 The first minister has made a reference to the question to the first minister. That concludes general questions. The week we learned that another 23,000 patients missed the so-called 12-week guarantee for NHS treatment in Scotland in the three months up to march. That is an utter disgrace. Under the current health secretary, the number of patients being seen yn y pryd yn cyfleidio'r cyllidau ar unig o ranolod 17 per cent o bobl 68 per cent? Felly, y First Minister yw'r wych yn ein cyffredinol? Mae fyddwn i'n gwneud o'r dŵr yn geirio'r ddymlogaeth o'r prysgol ar gyfer Cyfraeg o cysybeth NHS. That is exactly why the UK Government, the health secretary, Ie Basically amongst the Governments in the UK is implementing an £850 million-lewsh waiting-time improvement plan. Obviously it takes time for that plan to work, the health secretary has been clear that one of the priorities in the early stages of that plan is tackling the longest waits in the health service. If Ruth Davidson looks a bit more closely at the figures that were published this week, she will see the signs of early progress gwrth o thoes o'r plan. For example, it could be at the treatment time guarantee. There was an eight and a half percent reduction in the number of on-going weights over 12 weeks over the last quarter. Outpatient waiting time performance was an improvement of five percentage points in the last quarter. The total number of new out patients with weights over 12 weeks was reduced by almost 16 percent. In diagnostics performance, Ydych chi'n gweld ei ddweud ar draws cyn frejio 5%, drwy 5% o dechrau sefydliadau o 5% wrth maen nhw'n brydiau. Felly, i gael i sut ein bod ichi fanlunion, mae'n gweld ei ddweud ar 9% a dweud ar 29% o 8% yn ei cynnyddio. Yn yw'r cyfle i Rwf Davidson yno, mae'n cyfysigfadau neu fod yn dod i'r cyfle, ddweud i'r cerfwynt i'r cyfle yn y wgtheyn i'r gyrsigfod. Rwf Davidson. Ruise Davidson? The trouble with the improvement plan Lizie Davidson was introduced six months ago and, since then, the headline figures have got worse not better. In fact, they are the worst they have ever been. As we have heard that all before—two years ago, to this very day, Mercedes-Benz Football53 predecessor announced a new £50 million investment plan to reduce waiting times. It said, ond rydw i'n cael ei wneud i'n gweithio ar gyfer y 12-week guarantee for inpatient and day cases, categorically wrong. Given the failure of the previous plan, and given that the current plan is failing too, why should Scottish patients have any confidence in this Government? The plan is not failing, and anybody who understands how the health service operates and the integrated nature of it would understand that from the figures that I have just read out. When you tackle the longest waits, particularly for outpatient treatment, then you are putting more people into requiring inpatient treatment, so you have the effect on the figures that Ruth Davidson is talking about, but the underlying trend is in the right direction, so we are reducing those that are waiting longest. Whether we are looking at outpatient performance, diagnostic testing performance, which is obviously of crucial importance and inpatient performance, we are seeing the numbers with on-going long waits reducing. Of course, for outpatients and diagnostics, we have also seen an improvement in the last quarter on the headline figures. The improvement plan is working, which is why we are going to stick with it, which is why we are going to continue to invest in that plan. That is in stark contrast to what we are seeing elsewhere in the UK. I know that the UK health secretary is visiting Scotland today. The same UK health secretary who said that the UK Government plans to reform social care have had to be put on the back burner because of Brexit. We would not be able to invest £850 million in a waiting time improvement plan if we would follow Scottish Conservative plans to give tax cuts to the very richest in our country. Ruth Davidson It is exactly those decisions of the UK Government that means that there is an extra £2 billion for Scotland's NHS. If the selective use of statistics by this Government were a cure, Scotland would be the healthiest country in the world. However, the First Minister is conveniently forgetting the failure to meet the 18-week referral target, the one in five patients that are waiting too long for psychological therapy, the fewer than half of patients who are getting musculoskeletal services within four weeks, and the almost a fifth of patients with urgent cancer referrals are waiting more than two months. However, let me ask the First Minister a straight question. She says that by October of this year, in just four months' time, this Government will ensure, absolutely ensure, that 75 per cent of in-patients who are guaranteed to wait less than 12 weeks will fall within that guaranteed timescale. If the Government fails to meet that target, will the Health Secretary keep her job? The First Minister The Health Secretary is getting on with the job of delivering for patients. The targets in the waiting times improvement plan, which are backed by the investment that I have already spoken about, are targets that this Government is determined to deliver on. Ruth Davidson talks about health funding. We have record health funding in Scotland. In fact, health spending in Scotland, and she may want to listen to this, right now, is £185 per person higher than it is in England. That amounts to over £1 billion extra being spent in our health service here than if we were to follow the levels in England. We have record numbers of staff working in our national health service. Ruth Davidson mentioned cancer. 