 Fyisiad dรif及f 떨addochiholi ac mae meddwl i dcarthiau mewn sgareddau Swilfaeth. Ar gwleid gyrsig a chi'n gwneud bod leiafnaid yn rhan o'r ddaodd mewn eich dddangos pobl yn yolu Romain. Smythился o Gynedaidd yng Ngagor er Pensuhu ond rwy ym Mh Täyd. Rhan o'r wathbeth er gwneud gyda ni nefyd o'r gathigol yn gyf basisie غw הצelfantedd Cymdeithasol o werdogon neu oeddafion 11 Trygr stainless peidwch. Fe fyddio yn yw柩af yr iawn. Nicola Sturgeon's stated position is to be a full member of the European Union, her MP's stated position is to leave the common fisheries policy, but full membership of the European Union means full membership of the common fisheries policy. Isn't that the case, First Minister? First Minister. If Davidson's clearly not been paying attention, the SNP has been consistent over many, many years in our criticisms of the common fisheries policy. I'm very clear about our intentions to see it fundamentally reformed. Our 2007 manifesto continued to work for withdrawal from the CFP 2011. The CFP well passed its sell-by date, the 2014 white paper on independence. Independence for Scotland and the European Union would give Scotland the opportunity to take a leadership role in reforming the common fisheries policy. The reality here is that the SNP always stands up for Scottish fishing and always will stand up for Scottish fishing. Of course, the uncomfortable truth for Ruth Davidson is that it's successive Tory Governments who have sold out the fishing industry. I know that Ruth Davidson does not want to hear what is coming next. Remember the words of the Tories. In the wider UK context, the fishermen must be regarded as expendable. That is the Tory record on fishing. Of course, we know that the Tories are lining up to sell out fishing again, because the Brexit white paper makes it clear that fishing will just be a negotiating chip in the Brexit talks. The SNP stands up for fishing. Tories sell them out. Ruth Davidson is priceless. She wants to quote internal SNP documents. Let me quote a document. It's chapter 13 of a little thing called the EU conditions of membership. It says that it requires the introduction and participation in the common fisheries policy, and it doesn't get much clearer than that. Let's spell out the complete absurdity of the SNP's position here, or should I say the positions? Firstly, it's the SNP's position that Brexit is a terrible threat to Scotland and that fishermen are better off being governed by the EU's hated common fisheries policy. That's the position that Angus Robertson outlined at the weekend, when he said, we're in favour of Scotland being a member state of the European Union and we're in favour of a reformed common fisheries policy. It's also Brexit's position that Brexit is a sea of opportunity for our fishermen and that we must avoid any policy, any practice, any regulation or any treaty that could return us to the common fisheries policy. We know that because on Tuesday, Ailey Whiteford and Mike Weir, two of Mr Robertson's parliamentary colleagues, signed a pledge written by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation saying so. Can I ask the First Minister, is Mr Robertson wrong when he was on the telly at the weekend, or are Ms Whiteford and Mr Weir wrong, or is it the SNP plan to try and say that they're all right so that they think that the people are so daft that we won't notice? Ruth Davidson has managed to hold several different positions on Brexit all by herself. It is a terrible threat to Scotland, is what Ruth Davidson says is the SNP's position. The problem for Ruth Davidson is that that used to be Ruth Davidson's position as well, her screaming it from Wembley, but now, of course, it's different. She's fallen into line with Theresa May and now Brexit is the greatest thing since sliced bread. On this issue, Ruth Davidson flip-flops more than a fish being landed. The truth of the matter is that the SNP always has and always will stand up for fishing. We've already heard about the Tories thinking that fishing is expendable. That was the word that Tories used about Scotland's fishing industry, but let's come more up-to-date and read the Brexit white paper, paragraph 8.16. Given the heavy reliance on UK waters of the EU fishing industry, it's in both our interests to reach a mutually beneficial deal that works for the UK and for the EU's fishing communities. Let me translate that for Ruth Davidson. That means that the Tories are lining up in those negotiations to sell out the fishing industry and allow European countries what they say that they don't want, which is access to Scottish fishing waters. The Tories are preparing to perpetrate a con on Scotland's fishermen. They will not get away with it. It's the SNP who stands up for our fishing industry. Ruth Davidson. Maybe Nicola Sturgeon's MPs didn't report back to her, but let me quote to her what the chief executive of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation told an MPs at Westminster just last week. Two secretaries have said that the UK is leaving the EU and will leave the CFP, and we will regain control of our fishing. She wants to go tot it over fishing. Let's bring that on. This week, Mike Russell was in Brussels. He was speaking to fishing industry chiefs, and his pitch was that Scotland will leave the EU with the rest of the UK, but, after independence, it will go straight back in. It will opt out of all the things