 That concludes general questions. We turn now to First Minister's questions. 1. Ruth Davidson Thank you, Presiding Officer. Figures this week by the children's reporter revealed that 254 children under the age of 16 were referred to them for carrying knives or other weapons last year. That's up 11 per cent, so we know that it's a growing problem. Can I ask the First Minister? Of those 254 incidents, do we know how many involve canג pants or other weapons being carried within still grounds? First Minister. I do not have those statistics available to me today. If they are available to me today, if the breakdown is available, I will certainly make it available to Ruth Davidson and indeed to the wider Chamber. We know, and we know from some extremely tragic cases recently, that there is an issue. I am sure that there are not many countries of some young people y вони a composition y ll kabaradau yn nhw. Allwch i ddim ziwethaf bod gymbr partsisi suggests ynwalla yn y bagus yma, ac fod yn enghyd yn llwg indeb washbeth cy Department wedi tras-byllwedig iawn, beth y mae'r iawn mae'n enghyd i'r hemr fel gwasiaeth gyma che methu. Ysgol ym mwneud iawn i'r chanell ar terribleboi a chywh sydd fydd iawnell hwy��� y mwy defnydd ac mae'n ymgwy passenger ymwyaflennwyd ac yn hyn yn cyrrybus. Afferyddheithio! S秋f番! Felly, mae'r defnyddio, yn dweud hynny, y dyfodol niw gwaith gyda'r ffordd, oherwydd, rwy'n ddim yn ymddylch gwaith gyda'r Ffurdd. Diolch yn fawr, maen nhw. Maen nhw'n ddiddordebau ar gyfer ydyn ni, yn ddigonol, a'u ddiddordebau yn ddiddordeb. Rwy'n ddigonol o'r ffordd, oedd mae'r ddiddordebau a'r ddiddordebau a'r ddiddordebau a'r ddiddordebau a'r ddiddordebau a'r ddiddordebau a'i ddiddordebau a'r ddiddordebau developed and put in place such a policy? The First Minister There will be a range of discussions that take place between the Scottish Government and councils. Again, I am happy to give a full update in writing to Ruth Davidson about the current state of circumstances in respect of guidance. Ruth Davidson is right to talk about the report and the action that has been taken after the report following the tragic death of Bailey Gwynn. Since the independent review into that tragic death, we have been ffocused on implementing the two specific recommendations directed to the Scottish Government. Members will recall that those recommendations centred on improving the resilience of schools to the threat posed by weapons and to give consideration to amending the law in relation to searching pupils. The second recommendation was about further legislative controls that can be brought to bear on the purchase of weapons online. Ministers have considered the issue of violence and knife crimes in schools very carefully and have taken advice from a wide range of stakeholders. Those stakeholders do not support the introduction of a new search power that has been introduced for teachers. Indeed, that was rejected and opposed by the teaching profession. Those, of course, are the recommendations that were directed to the Scottish Government. Ruth Davidson is also rightly asking about the recommendations for individual councils. It is important that councils have the right processes in place and that all schools have the right policies in place. Through our officials in the education department of the Scottish Government, we will continue to act to make sure that that is the case. Schools are also supposed to monitor and record every time that a child is searched. Specifically, the guidance requires that any incident where a decision is made to undertake a search of a child or a young person, or where a weapon is suspected or found, must be recorded. Can the First Minister confirm that every Scottish council now operates such a policy and that all instances of pupils being searched on suspicion of carrying a weapon or of weapons being found are now recorded locally, collated and publicly accessible? Of course, it is for councils to make sure that they are taking the action that adheres to the guidance in all respects of that guidance. Let me say quite clearly today that I would expect, and I know that the Education Secretary expects councils to do exactly that. That, of course, would include the aspects of the guidance that relate to both monitoring and reporting of young people being searched or of young people being found to be carrying knives or other weapons. I should stress, of course—I am sure that Ruth Davidson will understand at this point—that it is fundamentally for councils to make sure that they are taking action to adhere to that guidance. Of course, there is a responsibility on the part of the Government, and we will always seek to discharge that responsibility to make sure that we are taking whatever action is necessary to ensure that all the correct policies are in place and that guidance is being followed. Ruth Davidson Recognise what the First Minister is saying about the incumbency being on councils to follow the Scottish Government's recommendations. However, in a large number of cases, the information is not collated or in any way publicly accessible. In response to recent freedom of information requests, nearly half of Scottish councils were unable to confirm the number of weapons confiscated from pupils in their areas because the information was not held centrally. That is information that I think that parents and the wider public should have a right