 I'm pleased to be convening the second meeting of the session between the convener's group and the First Minister. I'd like to welcome the First Minister to the meeting today. I'd also like to welcome everyone who's come along to watch the session, whether online or here. This session gives conveners the opportunity to question the First Minister about the programme for government from the perspective of the Parliament's committees. First Minister, do you want to make a brief opening statement? Other than to say thank you for giving me the opportunity but I'm happy now just to get into questions. I hope you're thanking us at the end. Can I say to conveners you've got about five minutes for your exchange so I'm hopeful that you get at least one supplementary if we have time because I must conclude by approximately 150 if we have time and there's other supplementaries that they wish to get on I'll try to get them in as well from you even if you've had your question you're frowning at me Margaret. You've got five minutes, five minutes for one or two or three questions depending on how long the exchange takes. I'm afraid I have to be about a few years about time control. We must finish at 150 because of the sitting of Parliament. I call Joan McAlpine to be followed by Graham Simpson. Joan McAlpine for the Culture, Tourism, European and External Relations Committee. Thank you very much convener. First Minister, last weekend two surveys released to the Financial Times painted a very bleak picture of the future for asset management in the UK because of the decision to leave the EU. Scotland accounts for about 10% of the jobs in asset management and many of those, as you'll know, are concentrated in our major cities Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. What can the Scottish Government do to protect these really important jobs in the event of a hard Brexit? Thank you for the question. I think it probably goes without saying that I'm deeply concerned about the impact of Brexit generally and those concerns will undoubtedly be exacerbated if we are in the realms of a hard Brexit. I'm aware of the surveys that you referred to looking specifically at the financial services sector and within that at asset management and as you allude to yourself that's got particular relevance to Scotland because asset management is a key part of our financial services sector. I think it's estimated that there are around £800 million of funds under management in Scotland so this really matters. In terms of what we are doing firstly and I suppose at the top level we continue to argue strongly that we shouldn't have a hard Brexit that if the UK is leaving the EU it should seek to remain within the single market in the customs union. I think that would be the easiest way of ensuring continuation of the arrangements at the financial services and many other sectors depend on. Most specifically with the financial services sector we work very closely with it to try to make sure we are understanding its concerns and as far as possible conveying those concerns to the UK Government. I co-chair the financial services advisory board which looks at issues broader than Brexit but it's not surprising that Brexit has been a particular focus over recent months. We're also working through FISAB and with the assistance of Scottish financial enterprise on particular pieces of work to play to the strength of our financial services sector. Fintech, for example, and SFE just now are leading work on a new financial services strategy. That's specific to financial services just briefly. I think there is a wider point here about the impact of Brexit. We saw reports yesterday estimating that the loss of economic output in Scotland over the next few years could be £30 billion. I certainly would like to see more transparency around this from the UK Government. There are suggestions that the UK Government has sector-specific analysis of the impact of Brexit. There's a suggestion that it has an analysis looking particularly at Scotland as a whole but thus far there's been a refusal, I think, as recently as this morning, to publish those analysis. I think that that's unconscionable. I think that the public have a right to know, so I hope we see publication of these different impact studies as soon as possible. Thank you. You'll be aware that financial services frameworks—there's governance of financial services frameworks at an EU level, particularly under something called MFID2—will come back to the UK if Brexit goes ahead. What can you do to support the devolution of those kind of rules, which would allow the Government to support financial services in Scotland? There's a range of different policies, frameworks, directives, regulations at EU level that impact very directly on financial services that govern effectively the operation of financial services. Passporting is the one that the arrangement most commonly talked about. That's more important for some aspects of the sector than for others, but it is hugely important. The point that you're raising, which we may or may not come on to in later discussions around as powers come back from Brussels to use that shorthand, where do they rest? Obviously financial services regulation is not a devolved matter, although, as we go further down this path, we would be arguing strongly that even things that are not devolved right now should be considered for devolution to give this Parliament and Government the greatest possible impact in putting in place the right arrangements. At a more fundamental level, we don't even have that agreement to powers coming to this Parliament in areas that are currently devolved, which is why, right now, we are not able to recommend legislative consent to the withdrawal bill, and that clearly is an issue of on-going discussion between the Scottish and UK Governments. Thanks very much. It follows on from that line of questioning. Our committee is not a policy committee. It deals with the process and scrutiny. With regard to the European Union withdrawal bill that creates the potential for huge numbers of legal instruments to be placed before this Parliament, possibly hundreds, what is the Government doing to prepare for this unprecedented programme of secondary legislation? How is it working with the UK Government in making those preparations? How will it work with this Parliament to ensure that the Parliament has the proper opportunity to scrutinise those instruments? Those are very good and pertinent questions. First, I think that everybody does understand this, but it is worth saying that the process of withdrawal from the EU will impact on, I think, without exception, every area of the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. That is massive in terms of the work that this Parliament in due course will have to do. You say—and you will undoubtedly be right—that the need for subordinate legislation, perhaps in particular, will run into the hundreds of instruments that it may indeed run into the thousands. We do not know that yet. To try to deal with your questions in turn, what are we doing to prepare for that? We are doing everything that we can at the moment to assess across the Government what the impact is going to be and, in particular, in relation to your questions, what the requirement for legislative action is likely to be. I have to be frank with conveners. There is a limit to the conclusions that we are able to reach at this stage for two closely connected reasons. Firstly, we do not have, in my view, anywhere near sufficient information from the UK Government right now about what some of that impact is going to be, and that will be a comment, frankly, that ranges right across every aspect of the Brexit process. Secondly, some of our conclusions around this, the extent and nature of legislative action that will be required here will, and I think that that is common sense, will depend on the nature of a future deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU. We can do a certain amount of planning right now, but it is impossible at this stage to be definitive about that. The length of time that we have to put those arrangements in place will also undoubtedly be influenced by the length and nature of any transition deal that is agreed. We will continue to work as closely as we can with the UK Government to try to flesh out that picture and give as much clarity as quickly as is possible. In terms of our work with the Parliament, both Mike Russell, the Brexit minister and Joe FitzPatrick, Minister for Parliamentary Business, have been very clear that we want Parliament to be involved, fully involved in the scrutiny and development of that legislation. Clearly, there are implications for all committees in terms of the workload. It stands to reason, I think, that we will not need the same level of scrutiny for every single instrument that is likely to come forward, because they will cover a whole range of disparate areas. I know that there has been an agreement, and I think that it is an important one, to work with committees, particularly your committee, to agree principles that will govern a level of scrutiny that is appropriate, depending on the significance of the particular instrument. We will keep very close in discussion with Parliament generally and with committees as the picture around that becomes clearer, which I would hope—although it is possibly more hope than expectation—will be sooner rather than later. It is important that, moving on, we agree between committees and the Government where the power lies. Who should be dealing with these instruments? Should it be Government? Should it be committee? What should that level of scrutiny be? One idea that has been put forward by the Lords is that we have a sifting committee