95 per cent of people in Scotland rate their overall experience of cancer care positively. Of course, in A and E, which is crucial to so many people across the country, Scotland's A and E services are the best performing in the UK, and they have been for four years running. Ruth Davidson Sounds to me, Presiding Officer, that the Health Minister is keeping her job regardless. The interesting thing is that that treatment time guarantee is a guarantee for every patient in Scotland. You might want to listen to this. Order, please. Order, please. Keep it down. Presiding Officer, the treatment time guarantee has been breached 212,867 times since it was first introduced by one Nicola Sturgeon. That is 212,000 broken promises to patients from a Government that puts the NHS second behind its own priorities. If nobody is being held accountable, is it any wonder that those promises keep getting broken? First Minister. Of course, since we introduced the treatment time guarantee, 1,767,000 patients have been treated within it faster treatment than they would be getting otherwise. Of course, there has been in the last quarter that 8.5 per cent reduction in the number of on-going waits over 12 weeks. That is because this Government is investing in the waiting times improvement plan, and we will carry on doing that. This Government will dedicate our efforts to ensuring that it is the health minister or any other minister that we meet those targets. I am not sure that ministers resigning from Governments, given the number that I have had to resign from the Conservative Government recently, is the strongest ground for Ruth Davidson to be on. Can I refer members to my register of interests? In less than 60 minutes, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will meet the Caledonian Railway Works stakeholder group. What is the Scottish Government's plan to save the Cali? As I have said openly, I have said it to the trade unions. We will always look for opportunities to save companies and plants that are at risk of closure, but it will not always be possible for us to do so. The transport secretary has been looking at all options over that, and we will, as Richard Leonard says, discuss that shortly. However, this Government has shown our willingness to intervene where it is possible in the interests of workers, but also bearing in mind our responsibilities to the taxpayer to take action. We have done that with BiFab. We have done that over the DL steelworks. We did it with the aluminium smelter in the north of Scotland, so this Government will always be prepared to step in. However, we will always be honest with people where, for whatever reason, that is not possible. We will continue to work with unions, companies and workers to make sure that we get the best possible outcomes. Richard Leonard. The honest experience for those working people is that, yesterday morning, they turned up to work to see a sales sign nailed to the permit offence, and tomorrow morning, more workers will be issued with compulsory redundancy notices. The unions attending today's meeting told me, and I quote, we want to know what the transport secretary is going to do to save the site. Just last month, the current owners offered the depot to the Government at no cost. In fact, they even promised to pay a nominal fee to facilitate it. However, the transport secretary told the workers' representatives, we don't do nationalisation. First Minister, why is the Scottish Government ruling out purchasing the site and saving those jobs? It is obviously not true that this Government does not do nationalisation. I seem to remember against some criticism within this chamber, we nationalised Presswick airport to stop it being closed. We have been willing to step in in other instances as well. My understanding is that some of what Richard Leonard has put to me today is not correct in terms of the offers that the company has made. Of course, we are happy to have discussions with the company and the transport secretary will continue to discuss the matter with trade unions. We will act where we can to save companies from closure. As I have demonstrated with the examples that I have already used, we have a track record in doing that. However, we also have responsibilities to the taxpayer. We have responsibilities to operate within the law on those matters, so it will not always be possible to do that. Where it is not possible to do that, we will be frank and open and honest with workers. However, this Government is proud of its record in those industrial situations, and we will continue to work hard to make sure that we are saving jobs and saving companies wherever we possibly can. Let me