 Cal Scandinavia? Itowar ond, but to answer first Minister's Questions. 1. Ruth Davidson To ask the Deputy First Minister what engagement he has planned for the rest of the day. Deputy First Minister The First Minister is in London today at the unveiling by Her Majesty the Queen of a memorial to commemorate those who have served in recent international conflicts. She has asked that I respond to questions on her behalf. Later today, I will have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Wel, yn ddifu'r 2014 bwlyno ar effaith y diwylliannus ynghyrchu, dydw i'r ddweud i'r gwnaeth gweld i'r saitul, abyn nhog ddiwrs o ni'n gweld i'n gweld i'r gwseul? Felly mae'n ddechrau'n ddysgu'n gweld i'r gweld, mae'n ddetail, a dasho ni'n gweld i'n gweld i'n gweld i'r cwmhysgod kingdom, 300 billion pounds worth of revenues for the United Kingdom. Of course, I'm not the only person who thought that it was a bonus. In 2014, the Prime Minister came to Aberdeen and he said that there would be a £200 billion oil boom bonus for Scotland if Scotland voted no in the referendum, so what I would say to Ruth Davidson is yes, oil is a bonus and it's propped up the United Kingdom economy for many years. Ruth Davidson. The Deputy First Minister is sticking to the line that oil is a bonus and not the basis for the Scottish economy. It's the one that's going to make every single person in Scotland richer if we're independent in the way he tried to sell it just three years ago, yet this week we had Andrew Wilson, the head of the SNP's growth commission, finally exposing the truth. He admitted that we did have oil baked into the numbers and it was indeed a basis. In other words, the entire economic prospectus on which the SNP based its entire case for independence was bogus. It's a simple question now, Deputy First Minister. Is Andrew Wilson right? I've explained to Ruth Davidson already the importance of oil to the United Kingdom economy and the huge bonus it has been to the UK over these 40 years. Of course, the Prime Minister was here in Scotland in 2014 saying that there would be a massive oil bonus for Scotland if we voted no. Of course, there were other promises made to Scotland if we voted no. The same day that the Prime Minister suggested that there would be a £200 billion oil bonus, he said to people in the north-east of Scotland that they would vote no and that there would be a £1 billion carbon capture project for Peterhead. That's been cancelled, Presiding Officer. Of course, when was the other almighty commitment of the no campaign vote no to stay in the European Union? Carbon capture, European Union, the no campaign was shattered by these broken promises. The question was about John Swinney's oil claims being taken apart by his own side. No wonder that aspect was the one aspect that he didn't want to talk about. Of course, we all know what's happened since the Deputy First Minister was talking about all our big bonuses. Oil receipts have absolutely collapsed, and there's a simple question that people across Scotland now have, and the question is this. Without those oil receipts, can the Deputy First Minister point to any independent analysis that shows that Scotland's economy would fare better right now if we were outside the United Kingdom? What people in Scotland would want to hear is more action to support the North Sea oil and gas sector. That's what this Government has been arguing for, what the finance secretary has been arguing for and what the UK Government has been doing is talking about possibly setting up a talking shop that they talked about setting up a year ago, and it hasn't even materialised yet. Of course, we know why the Tories are not interested in supporting the oil and gas sector. There's spokesman Alec Burnett letting the cat out of the bag. He argued that there should be no measures taken to support oil and gas in Scotland. We know that Mr Burnett is a bit poor at declaring his own interests, but he's certainly bad at standing up for the interests of the north-east of Scotland. At a time when the onshore productivity of Scotland is increasing at four times the rate of the rest of the United Kingdom, which the chancellor cited in his budget statement yesterday, I think that there's grounds for a great deal of optimism about the strength of the Scottish economy. Ruth Davidson I have the response from the oil and gas industry here to yesterday's budget. We welcome the chancellor's response to our call to maximise the recovery of the remaining UK oil and gas reserves. The oil and gas industry can welcome the moves from the UK Government. It's no surprise that the Scottish Government doesn't, because they do nothing for the north-east of Scotland. Notice that the Deputy First Minister didn't answer the question, and it's a shame—a real shame—that there is nobody on the SNP front bench who's prepared to be as upfront as Mr Wilson is on the radio. This morning, we had the First Minister gunning for a referendum on independence next year. She called it common sense. I call it nonsense, because most people in Scotland do not want it. Most Scots don't want to go back to the division and uncertainty of another independence referendum. Most Scots think that it's irresponsible to talk of a second referendum, which is only going to damage the Scottish economy yet further. That is common sense, and why does the Deputy First Minister not listen to them? On the substance of action to help the North Sea oil and gas sector and the north-east of Scotland, let me set out for Ruth Davidson three things that this Government has done in the recent past. The First Minister launched a decommissioning challenge fund to support the development of the supply chain to tackle oil and gas decommissioning. We launched, secondly, a £12 million transition training fund to support individuals to retain their skills within the sector, and thirdly, the energy jobs task force has remained focused on supporting those affected by the downturn in the oil and gas sector and will remain so in the years to come. That is the concrete action that we have taken to support the north-east of Scotland and the oil and gas sector. It is interesting that Ruth Davidson moves on to the question of the constitution. It has been very topical today, because today we have seen an opinion poll published just before question time that shows support for the constitutional question on independence at 5050 in Scotland. That says to me that we should not be a tall surprise by those numbers, because that is the people of Scotland being exposed to the hard right politics of the Tory party, seeing the minister getting us into it about Europe and deciding that it is time for this country to choose its own future. To ask the Deputy First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the week. I will have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Before the independence referendum, John Swinney said, that early years of an independent Scotland are time to coincide with a massive North Sea oil boom. Yesterday, the Office of Budget Responsibility confirmed that North Sea oil and gas actually cost the Treasury money last year. Can the Deputy First Minister tell us why the SNP did not tell the people of Scotland the truth about oil? Is not it revealing that the first available opportunity has come back together again in the amity that Kezia Dugdale led the Labour Party into in the 2016 election? She might have learnt to have nothing to do with that law over there. Kezia Dugdale, can we have a little bit of order, please, and slightly less applause? The Deputy First Minister can shout and scream and clap all he likes about better together alliances, but he cannot escape the reality of his own words. Here are some more. It is clear that future tax receipts from North Sea oil and gas will be substantial and represent a significant resource for the people of Scotland. The reality is that people in Scotland were given false hope by the SNP based on a false prospectus. They were told that we could only build a fairer country with independence, but now we know beyond all doubt that that just wasn't true. New analysis, published by Labour today, reveals that the SNP's— Excuse me—there is too much noise in the chamber today. I will be laughing when they realise that it is based on their own numbers, their own record. The SNP's estimate for oil revenues in what would have been the first two years of an independent Scotland could be out as much as £21 billion. In old money, that is £21 million. That would deliver turbocharged austerity, and it would have made that fairer nation all but impossible to build. Will the Deputy First Minister feel any guilt about offering the people of Scotland such false hope? If we are going to pass around this chamber accusations about guilt, I think that the Labour Party has got to think long and hard about how they have enabled the Tory party to govern the United Kingdom because of their awful stance in the referendum in 2014, which ushered in a Tory Government that has taken us out of the European Union, that is punishing vulnerable individuals in our society and damaging the life chances of individuals. The Tory budget yesterday is assessed by the Resolution Foundation to be consigning people in this country to the lowest level of wage growth in over 200 years. That is what the Labour Party is guilty of ushering in by their stance in the referendum. In the midst of that rant, the truth, John Swinney cannot escape from, is that the economic case for independence is well and truly bust, and we all remember. Excuse me, will the chamber please settle down? There are too many interruptions, there is too much applause, too much shouting. Will you please listen to the questions and listen to the answers? We all remember the leaked paper, that was the one that John Swinney admitted privately that the sums did not add up. The oil revenues were volatile, and that pensions would be at risk under independence. Nicola Sturgeon has again today backed herself into a corner on a second independence referendum. Maybe the Deputy First Minister can apply some common sense to help her get out of it. He has looked at the numbers, he knows the case for independence lies and tatters, so why won't he scrap the plans for a second independence referendum? I say to Kezia Dugdale that the Labour Party, if they want to progress, has got to learn the lessons of the mistakes that they made in 2014. The arguments, the narrative and the explanation that Kezia Dugdale is coming out with today, her entire line of attack could have been delivered by Ruth Davidson. It is almost as if Kezia Dugdale wandered into the Scottish exhibition centre last weekend and listened to the speeches by Theresa May and Ruth Davidson and came to this Parliament to deliver them to members of Parliament. I have got some helpful advice to the Labour Party, get on to Scotland's side and then you might progress. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Deputy First Minister may be aware that First Pass is pulling out of all services across borders and Midlothian in my constituency. I have already written to the transport minister and had a lengthy conversation with the commercial director of West Coast Motors, which will be taking over as of 25 March. A further meeting is already penciled in. There are 113 employees across that piece, and while QP does apply and while I am hopeful the change in provider will be good news, can I ask what reassurance the Deputy First Minister can give to my constituents, both employees and passengers, about their jobs and their rural bus services, which are so vital? I acknowledge the significance of the issue that Christine Grahame raises. We are aware of the proposed sale of First Scotland east borders operation to West Coast Motors. The proposed deal will of course be a commercial transaction, as the member will know, but we are engaging with the operators and also with the relevant local authorities to understand the situation and any implications for the staff and the travelling public. We welcome the assurances that have been given by First that all jobs, pay and conditions will be protected. The Minister for Transport will be speaking with the managing director of First Scotland east next week to discuss the issue, and we will consult publicly on measures in the transport bill later this year to address some of the issues that are raised. Of course, the transport minister would be happy to have further discussions with Christine Grahame and other interested members if that would be helpful. Graham Simpson My constituent, Mrs Norma Henderson, who lives in Airdrie, requires an operation for a very serious and worsening gynaecological condition. She is age 61 and is the primary carer for her disabled daughter. She first went to see her GP in August. Since then, her treatment, if it can be called that, has been woeful. She has had two provisional operation dates cancelled, and the 12-week Scottish NHS guarantee for treatment was reached on February 13 without her having had an operation. She was then given another provisional date. For this month, that has been and gone. Would the Deputy First Minister like to apologise to Mrs Henderson and what can he say to assure her that this on-going disgrace will not continue? Jamie Hepburn First of all, I would say to Mr Simpson and directly to Mrs Henderson as well that the national health service undertakes a huge volume of clinical activity on a daily basis. Members of staff around the country work extremely hard to put in place the services that are designed to address the needs of patients and to support them. I recognise the particular circumstances that Mr Simpson raises, because Mrs Henderson is a primary carer for her daughter. Obviously, we must do all that we can to try to support in this circumstance. We have seen data published just during this week about the level of cancelled operations, which shows that the level of cancelled operations for non-clinical reasons is just 2.5 per cent. 97.5 per cent of operations go ahead as planned. Obviously, we will look at the specific issues that Mr Simpson raises about this case. If he would care to pass those to the health secretary, he will be looked at immediately to determine the circumstances. The health secretary will be happy to meet Mr Simpson to address any issues that come out of that analysis. Gordon MacDonald Staff at Herriot-Watt University in my constituency are concerned about the sudden announcement on Friday of 100 job losses. The university stated to move as a direct result of a number of factors, including post-Brexit uncertainty over immigration and research grants, leading to a shortfall in postgraduate applications. What assistance could the Deputy First Minister offer my constituents who face an uncertain future? I am aware of the issue, and the Minister for Higher Education and Science has discussed those issues with the principal at Herriot-Watt University. As autonomous bodies, universities are responsible for their own finances and staffing. However, I would expect the university to work closely with staff and unions on this matter, and it is absolutely vital that student experience is not diminished. From my discussions across the sector and the discussions of the Minister for Higher Education and Science across the sector, we are acutely aware of the unease within the higher education sector about the implications of Brexit. Any member listening to the concerns of the higher education sector could not fail to see and recognise those concerns. For the Government's part, the Scottish funding council has increased the resources that are available to Herriot-Watt University for the forthcoming academic year, and that is welcome. However, the university is wrestling with significant uncertainty around the position on EU citizens. I would encourage the United Kingdom Government to provide clarity on the ability of EU citizens and students from across the globe to study at one of Scotland's universities in the future. We hope that further reassurance can be given by the chancellor to our excellent universities so that they can maintain the income that they draw from competitive EU research funds, which are central to the strengthening of our university sector. Question 3, Patrick Harvie. Thank you to ask the Deputy First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. Given the volume in the chamber a few minutes ago, as the other political parties debated their shared desperate attachment to the economics of the fossil fuel industry, it is possible that people might find it hard to believe that the parties are about to stand together later this afternoon to promote earth hour, demonstrating acclaimed shared commitment to action on climate change. However, over recent weeks, parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's draft climate plan has exposed serious omissions and contradictions. We have seen the environment secretary defending a plan that includes nothing to improve bus use and saying that car journeys are destined to go up by 25 per cent, while the transport minister says no. That is only the worst-case scenario. We have the environment secretary telling the chamber about a Government policy