to decide whether instruments should be negative or affirmative. Mr Russell appeared before our committee yesterday, who was quite up for looking at that. That is your view as well. I hesitate to make any comment on whether Mr Russell is more sympathetic to ideas emanating from the House of Lords than I am. I will leave it there. But generally speaking, to be serious, I think that that is a reasonable suggestion worthy of consideration in terms of the process that we will agree in this Parliament for dealing with that work. Your question alludes to this. Clearly, Government has the responsibility for producing the drafts of legislation, but Parliament's role is an extensive one. Not just in scrutinising the content, but in decisions, for example, is a particular instrument to be agreed by negative or affirmative procedure. Those are fundamental decisions. In possibly a lot of areas there will be uncontroversial decisions. Every piece of legislation is significant, but some of what we are talking about here will be very technical and tidy up in nature. Some of it might be more fundamental and substantive. I think that you are right to point to the need—and there is certainly a willingness in the part of Government to do this— to agree a process that allows us to guide this work in the future. We will continue to take forward those discussions. Thank you. Jackie Baillie, followed by James Dorn and Jackie Baillie, convener, public audit and post legislative scrutiny. Jackie, please. Thank you very much, convener. First Minister, over the past few years, the Public Audit Committee has seen repeated problems with governance and financial management in some of our public bodies. That has resulted in successive audit Scotland reports, and indeed that is often accompanied by the staff involved leaving, so that there is a lack of accountability. Recent examples that you will be aware of include colleges and the Scottish Police Authority, where I understand the convener and the chief executive are standing down. I know that the Scottish Government is considering its severance policy, but would the First Minister agree that paying people substantial sums of money to leave an organisation can be seen by many as rewarding failure, and what assurances can she give that that will be minimised? First, to deal with that latter part of your question first and be quite frank about it, yes, I agree that in circumstances—obviously, I am talking generically here, not in relation to any particular example—but in circumstances where somebody is leaving an organisation, where there has been controversy and there is a severance payment, particularly where those severance payments seem to be large. It does not always mean that it is the case, but it can be perceived to be as you put it, rewarding failure. We do not want that perception, we certainly do not want that reality in our public sector. There are rules in place that govern severance arrangements. As you say, we are reviewing that whole area just now. There are some very important tests that have to be applied, and public confidence is one of those value for money, and reasonableness are other ones. It is vital that they run through decision-making there. I will not go into some of the issues that your committee has looked at, but there have been some instances, as you are aware, that the Government has expressed its own disquiet at some of those arrangements. More generally, in terms of governance, which I think is an important area and one that, right since my days as health secretary, is one that I have been very interested in, in terms of how we improve governance and build the capacity in our public sector organisations. As you would concede, as your committee has noted, the proportion of organisations that have been subject to critical audit reports is relatively small, but nevertheless, when it happens, it is significant. The Scottish Government supports board members and chairs through the Government's on-board guidance, and there are induction events. There is a whole range of work that we take forward or support to try to improve the capacity and governance capability of boards. It stands to reason that it would be true of a Government anyway, and it is true of public boards. It is the abilities and the strength of decision-making there that affects issues right through the wider organisation. Those are important areas. It is important that the Audit Committee has a very close oversight of all of this, but, where there are Audit Scotland reports or where the Audit Committee is commenting on this, we take the opportunity to ensure that we are learning from those reports and applying that learning more widely across the public sector. I thank you very much for your comments. Let me take you back to the severance policy, because I think that that is critical. Particularly at a time of austerity when the general public might not understand when a small number of people get paid quite substantial amounts of money, I think, in the case of the overall figure for last year, it may be in the millions. I think that we need some clarity on that. In that context, some of the Government gave an undertaking to end the use of gagging clauses as part of severance agreements, yet they are still being used in the overwhelming number of cases. When can you see that practice ending? I am happy to make sure that your committee has said of this. I am pretty sure that it did, but we did make changes in terms of the use of, if I can use a technical term, confidentiality agreements. There will sometimes be occasions where appropriate confidentiality agreements are put in place, but one of the concerns that was raised, particularly in the context of the health service, as a concern, I absolutely share, is any potential for confidentiality agreements to stand in the way of whistleblowing. Legally, that is not possible because of the statutory rights that people have to whistleblowing. We made some changes around that, just to put that absolutely beyond doubt. I do not think that any Government or any organisation anywhere would say that there is never any circumstance in which a confidentiality agreement is appropriate, but it must not impinge on the ability of people in the public sector or people leaving the public sector to raise concerns or to speak out about issues that they think are important, and they should never stand in the way of the good governance of public sector organisations. However, as I say, I fully expect that your committee has full sight of all of this, but I will make sure that that is the case. James Dornan, followed by Bruce Crawford. James Dornan, convener of education and skills. James, please. First Minister, the education and skills committee has indicated that it wishes to undertake pre-legislary scrutiny on the education reform bill expected in this parliamentary year. Could the FFM tell us how soon before the bill is introduced, the broad content and policy objectives of the bill will be known, and when will the Scottish Government be able to share those with the committee? I would hope that we will be able to do that very soon. Firstly, I would welcome the committee's commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny. That is a really helpful part of the process. As you will know, the education review next steps document set out. The areas of reform that we are going to take forward should be said that many aspects of our education reform agenda do not require legislation. Some of them are already under way, standardised assessments, the pupil equity fund, for example, which is, from my conversations with head teachers, doing a great deal to change the dynamic of decision making within education. Those aspects that do require legislation will be included in the education bill that is due to be published before the summer recess next year, I think from memory. It is scheduled for introduction in June of next year. We intend to consult on the elements of that bill shortly, and so we will make sure that the committee has sight of the consultation document very soon. I would hope that that would be before too much further time has elapsed. I think that we have been very clear of some of the main elements of the bill. It will provide for the head teacher's charter, for example. It will include the legislative underpinning of the new regional improvement collaboratives. It will also have provisions to improve parental involvement in education. Those are some of the key areas that the legislation will cover, but the consultation will go into more detail. That consultation document will be very helpful to the committee in guiding that process of pre-legislative scrutiny. Thank you for that answer. You mentioned the collaboratives. A lot of the debate has been around the roles of councils and collaboratives, but can you explain to me what you consider will be the practical help that reforms will give for teachers and kids in the classroom? I think that not just the reforms that we take forward legislatively but the reforms, generally, to simplify and summarise. It is about empowering schools and those working in the front line of education head teachers and teachers on where appropriate parents and young people themselves. It is about shifting not just powers but responsibilities as far as possible to the level of schools. That is backed up by lots of evidence that say that that is one of the most important things that you can do in terms of driving an improvement agenda. The pupil equity fund is a really important part of that because it gives head teachers more control over their own budget and that is perhaps one of the most important drivers in driving the decisions in a school. Again, the evidence that comes from our international