recap yesterday a for sale sign. Tomorrow, more workers served with compulsory redundancy notices and today a meeting of the stakeholder group. Time is running out. The Government has had six months to take decisive action. I raised that with the First Minister back in February. I wrote to the transport secretary just yesterday. Those works have existed in Springburn for 160 years, but once they go, they go forever. The site's turnover is up. The workers' skills are indispensable. That is a cornerstone of Scotland's engineering base. That is a national asset. So, First Minister, will you act in the national interest? Will you instruct the cabinet secretary for transport to purchase a site, save those jobs before it is too late? I say this to Richard Leonard genuinely. Given the track record of the Government in situations similar to that of stepping in where we can, of purchasing sites where we can, of coming up with funding arrangements to facilitate the purchase of sites by other companies, given that track record, given our proven determination to save jobs and save companies where we can, if it is the case that that is not possible in this or other circumstances, then perhaps Richard Leonard might conclude that there might be a good reason for that, given the overall responsibilities of this Government to the taxpayer. We will continue to discuss with the unions that the transport secretary is doing that later. We are happy to have any and all discussions with the companies and we will continue to take whatever action we can in situations such as this, but we will do that taking account of all of our responsibilities because that is what responsible Government has to do. We have three constituency supplementaries. The first is from Liam McArthur, a fellow by Rachel Hamilton. The First Minister will be aware of the on-going industrial action affecting airports across the Highlands and Islands. She will also recognise the significant disruption that this action has caused and continues to cause on lifeline routes serving Orkney and other communities across the region. She therefore shared my disappointment at news yesterday that a further strike is now due to take place on 12 June. Does she regret that the decision coincided with HAL confirming that it was tabling a revised offer to staff? Will she ensure that Transport Scotland now allows that revised offer to be put to staff as soon as possible so that this long-running and damaging dispute can be brought to an end? Can I share Liam McArthur's disappointment that this industrial action has taken place and that there is the prospect of further action? HAL, of course, is covered by public sector pay policy, the policy sets parameters within which Highlands and Islands airport can negotiate a pay settlement with its recognised unions. I understand that HAL is meeting the unions again next week and I hope that it will be possible to come to an agreement that averts any possibility of further strike action. I encourage HAL to continue to talk to the unions to bring the dispute to a resolution as quickly as possible. Yesterday, I was informed that 48 jobs are to go at EcoLab in Selkirk. That will be a big blow to the town. I would like to ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government will give to workers who are facing redundancies and their families at this challenging and worrying time. I share the concerns about the news of redundancies at EcoLab. I will ask the economy minister to make contact with the company to look at whether there is support that the Scottish Government or Scottish Enterprise can offer to avert redundancies. If that is not possible, then our PACE initiative, as it always does in these circumstances, will offer assistance directly to individual workers. I am sure that once he has had the opportunity to speak to the company, the economy minister will be happy to talk to the member further in order to update her on what action is possible for the Scottish Government to take. Earlier this year, the Lord Advocate asked the Scottish Fatalities Investigation unit to examine the Craig McClellan case, preparing the ground for a possible fatal accident inquiry into his death. As the First Minister is aware, Craig McClellan was killed in an unprovoked knife attack by a man who had broken an electronic tag and had been on the run for months. The family were told that the Lord Advocate would make a decision on whether to order fatal accident inquiry once an appeal by the man convicted of Craig's murder had been dealt with. That appeal was refused last week. Does the First Minister agree that there is now no good reason to delay a decision on this case any further? For the sake of Craig's family and the public interest, surely the time has come for an independent fatal accident inquiry into the failures that led to the tragic murder. First, can I take this opportunity today to convey again my sincere condolences to the family of Craig McClellan? None of us can begin to imagine what they have and continue to go through. Now that the appeal is concluded, I know that the Lord Advocate will be considering the issue of a fatal accident inquiry. As the member