point here is allowing headteachers to be the leaders of learning that they need to be in order to drive improvement and to put in their hands the resources that they need in order to do that. Those are sensible reforms, I think that they will lead to improvements in our school. I think that it is right that we have vigorous and rigorous debate around those things, but I am determined that we will take forward those reforms and I am determined that we will be held to account on them, which is why the publication—other people like to dismiss that as leak tables—is the information that parents have access to to know how their local school is performing. It is information that the public, including other members in the chamber, then have access to hold me and this Government accountable. It is absolutely right and proper that we have it, and we will continue to make sure that it is available. Last night on STV, Ruth Davidson repeated the fiction that under the new two-child limit for tax credits a woman only has to write her name and tick a box to prove that they have had a subsequent child as a result of rape. Is that true? First Minister? No, it is not true. Ruth Davidson knows that it is not true. We had a very powerful and at times very emotional and emotive debate on the two-child tax credit cap and the rape clause just a couple of weeks ago. I actually find it quite hard to believe that Ruth Davidson could have sat through that debate as she did and listened to some of the testimony, particularly the letter from a constituent that was read out by Kezia Dugdale, and still go on television last night and say that it was just a bit ticking a box. I think that that is disgraceful. More importantly, what it demonstrates, or at least what it gives the impression of—I will choose my words carefully—what it gives the impression of, because I hope that this is not the reality, is a complete lack of empathy for the emotional trauma that any woman in those circumstances would have to go through of having to declare to a third party that their child had been conceived as a result of rape. A woman that is probably determined to do everything in her power to protect her child from ever being aware of those facts. It is really important that whatever disagreements we have around policies like that, and it beggars belief for me that anybody can defend the rape clause. It falls into that category of a policy that is indefensible in my view, and that is why the Tories are struggling so badly to defend it. However, whatever disagreements for goodness sake, when it comes to support for often the most vulnerable people in our society, a bit of empathy, a bit of compassion and a bit less of the dismissive, it is just ticking a box, I think would go down well from the Tories. The BBC has reported a response through freedom of information from Police Scotland, which shows that the number of serious assaults, murders and robberies are increasing in Scotland. What is the First Minister's response? Firstly, the information that the BBC is reporting today is management information, and it is important to stress that because it is not official figures. It may turn out that the official figures reflect the information that has been reported today, but it is important that we point out the fact that often or sometimes that can not be the case. The most substantive point is that, while figures fluctuate, what we are seeing in Scotland, and I have been seeing for quite some time, is a long-term trend reduction in non-sexual violent crime. We have seen that for some time. There has been a 52 per cent reduction in non-sexual violent crime from 2006-07 to 2015-16. In 2015-16, which is the latest year that statistics are available for, the number of homicide victims in Scotland was at its lowest level since comparable records began in 1976. Of course, we always have to make sure that we are supporting our place to keep crime all forms of crime low, but we are seeing a long-term reduction in violent crime, and we have got to make sure that we continue to do everything possible to ensure that that continues. That is one of the reasons why, over the past number of years, we have supported the police to have additional officers at a time when 20,000 police officers have been lost south of the border and why we will continue to support our police to do the excellent job that they do right across the country. Pauline McNeill Does the First Minister support the 10,000 people and probably more who signed a petition against the imposition of a £2 drop-off fee at Glasgow Airport? Does the First Minister agree that, in fact, it will not reduce congestion and that, given that there are not great public transport links to Glasgow Airport, a rail link might have made the difference? However, the reality is that families going on holidays that they are entitled to will be forced to pay—it will not reduce congestion one bit, because, in fact, it is a smaller area and they are going to lock drivers in and force it to pay. Will the First Minister condemn this? This is a money-making venture, that is what it is. It has got nothing to do with congestion. Will the First Minister genuinely—I am raising this quite genuinely, First Minister—there is public fury at this, and I think that the public would appreciate at least your understanding that they do not think that that is justified. The First Minister Of course, I understand the concern of members of the public whenever a change like this happens. I absolutely understand that many of my constituents, in common with MSPs across the chamber, will use Glasgow Airport regularly. My constituency is one of the closest geographically to Glasgow Airport, so I understand that many people will have concerns. That is a matter for Glasgow Airport, and I think that it is incumbent on them to make the case for why that is necessary