 to home officers working directly with.番 sur、 to ask the First Minister what engages he has planned for the rest of the day. Later today I'll be leaving and travelling to France, where I'll be attending the seas of events by Cemetery and Sword beach to mark the seventy of anniversary of the DDA landings. Those fitting events remind us of the sacrifice of those who died during the biggest amphibious assault in military history. Of course they remind us of the necessity to never forget that sacrifice made by those who fell in conflict. Johann Lamont Can I thank the First Minister very much for that information, and our thoughts will be with all those for whom it is a particularly painful day, but it is a proud opportunity to commemorate a very important time in our history. Last week we found out that the First Minister does not know what it will cost to set up a separate Scottish state. This week we found out that he does not know how he will pay for his promises to those in greatest need of welfare. Can the First Minister now reveal what he is going to tell us next week that he does not know? What I can say to Johann Lamont is that we published the framework of an independent Scotland in the White Paper described as Scotland's future. If she consults chapter six and chapter ten she'll see the extensive information that was presented on how we would go about producing a modern democracy in Scotland, but above all she'll see the arguments of why Scotland, as a modern democracy, will be able to build a more prosperous and above all a more equal country for all our citizens. I think most of us looking at the white paper found there was a lot of questions answered that we weren't asking and none of the main questions that really mattered addressed at all. Now last week my colleague Neil Bibby asked Aileen Campbell a simple question, what her childcare policy would cost. She said and I quote, independence is the answer. That is exactly right. We ask for a figure and we get back a statement of nonsense. Every single policy the First Minister unveils to try to persuade Scotland to vote yes is uncosted. Either he's a plan to reverse the rules of arithmetic or he has no intention of delivering them. The IFS tells us that after independence the First Minister can't deliver what we have now but still the uncosted promises tumble from his lips. Let me put it another way. When is the First Minister going to announce a money tree for every garden in Scotland? Can I firstly remind Johann Lamont what we've already delivered as far as childcare in Scotland is concerned? We inherited 412.5 hours for three and four-year-olds. That's moving this year to 600 hours. That's a substantial achievement. We are going to move to the for-work-less households for two-year-olds this year and over the next two years. That's a very substantial advance. Of course, the Labour Party, if I remind you in January, said that that wasn't enough. Indeed, so desperate were they to make that point, they were prepared to sacrifice school meals for primaries one to three in their vote in January. However, they said that within the consequentials there was the ability to move immediately to 50 per cent coverage for two-year-olds. Will I find that these consequentials don't even approach what would have happened if we'd followed Johann Lamont's advice? I think that people are looking at the considerable advances that have been made by this Government within the restricted budget and the austerity programme coming down from Labour and Tory at Westminster will see a track record of substantial success, which will give people every confidence as we move forward for independence and controlling of our own finances will be able to do even more for the families of Scotland. Johann Lamont, this of course is the Scottish Government that decided it wasn't in the public interest for us to know what their policy and childcare was going to cost. It's simply an insult to people who every day are concerned about the question of childcare. However, let's take the key out of the First Minister's economics and listen to some real economists. The Institute of Fiscal Studies said this week, and I quote, Scottish Government ministers have not always been as careful as official Scottish Government publications when referring to figures. They say that Nicola Sturgeon in particular is bad with figures. The IFS says that the deficit in an independent Scotland would be £1,000 more for every person in Scotland, but that doesn't stop the First Minister, so he has a referendum to win. I've got more childcare, increased welfare, what's next week's offer, whatever people want and it won't cost you a coin. Why? Why? When the IFS says that an independent Scotland couldn't afford what we have now, does the First Minister try? When the IFS says that an independent Scotland couldn't afford what we have now, does the First Minister try to dupe the people of Scotland by offering things he knows he can't deliver? I remind the Labour Party it was Johann Lamont who said that we couldn't afford the social gains of devolution and set up a cuts commission to examine them. I haven't heard from Arthur Midwinter for some considerable time, but I am fully expecting that report to emerge and tell us what Johann Lamont wants to do is she going to sacrifice free tuition in Scotland, is she going to sacrifice free transport, free personal care for the elderly? The Labour Party, I've had all of the social gains of devolution in their sites, they were part, as we remember, of the something for nothing society that Johann Lamont says wasn't sustainable. I believe that people seeing the track record and the social democratic gains of devolution will recognise that in this Government we have a Government with ambition for Scotland that knows if you match and marry the natural resources of this country to the talents of our people then we can create a better and more prosperous and more equal society. It's about having confidence in the ability of Scotland to govern its own affairs like any other nations. It's like stopping talking down the country, it's like some sort of recognition from the Labour