 We turn to First Minister Questions, question number one, Jackson Carlaw. Those calling for the Prime Minister's deal to be supported included the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scottish Whiskey Association, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the CBI. First Minister, are they traitors too? The Prime Minister's deal is a bad deal, a bad deal for the UK and certainly a bad deal for Scotland. We can just recap it. We take Scotland out of the EU against our will, out of the single market, out of the customs union with no clarity about the future relationship with the EU. I do not think that any MP with the best interests of Scotland at heart should vote for that proposition. I would say gently to Jackson Carlaw that even if every single SNP MP had voted for the deal early on the week, it would still have been heavily defeated, because the Prime Minister failed to persuade so many in her own side—indeed, she is failing to persuade those in her own Cabinet. Jackson Carlaw mentioned the National Farmers Union. Here is what he said yesterday about the tariff schedule that was published by the UK Government. It said that it undermines the food security of the UK. What an appalling set of circumstances. Of course, it also wrote to every Scottish MP urging them to take no deal off the table. Perhaps Jackson Carlaw would like to explain to the chamber and to the public today why, with just one exception—and I am not talking about David Mundell—none of the Scottish Tory MPs voted last night in the House of Commons to take no deal off the table. That is what was utterly shameful and perhaps Jackson Carlaw would care to explain it. On Tuesday of this week, the SNP cabinet secretary, Michael Russell, sitting just next to her, accused those who backed the Prime Minister's deal as being traitors to Scotland. As ever, he thought that he was being clever. He hid the accusation behind a hashtag, but that is the charge that he made. Surely the First Minister will disassociate herself from this inflammatory smear, and it is telling that she is not. However, there is an important point here. There are many of us in Scotland in politics and outside who do back the Prime Minister's deal. Will the First Minister at least accept that we think that it is what is best for our country and that we do so in all good faith? I genuinely am struggling to believe that Jackson Carlaw is coming here to talk about a Twitter hashtag when the Government led by his party is in meltdown, is shambles and is taking this country ever closer to the cliff edge. On the historical ragman's roll, however, he might be interested to know that Robert The Bruce signed it. If David Mundell ever wants to get any of the spirit of Robert The Bruce, then I am sure that all of us would warmly welcome that. However, the fact of the matter is that, with the honourable exception of Paul Masterton, every single Scottish Conservative MP has chosen to put loyalty to the Prime Minister ahead of the interests of the Scottish people. I am afraid that that is a fact. I will give Jackson Carlaw another opportunity to explain why all of them refuse, with one exception last night, to vote to take no deal off the table. Businesses such as the one that I was visiting in Glasgow yesterday, the Farmers Union, were interested in the length and breadth of the country. It wanted all Scotland's MPs to take no deal off the table. Why did Scottish Tories refuse to do that? Jackson Carlaw, I am asking her to enhance the dignity of her office. She has chosen not to do so. Many joined the business organisations that I mentioned in backing the deal earlier this week because we believe that it is a good deal that offers certainty for business in the country. I respect the views of those who disagree, but they now have a duty to spell out their alternative way forward. The First Minister's preference is to support a second UK Brexit referendum, but it begs so many more questions. What would be the options? When leave or remain wins this time, shall we make it best of three? How would this delay guarantee people and businesses the certainty that they need and which the First Minister talked about last night? Would she accept the result? Or is all of this, as many of us suspect, just a prelude to yet another referendum, the one that she really wants? The First Minister's preference is to support a second UK Brexit referendum in Scotland should have been accepted because Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. I remind him again that this is one of the many areas where Jackson Carlaw is really struggling here, not surprisingly, given the mess that the Tories are making, not just a Brexit but of the entire UK right now. If every single SNP MP had voted for the Prime Minister's deal on Tuesday night, it would still have gone down to a heavy defeat because she has not managed to persuade those in her own party, let alone anyone else. In terms of spelling out a way forward, I spent more than two years suggesting compromise to the Prime Minister's single market customs union compromise. That was cast aside, ignored and dismissed as every vote in this Parliament