to know. The fact that it is not fully accessible means that we have no meaningful picture of the extent of the problem in any area. In the wake of Bailey's death, Aberdeen City Council has brought forward measures to ensure a clear picture of knife possession in schools and it has introduced an anti-knife crime policy. Does the First Minister agree that it is time that all councils met that same standard and will her Government undertake to examine this matter again to ensure that all schools are the safe environment that parents have the right to expect? The First Minister has raised an issue of concern, and she is right to do so. I certainly give an undertaking and commitment today to look further into the specific points that she has raised at today's session of First Minister's Questions. I agree that we would want to see all councils operating against best practice in Aberdeen City Council for very tragic reasons, of course, because it has to look very carefully and critically at the policies that it has in place. I should say that I genuinely do not mean to say this in any hard political sense. We will frequently in this chamber be criticised for seeking to overly direct councils, and members across the chamber sometimes accuse us of a centralising instinct in trying to do that. Obviously, I do not accept that characterisation. There is always a balance for us to strike between allowing local authorities to discharge their responsibilities, and it is the responsibility of local authorities here to make sure that guidance has been adhered to on the one hand, but on the other hand making sure that we are discharging our responsibilities as a Government to make sure that that happens. I am very acutely aware, particularly in issues like this, that parents listening to this will not be particularly concerned about whose responsibility it is. What parents will want to know is that their schools are as safe as possible for their young people, and that is the responsibility that the Scottish Government takes very seriously. I will look further into, as will the Deputy First Minister, to the points that have been raised today, to consider carefully whether there is further action that the Scottish Government requires to take. In addition to the kinds of actions that are the responsibility of councils, the Scottish Government also takes a range of different actions to try to reduce knife crime, not just in our schools, but generally. That includes, for example, the No Knives Better Lives Youth engagement programme, which has received £3 million of funding since 2009. It is perhaps relevant to point out that 25 local authorities are, as we speak, involved in delivering that programme. We also invest heavily in the national violent reduction unit. There is a range of actions to make sure that we are reducing knife crime. We know that, for adults, the length of sentences for knife crime has increased in recent years. To go back to schools, I think that every parent wants to know that, when they send their child to school of a morning, the school is as safe as possible for young people. That is the case for the vast majority of young people in the vast majority of days in the year right across our country. However, if we need to take action to make sure that that is the case for every single young person, for councils and for Government, it is our responsibility to do so. Earlier this week, the Parliament voted in favour of calling for a halt to the roll-out of universal credit across the United Kingdom. The roll-out so far is badly flawed, and the six-week delay will cause untold misery for tens of thousands of families up and down this country. The Parliament now stands with most of civic Scotland in calling for a halt to the roll-out until the structural issues that are built into the system are resolved. Will the First Minister and her Government now make the strongest possible representations on behalf of Parliament and the people of Scotland to stop the roll-out of universal credit? Yes, we will. Indeed, we have already been doing that and making an argument to the UK Government that universal credit should not be further rolled out until it can have confidence and demonstrate to the public its confidence that that system works properly. I recall visiting Inverness during the recent election campaign and talking there to people who operate a food bank but also to people who are already recipients of universal credit, who told me about the delays and the impact and consequences of those delays—people getting into debt, people running up significant rent arrears and huge misery, stress and anxiety being caused to some of the people in our country who are already in a very vulnerable situation. I think that that is completely unacceptable. I do not think that any Government in good conscience should continue with the roll-out of universal credit while those concerns continue. We will continue to make that case strongly to the UK Government. Of course, as well as the vote in the chamber this week, this week also saw coming into force some of the flexibilities around universal credit that this Government has insisted on using new powers, allowing for more frequent payments and for housing components to go direct to landlords. That is perhaps a small way but a significant way in which we can help to make sure that the most vulnerable are being properly cared for, but I have significant concerns, very serious concerns about universal credit and the misery that it will cause, and I hope that we can join together to call on the UK Government to do the right thing. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that where this Parliament can work together, this Parliament should work together in the interests of the people of Scotland. This morning, we have learned from the Macmillan cancer support that the cuts to employment support allowance are affecting nearly 300 people living with cancer in Scotland. Let me be clear, those are cruel Tory cuts that make a mockery of Theresa May's claim and, indeed, Ruth Davidson's claim that the Tories want to build a country that works for everyone. Labour will fight those cuts in Westminster, but can we protect people now? Reversing cuts for people living with cancer would cost £400,000. Reversing them for everyone affected by that would cost £14 million next year. Will the First Minister use the powers of this Parliament to reverse those cuts and support those people in their time of need? As I think we have demonstrated by our actions, this Government will act where we can to mitigate the worst impacts of UK welfare cuts. Since 2013, we have already invested more than £350 million to support low-income families who have been affected by the changes that we have seen already. Of course, we know that the benefit cuts imposed by the UK Government since 2010 are expected to reduce welfare spending in Scotland by almost £4 billion a year by the end of this decade. We will look carefully at the case that Macmillan cancer support is making today. As we heard just before, the First Minister's question started. The draft budget of the Scottish Government will be published in December, and we will consider that in line with other decisions that we have to consider. It is important to point out, and I am sure that Alex Rowley is aware of this, that employment and support allowance is not one of the benefits that is being devolved to this Parliament. It will remain a reserved benefit. Of course, it is one of the benefits that is to be rolled into universal credit. Finally, we will mitigate where we can, but, as I have said previously, all of us across this Parliament must appreciate that, when the UK Government makes the cuts wrong-headed, and in many respects, this one included deeply immoral cuts, it saves money from doing that. It does not pass a portion of that saving on to the Scottish Government, so any mitigation that we put in place involves us taking money from other parts of the Scottish budget. We will do that where we can, but I think that everybody looking at this and looking at the scale of the cuts that I have just spoken about, £4 billion a year by the end of this decade would know that the Scottish Government cannot mitigate every welfare cut that the UK Government makes. Of course, if we had power over all of those benefits and all of the money that supports those benefits, we could take very, very different decisions. I hope that one day Labour will join us in calling for the complete devolution of all welfare powers and responsibilities and budgets to this Parliament. Alex Rowley. The First Minister and her programme of government did announce that she was bringing forward a number of papers that would set the case for more powers for this Parliament. Certainly, the Labour Party will look forward to those papers coming forward, where we can work together and where it makes sense to have powers in this place, then that is where the powers should be. I also make clear that I understand the point that she makes about continually mitigating the welfare cuts that are coming from the Tories. Labour's answer to that is that we want a general election as soon as possible. We have a Government and Westminster that is bankrupt of ideas and no place to go. We will work for that general election and work to put Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street. The £400,000 from a Government budget to £30 billion is not a lot to stop the Tory attack on cancer patients, but for those people and their families it will certainly mean a lot. I hope that the First Minister will look at that. If the First Minister will not take action, then Labour will take amendments to the Social Security Bill in order to deliver that. Saying that we want a different type of social security system, one based on dignity and respect, is all well and good, but people want to see action. Will the First Minister move beyond those warm words, work with Labour to reverse those cuts and to address the appalling welfare reforms that are affecting so many people so badly up and down Scotland? There were a few points in Alex Rowley's question. I think that there was a question in there somewhere. First, in terms of his characterisation of the shambolic Tory Government at Westminster, I absolutely agree that watching the letters literally fall off the stage that yesterday was like watching an episode of Faulty Towers was so awful. However, there is a serious point here. This is a shambolic chaotic Tory Westminster Government that is doing real damage day in and day out to people right across Scotland and right across the UK. It is because of that that I continue to be so disappointed when I hear indeed both of the candidates for the Labour leadership just now talking about how they