council of advisers here is that having that empowerment of schools is not just free for all, it needs to be informed by the best quality improvement evidence and advice. That is where the regional improvement collaboratives come in, the best advice on educational practice and making sure that that is provided in a coherent and consistent way. The shift, the presumption that decisions are taken at school level is the key driver of all of the reforms that we are taking forward. Bruce Crawford, to be followed by Margaret Mitchell. Bruce Crawford, convener of finance and constitution. Bruce, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, the process of intergovernmental discussions on the EU withdrawal bill is clearly going to be critical to be any prospect of the Scottish government recommending the legislative consent on the bill. It would be therefore quite helpful if you could provide an update on the state of negotiations with the UK government on the bill and where you believe any progress might be made since the meeting of the GMCEN on this 16th of October. In particular, I was interested to note from the principles agreed at that meeting that any frameworks will be expected to respect the evolution settlement. I think that it was quite useful that the UK government signed up to that, but principles are one thing. Do you believe that the principles can be adhered to if the clause 11 of the EU withdrawal bill remains as it is currently drafted? Clause 11 is unacceptable to the Scottish government in all circumstances. This is an area that is hugely and quite fundamentally important here, although it can appear very dry and technical. We have never ever queried or taken an issue at all with the notion that, post Brexit, there will be a requirement for UK-wide framework agreements in certain areas. Even if Scotland was an independent country, given the nature of the geography and the trading relationships across the UK, those cross-border arrangements in some instances will be not just appropriate but desirable. We have no issue with that at all. The issue is how do they come into being. Our view is that where they impinge on devolved responsibilities, they must come into being through agreement, not through imposition. Now, the GMC earlier this month did make some progress there. As you say, it agreed a set of principles that have been published, which will govern the discussions that we have about the development of potential frameworks. One of the principles was respect for the devolution settlement. I welcome that progress. It possibly beggars belief that it has taken us so long to get to a point where respect for devolution is recognised as one of the key principles. The problem is that, as long as clause 11 is there, rhetoric might be quite helpful rhetoric, but the reality of clause 11 is that it gives the UK Government the power of imposition effectively. It turns the underpinning principle of this Parliament on its head. The Scotland act, the genius principle of Donald Dure back in the previous devolution days, that everything is devolved unless it is explicitly reserved, is actually flipped and becomes the reverse of that, so everything is reserved unless the UK Government decides that they want to devolve it in areas that actually are already devolved. That is unacceptable to us. Notwithstanding what happens with these discussions, we will not recommend to this Parliament legislative consent for a bill that has that clause 11 in its current form. It is the same position that the Welsh Government is taking. We have even got organisations—I noticed yesterday—the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, an organisation that was more in favour of leaving the EU than remaining within it, saying that that bill, without amendment, threatens the ability of this Parliament to take decisions in devolved areas. I hope that the discussions that were continued at the GMC continue positively. We will certainly do our best to make sure that they do, but notwithstanding that, we will not agree to a bill that has that clause 11 in it. I agree that it is useful that the UK Government recognised the devolution settlement and the principles behind it. The principle is one thing, actions are another. Previously, there has been a series of papers produced by the UK Government, where there has been no involvement for the devolved elements, despite the fact that some of those papers were in devolved areas. Are they falling through in that respect, in terms of the principles that they have just agreed, as far as the papers that are now being produced by them? Has there been any better dialogue between the Scottish and UK Governments in that regard? The papers have not respected, in any way, shape or form the kind of good working arrangement that you would want to see in any sense, not even just in a Brexit sense, between the Scottish and UK Governments. I think that, on one occasion, if memory says me correctly, we have got three days' working notice of the publication. Normally, with those papers, we have had, through the kind of normal official channels, a days' notice of publication. However, it is not the length of notice. It is whether we have had any ability in areas that impinge heavily. On justice, for example, a devolved area, we have had no opportunity to contribute to the development of those papers, to influence the content of them, even to offer views on the factual content of them. It is not just unacceptable from the point of view of respect for different Governments. It is not a good way of proceeding in terms of getting the best possible outcome. In response to Joe McAlpine's question, I referred to the suggestions that, as well as those papers, the UK Government has a range of studies looking at the impact of Brexit. The suggestion is that those are sectoral studies and perhaps a study that looks specifically at the impact of Brexit in Scotland. I caught some of David Davis at a Westminster committee this morning, where I have apparently said that it would not be in the national interest to publish these. It might not be in the interests of the UK Government to publish these, but it is certainly in the national interest to publish them. There is a lack of willingness to share information and to allow the Scottish Government, or indeed the other devolved Administrations, to properly influence that work. I do not think that that is acceptable, either from the point of view that you are putting forward about respect for devolution or from the interest of getting the best possible outcomes to these discussions. I call Margaret Mitchell, who is called by Sandra White. Margaret Mitchell, convener of justice. Margaret, please. First Minister, can I ask if you consider acceptable that the justice committee is currently looking at three different bills, all at different stages, with a fourth on the way, and that over the years there has been a justifiable concern that I would be interested in if she shared that the committee is becoming merely a legislative machine for government bills? You are right in the sense that, when the Presiding Officer here was in your position, it was a concern that she raised frequently. She probably raised it more directly with me on occasion than you did. We have to, and we do, and I hope all conveners, even if they do not always, like the outcome of these discussions, accept that the Government works very hard with committees to try to make sure that we phase our legislative programme in a way that takes account of the workload of different committees. We have a big, ambitious legislative programme, and we want to make progress with that. Frequently, the Government—possibly, I know that we are not in a party political forum here, but members of your own party have criticised the Government for not legislating enough. Other times, we get criticised for legislating too much. We have to get that balance right. The reason why we do phase is that we do not announce a legislative programme in September, but, as I was just saying to James Dorn, it will be next June, before the Education Bill is introduced, because we have to phase that to allow Parliament and committees to properly give that scrutiny. I do not have the magic answer to that. There is a particularly heavy workload for the Justice Committee because of the priorities that we have set out in the programme for government. I do not have the magic answer to that, except that we will continue to try to work as closely with committees to phase and manage that workload as best we possibly can. We will put it another way, First Minister. What consideration when you are looking at your work programme are you giving not just to the scrutiny of bills but to the other functions that the committees are supposed to carry out—carrying out their own inquiries, post-legislative scrutiny. If we continue to pass more and more legislation without doing practically any post-legislative scrutiny, that is not effective government, it is not effective legislation. There is also very little opportunity for committees to instigate legislation because we, as a committee, representing people feel that this is legislation that should be brought forward and we are the people's voice to do that. The first consideration that we give when we decide a legislative programme is what is the need for legislation. The bills before your committee just now are a bill on domestic abuse, a bill that will be forthcoming management of offenders, vulnerable witnesses and pre-recorded evidence, a bill on damages and another bill on civil litigation. I am not sure that anybody is telling me that any of those pieces of legislation are not required. The first question that we ask is what is the purpose of a piece of