that it doesn't like, including the common fisheries policy. It is utter nonsense. Right now, we have SNP MPs in fishing communities saying that the CFP is terrible and that Scotland would pull out, and, at the same time, we have Nicola Sturgeon standing up in Edinburgh trying to win the vote of remainers saying that they would go straight back in. Does not even the First Minister see the utter hypocrisy here? First Minister. Utter consistency in the SNP's position over years on the common fisheries policy. What I see from the Tories is flip-flopping all the time on Brexit and on fishing. Ruth Davidson's argument today is that the Tories are not preparing to sell out the fishing industry, to use them as a bargaining chip in the negotiations that lie ahead. I give Ruth Davidson the opportunity to explain in simple terms to the chamber today what exactly the Brexit white paper means when it says that the UK Government wants a deal that works for the EU's fishing communities. What does that mean if it does not mean allowing Spain and other countries access to European fishing waters? Why cannot Ruth Davidson be honest with the fishing community? The Tories are preparing to treat them as expendable all over again. It is the SNP that will always stand up for fishing. Ruth Davidson. After Brexit, we will be out of the CFP as members of her party that want to take us back in. However, the SNP is saying that it is in favour of joining the European Union, but the First Minister is not confirming whether the SNP will back full membership in its manifesto. The SNP says that it is in favour of the common fisheries policy except for MPs in fishing communities who say that they are against it. Then we have the real whopper. In Scotland, we have Nicola Sturgeon saying that the coming election has not anything to do with independence, but from the broadcast studios of London, up pops Alex Salmond to confirm that he wants to use this election to demand a referendum that the rest of us do not want. The First Minister thinks that on fishing, on EU membership and on independence, she can face both ways and promise all things to all people. Is not it the case that she is shooting the electorate as fools? Well, this election, of course, as I said yesterday morning, is an opportunity to determine who chooses Scotland's future. Is it a Tory Government at Westminster, or is it this democratically elected Scottish Parliament? Exactly the same as Alex Salmond's comments yesterday afternoon. However, let us get back to fishing, because what we have just seen here is Ruth Davidson drowning in our fishing waters. Ruth Davidson has to explain this in simple terms to Scotland's fishing communities. I gave her the opportunity once and she failed to do so, so I am going to give her the opportunity again. What does it mean when the UK Government says that it wants a deal that works for the EU's fishing communities? That can only mean that the Tories are preparing to sell out Scottish fishermen, grant other European countries access to fishing waters and treat that vital Scottish industry as expendable once again. I think that that is crystal clear from Ruth Davidson today. It is the SNP that will always, as we always have done, stand up for Scottish fishing. Question 2, Kezia Dugdale. To ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the week. First Minister. Engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Kezia Dugdale. Next week, voters will go to the polls to decide the future of local services, like our schools. The First Minister used to claim that education was her number one priority, but even she does not claim that any more. After 10 years of SNP government, Scottish education is facing challenges like never before. Since the SNP took office, there are 4,000 fewer teachers, 1,000 fewer support staff and class sizes are bigger. International studies show that Scotland is declining in maths, in reading and in science. John Swinney's response to this was to publish a mini manifesto, repeating the very promises that he has been breaking every year since 2007. Can the First Minister tell teachers, parents and pupils why they should believe the SNP this time around? Well, education is my top priority. Kezia Dugdale does not like to hear this, but that is why, right now across Scotland, headteachers and teachers have in their hands £120 million of additional funding. That is why local government services are better off to the tune of £400 million under the SNP Government. I would say to Kezia Dugdale that she has zero, not a shred of credibility left on the issue of local government funding, because for years in her local government manifesto, published just days ago, she complains about the council tax freeze, how it is strangling local government services, and yet of the eight councils freezing the council tax in this election, you know how many are Labour-led? All eight. This is sterling. Sterling Labour frees your council tax, so do not come here talking about funding for local services when it is your councils failing to raise the money that we need for our schools. Kezia Dugdale. From the First Minister, who has cut £170 million out of local services this year alone. If education was her top priority, she would be listening to the teachers across Scotland who are crying out for help. Blackhall Primary School in Edinburgh felt the need to email all parents. The email said