 We will do what we always do and act in the best interests of the people of Scotland. We now move to First Minister's questions. Question number one, Johann Lamont. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. First Minister. Engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Johann Lamont. Thank you. In 2012 the then health secretary Nicola Sturgeon said that the Government's programme for Scotland is going to be a step forward. In 2012, the then health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, proposed changes to mental health services in Lanarkshire. They were opposed by her cabinet colleague and local MSP, Alec Neil. She addressed his concerns and the professional medical advice was that the changes should go ahead. When Alec Neil became health secretary in September 2012, he ordered that the changes be reversed against medical and patient opinion. He then deceived the people of Scotland by saying that he would take no part in the decision that he had already made. If Alec Neil will not resign for deceiving Parliament, will the First Minister sack him? First Minister, we will not have members accusing each other of deceiving across the chamber. The answer is no. Perhaps the First Minister should look at the documents that my colleague John Pentland obtained through freedom of information. We now know that, on 26 September 2012, Alec Neil's office emailed this instruction to officials. Mr Neil is clear in his view that acute mental health facilities should be retained in both Wyshal and Monklands. The cabinet secretary has asked that you seek agreement from NHS Lanarkshire to reconfigure their plans accordingly. With that order, he reversed Nicola Sturgeon's policy, made on the advice of medical professionals and backed by patients. He then told this chamber, the head of the NHS and the head of the civil service, that he would absent himself from a decision on these services, even although Alec Neil had already made the decision. If Alec Neil will not resign because of this behaviour, will the First Minister sack him? That is the same question that she asked. I gave her the answer to the first question. Just because she says that deceiving instead of misleading, it does not remove the responsibility to give some substance to the charges that she is making. I looked at the issue on 14 February 2013. I gave a substantial reply to Ms Eamonn, the MSP, who raised it with me, on her request as to whether Alec Neil was breached the ministerial code. I pointed out, and I will read it to Johann Lamont. In the light of questions in the Scottish Parliament on 26 September, that is the date that she mentioned, but she forgot to say about the questions in the Parliament, about the proposed changes in the narrowing parliamentary focus on the impact of proposals from Munklands hospital, Mr Neil became concerned that there could be a perception of a conflict of interest. He agreed that day with the director general of health and social care, Derek Feeley, that all matters relating to mental health services at Munklands hospital should be dealt with by the minister for public health. Mr Feeley informed the permanent secretary on 27 September. That is exactly how ministers should behave under these circumstances. Order! I can say to the Labour Party that there is another aspect to this that they should bear in mind. The question of mental health services in Lanarkshire infects a whole area of a health board. As a constituency aspect, it has an aspect to all constituencies in that health board area, but to find it purely as a constituency issue ignores the fact that the health service affects and serves all of the population. I looked at the issue carefully last year. I came to the conclusion that Mr Neil had acted perfectly properly. I replied in these terms to the member concerned. If Johann Lamont likes to look at that reply and acknowledge the sequence of events, she will see that that reply is validated by the evidence. The First Minister needs to look at the sequence of events, because it is all about the timing. Let me help him. At 9.43 a.m. on 26 September, Alex Neil's office issued the order to reverse Nicola Sturgeon's decision. At 2 p.m., which is after 9.43 a.m., Alex Neil told his chamber that NHS Lanarkshire was reviewing its decision, but he had already ordered the board to change its position. On 19 December 2012, when asked about that decision, he told his Parliament and I quote, I decided early on in my tenure to give responsibility for that matter to my deputy Michael Matheson, as I did not want any perception of any potential conflict of interest between my role as MSP for air drain shots when Monklin's hospital resides and my role as Cabinet Secretary. The fact is that there was no perception of potential, there was the reality of the decision that Alex Neil had already taken and then tried to cover up. Let me ask the First Minister again. If Alex Neil will not resign, will the First Minister sack him? Asking the first question for the first time led to the same answer. No, I won't, because I reviewed the evidence and came to the conclusion that Mr Neil acted perfectly properly. All that Johann Lamont has done in citing is exactly what I said to her colleague all these months ago. I detailed the sequence of events at that time. That is the sequence of events that have been validated on 26 September. This great revelation that Johann Lamont brings to the chamber is merely a confirmation of the