is aware, decisions on fatal accident inquiries are for the law officers to take completely independently of ministers, and therefore it would be wrong for me to express any opinion on that. However, I will ensure that the Lord Advocate is made aware of the question that Neil Bibby has asked here today, and I will ask the Lord Advocate to correspond directly with him as a result of that. Across the United Kingdom, parties backing remain, outpoll those backing leave. The momentum is with us. Our chances of stopping Brexit are higher than ever. Yet the First Minister chose this moment to introduce an independent referendum bill that divides the remain parties in Scotland. Her minister didn't even mention a people's vote in yesterday's statement. Why cut and run when we are on the edge of victory? First, I thank Willie Rennie for pointing out the fact that the SNP won the European elections in Scotland. Our best ever result in a European election winning 50 per cent of the seats. Secondly, I thank Willie Rennie, although I stand to be corrected if I'm getting this wrong. I think that he's factually inaccurate to say that Mike Russell didn't mention a people's vote in his statement yesterday. I think that he did mention a second EU referendum. The SNP supports a second EU referendum, and I think that there now is an opportunity to bring together all of those who support that and try to secure that outcome. It will be helped enormously, of course, if Labour, not just in Scotland but in a UK level, get off the fence and back that outcome as well. The thing about Willie Rennie's position here is that he believes that Brexit will be a disaster. I agree with him on that. He thinks that the UK should have a chance to reverse Brexit through a second referendum. I agree with that as well. However, here's where we differ. He thinks that if the UK doesn't take the option of reversing Brexit, Scotland should just have to accept that disaster and become a passive casualty of it. I don't agree with that. I think that Scotland should have the right to choose a different future. I believe that Scotland should have the right to choose an independent future as a European nation. For Nicola Sturgeon's election letter to me, I addressed Dear Edna. I didn't mention independence. That was funny. She's at it again. She is desperate for the UK to fail so that she can push independence once again. She's even named a date, but the momentum is with Remain. Speaker John Berco will block a no-deal Brexit. The Chancellor will bring down any no-deal Prime Minister. Boris Johnson is in court for telling lies. For goodness' sake, even Richard Leonard is backing her people's vote. What more does she need? Be positive. Come with me. Fight to win a people's vote. Or once again, will she pursue independence no matter what happens? If I can take a minute to stop laughing before I answer Willie Rennie's. I'm not sure I want to follow him from the 38 per cent of the vote that we got in the European elections to the what 12 per cent that the Liberal Democrats have scored, which I have to say was an improvement, so well done to them for that. Alex Cole-Hamilton is pointing out that it was 14. I still don't want to end up there if you don't mind. Willie Rennie did say that he hoped in the chamber that I would take the opportunity to call him Edna, so all I can say is to be careful what you wish for. Is it always a dame? On this issue, Willie Rennie is being a bit complacent about the risk of a no-deal Brexit. I hope fervently that there is not a no-deal Brexit, but given the direction of the Conservative Party, I don't think that we can afford to be complacent about that at all. We will continue to argue for a people's vote and for the revocation of article 50 as an alternative to no-deal Brexit. We will work with whoever across the political spectrum to bring that about. However, if we don't succeed on that, and I hope that we do succeed, if we don't succeed, I am not prepared to allow Scotland to sink with this ship. I want Scotland to have an alternative. I want Scotland to have a better future, a future as an independent European country. Thank you. We have some further supplementary questions. The first is from Jenny Gilruth, to be filled by Monica Lennon. Jenny Gilruth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today's report from the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee says that the UK settlement scheme for EU citizens risks another windrush. Is this not a salutary warning that we should not be making EU citizens have to apply to remain in their home, and further, have the Tories learned nothing from last week's election that their hostility towards immigrants was roundly and rightly rejected? From most of what they have had to say in the last few days, the Scottish Tories have learned nothing at all from the fact that they have been pushed into fourth place in Scotland in these elections. Carry on, the longer they fail to learn those lessons, the better for those of us and those benches is what I say, but Jenny Gilruth raises a really serious issue. Windrush was a scandal. I think that even the Tories would concede that. What European