for compulsory soil testing to reduce fertiliser use, and a fortnight later the rural economy secretary writes to committees to say no, that is definitely not happening. Although the finance secretary admits that there has been no attempt to build a credible economic case for his plan to cut aviation tax, he tells us that the rest of the economy can make up for the extra emissions from all that flying, even though the climate plan itself is utterly devoid of detail on how that is to happen. The draft climate plan is barely half-baked. Is not it clear that major changes are needed if we are going to ensure that the ambitious choices that Scotland needs to make are written into the plan? First of all, the Government committed to publish a climate change plan in 2016-17 and the draft plan was published on 19 January, as Mr Harvie has said. Of course, the detail that Mr Harvie has gone through demonstrates the rigorous scrutiny that is exercised on the Government by parliamentary committees, and so it should be. Those issues should be properly tested in the committee. My experience in interacting with parliamentary committees is that we have that rigorous interaction. The Government's climate change plan takes in a huge number of measures and interventions across Government to enable us to fulfil the targets that we have set for ourselves. I remind Mr Harvie that the Government has already, early, achieved the 2020 targets that we put in place for carbon emissions reductions, and that is something that we should all, as a Parliament, be proud of, because we legislated for that ambitious legislation a number of years ago, and we are now seeing that legislation fulfil as a consequence of the Government's leadership and actions. There is a process of parliamentary scrutiny to be undertaken, but I ask Mr Harvie to consider the achievements that have been made so far and to work with the Government on taking forward measures that will have a substantive effect in reinforcing the targets in the years to come. The low-hanging fruit is pretty thin on the branches now, and I suspect that the Parliament is going to need to see far more consistency and detail from the Government before this climate plan passes. The four parliamentary committees that have produced reports on the plan are due to publish tomorrow, but even looking at the submitted evidence that is already in the public domain and from the questions that are asked by MSPs, it is very clear that there is serious concern and that changes to the draft plan will need to be equally serious. I will say that the situation is not as bad as it is with the UK Government, even if that is setting the bar pretty low. The climate change was the elephant in the debating chamber yesterday during the budget statement, not a single mention of climate change by the Chancellor, nor on the challenges that we face nor on the opportunities from the low-carbon economy, which the UK Government's policies have done so much to undermine. I regret the fact that the Scottish Government's criticism of the Chancellor on the North Sea is probably going to say that he is not doing enough to support the polluting oil industry to extract fossil fuels that the world cannot afford to burn. Can the Deputy First Minister give us one commitment that the extra capital funding that is going to be available will be committed to low-carbon infrastructure to help to break our reliance on fossil fuel consumption and build up the new industries and genuinely sustainable jobs that the country will need in the post-oil era? I am very surprised to hear Mr Harvey thinking that my criticism of the Chancellor might be limited to one issue. I have lots to criticise the Chancellor for, and I certainly agree with his analysis that the United Kingdom Government has not done all it could have done to help us in advancing the agenda that this Parliament has been interested in advancing principally on renewable energy. The First Minister was in the Western Isles on Monday and reported to Cabinet on Tuesday about the frustration in the Western Isles, about the lack of progress that has been made, despite sterling efforts by Fergus Ewing and Paul Wheelhouse over a number of years to support, supported by many other parties in Parliament, to secure an interconnector that would enable the renewable potential of the Western Isles to be fully realised as a consequence. I am quite happy to balance out the criticism to make sure that those issues are properly put on the record. We will work with the United Kingdom Government to try to advance. If the Conservatives have influence with the UK Government, they might be able to help us to try to get progress on that interconnector, so an economic opportunity that can really transform their lives and attack full poverty in the Western Isles can be realised for the people of the Western Isles. Mr Harvey asks me if I will commit the extra capital that was announced by the United Kingdom Government yesterday. I have to say to Mr Harvey that times have changed. I no longer control the first strings in the Government. Indeed, I am now a supplicant when it comes to entering with trepidation the office of the finance secretary to try to secure capital assistance. If it is okay with Mr Harvey, I will properly respect the role of the finance secretary who will make announcements on those questions to Parliament in due course, but I do commit to putting a good word for Mr Harvey's objectives. The Audit Scotland report into the failed I6 project makes grim reading. It is yet another botched IT project on the SNP's watch, which clearly should have been abandoned far sooner. True to form, the Scottish Government's response was to welcome a number of areas of good practice highlighted in