 We will now turn to First Minister's Questions, and we start with question 1 from Jackson Carlaw. Can I ask the First Minister whether, with hindsight, she now accepts that holding private meetings with her predecessor? If she accepts that holding private meetings with her predecessor to discuss allegations facing him was a mistake, and if so, when did she reach that conclusion after the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth time they met to discuss them? First Minister. I say this to Jackson Carlaw. Questions have been raised about these matters. I think that questions have legitimately been raised. I have set out an account of the decisions that I took. Beyond that, I now intend fully, as First Minister, to respect the work of the various investigations that have now been established. Jackson Carlaw, last week at First Minister's Questions, asked me to support a parliamentary inquiry into these matters. I have done so. The parliamentary bureau discussed this issue earlier this week. Last week, Richard Leonard asked me to make a referral of my own conduct to the advisers on the ministerial code. I have done that. In addition, the Scottish Government will establish a review. I can tell the chamber today that that will be externally led. I will have no role in that, any role I would have performed in the establishment of that. I have asked the Deputy First Minister to perform instead. Of course, there is an on-going police inquiry. Let me say to Jackson Carlaw into the chamber that I will answer any question to the fullest extent possible. My Government will co-operate fully with all and any inquiries. However, I think that other members in the chamber now need to recognise that having asked for these investigations, they are also now obliged to respect those investigations. Jackson Carlaw. She can't hide behind an inquiry and likely forthcoming police inquiry without answering the obvious questions of who knew what, when and how. Those are not my words. Those are the words of Nicola Sturgeon in 2007, when, as Deputy First Minister, she was demanding answers of Wendy Alexander over donations to the Labour Party. By Nicola Sturgeon's own definition, we have both the right and the responsibility to ask questions now. First Minister, we also have the right to answers too. Since we last discussed this at First Minister's Questions, we have learned that there were other contacts beyond those that the First Minister revealed to Parliament last week. We have learned that her chief of staff met a former aide of Mr Sammons not once but twice prior to the first meeting in April 2. It has been reported at one of those meetings that the First Minister's chief of staff, to quote Mr Sammons' team, tipped them off. She said that she suspected that an investigation was under way. Two inquiries will get to the bottom of all that, but surely the First Minister does not need an inquiry to realise that if that is indeed what happened, it was just plain wrong. First Minister. If Jackson Carlaw takes a view now that respecting inquiries that have been established constitutes hiding behind them, then it begs the question, why did Jackson Carlaw ask for such an inquiry to be set up last week? That was his challenge to me last week. Support a parliamentary inquiry. I have done that. The challenge from the other side of the chamber was to refer myself to the advisers on the ministerial code. I have done that as well. There will be a Government review of the process and, of course, there is an on-going police inquiry. I have set out an account of the decisions that I took. I have also corrected inaccurate claims that have appeared in the media. Beyond that, it is time to respect those inquiries. The inquiries that Opposition members have called for and the inquiries that I and my Government have supported. I think that that is the right thing to do. The inquiries that I have spoken about, as well as the course of the work of the information commissioner, which the Scottish Government is fully co-operating with, I think that it is fair to say that the decision-making processes involved in this matter may turn out to be the most scrutinised of any decision-making processes in the lifetime of this Parliament, and that is right and proper. However, it strikes me that you cannot call for inquiries and then refuse to respect the work of those inquiries. I will respect the work of those inquiries. The question is, will others across the chamber? Jackson Carlaw. As I have pointed out, First Minister, that is precisely what you did. The problem is that you seem quite happy for advisers to be briefing the media on those questions as they are arising, but reluctant to answer them here in Parliament. The problem here is that we have two completely contradictory versions of events. In Mr Salmond's version, the First Minister's team knew about the complaint before 2 April. In the First Minister's version, she and her team were completely in the dark until they all met at her house on that date. Both simply cannot be right. Will the First Minister put it on the record today? That is something that needs to be clarified now. Contrary to what is being alleged, neither her chief of staff nor indeed any other Government's special adviser had any knowledge of a complaint before 2 