and to have that case able to be scrutinised. Pauline McNeill also raised the issue of an air link. Obviously, in not the last Parliament or even the one before that, we had debates about the Glasgow Airport rail link and, for very good reasons, we decided not to proceed with that at the time. Pauline McNeill should also be aware that, through the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city deal, which is being funded jointly by the UK and the Scottish Governments, councils now have the ability, if they so choose, to have access projects to Glasgow Airport. Let's wait and see who is in charge of those councils after tomorrow, but whoever is in charge of those councils after tomorrow has the wherewithal to prioritise access to Glasgow Airport if that is what they choose to do. Mike Rumbles Does the First Minister not understand that her plans for the publication of school league tables can result in teachers teaching to the tests rather than concentrating on teaching our children in the round and that that might have the opposite effect to that which she intends? I say this in all sincerity. If Mike Rumbles understood properly what it was that we were intending to publish, he would not have asked that question, because he would know that the very premise of his question is wrong, because it is not the test scores that are being published, it is the performance of young people against the required levels of curriculum for excellence that is judged by teachers informed by the test. Now, why is that important? Because it makes the teacher judgment more rigorous, but secondly, it avoids the narrowing of the teaching to the test, because it is not only the standardised test score that is taken into account, a teacher will also look at homework and the performance of children in school. I say again in all sincerity to people across this chamber, let's have these debates, but come to these debates informed with the facts of what we are doing, rather than your own prejudice about what we are doing. Perhaps we will have meaningful debates in this chamber on this very important issue. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to Scotland's population rising to an all-time high of 5.4 million. We welcome the news that Scotland's population is growing because we know that stimulating population growth is a key driver of sustainable economic growth. The figures published by the national records of Scotland last week also underline the key role that migration has to play in our work to grow the population. There is robust evidence that confirms our long-standing view that migrants from outside the UK positively contribute to our society. They are mostly young, they are mostly economically active and highly qualified. Scotland benefits significantly from the contribution that is made by people from across the world who have chosen to live, work and study here, bringing new skills and expertise and helping to underpin future economic growth, and we should take every opportunity to tell them that they are very welcome here. Kenneth Gibson I thank the First Minister for that answer. In the half century before the millennium, more than 2 million Scots emigrated and in the 20th century Scotland did the lowest rate of population growth of any nation on earth. Such was a much-vaunted union dividend, which left us with an economy swiftly overtaken by so many others. Does the First Minister agree that, while Scotland's population is slowly increasing, the number of excess deaths over births is of concern, despite the best efforts of the Presiding Officer? A hard Brexit that stops the pre-movement of people will not only end Scotland's population growth but will lead to real-skill shortages and damage our economy? The First Minister I should start by thanking the Presiding Officer for his contribution, but I better not. The latest estimates that were published show that our population increase is driven by migration. That is why, and I make this point very seriously, continued inward migration—I know that that can be controversial and unpopular in places—but continued inward migration is critical to maintaining our population growth, which in turn is critical to driving economic growth. If current trends continue, net inward migration is projected to be the main contributor to our population growth over the next 25 years. That is why, of all the things that I think should concern all of us about Brexit and the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, any serious restrictions to the ability of EU nationals to come and live in Scotland would be deeply damaging to our economy. It is important that all of us across the chamber have the courage to make that argument, because if we allow the immigration and migration debate to be distorted, we will damage our economy and our society as a result. Those latest statistics are a stark reminder of that fact. Scotland has consistently attracted fewer migrants to come and live here relative to other parts of the United Kingdom in relation to our population share. Why does the First Minister think that, after 10 years of SNP Government, Scotland is a relatively unattractive place for immigrants to come? What a disgraceful thing! What an utterly disgraceful thing for a member of this Parliament, chamber, and to describe his own country as an unattractive place to live. Murdo Fraser, hang your head in shame. As I have said before in this chamber, I remember the days, and they are becoming dark, distant days, when Murdo Fraser used to be a serious politician. Now it seems that he just aspires to be a figure of fun in this chamber, but the serious point here is this. We do have to encourage people to come here. One of the reasons why more migrants will settle in London in the south-east is partly down to geography, which I think anybody applying a bit of common sense would