on the issue has been cast aside, ignored and dismissed by the Tory Government. The way forward now, yes, is to put this issue back to the people. Parliament has failed to resolve this issue. If Parliament cannot decide, the people should. That is what I think is the way forward. It is a better way forward than the Prime Minister trying to bully the House of Commons into accepting a bad deal. She should accept defeat, change course and open her mind now to the right way forward. Jackson Carlaw. No, this First Minister has ever sought to bully this Parliament when they have been defeated on issues. We have accepted the result of all referendums. The First Minister has accepted the result of none. The blunt truth is that the First Minister will only accept the result of a referendum anyone if it goes her way. I back a deal that gives our fishing communities the sea of opportunity that they want, a deal supported by our whisky industry, giving them frictionous trade across the continent, a deal that our farmers say will ensure there are no hard barriers to our biggest market. All those Scottish organisations and many all across Scotland are telling us to back the deal and get this done. Isn't it time to respect the result back in orderly Brexit? The whole country gets a chance then to move on. I respect the outcome of the 2016 referendum. Scotland voted to remain in the EU. That is the best outcome for Scotland. If the Tories, for once in their life, could ever find it within themselves to stand up for Scotland, rather than standing up for our beleaguered Prime Minister, they would also recognise that it is the best future for Scotland. Frankly, it is deluded for anyone to suggest that there is majority support across Scotland for the Prime Minister's deal. There is not support for leaving the EU. There is certainly not support for leaving on the basis of such a profoundly bad deal. The Prime Minister's deal has been defeated overwhelmingly in the House of Commons, not just once but twice. It is time for her to accept that defeat and open her mind now to an alternative way forward. Let's get no deal properly off the table. Let's seek a lengthy extension to allow this issue to go back to the people. If the Conservatives were listening not to their bosses in Westminster, but if they were listening to majority opinion across Scotland, that is exactly what the Conservatives would be arguing for. I think that it is to their great discredit that they are failing to do that, that they are indeed failing Scotland. Last night, the House of Commons voted to oppose a no-deal Brexit, but, as the law stands, we will still be leaving the European Union on 29 March with no deal. The First Minister and I agree that no deal would be a disaster. Two years of Theresa May claiming that no deal is better than a bad deal is nothing less than a lie. Does the First Minister agree with me that, despite last night's vote, no deal remains an immediate and a very real danger? Yes, I do. Richard Leonard is right to point out that notwithstanding the vote in the House of Commons last night, the legal default is no deal on 29 March, which is why I think that the Government should be coming forward now with a proposition to change the law so that the UK does not crash out of the EU on 29 March with no deal. I hope that he would support that proposition. I also think that it is important for those who oppose the Prime Minister's deal, including Richard Leonard, to oppose Brexit, to come together to find a better way forward. I hope that, in a constructive spirit, I ask him if he can use his influence with Jeremy Corbyn to get Jeremy Corbyn firmly behind the option of a second EU referendum. If he would come off the fence, I think that that option would become not just the best one but the most likely next step. Will he, perhaps this afternoon, get on the phone to Jeremy Corbyn and ask him to, at long last, on the issue of Brexit, start showing some leadership? Mr Leonard, can I just ask you not to use the term lie, even particularly about people outside the chamber? Mr Leonard. Can I just remind the chamber that, last week in this Parliament, all parties voted to reject no deal in all circumstances with the sole exception of the Tories? What does it say about the Tories in here that every single one of them, without exception, voted for something that neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor Jackson Carlaw's own MP could support last night? The reality is that, without a majority in the Commons for an alternative, no deal remains a threat. Does the First Minister agree with me that, tonight, members of Parliament must vote for article 50 to be extended long enough to allow for a majority in Parliament to be formed in favour of a different approach? First Minister. Yes, and SNP MPs have been laying amendments to that effect and will vote for exactly that. In fact, it is time for the House of Commons to take control of this out of the hands of the Prime Minister and the Government and to make sure that a sensible way forward is found. I agree wholeheartedly with Richard Leonard about the Scottish Conservatives. He is right to say that