nationals are now being put through of having to apply for the right to continue to live here in their own country is shocking, but also risks repeating that scandal. They should not be being put through that. This is their home and they should be able to stay here, and we should all continue to argue against those measures and continue to send the clearest possible message that those who choose to make this country their home are welcome here and we want them to stay. A unison survey of Scottish Ambulance Service staff has found that extra resource for the service is not keeping up with demand. Over seven out of 10 staff feel that their team budget has been cut. In last year, there was a 30 per cent increase in paramedics, signed off work with stress and depression. I have been in touch with unison this week, First Minister, and they are rightly calling for urgent action. What will the Government do? Will the health secretary meet the unison as a matter of priority? First Minister, the health secretary will always be happy to meet with trade unions to discuss those issues. We value the job that our Ambulance Service staff do and what are exceptionally challenging circumstances. Our Ambulance Service continues to be one of the best-performing services in the UK, despite continuous increased demand. Of course, it also services some of the most rural and remote parts of the country. We have invested almost £900 million in the Ambulance Service in the last four years, and we are committed to supporting the training of an additional 1,000 paramedics over the course of the Parliament. That will build on the almost 18 per cent rise in Ambulance Service staff over the last decade. Lastly, the Ambulance Service itself is currently carrying out a national review of demand and capacity. Staffside partners, including unison, should be, and I believe, are fully involved in that work as part of the demand and capacity implementation group. Those issues will continue to be taken extremely seriously. Gillian Martin I would like to ask the First Minister how proposed legislation on female genital mutilation will increase protection for women and girls. The First Minister I thank Gillian Martin for raising the issue. I am very pleased that we have introduced the Female Genital Mutilation Protection and Guidance Bill, which will increase the protections for women and girls. The new legislation is a very important step in the Government's efforts to make Scotland equally safe for women and girls. It creates a new protection order to protect women and girls who may be victims of or at risk of FGM and ensures ministers issue statutory guidance to public bodies to improve their response to FGM. The bill is part of our wider work through the implementation of our national action plan on ending FGM, which focuses on prevention, protection from harm and provision of services for women and girls. However, I hope that the bill will attract the support of members from right across the chamber. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to investigate the disenfranchisement of EU nationals who were denied their vote at the recent EU elections. The number of EU nationals who appear to have been denied the vote in the European elections last week is nothing short of disgraceful. Those are people who live and work here. This is their home. They had as much right to vote as any of the rest of us. The issues that arose were clearly a result of insufficient preparation time because of the prevarication over Brexit and a failure to address the concerns raised by the electoral commission following the European elections in 2014. The fact that the UK Government appears to have taken no action to address this matter is unacceptable. The Cabinet Secretary for Constitutional Relations wrote to the UK Government in advance of the election warning that this could happen, and he has now written again calling for a full investigation to take place into this issue. In yesterday's statement, the cabinet secretary said that the proposed franchise for any future referendum would rightly include EU citizens and 16 and 17-year-olds. To save confusion or mistakes reoccurring in the future, surely this must be the standard for all elections. Will the First Minister continue to press the UK Government to adopt this system at Westminster or, even better, put full control for holding democratic votes in the hands of this Parliament? I certainly agree that we should do the latter. Short of that, I think that 16 and 17-year-olds and EU nationals should have the right to vote in all elections in Scotland. As Mike Russell said yesterday and will be covered in separate legislation, we want to extend the right to vote to anybody who is legally resident in this country, regardless of what country they come from. I think that that is fair and a sign of the open, inclusive and progressive country that we want to be. We will continue to press the UK Government on these matters. However, I do not think that we should lose sight of what happened last week. I will not have been the only one who spoke to people at polling stations who had been denied the right to vote. I spoke to one constituent