 Rwy'n ei ddod i'r Cwmysig dros Ymgyrch. Rhyw o'r cwmysig dyfyniad yng Nghymru i'r rhesoedd. Rhyw o'r cwmysig dyfyniad yng Nghymru i'r rhesoedd, fyddwn i'n ddiddordeb yn gilydd iawn i gael ar gyfer y cyfrinsi frym oedd am penhau i ysgolwyr yng ngheilio efo'r Brexit. Rhyw o'r gwrthig efo'r cyfrinsi fyddwn i'n gwyllennu, rwy'n gael i'r cyfrinsi dweud dwych chi'n dweithio i fynd ynogw expiren ymghefnidig i gael i'w dweithio ar gyfer y bywel neu'i gael i'w dweithio ar gyfer y byel gair unedag ddwy Μirk Australia? Oes fod gan fynd i'w dweud i'w dweud i'w dweud i'w dweud i'w dweud i'w dweud i'w dweud i'w dweud of mutual respect, that is not what is happening. I have said all along that the consent of this Parliament to any removal of this Parliament's powers, even for a temporary period, must be a matter of fundamental principle. Let me spell out to the chamber today what it is that this Parliament is being asked to sign up to. We are being asked to sign up to an agreement that would allow the powers of this Parliament in areas that really matter, such as agriculture, fishing, the environment, state aid, public procurement, for example. We have been asked to allow those powers to be removed for a period of up to seven years without the consent of this Parliament. That is something that every single member of this Parliament really must consider. Perhaps instead of nonsense about the fact that, according to Ruth Davidson, this Government is somehow being unreasonable. Surely there is a duty on all those members of Parliament who think that we should sign up to this agreement to set out clearly and in substance why they think that it is reasonable. I would give Ruth Davidson this opportunity today. If she thinks that the agreement that we are being asked to sign up to is reasonable, will she take the opportunity here in this chamber today to read out the sections of the UK Government's amendments that deal with the consent of this Parliament? I challenge her to do that. Let's see if she's confident enough. Ruth Davidson. Ruth Davidson. Ruth Davidson, the powers in dispute are powers in areas that this First Minister wants to send directly back to Brussels. If she thinks that she's helped to provide certainty this week, why has she blocked a deal that would have done exactly that? Why has she put in her own political goals first? The UK Government didn't get everything that it wanted this week and nor did the Welsh Government. Yesterday, the Welsh financial secretary, Mark Drakeford, said that it has meant compromise on both sides. That is the art of negotiation, and I believe that the outcome is a mature agreement between Governments that is respectful of each other's interests. It sounds reasonable to everyone else. Why is it that the First Minister alone doesn't get that? Ruth Davidson asks why that matters. Let me give a few examples of the real implications of us agreeing to what has been put before us. For example, if we were to agree this, it would allow for a period of up to seven years, for example, the UK Government to dictate new arrangements for farm support in Scotland. It would allow the UK Government to force us perhaps to lift our ban on GM crops, which is so important to our environment and the reputation of food and drink. It could restrict our ability during that period to properly tackle obesity and alcohol misuse. It could force us to relax—they do not like hearing this—food standards regulations and perhaps open the door to US chlorinated chicken and anything else that was demanded in a trade deal. That is just some examples of the real implications. I know that Ruth Davidson did not accept the opportunity to read out the sections of the UK amendments. Let me do that, because it is important. This is what this Parliament is being asked to agree to. The UK Government cannot lay regulations to take away the powers of this Parliament unless the Scottish Parliament has made a consent decision. It is so far so fair, perhaps, but then it will go on to define what a consent decision is. That would be either a decision of the Scottish Parliament to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the regulations or a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the regulations or a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the regulations. If we say yes, they will take that as consent, if we say no, they will take that as consent and if we say nothing at all, they can take that as consent. Its heads win and tails we lose. I do not think that any self-respecting member of this Parliament should give those proposals the time of day, and this Government will not do that. Let me say this, Presiding Officer. If that means that we are the only party prepared to stand up for the rights and powers of this Scottish Parliament, then so be it. Ruth Davidson I am not sure that the First Minister did herself any favours saying that this would stop her tackling obesity in Scotland. That does no favours to her argument. She is the only First Minister in history who wants to talk about the powers she does not have. The bizarre thing is that the SNP could have claimed victory this week because it asked for powers to be devolved to Holyrood and not all held in Westminster and they got it. It asked for a sunset clause on regulations on devolved powers and they got it. It asked and demanded that any deal be by agreement and they got it. All