this. As you may be aware, there is currently a national shortage of teachers. That is making it challenging for head teachers around the country who are trying to fill vacant posts or indeed cover classes. There is a teacher shortage in Scotland, so will the First Minister be honest? How many schools are struggling like Blackhall? Just how many teacher vacancies are there across the whole of Scotland? John Swinney, this Government has never shied away from the issue that Scotland, like many countries right now, has an issue with teacher recruitment. That is one of the reasons why we have increased the intake to teacher training, to train more teachers to work in our schools and close the attainment gap. The fact of the matter is that it is this SNP Government that is investing in local services. Whatever Kezia Dugdale tries to say, there is £400 million available extra in this financial year for council services. The question for Labour is this. If they do not think that there is enough money for council services, why are there eight Labour-led councils going into this election promising to freeze the council tax? Maybe Kezia Dugdale will give us a straight answer to that straight question. Kezia Dugdale? In all of that, there is no answer to the question that I asked, and I will give the answer to the First Minister. The reality is that there are 700 teacher vacancies in Scotland, and 400 of them are in our secondary schools, where pupils will begin their exams in just a matter of days. I can reveal today that the Government's own internal documents admit that it could take up to three years to fill those vacancies. Three years for the Government to ensure that there are enough teachers to educate our children. Three years to clean up the mess that the SNP has been making for the past ten. Three years to give our young people a fair chance in life. We all know that Nicola Sturgeon will spend the next three years campaigning for independence, so can the First Minister really keep a straight face and tell teachers, parents and pupils that, once again, education is her number one priority? As I said, we recognise the challenge in teacher recruitment. Scotland is not unique in that regard. That is why, in this year, 2017-18, we are making resources available to train— Kezia Dugdale does not want to listen to this—an additional 371 teachers. That is why the general teaching council has a number of initiatives under way to encourage people back into teaching, to encourage new people into teaching. Those are the actions that we are taking to tackle what is a problem and a challenge for many countries. We are doing that in conjunction with our national improvement framework, our attainment challenge and our attainment fund, putting extra resources into the hands of headteachers. Our commitment to raising attainment and closing that attainment gap is absolute, and we will get on with the hard work of doing it, leaving Labour, as usual, carping on the sidelines. We have a couple of constituency questions. The first is from Jenny Gilruth. The First Minister will be aware that, last Thursday, Diagell announced plans to cut up to 100 jobs in Scotland, potentially affecting up to 70 workers at their leaving premises in my constituency. The GMB union has laid the blame squarely at a damaging Tory hard Brexit. What assurances can the First Minister give my constituents who now potentially face redundancy due to conservative recklessness? Obviously, I was very concerned to learn that Diagell has begun a consultation with its staff over potential job losses at its sites in Leven and Shieldhall. I know that this will be an extremely anxious time for the company's employees and their families. Keith Brown has already arranged to meet with Diagell, and officials in Scottish Enterprise are fully engaged with the company already. We will do all that we can to explore all possible options for supporting the business and protecting jobs in Scotland. While the families and individuals who are affected by the situation also have the right to expect a similar response from the UK Government, it is really troubling that the main union, the GMB, appears to have raised concerns about the impact of Brexit on those jobs and has very little response from the UK Government. That is yet another example of the threat that Brexit poses to Scotland, what Ruth Davidson used to tell us but does not any longer, but what I still believe and examples such as that, sadly, illustrate. However, we will continue to do everything possible to support the workers at Diagell. John Lamond Thank you, Presiding Officer. I declare an interest as a trust steves and abbs lifeboat trust. One of the best examples of a community campaign that I have ever seen was the campaign in St Abbs in Berwickshire for the creation of an independent lifeboat when the RNLI withdrew their service. The community rallied together and organised a tremendous fund-raising effort to raise the funds needed to establish their own lifeboat service for this important part of the coastline. When the donation started to roll in, the local St Abbs community trust was used to collect the funds whilst the new lifeboat trust was set up. The money was then transferred to the new lifeboat trust and the new boat was purchased. I had the pleasure of sitting beside the First Minister at the launch of the new lifeboat. On Twitter, the First Minister spoke of