show, but we have just had figures showing the contribution that inward migration is making to our population growth. The real question is not the one that Murdo Fraser posed. The real question is this. Are we going to make sure over the next few years that we continue to have the ability to attract people to come to live in Scotland, or are we going to allow narrow-minded Tories to put barriers in the way of that? That is the big question and the big decision for Scotland in the next few years. To ask the First Minister whether headteachers will require the agreement of the relevant local authority before a decision is made about how the pupil equity fund will be spent in their schools. I have been absolutely clear, and the Deputy First Minister has been equally clear that the pupil equity funding scheme—the £120 million of that—will be used at the discretion of headteachers. The national operational guidance on the use of the funding sets out clear principles to support headteachers in their decision making. Headteachers should work in partnership with each other and their local authority to share good practice, pool their knowledge and consider the use of funding, but it is the discretion of headteachers that will be the central factor in deciding how that money is spent. Liz Smith, I thank the First Minister for that reply. She is quite correct to say that John Swinney stated categorically on 13 September 2016 that, under the Scottish Government reforms, there would be a presumption of decision making at school level. Could I ask her why it is then that, from Scottish Government documents, it is very clear that there will be both national guidance and local authority guidance compelling headteachers to agree the use of the pupil equity funding and the local authority to be accountable to the local authority for how that money is deployed? Could the First Minister tell Parliament whether headteachers will ever have real autonomy or is this just spin? The money is to be used at the discretion of headteachers. Liz Smith is misrepresenting, I am sure, not intentionally, the guidance and the purpose of the guidance. I mean, let me just point to some of the content of the guidance, which I know the commission of school reform had claimed, I think wrongly claimed, was highly prescriptive. The directions on that guidance refer to the key principles that set out that the activities funded by the pupil equity fund firstly must be additional to current spend. Who can possibly disagree with that? Secondly, that it must be targeted at closing the attainment gap. Who could possibly disagree with that? That is what the money is for. Thirdly, that it should be based on the evidence of what works. Again, that seems to me to be fairly sensible guidance. Next, that parents, children and young people should be involved in planning for the use of pupil equity funding. Again, I think that that is common sense because, as I said in response to Patrick Harvie, there is evidence that the involvement of parents and young people in the initiatives to drive improvement are key. Of course, headteachers will share best practice with each other. Of course, as with any use of public money, there will be an accountability, not least through the figures that are published about the performance of schools. Of course, there will be accountability, but this money is money to be spent at the discretion of headteachers. Having called for this, I would have thought that members across the chamber who have called for it would now support it and get behind it. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government has taken to improve access to sanitary products. The Scottish Government is actively considering what support we can provide for women and girls on a low income to have access to sanitary products in a dignified way. Our Fairer Scotland action plan sets out our commitment to tackling poverty. However, we know that, in the face of Tory welfare cuts and continued austerity that are pushing more and more people into poverty, it seems that we do that with one hand tied behind our back. However, whether it is the bedroom tax, the fair food fund, the Scottish welfare fund or the independent living fund, to name just a few of the Scottish Government's policies—or mitigation of the bedroom tax, I should say, is the Scottish Government policy—we spend hundreds of millions of pounds every year protecting the poorest and most vulnerable in our society from the worst excesses of a Tory Government. Of course, those are resources that we would rather be investing in further anti-poverty measures, not in mitigating or putting a sticking plaster on Tory cuts. Monica Lennon I thank the First Minister for her answer. I welcome some of the steps that the Government has outlined. Last year, when I asked the question, I was told that the Government hadn't done any work to assess the issue and that women could use food banks, but I feel that we have moved on. From then on, last year, we had our first debate in the Scottish Parliament on period poverty, and since then I have announced my intention to bring forward a member's bill on this issue. There has been an outpouring of interest and support for addressing this gendered inequality here in Scotland. The SUC just last week, the NUS, the Scottish Youth Parliament, the EIS and gender and the Truswell Trust, I could go on. They all support the proposal. No women or girls in 2017 should have to face the indignity of not having access to sanitary products during menstruation. There is simply no excuse for why this should be a case in a progressive and wealthy country like Scotland. Does the First Minister agree with me that sanitary products are a necessity, not a luxury, and that the Scottish Parliament should, accordingly, be taking all necessary action to enshrine that right of access into law? The First