sequence of events that was detailed to her colleague last year. Of course that is the events. It was after the question time, as said in the letter on 26 September, that Mr Neil asked for advice and took the reckless action. I say in terms of the ministerial code. The ministerial code makes it quite clear how ministers should act. It also makes it quite clear of the First Minister's role in judging that. Unlike the Labour Party, we have the only administration who put in an independent oversight of the ministerial code. On six occasions, people like Johann Lamont have come to this chamber and said that it was an enormous scandal. Because it affected me and because I was under question, I have referred it to independent oversight. On six occasions, I have been cleared by that independent commission. Do you know what, hardly ever after clearing, have the people who were making allegations in this chamber of dreadful doings have been prepared to acknowledge the independent oversight? When I looked at Mr Neil's conduct and given an explanation to our colleague, said exactly what happened, then I think in reasonfulness, unless she's got some dramatic revelation to bring which she hasn't, she should accept that Mr Neil acted not just in the benefits of his own constituents, but in discharging his responsibilities as health secretary. That's why he took the action that he did and that's why the answer to Johann Lamont's question is no for the third time. That was just noise. It did not answer the question. Alec Neil made a decision and then extracted himself and said that if there were further decisions, somebody else would make that decision. He had already made it in the morning. Now we've established that Alec Neil has not been clear about what he did in relation to services in NHS Lanarkshire, but we do wonder how far up the Government this process went. Petyr Housden wrth i Siobhan McMahon, I would reiterate that should a ministerial decision be required, this will be taken by the Minister for Public Health. Clearing Alec Neil, the First Minister, as we've heard, wrth i Siobhan McMahon saying the same thing. But there was no need for a ministerial decision to be made by Michael Matheson because Alec Neil had already made his ministerial decision. So, were Petyr Housden and the First Minister in on this, or did Alec Neil play them? Or did Alec Neil play them? Or did Alec Neil play them for fools? I ask again, if Alec Neil won't resign for this behaviour, will the First Minister sack him? First Minister? Well, I suppose in the sense I'm First Minister of Scotland. I'm in on everything that happens in this Government. But all that Joanne Lamont's doing by asking something for the person that is making herself and her party look ridiculous. I have to say that Alec Neil has a long record of looking at campaigning for the health service in Lanarkshire. If Alec Neil hadn't campaigned as a candidate, there wouldn't be an accident and a emergency among us. Petyr Housden's interest in mental health in Lanarkshire isn't anything to do with facilities for the patients. It's just an argument to try and get at an SNP minister. Having had the detailed explanation from the permanent secretary and the First Minister all that time ago, will Joanne Lamont not accept that the answer to her question is no? Perhaps the next time she comes to this chamber, she'll start talking about the substantive issues that affect the people of Scotland. Question 2 with Davidson. To ask the First Minister when he'll next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. No plans near future, as far as I know. I'm sure that the whole chamber is delighted to hear that Mo Farra is competing in the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. We want the world's elite to compete in Scotland. Glasgow's organising committee has worked hard to ensure that venues such as the Hydro, the Velodrome and the Emirates arena were completed on time and on budget and they should be given all due credit. However, their hard work has been undermined this week by the shambolic ticketing fiasco, which has seen tens of thousands of families spend hours on hold and still no prospect of tickets. Does the First Minister agree that it is outrageous that a hardened company paid handsomely for its work is now damaging the reputation of our games? What has he planned to do about it? Can I say first that the organising committee has apologised for the delay and frustration that people had when we were trying to get the last of these tickets which were made available for sale. They were right to do so. Along with our partners in Glasgow council, the Minister for Sport is meeting with the organising committee this afternoon and out of that, we hope, will come a resolution of the situation in terms of practical action. If we recognise the organising committee's apology and recognise the frustration that many people would feel, can we try to get matters into some sort of context? We are dealing with games that are almost uniquely among the games of the last generation on time and on budget, where every facility is complete, where the transformation of the city of Glasgow and the east end of Glasgow is absolutely amazing, where more than a million tickets have already been sold, and in terms of the last 100,000 or so, those are tickets that the organising committee tried to get back from sponsors and international federations in order to try and give the public more chance of