this incredible achievement of the community coming together and the spoke of what it achieved, something special. It now transpires that Scottish Water's business stream has stripped St Abbs community trust of the water rates exemption for the community cafe and the EBA centre. I have been in correspondence with the SNP's Environment Minister, but she has confirmed that she will not give the exemption for this community trust. Given the exceptional circumstances around this, will the First Minister, unlike her back benchers, apply some common sense to this? The issue has been drawn to my attention. The situation with a water and sewerage charge of around £900 has gone to St Abbs community trust. On the investigation that I have done into the matter so far, the charge appears to be a direct result of its excellent efforts to raise funds for the St Abbs lifeboat. Funds that did not actually belong to the trust that they held and then transferred to the lifeboat trust account when that account was set up. Given those circumstances, I am hugely sympathetic to the situation that they find themselves in. This morning, I instructed my officials to look again at the issue to try to find a solution. I was at the launch of the St Abbs lifeboat. It was a fantastic example of a community coming together in order to preserve a service that is vitally important to life in that community. Having looked at this, it seems unfair. That is why I have instructed my officials to see what they can do to fix it. That is the kind of action that people can expect from an SNP Government. Thank you to ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. First Minister. I think that I heard that question. Tuesday. Can I just ask before Patrick Harvie speaks? I think that the reason that the First Minister could not hear was because the Deputy First Minister was shouting across the chamber in her ear. I know that this is an election time. I suggest that all members are a little bit more respectful to all other members. We hear the questions and the answers. Patrick Harvie. If the Deputy First Minister wants to continue to distract the First Minister, it is no great skin off my nose. This week, the Scottish Government proposed tax cuts for aviation, which we all know. Even though the Scottish Government at first denied it, it will increase carbon emissions that are driving climate change, increasing emissions at the time when we should be cutting them radically. Even if the First Minister thinks that aviation's damage to the climate can be ignored, it is clear that the tax cut will also be very unfair. Research that was published by the Green Party has shown just how unfair. Even if the airlines pass the full tax cut on through reduced ticket prices, the highest income households stand to gain far more than anyone else. Of the 90-odd million tax give-away going to UK leisure passengers alone, the richest 10 per cent of households will gain over 33 million, while the poorest 10 per cent will stand to benefit by just eight and a half. While public transport that people depend on every day remains expensive and unreliable, how can it possibly be fair to offer a tax break that drives up both pollution and inequality? Can I deal with both of those issues? First of all, the climate change issue, because that is extremely important to this Government. We are meeting our climate change targets and we have some of the most ambitious climate change targets anywhere in the world. The UK Committee on Climate Change has previously commented on this issue and made the point. It is a point that I would endorse more generally, that where any policy has a potential adverse effect on emissions, that increases the responsibility of government to make sure that we balance that in other ways. Our overall ambition to meet those climate change targets is absolute as a commitment that the Government has set. On the wider issue of reducing ADT, the discussions in Parliament this week were not on rates of air discount tax. It was about transferring the legal responsibility over this from the Westminster Parliament to the Scottish Parliament. This is about trying to improve the connectivity of Scotland, because we know that improving the connectivity of Scotland is one of the key things that we need to do to grow the economy of Scotland. We all know that growing the economy of Scotland is really important in supporting the public services that all of us rely on. That is why we have to have a balance in our policies. As Patrick Harvie will be aware, in response to the Finance and Constitution Committee's stage 1 report, we have already confirmed that we will commission an independent economic assessment and that the Government will bring forward tax exemptions at stage 2, so there will be plenty of opportunity for the Parliament to scrutinise the detail of that. However, it is important that we get our policies right in the round so that, yes, we are supporting our vital public services, but we are also supporting the economic growth that is so vital to doing exactly that. Patrick Harvie. The vote this week indeed was not on rates and bans, and the Green Party will move amendments to introduce some social and environmental principles into that legislation. We will not vote for it unless those pass. The First Minister cites the UK Committee on Climate Change, who has argued for a cap on aviation emissions growth. She