 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. With permission, Presiding Officer, this afternoon the Government will be making an announcement and I want to give the chamber notice of it. It is over 20 years since the poll tax came to an end and I believe the expanded electoral role should not be claimed that could be used to collect poll tax debts. It is of course within the law for councils to use current information to assess current council tax liability and given the council tax reduction scheme protects 500,000 of our poorest citizens, the tax is being applied in a proper and fair way. However, the relevance of information from the current electoral register to position of debts from 25 years ago is difficult to fathom accept through some misguided political intention. The total collected last year from poll tax debt around Scotland was £396,000. Therefore, I can announce today it's the Government's intention to bring forward legislation to ensure that councils can take no further action to recover ancient poll tax debts. After 25 years, it's about time that the poll tax was finally dead and buried in Scotland. I think it would have been helpful, First Minister, if I had some indication that you intended to make an announcement. I think that the Parliament may have been better served by a statement at some point during today's business. Joanne Lamont I look forward to the First Minister's legislative programme and to his ending of the underfunding of local government full stop. Back to First Minister's questions. This week, we learned that the Scottish Government is failing to meet its targets for cancer waiting times, and we are flying in consultants from India to cover weekend staffing shortages. The health service that the First Minister made front and centre of his failed referendum campaign is facing half a billion pounds worth of cuts that his Government refuses to acknowledge. Against that backdrop, how is the First Minister's handicap at the gulf coming along? First Minister? Well, two things. The performance against the 31-day cancer target is 96.3 per cent round Scotland above the 95 per cent. The 62-day target is 92.9 per cent, which is below target, but a significant improvement not just on the previous quarter, but also, of course, on any figure achieved when the Labour Party was in power. Joanne Lamont will remember, of course, that the target was never met in any quarter over the entire time that the Labour Party was in power. 92.9 per cent is, of course, short of the target. It is significantly higher than the achievements in either England or Wales. Nonetheless, we must strive to meet these cancer targets in full because they are hugely important for the Scottish people. As for the national health service funding, the national health service budget will increase in real terms next year. Mr Swinney will be announcing budget proposals for the following year in terms of what is announcement next week. You can be absolutely certain that this Government will redeem its commitment to make sure that the front-line national health service budget continues to increase in real terms, something that was not promised by the Labour Party either in 2007 or in the run-up to the 2011 election. That means—and I suspect that it is one of the key reasons why this Government is trusted on the national health service and the coalition of opposition parties, neither from or not. Joanne Lamont? The First Minister might not be aware, but Dr Peter Benny, who is the chair of BMS Scotland, has asked for an honest public debate. That response fails on every single one of these counts and reveals a degree of complacency that even I am astonished by. Just weeks before Scotland made the decision, just weeks before Scotland made the decision to vote no, the chief executives of our health boards held crisis talks with Scottish Government officials about the future of the NHS. They warned that half a billion pounds' worth of cuts were coming down the line. After two years of dismissing the daily warnings of staffing shortages, missed targets and failures in patient care, is the First Minister now willing to have the real debate about the future of our NHS that his health boards are asking for? Or is he going to concentrate his time on the golf course while we wait for Nicola Sturgeon's coronation before getting back to work? The 92.9 per cent performance that we are not complacent about, which is why we are working to bring it up to the 95 per cent and beyond, compares with 84.5 per cent, which was the last quarter when the Labour Party was in office. John Lamont seemed surprised and perplexed that I should mention this. I merely say for the Labour Party in opposition to say in my view quite rightly that 92.9 per cent achievement of that target is not good enough. It seems relevant to point out that the same figure was 84.5 per cent when it left office. Of course, the health minister of the day hailed those performances, both in cancer targets and in accident emergencies, as great achievements of the Labour Party in office. If 84.5 per cent was a great achievement, how come 92.9 per cent is totally inadequate? We work to improve those things all the time. On the question of the budget of the national health service, we can say that the real-term budget of the front-line national health service will continue to increase in Scotland. A commitment not made by the Labour Party in opposition, never mind in government in 2007, and of course a commitment that has not been redeemed by the Labour Party in office in Wales facing the same political and economic pressures from Westminster Government. Let me repeat that the national health service budget will continue to increase in the front-line in real terms in Scotland. If anyone is surprised and persplexed, it will be people across