April. First Minister. I have already set out the account of when I first became aware that we have corrected inaccurate claims in the media this week relating to my chief of staff. That has all been done. The issue now—Justine Carlaw said, and perhaps this is a point that I can go somewhere to agreeing with him on, that there are differing accounts of this. That is why it is important now to allow the scrutiny of the inquiries that have been established. Having called for those inquiries, having got the agreement of myself, my Government, my party to support the establishment of those inquiries and to co-operate fully with them, it is incumbent on all of us now to respect those processes. That is what I am going to do. The question for Jackson Carlaw is whether he is really interested in getting to the heart of these matters or whether he simply wants to continue to make party political points over them. Jackson Carlaw, I am interested in asking questions about the matters that have arisen since I last questioned the First Minister last week. Clearly I am concerned that her advisers are briefing the media in response to inquiries of this nature, but she seems reluctant to respond to inquiries here in the chamber. If nothing else, that has shown why the parliamentary inquiry, which we did request, is necessary and why we must all hope that it can begin as soon as possible. Numerous questions beyond those that I have asked today are outstanding. What did the First Minister and Mr Salmond discuss? What did the First Minister continue to meet the former First Minister as late as July last year, despite subsequently telling us that she could not get involved? Did the permanent secretary approve of that final meeting in advance, or was she only informed of it afterwards? All of us are asking, what on earth did she think that she was doing? The First Minister will have to answer those questions sooner or later. For the avoidance of doubt, will the First Minister confirm today that she will make herself available personally to appear before the parliamentary inquiry, not just as she did in her answer to me last week, to say that she would be prepared to supply information to it, but that she will be prepared to appear personally before that inquiry? Does she accept that this tawdry business and her handling of it in the past seven days has fundamentally undermined trust in her Government? First Minister—I think that I heard Jackson Carlaw correctly when he asked, am I prepared to personally appear before an inquiry? Yes, I am. As First Minister, I do not consider it optional for me as to whether I appear before parliamentary committees. That is part of my job and part of my responsibility. I cannot believe that Jackson Carlaw would have doubted that for a single second. The question that Jackson Carlaw has posed today—I understand why he is posing—is exactly the question that the various inquiries will now look at. I simply say to him again that it is incumbent on all of us to respect those inquiries. I think that perhaps more than anything right now, given that at the heart of this whole issue are women who brought forward complaints, it is incumbent on all of us to respect the on-going police inquiry into this. I would call on everybody to do that. Jackson Carlaw said that he wanted to ask me what on earth I thought I was doing. I think that I know what Jackson Carlaw is doing today in raising this issue, not with standing the fact that I have opened myself to complete scrutiny on all of these issues. I think that Jackson Carlaw is trying to avoid talking about the mess of the Brexit negotiations that his party is making. He talks about a tawdry affair. The tawdry thing happening in Scotland right now is that we are being taken out of the European Union against our will by the Tory Government. Our country faces untold damage because of the chaos and mess that his party is presiding over. What on earth do the Tories think they are doing? That is the tawdry business, and that is what people in Scotland want to hear answers about. The establishment this week of a special committee of inquiry into the Government's handling of serious allegations made against Alex Salmond is an unprecedented step, but a necessary one. It is the right thing to do to rebuild trust and confidence in a system that has been badly dented. However, what also counts is how we conduct ourselves, MSPs, Parliament and Government. Is the First Minister willing to accept that her Government has not conducted itself in a fit and proper way this week by using vocabulary such as vendetta and smear in connection with the case? I have corrected inaccurate claims that were made and I think that that is important. As I said last week, I believe that I and I believe that my Government have acted appropriately in this matter. However, as I said at the weekend when I took the decision to refer myself to the independent advisers, I also believe that it is important to convince the Parliament and the wider public of that. Therefore, I agree with Richard Leonard about the reason for the importance not just of the parliamentary inquiry, but of the decision that I took as well. That is the process, or those are the processes that I think are now necessary. I hope that Richard Leonard will agree with me in