also says that we need more connectivity, but it is perfectly clear from the continuing growth of our existing aviation that air passenger duty has not stopped that growth. Even for routes where rail is a perfectly viable option, we are failing to make sure that it is the affordable choice for people to make. Relentless aviation growth cannot possibly be sustainable. We are visitors today to Parliament, who are the most directly affected people by that growth, affected by the noise and pollution from increasing flights here in Edinburgh and those campaigning against an additional runway at Heathrow. The aviation industry itself can well afford to lobby hard, sponsoring lavish events here at Westminster and even at the First Minister's party conference, but should we not be listening more closely to those whose lives will be most affected by increased inequality, by increased pollution here at home and by the effects of climate change around the world? Is it not time that the Scottish Government had a coherent policy on aviation levels, including a cap on the emissions and protection for communities from the direct impacts that they have to live with on a daily basis? First, I am trying to find some consensus there. Of course, it is important that all voices are listened to. The Scottish Government has made clear our views that there are, in our view, benefits to Scotland from Heathrow expansion, but it will be for the UK Government in taking forward that policy to answer the questions on the impact on people living in that area and the impact on the environment. Of course, we will continue to pay close attention to the answers to those questions and to the case that is made as it develops. On our own policy, Patrick Harvie talks about relentless growth in aviation. That is not what I am proposing, it is not what the Scottish Government is proposing or advocates, but what we advocate are good connections for Scotland. Of course, good rail connections are vitally important, and I encourage people to use the train when travelling across the UK. However, our economy also needs good aviation connections, and we know over past years the constraints that there have been in our economy from the lack of certain routes and the lack, in particular, of direct flights in and out of Scotland. We need to get those policies right. We must grow our economy. How many times rightly and understandably in this chamber do we talk about the challenges facing Scotland's economy and the need to have policies to grow our economy? That is a key priority of the Government. Connections for business and for exporters is a vital part of that. However, of course, we have to make sure that all our policies are taken together past the climate change challenge. It would be one thing to level those criticisms at the Scottish Government if we were not meeting our climate change ambitions. However, not only are we meeting our climate change ambitions and I have been praised by the Committee on Climate Change for a record here. We are meeting those targets ahead of schedule. We are not complacent about that. We want to up our ambition and go further. However, we need to have balance in our policies so that we support economic growth so that we can have the support for the public services that all of us across this chamber want to see. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Excuse me, Presiding Officer. Matters of importance to the people of Scotland. Willie Rennie. The First Minister has done nothing in the last 20 minutes to avoid her party looking shifty and evasive on Europe and independence. The First Minister said on Monday that this election is not about independence. Yesterday, we saw her sitting on a yesterday independence-branded motorbike in the shadow of the Wallace monument on the B road to Barnockburn. Can the First Minister tell me what is her position today? My position is as it has always been. Willie Rennie should maybe listen carefully because he seems to be struggling to understand it. I support Scotland being independent and an independent member of the European Union. There you go. How can Willie Rennie struggle to understand that? He is right. I did go to Barnockburn yesterday. I went to visit a fantastic heritage project or the attempted proposed restoration of Barnockburn house where Bonnie Prince Charlie stayed back in those days. That was a fantastic visit yesterday. I am proud in this election to be getting out there, making the case for a strong opposition to the Tories at Westminster and making the case that, on the key questions, independence and other key questions, it should be the voice of this parliamentary, this democratically elected parliamentary that determines the future of Scotland, not the voice of an increasingly right-wing Tory Government at Westminster. Does she really think that we are all buttoned up the back? She has refused to say that this is what the election is about, but her predecessor was on the radio saying exactly what it is about. It is about independence first, last and every priority. Last week, she was evasive about her future plans on Europe. This week, utter confusion about independence, starting with denial and ending with a hell's angels tour of the central belt. Meanwhile, the economy is teetering on the edge of recession. International education rankings have slipped, and the mental health strategy is months behind schedule. She