the findings, but shamefully ignored the conclusion, which said that police officers and staff continue to struggle with out-of-date, inefficient and poorly integrated systems. Does the Deputy First Minister recognise the difficulties that police officers and staff face as a result of the IT shambles? What reassurance can he give officers and staff who face the prospect of using these worn-out systems for years to come? The first thing that I say to Mr Ross is that I acknowledge the importance of the system redesign that has to be undertaken. That work has to be done in an orderly fashion to ensure that our police services can have access to high-quality information technology that can assist them in their work. The Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland are absolutely committed to doing that. The best thing for me to do in this respect, in answering the points that Mr Ross has made, is to quote the Auditor General for Scotland, who on the radio this morning said that one of the positive things about this particular project is that because of the strength of the contract that Police Scotland had signed with Accenture, they were able to recover both the £11 million that they had paid over to their contractor and also to recover an extra £13.5 million to reflect staff time and payments that have been made for hardware and software. In purely cash terms, Police Scotland is not out of pocket. That is what the Auditor General for Scotland said this morning, in a reflection on the fact that, while the programme has not been able to be taken to completion because of the scale of the challenge between Police Scotland and the contractor, the public purse has not suffered as a consequence of that. Police Scotland will now take forward, in the way that we would expect them, an organised approach to make sure that we can have in place the systems that will enable police officers to have access to modern IT in the period to come. Jackie Baillie With the substantial reduction in oil revenues, it is surely time for a new oil and gas bulletin. The last publication was in June 2015. The First Minister promised me in June 2016 that it would be soon. Frankly, if the Scottish Government was on performance-related pay, it would get nothing. Will the Deputy First Minister ensure that a new bulletin is published before June 2017 and another year passes? If the Labour Party was on performance-related pay, we would have been in a negative equity. Maybe paying back for that IT system that Douglas Ross was talking about. I can say to Jackie Baillie that the Government has published a range of information on oil and gas. We published a compendium of energy statistics and analysis just last week, on 23 February, and I encouraged Jackie Baillie to take reference of that particular document, which is a substantial compendium of statistical information. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Deputy First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the UK budget. The Chancellor's statement confirmed that the Scottish Government faces a £2.9 billion budget cut over the 10 years to 2019-20. While the limited consequentials that were announced yesterday are welcome, that does not represent an end to austerity. Indeed, recent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that the UK Government's austerity will continue well into the next decade. The budget provided no support for low-income families who are facing deep cuts to their incomes as a result of the Chancellor's cuts to social security and who will bear the brunt of the costs of Brexit. We will continue to do everything that we can to boost the economy, tackle inequality and provide high-quality public services, but yesterday's budget does little to support those aims. I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer. Obviously, we all welcome the additional £350 million of funding, albeit over three years, I might add, for the Scottish budget as a result of the Chancellor's announcement yesterday. However, we should not let that welcome news blind us to the very real hard reality that Scotland's budget faces a real-terms cut of £2.9 billion as a result of 10 years of Tory Government that the people of Scotland did not vote for. A £2.9 billion cut will do untold damage to the economy, to vital public services and the cause of equality in Scotland. A Tory Government that, obviously, the Labour Party in Scotland would prefer to Scotland taking control of its own affairs. Mr Crawford makes an important point. As Mr Crawford always does, UK austerity is cutting the funding available for Scottish public services. Moreover, the UK Government's austerity measures are cutting the incomes of some of the most vulnerable in our society. The latest OBR forecasts show that real average earnings by 2021 will still be below their level in 2007, representing more than a decade of lost growth. The Treasury's own distributional analysis demonstrates that low-income households will see larger cuts to their incomes than virtually everyone else except for the very richest households as a direct result of the UK Government's policies over this Parliament. That is the consequence of UK Government policies in Scotland. Liam Kerr The Chancellor's budget decisions will deliver a welcome, additional £145 million in extra Barnett consequentials for next year. Given that much of those consequentials arise from money that the Chancellor is allocating to English councils to address business rates rises, how much of the additional money at their disposal will the Scottish Government allocate to councils such as those in the north-east of Scotland who want to set up local rate relief schemes? The Deputy First Minister It is a bit of an odd question. In both Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council, the Conservatives voted against business rates relief schemes that were put forward. That is the first odd point about Mr Kerr's question. The second point is that this morning the Conservatives have been arguing for us that this is our opportunity because of the consequentials to cancel the removal of the tax cut for high earners. That was Mr Fraser's property. They are just sitting there cheek by jowl, cheek by jowl, the two of them. The Conservatives are trying to spend the same money twice. We all know that the Labour Party used to—maybe it is something to do with when you sit over there. That is what the Labour Party used to ask me to do when I was the finance minister. When they were sitting there in second place, they would ask me to spend the money twice. The Tories are the second party and they are asking us to spend the same money twice. The finance secretary will do, as he is doing magnificently just now, take decisions that will be sensibly steered, the public finances and there will be wise investments in the future of the Scottish economy. To ask the Deputy First Minister for what reason life expectancy is no longer rising in Scotland, increasing in Scotland. Reducing health inequalities is one of the biggest challenges that we face. They are a symptom of wider economic inequalities and that is why this Government will continue to take action and has invested £296 million since 2013 to mitigate the harmful effects of the UK Government's welfare reform. It is concerning that between 2012 and 2015, life expectancy rates remain static in Scotland, although we have seen an increase over the year 2015 to 2016. The causes of Scottish mortality are complex, multiple and interwoven. That was the conclusion of the Glasgow Centre for Population Health landmark report in 2016. Danny Dorling, Professor of Geography at the University of Oxford, said over the weekend that austerity measures might have contributed to the stalling life expectancy. I do not think that it has anything to do with the SNP Government. I think that the same thing would have occurred had Labour held power in Scotland. It is the fall in funding due to the financial crash of 2008. Adam Tomkinson Presiding Officer, the Deputy First Minister will know that life expectancy levels in the east end of Glasgow are dramatically lower than in other more affluent parts of the city. The Commonwealth Games offered an unparalleled opportunity to take specific action to reduce health inequalities and mortality rates in the neighbourhoods that hosted the games, yet it seems that no targets were set to achieve this. Compare this with the boroughs that hosted the Olympics, which set themselves the explicit target of narrowing the gap in male and female life expectancies between the east end and the rest of London. Does the Deputy First Minister not agree that Glasgow should follow London's lead in this regard, and can he tell us what action Scottish ministers will take to address the health inequalities that persist in Glasgow? I reiterate the point that I made in my original answer. The implications of austerity have increased the challenge that we face in addressing long-term health inequalities that have been present in Scottish society for all of my lifetime. The Government is taking a co-ordinated approach to tackling those issues by some of the measures that are taken by Mr Brown in relation to the regeneration of the east end of Glasgow and the support that we put in place for Clyde Gateway, the work that Shona Robison takes forward with the health service to ensure that we have an integrated service in areas of multiple deprivation to address the whole needs of individuals, not just the health needs but the whole wellness agenda that is relevant, and the work that I take forward with particular measures such as the pupil equity fund, which are designed to target very directly the approaches that are required to support young people from deprived backgrounds to achieve their potential within our education system. Schools in the east end of Glasgow are benefiting enormously and quite rightly from those investments. Then we have the measures that Angela Constance takes forward as part of the social security work to ensure that we are focusing on supporting the vulnerable in our society. I reassure Mr Tomkins of the determination of government in Scotland across all of our responsibilities to make sure that we focus on ending the income inequalities that have bedevilled so many individuals in our society and ensure that every individual can have the opportunity to progress in our society despite the health difficulties and the background that might have undermined them. To ask the Deputy First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the Samaritan report, Dying from Inequality, which suggests that there is an increased risk of suicide in the most deprived communities? Presiding Officer, any death by suicide is a tragedy and sadly the link between deprivation and the risk of suicide is well known. We will take this report's recommendations into account, including placing an emphasis on inequalities as we develop a new suicide prevention strategy for publication early next year. In Scotland, although suicide rates are higher than average in most deprived areas, it is important to recognise that this inequality gap has narrowed over the past decade. Scotland's suicide rates have reduced by 18 per cent in the last 10 years, and the number of suicides in 2015 was the lowest in a single year since 1974. Monica Lennon I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer. Shortly before the publication of the Samaritan report, we heard from the Minister for Mental Health in the