who was almost in tears and felt that this was the final straw of all the stress and anxiety that he had gone through over the past three years. There should be an investigation into this, and any necessary steps should be taken to make sure that this disgrace is never allowed to happen again. Christine Grahame Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I, like many in the chamber, also had constituents denied the right to vote, despite having filled in the appropriate UC1 form. I do not have such faith in the Westminster investigation. I note what the cabinet secretary has done. Can I ask if the Government would consider owning some kind of contact point for citizens in Scotland or EU citizens to register with us if they were unable to vote, so if the UK Government does not find out the numbers, we do. The First Minister I will certainly give that consideration. Of course, as Christine Grahame will be aware, we have established an advice line for EU nationals seeking to apply for the right to remain here after Brexit, so it may be that we can do something similar to allow people who were denied the right to vote to register that fact, which would give us the opportunity to understand the scale of it. Mike Russell is noting it down. I will ask him to explore that possibility and report back to Christine Grahame once we have had the opportunity to do so. Jamie Greene To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's responses to the report by Age Scotland that four in 10 people requiring substantial or critical care were found to be waiting more than six weeks to receive it. The First Minister Well, people in Scotland generally are enjoying longer lives, with that often comes more complex needs, which means demand for social care is growing, underlying why we have already legislated for an introduced integration of health and social care. Age Scotland's report finds that the average waiting time between assessment and receipt of care for those in most need is around three weeks, but we want to go further to ensure that care is provided swiftly for all. That is why we are developing a programme of national support for local reform of adult social care, and that is why we will deliver £711 million of additional direct investment in social care and integration this year. That is an increase of 29 per cent on last year's investment. Jamie Greene I thank the First Minister for that response. She talked about the average time being three weeks. The last time that I made Scotland monitor this, it was two and a half weeks, so that number is actually going up, so it is an interesting statistic to measure against. Many of us in this chamber will be dealing with case work, with constituents who are spending weeks or even months in hospital taking up valuable bed space, because their local authority cannot provide care packages, either through a lack of finance, a lack of care home space, or a lack of staff to provide in-home care. The report by Age Scotland confirms that, since 2011, the number of care home places in Scotland has dropped by over 1,000. That independent report is titled, Is Scotland Meeting its Commitment to Older People? The report clearly does not think so. What is the First Minister think? The First Minister Of course, more people now are being cared for at home than would have been the case previously, but there are many important messages in the Age Scotland report, and we will study them carefully. I think that the actions that we are already taking are the right ones. We have integrated health and social care, and of course, as I said in my original answer, we are increasing the direct investment in social care and integration. There was also a report out yesterday that the member may have seen from the health foundation that reported that Scotland spends the most money on social care per head of any country in the UK. We are spending 43 per cent more than England and 33 per cent more than Wales, so the investment is there and that is important, but we need to make sure that services are working in the right joined-up way to ensure that the care is there for older people when they need it. We are determined to continue to make the progress that is required to be made there, because, as the member rightly points out, that is one of the factors that has a knock-on effect on our efforts to get acute hospital waiting times down as well. David Stewart will be filled by George Adam. The Age Scotland report suggests that there was limited or patchly monitoring across local authorities of how long people were waiting for social care or the reasons for delays. Does the First Minister think that that is acceptable, and will she accept the recommendations from Age Scotland that more regular data collection on social care is required? We will listen carefully to all the recommendations that Age Scotland makes. We want to make sure that there is good data and also consistent data. There is already a lot of data, for example, on delayed discharges, but it is important that we have the wealth of data to make sure that we can assess whether the actions that we are taking are succeeding or not. We will give due consideration