should be ashamed of that record. The best way out of all this is for her to do just what the majority of people in this country would applaud her for. Why can't she just cancel this divisive independence referendum campaign and get back to her job for Scotland? So says the guy that is going around the country arguing for a second EU referendum. A direct answer to Willie Rennie's first question, I think that most people watching this would start to think that yes, the Liberal Democrats appear to button up the back. Willie, if the cap fits, perhaps you should wear it. One more serious matter, Willie Rennie raises in passing issues such as education, the economy and mental health. I agree that those are fundamentally important issues, which begs the question why Willie Rennie did not take the opportunity of his questions today to ask me about any of those matters. He had the opportunity. Here am I standing here. He can ask me anything that he likes, but chooses not to ask me about education, health or the economy. Do you know why that is? All the Opposition parties here are the ones that only want to talk about independence. Why is that? It is a small screen, because none of them are prepared to talk about their own policies or their own record. Let me tell you what I am going to work in this election to do. I am going to work to win this election. There is no other party in this chamber prepared to say that that is what they are trying to do. A couple of supplementaries, the first one is Monica Lennon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have a question on domestic matters. It is about education. The First Minister will be aware that college lecturers are on strike today, and they are gathering outside the Parliament for a rally this afternoon after ACAS talks on Tuesday aimed at resolving the on-going and digital dispute fail-to-reach solution. The SNP has been promising lecturers equal pay since 2011. Lectures have already compromised by agreeing to stagger pay harmonisation over three years up to 2019, but, despite the deal that was agreed last year, it still has not been honoured. What message does the First Minister have for the striking lecturers, and what urgent action and ministers are taking to resolve the disputes? Firstly, on the lecturers who are visiting Parliament today, the Minister for Further Education and Higher Education will meet them later today, or representatives of them later today. I want to see the dispute resolved, because strike action in our colleges is in no-one's interests. It is certainly not in the interests of college students. Let me be clear what has happened here. We have put in place, as we were asked to do, arrangements for national bargaining. When we have arrangements for national bargaining, then it becomes ultimately a matter for the trade union and the employers to resolve. As I understand it and clearly pay close attention to those matters, this is not actually a dispute about pay. The pay increases have broadly been agreed. This is now a dispute about terms and conditions, about the amount of class contact time and numbers of holidays. I would encourage the employers to go the extra mile to resolve the dispute. I hope that, in discussion with the union, they will be able to do that. I think that the move to national bargaining is a significant step forward. However, once you have Governments having to step in to resolve those things, you no longer have national bargaining. If we want national bargaining that is going to work, then both sides have to be prepared to come to a resolution. I very much hope that that happens and happens very soon. First Minister will know that farmers and crofters have three weeks to make 2017 payment applications. She will also know that the £180 million computer system to make those payments does not work. Given that it continues not to work, will she undertake to give her long-suffering officials in department offices across Scotland the tools in order to make their job possible? That does not include continuing with a computer system that does not work. Of course we support our officials working across the country and officials working on those matters are working exceptionally hard. We will ensure that they are equipped with the tools that they need to do the job. It is vital and important that payments to crofters and to farmers more generally are paid and are paid on time. Fergus Ewing is very focused on that. I am very happy to ask Fergus Ewing to meet with Tavish Scott to discuss the action that we are taking to listen to any concerns that he continues to have and to set out what we are doing to address them. 5. Fulton MacGregor To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to protect children and young people online. Last week, the Minister for Children and Early Years launched the Scottish Government's national action plan on internet safety for children and young people. It contains a range of actions that we will undertake working in partnership with the police, health boards, third sector organisations and crucially children and young people themselves. Our approach seeks to help children and young people develop the skills that they need to stay safe on the internet and to support parents and carers to be more aware of the potential risks that their children face online. I welcome this development. It is vital that we all do what we can to keep