getting to the games. Of course, the organising committee will enable to sort out the situation, which has caused frustration for people. Even the people who have been frustrated will recognise that there is an overwhelming demand for tickets, that the organising committee is doing absolutely everything that it can to make sure that every venue is full in those commonwealth games. They will sort out the problems and people will get that other opportunity to buy tickets. Can we please put this in the context that Glasgow and Scotland are going to enjoy and experience the most superb sporting and cultural event that Scotland has ever seen? I have acknowledged the great work that Dave Grevenberg and his team have done, great work in preparing for these games, both in physical infrastructure and in the way in which we have projected both my city of Glasgow and Scotland to the world. I welcome the fact that the First Minister says that Shona Robison is going to meet officials at the organising committee. I trust that, as a newly promoted Cabinet level minister, she will bring this problem to a speedy conclusion because it is not about patching it up and hoping for the best. We need to find out what went wrong, fix it and reassure families who are still waiting on tickets that the system is back on track. Can the First Minister assure us today that his Cabinet Minister will have this fixed by the weekend so that the ticketing site will open on Monday morning and, if not, will she take responsibility? I thank Ruth Davidson for her entirely supportive and collegiate remarks on the Commonwealth Games. The Cabinet Secretary and her partners in Glasgow Council for the last seven years have worked together to try to bring about these games on a cross-party basis. There have been many, many decisions that have had to be made in order to arrive at the excellent position that we are now in. Why did the situation arise? The situation arose because there was an overwhelming demand for the last 10 per cent of tickets because this is a game that is going to be a sell-out in every event. Of course, the organising committee has apologised for the breakdown in ticketmaster systems. That is a matter of great regret and frustration. Of course, the minister and our partners in Glasgow Council are with the organisation committee to sort out the issue. Given all of the success that the organising committee has had in delivering the venues, in delivering the games, in taking the big decisions and recognising that we are in this situation because of their attempts to try and get more tickets to satisfy the overwhelming demand, can she and her party not find it in their hearts right now to try and get behind the organising committee to help them to sort out the difficulty, as opposed to making the most party-political petty points about it? The First Minister will be aware of the very serious disturbance at HMP Grampian, which involves 39 inmates in a 14-hour siege overnight Tuesday into yesterday morning. While no-one was injured, I understand that significant damage has been caused to Ellen Wing of the new prison. What steps will his Government take to ensure that good order is maintained in the future? The substantial steps have already been taken. I should say to the chamber, as the member correctly says, that the issue was brought to a conclusion. Certain decisions have been made by the Scottish Prison Service in terms of relocating prisoners. Of course, it is not unknown for new prisons to have this sort of incident that has happened a number of times in the past. That does not make it acceptable. It does not make it permissible that action has been taken. However, the member can be reassured that the appropriate action has been taken to make sure that our newest prison in Scotland shall perform efficiently and properly. We should also deprecate this sort of behaviour in the prison service. As well as the action that has been taken by the prison service to sort things out, let us make no illusions about who is responsible for unacceptable behaviour. That is the perpetrator of the behaviour. John Scott The First Minister will be aware that GE Caledonian announced 170 redundancies last week at their plant at Prestwick, which will reduce their staff number to around 450. While specialist servicing of the CF6 engines is obviously a highly skilled job in a very competitive marketplace, what help can the Scottish Government through Scottish Enterprise and other agencies give to this high-quality company and its employees at this difficult time? As the member will know, GE Caledonian has already been under offer and received the RSA grant to try and safeguard the jobs. He will also know that we are dealing with a situation of a new facility opening in Taiwan, which is extremely competitive in terms of some of the functions and work that has been continued at Prestwick. The Cabinet Secretary met the company yesterday to discuss exactly these matters. The local PACE chair and team are available to provide support for the affected employees, and he can be absolutely assured that we will do everything in our power to maintain and to, hopefully, in the future, increase the maximum employment in the Prestwick facility. To ask the First Minister what steps Revenue Scotland would take to prevent tax avoidance practices in the event that Scotland had greater responsibility for taxation. The Scottish Government tends to take the toughest possible line on aggressive