the point that I have been making to Jackson Carlaw that it is also important for all of us now to respect the work and the decisions that those inquiries take. We all understand that it is very difficult for the First Minister's party, but that cannot be allowed to overshadow the very serious question of how the First Minister's Government has handled those grave allegations. The First Minister told me last week that, if there is a parliamentary inquiry, we will, of course, make all appropriate information available. Can she confirm today that all appropriate information includes not only all internal Government correspondence but also all internal SNP correspondence? The inquiries will be able to request whatever material they want, and I undertake today that we will provide whatever material the inquiries request. That is the meaning of full, thorough, open inquiries. It will not be for me to decide what material the parliamentary inquiry, when it gets under way, wants to request. My commitment is that the Government and I will co-operate fully with that, and I think that that is appropriate. Richard Leonard talks about difficulties. None of that has gotten the way of me, the Government and my party doing the right thing this week in agreeing to and supporting the establishment of a parliamentary inquiry. It has not gotten the way of me doing what I consider to be the right thing in the referral to the advisers on the ministerial code. I do think that this is a point that Richard Leonard has made, and it is a point that I agree with at the heart of this. It is the part that is more important. It is the part that leads me mostly to regret the error in the Government's process that was made. At the heart of this are women who brought forward complaints, and it is important that we respect the processes in terms of the investigation of those complaints. That means all of us respecting the fact that, as well as the inquiries that we have been talking about today, there is also an on-going police inquiry. I hope that all of us will respect that and how we conduct ourselves over the time to come. Richard Leonard. The First Minister is right that we should not forget that two women have been badly failed by the system, and they are entitled to answers, which is why the parliamentary inquiry must be as thorough as possible. That means applying and following the seven Nolan principles of public life—openness, honesty, leadership, selflessness, accountability, integrity and objectivity. The committee must meet in public. There should be no limit on how long it sits for and how many sittings it has. I hope that the First Minister will agree to that when she replies. However, there is a further issue. According to parliamentary precedent, the position of committee chair is due to be offered to the SNP, but this is an unprecedented situation. This inquiry is about restoring trust and confidence, so will the First Minister's party do the right thing? Will she step aside and ensure that an MSP from another party chairs this inquiry? I think that Richard Leonard, with respect, misunderstands my role in the establishment of this inquiry. It is not me that is establishing the inquiry. It is not me that is deciding who conducts the inquiry, when it sits, how long it sits, what its remit is, who chairs it, who is on the inquiry. Those are decisions for the parliamentary bureau. What I am making very clear is that I will respect whatever decisions the parliamentary bureau makes around that. There would be something deeply wrong if, having supported an inquiry into those matters, I then started to try to dictate—even if it was in responding to questions from Richard Leonard—that I started to dictate the terms on which that inquiry was to be conducted. Those are matters for Parliament. The commitment that I give to Parliament is that I and my Government will co-operate fully whatever the terms Parliament decides on. We have a number of constituency supplementaries. The first is from Mark McDonald. Stony Wood Mill, in my constituency, has been producing paper for 250 years and employs nearly 500 people. This week, the business was placed into administration after a takeover deal collapsed. Those are clearly worrying times for the workforce and their families. I have spoken with the company and union representatives and will continue that dialogue this week. The resolve to secure the future of the business is strong and is shared by all. The Scottish Government has indicated that they and their agencies stand ready to support the business. Can I ask the First Minister if a task force will be established as it has been in other areas, bringing together agencies and stakeholders to look at how best to support the business and help to generate investment, find a new buyer, safeguard highly skilled jobs and secure a positive future for a vital employer in Aberdeen. I thank Mark McDonald for raising this important issue. I was also very concerned to learn of the situation with Argyll Wiggins, which is based in Aberdeen. I can tell the chamber that the Minister for Business has already spoken directly with the managing director of the company and the general manager of the Stony Wood Mill and communicated our full support. He also spoke to United Union this morning. Our focus at