children safe in every aspect of their lives. Can the First Minister advise what role is envisaged for service providers and technology businesses who clearly also have a key responsibility to protect children from harm online? The online industry and social media providers in particular have a key role and a key responsibility in ensuring that children and young people do stay safe online. It is reassuring to see the industry taking its responsibility to protect children seriously through a range of actions and measures, but we should continue where it is necessary to put pressure on the industry to take the action that is appropriate, because there is more for the industry and for providers to do. Indeed, I think that there is more that we can all do to help to keep children safe online. The action plan that we published last week sets out how the Government will take the steps that are for us to take, and I look forward to the industry playing its role fully working with ministers and other stakeholders to implement its measures. The internet overwhelmingly is a force for good and we should embrace that positively. It opens new worlds to children every single day, but the downside is the dangers and the risks that children face, so we must tackle them so that children can continue to enjoy and benefit from the internet in the ways that many of them do. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the accuracy of the GERS figures. GERS is a national statistics publication, which means that it has been independently assessed by the UK Statistics Authority to ensure that it meets the code of practice for official statistics. That code ensures that statistics are of high quality and of public value. GERS estimates that the level of public revenue raised in Scotland and the level of public spending for residents of Scotland under the current constitutional arrangements is based on a range of estimates. It is not an indication of the finances of an independent Scotland, which of course would be dependent on a range of other factors, including the spending choices and priorities of the Government of the Day. I thank the First Minister for that reply, but she has to say that to those SNP supporters, including members of this chamber, who in recent months have mounted a concerted campaign to undermine and delegitimize GERS. Can she also put on record that GERS are official statistics produced by her Government to the highest standards and that those who denigrate the figures are, including in this chamber, as a matter of fact, simply wrong? Can I recommend to the member that, when he comes here and asks a question, he actually manages to listen to the answer? Let me repeat what I said in my first answer. He stood up there in his supplementary and asked me to put on record that they are national statistics. The first words in my original answer, where GERS is a national statistics publication—a bit of listening instead of heckling—might have gone down well. Simple point of making is that GERS does not tell us anything much about the finances of an independent Scotland. It is not just me who says that. The Fraser of Allander Institute says that GERS reflects current constitutional arrangements. Of course, we have a leading anti-independence campaigner, who himself said in radio recently that nobody suggests that the GERS figures show what a future independent Scotland would look like. Yes, they are official statistics. Official statistics are known for being high-quality and of public value. They have a range of estimates underpinning them, as everybody is aware of. Crucially, they reflect the position in Scotland, as the Fraser of Allander Institute says, under current constitutional arrangements, not under independence. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to ensure that older people receive the free personal care payments that they are entitled to in light of research by Age Scotland, which suggests that thousands are missed now due to delays in assessing and arranging care. Age Scotland's figures show that 95 per cent of older people assessed as needing care received the services that they need within six weeks, and the majority of assessments for older people with critical or substantial needs are conducted within two and a half weeks. That said, no one should have to wait longer than necessary to receive their care package, that is why we continue to work closely with councils to make provision even better than it already is. I thank the First Minister for that question, but the fact remains that for many individuals and for many families, far too often the experience of health and social care is not always a good one. It was Pope Francis who said, where there is no honour to the elderly, there is no future for the young. Being able to provide support and care for older people in Scotland at the point where they need that support and that care must be the accepted will of every Scottish Government. Will the First Minister agree to set up a review that will examine the progress today in rolling out integrated health and social care, looking at what is working, what is not working and why it is not working, and building on best practice across Scotland to ensure that every individual who needs health and social care is able to access it? I agree very strongly with the sentiments behind Alec Rowley's question about how we care for her older people