of us in this chamber express concerns about the original proposals put forward, whereas Lord Hope, one of Scotland's foremost judges, said this morning, is now being addressed in the amendments. Is it not the case that it does not suit the First Minister's political purposes to make a deal? She is dancing on the head of a pin in order to find reasons not to. The First Minister Ruth Davidson said that what we have been offered is an agreement where we would have to consent. That is manifestly not true. I point her again to the amendments that have now been lodged that would allow the UK Government, whether we agree or not, to go ahead and restrict the powers of this Parliament in vital areas for a period of up to seven years. I think that it is for every member of this Parliament to decide whether they think that it is reasonable for the powers of this Parliament to be removed for a period of seven years without our consent. That is the question that each and every one of us is going to have to answer. As we do that, we are going to see what every party in this chamber is made of and where their priorities lie. The fact of the matter is that I have said that consent is fundamental at every stage of this process and I stick to that. I will not sign up to the restriction of the powers of this Parliament for a period of seven years without our consent. We have also offered solutions. There are two of them. Clause 11 could be removed. The effect of that would be that we would agree to sign a voluntary agreement, which is what the UK Government is saying that it will do. There would be equity and respect on both sides. Clause 11 could be amended to give this Parliament the proper right to consent. If the UK Government does either of those things, then we have a deal. It is perfectly reasonable. Let's see if Ruth Davidson has any influence whatsoever on her UK colleagues or, as usual, if she is simply going to do whatever she is told. The First Minister has talked about claiming to be reasonable multiple times there, but the reality that we have seen this week is that nationalist MPs on the floor of the House of Commons are turning on their erstwhile friends in Wales, accusing them of capitulating. Does that sound reasonable to her? We have seen this week the SNP revert to tight, the same tired old lines from a party that is not even trying anymore to reach out to people across Scotland. There is a deal to be done here. The Welsh have backed it, other parties in this chamber back it, business wants her to back it, so I say to her, for once will you do a deal in the national interest and not your nationalist interest. The deal is not in the national interest. That's why I won't sign up to it and that's the difference between me and Ruth Davidson. I don't agree with the decision that Wales has arrived at, but I respect the right to take it. That's the nature of devolution. Surely Ruth Davidson is not suggesting that the policy of this Parliament should be decided by the Welsh Labour Party for goodness sake. Ruth Davidson appears to be oblivious to the current constitutional settlement. Right now, before a section 30 order can be passed, changing the nature of the powers of this Parliament has to agree to it. It can't be done without our consent. All we are reasonably putting forward is the proposition that that same rule should apply to any regulations restricting the powers of our Parliament because of Brexit. I know that Ruth Davidson's view is that we should simply let Westminster do what it wants. That's why Ruth Davidson is so shamefully silent while her party deport British citizens. It's why she is so shamefully silent when her party imposes the rape clause on women and forces more people to food banks. It is one thing to put up with grotesque Tory policies in areas that are outwith our responsibility. That's bad enough. We should not ever open the door to that in areas that are our responsibility. This Government will not do that. As I said earlier, if that makes us the only or the last party prepared to stand up for the rights and the powers of this Scottish Parliament, that is exactly what we will do. Question 2, Richard Leonard. Can the First Minister tell the chamber last year in Scotland on how many occasions did an emergency 999 ambulance take longer than one hour to arrive on the scene? I don't have that precise information to hand. I will write to the member with it. What I do know is that our ambulance service does an excellent job for patients across the country. In doing that, it is joined by all those who work in our national health service. This Government is supporting our national health service with additional resources. There are more staff working in our national health service. We will continue to support our NHS, and that will include those who work so hard in our ambulance service. Richard Leonard. The answer to the question that I asked is 16,865. That is more than 16,000 people waiting more than an hour for an emergency ambulance. People in serious need of urgent care. People like Margaret Goodman from Socky in Clackmannanshire. Margaret is receiving palliative care for brain cancer. She told me that just before midnight on Saturday 9 April, her husband Gavin found her curled up in excruciating pain. Her palliative care nurses came, declared it an emergency and phoned for an ambulance. Three times they phoned, two hours they