this stage is on supporting the business to find a new buyer and on doing all we can to try to minimise the impact on the workforce. Scottish Enterprise has been in contact with the management to support the company in its plans to try to secure a new buyer. In response to the specific question about a task force, we look at whether that kind of approach is appropriate in all of those circumstances. I will ask the Minister for Business to consider that specifically and to correspond or to discuss directly with Mark McDonald how best to bring all the key individuals and organisations together here to make sure that we have the best possible response. BBC social highlighted the practice of gaming by a so-called male pick-up act artist in Glasgow, including footage on Maryhill Road. Although I make no further comment of that specific matter, given that it is now subject to a police investigation, does the First Minister agree with me that it would be a timely opportunity to encourage the public to participate in the Scottish Government's hate crime consultation, which is currently seeking, among other things, the public's views on recommendations around potential changes to the law on gender hostility and the stirring up of hatred? I thank Bob Doris for raising the issue. I am sure that everybody in the chamber would, like me, have been shocked and appalled by the BBC's investigation into so-called gaming. I watched the BBC social film and can say that I was utterly sickened by what I saw. It did indeed, as Bob Doris said, highlight why there is such a clear need for action to be taken to tackle gender-based prejudice and gender-based violence. Lord Bracadale's view in his report on hate crime was that there are patterns of offending, which relate particularly to hatred, based on prejudice towards the victim's gender and which should be addressed through reformed hate crime legislation. The current consultation seeks views on how best to tackle misogyny and gender-based prejudice in Scotland, and I would certainly encourage everyone who has an interest in the area, which should be all of us, to make their views known through the consultation process, which runs until 24 February. The First Minister will be aware of the plight of young people who attended the new school, Butterstone, who were forced out of their specialist boarding school two months ago and have been completely out of the education system in the eight weeks since. What message can she give to the families that are now faced with alternative options, which fall way short of what the new school was providing? And how can councils be better resourced to ensure that there is enough specialist and mainstream provision for pupils with extreme special needs? I thank Matt Ruskell for raising the issue. As I know he and others are aware, the decision to close the school was one taken by the board of the school. It is a sad event, and I have no doubt about the impact that this will have on the whole community, but especially on young people who attended the school. Since board made its decision, all seven local authorities have been working closely with families to identify the appropriate care and support for young people who attended the school. Every family has been offered support in education by the local authority, and for most of the young people, alternative places or interim provision have now been agreed. Of course, the work recognises that challenging individual circumstances of each child or young person have to be taken into account, and that is why local authorities are working closely with families involved. The Deputy First Minister met parents and staff in November last year and listened to the concerns that they have, and he will continue to receive regular updates on progress, and I am sure that we will be happy to leave and discuss again with parents and staff if that would be considered helpful. Jamie Greene, to be followed by Neil Bibby. I have been contacted by the concerned family of a 90-year-old lady who lives alone on the Isle of Arran. They have asked that I do not name her publicly in the chamber today, but I am happy to provide details and private. She suffers from macular degeneration, memory loss and mobility issues. Her family requested social care at home, and it was told that this is not possible due to staff shortages on the island, despite having been assessed as requiring it several times a day. Are you confident that this is an example of a Government that is delivering its flagship policy of free personal care people in Scotland? Whatever happened to the commitment to island-proof access to public services? Jamie Greene will appreciate that. I do not know the details of this individual case. It certainly raises concerns in my mind. I know with the health secretary as well. I completely understand why he has not named the individual, but if he wants to pass, as he indicated, he would, the details to me and to Gene Freeman, I can give an undertaking that we will look into that as quickly as possible and then reply to him. I do not want to assume that that suggests that there are wider issues here, but if there are any wider issues that this case suggests, I do not play here. That is something that the health secretary will discuss with the local health board and