this Parliament voted overwhelmingly to reject no deal last week, and this Parliament again is being ignored, not just by the Government but by Scottish Tory MPs. I think that it is to his credit that Paul Masterton did the right thing last night. The Secretary of State for Scotland though can't even manage to rebel properly. He pathetically opted for an abstention to save his own job rather than properly standing up for this country, and that I think is a disgrace. On the issue of the way forward, I say again to Richard Leonard, because I think that we probably agree more than we disagree on this issue. Jeremy Corbyn surely has to start showing real leadership here. Even at this stage, it is not entirely clear to me what would be different about the situation that the UK is in just now if Jeremy Corbyn was leading the Brexit negotiations rather than Theresa May. The way to break the parliamentary deadlock is to put the issue back to the people. I hope that Richard Leonard will seek to persuade his leader that that is the option that should be backed. We can build a majority around that and find a better the right way forward, not just for Scotland but for the whole of the UK. Jeremy Corbyn has made it clear that the House of Commons has two options. It has the option of securing a better deal or taking it back to the people. That is the Labour Party position. We know that the House of Commons does not want two things. It does not want no deal and it does not want Theresa May's deal, but the Prime Minister still is not listening and she says that she wants to bring back her deal back for a third time, even though the deal is dead. Does the First Minister agree with me that the Prime Minister cannot keep asking the same question until she gets the answer that she wants? I agree with that. One of the favourite catch phrases of the Tories is that we said no and we mean it, perhaps they should start applying it to the Prime Minister and the Government in London. I said to Richard Leonard about the two options that he says the House of Commons has, one of which, according to him, is a better deal. There is no good Brexit deal. A Labour Brexit will not be better or less damaging to Scotland than a Tory Brexit. It is Brexit that will do the damage to Scotland and that is why we should be seeking to honour the vote of the Scottish people and reverse Brexit if we possibly can. I hope that we will be able to put a majority behind a second EU referendum so that people not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom, knowing everything that is now known about Brexit, can take that opportunity to keep the UK and to keep Scotland where it belongs, which is within the European Union. We have some constituency supplementary. Is the first from Tavish Scott to be followed by Bob Doris? The internationally recognised Feral bird observatory was destroyed by fire last weekend. Thankfully, no one was injured. Despite the valiant efforts of firefighters from across Shetland and the Feral team led by Fiona Mitchell, the home that is David and Susanna Barnaby's was completely destroyed. Will the First Minister accept that Feral is the kind of island that gets on and wants to move forward and their intention is to rebuild the observatory? Will her Government please provide every assistance towards that? Will she also ensure that lessons are learned from the Feral fire for the emergency services in supporting fires in islands where there is no full-time fire cover? Finally, will she recognise that three out of the nine local firefighting teams are French? Those brave women are having to apply to stay in Feral because of the omnisharmils that is Brexit. On that last point before I come on to the substantive issue, I agree wholeheartedly with Tavish Scott. It is outrageous in my view that any EU national who has made Scotland any part of Scotland their home is having to apply for the right to stay here, but the circumstances that he has outlined underlines just how shameful that situation is. I thank Tavish Scott for raising the issue and saying that my thoughts are very much with all those who are connected with the Feral bird observatory trust at this very sad time, particularly the Wardens family, who sadly lost their home in the fire. As Tavish Scott said, we must be thankful that there were no casualties. Incidents like that remind us of the bravery and professionalism of our firefighters. I note Tavish Scott's point and we will reflect on the point about the island with no full-time fire cover, but that was a good example of an effective multi-agency response. The Coast Guard Chetland Isles Council were both assisting firefighters in reaching the scene. Obviously investigations into the cause of the fire are under way and we must await the outcome of those inquiries and, thankfully, the wealth of bird census data collected since 1948 are digitised and backed up safely. Lastly, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Fair Isle community, which I understand has raised almost £20,000 in crowdfunding support for the Wardens family to help them to get back on their feet. However, let me give an assurance to Tavish Scott