this country, staff and patients, who listen to that answer and wonder if the First Minister ever understands what is going on in the real world. His own leaked paper says, and I quote, that there is collective agreement from the leadership across all the professional management and clinical groups that planning for immediate transformational change is necessary and difficult, but radical and urgent decisions need to be made. It continues, the status quo and preservation of existing models of care are no longer an option given the pressing challenges we face. Let me recap, immediate, necessary, urgent pressing, not my words, but those of the people running our NHS. After two years of dismissing the problems in our health service, how long do the people of Scotland have to wait before the Government accepts the scale of the challenge and gets round to fixing our NHS? First Minister. Let's look at these pressures on the national health service. There is the revaluation of pensions through a Westminster Government decision. It is a Westminster Government decision. There is the withdrawal of the national insurance rebate, another Westminster Government decision. There, of course, are staff costs identified as a pressure. What are the staff costs, particular to the Scottish National Health Service, our decision to pay the nurses and other staff in Scotland a pay increase? A pay increase not reflected south of the border where they are now facing strike action as a result of their betrayal of national health service staff. All of that indicates to me, and I suspect to the people of Scotland, that in order to protect and preserve our national health service, we have to control the finances, not just the administration of our national health service. The pressures—and there are pressures—coming on our health service are coming on as a consequence of Westminster Government decisions, which is why it makes the Labour Party's incredible decision to campaign hand in glove shoulder to shoulder with a Conservative Party, something that will pay a heavy price for in coming weeks and months. Scotland's doctors and NHS managers agree that we need action to fix an NHS, which was described by the BMA as a car crash. For two years, Scotland has been on pause while Alex Salmond fights his referendum. Now he has gone part-time with no programme for government, and what we see here is a re-running of the referendum argument, blaming Westminster rather than taking responsibility and running the country. We deserve better from the First Minister of Scotland than simply that response. There can be no doubt that our health service will come under even further pressure this winter, and action is needed. When is this Government going to get back to work and fix our NHS? First Minister, national health service budget risen by 3 per cent in real terms over this Government's term of office, over and above inflation in the front-line budget. In Wales, the national health service budget has fallen 3.6 per cent in real terms under a Labour administration. Johann Lamont seems to shrug away the indications that we have, so many indications that their decision to campaign shoulder to shoulder with a Conservative Party is going to cost them dear. The BBC was right to join the Tories according to Johann Lamont. Unfortunately for Johann Lamont, that is not the view of the Labour Party supporters in Scotland or should I say former Labour Party supporters? I have just been handed the indications from the latest panel-based poll to be released today. I am not going to read out the whole thing for Alex Johnson's benefit, because it is very bad news for the Conservative Party as well. A 15-point lead for the SNP ahead at Westminster, modesty forbids the trust ratings for the various political leaders who mention it, mine in particular. All of the unionist party coalition are negative in terms of trust. That does not surprise me. Nicola Sturgeon emerges with glowing trust ratings, and I am sure that she will take forward the cudgels in the future. Ruth Davidson To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. No plans in the near future. Yesterday, the Prime Minister promised to protect health spending for the next five years. A promise similar to the one that he gave before the 2010 general election. Alex Salmond made the same promise a year later, saying that every penny of extra health spending down south would be passed to Scotland's NHS. Here is the difference. The Prime Minister kept his promise, but the First Minister broke his promise. We know this because the independent IFS crunched the numbers. Health spending by the UK Government up 4.4 per cent and the same spending by the Scottish Government down 1.2 per cent. Alex Salmond has broken his health promises in the past. What can he do today to assure the people of Scotland that our NHS will not lose out in the next five years, like it has done in the past? National Health Service spending in Scotland has increased in real terms, and every single penny of consequentials has been put on to the front-line national health service budget in Scotland. The reason for the IFS report is that it includes sport and the Commonwealth Games expenditure, as Ruth Davidson might remember. The Commonwealth Games was a big spending, but the health service and sport, although interrelated in terms of the effects that they can have, are hardly the same thing. Every single penny of health service consequentials has been invested in the health service in Scotland. Unfortunately, of course, we now find the pressures coming on through the back door from Westminster in pensions and national insurance, something that the Prime Minister forgot to mention in his speech, which is perhaps why 500,000 members of the National Health Service in England are going on strike as a result of