 I will now move on to First Minister's has questions. Question number one, Ruth Davidson. Do you ask the First Minister what engagement she has for the rest of the day? First Minister. Engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. First Minister. We are once again facing the prospect of teachers either boycotting work or striking altogether and potentially shutting schools. I accept that teachers have every right to raise what are legitimate concerns about dyn, ond maen nhw ymdindigol y byddwch yn gallu kaimwysgain iddo o'r ddrwyf yn Ieil. Oedd i'r ysgrifen bach na maen nhw wedi ddyn nhw'n gwneud am ben ddau y dysgu, ac hynny, mae y First Minister yn gweitio? The Government is working very hard to ensure that industrial action does not take place in our schools. I do not believe that that is in the interests of teachers and I certainly do not believe that it is in the interests of young people in our schools. As Ruth Davidson is aware, that is an issue around what teachers consider to be unnecessary workload. The Government has been very clear about our determination to take action to reduce teacher workload, and we will continue to do so. That is indeed why we established the working group on assessment and national qualifications. The Deputy First Minister published the group's initial work on 26 May, and that set out concrete steps that we are taking to reduce workload for teachers. This week, the Deputy First Minister has also written to all the teaching unions asking for specific and deliverable proposals to help reduce workload. We are determined to address those concerns and to do so in the interests of teachers, but, most importantly, in the interests of our young people. I hear what the First Minister is saying, but the question is how was it allowed to get to this stage? Secondary teachers have been complaining about the assessment requirement for national qualifications for quite some time. We have all heard warnings about the added bureaucracy and the extra burdens that it is placing on classrooms. Given that we may now be facing industrial action, is the First Minister really satisfied that the Scottish Government has done enough to sort this out before now? Yes, I do believe that we have been working to do this. If Ruth Davidson is sincere, as I hope she is, about wanting to avoid industrial action in our schools, then I hope that she will get behind the actions that the Scottish Government is taking. It is indeed because we were determined to tackle this issue that the working group on assessment and national qualifications was established earlier this year. That group has done very detailed work in the report of that work, as I said, was published at the end of May. That set out some initial steps and very concrete initial steps that have already been announced. The Deputy First Minister will reconvene that group. As I said, he has issued an open invitation to the teaching unions to come forward and give examples of where they think that there is unnecessary workload and what can be done to reduce that. As we have debated in this chamber many times over the past few months, improving education, the standards of education and closing the attainment gap is my top priority. Ruth Davidson and, indeed, Kezia Dugdale and Willie Rennie joined us yesterday in an education summit that was very positive and constructive. If we are going to achieve that goal, then enabling teachers, our fantastic teachers across this country, to do what they do best and give our young people the best educational experience is absolutely central to that. Everybody has an interest in making sure that this issue is addressed, and I hope that the chamber will get behind the work of John Swinney and the entire Government as we seek to do so. I have just listened to the First Minister say that the working group was established earlier this year, but Larry Flagon of the EIS last night claimed that the need to remove duplication was first raised by teachers in August of 2014, and he claimed that since then, and I will quote him directly, not a single unit assessment has been removed. So, after years of inaction from this Government only this week, do we see the education secretary asking for fresh ideas on how to cut down on bureaucracy? Teachers are preparing to take industrial action right now. Isn't all of this just a little bit late, First Minister? First lady, as Ruth Davidson knows, and this was a view that I believe was expressed by the chief examiner in Scotland, that to remove unit assessment too quickly would actually compromise the certification of qualifications in this country now. If that is what Ruth Davidson is suggesting that we do, then I think that that is a deeply irresponsible course of action for her to be putting forward. We will continue to work closely with the teaching unions and indeed with the teaching profession as a whole. We will continue to take action that is sensible to reduce unnecessary workload. It is nobody's interest, certainly not in the Government's interest any more than it is in the interests of teachers or pupils for teachers to be burdened with workload that is unnecessary. I want all of our great teachers across this country to be freed up to do what they do best, which is teach our children and give them the best educational experience. Now, as I say, all party leaders joined us at the education summit yesterday. I was very grateful to them for doing so. They will have heard, as we did, many great examples. OECD, for example, praising the many strengths of Scottish education, praising the work that the Scottish Government is now taking forward, many issues raised about what we need to do, including by the teaching unions. Let's get together in a national endeavour to take forward those actions in the interests of improving our education system for all of our young people. Ruth Davidson Presiding Officer, there is a wider point to be made here. That is the fact that we have a system that is constantly sending out ever