waited, and with no ambulance in sight, Gavin got in his car and drove Margaret to Forth Valley hospital in Larbott himself. First Minister, because they turned up on their own, rather than in an ambulance, Margaret was not automatically admitted. She had to wait in a packed A&E late on a Saturday night, so she was not treated with morphine until 3 o'clock in the morning, and she did not see a doctor until 7 o'clock. First Minister, this is simply unacceptable, is not it? The circumstances that have been outlined by Richard Leonard, yes, I would say are unacceptable. Clearly, I do not know all of the circumstances, although Richard Leonard has shared a great deal of information there. I will undertake today to personally look into the particular case, and the health secretary will do likewise. We expect the highest standards of care for patients across the country. On occasions where that does not happen, it is very important that lessons are learned and applied for the future. As Richard Leonard will no doubt be aware, the Scottish Ambulance Service has recently implemented a new response model, which is designed to make sure that ambulances get to the most serious cases as quickly as possible. The second phase of that model was implemented in October last year. The issues that Richard Leonard raises are, of course, hugely important, and I will personally look into that and be happy to correspond with him once I have had the opportunity to do so. Richard Leonard Thank you, First Minister. Margaret Goodman is in the gallery today. The debate about our NHS is not just about statistics. In the end, it is about real lives and real people like Margaret. Out in the real world, Scotland's health service staff are being failed. Those district nurses, our hospital doctors, those ambulance crews, they are all being failed, failed by your Government and Scotland's patients, they are being failed as well, including people like Margaret. First Minister, how much more failure must people endure before you finally realise that we need a change in our national health service, starting with a change of your health secretary? First Minister, can I recognise Mrs Goodman's attendance here today? If she received care that was not of the standards that she expected from what Richard Leonard has outlined today, it certainly appears that that is the case. Of course, she deserves an apology and I offer that to her. I will arrange for the health secretary to meet personally with Mrs Goodman this afternoon if she wishes to take up that offer. More generally, I do not accept Richard Leonard's characterisation. Of course, I accept that those who work in our NHS are working under extreme pressure. That has always been the case and continues to be the case, but we are putting records sums of money into the health service. We see record numbers of people working in the health service. Of course, as demand on the health service increases, we need to not only invest but also reform the way that the health service works. Next week, I understand the third part of our national workforce plan, focusing particularly on primary care and the wider primary care team, which will include district nurses, which have been mentioned by Richard Leonard, will be published. There is a great deal of work under way to ensure that our NHS is able to meet those challenges and that this Government will continue to support them every step of the way. We have three constituency questions. The first is from Richard Lochhead. The First Minister might recall that we passed legislation in 2016 that means that fatal accident inquiries will now be mandatory for military deaths. As a result, my constituent, Jimmy Jones, and myself are meeting the Crown Office on Tuesday to put the case to them. There should now be an FAI into the RAF tornado's crash in the Murray Firth in 2012 that tragically claimed the lives of three aircrew. Where we will present new evidence to make the case for the issues to be properly examined in a Scottish court in a fully transparent manner following the internal inquiry that was conducted by the Military Aviation Authority. I do appreciate that decisions and FAIs are solely a matter for the Lord Advocate, but will the First Minister recognise and join me in paying tribute to the tenacious and determined campaign by Mr Jones, who has the support of the bereaved families? My thoughts, and I am sure that the thoughts of all of us remain primarily and firmly with the families of the victims of the tornado crash. Tragedies like that are a reminder of the risks that are undertaken by our armed services even when they are away from the front line, and I think that all of us should have that in mind at all times. Richard Lochhead has noted decisions regarding fatal accident inquiries are a matter for the Lord Advocate and rightly a matter for the Lord Advocate, but I hope that the meeting that he refers to is productive. I am very happy in this chamber today to recognise publicly the contribution that Jimmy Jones made to the framing of the new legislation that passed in 2016. Liam Kerr, as reported in today's press and journal, in my region there is serious public concern over a shortage of fire engine cover in Aberdeen, with appliances routinely stood down due to a shortage of crew. Today's joint statement from the FBU and the service states that processes will be improved. Can the First