and his constituents today that the Scottish Government stands ready to do anything that we reasonably can to help in this very tragic situation. Bob Doris, we follow by Mark Ruskell. My constituents, the Dallas family, have had their appeal for asylum refused. I understand that they fled to the UK in December 2017, after Mrs Dallas escaped a gun attack in Karachi, fuelled by a fatwa against her because she simply could not agree to convert from Christianity to Islam. It would appear that the Home Office may place an undue weight on local police reports in making such determinations. Does the First Minister share the concern of the European Centre for Law and Justice over police torture in Pakistan of Christians? Something that makes victims nervous for reporting incidents such as this case, and would the Scottish Government make representations to the UK Home Office asking for them to take into account such concerns when cases such as the Dallas family are being considered? I thank Bob Doris for raising the issue. First, I share the concern of the European Centre for Law and Justice. I strongly condemn, as I am sure everybody in the chamber does, any persecution of people from minority communities nobody should ever feel at risk because of their faith or beliefs. The Scottish Government will always seek to champion human rights, and we strongly support international processes such as UN scrutiny of individual member states. Sadly, asylum is a matter reserved to the UK Government and handled by the Home Office, but the Scottish Government has consistently urged the Home Office to adopt fair and humane asylum policies and to ensure that full account is taken of all the individual circumstances in every case. We will continue to do that, and if there is any assistance that we can offer to the Dallas family, we would be happy to discuss that with Bob Doris. I have been inundated this week with messages from constituents who are quite frankly disgusted, absolutely disgusted that the images appearing on social media of a fox being ripped apart by the dogs of the Fife fox hunt last weekend. Can I ask the First Minister a very simple question? Should dogs ever be used to hunt a fox? I can absolutely understand the distress that people feel at the images that Mark Ruskell has referred to. I share that feeling. As Mark Ruskell knows, the Government has announced proposals and has brought forward proposals following Lord Bonomy's review for further restrictions around fox hunting. Those proposals now will rightly be debated by Parliament, and I know that Mark Ruskell and others, including many on my own benches, who feel very strongly about the issue, will make sure that they make their views known as those proposals go through Parliament. I think that that is now the right way for Parliament to proceed, and I look forward to the debates that will follow. The First Minister will be aware of the tragic loss of life on Bennevis earlier this week in one of the worst climbing accidents in recent history. Will the First Minister join me in expressing condolences to the family of those who died, and also in paying tribute to the volunteers of Lochaber and Glencoe mountain rescue teams and the Coast Guard, who work so courageously in atrocious conditions to rescue the casualties? Donald Cameron for raising the issue. I join with him in conveying my deepest condolences to the bereaved, to those injured and, of course, to express my deep gratitude echoed, I am sure, across the whole chamber to our emergency services, to those in our mountain rescue teams, to the Coast Guard, to all of those people who put their own lives on the line trying to rescue people who get into trouble on our mountains. It is hard to adequately express the depths of gratitude that I think all of us owe to those people. This tragic event, and it is a deeply tragic event, is a reminder of, no matter the joy and the beauty of our mountains and our landscape, they can also be dangerous places and that has to be taken into account at all times. But for now, my condolences go particularly to the bereaved and, yes, my grateful thanks go to all those who took part in the rescue. The SNP Government passed a law that bans sending biodegradable waste to landfill by 2021. But according to an astonishing report by the Office of Budget Responsibility published yesterday, the Scottish Government has admitted that it can only meet this legal deadline by dumping the waste in England. Is this environmentally responsible? I am not sure. I agree with Willie Rennie's characterisation of this. We had an exchange, not him and me and someone else had an exchange on this last week or the week before. We are committed to the 2021 target. Some councils already have plans in place to meet that. Other councils require greater work, and we are working with councils to responsibly and appropriately deal with waste, which is what everybody would expect us to do. I would be very happy to ask the Environment Secretary to discuss further with Willie Rennie the precise plans that are required to be in place so that all of us can get behind and see this target met. I think that she should check