tax avoidance. We are determined to act decisively on avoidance, for example now, of devolved taxation. The Revenue Scotland tax power bill, which is currently before Parliament, contains powers that will enable Revenue Scotland to take that robust action to counteract tax avoidance, including the introduction, as Patrick Harvie will know, of a wide-ranging general anti-avoidance rule for devolved taxes. The Scottish Government will seek to replicate this approach in developing the Scottish tax system following independence. Patrick Harvie. Recent days have seen further revelations about the scale of the scandal of tax avoidance in the UK. From the members who have taken that and other wealthy individuals in the icebreaker scam to Amazon's corporate tax bill of £4.2 million after sales of £4.3 billion, while HMRC seems most concerned with selling citizens' tax data to the highest bidder. Will the First Minister join with the many calls that are growing for a boycott of Amazon until it starts paying its fair share? Does he agree that only Europe-wide co-operation between countries on corporate tax levels can stop the loopholes that disreputable companies like Amazon are so determined to wriggle through? First Minister. I won't join a call for a boycott. That would have an impact on Scottish workers and Scottish jobs, as Patrick Harvie should know. However, what I would say is that I deprecate aggressive tax avoidance. Tax evasion, of course, is illegal. While deprecating the behaviour, we should look for the solution of the tax system itself. A simple, transparent tax system reduces the opportunity for aggressive tax avoidance. You will find in page 121 of Scotland's future, your guide on independent Scotland, the actions that the Scottish Government and independent Parliament would seek to take. However, I also draw Patrick Harvie's attention to what we are already doing in this Parliament with the new tax powers that have been introduced. We have chosen not to ask HMRC to administer them, but instead to go and set up Revenue Scotland. Michael Clancy, the director of law reform from the Law Society, was giving evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee on 19 March this year. What he said was, "...in the evidence that we are giving to Revenue Scotland in tax power bill, we are looking at the provisions of the Scottish general anti-avoidance rule. We have compared those provisions with the current general anti-abuse provisions in the Finance Act 2013, and we think that the Scottish provisions are much better. They are less complex and should prove to be more effective." I think that we have reason for hope and demonstration that what we are introducing with the new responsibilities that we are getting will provide a template for a tax system in independent Scotland that will secure and protect us against the sort of unacceptable, aggressive tax avoidance that is widespread in the UK tax system. Kenneth Gibson. The impact on Scotland will be of UK Government plans to raise their retirement age. Analysis published this week shows that a 65-year-old could expect a lifetime value of their state pension to be around 11,000 for women and 10,000 for men less in Scotland than the average for the UK as a whole. What is more, the UK is based its plans to increase the state pension age and increasing life expectancy. The reality is that Scottish life expectancy is currently the lowest of all of the UK countries. That looks to us like a policy that is made in London without consideration for fairness in Scotland. Kenneth Gibson. I thank the First Minister for that response. He will have welcomed UK pensions Minister Steve Webb, MP's admission that state pensions will be secure regardless of the outcome of this September's referendum, contrary to propaganda from the No campaign. The First Minister agreed that not only will pensions be guaranteed following independence, but given that Labour's shadow sector of state for working pensions Rachel Reeves MP announced that Labour would support Tory Lib Dem UK Government pension reforms, the only way to develop a pension regime appropriate to Scotland's particular circumstances is to vote yes in this September's referendum. First Minister. Yes, I do agree with that. I think that when Kenneth Gibson draws attention to the statement of Stephen Webb before the Westminster committee, he draws importance to an attachment to a very important point. That is that the No campaign has spent a good amount of time trying to tell people in Scotland that their pensions wouldn't be safe in an independent Scotland. The UK pension secretary, Steve Webb MP, has admitted in front of a Westminster committee that that is not the case. I think that we are entitled to say when are the better together, the Labour Tory, Tory Labour, leaflets, alleging something which is clearly not true, going to be withdrawn? Will the Liberal Democrats, because Steve Webb is a Liberal Democrat member of Parliament, insist that they are better together colleagues, stop trying to peddle myths and scaremongering to the people of Scotland? Jackie Baillie. First Minister, not myths, not scaremongering, independent experts tell us that pensions and pension-related benefits are £100 higher per head of the population in Scotland than they are in the rest of the UK. A good example of pooling and sharing our resources. Indeed John Swinney even set up a working group because of his concerns about the affordability of pensions in an