Minister tell the public what processes these are and what the improvements will be, and does she agree with ACO Ramsay that action should be taken to strengthen local decision making, as more centralisation is not the answer? Yes, I do believe in the importance of local decision making, and indeed deployment decisions, including the provision of fire appliances, are an operational matter for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. In relation to the situation in Aberdeen, I know that the fire service has described it as a short-term issue and has also confirmed it. I think that it is very important that there has been no situation where crews had not arrived as quickly as possible to incidents. The fire service, I understand, has met the FBU to discuss the issue in Aberdeen, and following the meeting, the north divisional organiser of the FBU said that he thought things were moving in the right direction. Following our meeting, he said, in the assurances that we have been given, we think that things are now moving in the right direction. I hope that the member will welcome that. As I said in relation to the national health service, in the last series of questions, all of us have a duty to support our firefighters as they do the vital work that they do. The First Milk has announced that it will sell torieline cremery on the island of Arran, opened by King George VI in 1946, and Mull of Kintyre cremery, leaving workers and suppliers shell-shocked in the words of NFU Scotland. Torieline produces high-quality, traditionally made cheeses winning a best cheddar in the world awards in 2013. Can the First Minister say what the Scottish Government's response is to those successful cremeries and premium bands being sold with their operations moved to Wales and Cumbria? What can be done to minimise the impact on those who work at the cremeries and the local supply chain, including Arran and Kintyre farms? The announcement by First Milk to sell Cambeltown and Arran cremeries is very disappointing. By their admission, the iconic products produced by those cremeries do not fit with their longer-term strategy. However, the potential sale of the sites offers an opportunity for the right approach to be taken in terms of future ownership to achieve a sustainable future for the cremeries for farmers and for local communities. The rural economy secretary I know is already working with officials to explore all possible options to save those cremeries, and that involves engaging fully with local agencies, partners and, importantly, the farmers themselves to work with any potential investors so that we can try to find a sustainable and viable way forward. I know that the rural economy secretary would be happy to meet Kenny Gibson to discuss the matter further. People everywhere have been shocked and disturbed at the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. It is regarded as the world's most severe humanitarian crisis at present, with tens of millions of people in need of help. It is directly caused by Saudi Arabia's blockade and bombing campaign. The Scottish Government has contributed public money to the disastrous emergency committee's appeal in response to that humanitarian crisis. Members of the First Minister's party have joined Greens and others in opposing the UK Government's arms deal with Saudi Arabia, which will continue to make that situation worse. Why, then, is Scottish Enterprise also giving public money to the world's largest guided-missile manufacturer, Raytheon, which supplies Saudi Arabia? Is there not an immense contradiction between showing that legitimate and urgent concern for the victims of a humanitarian crisis caused by the brutality of the arms industry while still funding the arms industry? First, I agree with Patrick Harvie's comments about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and the causes of that. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us there. Let me turn to the specific question about Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government's responsibilities. I want to be very clear about some of that. First, we have to recognise the importance of aerospace and shipbuilding sectors in particular to the Scottish economy. In total, it employed 16,000 people in 2016. That is an important point. The Scottish Government and our enterprise agencies do not provide funding for the manufacture of munitions. Our agency's support is focused on helping firms to diversify and develop non-military applications for their technology. We have been very clear in our expectation that the UK Government should properly police the export of arms and investigate wherever concerns are raised. I am always happy to discuss those issues with individual members of Parliament and would be happy to discuss it further with Patrick Harvie, but I hope that that is of some reassurance to him. There must be a great many businesses out there of all shapes and sizes throughout Scotland who could benefit from that public investment in non-military activity, generating jobs and economic activity without the consequences of funding the arms industry. Raytheon is not the only example. We have also seen a significant amount of money. There is still some lack of clarity in the detail that the Scottish Government publishes, but it has been reported that £6 million has been received by Leonardo, previously known as