legislation and we take it from there. I would sit here and argue very strongly that every bill that we are proposing to the Parliament is a bill that has a purpose. There may be disagreements on the contents of those bills, but unless you are telling me that any of those particular bills are not necessary, then the question cannot be whether we just don't do them. It has to be how do we properly manage that workload. We will continue to engage in those discussions. As I often say, and I am sure that I was as unfair on Governments when I was in opposition, I am absolutely convinced that I was, but you often, as a Government, cannot win because we have been, certainly over recent months, the accusation has been that we have not legislated enough. We have now got, by summer recess next year, I think that there will be in the first two years of this parliamentary term, by then we will have passed 20 pieces of legislation and I think that all of them are necessary pieces of legislation. You are right though, legislation is not the sum total of what Governments or Parliaments do, so I agree with you that it is important that committees have the space and the time to do inquiries into other things as well. To be fair to the Justice Committee not just in recent times but over the lifetime of this Parliament, I think that I have been an exemplar committee often in doing that. As I said earlier, I do not have the magic answer to that, but we will continue to engage positively with committees to try to manage that workload as best we can. Sandra White, followed by Neil Findlay. Sandra White, convener of social security. Thank you very much, convener. First Minister, my committee is at the moment scrutinising the largest piece of legislation to go through the Scottish Parliament, the Social Security Bill and obviously the Child Poverty Bill to very important bills, which I think are foremost in most people's minds. One of the areas that has been raised with us in numerous occasions from witnesses and also from committee members is citizens' income. I know that the Scottish Government is looking at a feasibility study in regards to this and obviously others, I think the press as well, have been looking at this as well, and I'm sure that you can comment on that, First Minister, if you wish. First Minister, can you give us details of the timescale and scope of the feasibility study into that? Where are the evidence that we have already gathered in the social security committee would be not so much welcome but included in the feasibility study? The feasibility work is at a fairly early stage given that we announced it in the programme for government. There are right now four local authorities that have indicated an interest in piloting citizens' basic income and I believe that all four of them have the approval of their councils to develop feasibility plans to do so. The four councils are Fife, North Ayrshire, Edinburgh and Glasgow. The funding that I announced in the programme for government is going to be available for the next two financial years and it will be funding to support those councils to scope out their research design to clarify what particular aspects of citizens' income they want to test and what the costs of doing that would be. At that stage, we will have further discussions and take further decisions about what funding we may make available for the actual pilots themselves. I think that all of the experts looking at this, the pilot authorities themselves, will consider that that sort of two-year period to make sure they get the scoping and the design of the pilots right is appropriate. The other point to make here is that we will not have the collaboration in anything that is taken forward here of the DWP. I said this openly when we published the programme for government. Citizens' basic income would be replacing some of the benefits that people currently get. We would need to make sure that we had that co-operation and, over time, see this Parliament take on more responsibility. It is important and an interesting work to do. I have been quite frank about it. I cannot sit here and tell Parliament right now that, at the end of this process, anybody will decide that a citizen's income is the feasible, practical or desirable thing to do. As Adam Tomkins in your committee said, given the challenges that we face over the next few years, an economy that is changing rapidly, the challenges with digitalisation of the economy, it is right to look, perhaps quite fundamentally, at how a social safety net and basic welfare system works in a way that empowers people. I am absolutely of the view that this is good and right to do. It will be interesting to see where this work leads us over the next few years. You asked me about the social security evidence. That evidence has been helpful and will no doubt help to inform the work that is done. Thank you. It is just a small supplementary. It is two years in and then it could be another three to four years, depending on what is happening. You mentioned the fact about Mr Tomkins, who is obviously a member of the committee, who has changed his mind, similar to a number of so-called experts. Do you have any comment on that? I know that you have said yourself that it is a feasibility study to open-minded what happens, but Mr Tomkins was forward and he is now against and so has others as well. I think on something like this. Governments, not just in Scotland but worldwide, is a bit like the legislation point. You get criticised for not being prepared to do this bold, original thinking about things that are long-term and may or may not ever come to fruition. When you do, I saw a headline—I cannot remember what paper it was in the other day— like Sturgeon's Citizens' Income to Costs or whatever. This is something that we have committed to look at, because there is a lot of legitimate interest in that. Governments should be prepared to look at things in an open-minded way. Lots of people, including myself, will come at those discussions with preconceived ideas about whether something is workable or desirable, but sometimes the biggest challenge in politics, but the biggest imperative, particularly given the times that we live in just now, is to open your mind to new thinking and new ideas. That is one example of that. I would encourage everybody, no matter whether they are preconceived ideas on whatever side of this debate, to keep an open mind and let's see the work that those local authorities are going to take forward, supported by the Scottish Government, might throw up some interesting findings for us that we might, who knows, perish the thought and manage to build a consensus round in the years to come. Thank you. Neil Findlay, followed by Bob Doris, Neil Findlay, convener of health and sport, Neil, please. According to the Scottish Government website, the review of NHS targets by Sir Harry Burns was due to be published in 2016-17, then spring 2017, and we are now rapidly approaching Christmas and will be into 2018. Where is the report? If memory serves me correctly, the health secretary has recently written to your committee regarding timescales indicating that it will be published shortly. As I think anybody would accept and work like this, Sir Harry, and I can't think having worked with Sir Harry very closely on his health secretary, I can't think of anybody better to take forward this work. It's important work. It will be sensitive work because we all know the importance of targets in the health service, but we also know the challenges that the health service faces in future. That works looking at key principles and questions about how we use targets and indicators and wider analysis to drive improvement in the health service. We haven't set a date yet for the publication of it, but it will be published soon, and the health secretary will keep your committee fully advised. Is it the light of day this year? I would hope so. I'm not going to sit here and give you an absolute guarantee on that, because we don't have a date for publication yet, so I'll be frank with you. I would certainly hope so. This is work that is important to the Government. Again, I'm probably being a bit optimistic here in what I'm about to say, but notwithstanding the political differences that exist, I hope that this is the kind of work. Given the author of this report, we can try and build a bit of consensus around the way forward, because it will be really important to the development of the reform work that we are taking forward in the NHS. I know that tomorrow we will see the publication of Audit Scotland's annual report on the NHS, and I'm sure that, as there always is, there will be challenging messages in that for all of us about the need to reform how we deliver healthcare in future. That is an important contribution to that. I think that it's right to allow Sir Harry to publish that report to your committee and Parliament as a whole will want to scrutinise it, but it is the kind of area where we should be striving to see if we can find some agreement about the best way forward. I understand that it will be important to the Government, but it will be more important to the patients and staff in the NHS, but we look forward to that coming forward very soon, indeed, given the amount of time it has taken. Mental health is an area of big concern for the Health and Sport Committee. Last year, 7,000 young people failed to get the mental health support that they needed. We find that 1 in 5, 16 to 24-year-olds are reporting self-harm and suicide is the second most common cause of death for 16 to 19-year-olds. Why are we failing so many young people who desperately need help for mental health support? Of many really important issues that are involved in the whole health area, this