to that recommendation, as we will to all the other recommendations in the report. The First Minister has already mentioned the analysis that was produced by the Health Foundation that highlighted that public spending care for elderly and disabled is as much as 43 per cent higher in Scotland than south of the border, where the Tories are in control. While we can have legitimate concerns, and those could be addressed, does the First Minister not see that as hypocrisy from the Conservative Party and a reflection of where the two Government's priorities lie? I am, of course, responsible for the actions of this Government, and we are prioritising the actions that are required to make the improvements that we all want to see. We have already integrated health and social care. The UK Government's green paper in social care was first promised 812 days ago, and yet there is no sign of it being published. As I referred to earlier, Matt Hancock told a committee last month that it was delayed because of Brexit. We are getting on with that work. We are also spending proportionately more money on social care than other countries in the UK. All of that is positive by this age. Scotland report points out that there is still work to be done and progress to be made, and we are determined to get on and make it. Many social care providers are struggling when it comes to staff, retention and recruitment. Part of the problem may well be Brexit, but a big part of the problem is that, in some parts of the care sector, workers are paid poor terms and paid poor wages, poor terms and conditions. Should there not be equal pay across the whole of the care sector, should a carer not be valued whether they are delivering that care through a private company or through a public company? Yes, I agree with that. Of course, this Government has invested to introduce the living wage for workers in social care, and we are pursuing and will continue to pursue providers who are not passing that on, whether they are private sector providers or indeed local authority providers, because we want the social care workforce to be valued for the job that they do, which is a vital, tough and challenging job. As Alex Rowley rightly says, Brexit is a big issue here. If you talk to any social care provider, they will say that one of the biggest worries that they have is about access to the skills and labour that they need to provide these services, which is why it is so important that we try to come together to stop Brexit and that we come together to stop the current approach that the UK Government is taking to immigration, which is damaging not just our economy but the very fabric of our public services as well. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the poverty and inequality commission's recent finding that the current level of spending directed at tackling poverty in Scotland is falling well short of what is needed. The commission's report is a timely reminder of the challenge that we face in undoing the damage of UK Government welfare cuts, austerity and the impacts of Brexit—all issues that, of course, were highlighted in the UN special rapporteurs report last week. Scotland is facing a reduction of £3.7 billion in annual social security spending by 2021 as a result of UK Government cuts. The Scottish Government is investing more than £125 million to mitigate the worst impacts of those cuts in this year alone. Of course, we are also taking forward our own policies to tackle poverty and inequality, which includes, in this year, an extra £385 million to support our expansion of childcare, at least £351 million in our council tax reduction scheme and around £435 million in direct assistance through social security measures, as was set out at the budget. Elaine Smith I thank the First Minister for her response. I think that we all know the damage that Tory austerity and cuts are doing, but it is the First Minister's policies that I would like to talk about. There is a consensus among numerous anti-poverty organisations, including the Government's Poverty and Inequality Commission, to call for urgent action on the introduction of the income supplement. As the head of Oxfam Scotland said, warm words will not make a difference to people who cannot put food on the table. Can the First Minister offer more than warm words today to those in need of the income supplement right now? Will she bring it forward, or will she tell us what interim measures she will put in place? After all, in this chamber in March, can I remind the First Minister that she promised us an update before the end of June? The First Minister If I can point out, it is just now the end of May. There will be an update before the end of June, but we are not in June yet. That, indeed, is the answer that I have given to Richard Leonard. We will bring forward an update on our plans for the income supplement in June, because we are looking at how we would introduce that in a way that lifts the maximum number of children out of poverty. Of course, we have to look at the mechanisms that we need to put in place to practically deliver that. That update will come in June and, of course, it will be open for