Selex, again from Scottish Enterprise, a company that is involved in supplying the weapons being used by Turkey against the Kurds in Afrin and elsewhere. There is an immense contradiction, surely, between what we say about the world stage, humanitarian crises and the need to move away from military interventions that make those situations worse not better, while continuing to fund the self-same businesses that profit from that activity. Glasgow City Council is also apparently promoting an arms fair at the moment that involves undersea technology, the kind of weapons that the Scottish Government and many of the rest of us continue to oppose in relation to Trident. Surely, it is time for an ethical investment policy that moves away from the arms trade wholesale and invests instead in sustainable and ethical businesses. First Minister, it is important to focus on what Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise in particular investment does. As I said in my first answer, the Scottish Government and our Enterprise agencies do not provide funding for the manufacture of munitions. We have been very clear that our support is focused on helping firms to diversify and develop non-military applications for the technology that they use. Patrick Harvie mentioned a company called Leonardo, and it featured in the media at the weekend. Scottish Enterprise has supported Leonardo, which is a company based in Edinburgh, to diversify into non-military markets. The investment included supporting the company to target opportunities in blue light and civilian markets. Through that funding, Leonardo developed a radar system for launch by the Norwegian Search and Rescue Service and also helped them to secure a contract with the Royal Canadian Air Force for a system that protects aircraft from heat-seeking missiles, so defensive use of technology, not offensive use of technology. Those are important issues that Patrick Harvie is raising. I absolutely recognise that. However, if we are going to have a proper debate about them, one that recognises our ethical responsibilities, which I take very seriously, but also recognises our responsibilities towards economic development, it is important to be clear about what Scottish Enterprise investment does. I hope that what I have said today is something that Patrick Harvie will reflect on, but I am, of course, willing to continue to discuss those issues, as Scottish Enterprise will be with members of Parliament who are interested in those issues. 4. Willie Rennie When Keith Neist's maternity unit was downgraded, local mothers were promised that there would be enough capacity at Regmore hospital in Inverness. Last week, we heard that Emma Moffat was forced to endure a 260-mile journey to the central belt to give birth because Regmore was full up. I have raised that before and was told by the First Minister that safety was the priority. However, for an expectant mother, how can a six-hour journey down the A9 be safe? Can the First Minister answer me that? I think that it is important, and I know that Willie Rennie will accept this point. I think that he accepted it at the last time. The decision to change the status of Caithness maternity unit was made not by Scottish ministers, but by NHS Highland, specifically on safety grounds. That decision was informed by a review that they commissioned after the death of a child in September 2015. Mothers who are deemed at low risk will be able to give birth locally—that is an important point to stress—but higher-risk mothers will give birth in Regmore. That decision was taken on safety grounds. Of course, any mother who is required to travel any distance will be advised by midwifery staff on how to transport babies. Advice is already available in other formats. Those are, again, important issues, but it is really important that we understand that the safety imperative that lies behind us in NHS Highland is very cognisant of the needs and concerns of those who have to travel to Inverness when, understandably, they would prefer to give birth locally. Willie Rennie Minister has promised that people in Caithness, that Regmore would be strengthened. Little did they know that that meant being sent to Livingston. Campaigners say that parents are now thinking twice about whether to have a family. What a devastating failure of Government health policy that is. At the weekend, the chairman of the BMA said that services across Scotland are deteriorating and that patients are suffering. 99 GP practices are closed to new patients. Last week, I raised the tragic failures on mental health services. Others raised failures on primary care and emergency care. Even SNP backbenchers spoke out. Today, we have heard about the case of Margaret Goodman. Of course, there is the closure of the children's word at Paisley. How bad does it have to get for the NHS before the First Minister accepts that change is needed at the top? The health secretary has got to go. Willie Rennie quoted the BMA. The views of clinicians are hugely important. His quoting of the BMA suggests that he thinks that, too. He then mentions the children's word at Paisley, which was a decision informed by the views of the clinicians who work with sick children. Willie Rennie cannot really have it both ways. The BMA also said at the weekend that it recognised the record resources and staffing in our national health service. Yes, there are