the local authority. We are very happy to look into this and take whatever action is considered necessary. Neil Bibby At a time when council budgets are under pressure and teachers are raising concern about workload, SNP-led Renfrewshire Council will this afternoon consider increasing primaries to class sizes from 25 to 30. Is this not another example of the impact Scottish Government cuts are having on local communities, including in the finance secretary's own back yard? What does that say about the First Minister's statements both that local councils are getting a fair funding deal and that education is her number one priority? In the draft budget, we offer to local government a real-terms increase in the funding that they have for day-to-day services like education. We also have seen in the last couple of years a rise in the number of teachers working in our schools. Obviously, we will have discussions and votes in the chamber on the budget over the next few weeks. I repeat the offer that I have previously made to Richard Leonard to Neil Bibby. If Neil Bibby's view is that the Government should be making additional resources available to local government, then we are very happy to listen to suggestions from Labour about where those resources should come from. There are no unallocated resources in the draft budget, but we remain happy to discuss with other parties. If Labour ever gets round to bringing forward any constructive suggestions, we will be happy to engage with those. To listen to the opening questions from Labour and the Conservatives, we would be forgiven for thinking that the country was not facing the biggest political crisis for generations. Perhaps that tells us something about why a Parliament dominated by those two parties has brought us to a situation in which the word omni shambles sounds like timid understatement. I recognise the First Minister's position that extending or revoking article 50 is necessary and that a people's vote is necessary. Those options clearly must be taken, and both Maze deal and No Deal have clearly been rejected. The UK Government must be under pressure to accept that. However, the First Minister has also said for a long time that the case for Scottish independence depends on a material change of circumstances. Given the level of chaos, there is no single aspect of those circumstances that has not changed beyond recognition since 2016. The First Minister has spoken to the Prime Minister this week. Can she confirm that she explicitly raised independence during that discussion and make the case for Scotland's right to decide about our own future in that conversation with the Prime Minister? I think that the Prime Minister is very well aware of my views on independence. I support independence and I think that the sooner Scotland is independent, the better for all of us. On the issue of Brexit, I think that Patrick Harvie is absolutely right. The Prime Minister right now is in the process of driving the whole of the UK off of a cliff edge, but right now Jeremy Corbyn is sitting in the passenger seat of that car taking the UK off that cliff edge. It is disgraceful the way in which both the Government at Westminster and the official opposition have failed to stop this catastrophe developing. Obviously, there is some water to go under the Brexit bridge over the next few weeks, but let me be very clear about this. As Patrick Harvie has said, I think that the case for independence and support for independence grows with every day that passes. I think that it is essential, given the catastrophe that Scotland faces to our economy, to our society, to living standards, to prospects for the next generation, to our reputation in the world, that that option of independence must be open to people in Scotland. When people in Scotland have the ability to choose independence, I believe that the country will opt to be an independent country. Patrick Harvie. It is extraordinary that, two and a half years since the EU referendum, there is no more clarity within the mind of the UK Government about the future than there was at the start of the process. With just 10 weeks to go until the UK Government's self-imposed Brexit deadline for which they are completely unprepared, surely nobody except the disaster capitalists of the Brexit extremists can think that the time can be simply allowed to tick away. At the very least, extension of the process is surely inevitable now. Yesterday, the First Minister said that she will have more to say about the timing of an independence vote in the coming weeks. In the face of this incompetent misrule from Westminster, that clarity is absolutely needed. Can the First Minister confirm that that timing of information in the next few weeks will be the case even if article 50 is extended? The First Minister. Yes. I will expand on that, because I enjoy talking about those things. Patrick Harvie is absolutely right when he says that extension of article 50 is essential now. Theresa May has wasted time. It seems to me that her tactic has been to run down the clock to try to hope that she can panic people into backing her deal, the one that was rejected in a historic defeat in the House of Commons this week. It seems to me that Jeremy Corbyn is quite happy to almost collude with her in doing that. That