Party that they couldn't run Scotland when times were good in fiscal terms. Who would trust them to run Scotland now? Some sort of dawning realisation that after almost a century of political dominance in Scotland, the Labour Party leaves election after election and the reason they lose it is that they have no ambition for the people and the country of Scotland. A serious question about the cost of his own proposals and we are treated to the First Minister's greatest hits over the last two years. It's about time he was serious about the job that he's supposed to be doing because if the symbol for the United Kingdom is the pound sign, the symbol for Alex Salmond's separate Scotland is crossed fingers. Fingers crossed not in the hope that things might work out well but fingers crossed in the hope that the people of Scotland will be daft enough to believe a word the First Minister says. Because most people in the real world know you need to know what things cost. So what we've got, childcare, uncosted, not even an attempt to find out what the figures would be. Pensions, John Swinney doubts he can afford them but still we get an assertion that they will be better. Now welfare, big cynical problems to those in greatest needs and not a clue how to pay for them. I agree with the First Minister when he says that people of Scotland are talented, ambitious and bright but where I disagree with him it's not always in evidence but however I do believe that people in Scotland are talented ambitious and bright but where I disagree with him is the key quality his plans rely on, his unerring belief that the people of Scotland are gullible and will believe anything that he says. First Minister, order. First Minister. Let's have agreement that the people of Scotland are talented, ambitious and bright. Just that this side believes that these talented, ambitious and bright people are capable of making a success of running our own country. I don't think that Johann Lamont should have described our proposals for welfare in the way she's done. I think, for example, the recommendation to increase the carers allowance from £61.35 a week to £72.40 a week but £575 to 57,000 individuals in Scotland. I think that that is a substantial investment in Scotland's future and I think that the costing of that policy is very, very important and the costing of that policy is £32.9 million a year. I believe that we should afford that and incidentally, Mike Brewer, a research fellow at the Institute of Fiscal Studies, was a member of the expert working group on welfare which produced that policy. I think that commitment and that recommendation is an important decoration of faith in the work done by carers in Scotland, which people across this chamber should support and aspire to. Yes, it's going to cost £32 million but, in my estimation, it's £32 million well spent. I would have a care about the company that Johann Lamont is keeping. We know that Danny Alexander exaggerated the cost, the set-up cost of an independent Scotland by a factor of 12 times. We know that because the source professor Dunleavy told us that and we know that he did that and he's been running from that reality ever since. I've been looking at what Danny Alexander has been saying about his ally's plans. For example, Danny Alexander earlier this year said, Labour's new borrowing bombshell will pile another £166 billion of extra borrowing on to the debt mounting left by their catastrophic mismanagement of the UK economy. On what I'm saying to Johann Lamont, presumably she doesn't believe that Danny Alexander is correct in his assessment of Labour's borrowing bombshell, so why on earth should she believe he's correct is an assessment of the cost of an independent Scotland. Professor Dunleavy doesn't believe it. We don't believe it and, above all, the Scottish people don't believe it. Ruth Davidson Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister when he'll next meet the Prime Minister. No plans, near future. We already know that the impartial and independent Institute of Fiscal Studies has concluded—it is when it suits the First Minister—that Scotland would have an £8.6 billion black hole in its finances in the first year of independence, but it's not just them. Those are similar findings to work that has been done by other impartial and independent bodies, such as the Centre for Public Policy for the Regions and City Group, and it's part of a trend. On the one hand, expert groups with sober analysis of the facts, and on the other hand, the SNP with shrill assertions and bully boy bluster. So I'm asking, in all seriousness, why does the First Minister think that all of these people are wrong, but only he is right? Well, I've got a range of quotations of independent experts who make the point that Scotland is not just a sustainable country in economic terms, but a highly prosperous country. In many cases, it's more prosperous than the United Kingdom in terms of the potential that we have in the economy of people, even standard and poor, not known for their sunny optimism. The economic outlook for various countries pointed out that Scotland would qualify for their highest economic assessment even without North Sea oil and gas. Can I say that the think factoristic, which is common to the assessments that Ruth Davidson quotes, is that they all are based on the OBR figures. If you base something on the same figures, you come up with the same conclusion. I put it to Ruth Davidson that the track record of the OBR is such that we should have confidence in looking at the oil industry in Scotland at the present moment that our estimates in terms of revenues in 2016-17 are a great deal more reasonable than those of the OBR. Since we don't assume a collapse in oil prices to less than $100 a barrel, we don't assume that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is right either. We don't assume that it goes up to $130. We assume that it's $110 a barrel, and we assume that we follow the industry estimates in terms of the increased investment over the next few years, and that will result in a substantial increase in production. That's what Sir Ian Wood pointed out in his