independent Scotland. At the start of the week we had the Deputy First Minister telling us that pensions were affordable and that they would die younger. What an appalling lack of ambition. Surely the First Minister should be coming to this chamber telling us how to improve the health and wellbeing of pensioners now rather than basing their pensions policy on people dying earlier. First Minister. That's what we've been doing by freezing the council tax for pensioners, by protecting the bus pass for pensioners. All of things which would be at risk if they had their way. What Steve Webb said to the Westminster committee that state pensions would be secure, I'm quoting exactly, secure in an independent Scotland. Now how can we reconcile that comment made in Parliament with the sort of material that Jackie Baillie comes up with day and day and nearly chunkering away Miss Baillie will not alter the fact that your scaremongering has been confounded by your own sight. Question number five, Elaine Murray. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government plans to introduce a lower threshold than £150,000 for claims heard in the sheriff courts following the recommendation in the Justice Committee's report of the courts reform Scotland bill. First Minister. In 2007, the previous administration appointed Lord Gill to undertake a wide range of view of the civil court system in Scotland. In 2009, the Scottish Civil Courts Review published a report and recommendations which include raising the exclusive competence of the sheriff court to £150,000. Lord Gill, appointed by the previous administration, continued to strongly support this limit in his recent appearance at the Justice Committee. Now we consider that £150,000 is the appropriate limit. We are, of course, aware that while almost all stakeholders agree that the current £5,000 limit is too low, there are a range of views on what the new increased limit should be. We are happy to consider those views and, of course, the views expressed in the Justice Committee's report. Elaine Murray. I thank the First Minister for that reply. Does the First Minister accept that the proposed threshold for the exclusive competence of the sheriff court is over five times the average full-time annual wage and that for an employee who loses income through an injury at work, for example, a settlement of £10,000 or £20,000 can make the difference between penury and maintaining their standard of living? Will the Government also support amendments to the court's reform bill to ensure that people on low and average incomes are not disadvantaged by their case no longer being taken in the court of session and the loss of their automatic right to representation by an advocate? First Minister. I'm not certain that the member fully appreciates the aim that Lord Gill in putting forward this reform is to make justice more accessible to more people, to lower the cost of getting justice and not to disadvantage people. I think that the member seems to be taking it from the opposite point of view. Given that she quoted the committee, can I just point out to her that the committee's paragraph 8 says, the committee supports the proposal to increase the limit of the privative jurisdiction exclusive competence of the sheriff court in order, this is the committee report I'm quoting now, in order to free up the court of session to deal with the most complex and serious cases and to ensure that the civil court system works more efficiently and economically. The committee acknowledges the purpose of the reform. As I've said, we are now considering what the committee has said in terms of suggesting that the limit from 5,000 to 150,000 may be, as they said, too big a leap. We're looking at what other people have recommended. We'll take that into account in terms of coming to a final conclusion on the proposal. Can she just accept that Lord Gill's purpose in doing this is to make not just the administration of justice in Scotland more efficient, it's to make it more accessible to ordinary people to cut down the prohibitive costs of the court of session and make justice accessible to more people in the sheriff courts round Scotland? Question 6, Gavin Brown. To ask the First Minister who took the decision not to proceed with the Scottish Business Development Bank and when. First Minister. The banking strategy published on 10 May 2013 set out the plans to examine the creation of a Scottish Business Development Bank to provide additional borrowing to small and medium-sized businesses. The finance sector, John Swinney, gave it careful consideration and what emerged from that analysis is that without the powers of independence the banks' borrowing would not be additional to the Scottish Government's borrowing limit. In other words, if borrowing extended to companies it would have to come off capital investment in Scotland. It therefore decided on the 70th of March it would not be feasible to proceed until we have exactly these powers. Now I know that Gavin Brown is a reasonable man. And he will recognise that to get the additionality we were looking for from the business bank proposal we need exactly the powers that he has stated. So I know he'll join with his colleague Murdo Fraser in recognising that these sort of powers are essential if we are going to take some of the exciting initiatives we want to take in an independent Scotland. Gavin Brown. The First Minister said earlier that he is in on everything that happens. So