would in no circumstances ever work with the SNP. In other words, Labour seems still to be in a position where they would actually prefer to see a continuation of a Tory Government than ever work with the SNP. That beggars belief and leaves people across this country utterly astonished. Finally, on the specific issue of mitigation of cuts, we will look at all ways in which we can mitigate Tory welfare cuts. I heard Alex Rowley say that Labour would put amendments down to the social security bill. I make another suggestion that Labour brings forward proposals in the budget process, because it is the budget process that sets out how we pay for all of those policies. That would be something that I think Labour should agree to do today. The very final point that I want to make is this. I welcome—if Alex Rowley has suggested, as he seemed to do at the outset of his question—that Labour's position is changing on the devolution of welfare. I warmly welcome that. We will, as he said, publish a paper setting out again the case for 100 per cent devolution of welfare to this Parliament. When that comes, unlike the position that Labour took in the Smith's commission, I hope that we have Labour standing with the SNP Scottish Government in favour of welfare powers lying with this Parliament, not in the hands of a Tory Government at Westminster. We have a number of constituency supplementaries, the first from Oliver Mundell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This week, EME furniture-based in Sankirk, in my constituency, has closed its doors after 50 years, resulting in significant local job losses. Only last year they have been talking about millions of pounds of investment and doubling their workforce. The company blamed procurement issues with Scotland Excel for the decision. Can the First Minister therefore tell me what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that Scotland's small and medium-sized enterprises can compete for public sector contracts? Will she offer her reassurances to the workforce that all possible support will be given at what is a difficult time? First, on the issue of procurement, the Scottish Government has, over the past few years, made a number of amendments and reforms to our system of procurement, specifically designed to make it more streamlined, more transparent and enabling it to help more small and medium-sized enterprises across our country. We will continue to look for opportunities to do that even further. Of course, I was very disappointed to hear of the closure of EME furniture in Sankirk. I know that this will be an exceptionally difficult time for the affected staff, their families and indeed for the wider local area. Scottish Enterprise has already engaged with EME to explore all possible options for supporting the business to try to avoid this outcome. Unfortunately, the company is now taking the decision to close the site. Scottish Enterprise will continue to engage with the company and are now working to identify any and all possible future opportunities for both the site and its workforce. Our partnership action for continuing employment team has also made contact with the company to offer assistance to the workers affected. Christine Grahame Is the First Minister aware of a recent care inspectorate report on services for older people in the Scottish Borders, which among its many criticisms identifies delays and assessments compounded by delays in providing services? For example, I have one constituent admitted to the Borders general hospital in February, not assessed till June and is still waiting for his care package, even as I speak, by my calculation that is eight months. Does the First Minister therefore share my concerns that, admirable, though the integration of health and social care is, it is actually not working in practice? I am aware of the inspection report that Christine Grahame referred to. It is very disappointed that it says that services have fallen short of the high standards that patients have a right to expect. I am also concerned that the leadership and governance issues identified and the impact that they have had on patient care. I know that the health secretary has already spoken to both the health board and the leader of the council about those issues, and Government officials are ensuring that healthcare improvement Scotland works with the board to take all necessary improvement actions. I know that NHS boarders have already taken steps to improve leadership and governance, including learning from other NHS boards. Christine Grahame raised a specific constituency case in response to constituency cases. I do not have all the details of that, but if she wishes to make them available to the health secretary, she will make sure that that case is properly looked into. To ask the First Minister if the Scottish Government has done any research into the socio-economic impact in the south-west of Scotland region should the ferry companies operating out of the port of Cairnryan transfer the routes to Holyhead, as has been suggested, could happen by the ferry operators if the chronic lack of investment in local infrastructure by the Scottish Government continues, mainly the need to dual the A75 and A77 artery routes north and south from the port? Of course, it was the Government that supported the development of the Cairnryan port, so we recognised the importance on the economy