recent report. If we follow the industry estimates, followed incidentally by 80 per cent of the companies that reflected in the oil and gas UK survey recently, that is a reasonable estimate to put forward, as opposed to an OBR figures that rely on the Department of Energy and Climate Change when it comes to production, but disregard the forecast when it comes to price. That's why we've put forward a reasonable perspective on which we'll have a grand starting position for an independent Scotland, but the policies that we follow, while the policies that grow the economy, increase the welfare and economic health of the country, and, above all, bring about a more equal and just society. I am delighted that the First Minister brought up oil and the quote of reasonable estimates, because it's not just independent and impartial experts who take issue with the First Minister, but it's his own advisers—Professor Andrews Hughes-Hallot, who wrote the First Minister's fiscal commission report, who is a key member of the First Minister's Council of Economic Advisers, described by the First Minister as, and I quote, the most formidable intellectual firepower ever to have tackled Scottish economic underperformance. So we know that the First Minister thinks he's a big deal. He revealed to the finance committee just yesterday that the First Minister's oil figure is raw. Professor Hughes-Hallot wrote that it would be reasonable to expect North Sea oil revenues to rise to £4.5 billion between 2016 and 2020. Let's just remind ourselves that only last week, after months of stalling, the Scottish Government claimed that that figure would be £7 billion a year. Alex Salmond's old adviser says, £5 billion, and Alex Salmond says, £7 billion. It is a total farce. The First Minister has wildly overestimated, beyond the expectation of any, any rigorous analysis, in order to try and plug the gaping holes in his white paper. Professor Hughes-Hallot, your own man, says your £2 billion out. Is he wrong as well? The Conservative Party has been predicting the demise of the North Sea oil industry since the 1980s. Professor Hughes-Hallot is voting yes in the referendum because he believes that the Scottish economy will be better managed and governed from Scotland. The scenarios pointed out in the papers that were released last week based on the price assumption that I have already spelled out. The production and investment in the line of industry expectations are a great deal more robust than the OBR's estimates, but you wanted independent experts. I have one or two here. John Howell, chair of petroleum geology, Aberdeen University, presumably somebody who knows something about the oil industry and its future production levels. With upwards of £35 billion barrels equivalent still in the North Sea and surrounding waters and an annual production of £600 million, there are at least 40 years of production with significant yet to find resources that may be added. I merely offer this to Ruth Davidson because Professor Howell is well in advance of the production estimates that we are making, which indicates the caution of the Scottish Government's forecast and how we look forward to seeing the results of that in terms of the economy of Scotland. In the last final difference, which perhaps indicates why a majority— First Minister, can you sit down? Can we please hear the First Minister without the barricade? Everybody needs to be heard in this chamber, and I'm determined that that's going to happen. First Minister. Which is why in the Aberdeen and Grampian chambers of comments survey, a survey of 700 firms in the industry, more of these companies believe that independence will benefit the industry than those who believe it won't benefit the industry. Why? The industry and the people believe that having huge quantities of oil and gas in our economy and off our waters is an advantage for Scotland, like it is for every other oil-producing country, as opposed to the crushing liability that the Tory party has told us it is for the last 40 years. Neil Findlay. This week, a large group of women, including several from my region, attended the Petitions Committee calling for the suspension of polypropylene mesh implants fitted to treat pelvic prolapse. Given the appalling injuries experienced by those women, will the First Minister instruct the Cabinet Secretary for Health to issue new guidance that would have the effect of suspending the use of this product until an inquiry is held into the safety of it? As the member should know, the matter is under serious consideration. On this matter, we intend to move in conjunction with the other health departments across these islands. However, what the health sector would be more than prepared to do is directly meet with the women concerned and explain the consideration that it has been given to what is a fundamental and serious issue. What recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with Police Scotland regarding the use of stop-and-set? The Scottish Government meets regularly with Police Service of Scotland to discuss a range of issues, including stop-and-set. The most recent meeting took place on 15 May. Stop-and-set is an important tool for the police and the prevention and detection of crime. The SPA's reporting acknowledges the tactic that makes a contribution towards the reduction of violence and anti-social behaviour. Scotland is a safer place for people to live since 2006-07, with violent crime down by almost half, and crimes of handling offensive weapons down by 60 per cent since 2006-07. Of course, we welcomed the Scottish Police Authority's scrutiny and review of stop-and-set, which was published last week. Police Scotland has established a new national stop-and-set unit to ensure a consistency of approach to this important policing tactic to tackle violent crime and anti-social behaviour. The First Minister has spent the year saying that the policy cuts crime. The police authority says that there is no robust evidence that it does so. Reports show that hundreds of children, even under six, have been searched here in Scotland. Is it not time for the First Minister to move and change