pressures in our national health service. Demand is rising on health services, not just in Scotland, but right across the developed world. That is why we are investing record sums, but it is also why we are doing the hard work to reform the way that our health service delivers. The last part of the workforce plan that I mentioned earlier on that will be published next week is looking at the multidisciplinary teams that are needed, particularly in primary care. On the important issue of maternity services in Caithness, I hope that all of us would agree that what is most important of all is that pregnant women receive safe and high-quality care. On occasions where women and babies are required to travel to ensure that best possible care, we have a network of special baby care units. The Scottish Ambulance Service, which is operated by the Scottish Ambulance Service, provides a safe and effective service for patients who require support from an augmented clinical team. Those are important issues, but safety and the views of clinicians have to be given priority. For the part of this Government, all of us, the health secretary, me and the whole Government will focus on supporting our NHS through the investment and reform that it needs to continue to provide the high-quality services that it does, services that continue to attract record high patient satisfaction levels. We have some further supplementaries. The first from Miles Briggs. First Minister, this week, breast cancer patients, including my constituents, in Lothian stepped up their campaign to make the secondary breast cancer drug Projetta available on the NHS. Women in England have access to this drug, but Scottish patients still do not. Over a year ago, the Scottish Government committed to introducing a better system of negotiation to the cost of this new medicine. When will we see this system put in place? What can the Scottish Government do right now to help to make a deal happen to make Projetta available for Scottish women? First Minister, to make a point that I have made several times in this chamber before, decisions on access to medicines are not taken by ministers, they are taken by the independent processes that we have in place, the Scottish Medicines Consortium in particular. The member mentions that this drug is available in other parts of the UK and not in Scotland. There will be other drugs where that is true in reverse. Those are independent processes, and I think that all of us should respect the independence of those processes. Of course, it is the responsibility of Government to provide proper funding. We have invested nearly £200 million since 2014 through our new medicines fund, and that has seen access to new medicines increase in recent years. We continue to work with the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry to build on that as we implement the recommendations of the Montgomery review. I absolutely understand the views of cancer patients who want access to that. Officials are undertaking discussions with the pharmaceutical company to try to achieve a solution. The company needs to continue the dialogue with the national procurement in order to bring forward a submission at a fair and transparent price. At a price, that is no worse than the price that they have offered in England and Wales. As I said earlier, those decisions are independent decisions. They are rightly independent decisions, but this Government, through our funding and the reforms of the Montgomery process, will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that patients have access to the medicines that they need. Christina McKelvie Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I know that there are members of a brand new young gypsy traveller assembly watching in the gallery today, and I would like to welcome them to the Parliament and say that the Equality and Human Rights Committee is looking forward to meeting with them in the future. I also know that they are meeting with the Cabinet Secretary this afternoon. However, does the First Minister agree with me that it is time that we ensure that, in Scotland, the well-used phrase of discrimination against gypsy travellers has been the last form of acceptable racism in Scotland becomes an issue of the past in Scotland? Christina McKelvie Let me offer a warm welcome to the young gypsy travellers who are here in the gallery with us today. The gypsy traveller community continues to face prejudice and discrimination. I hope that, across the chamber, we can all agree that it is absolutely unacceptable and that it has no place whatsoever in a modern and inclusive Scotland. As Christina McKelvie knows, we have set up a new ministerial working group to drive improvements for the community at a faster pace. I am delighted that the young gypsy traveller assembly has been invited to speak at the meeting of that group next week. The cabinet secretary will meet our visitors today this afternoon, and I hope that the young gypsy traveller community will be regular visitors to this Parliament in the future because they are most welcome. Neil Findlay At the brief valley medical practice in my region, all of the GPs have resigned and there are zero applicants to take over. Patients from Stonyburn will no longer have a GP in their local health centre. If they do not have a car, they will force to travel at a cost of £4.50 a time on the bus to another