and the social impact on the local area. We are also investing in infrastructure, including, of course, the upgrading of the A77. We will continue to take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that those important services stay in Cairnryan to the benefit of people who live in that area. The First Minister will have seen the shocking report of the way in which Gordon Edwards from West Lothian has been let down. Despite three referrals from his GP, Mr Edwards, who is only 17 years old, has been denied access to mental health services. Instead, he was sent to an employment service to get a job. How ill does he need to get before he gets the treatment that he needs? We expect our mental health services to provide appropriate treatment to individuals who present to them, including the individual that Willie Rennie has raised today. As Willie Rennie knows, we accept the challenge that Scotland, in common with other countries, has to meet the rising demand for mental health services, but we are investing additional resources into mental health services. We are seeing more people employed in our mental health services, and we will continue to take the action that ensures that that carries on being the case. In this year, for example, this is the first time that NHS investment in mental health will exceed £1 billion. Across a whole range of ways, we are taking action with health boards to improve services. I took the view when I was health secretary that, as long as one person, whether it is mental health services or any other health services, feels as if they have been let down by the system, then Government working with health boards and, increasingly, in the delivery of healthcare with local councils has a responsibility to continue to make improvements, and that is what we will continue to do in response to the kind of case that Willie Rennie has highlighted today. The trouble is that Mr Edwards is not alone. In Lothian, two in five young people who need support are not getting it on time. In Grampian, 65 per cent have been failed. Those figures mask people who are being bumped off lists to meet waiting times targets. Advocacy group Kindred say that young people have to be extremely ill before they get treated. Falkland House, well respected, said that young people need early treatment instead of being sent somewhere else first. The First Minister agreed to commission an audit of rejected referrals for mental health, but that was over six months ago. What was the outcome of that review, and how much longer do young people, like Mr Edwards, have to wait? As Willie Rennie said, we confirmed a review of rejected referrals and that that review would get under way this year. Of course, there has to be preparation to carry out that work, but we will take that work forward in the way that we have committed to and then we will share the findings of that with Parliament. As I have said not just today, but on many previous occasions in this chamber, we are seeing growing demand for mental health services. That is something that we should welcome because of the fact that what lies behind that is a reducing stigma for mental health. Willie Rennie and other members are absolutely right to bring to this chamber any case where services are not meeting the expected level or quality of service that patients have a right to expect. Equally, I will continue to talk rightly about the investment that we are committing to make sure that the improvements that everybody wants to see happen. I said earlier that investment this year will exceed £1 billion for the first time, but if you look at the trend of spend over the last decade, in 2007, £651 million was spent on mental health, that is now exceeding £1 billion. We are investing more than £50 million specifically to support reductions in waiting times, £10 million supporting new ways of improving mental health in primary care, £15 million supporting better access to CAMHS and innovation around the delivery of those services. Across a whole range of those issues, we are taking the action that people expect us to take to ensure that we see the improvement to services that people deserve and have the right to expect as well. Can I just be clear on what the First Minister has just said? She seems to be unaware of whether the audit has been concluded, but has it actually started? The work on the audit is under way. When we have concluded the audit, we will ensure that the findings of the audit are shared with Parliament. Like the range of commitments that we made in our mental health strategy, work is under way to deliver all of them, and we will continue to ensure that action is taken so that we meet those commitments and improve the services in the way that people expect. The fracking ban has rightly been met with some celebration across Scotland, but there are concerns from communities and from many SNP members that the ban is not yet legally watertight, as it merely extends a temporary break on planning decisions. Will the First Minister get the ban properly over the line by putting it on the same footing as the ban on new nuclear power stations and commit to using the licensing powers when they arrive? Of course. The ban on new nuclear energy in Scotland is also done through planning powers. That is exactly what we are proposing with the ban on fracking. Let me be clear. I think that to some ears it will sound as