the Prime Minister and Ruth Davidson's lack of care towards the health service staff. I thought that the First Minister might say that, which is why we phoned the IFS this morning and spoke to the report's author, who not only stands by the figure, but told us that he spoke to the SNP to explain why the IFS was right, and the Government's frantic spin about sport was way off the mark. In fact, I will read from it now. This sub-portfolio covers health only and does not include things such as sport, the Commonwealth Games, etc., which are separate sub-portfolios. Here is why this matters. If the Scottish Government had done what they said they were going to do and matched UK health funding, our NHS would have received £700 million more money, £700 million that it promised to spend on doctors and nurses, cancer care and A&E that instead has been funnelled somewhere else, £700 million promised but never delivered. This is serious, and it is probably why the health minister last week stood up, and the First Minister this week repeated it and cynically tried to rubbish the IFS's work. Here is the problem. Alex Neil and now Alex Salmond have made that claim in the full knowledge that it was wrong, and I am happy to release the email that shows it. The smaller question is why the health secretary and now the First Minister have misled Parliament, but the bigger one is why this Government did not give the health service £700 million that it promised to spend. If Ruth Davidson knew the answer, she should not have repeated the misinformation. The health service budget front line of Scotland has gone up by 3.2 per cent in real terms. How in earth would that be possible, given the 7 per cent decline in the Scottish Government's budget, unless every pound of consequentials had been passed on to the health service in Scotland? How would it be possible for us to have improvements across the range of targets in the health service over the period of office? How would it be possible to have more staff in the health service? Above all, how is it possible to ensure, under these strait circumstances, that the national health service staff in Scotland are at work and not at strike as they are south of the border? If I was Ruth Davidson, the figures I would be looking at very carefully are the 9,120. That is the number of families who are going to be affected in the single constituency that the Tories hold at Westminster by the 12 benefit cuts, or the 5,600 people who are going to be affected by the extraordinary decision to reduce the amount paid to the working poor in Scotland, people who work for a living and are now going to be treated by the Conservative party. Those are the people that Ruth Davidson should be worried about. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Issues of importance to the people of Scotland. When the First Minister goes, will he please take Kenny Mecasko with him? First Minister? No. But surely he has had enough of defending the justice secretary. The First Minister said that he was comfortable with stopping and searching policy for children just before the policy was abandoned. He rallied to his defence on the abolition of corroboration before it was put on hold, and he stood on that very spot lecturing me that it was for public safety reasons that the police were armed routinely. Now that's gone too. Meanwhile, Kenny Mecasko shrugs with casual indifference as if justice is nothing to do with him. He's more trouble than he's worth. Now that the referendum is over and to save his successor the bother, will he please just take Kenny Mecasko with him? First Minister? Sorry if over these years that Willie Rennie believes that I've been lecturing. Lecturing depends not just on a willing teacher but on a willing pupil. Therefore, I've never tried to lecture Willie too much. I'll tell you just one reason of the many I could say about Mr Mecasko. That is, as was said by Graham Pearson on the radio this morning and therefore it must be correct, that crime in Scotland at a 39-year low. A 39-year low. That's why justice sector is on a high. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to support people affected by UK Government welfare reform. A range of actions to mitigate the impact of UK Government welfare reform were providing £260 million over the period 2013-14 to 2015-16 to help those most affected. We and our local government partners have committed a total of £40 million in 2013-14 and 2014-15 to fill the gap on funding from the UK Government for council tax benefits successor arrangements and ensure that over 537,000 vulnerable people in Scotland have been protected from increased council tax liability. We have established a new Scottish welfare fund with funding of £33 million a year to replace discretionary elements of the social fund. We have provided £7 million for welfare reform mitigation in each of the three years from 2013-14 such as advice and support services. We will continue to do what we can within the powers that we have to help those most affected by cuts and changes being imposed by the Westminster Government, but perhaps the better solution would be to bring those powers under the control of this Parliament. The Deputy First Minister has written to the Prime Minister calling for him to delay the implementation of universal credit in Scotland until the Smith commission has reached its conclusions in welfare, a position that all parties in this Parliament could and should support. Does the First Minister agree with me that this Parliament should have the powers it needs to make Scotland a fairer country, including welfare powers? As the Deputy First Minister made clear in a letter yesterday to the Prime Minister, the roll-out universal credit undermines the Unionist Party's vow to devolve further welfare powers, which is made more urgent by