out the OBR report, because it is all very clear within there. This Government is making a bit of a habit of breaking its own laws. The SNP NHS waiting times law has been broken for 190,000 patients. The SNP class sizes law has been broken for 4,500 children. Now, we find that the SNP Government is about to break its own law on waste. The First Minister is right to be appalled by the chaotic Conservative Government over Brexit, but her smugness about the incompetence of the Conservative Government cannot hide her incompetence in her own backyard. Law after law, broken by this failing Government. What sums up her Government best? Thousands of pupils overcrowded, hundreds of thousands of patients waiting, or a million tonnes of rubbish? I urge all colleagues to try to be more respectful and not personal in their questions. First Minister. I think that that ship has sailed with Willie Rennie, Presiding Officer, but keep trying. On the issue of landfill, I would say to Willie Rennie that it is hard to understand how we could stand here, accused of breaking a law, as he puts it, that it is not due to even being forced until 2021. We are working towards delivery of that with our local authority partners. It is a very important objective, it is an important responsibility, it is difficult and complex, as many things are, but we will continue to work with our local authority partners because it is the right thing to do. On waiting times in the NHS, the health secretary has recently published the waiting times reduction plan. We were investing £850 million to make sure that waiting times are reduced in the areas where there is significant pressure. Pressure, of course, comes from an ageing population and greater demand on our national health service. Of course, in education, which he mentioned, we see more teachers in our schools now. There are more teachers in our primary schools now than at any stage since I was at primary school in 1980. There are, I think, 1200 more teachers in our schools since I became First Minister. We, unlike the UK Government that has completely ceased to govern in any meaningful sense, we are getting on with the important issues in our environment, in our health service, in our education system, and that is exactly what we will continue to do. The First Minister will be aware of the devastating floods that have hit many parts of Malawi in recent days, resulting in 45 deaths, 577 injuries and at least two missing people, 150,000 households have been affected or three quarters of a million of the population. Over 15,000 households have been totally destroyed, resulting in 187 camps being established throughout the country, a horrifying situation, I am sure that you will agree. Given Scotland's, this Parliament and the Government's very close links with Malawi, what can the Scottish Government do to help the people of Malawi at this dreadful time? Maureen Watt, I thank Maureen Watt for raising this issue and my condolences go to all those who have been affected by the disaster in Malawi. Our thoughts are with the people of Malawi at what is an incredibly difficult time for them. I am pleased to tell the chamber today that we have just announced the provision of £175,000 to support efforts to ensure safe water supplies in southern Malawi. Funding will be provided through the Climate Justice Fund and delivered by our hydro-nation partners, who are already working on the ground in southern Malawi to secure water resources affected by the floods. Scottish Government officials will also work closely with partners on the ground to support the relief efforts. Scotland, of course, as Maureen Watt has alluded to, has a historic relationship with Malawi going back 150 years. They are our friends. We do a great deal of work in and for Malawi. We benefit a lot ourselves from that work with Malawi. We stand with them at this difficult time, and we will do everything possible to help them. Graham Simpson Following the pay deal with teachers, I and some other MSPs were contacted by a serving police officer from East Kilbride last week. He wrote that, although I appreciate that teachers have worked hard and deserve a pay rise, why is it that NHS staff were given 9 per cent and police officers only 6.5 per cent? Does the Scottish Government place the value of police officers as only half? Those are the words of a serving police officer. Does the Scottish Government place the value of police officers as only half that of school teachers? Is it that the Government knows that because police officers cannot strike or take any real industrial action that they are an easy target, what would the First Minister say to that police officer and thousands of others? The First Minister Parts of those comments were quite disgraceful. I value all public sector workers, and I thank them for the work that they do. On the police pay award, that is the best award for police officers anywhere in the UK. The Scottish Police Federation described it as the best pay award in 20 years. If the member thinks that 6.5 per cent is not good enough, I would love to pay all of our public sector workers even more than we are, but if he thinks that that