is probably the most important one. I may quibble with some of your characterisations here, but I do not quibble with the fundamental premise of your question. We are seeing, for a variety of reasons, massively increasing demand for mental health services, and that is not unique to Scotland. That is a phenomenon across the western world. Some of that is down to pressures that exist in the lives of young people that perhaps did not when we were growing up, but some of it is down to the reducing stigma around mental health, which is a positive thing. People feel more able to come forward for help. That puts a massive responsibility on the shoulders of Governments and health services to meet that demand. We are in the process of a reform of mental health services, increasing investment in mental health services significantly, reforming how those services are delivered, and taking forward proposals, some of which have come from your own party, about how we get support for mental health and to schools and other settings to try to have more of a focus on prevention. That is work that is on-going across a whole range of different areas. We are seeing progress in waiting times, for example. It is not as fast as we would want it to be, but we are seeing increased investment, increased numbers of people working. We have seen some health boards in particular have great success in transforming the performance of their services. You mentioned suicide. The trend for suicides, thankfully, is downward, but as long as there is one young person taking their own life, then we have much more work to do. As I am here as First Minister, there is probably no more important area of health policy over the next few years than mental health generally and, in particular, mental health for younger people. It is Bob Doris. We are followed by Graham Day. Bob Doris is convener of local government and community. First Minister, a housing first approach for rough sleepers offers a permanent tendency along with significant additional support. Our committee witnessed the success of using housing first-hand in Finland recently. Otherwise, vulnerable individuals navigate a journey for rough sleeping to emergency accommodation, to hostels, and on to temporary furnishing accommodation. Finally, they might secure a permanent tendency. It is a journey that many never complete. Does the First Minister agree with the underpinning principles behind housing first? How actively is the Scottish Government considering upscaling housing first here in Scotland? I agree with the underpinning principles of housing first, because it is about responding very quickly to initial need, but it is also about looking at how a package of support is put around somebody who is homeless and needing accommodation. We all recognise that tackling homelessness and rough sleeping is first and foremost about providing accommodation for people, but just providing accommodation is often not sufficient. It is the mental health support, the addiction support, the wider social support that you put around people that is fundamental to whether or not somebody can sustain a tendency. Housing first is already being used in certain parts of Scotland with quite significant success, so it is one area that I am very interested to see us and local authorities extend their use of. As you know, we announced the establishment of the homelessness and rough sleeping task force in the programme for government. It is already up and running. John Sparks, the chair of crisis, is chairing that for us, and it has already met. We are looking at a range of ways in which we tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. It has got immediate focus on this winter and how we reduce the risk that people are facing this winter. We will be driven largely by the recommendations that come from the task force. We have also set up the new fund to back it, but I have significant expectation that housing first and innovative models like that will be quite central to the recommendations that are made. Our committee is currently conducting an inquiry into homelessness and turning point one of the organisations conducting a housing first model at the moment, gave witnesses evidence this morning to our committee, but it is still relatively small scale. Any significant upscaling of housing first would need significant additional support, and it would be certainly an increased workforce. The Scottish Government has identified 10 million pounds per annum for an ending homelessness together fund and initiative, and 20 million pounds per annum for supporting those with drug and alcohol addictions, most key groups at risk of homelessness. I am just wondering whether housing first might be a good use of some of those funds and whether we have to look a bit more at integrated budgets. We have got health and social care integration, but housing is not quite there. We have to look a bit more innovatively about using different pots of cash but a coordinated approach to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping. Firstly, the two additional sources of revenue that you have mentioned that I announced in the programme for government may well be sources of funding to support housing first approaches, and I certainly would have been very open to seeing that kind of money used there. However, your point about integration is more fundamental. Often, tackling homelessness, it will be interventions of social work more broadly of the health service that will determine whether or not not just that somebody can be removed from homelessness but sustain tenancies in the longer term. So integration of budgets is the direction of travel that we are on. You have mentioned health and social care over time. I am a great enthusiast for seeing us integrate much more of the public funding that is available because, without being glib about it, the end of the day of the quantum of resources is important. However, you tend to get more value out of money the more integrated and joined up the approach to using it is. Certainly, as the work of the homelessness task force continues, we will be looking at what additional resource is required to support its recommendations but where that resource comes from and how we get best use of what we are already investing. Graham Day, followed by Edward Mountain. Graham Day, convener of Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform. Graham, please. Thank you. First Minister, whatever the eventual ambition of the forthcoming climate bill, whether it aims for the 90 per cent reduction or the 100 per cent that some are calling for, it will require some significant changes in policy and behaviour of the targets to be met. Can I ask what you believe is going to be needed and how the Scottish Government will seek to deliver this? Given the cross-portfolio nature of what is going to be entailed, what works going on to ensure that all cabinet secretaries and ministers become and at all times are climate change cabinet secretaries and ministers? You are right about the issue at the heart of one of the key decisions that we have to make in terms of the finalisation of the climate change bill. The proposal for consultation is for a 90 per cent emissions reduction by 2050. There are a number of organisations that want immediately to set a target of net zero. In summary, that comes down to, do we do now what there is an evidence path to and leave flexibility to go further or do we right now commit to something even though we do not have the clear evidence path towards it? That is something that the Government will think very carefully about. Even the 90 per cent is massively ambitious. In terms of the spending that will take to deliver that over that long time period, it is significant. It is definitely an ambitious target, but we will continue to consider that. Your point about how the Government approaches this in a sort of all-government way is important. No, we obviously have a cabinet secretary responsible for climate change, but she cannot deliver this on her own. The efforts of every part of government are essential. The most important forum here is the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change. That is the place within government where we ensure that the action that is needed to tackle climate change is hardwired into every area of government policy. Over the past year, the focus of the sub-committee has been overseeing the development and the production of the climate change plan, which is the plan to deliver our current targets. That has meant very, very tangibly that ministers have had to work together to make sure not only that the activity within their own portfolios contributes to meeting those targets, but that what every individual minister is doing is adding up to more than the sum of its parts. That is an important discipline on government. Discussions around the cabinet table on climate change would reflect the fact that there is a real recognition that it is a cross-government challenge. Following on from that, in terms of really monitoring delivery on climate targets and holding all the relevant areas of government to account, there is a proposal come forward from Friends of the Earth Scotland that instead of having the environment secretary report to Parliament twice a year on climate change, as currently happens, we use the new bill to give the June statement a statutory underpinning and move all the functions covered by the October statement to then. We would then have the existing October ministerial statement replaced by a series of statements and reports that focus on explaining individual sectors' progress and policy implementation. Those would cover the electricity sector, low-carbon buildings, land use and agriculture, and