cannot be allowed to happen. Article 50 should be extended. Across the UK, the issue of EU membership should go back to the electorate. Of course, it could be that the extension of article 50 is simply a reprieve from Brexit and not a solution for Brexit. Yes, there is water to go under the bridge in the next matter of weeks. When it is done so, I will make my views on the timing of a choice on independence clear. It is then, of course, for all of us who support independence—and that certainly includes me and Patrick Harvie—to get out there and make the case. I believe that that case has been strengthened by what has happened in the past two and a half years. If we get out and make that case, people in Scotland will choose to be an independent country and we can get on with building a better future than the one offered to us by the chaos and incompetence of Westminster. A further couple of supplementaries. The first is Julian Martin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We know that Theresa May's proposed deal is finished. A confidence vote to force a general election has failed and a no deal Brexit is unthinkable. For any progress to be made to the end of Brexit still made, does the First Minister agree that we need a second EU referendum and call on Labour to join us in that demand? It is time for Jeremy Corbyn and Labour to get off the fence that they have been sitting on for so long on this. Labour's position was that they wanted to try and have a general election, first to force a general election. There was the debate and vote of no confidence in the Government yesterday. SNP MPs voted to have no confidence in the Government. We backed Labour in that attempt, but that did not pass. There is not going to be a general election right now, and therefore the time is right, and the time is urgent and pressing for Jeremy Corbyn to say whether or not he backs a second EU referendum. I call on him today to do so without further delay, because the longer he prevaricates, the more he becomes just as responsible as the Tories for the disaster that the UK is now facing. Cancer touches us all, so as the co-convener of the cross-party group on cancer, today I am pleased to be part of publishing the report into the implementation of the Scottish Government's cancer strategy. This was led by experts, professionals, charities and campaigners. This report supports the ambition of the Government strategy, recognises where progress has been made but also highlights areas of concern, which will ultimately mean that the strategy will not be implemented in full by the end of the Parliament as promised. Does the First Minister recognise the impact of workforce planning issues and high vacancy rates in undermining the ability to diagnose early, to treat quickly and therefore improve survival rates? I welcome the implementation report that has been published by the cross-party group on cancer. It says that real progress has been made. The report, as Anna Sarwar has said, marks the halfway point in the strategy's five-year lifetime. It finds that 47 out of 54 of the strategy's actions and investments have been completed or are on track. It does raise concerns around staffing, and we recognise that there are challenges in recruiting the right specialist staff for some services, which is why the Scottish Cancer Task Force is already feeding into the development of our integrated workforce plan, which aims to address workforce needs right across Scotland. I would simply say in passing that, of course, the challenges of staffing are going to be exacerbated by the prospect of Brexit. I think that that is something that all of us should keep in mind. I know that the health secretary met the cancer coalition earlier today to discuss how we continue to drive forward the strategy. However, the implementation report that has been published by the cross-party group will be a helpful contribution to making sure that we do exactly that. Gordon MacDonald The UK Government this week announced using Brexit as a smokescreen that pensioners living with a younger partner would be forced to move to universal credit rather than pension credit, costing couples up to £7,000 a year. Does the First Minister agree that this shameful approach to our pensioners should be ditched immediately, and will she join me in once again demanding a halt to universal credit? The First Minister It is interesting that whenever universal credit is raised to look across and see how many Conservative members are studiously looking at their phones rather than engaging in the discussion, the decision is absolutely shameful. Basically, it says to pensioners that, in future, if one pensioner's partner is under pensionable age, they will require to apply for universal credit. That may not sound a particularly big thing until you consider that that will cost some of the poorest pensioners in the country up to £7,000 a year. It is absolutely disgraceful, and yet another reason why universal credit should be halted in its tracks. I repeat again today the call that I have made many times for the UK Government to do just that, but I also repeat the call that I have made many times in the past for responsibility for those matters to come to the Scottish Parliament so that we can take our own decisions and not be at