is not good enough, I wonder what he makes of the 2 per cent that has been awarded to police officers in England by his Tory colleagues in the Westminster Government. Described by the head of the Met is a punch in the nose for police officers. Many NHS workers get higher pay in Scotland than they do in England because of the value that we attach to the work that they do. Teachers have now been offered—they were previously offered—a very good pay deal. They have now been offered an exceptionally good pay deal. I think that is a recognition of the good work that they do. I hope that that is now accepted, but I value all public sector workers. If you look at any group of public sector workers, you will find that the value that is attached to them by the Scottish Government is much greater than the value that is attached to their counterparts in England by the Tory Government at Westminster. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the spring statement. The spring statement underlines again the chaos at the heart of the UK Government. It showed that the chancellor has billions of pounds available that he could be investing in public services but has instead had to set aside to pay for the self-inflicted mess that is Brexit. The UK Government's chaotic approach to Brexit is already undermining the economy. The OBR forecasts that the UK growth will slow and that, in both 2018 and 2019, business investment will contract. That would represent the weakest period of business investment since the 2008 financial crisis. That, bluntly, is the cost of the UK Government's economic mismanagement. Sadly, there is no sign that they are about to change course or at least no sign that they are voluntarily about to change course. Bruce Crawford Thank you, Presiding Officer. Would the First Minister agree with me, however, that we should welcome the chancellor's recognition of the strategic importance of Adam University and the requirement to invest in the borderlands? However, the First Minister also shared my deep disappointment that the chancellor failed to take the opportunity to guarantee all EU funding to Scotland worth over £5 billion in the current EU budget round, will be replaced in full or, indeed, to announce any amount of funding whatsoever, simply not good enough from this Tory UK chancellor. The First Minister First, I agree with Bruce Crawford's comments about Adam University and the borderlands. The Scottish Government confirmed yesterday that we will invest up to £85 million in the borderlands growth deal over the next 10 years. However, it is deeply disappointing that the UK Government has yet to provide any clarity on future arrangements for EU funding. Proposals in agriculture, fisheries and structural funding are vague and they provide no certainty for the future. The position on the proposed shared prosperity fund is particularly concerning, with no sign of the consultation that was promised in autumn of last year, nor any meaningful engagement with the devolved administrations on this matter. It is crucial that the UK Government urgently commits to replacing all funding streams in full and that we receive our fair share of that to ensure that decisions can be taken in the best interests of Scotland. Funding decisions that are being made by Scottish ministers should continue to be made by Scottish ministers. Rachael Hamilton, to be followed by James Kelly. As the First Minister has just said, yesterday's spring statement set out funding of £260 million from the UK Government and £85 million from the Scottish Government for the borderlands growth deal, delivering a manifesto commitment from the Scottish Conservatives. That deal shows what can be achieved when both of Scotland's Governments work together. First Minister, cross-border links with the south of Scotland and the north of England are integral and must be enhanced to promote inclusive growth. With that in mind, does she agree that an extension of the border's railway from Tweedbank to Carlaw would bring transformational change to that area? First Minister? I want to come on to substantively agree with the sentiments of the question, but I feel obliged to inject a bit of a clarification into the figures that were used at the start of the question. The member said that the UK Government had confirmed that it was investing up to £268 million in the borderlands deal compared to the £85 million from the Scottish Government. That is true, but it is important to point out that of the UK Government's £260 million, only £65 million of that is for the Scottish side and the rest of it is for England. It just puts us slightly. Nevertheless, by the very nature of borderlands, it is important that the investment is on both sides. I am a long-standing supporter of the borderlands work and the borderlands growth deal—what the member says about the border's railway. I also have a lot of sympathy with it, which is why, of course, the Government has been doing feasibility work around that. We will continue to support that initiative, and I am glad to see yesterday that the UK Government is prepared to support it as well. James Kelly The recent SNP Green budget