Minister Firstly, can I commend Monica Lennon for taking forward this issue? It is an important issue. I look forward to seeing the contents of our private member's bill. The Government certainly is open to working in partnership as we explore the ways in which we can deal with this issue. I do agree with her. I think that any woman—I hope a lot of men—would agree that sanitary products are not a luxury, but they are a necessity. We should not have a situation where women are forced into situations of indignity because they are on incomes that cannot support the purchase of these products. As Monica Lennon has acknowledged, the Scottish Government, led by Angela Constance, is exploring a number of ways in which we can help with the issue of period poverty. I know that Angela Constance would be happy to talk further with Monica Lennon as our consideration of those issues develops. I hope that this Parliament can come to a consensus and agreement about ways in which we can, in a meaningful way, help here, and the Scottish Government is certainly keen to do that. It would make a welcome change to be talking about how we help women in vulnerable positions, rather than debating the ways in which certain others in certain other places are trying to penalise women in vulnerable positions. Mark Ruskell To ask the First Minister how the High Court of Justice decision to order the UK Government to publish its pollution strategy impacts on Scotland. The decision relates to the timing of the strategy's publication, rather than the content of the strategy. I understand that the UK Government has now decided not to appeal the High Court decision and will consult on the updated action plan. The Scottish Government is committed to promoting air quality. The UK action plan will include a contribution from the Scottish Government, setting out how we intend to deliver further air quality improvements in Scotland through the actions that we set out in our own air quality strategy cleaner air for Scotland, the road to a healthier future, and by establishing Scotland's first low-emission zone. Mark Ruskell I thank the First Minister for that response. I am not prepared to put my family at risk anymore on Scotland's polluted streets. That is a public health crisis. 2,000 people die every year, not just in the First Minister's city, but across Scotland from Perth to Aberdeen. The UK Government's plans were slated by the High Court. They rely on dodgy emissions data from car companies while putting off action to save lives today. The Scottish Government has made the same errors and is captured by the same ruling. When will the First Minister step out of the shadow of those toxic Tory plans and urgently review Scotland's cleaner air strategy, including funding more than just a solitary low-emission zone? The First Minister I am not responsible for the UK Government's plans. I am responsible for the plans that the Scottish Government puts forward. On that as on any other issue, we are happy to discuss with other parties in the chamber how we improve the plans that we have in place. It is important to point out that, in Scotland, we are meeting domestic and European air quality targets across much of the country, although there are still hotspots of poorer air quality in a number of areas, particularly urban areas. It is an issue that interests me hugely, not just as First Minister but as an MSP representing an urban constituency. All local authorities with air quality management areas now have action plans in place. The Scottish Government is working with those authorities, including Glasgow City Council, to help to implement the plans and deliver air quality improvements. Another point that is important to stress is that we have set more stringent air quality targets than the rest of the UK has. Scotland is the first country in Europe to legislate for particular matter 2.5—a pollutant that is of special concern for human health in particular—and we are providing practical and financial support to local authorities. We will continue to take actions to address what I absolutely agree with the member is an issue of the utmost importance. I know that the Environment Secretary will be happy to speak to the member if he wishes to, in order to take his views about how we strengthen those plans further. Thank you. Could the First Minister provide further details on the work under way to deliver Scotland's first low-emission zone? We are working with local authorities and with other partners to develop the first low-emission zone, which will improve health and help to create better places to live, to work and for people to visit. SEPA has already developed the national modelling framework that provides the evidence-base in designing the zone and informs the specific vehicle restrictions that are needed to deliver air quality improvements. The designation of low-emission zones is a matter for individual local authorities, but we look forward to agreeing with local authorities the location of the first zone once the new local administrations are in place following tomorrow's election. Yesterday, the Scottish Government issued a press release announcing a regeneration project in Glasgow, which everyone knows is an SNP target. I have written to the permanent secretary of the Scottish Government to complain against the clear possibility that Perda guidance was ignored. Can you advise if there are any grounds to bring the minister in question before this Parliament next week to explain how on earth a Government announcement with the clear possibility of influencing party politics was allowed to go out? I thank Mr Thompson for the point of order. I think that these sort of questions are matters for the ministerial code and should be pursued with the Scottish Government directly. That concludes First Minister's questions. We'll move on to general questions.