the mercy of the decisions taken by an uncaring, unfeeling Conservative Government. What progress has been made in reaching a deal over teacher pay? Negotiations are on-going and progress is being made. The Scottish Government has made an enhanced proposal to the EIS and has asked COSLA to also agree that. That proposal would mean that all teachers would receive a minimum 9 per cent increase between January 2018 and April 2019, with a further 3 per cent in April 2020. That is a clear indication of our commitment to recruit and retain teachers, and it is the best offer in the public sector anywhere in the UK. I urge COSLA to adopt that proposal as a formal offer, a necessary step to resolving the dispute, and if it does so, I also urge the teaching unions to consider that favourably so that we can bring discussions to a positive conclusion. Clare Adamson, I thank the First Minister for that answer. Can I ask her to confirm that the funding for the pay increase will come from government in addition to the enhanced local government settlement for the coming year? What timescales are going ahead for finding agreement out of all parties involved in the process? First Minister, yes, I can confirm that any additional budget allocation to fund a negotiated agreement will be met by the Scottish Government and that that will be in addition to the enhanced local government settlement for the coming year. It will not come from the education budget. On timing, teachers' pay negotiations of course are a matter for the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers. However, the next SNCT pay meeting is scheduled for 28 January, when we hope that all parties can reach agreement on an offer that can be put to the teacher union's membership, hopefully for ratification. Tavish Scott Why does the First Minister believe that teachers are contemplating strike action? Teachers want to see a good pay rise. I believe that they are being offered a good pay rise. I believe that they were being offered a good pay rise, but the enhanced offer underlines that fact. I stress that point again. If the enhanced offer that is made by the Scottish Government is firstly agreed to by COSLA and then agreed to by teachers, it will mean that in April this year teachers' salaries will increase by 9 per cent compared with what a teacher will get in their pay packet this month. That will be the best pay rise for any public sector worker anywhere in the UK. It is a good offer and I really hope that we can, over the next few weeks, get to a point where it is accepted. It is fair to teachers. It is also affordable, and that is a key consideration for the Government. It means that we will resolve a dispute over pay, and that absolutely is in the interests of young people across the country. Miles Briggs To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to a letter signed by all stroke clinicians in Scotland calling for urgent introduction of a thrombectomy service. The First Minister Thrombectomy for stroke is a relatively new clinical intervention. We recognise that it can significantly improve outcomes and quality of life for people who have suffered an ischemic stroke. That is why the directors of planning thrombectomy advisory group have produced a national planning framework for the provision of this intervention for Scotland. The framework will be presented to the national planning board at their January meeting and will then provide the basis for the implementation and spread of thrombectomy provision in Scotland. Miles Briggs I raised this issue with the First Minister in September. I know that she is aware that the NHS England's long-term NHS plan makes a commitment to invest further in thrombectomy services in England. That is expected to not only improve care but also to deliver in long-term care costs reductions. As it stands, Scotland has no thrombectomy service whatsoever in NHS Lothian having withdrawn that service last year. Will she guarantee today that stroke patients in Scotland will be able to receive a thrombectomy this year? What we are working towards is the provision of a service. Of course, as I understand it, similar work will be under way in England. This is a relatively new clinical intervention, so it is important to ensure that services are safe and that they deliver high quality to patients that the proper work in planning is undertaking. As I said in my initial answer, the advisory group has produced a national planning framework that will provide the basis for developing a service in Scotland. That framework will be presented to the national planning board this month. At that point, we will be able to take decisions about how we are going to roll that out. That is something that the health secretary will keep the chamber fully updated on. Monica Lennon Can the First Minister confirm whether the commitment to thrombectomy in NHS England's long-term plan comes with equivalent Barnett consequentials and by how much? Will she guarantee that any such consequentials will be invested in supporting the further development of thrombectomy to make sure that we do not fall behind the rest of the UK and Europe? I will get back to the member on whether there is a specific provision in consequentials flowing from the decision in England. I suspect not. I think that