is very often the mark of a civilised society, which is why I think that we should all be proud of free personal care in this country and we should also all be proud that the vast majority of older people get good high-quality care and they get it timidiously upon an assessment that says that they need that care. Yes, there are still some individuals for whom that is not the experience and we must and we are determined to continue to work to resolve that. It is exactly for that reason that we did take the step as a Government, a step that no previous Government was prepared to do to formally by statute integrate health and social care. It is also why, as Alec Rowley is aware, we are now doing again the very difficult thing that Governments have shied away from for a long, long time of transferring money from acute health services into social care and community care in recognition of the fact that it is those services that are absolutely essential for individuals, particularly older people, but also essential when it comes to relieving the pressure on our acute health service. I would say to him that the progress of integration is under constant monitoring and review and will continue to be so. It is absolutely the right thing to do. Initiatives of that magnitude clearly will have challenges along the way, but I already speak on a regular basis to people working in both health and social care in different parts of the country who point to improvements that are already being made because of that integration. We, the people out there working in those services, are delivering a high-quality service for the vast majority of older people and our determination working with local authorities, the health service and voluntary organisations who are absolutely crucial here as well is to make sure that that is the experience for absolutely every single older person in Scotland. Christine Grahame As the First Minister is aware, the introduction of free personal care in 2002 has saved over the 15 years tens of millions to the Treasury because they are not required to pay out attendance allowance, tens of millions that could have gone towards free personal care. Does the First Minister agree with me that it is ironic, indeed hypocritical, that in the same breath as the Tories defend their cruel rape clause and demand that the Scottish Government provides funding to spore victims of that callous clause, they refuse to pay out savings that we have made in this Parliament through our compassionate policies? Christine Grahame is absolutely right. Actually, it remains something of a national scandal that the UK Government clawed back attendance allowance from Scotland following the introduction of free personal and nursing care under a previous administration in 2002. I may have misheard her about the tens of millions of pounds that have been lost to this Government as a result of that move by past and current UK Governments. Let me tell it exactly how much that is over the past 15 years. It now amounts to £600 million. More than half a billion pounds should rightly be here in Scotland, helping to support our older people that is currently in the pockets of the London Westminster Treasury. That policy was started by a Labour UK Government, but it has been continued by a Tory UK Government. If either of those parties now wants to say that they stand up for pensioners, although that will be difficult from the Tories, who are preparing to abandon the triple lock on pensions, of course, but if either of those parties wants to come here and talk about what more we need to do for older people, their support for this Government trying to get that money back for Scotland would certainly be overdue, but it would be very welcome indeed. That concludes First Minister's question time point of order, Ms Davidson. During this edition of First Minister's Questions, Nicola Sturgeon made a number of claims. One of them was that there was not a fag paper between her and Alex Salmond's position on whether this general election is or is not about independence, and the second in response to Willie Rennie was that only the Opposition wants to talk about independence. I am wondering if the First Minister is aware that, at the exact time that she was making those statements, her predecessor Alex Salmond was on Sky News and has quoted as saying that this general election, one of the issues will be whether to back our Parliament's right to decide when we have an independent referendum and that it would reinforce the mandate of Holyrood to do so. I am just wondering, Presiding Officer, if the First Minister would like to reconsider her quotes in light of this embarrassing intervention by her predecessor at the time that she was speaking. Sorry, First Minister, it is a point of order for the chair, not for debate. Can I just suggest that these matters are best pursued outside this chamber? Excuse me, Mr FitzPatrick. It is a point of order, it is a question for the chair to rule on as I do rule. It is not a point of order. These are debating points to be conducted in a general election context outside this chamber. The point has been made. I am sorry, it is not to open up a debate, it is a question for the chair. It is not a point of order, we are finished from queues, we will move on to members' business now, I would ask members to leave the chamber quietly. It is members' business in the name of Neil Findlay.