then transport, and they would be delivered by the relevant ministers. I wonder how you, as the First Minister, view that proposal. I am open-minded to proposals of that nature. That is not to say that we will definitely take it forward, but I will give a commitment to look at it and see whether we think that there is merit there. I know that the environment secretary is due to make a statement over the next couple of weeks on our performance. I think that it is important to have a person in Cabinet who is accountable to Parliament and to the country more widely for our performance around climate change, absolutely recognising that, in order for us to perform against our targets, we need everybody across government to be doing and playing their part. There may well be a merit in having individual Cabinet secretaries reporting on the actions within their portfolio. I suppose that, if I were to express any sort of scepticism about that, it counterintuitively may mean that we will lead to more of a silo approach to that, rather than everybody feeding in through the cabinet sub-committee into the report that the relevant cabinet secretary is required to give. That would be my point of scepticism, but I have just been in response to another question making a plea for open-mindedness on those things. I will be open-minded and commit to having a look at the Friends of the Earth proposal. Edward Mountain to be followed by Joanne Lamont. Edward Mountain, convener of Rural Economy and Connectivity. Edward, please. Thank you, convener. First Minister, when taking evidence on the island bill, the committee has been out to Mull, Orkney and the Western Isles and taken various other evidence sessions. It is clear that islands with councils and councils with islands have different views. Can you give both of those groups the reassurance that every island will be treated differently and considered within the plan and that there will be a plan for each island within the overall plan that is proposed in the bill? Firstly, the island's bill has generally been very warmly welcomed. I absolutely take the point that there will be different views from different islands given their different circumstances. The short answer to your question is that we will make sure that we take account of the needs of different islands, because no two islands are the same. I am going to stop myself before I get into a discussion about the definition of an island, but different islands—it stands to reason that it is a statement of the obvious—have different needs and requirements and different priorities. That has to be reflected in the plan and in the bill generally. Obviously, as you say, your committee has taken evidence that the bill is still in process, so we will seek to listen to and incorporate those different views as best we can. Bridging the gap then on to the next question, as you are not prepared to talk about the bridging. If I could say on the island's bill, it is clear that people believe that future island proofing legislation might require to be financed. Is that part of your thought process when drawing up the legislation? In my now fairly extensive period of government, everything that the Government does requires to be financed in some way or other. I think that that is a reasonable statement that, if you are going to island proof every piece of legislation, there will be, at times, financial consequences from doing that. Obviously, when we publish bills, we produce a financial memorandum in terms of the financial impact of the bill itself, but in terms of embedding that, it is a bit similar to the climate change discussion in taking forward an approach that is about island proofing. There will be financial consequences of that occur from time to time, and they will be considered in the normal budgetary processes that the Government takes forward from year to year. The final part is that the bill does not mention in any form and does not deal with uninhabited islands. There is a question of whether that shows a lack of ambition for those islands and whether they should be included in the bill. I wonder what your views on that were. I certainly will take that away and we will consider that. If it has come up in the evidence so far, it would be something that we would consider in the normal course of events when considering amendments at a later stage of the bill process. I absolutely think that a core part of our thinking about support for and development of islands should be about how we re-inhabit or increase the population of islands, not necessarily ones that are currently uninhabited. I recently announced the Government's approval for community buy-out of Alva, for example. It is not an uninhabited island, I hasten to add, but it is an island where I think that they recognise that taking similar to egg, taking it into public ownership would allow them to do things that would encourage more people to come and live there. The re-population of our island communities should be a core part of that. In terms of the position for uninhabited islands, I will certainly take that away and see whether there is more that we need to do on the face of the bill to give greater recognition to that as a policy priority. I am now fretting about the definition of an island. I am going to have to find out how big it has to be. I am not going to be drawing into discussion on what forms an island is, but I can tell you if you want which one is the best of the lot of them. I think that everybody knows that the Public Petitions Committee is kind of difficult to think about what would be an appropriate question given that the committee itself reflects the priorities of people of Scotland to some extent, whether it is trade unions, community groups, national organisations. All those groups will bring petitions to the committee, and the direct experience of individuals can often be the most powerful petitions where people bring consequence of something that has happened to them and want policies to change as a consequence. Reflecting on what we have been doing, one of the things that comes out is the extent to which health issues emerge out of the Public Petitions Committee. 25 per cent of all petitions in this session have been on health and have been lodged in this session. 39 per cent of the petitions that have been carried over from the last session would broadly be round health questions. There are a number of features of those petitions that tell us something about what your views are. They are very often about a lack of awareness of particular conditions. They are about lack of access to treatments that are not seen to be mainstream or a sense that we get access in one place and not in another. Underpinning a lot of it, the most obvious example would be the mesh scandal. Are people feeling that they have not been believed in the system when they present themselves and do not feel that they are listened to? In your programme of government, when you talk about the action to improve health, what are your plans around those very specific general experiences, the truths about the health service, which is that you are not believed and you do not feel as if you are heard when you are raising concerns about the treatment that you have been given? I was smiling when you said that it is difficult, given the range of things that you look at in the petitions committee, to know what to ask. It is equally difficult to know what to prepare for in advance, but that is a really positive reflection of the nature of the work that the public petitions committee does. There is a preponderance of health issues raised. That is not surprising to me, because health is so often impinging on the most personal, sensitive experiences that people will have. When I was health secretary, I found the public petitions process invaluable often in shining a light on some of the issues that, sometimes because they might only affect a very small number of people, that in the routine business of the portfolio you would not necessarily be aware of. I think that there is a duty on government, and it is very important for government to look very closely, not just at the individual petitions that are coming forward, but at the pattern of cases and issues that are coming forward. With health in particular, one of the most difficult things often in health to deal with are very rare conditions. That often surfaces in access to drugs, but it is wider than that, and often it is because they are rare and only a few people suffer from them. The awareness, not even of the general public, but often of the clinical community, is low. Again, the public petitions committee has a really important role in trying to be part of a process of raising awareness. I know that there have been cases of public petitions that have led to a change of policy on the Government's part in terms of leading to renewed guidance or campaigns to raise awareness of conditions that previously we had not done as much as we should have done around. I think that there is a sense in that again it will sometimes be perception rather than reality that people in the bureaucracy of the health service are not heard or listened to or believed as much as they should be. Again, I think that this is an area where the petitions committee, I wish it did not have to be that people brought petitions on these things, but nevertheless that does not mean that it is not an important role. On mesh, which has been for the women concerned an incredibly painful experience that they have gone through, that whole process has led to change. The number of mesh procedures since the suspension of mesh was put forward by the chief medical officer has radically reduced by over 90 per cent. There is a lot now of understanding of