the Tories' continuing attack on welfare, which their colleagues in the Labour Party now seem to support. In that context, given that vows are meant to be kept, surely we can look forward to unanimous support in this chamber, as far as the letter and request of the Deputy First Minister to the Prime Minister. The First Minister will recall the joint approach taken by both Labour and the Scottish Government at the last budget round to ensure that the bedroom tax was fully mitigated this year. However, there are some cases of people who are being pursued for arrears from the previous financial year. Will he make clear today that local authorities are allowed to use their current funding from the Scottish Government to clear bedroom tax arrears for 2013-14? The First Minister will address this very point in his budget statement next week, as I let him do so. I am sure that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with Jackie Baillie on those issues. I am sure that, once she realises the benefits of that, she will realise also the inescapable logic of an argument that not only could this Parliament control welfare but it should control welfare. Across a range of other issues, we can provide the same protection to the people of Scotland, and particularly the poorest people in Scotland, that we are doing on the bedroom tax. Wouldn't it be much simpler if we had these powers in our hands? Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the Government's response is to the COSLA's agreement to oppose the policy of allowing police officers to carry guns while carrying out routine duties. Of course, I am aware of COSLA's position, reported following the meeting at the end of last week. Police Scotland announced yesterday that they have reviewed the current position. They have taken into account current risk and threat. I have balanced this. Recent concerns expressed by politicians in the public have decided that the standing authority to carry firearms should remain in place for that small number of officers, 275 out of 17,318 officers. However, the chief constable has also stated that firearms officers will now only be deployed to firearms instances or where there is a threat to life. I thank the First Minister for that reply. Given the months of controversy, does the First Minister now accept public concerns around the matter? Does he agree that Parliament was promised a strong Scottish police authority exercising diligence in terms of holding the chief constable to account through governance, accountability and transparency, and that the authority should have examined the policy options to identify the best way forward on this matter before any decision was taken? Does he also agree that, in the absence of that action, the justice secretary should have called on the authority members to take steps at a much earlier stage to a way to justify public concerns? I think that the process shows a response of police service to a political and public concern, and I think that that should be applauded and complemented. I actually agree with a great deal of what Graham Pearson says on these issues. One trouble I've got is to try and reconcile what he says now with what he said in his previous existence as head of the SDEA. I think that it is quite relevant because I think there's a lot of common sense when he said as head of the SDEA that he wanted a standing authority for his officers, as almost 200 officers in Scotland, to carry firearms. I'll read the exact quote, if you like. In the dead of the night, when we are dealing with those, we identify as the most serious criminals in Scotland and sometimes in Europe. We should have an emergency situation where firearms predictably come an issue. I think that my officers have the right to be protected and also have a duty to protect the public. I agree with that point. I just find sometimes that I find it difficult to reconcile the common sense of that argument back in 2005 with some of the stuff that his colleagues have come out with in recent weeks. I think that in fairness, the First Minister must acknowledge that there's a great deal of difference between dealing with organised criminals who have previously been involved in firearms and were suspected of murder. There's a great deal of difference between the threat that's presented there and an officer wandering the main streets of our town. That's why I accept and see the logic of the point, which I've just said in 2005. Let me repeat, there are 200 of these officers in Scotland. There are only 275 in total with standing authority. What Graham Pearson has to reconcile is how is that number of 275 compatible with 200 officers having standing authority for that one specific offence? That's why I think the logic and credibility of what he said in 2005 is very difficult to reconcile with some of the arguments of his colleagues recently. Alison McInnes. Thank you. Few of us think that the industrial scale of stop and search or the distinct policy change on armed policing were purely and simply an operational matter, and yet the chief constable with the justice secretary's tacit approval has repeatedly relied on those two little words to avoid proper scrutiny. Does the First Minister agree with me that it is time to codify the scope and reach of the chief constable's operational independence? No, I think the process that we've gone through on this issue has been a very good one. I think that when a police service responds to public concern in a constructive way, I think that there should be a ploddy for doing that. I would have thought that this process has come to a conclusion that I hope and believe that people think is satisfactory. Therefore, I think that protecting the operational independence of the chief constable and his ability to deploy the resources that he has to best effect to keep the people of Scotland safe from harm is something that should be strongly protected. I would have thought that this process indicates the argument that we have a police service in Scotland that is held in the highest regard in public esteem and responds also to public concern with its voice. What on earth do parliamentarians expect a police service to do if it is not to listen to parliamentary and public concern, and that should be applauded and complemented, not treated as some sort of retrospective political argument? Does the First Minister agree with me that buried in this is the most important aspect? 