the law? Can he tell me how a child of six can give informed consent to a police search? You said that there is no argument or support that this policy helps to prevent crime. I disagree fundamentally with Alice McInnes on that matter. More importantly, some of our former colleagues in this chamber disagreed fundamentally. Robert Brown, the Liberal Democrat Justice spokesperson in the last Parliament said in the 30 of June 2010, the single thing that deters people from criminal behaviour is the likelihood of being caught. The stop-and-set she's carried out by Strafcide police have been very effective. That strikes me as a significant voice who understood the importance of stop-and-search. The reduction in the carrying and use of weapons has been a huge major success for the police services of Scotland. Of course, it's right and proper that we review policy, and it's right and proper that the Scottish Police Authority does that, but not to believe that one of the aspects of the carrying of weapons by young people was their fear that other people were carrying weapons is to neglect the overwhelming burden of evidence, the one supported by her former colleague and is supported by the vast majority of people who argue for this policy. Above all, in terms of the impact of stop-and-search and the reduction in the carrying of weapons, perhaps Alison McInnes should listen to some of the victims of violent crime. Lisa McLean, sister of Barry McLean, killed in a knife attack in May 2011. The police get a lot of stick for the number of searches that they are carrying out, but I am very supportive. If they can stop just one person from carrying a knife, then it's been worth it. Barry's death changed my life irreversibly. At some point in this argument, perhaps Alison McInnes might face up to the fact that the victims are crying, the people who celebrate the fact that knife carrying in Scotland has been substantially reduced, the fact that our young people do not have the same fear that other people are carrying weapons is a substantial advance for justice in this country. The SPA report estimates that, with an average of 15 minutes per stop-and-search, the whole process takes approximately 250,000 police hours per year. Does the First Minister think that that is a proportionate use of police time? I see that the Conservative Party's ever moving aspect on this part. I think that the police service is using proportionate methods in terms of putting forward the stop-and-search policy. I think that the member should consider, along with Alison McInnes, that the statistics rather speak for themselves. Violent crime down by almost a half since 2007, crimes of handling offensive weapons down by 60 per cent since 2007. When we had this debate in the 2011 elections, there was a whole variety of suggestions put forward to arrive at the sort of position that the police service meant to arrive at. Some people suggested that mandatory jail sentences were an uncosted commitment that got into some confusion from the Labour Party's spokesperson, which may well have resulted in the jailing of people who were carrying garden implements. I think that, as an alternative, the Labour Party to Richard Baker's famous interview during the election campaign is therefore a proportionate policy to have stop-and-search, which has contributed to this huge and welcome reduction in violent crime and the carrying of offensive weapons. Thank you to ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will respond to the report of the expert working group on welfare. As we announced yesterday, the Government will take forward and consider carefully the recommendations made by the expert working group. Those recommendations include increasing the carer allowance, abolishing the current regime of sanctions, ending the 1 per cent cap on benefits and up-rate by the CPI, ending the current work capability assessment and establishing a national convention on social security. As the chamber knows, we have already taken action on abolishing the bedroom tax supported by the group in its report. It is a progressive and comprehensive report, and it indicates that, with independence, Scotland can choose to take its own path in social security, rejecting the negative discourse that dominates the Westminster system and taking substantial strides to building a more equal society that values all our citizens. Thank you, First Minister. As we have heard, the report recommends an increase in carer allowance to bring it into line with jobseekers allowance, which is something that the Scottish Government responded fairly to, which I am sure will be warmly welcomed by the many Scots elders will receive as benefit. However, I wonder if the First Minister agrees with me that the very fact that the report has had to recommend this measure, along with consideration of a number of other carers-related measures, is a damning indictment of the treatment of a sector of society that all of us owe so much to by successive Westminster Governments, and should not Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems be ashamed that, rather than inheriting a fair welfare system from the UK, an independent Scotland will have to create one. I was trying to reconcile the reaction on the Labour benches to the discussion that we had on carers allowance, which strikes me as a stand-out of one of the immediate and welcome recommendations of this report. I cannot see how, when we have had a recent discussion on the inequity of the bedroom tax and a whole series of demands for this Government to provide the compensation against a Westminster measure, we cannot have the same unanimity or at least majority support for addressing the clear inequity towards Scotland's carers. It is spelt out in the report, it is spelt out the valuable contribution that it makes to Scottish society. I hope that when an SNP Government, any Government of an independent Scotland, brings forward the carers allowance proposals that are required for us to control social security to bring them forward, then they will meet with a massive resounding majority in this chamber, but of all a massive resounding majority