more directives and initiatives and dictates to our schools, but it does not think about how they are to be implemented. Now, at the 11th hour, we have John Swinney saying that he wants specific, tangible ideas on how to cut down on teacher workload. He is acting as if this is year zero, but this Government has been in power for nine years. He is trying to clear up the mistakes that his Government has made, but if he wants clear, tangible ideas, let me give him one. The EIS said today that a half-resourced, named person scheme will be potentially dangerous and worse than no scheme at all. Teachers saying that it will be potentially dangerous and worse than no scheme at all. If this Government wants to scrap red tape on our teachers, we will scrap the unwanted named person scheme. Cut out the bureaucracy and let teachers get on with the job. The First Minister said that, clearly, I do not speak for the EIS, but I suspect that the EIS will be as horrified as I am at the Tory attempts to hijack its legitimate concerns and the points that it has put forward for the narrow political interests of the Conservative party. We clearly are less interested in our children and the interests of our children than they are in getting up in this Parliament and trying to score cheap political points. John Swinney has asked for the suggestions in addition to the work that is already underway. For example, as Ruth Davidson, I assume, is aware, the chief inspector of education has already published clear national expectations for teachers and schools that will directly tackle workload issues and help to improve the learning experience for young people. That includes advice on the preparation of young people and the broad general education on the transition to the senior phase and on the importance of appropriate course choices. Those are sensible actions to deal with a legitimate issue, and that is the way that this Government will continue to take it forward, because that is what our teachers and our young people deserve. To ask the First Minister when she will next meet Stonewall Scotland. I met representatives of Stonewall Scotland last night when I, with other party leaders, attended the vigil in St Andrew's Square to show our sympathy and solidarity with the victims of the attack in Orlando and with our LGBTI community. Ministers will continue to meet with Stonewall on an on-going basis on a range of issues, and indeed officials are meeting Stonewall Scotland this afternoon to discuss the new powers coming to Scotland under the Scotland act. The First Minister's words last night were indeed very welcome, particularly our emphasis on the need to drive out homophobic bullying from our schools and to build an education system that is inclusive so that every young person can be themselves and fulfil their potential on that basis. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Education will meet Stonewall at the earliest opportunity. The Government's recent export statistics confirm that the European Union is Scotland's second-biggest trading partner behind only the rest of the United Kingdom. What assessment has the First Minister made of how many jobs in Scotland are dependent on our unfettered access to the single market? There are, right now in Scotland, more than 300,000 jobs that are associated directly or indirectly with Scotland's access to the single market. In addition, more than 40 per cent of Scotland's international exports go to countries within the single market. Of the more than 2,000 foreign-owned companies in Scotland, 40 per cent are owned by firms that are based in other European countries. Those are all positive reasons relating to the jobs and the livelihoods of thousands of people across Scotland. For my conclusion, Scotland's continuing relationship with Europe is absolutely vital. In the days leading up to the referendum in 2014, this Parliament debated the case for and against independence. We did so with passion and with a sense of the importance of the decision that we were about to make. This is a Parliament elected by the people of Scotland—much more than a public body. Next Thursday is about securing hundreds of thousands of jobs and protecting the rights of workers, showing the world the type of country that we want to be. When it comes to issues such as terrorism, climate change and the refugee crisis, does the First Minister share my support for the principle of working together with the other nations of the world? Yes, I do. I agree with that very strongly. As Kezia Dugdale and indeed the whole chamber, I think that it is fair to say that the whole country knows passionately that Scotland should be an independent country. I very much hope that, in the near future, we will be an independent country. However, I also believe very strongly that, in the modern, interdependent world that we live in, the independent countries must work together to tackle the issues that no country can deal with on its own. That includes issues such as climate change, the refugee crisis and tackling terrorism. Independent countries working together on those issues make all of us stronger and safer. The future of our economy is one of the biggest issues being debated outside of the chamber, and sudden shocks would have a damaging impact on our ability to fund public services. People need to know what plans are in place, so can the First Minister tell us what contingency planning is under way to prepare for a shock to the UK economy? Clearly, I very much hope that such a scenario does not arise. However, let me be very clear, as First Minister, my duty is to seek to protect Scotland's interests in all circumstances, and therefore I am ensuring that appropriate planning for all eventualities is being undertaken by the Scottish Government. Let me also say, and I have said this many times before, that if Scotland faces the prospect of being taken out of the European Union against our democratically expressed will, then all options to protect our relationship with Europe and the European Union will require to be considered. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Prior to the election, the First Minister and Health Minister dismissed concerns about cuts to services at the Vale of Leven hospital, at Inverclyde hospital, at the Royal Alexandra in Paisley and at Lightburn hospital in Glasgow, as somehow scaremongering. They promised that the SNP Government would not approve any changes that would run counter to the vision for the Vale, which I have before me today. I have been given a leaked document, the final draft of the local development plan for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. It lists the closure of the Vale of Leven maternity unit, the closure of Inverclyde maternity unit, the closure of Lightburn hospital and the transfer of children's emergency care away from the RAH in Paisley. Can I ask the First Minister if she will keep her promise to my constituents so that babies will continue to be born at the Vale? Jackie Baillie knows when I was health secretary, I took a number of actions and steps to protect the Vale of Leven hospital. At the time I became health secretary, it was under threat from the last Labour administration. As I have made clear, as the health secretary has made clear, we will not approve proposals that run counter to the vision for the Vale. I am not aware of the document that Jackie Baillie is quoting to me. To the best of my knowledge, I have not seen it. I am happy to receive a copy of it, but I am sure that what she has read out are proposals, perhaps at most proposals. Let me be very clear of this Government's commitment to the vision for the Vale and we will continue to take forward that commitment. Question 3, Willie Rennie. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Matters of importance to the people of Scotland. Last weekend, the education secretary was greeted by jeers, booze and cries of rubbish at the EIS teachers conference, because he is making the problems already discussed about workload than making those problems worse with his plans for compulsory testing. Why does the First Minister think that her minister is right and the teachers are wrong? I am quite astonished that Willie Rennie has asked me that question today, because he was in the room yesterday at the education summit, when Larry Flanagan of the EIS made quite extensive comments about standardised assessment. He said—obviously, I am paraphrasing him here and it is for him to speak for himself—that he thought that much of the opposition and objection to standardised assessment was based on a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation of what the Government was actually doing. Having sat in that education summit yesterday, while those comments were made, I am frankly staggered that Willie Rennie has come and asked me the question that he just has. I do not know who the First Minister thinks that she is building a consensus with, but it certainly is not teachers. We have already heard about their plans for industrial action, so I do not know which planet she is on. Testing small children is not the answer to our problems in education. We have already been down that blind alley before. Meanwhile, Scotland's employers cannot get the skilled workforce that they need. Save the children told us today about the lack of investment in early years' vocabulary. Nursery education targets have been missed, too. All the while, education budgets have been cut by her Government, so instead of fighting with teachers over tests, why does the First Minister not provide the investment and the early education investment that we need for our future? Why does she not do that instead of fighting with teachers? I notice that Willie Rennie did not respond to what I just said there about the comments of Larry Flanagan at the summit yesterday that Willie Rennie was actually in attendance at. Willie Rennie also sat during that summit yesterday and heard the OECD talk about the very clear distinction between national testing, which we are not doing, and national assessment, which we are doing. He would have heard Andy Hargreaves of the OECD, a very respected educationalist, praise the Scottish Government from trying to move from what he described as a culture of teacher judgment to a system of teacher judgment and say that he thought that we were on absolutely the right track. That is what we are seeking to do, to make sure that we have the information that we need to ensure that our children, regardless of where they grow up, regardless of their background, are getting the best possible education. Willie Rennie can oppose that if he likes, but I am all for it and I am determined that we are going to achieve it. To ask the First Minister where the Scottish Government plans to restrict the amount of alcohol that can be sold in pubs and supermarkets. We have no plans or proposals to restrict the amount of alcohol that can be sold in individual pubs or supermarkets, but we will continue to pursue an evidence-based approach to tackling alcohol harm. The World Health Organization has a global target of reducing harmful alcohol use by 10 per cent by 2025. Through our on-going work to refresh our alcohol framework, we are examining whether there are merits to a Scottish target for reducing harmful alcohol use. I thank the First Minister for that answer. The First Minister will share my disappointment that, after a steady decline in recent years, alcohol consumption is once again on the rise with Scots adults last year each consuming on average the equivalent of 41 bottles of vodka, with all the health and socials that implies. Does she agree that the sooner a minimum unit price in clears the courts and has implemented the better, and while I am pleased that no legislation is being considered at this time, existing legislation, for example, to restrict over provision of alcohol selling outlets, should be reviewed as to its effectiveness? I very much agree with the sentiments behind Kenny Gibson's question. As I said in my original answer, we will continue to pursue an evidence-based approach to tackling alcohol harm. Obviously, the court case remains active and that restricts what I can say, but I will say that I continue to believe that minimum unit pricing is more effective than tax precisely because it is able to better target the cheap high-strength alcohol favoured by the heaviest drinkers. I am sure that I am not alone in wondering why a measure that would save 2,000 lives over the next 20 years is still so resolutely resisted by some parts of the industry. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will ensure that existing infrastructure is expanded to cope with new demand from housing developments. The delivery of a further 50,000 high-quality affordable homes is a key priority for this Government. To support that, we recently published draft planning guidance on housing and infrastructure, which recommends that planning authorities take into account current infrastructure capacity and future requirements when approving new developments. In addition, the recent independent review of the Scottish planning system made a number of recommendations to strengthen planning for infrastructure, and we will respond to those recommendations shortly. There are serious concerns in the south of Scotland, particularly East Lothian, that new housing developments will mean that health services, schools and roads will not be able to cope with the new demand. Can the First Minister give a commitment that, before the new developments are built, East Linton station is restored and the A1 is dualled north of the border is set out in our Scottish Conservative manifesto? We will continue to do what I said in my original answer. We have published draft planning guidance on housing and infrastructure, which recommends that planning authorities, wherever they happen to be in the country, should take account of current infrastructure capacity and future requirements when they are approving new developments. I think that that is a sensible approach. We need new housing in Scotland. That is why we set and exceeded our target for affordable housing in the last Parliament. That is why we set an even more ambitious target in this Parliament, but we must also make sure that the infrastructure is there to support new development. That is what our approach to planning is all about achieving. Alice Crawl Hamilton I echo Rachel Hamilton's questions and concerns. Just two weeks ago, the SNP Labour Administration of Edinburgh City Council approved the garden city development in Goga and Gile against the advice of officials. That is on the fringes of the A8, the most congested stretch of road outside the M25, but also in the footprint of Ladywell medical practice, which is at capacity already and with 4,000 extra patients would have to close its list. Does the First Minister agree that this is not just about roads infrastructure but about addressing the GP crisis in our health service? All those matters are important when any local authority is looking at new development. Of course, those are matters for local authorities. The Liberal Democrats frequently in this chamber get up and accuse the Government of centralisation and talk about the merits of localism. I think that they should probably start practising what they preach, but the Government is very clear in the draft planning guidance that I have already spoken about, about the importance of housing development. Nobody can deny the need for new housing development in this country, but the importance of making sure that we have adequate infrastructure, whatever the nature of that infrastructure is in place. That is what we will continue to focus on. Question 6, Neil Findlay. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the future of paediatric services across Lothian. The First Minister in the board will next week consider the recommendation of an independent review of its paediatric services by the Royal College for Paediatrics and Child Health. That recommendation is for the retention of inpatient children's services at St John's hospital. The Scottish Government stands ready to support NHS Lothian to implement the report's recommendations, including retaining inpatient paediatrics, to ensure that all necessary improvements are delivered for the benefit of patients. Neil Findlay. The report by the Royal College for Paediatrics and Child Health has recommended the retention of a 24-7 word at St John's. NHS Lothian must now accept that recommendation, which will be a tremendous victory for people power. The report also raises very serious concerns about management failure, recruitment, training, incident recording, IT problems and staff morale, all affecting the care of children. Last week, at question time, the First Minister took credit for a number of good things that have happened at St John's. Will she now, after nine years in Government, much of that time is health secretary? Now, take responsibility for those failings, but more importantly, for putting them right. I would have thought that Neil Findlay might have come to this chamber today and uttered perhaps an apology for some of what he has previously said. On this issue, every time Neil Findlay has stood up in this chamber to raise this issue, it used to be from the benches of the official opposition, now it is from the benches of the third party in the Scottish Parliament, but every time he has done it, he has said or suggested that this independent report was somehow an underhand way on the part of the Scottish Government of forcing the closure of the inpatient paediatric service at St John's. Now that that report has recommended the retention of the children's inpatient service, surely Neil Findlay would have the good grace to admit that he got it wrong previously. Now that the recommendation has been made, it is for the board of NHS Lothian to discuss it next week, but I repeat what I said earlier on. The Scottish Government will support NHS Lothian to