decision came after. The budget decisions are often rolled up and are not specific to what particular lines they flow from. As I have set out, we are determined to see a service rolled out in Scotland, but it is vital that that is done on the basis of proper clinical planning. That is why the process that I outlined in response to the previous question is so important. As I said earlier on, decisions will be able to be taken after the national planning board this month, and Jeane Freeman will keep members who have an interest in that fully updated. Alex Rowley To ask the First Minister what impact reduction to local government budgets could have on the national performance framework. Despite a reduction to the Scottish Government budget as a result of UK Government austerity, we have maintained the overall funding for local government as a share of overall spending at around 27 per cent. We have also provided a real-terms increase in both the revenue and capital support that we provide to them in our most recent budget. The national performance framework sets a clear purpose to create a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish. Providing local government with a real-terms funding increase reaffirms our commitment to a strong partnership with local government and will allow us to meet our shared ambitions for the people and the communities that we serve. Alex Rowley That is good and well, but the reality for the majority of people is real cuts to local services in communities up and down Scotland, and £5 million is being cut from front-line school budgets. In Clackmannanshire, a council on the brink of claps and Edinburgh, a bins line uncollected because of cuts. In Highlands and in the Borders, closing public toilets, closing leisure facilities, right across Scotland, libraries, music lessons, swimming pools, education, social care, cuts, cuts, cuts. When is the First Minister going to wake up to the reality of, yes, fail to a rhiasterity, but also the failure of her Government when it comes to protecting vital public services? Will she agree to personally meet council leaders and hear first hand the desperate situation that councils are in as a direct result of successive SNP budgets? I am sure that Alex Rowley would recognise that the Scottish Government's budget over this decade has been cut in real terms. That creates a significant problem for the Scottish Government. Notwithstanding that, the draft budget that Derek Mackay put forward before the end of the year offers a real-terms increase to local government. We do not suggest that that makes life easy. I come back to the point that I have made several times in the chamber. We have allocated every penny available to us in that budget. We have given £700 million more than £700 million extra to health services, a real-terms increase for local government. If Labour wants to propose alterations to that budget, it is not enough to say where they want to spend more money, they have to also set out their suggestions from where that money comes from. Labour thus far, unless the finance secretary is going to tell me that he has had something very recently, Labour has not yet made any budget proposals to the Scottish Government. Alex Rowley asked me about personally meeting people. If Labour wants to come forward with suggestions for where we take money in the Scottish budget to give more money to local government, I will personally meet Richard Leonard and anybody else, but I am still waiting on those proposals. Maybe they will come this afternoon. Maybe they will come next week. Let's wait and see. John Scott The First Minister will be aware that, in South Ayrshire, there is a £17.1 million budget shortfall. With regard to social care performance indicators, the First Minister should also be aware that around 60 hospital patients are awaiting discharge from hospital because South Ayrshire Council is unable to provide packages of care for those patients, as there is no funding. Will the Scottish Government consider further support to South Ayrshire Council to deal specifically with that problem? Those are really important issues that John Scott is raising, but the lack of self-awareness of Tory MPs is quite staggering. He talks about shortage of resources. Can I remind the member that the Scottish Government's budget has been reduced in real terms by decisions taken by his party at Westminster over this period? Can I also gently remind the member that, if we were to follow the budget proposals that were put forward by his party in this chamber to give tax cuts to the highest earners in Scotland, we would be faced with taking an additional £550 million out of budgets for schools, hospitals and other public services. The Tories really have no shame at all—cutting our budget, calling for tax cuts that would cut our budget even further, and yet calling for more money. Maybe when the Tories get their own sums to add up, they will be taken seriously when they ask questions like that in this chamber. Thank you. That concludes First Minister's questions. We are going to move on shortly to members' business in the name of Edward Mountain on fairer hospital TV charges, but we are just going to have a short suspension while the public gallery has time to change and ministers and members to move seats.