among the Scottish people. To ask the First Minister when the Vale of Leven hospital inquiry will be published. Well, as Jackie Baillie will know, the handling of the inquiry is a matter for the chair, Lord McLean, that is important for a statutory inquiry. It is an independent public inquiry, it has been carefully examining all of the issues in a tragic and serious case. The inquiry has taken longer than anyone would have wanted and will be a source of frustration to many, not least to the families who are affected. Lord McLean has advised that he is currently considering the responses to the warning letters issued by the inquiry and will make any necessary amendments to his report. In keeping with the Inquiries Act 2005, Lord McLean will advise the Scottish Government when his final process has been concluded and his timetable for publishing his report. The health secretary, Alex Neil, will inform Parliament of that timetable when it is finalised and provided by Lord McLean. Can I thank the First Minister for his response? He will be aware that the first death from Cedif Ecile at the Vale of Leven was in December 2007. The public inquiry was granted after lobbying from the families in April 2009. It was due to report in May 2011 three years ago. Now, here we are with no sign of publication, spiralling costs of almost 10 million seven years after the family's lost loved ones. Will the First Minister agree with me, and I hope that he will, that, whilst we want to retain public inquiries, perhaps it is time to review how they can operate more effectively, not least so that the families can get answers? I think that there is a very fair point about the length of time a number of public inquiries set up under the Inquiries Act, which, if I could remind Jackie Baillie, is a UK act in terms of the legislation. She will understand the principle behind that act, which makes the inquiry chair responsible for the timing and timescale of the inquiry. She will also understand that, in inquiries such as the Vale of Leven or, indeed, the Penrose inquiry into blood products, where people have been casualties of suffered fatalities and deaths of family members, there can be many issues that require a huge amount of scrutiny. Jackie Baillie will know and accept that the fact that the inquiry is looking at those hugely serious issues affecting Vale of Leven has not prevented serious action in the Scottish health service to reduce hospital-acquired infection. That has not awaited the recommendations of the inquiry. However, the recommendations and finding of the inquiry will be hugely important to the family member's concern. I agree that we have to find a mechanism beyond the 2005 Inquiries Act of having inquiries that are both strenuously pursued and independently chaired but also within a timescale that can provide resolution and closure to those who are affected and, in many cases, to provide recommendations about how we move forward on important public issues. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government plans to order a public inquiry into the handling of the Edinburgh trams project. First Minister? I am sure that everyone in Edinburgh, indeed all over Scotland, will be delighted to see that the Edinburgh trams are fully operational and carrying passengers. We cannot have a loose sight of the considerable public concern over the conduct of the project, the disruption that is caused to households and businesses in the city of Edinburgh. I therefore recommend to the cabinet that it has been decided to establish a judge-led public inquiry to inquire into the Edinburgh trams project to establish why the project incurred significant overruns in terms of cost and timing, requiring in particular a considerable reduction in the original scope. It is important that there are lessons to be learned from the conduct of the Edinburgh trams project and I think that the course of action that we are proposing will be a substantial assistance in doing that. Can I take this opportunity to welcome the First Minister's decision and announcement? All of us who oppose the tram project from the start as rescue and over-engineered have been disappointed almost daily to be shown to be right, but does the First Minister agree with me that now that the trams are indeed rolling, if there is to be any faith from the public in future management or potential cost estimates for projects like this, we need to know for sure that these mistakes will never be repeated? I welcome Mark O'Bergey's welcome for this. The decision that we have made is to have a non-statutory inquiry. We have done that for two reasons, one perhaps what we have just been discussing in terms of timescale, and secondly, the transport minister has been assured by Edinburgh Council of full co-operation and full documentation of all aspects of the long process of the trams project. I think that that gives us the opportunity to have a judge-led inquiry, which will give us a proper examination and a public account for what has happened to the trams project. One thing that I would say in terms of the importance of doing this, because it is particularly important if any projects like it are being considered in the future that lessons are learned, but it is simply not the case that other major public projects in Scotland are running over time and over budget. The fourth replacement crossing, for example, the biggest infrastructure project in Scotland for a generation, is being built on time and under budget. A total of £145 million worth of savings has been released from the fourth replacement crossing project since construction started in 2011, and that would be the case for the M74 completion in Dungragette bypass, Simonting and Bogend tow. Huge numbers of public investments in Scotland are being completed on time and in many cases under budget, so it is important that they will inquire and to see how the Edinburgh trams project went astray. I know that the whole chamber will await, with great interest, the findings of this inquiry. That ends First Minister's questions. We are now moving to members' business. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.