that, which will lead to change in terms of the practice and the information and involvement of patients. That has been a very painful experience for the women concerned that the pain that they have gone through is compounded by having to do what they have done to draw attention to that. I wish that we never had a situation where people felt that they have to do that, but I think that the public petitions process is an invaluable part of making sure that we learn those lessons, particularly in the areas that do not get as much attention as they should, and make sure that those lessons are applied. I would say on the mesh question very gently. I think that anybody who sits through the sessions, the power and the anger and distress that comes from the gallery, from the women who have suffered, has just, I mean, the impact on the committee members has been immense. I hear what you say, I am not sure that people feel there has been that kind of change and who wants to bring your authority to look further at that. That would be absolutely wonderful. I think that there is an issue about agreeing with you about the question of prevalence. People have said that people do not pay attention to me because there are only very few of us, but you will know that chief medical officer has talked about realistic medicine and that there should be a partnership. You, as a patient, have the right to be heard and your treatment to be delivered together, and yet what comes out of the Public Petitions Committee is not just about training or awareness of conditions, it is a presumption still that, actually, if you are bringing something to the table, you are not in equal relationship. I am sure that there is very good practice, but I wonder what you think you, as a Government, can do to move that, or not just to give GPs and doctors better knowledge and awareness, but to shift that relationship when people come and say, I have a grave concern about that. I do not think that you are aware of the way in which that is playing out for me and others like me. There is a whole range of things that the Government needs to do from awareness campaigns and guidance around specific conditions through to the changes that we have made over the years to the complaints process and the advocacy that is available for patients who want to take a complainant or an issue through the health service. I know from my constituency caseload that that is still not perfect and we need to continue to improve that as much as we can, learning where we need to from real patient experience. The whole area of realistic medicine is one of the most important things that we are doing right now in terms of reforming the whole way that the health service works, in my opinion, but it is challenging for all of us. I would put back to you again gently, it is not just Government. Government has a prime responsibility here, but for all of us as politicians. I am not talking about any particular condition here, but there will be times when a particular drug or a particular treatment that a patient absolutely, understandably, thinks that they should get for a particular condition is perhaps not the best thing in terms of the overall treatment of the condition or the overall approach to medicine. Those are difficult debates, rather because decisions should always be clinical ones, but they are difficult debates for all of us. Given the trends in health that we know are under way, not just in Scotland but globally right now, I think that those are debates that are increasingly important for all of us to have in a very constructive way. Going back to the petitions committee, often where that will be helpful is in allowing those individual experiences to be aired, but also taking the individual experience and applying that to change in policy. I do not want to go into the mesh issue in detail unless you want me to, unless we have got time to, but I would say and say this absolutely and say that I have paid very close attention to the sessions that your committee has had and the wider issue around this. I am in no doubt about the very legitimate and justifiable anger that women feel here. The review that was undertaken has led to changes in a sheer numbers basis in terms of the reduction in the number of mesh procedures taking place. It demonstrates that there is that change, but it is an example, an unfortunate example of some of the wider issues that you are talking about here, about the need for patient experience to be listened to and heard and believed in a way that, unfortunately, does not always happen in the health service. I have let that run a bit longer. It is a very important exchange. I am not saying that it is all important, but I think that it is in particular. Gordon Lindhurst is convener of economy jobs and fair work. Gordon, please. Thank you, convener. First Minister, you will be aware that the economy jobs and fair work committee has been carrying out an inquiry into economic data available to us here in Scotland. The Scottish Government statisticians produce a wide range of useful statistics used by your Government to inform policy. One of the questions that has been raised or a number of questions have been raised about this by witnesses and evidence sessions. My question first of all, do you consider that the combined role of the Government as a producer and user of economic data is effective? Secondly, would it be better to have an economic statistic producer who is independent of Government? The way in which we produce statistics, if you had statisticians sitting here, they would tell you that they were independent in terms of how they produced statistics. There has been a lot of improvement made over the years to the quality of the data that the Scottish Government produces. It is more comprehensive than for other parts of the UK and for other devolved administrations. Statisticians use quite a varied array of sources for the data. Some of the data is collected from businesses directly. Some are derived from UK-wide surveys. Sometimes we fund top up samples of UK surveys. There are some areas in which it is acknowledged that there are deficiencies in the data that is produced in Scotland and capital investment. For example, it is quite difficult to disaggregate data for different parts of the UK imports of goods and services between the rest of the UK and the rest of the world. Again, there are issues there. I am very open and we will certainly be very open to working with your committee as the inquiry takes its course as to how we can further improve and listen to any suggestions that come forward. The rules and regulations that go around the production of statistics and the handling of statistics by Governments are very rigorously adhered to. Pre-release access to statistics recently rules have been quite significantly tightened. If you take the unemployment data, it used to be that Governments had some access to those statistics before its release, but that does not happen at all anymore. We see those statistics at the same time as everybody else does. I would say that the system that we have is pretty robust, but of course if there are ways that we can improve it, I then tend to the quality of the data or the confidence around how that data is produced. I am certainly open to listening to it. I take it that you agree that for the public to have confidence not just in the Scottish Government but also in this Parliament, they have to have confidence that statistics or data available is objective. On the pre-release point, you agree that Government ministers should not see data before it is made public? We do not make those decisions ourselves, so that is governed by the rules around use of statistics. It was not the Scottish Government's decision to not have pre-release access to the employment stats. Sometimes there are good reasons for some pre-release access to prepare for wider debate, but those are decisions that we do not take ourselves. I absolutely agree with the first point of your question. Of course, the confidence in statistics is a vital part of the confidence in overall Government and the debates around the various issues that statistics inform us about. What sort of statistics should Government ministers have set up before they are publicly made available? There are different rules applied to different statistics right now, so it used to be that somebody will correct this if I am getting this wrong, but for employment stats and GDP, there is still some pre-release access for GDP stats, which I think is probably about 24 hours. It used to be the same for employment, which is now not the case, but we do not decide that. That is decided by the rules that I think the statistics authority or the ONS decides what those rules are. I have mentioned this as a kind of illustrative example. I feel particularly strongly about it. If you are asking any minister or any politician, you want as much ability to be prepared for debates as possible, but at the end of the day, we live with whatever the rules are. At the moment, we do not have pre-release access to employment stats, and that is how it is. Christina McKelvie, to follow by Clare Adamson. Christina McKelvie, convener of equalities and human rights. Christina, please. Thank you very much, convener. First Minister, you will know that I inquired by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into the progress of implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities found the UK guilty of grave and systematic violation of rights in creating a human catastrophe. In that report, the Scottish Government were rightly praised for its actions to mitigate the effects of welfare reform and other social change. Can you tell us, First Minister, what your programme for