98 per cent of Scotland's police force were unarmed, and they will remain unarmed thankfully. I always agree with Christine Grair whenever I have the slightest opportunity to do so. She makes the extraordinary important point that 275 officers represent less than around 2 per cent of the entire complement of Scotland's expanded police service. Just as we should recognise the sense and logic of Christine Grair's point, we should recognise that that puts this matter into perspective with its satisfactory resolution. Margaret Mitchell, in view of the First Minister's comments about listening, does he support the introduction of a whistleblower's helpline for police officers and staff to ensure that concerns about issues like the policy and arming of police, as well as other ethical concerns since the creation of police Scotland, can be raised safely, confidentially and taken seriously? First Minister. I'm always interested in constructive suggestions when they come forward, but again, let me repeat, I would have thought this process indicates we have a listening police service and a listening chief constable. It is worth noting, of course, that the record numbers of police officers in Scotland are particularly important. 17,318 officers across Scotland. If, of course, we had followed the same policies that were pursued in England, that number would have been diminished dramatically. In fact, I saw a figure suggesting that the English police service has lost more officers than the record total that we have in Scotland. That would seem to me that morale in the Scottish police service is excellent because people are carrying forward their duty to protect Scotland, achieving a 39-year low in recorded crime, with many of their colleagues standing shoulder to shoulder, as opposed to getting their P45s, which is happening in England. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to promote and safeguard employment. First Minister. Well, a range of initiatives create jobs and attract inward investment. Business Gateway, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise deliver that range of support to start-up and expanded businesses, therefore encouraging job creation. Regional Select of Assistance Awards provide vital support to help businesses to grow. In the year to the 31st of March 2014, these offers were offered total of £52.5 million, accepted by 117 businesses for the project, expected to create or support 6,161 jobs. We should also remember that, despite George Osborne's scaremongering, Scotland was the top performing area of the United Kingdom outside London for foreign direct investment in 2013. I thank the First Minister for that answer. In welcoming the thousands of new jobs that have been created through the support of Scottish Enterprise, does he agree with me that the UK Government must keep to the vow that the solemn pledge made during the referendum campaign and set forth a clear commitment and timetable to bring job creating powers to this Parliament so that we can maximise opportunities for the businesses and communities of Scotland? Yes, I agree with that. I mean, I'm interested in vows and guarantees. I think many people in Scotland do not believe it should take an online petition to guarantee something that was guaranteed two weeks ago, and that people who stand surety for such guarantees risk their personal reputation. You should never put yourself into a Tory trap, but the Tory trap is not in job creation or in income tax. The Tory trap is standing shoulder to shoulder with them in a referendum campaign, without having any control over the consequences. We now move to members' business. Members who have left the chamber should do so quickly and quietly for a point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. From your comments earlier, I suspect that you share my concern that the use of First Minister's questions to make a parliamentary statement without giving members from any party the opportunity to question the Government is an abuse of parliamentary time and is disrespectful to all members. Last week, we had the odd spectacle of the First Minister opening a debate with a parliamentary statement that is a speech delivered without interruption and then being allowed the opportunity to close the debate that afternoon, despite it being a two-day debate. Presiding Officer, I know that you share my desire to build on the democratic renewal that we have seen here in Scotland. It is not power used or wielded by the Government of the day that protects democracy, but the accountability exercised by this Parliament. I am sure that you also remember, like me, when SNP front-benchers were amongst the most vocal in holding the Government of the day accountable to the Parliament of the day. Do you agree with me that if we respect democracy, the procedures of this Parliament need to be protected and not treated as a plaything by those with power, privilege or position? Thank you, Mr Mackintosh. I think that I made my views perfectly clear on the announcement that was made at the beginning of First Minister's questions with relation to the debate last week. The format of the debate was agreed by the business managers in the business bureau.