resulted in councils being forced to make cuts and pass them on to local communities. We have job cuts in Dundee, the ending of support to the Citizens Advice Bureau in Clackmannanshire and the action of free school bus travel in Moray. If any Barnett consequentials are available from yesterday's spring statement, will they be allocated to local councils who have had to inflict pain on local communities? First Minister, on the issue of Barnett consequentials, we have no clarity yet on whether any Barnett consequentials or what the amount of any Barnett consequentials would be. When we do know that, of course, we will share that information with Parliament. James Kelly talks about budget decisions. I have to say that I thought that the decision of the Labour group yesterday to vote against an increase in the carers supplement was absolutely and utterly shameful. The only ones, as I understand it, in the Parliament that did that. More broadly, on local government funding, as he well knows, the budget for local government has increased, and that is a positive thing. We do not pretend that life is easy for local councils in the current climate. However, if James Kelly is as concerned as he claims to be about the budgets of local government or any other part of the public sector or about cuts or anything like that, then is it not about time that he started to direct some of that anger at the Tory Government who are the architects of those cuts? Can I remind him that the budget of the Scottish Government between 2010 and the end of this decade will be cut by £1.9 billion in real terms? That is the reality. Frankly, that is the consequence that we are living with as a result of his partnership with the better-together Tory partners in the 2014 referendum. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that people are financially ready for their retirement. Matters relating to pensions, unfortunately, remain reserved to the UK Government. However, we are committed to doing what we can within our current powers to ensure that people are financially ready for retirement. We support the development of a labour market that offers good quality and rewarding jobs for everyone, no matter their age. We are also supporting older people through our financial health check service, which offers free advice to help older people maximise their incomes. We do that in the face of continuing attacks from the Tory Government on people reaching retirement age, such as the scandal that thousands of waspy women are facing with delays in getting their pensions, and the disgraceful cuts to pension credit for mixed-age couples. I do not know what Michelle Ballantyne's follow-up question is going to be, but let me warn her that I will take no lectures from the Tories on pensions. Michelle Ballantyne? Given that I was asking a question and not lecturing, I think that that is quite a sad response. However, I am heartened to hear that you are trying to do things for older people who are nearing retirement, but what I am actually wanting to ask is that I have found in my conversations with younger people that most have only a very basic understanding of how their pension works or how to contribute to it during their lives. Back in 2015, there was some action down south of actually creating teaching materials to explain financial planning to youngsters. Following Minister Steve Webb's research that found that teenagers had an expectation of a state pension that stretched from between £800 per week to £9 per week. Could the First Minister tell me if any other steps are being taken by the Scottish Government to educate school pupils around the importance of their pension and learning within the curriculum? It is a reasonable question to be fair. I covered in some of my original answers at the work that we are doing to make sure that people are financially ready for retirement. It is a reasonable proposition that we should also be looking at how we educate young people. Of course, that is a reserved matter, but we will take our responsibility to ensure that we are contributing to it. I am going to say this seriously to Michelle Ballantyne. I would ask her to reflect on it. If we are going to say that we need to educate young people more to save further retirement, we should wonder what example it sets to young people when over 2 million women paid their national insurance contributions in full, in the expectation that they would receive their state pension at a certain age, only for that pension entitlement to be robbed from them by the UK Government. If we want to encourage young people to save for their retirement and convince them that it is worth doing so, we have to start treating our current pensioners with more dignity and respect than the current Government in charge of pensions is doing. I hope that that is a case that Michelle Ballantyne will make forcibly to her colleagues at Westminster. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government has taken following the recent meeting between the health secretary and mesh survivors. Last week, the health secretary and the chief medical officer met mesh campaigners and Neil Findlay to discuss their concerns over access to specialist services for mesh removal. As the health secretary set out in an answer on Friday, we are listening carefully to those concerns. We have asked a group of senior medical managers to look at a range of options to see how the care and support for these women can be improved drawing on international expertise in transvaginal mesh surgery. The group will draw on academics and other advisers as well as advocates for the women who have been affected. The first meeting of the group will be held as soon as possible and Jane Freeman has committed to writing to the campaigners within one month to set out the probable timescales for this work. At the meeting, the Scottish mesh survivors made a very emotional appeal for the Government to take up the offer to bring a top US surgeon to Scotland to carry out pioneering mesh removal and trained surgeons here. On Friday, the Government issued an ambiguous press release that hinted at progress but lacked any clarity. I seek a clear and straightforward answer on their behalf. When will the Scottish mesh survivors have access to the highest global standard of mesh removal procedures? Will the Scottish Government accept the offer from Dr Veronica to come to Scotland to help mesh injured women here? Neil Findlay raises an important issue. Jane Freeman listened carefully to those that she met on Friday and has done since then everything that she told the campaigners that she would do. As I said in my original answer, she has asked a group of medical directors and senior clinical managers to look at a range of options to improve care and support, and that is the right way forward. In terms of the answer to the question, when will there be more detail? She will write to campaigners within a month, setting out the next steps in this work. That is the proper way to take that forward. In terms of decisions to remove mesh, we would be made by a patient in consultation with a clinical specialist who will share all relevant information and provide support. There is a real commitment to taking forward the proposals that were made on Friday but to doing that in a proper way. I hope that we will have Neil Findlay's support as we do so. Question 7, John Finnie. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to the reported increasing number of drugs deaths. Our national alcohol and drug strategy, which was published last November, set out a range of measures to prevent drug-related harm. The strategy's focus is on improving how we support those who need it and treat the wider issues affecting them. It outlines how we will work with and fund partners to strengthen links between traditional addiction services and initiatives in housing, mental health and the third sector. This is back with an additional £20 million a year for drug and alcohol services. The investment has been allocated to support new approaches that respond to the needs of those who are most at risk in a more joined up and person-centred way. John Finnie. I thank the First Minister for that response. The current approach clearly isn't working, First Minister. There were 934 deaths in 2017 and sadly everything suggests that the figure for 2018 may be significantly higher. First Minister, we are faced with a public health crisis. Scottish ministers have the power to establish a public inquiry into any matter when there is a large loss of life and or serious health and safety issues, and this situation clearly meets both these criteria. Will the First Minister urgently establish a statutory inquiry into Scotland's drug death crisis and commit to acting on its findings in order to end the on-going tragedy? I absolutely agree with the seriousness of the issue. I am not immediately persuaded that that would be the best way forward, but we will consider any proposal that has been made. Any death from drugs is one too many. Many of the people that we sadly see dying from drugs are people who have lived with alcohol and drug use for a long time and become more vulnerable as they grow older. The 2018 drug death report showed fewer deaths in under-25s than in the previous year. Recent reports also highlight falling heroin use, particularly in the under-25 age group. There is absolutely no room for complacency, but it is an important contextual point to make. We want to look at different ways of addressing those issues. That is why, for example, we have supported Glasgow City Council in its request to set up medically-supervised safer drug consumption facilities. We want to treat those issues much more as public health issues, bringing different agencies together. As we do that, we are, of course, prepared to consider any proposal that is made. I will do that with the one that John Finnie has made today. Thank you. That brings us to an end of First Minister's questions. Can you say to colleagues that, despite making good progress in the last couple of weeks, the questions and the answers were too long this afternoon? Can we please revisit them? Otherwise, I will have to cut off members. That concludes First Minister's questions. We are going to move to members' business. In the name of Liam McArthur.