government plans to do to ensure that people with disabilities in Scotland are treated with firstly care and dignity and respect? Obviously, the UN report is a source of deep embarrassment and shame to the UK Government. To have the United Nations describe policies for disabled people as leading to a human catastrophe is something that you would never want to hear in a country like the UK. I hope that that is making a lot of people sit up and take notice in the UK Government. You are right that we were commended positively in that report for certain things—our disability action plan, the involvement of people with disabilities in the development of our social security system. Our responsibility is on a number of levels to make sure that, as we develop policy, we are taking account of the views of people with disabilities, and that will be across a whole range of policy areas. I am not sitting here saying that we will always get that absolutely right, but we will always seek to make sure that those voices are heard very loudly. At a much more tangible level, we need to make sure that social security is the prime example at the moment that, as we are designing policies and how people access benefits and what the benefits are, that they have dignity, respect, care and compassion absolutely at their heart. There will be different practical illustrations of that across the UK welfare system just now, but if you are looking to characterise what has gone wrong with the UK welfare system, it is that it seems to have lost any sense of care, compassion and dignity. That is in terms of the devolution of powers. That is what we are determined that we will put back into that system. Some of what you are asking me will go back to Johann Lamont's questions about particular experiences of people with disabilities in the health service or in other parts of the public sector. We need to make sure that we are very alive to that and that we are trying to learn from those experiences in whatever area of public policy is being looked at. Thanks very much, First Minister. In your recent programme for government, you have expressed—and you have done this over a number of years now—the development of a rights-based society and how that will work. That is obviously of very pertinent interest to my committee, given that we are doing a piece of work on this Parliament being a guarantor of human rights. One of the other issues that we have dealt with over the past year and look forward to dealing with in the years coming is around about children. That rights-based society, that voice in society from the most vulnerable in some cases are our kids. Can you tell me a wee bit more about the proposal to further incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Where do you think that that will address some of the concluding observations from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child? Obviously, when we make policy just now, and members will have experienced that in different areas of policy, we try to incorporate the principles of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child or any relevant UN convention. To that extent, we already try to embed it across all areas of policy. However, as we indicated in the programme for government, I think that the time is right to look at whether we—which has been called for by many—would be appropriate to more formally incorporate the UN Convention into domestic law. As people know, that would mean that the rights in the convention were justiciable before our own courts. What we need to do before making that decision is to do a complete audit of what the implications of that would be where in Scottish Government policy it might require changes in order to make that feasible. That piece of work is going to be taken forward over the next period. Then we will come to a view about how we further embed the convention, whether that is through particular action in particular policy areas or in this wholesale incorporation. You can probably tell from what I said in the programme for government, and what I am saying just now is that I am pretty sympathetic to the notion of incorporation. Often, things like incorporating conventions are talked about as if they are symbolic things to show that you are serious about something that actually has really practical implications. If we were going to take that step, we would have to make sure that the Government was doing everything necessary to live up to that and be confident that all of our policies across all of government could withstand those challenges that would inevitably come. We will keep your committee up-to-date with that work as it develops. Finally, Clare Adamson, convener of standards, procedures and public appointments. Thank you, convener. First Minister, in your own words, it is an ambitious legislative programme that we have in front of us. I have heard from many of the conveners today about concerns about capacity, the opportunities for post-legislative scrutiny. Just in general terms, I wondered if you had any response to the report from the commissioner on parliamentary reform, as to how that might impact going forward? In very general terms, it is a good piece of work. There will be aspects of it that I am more supportive of than others. I will not get into the specifics of it, mainly because this is a fundamental view. I do not think that it is for Government to decide how Parliament, if Parliament reforms itself and in what ways Parliament reforms itself, is a matter for Parliament, for all of us as parliamentarians. The Government has been open to some of the changes that have been made already. The lengthening of First Minister's questions, for example, was my suggestion after the election last year. I am not saying that I have always enjoyed the practical experience of it. We have been keen and happy to go along with the other changes to First Minister's questions, the drop-in of the leader's standard questions and the urgent questions that have been taken this afternoon. I think that these are all sensible steps to make this Parliament relevant and a bit more flexible in how it deals with issues than perhaps has been in the past. I am open, as is the Government, to the reform agenda, and we will contribute to the process, both in offering our views as Government, offering evidence of how certain changes would impact positively, negatively or indifferently, on the work of Government. Ultimately, decisions on the reform of Parliament have to be for Parliament to decide, not for Government. As Government, we have to operate within the rules of the Parliament, whatever they are. Thank you for that First Minister. I think that one of the most significant changes would be in the area of legislative scrutiny, as recommended, by the report, including the establishment of a legislative standards body. However, for my own reading of it, it expands what the committees would do at the moment, so it is looking at pre-legislative scrutiny, which we are hearing from the education committees happening already, but also the possibility of a pause and a reversal back to stage 2 of the committee process, all of which would give you much more challenges in terms of the timescales for ambitious programmes. In terms of getting the balance right, how do you think that we can work going forward to ensure that the balance and the confidence of the committee conveners at legislative scrutiny is happening meets the requirements of the Government? I am not sure that it is possible in those things to get the balance perfect. I think that, as Matt Stange and Margaret would indicate earlier on, you are always going to have tensions between a Government wanting to get lots of legislation through as quickly as possible in a Parliament and a committee system that rightly wants to do detailed substantive scrutiny on legislation as well as do other things. I think that we just have to work at getting that balance as right as we can. One of the things, and obviously it is one of the areas that the commission was mindful of, is that we are a Parliament in the process of taking on additional responsibility. I hope that in the years to come we will take on even more responsibility that, with no other reforms, has implications for the workload of committees and MSPs. There are already some big questions in there for how Parliament conducts its business. That is before you talk about some of the frustrations that I think people have about the depth of scrutiny and at what stage that scrutiny has happened and over legislation. I think that we just need to continue Government and Parliament to work to get that balance as right as possible, but I do not think—because I think that we would be setting ourselves up to fail here if we come at this from the idea that there is some perfect formula here that will take away the tension that always exists between a Government and a Parliament as a programme goes through. We just need to get that as right as possible. Remember that, at the end of the day, this is not about serving the needs of Government or indeed serving the needs of Parliament. It is about serving the needs of better policymaking and better legislation for the country as a whole. Thank you, First Minister. I cannot believe that we have finished exactly on 1350. It is the expert sharing. I do not think so. I think that the conveners have been really good. Can I ask if you have any concluding remarks that you wish to make, First Minister? No, I think that you said—you would not see if I still said thank you at the end, so I am still saying thank you at the end. That was a useful session. Well, we obviously have not done our job then. Can I thank the conveners? Thank you, First Minister, and I close this meeting. Thank you.