he should know that his document says and I quote, this strategy should apply to Scotland's approach to banking regardless of Scotland's constitutional future. It also said that the money was going to come through accessing new opportunities through European funding streams. It was a good idea, Presiding Officer. Will he look at it again today and consider reopening the case as published in his document? First Minister. According to the entire banking strategy of which this was one proposal and in detail this proposal in terms of getting additional borrowing would mean that that borrowing would have to be deducted from other purposes. I know that Gavin Brown doesn't want to address this point because it comes exactly to the financial straight jacket that his Government and unionist politicians have been satisfied with the people of Scotland. I point to him in terms of accessing European funding. He may remember that in 2009 I launched the Scottish Investment Bank and it would be fair to say that some, not I don't think Gavin Brown himself but there were some colleagues in the Parliament at that time who were less enthusiastic about the potential success that that bank might have. I now tell him that during 2012-13 the Scottish Investment Bank equity and debt scheme invested £32.4 million in 106 companies which leveraged from the private sector £60.4 million from private sector partners. The Scottish Investment Bank now has a portfolio of some 237 investing companies employing some 4,000 people. The Conservative Party does not seem to acknowledge that this might be important given Ruth Davidson's call to Tories to not say anything unless they knew what they were talking about which I think is very pertinent. Can we just think that the companies who have benefited include Touchbonics in Livingston, Spark Energy in the Borders, All Things in Dundee and many companies across Scotland all of whom think the work of the Scottish Investment Bank is important and many of whom think that with the additional borrowing powers of an independent Scotland then we can bring about even more in terms of business development across the country. Thank you. That ends First Minister's questions. Point of order. Ken Macintosh. Standing orders clearly state that the purpose of the Public Audit Committee is to consider and report on any document laid before the Parliament or referred to it by the Parliamentary Bureau or by the Auditor General for Scotland concerning financial control, accounting and auditing in relation to public expenditure. Furthermore the guidance for committees states and I quote it is quite common for committee reports to achieve a high level of consensus between members and for findings and recommendations to be agreed without the need for divisions This has the advantage of adding weight to the conclusions and the likelihood of their being accepted more widely. Presiding Officer, this Parliament has for more than a decade proudly pointed to the work of its committees as an example of how we do things differently here in the Scottish Parliament. They have been a place for rigorous debate for all that time but never until the current session have they been a place for sheer government obsequiousness. Order. Mr Gibson. We have a point of order. Quiet. Mr Gibson. Mr Gibson. Mr Gibson. I am not arguing with you over the chamber. I will see you in my office after First Minister's question time. Mr McIntosh, please continue. Thank you, Presiding Officer. All members are expected to show loyalty to their own political party but each of us has a parliamentary duty and a responsibility to the public to hold the Government to account. If, in deliberately trying to downplay, obscure or simply whitewash evidence to any of our parliamentary committees, members are in danger of putting interest to the Government and their own party first. That does no one any favours. Presiding Officer, there is an expectation that all parliamentary committees most of all the public audit committee will be robust but fair and objective in its deliberations. I would appreciate your guidance on how we can ensure that the hard-won trust won over several successive parliaments is not lost. Could you advise if this is a matter for investigation by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee? Can I thank the member for the advance notice of his point of order? Conducting committees and how each committee approaches any given issue is a matter for those committees and for their conveners. Where any member considers that there is a failing in parliamentary procedures, it is open to that member to write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to request an investigation. Members may also write to the convener's group to ask that body to consider the issue. That ends First Minister's questions. A further point of order. I wish to clarify a remark that has just been made just so that no misunderstanding and mistaken identity has occurred. It was not Mr Gibson who called out during the previous point of order that it was myself and I would be happy to come and see you to discuss the matter. I don't want Mr Gibson to be blamed for something that I was responsible for. Mr Maxwell, I thank you as always for your honesty and integrity and I'll see you after First Minister's question time. We now move to First Minister's questions as we now move to members' business, members should leave in the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.