discussion across the Parliament. We will continue to take our responsibilities seriously. Child poverty in Scotland is too high, but it is lower than it is in any other part of the UK. That is a reflection of the seriousness with which this Government treats it and the policies that we are implementing—for example, the best start grant that is not being implemented in any other part of the UK. We will continue to do that, but we should all come together and, as part of their post-election reflections over the next few weeks, Labour will consider belatedly joining the Scottish Government in asking for all welfare policies to come to this Parliament so that we can tackle those causes at root, rather than continuing to have to apply sticking plasters to the policies of Tory Governments that we do not vote for. Clare Adamson Thank you, Presiding Officer. One of the benchmarks of our society in Scotland is that we are opening and welcoming and that we take our responsibility to refugees extremely seriously. Can the First Minister outline what benefits the Cabinet Secretary for Social Security's announcement yesterday will make for asylum seekers in tackling poverty? Can I say how delighted I am and all credit to Shirley-Anne Somerville for that? We are now able to apply the best start grant to refugee and asylum seekers who have children. We had to discuss that with the UK Government, given its policy of not allowing people in those categories access to public funds. However, we want our policies to benefit anybody in poverty and in need in Scotland. We should not judge people on the basis of where they come from. We should judge people on the fact that they are citizens of Scotland and that all citizens of Scotland deserve the help that this Government is determined to give them to lift children out of poverty. Keith Brown Can I ask the First Minister whether she agrees that her Government would have much greater resources to tackle poverty in Scotland on top of everything else that it does? It does not because it is allowed, but because it is the right thing to do. If it did not have to mitigate the worst effects of Tory austerity to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. Obviously, if we did not have Tory austerity, we would not have the levels of poverty that we have and we would not have the cuts to our budget that is making it harder to deal with those issues. Of course, we also have a Conservative Party in this chamber. They are bereft of policies, but the one policy that they have managed to come forward with in recent years is to give tax cuts to the riches, which would take half a billion pounds out of public services and tackling poverty in this country. The lesson of that in the short term is not to listen to the advice of the Scottish Tories. The lesson in the medium to longer term is that we should get out of a position in Scotland where Tory politicians think that what we can do is a matter of what they allow us to do. Instead, what we do in Scotland is a matter of the choice of the people of our country. Thank you. That concludes First Minister's questions. Oh, a point of order first from Mr Russell and then from Elaine Smith. Mr Russell. Presiding Officer, I know that you are very keen to draw the distinction between opinion and fact in this chamber, but when something is demonstrably untrue, I am sure that you would guide the chamber on how quickly it should be corrected. I have checked the official report, and yesterday in my statement I said that the Scottish Government, the SNP at Westminster, will do all that it can to stop Brexit for the whole UK. In particular, it will continue to support a second referendum on EU membership. Given that the leader of the Liberal Democrats made an assertion that I did not say that yesterday, perhaps you could advise him on how quickly he could correct the record. Thank you very much. I think that all members are aware of the various mechanisms that are available if they wish to correct the record. However, the point that Mr Russell himself has alerted everybody in the chamber to what was said yesterday very accurately. Elaine Smith, on the point of order. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. In terms of the various mechanisms for correcting the record and understanding orders in code of conduct, there are ways to do that. I just do it right now, because earlier I was reading out from the 28th of March official report. However, my excuse is that it is a very small type on this. What it says is that, as the First Minister said, we will bring forward the update before June. I read it out wrong. It is not before the end of June, but before June, which gives us one day. Thank you very much. Point of order is for the chair, not for members to respond to. I thank Elaine Smith for informing the chamber of the correct entry from the official report. The members will have noted that. On that note, we will finish on the First Minister's Questions. We will move to the members' business in a moment in the name of Gordon MacDonald. Before we do that, we will have a short suspension to allow the members, the minister and some members of the gallery to change seats.