implement the recommendations to ensure that all necessary improvements are delivered for the benefit of patients. Then we can add the work that we do on those matters to the long list of improvements that this Government has helped to ensure happen at St John's hospital. Obviously, the issue of recruitment and retention to the children's unit at St John's hospital is something that has been under investigation and discussion, and lots of activity has been taken to recruit people for a long period of time. That will continue to be one of the central issues in taking forward the recommendation of the independent report. I would say in passing that we have, working within our NHS, many first-class clinicians from many different countries across Europe and the world, and it would be a massive mistake to close off the supply of any of them in any decision that we might be taking over the next few days. Neil Bibby Just days before the election, the First Minister wrongly denied that there were proposals to downgrade or close paediatric services at the RH in Paisley. Now, from Jackie Baillie's question earlier, we know that there are proposals to move inpatient paediatric services away from the RH to Glasgow. Can the First Minister now tell us whether she supports those proposals or not? The First Minister will have heard my reply to Jackie Baillie, but the member might also want to reflect that, before the election, Neil Findlay was standing up in this chamber week after week, scare mongering about the Scottish Government's plans to close paediatric services at St John's hospital. Today, we are standing talking about the recommendation of an independent report about the retention of paediatric services. That underlines the commitment that the Government has to quality, sustainable local services, and that is what will continue. To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government is making to reduce the availability of unhealthy products in schools. The First Minister School food legislation sets high nutritional standards that all food and drink provided in schools must meet. That includes lunchease, tuck shops, breakfast clubs and vending machines. Although food and drink brought into schools by pupils is exempt from those regulations, the Schools Health and Nutrition Act requires all schools to set health-promoting policies, and we would expect those to apply to food and drink permitted on school grounds. I thank the First Minister for that answer. As she will be aware, our country's children now find it easier than ever to gain access to unhealthy food and drink. Energy drinks cause particular problems in schools across the country. They have been cited by those such as forfer academy head Melvin Lynch as a contributory factor in many behavioural issues. He has brought in a ban, and I fully support the courier's campaign to get that ban in place across Tayside. Tomorrow, I will be visiting a Dundee secondary school, and I would be delighted to tell the staff there that you will be backing the can-it campaign. Will the First Minister join me in supporting this worthwhile cause? I know that the health secretary, Shona Robison, has already publicly supported the courier can-it campaign, and I think that it is a very positive campaign that is worthy of support. As I outlined in my answer, I do agree that there are some worrying conclusions that have been drawn about the impact of energy drinks on young people. Food and drink brought into schools by pupils is exempt from regulations, but the act requires schools to set health-promoting policies, and I would certainly expect those health-promoting policies to apply to food and drink that is permitted on school grounds. I think that schools have the tools that they need here. We continue to talk to local authorities about all of those matters, but all of us have an interest in making sure that our young people eat healthily because it is not only good for their health, it is good for their ability to learn as well. Richard Lochhead This is a debate also about what is purchased by children near schools as opposed to just within schools. Given that many of our children head out to the supermarkets and local shops at lunchtime or on the way home from school, and given that price, promotion and display influence what is purchased, would ministers be willing to engage with the retail sector about having better policies that promote more healthier products as opposed to unhealthier products? First Minister I think that Richard Lochhead is absolutely right, and not only are we willing to engage with retailers—we are already engaging with retailers and caterers through our supporting healthy choices framework—challenging retailers and caterers to rebalance their promotions and support children and families to make healthier choices. We also, as I have just said, welcome public health campaigns, like the Canot campaign from the Courier. We will continue to engage with industry to promote healthier choices wherever possible. In any efforts in this direction, I think that we are very welcome indeed. Mark Griffin Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the First Minister has acknowledged, that is more than about what is sold within schools. Recently, North Lanarkshire Council tried to enforce a ban on fast-food snack fans operating within the vicinity of local schools. That ban was overturned in the courts, calling into question bans that operate across the country, Glasgow, Renfrewshire and other areas. I ask the First Minister to ask the cabinet secretary for education to look at the recent court ruling and consider whether there are any legislative changes that are required to give local authorities the power to enforce a snack fan ban to improve the health of pupils in Scotland. First Minister I will certainly do so, and I will ask the cabinet secretary for education to write to the member when he has done so. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to improve access to IVF treatment. This week, we confirmed that we would accept recommendations in the national infertility groups report to build on the improvements that we have made to IVF access in recent years. That will see the number of IVF cycles on the NHS increase from two to three and also allow access for couples where one partner does not have a biological child. I thank the First Minister for her answer and for the action that her Government is taking to ensure that IVF provision in Scotland is as fair and generous as possible. I ask the First Minister when those changes will come into effect, ensuring that Scotland remains at the forefront of IVF action and rights across the UK. We are working to ensure that Scotland remains at the forefront of IVF action and rights across the UK. That is in comparison to Northern Ireland, where eligible couples can access only one fresh and one frozen cycle of treatment in England, where the majority of patients can access only one cycle in Wales, where couples can only access two cycles of treatment. The action that we are taking puts us very much at the forefront. Work is now beginning with health boards to develop a sustainable implementation plan that will include setting out final timescales for the introduction of each of the IVF criteria changes. I will make sure that the health secretary keeps the Parliament informed of the implementation as it progresses. I thank Margaret Mitchell for waiting for the end of First Minister's questions to raise a point of order. I will take Margaret Mitchell first, if I may, Mr Adam. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on whether the line of questioning from Kezia Dugdale on the exchanges of the First Minister has breached the Parliament's part of rules in advance of next week's referendum. The test through which I believe is that the content is likely to influence that referendum. If it has been breached, what opportunity will it be to point out that the unfettered free movement of people will deeply damage the economy and our public services? To point out that, as the fifth largest economy in the world and a talented and innovative people, the UK is more than capable of surviving outside the EU. In fact, it has been NATO and the United Nations, which has preserved our security, not the EU. Before I respond, I can ask Mr Adam whether he is at the same point of order or a separate item. I thank Margaret Mitchell for raising—I think that Margaret Mitchell is quite right to raise this point of order. As members may know, the Parliament has decided through a meeting of a decision of the business bureau and business managers in the bureau to observe our legal guidance that the Parliament should not use parliamentary resources—this is under legal advice, as affects us through the referendum act—that the Parliament should not use parliamentary resources to promote one-sided rather during the referendum. The Parliament may also be aware that I wrote—because I believe that this is an oversight rather than an intent—that the Parliament is covered by the referendum act. I wrote on behalf of the Parliament to both the Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Secretary of State for Scotland to voice our concern that we should be covered in this way. However, we have agreed that I listened to both the questions and the answers very carefully. It is my judgment that they did not breach and they did not broach that agreement and they did not take a side on either side of the referendum issue. That was my decision and I listened very carefully. They did not use parliamentary resources to promote one-sided of the argument. George Adam, point of order. I, too, seek your guidance. Earlier, Willie Rennie stated that save the children said that there was a lack of investment in early years. Having read their recent press release, it does not say anything of the sort. Is it correct that Mr Rennie should come here, Presiding Officer, and misrepresent a very important charity? Thank you, Mr Adam. That is a point of information or accuracy for the member. One second, Mr Findlay. That is a point of information or accuracy for the member. I am sure that he is aware of your comments and heard your comments. It is for him to reflect on them. It is not a point of order. Presiding Officer, in reply to Margaret Mitchell's point of order, I think that whichever side people are on in the referendum, they have the right to be heard. They have the right to have their views put forward in the chamber. However, you expressed the view that parliamentary resources would not be used. I am not making a point on one side or the other, but surely the fact that we use power, we have the official report and we have parliamentary resources. Therefore, I think that we need absolute clarity on that, because it is very important. The point that Mr Findlay makes is exactly the one that we considered in the bureau and with our legal advisers. The use of the official report to report on our proceedings is a use of parliamentary resources. In this particular case, I did not judge that either the questions or the answers were an abuse of those resources. That was my judgment. Both members have made a point of order. My ruling so far is that neither of these are points of order, but I have taken them on board if I may. I have raised a point of order yesterday during the member's debate on a similar point to the one that we raised today. I still await a response and I wonder if that can be forecoming. I think that the member will receive a response from one of the Deputy Presiding Officers. The information will be passed to the member—I would imagine before the close of proceedings today—but just for information, our decision was that that was not a point of order yesterday either. More information will be passed to Elaine Smith later. Before there are any more points of order, can I suggest that we move to members' business? I would ask members to leave the chamber quietly while we get on with members' business. Thank you very much.