already under pressure health centre. Across Lothian, 40 per cent of GPs have closed their waiting lists, training places go unfilled and the system would collapse without locums. The health secretary has overseen a disaster in general practice in our communities. For the sake of patients in places such as Stonyburn, will you ask her to stand aside and bring in someone who will get a grip of this disaster in general practice? The Opposition might want to continue to play politics with this. We will continue to focus on the hard work of supporting our national health service and delivering for patients. There are a range of actions that the health secretary is taking to boost recruitment into general practice. We are also working to build the multidisciplinary teams that support GPs. Of course, the new GP contract will go a considerable weight at addressing some of the concerns that GPs have been expressing. The member mentioned training places. I do not have the exact figures in front of me, but the fill rate of training places this year—if memory serves me correctly—is higher than it was last year, suggesting that those actions are starting to have effect. There are challenges facing health services all over the UK and indeed all over Europe and the world, but we will continue to focus on providing the investment and taking the action that allows us to address those challenges and ensure that patients continue to have record high satisfaction in the services that they depend on. Murdo Fraser Thank you, Presiding Officer. It was announced on Monday that the resist to say, Brugge ferry service is to be scrapped following a fire on the current vessel. This is a ferry service that has operated since 2002, first as a passenger and freight service and more latterly as a purely freight service. Its loss will be a significant blow to the fife economy and the wider economy of the east of Scotland and reduce connectivity between Scotland and export markets in Europe. What discussions has the Scottish Government had either with the current operator of the service, DFDS, or any other operator about the possibilities for reinstating the important link? The transport minister spoke to DFDS, the current operator of the ferry earlier this week, and has also had discussions or officials, certainly have had discussions with 4th port to look at the range of possible options that might be available. It is deeply disappointing and regrettable that the service has been withdrawn by the current operator. I was involved not long after I became First Minister in discussions with that company to secure the future of it, so the fire obviously was an unforeseen circumstance that is regrettable, but we want to make sure that we export all options to get a service running again. I will undertake or give that an undertaking that the transport minister will keep members of Parliament updated on the progress of his discussions, but there is an absolute determination if it is at all possible to see a service running again. To ask the First Minister whether the UK Government's EU withdrawal bill has been adequately amended to meet the approval of the Scottish Government. No. We are lodging with the Parliament a legislative consent memorandum, which will set out in detail our remaining concerns about the UK Government's proposals. Crucially, it also offers solutions that would protect devolution, be consistent with the current devolution settlement and enable us to reach agreement. The bill has so far not been adequately amended. The latest changes, as I said earlier on, allow Westminster to override this Parliament and constrain its powers for up to seven years. Even if this Parliament votes not to give consent, the UK Government can turn that refusal into what it calls a consent decision in order to overrule the will of Parliament. The Scottish Government could not recommend approval to a measure that undermines devolution in such a fundamental way, but we will continue to work to see if agreement can be reached. Even now, I hope that we can reach an agreement. Ash Denham, the First Minister for that answer. If I am understanding this correctly, according to the amendments that were published yesterday, even if the Scottish Parliament expressly refuses consent, let's say that every single MSP in this place votes against having its hands tied by Westminster on matters to do with fishing or the environment or GM crops, the UK Government could take that express refusal as the green light that it needs to go ahead and impose those restrictions anyway. Surely no party that has any respect for this Parliament or for the devolution settlement could sign up to that. Ash Denham is right in her interpretation. The amendments are public every member of this chamber—I hope that before there is any vote on this, every member of this chamber will pay close attention to those amendments. It is not a requirement under those amendments for the UK Government to obtain our consent. It is simply a requirement for them to allow us to make a consent decision, but a consent decision could include a decision by this Parliament to refuse consent. If we say no, they can go ahead and do it anyway. That is a pretty strange definition of consent, and it is not one that I have previously been familiar with. We have put forward two potential solutions. I heard Jackson Carlaw when I put them forward before saying