chamber just last week that there has been no formal evaluation of the last suicide prevention strategy, and there appears to be no plan to embark on one before the next strategy is produced. The World Health Organization tells us that evaluation is a central pillar of effective suicide prevention strategies. Now that we have the Samaritan report, will the Deputy First Minister commit the Government to an evaluation of the actions in the previous strategy before the Government embarks on the next one? The Deputy First Minister I think that Monica Lennon raises a significant issue. We have to, in policy terms, be very open to questioning whether particular interventions have been successful, given the fact that we all recognise the importance, whether the imperative, the necessity of making sure that the measures that we put in place are effective in supporting individuals in these circumstances. If Monica Lennon will forgive me, I will not give her a definitive answer today, but I will ask the health secretary to look closely at the serious point that she has raised, and we will reply to Monica Lennon on the very specific point about an evaluation of the strategy. However, I give Parliament the assurance that the Government is determined to take all measures that we possibly can do to support vulnerable individuals in these circumstances. 7. John Mason Thank you. To ask the Deputy First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the report by the chair of the advisory group on tackling sectarianism in Scotland. Presiding Officer, I would like to take this opportunity in Parliament to thank Dr Morill for undertaking this important review. I know that he gathered evidence from a wide range of sources, including all parties in the chamber. I would like to thank everyone for their constructive contributions. It is very clear from the review that what remains to be done and that we all have a responsibility to meet the challenge. The Scottish Government is fully committed to building on Dr Morill's work. We have invested £12.5 million over the last five years to tackle sectarianism, including £9.3 million directly invested in community-based projects across Scotland, more than any public expenditure in this field in advance of this announcement. John Mason I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer. One of the responses that came in to Dr Morill was from Action of Churches Together in Scotland, which covers a wide number of denominations. It mentioned the concern and the worry that, if any changes were made to the offensive behaviour at football etc act, that could be seen as legitimising sectarianism. Does he share my concern that we must not do anything that would legitimise sectarianism? Deputy First Minister I agree that we must do absolutely nothing to legitimise sectarianism, so it is important that, as Parliament considers those issues, the Minister for Community Safety was here making a statement just the other week there about the steps that the Government has taken to commission a review into all of our hate crime legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose in the period going forward. The approach that we are determined to take is to look for alternatives and to see how the measures that are in the act can be improved. In line with constructive views offered by the equality network, Stonewall and the Law Society of Scotland, the independent review of hate crime legislation will include an analysis of the Offensive Behaviour Act, and that will set out the issues that we have to address in ensuring that we have legislation that is fit for the 21st century in Scotland. I do not doubt the words of the Deputy First Minister in opposing sectarianism. However, they are undermined slightly by the fact that the Government cut funding by £2 million to initiatives that were fighting sectarianism in its community. I think that the Government's flagship policy in combat and sectarianism has been the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act. Unfortunately, one of the policy outcomes of that act has been to criminalise young men and introduce many of them for the first time into the criminal justice system. I do not think that that is consistent with Scottish Government justice policy, and I do not think that that was the intention when the Government brought forward the legislation. Will the Deputy First Minister take this opportunity to rethink the approach to this failed legislation and the Government's overall approach to tackling sectarianism? The Government has taken steps by the measures that we have taken forward to commission the independent review to look at the issues that are raised on sectarianism in the whole context of the hate crime legislation in Scotland. I think that that is an open process that should be welcomed across Parliament. In relation to the questions on finance, the commitments that the Government has made on tackling sectarianism financially have resulted in the investment of £12.5 million over the past five years. That is more than any other Government has ever done in the past. That has been a measure of the commitment that we have to ensure that we tackle the issue and tackle it effectively by the support that is in place. I appreciate Mr Kelly's strong views on that question, and he acknowledges the commitment that I make on that question in his own points that he has made. I ask him to accept that the Government is determined to tackle those issues, but to tackle them in a way that addresses the wider questions that have to be considered on that important question. That concludes First Minister's questions. We will now move to members' business in the name of Adam Tomkins. We will just take a few moments to change seats.