that we want a veto. What we want is that, under one of those proposals, if clause 11 was amended to allow consent of this Parliament, that would simply reflect what is already the arrangement for other orders such as section 30. It is not something unprecedented—it is not something that does not exist—or, if clause 11 was simply removed, we would enter into a voluntary agreement, which is what the UK Government is offering to do to us, so we would both trust each other. However, what the UK Government wants is for them to have a voluntary agreement and us to have our powers restricted by law for seven years. No self-respecting MSP in this chamber could possibly sign up to that, but if we were to come together and make clear to the UK Government the basis on which a deal could be done, then we would get a deal. I think that the biggest question—I can understand why the Tories are not bothered about this—is that they want Westminster to be in charge. I cannot understand for the life of me why Labour would agree to this. We hear a lot, do we not, about the supposed influence of Ruth Davidson. Here, we have an opportunity to put it to the test. If Ruth Davidson has got an ounce of influence, we will get a deal, but I suspect that she will just roll over and do whatever her Westminster bosses tell her, as usual. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to support children from families with a parent who has an alcohol or drug addiction. The First Minister We are currently providing £600,000 a year to the Cora Foundation. The Cora Foundation supports Scottish voluntary organisations to deliver vital on-the-ground support to children and families across Scotland, affected by substance and alcohol use. The investment that we are making in strengthening child and adolescent mental health services will further improve the support available. Of course, it is better to seek to prevent the damage occurring in the first place than to treat it, which is why any response to alcohol harm needs to include preventative measures such as minimum unit pricing, which I am pleased to say will be enforced in Scotland from Tuesday next week. Brian Whittle I thank the First Minister for that answer, and I think that we have to accept that Scotland has an issue with its poor relationship with alcohol and drugs. We know that dependency is often a contributing factor in families experiencing domestic abuse and neglect. NSPCC says that there has been a 30 per cent increase in calls to its help line over the welfare of a child due to a parent misusing alcohol in the past year. We recently heard of the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, supported by the shadow health secretary, John Ashworth, who announced a £6 million package of funding to help children with alcoholic parents to get support and advice. I wonder whether the First Minister would consider doing likewise for children in Scotland and perhaps go even further and also include children with parents of other similarly destructive addictions. The First Minister As I indicated in my original answer, we already provide funding to organisations working in this field. The Cora Foundation mentions £600,000 a year to support children and families facing these issues. We also provide £280,000 in this year to Scottish families who are affected by alcohol and drugs, to support families across Scotland, who are affected by a loved one's substance misuse. That includes signposting children and families to services and contacts in their local area. We already fund a range of organisations to do that work, and we will continue to look at ways in which we can support them. It is absolutely right to raise issues about the impact of drug and alcohol misuse. I absolutely recognise the responsibility of the Government to take action in that regard, but prevention is, as I said, better than cure, which is why the comprehensive nature of our strategy to tackle alcohol misuse is so important. I think that the introduction of minimum pricing next week, after a delay of so many years being caught up in the courts, is such a positive step forward. In years to come, I think that it will be something that this Parliament will be really proud of. John Mason I wonder if the First Minister would agree with me that the third sector has a very important role to play in this. For example, safe families for children, which operate in the east end of Glasgow. As often, families will be more willing to engage with the third sector. First Minister Yes, I agree very strongly with that. I appreciate all that our third sector and voluntary organisations do in the support that they provide, and I see evidence of that in my constituency. As I have already said, alongside important local partnerships, the Scottish Government provides funding for a number of organisations at national level, including, as I indicated earlier, Scottish families affected by alcohol and drugs who support families across Scotland dealing with those issues. Those are important organisations and those working at local level are just as important as the national organisations that I have referred to. Thank you very much, and that concludes First Minister's questions. Parliament will be suspended. Business will resume at 2.30, but I would invite all members to gather again in the chamber for one o'clock, and we will be able to hear from President Matarica.