if some members are dancing on the head of a pill here. Fracking is being banned in Scotland end-of-story. There will be no fracking in Scotland. I do not think that that position could be any clearer. Members will also appreciate that, because the powers over licensing have not yet been transferred to this Parliament, we do not even have the power to do what some Claudia Beamish in particular is asking us to do in terms of legislation. What Paul Wheelhouse outlined to the chamber earlier this week is an effective way of banning fracking, as the precedent of nuclear energy demonstrates. It is also the quickest way of banning fracking. Those who, like me, do not believe that fracking should go ahead in Scotland, instead of continuing to have this abstract argument, should welcome the fact that fracking in Scotland is banned. Is the First Minister aware that the annual Scottish Survey just published shows that, as a nation, we are substantially overweight and adults are consuming less fruit and vegetables? That report comes just before obesity and cancer awareness week starts on Monday. Given that this Parliament has tackled successfully smoking and is now tackling alcohol misuse, does the First Minister agree that we now need to focus more on tackling Scotland's food culture? Although it is improving, it still sees Scotland living in a nation blessed with an abundance of nutritious, healthy food but with a very challenging health record. Does she agree that the forthcoming food bill has a big role to play? We also need to tackle issues such as multi-bag deals in supermarkets, which I was reminded of when, a few days ago, I saw a young people buying four donuts for his lunch. I probably should be careful not to single out the person that Richard Lochhead referred to. There is a serious issue here. We actually see rates of childhood obesity declining. They have declined from 17 per cent in 2014 to return to the rate that was seen in 1998, which is 14 per cent, but that is still too high. When I set out the programme for government last month, I said that I believe that it is time for us to show the same ambition as we have shown with alcohol misuse and smoking to the growing public health challenge of obesity. That is why we have indicated that we will bring forward a range of new measures to tackle obesity, including, for example, limiting the marketing of foods high in fat, salt and sugar, as well as a range of measures to help to tackle obesity. We need to continue to put across the messages around healthy eating, but we also have to continue to encourage young people to be more active. That is why things like the Daily Mile increase in PE provision in schools is so important. Richard Lochhead is right to identify that as a major public health challenge, and he is also right to talk about the potential of the food bill to help us to make sure that we increase healthy eating across our country. First Minister, last week, the Scottish Government announced that it will not establish a specialist environmental court or tribunal. When the UK leaves the EU, we lose the oversight of the European Court of Justice, the ECG, which has played a key role in overseeing and enforcing environmental obligations. The legal system of the UK does not allow us to fully replace the ECG. First Minister, will you please outline what actions the Scottish Government intends to replace environmental protections that are lost by Brexit, and will you reconsider your decision not to establish an environmental court? The Government is determined that, in our view, the wrong-headed decision to leave the European Union will not lead to any dilution or weakening of environmental protections or indeed employment protections or consumer protections or any of the other protections that people feel are so important. We will do that where we can through our devolved responsibilities. Of course, that is one of the reasons why we are so concerned with the terms of the withdrawal bill right now, because some of the powers that are currently resting in Brussels would end up being centralised at Westminster rather than coming here to allow us to take that action. We will act in whatever way we can, and we will make the case where we do not have the power for the UK Government to do so as well. However, there is no doubt that the weakening of regulation and protection is one of the things that people have the right to be concerned about in the Brexit process. On the issue of a specialist court, I recognise that we have a difference of opinion around that, but I think that it is important that, whether it is on environmental crime or regulation or any other matter, we do not somehow suggest that, just because we do not have a specialist court that those issues are not taken seriously within our wider justice and court system, because they very much are and will absolutely continue to be so. To ask the First Minister how the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse Clare's law has worked during its two years in practice. Safeguarding those suffering from or at risk of domestic abuse is an absolute priority for the Scottish Government, and we were pleased to support Police Scotland's decision to roll out a national disclosure scheme for domestic abuse. Two years on, Clare's law has assisted with over 2,000 requests and warned over 900 people of their partner's history of abusive behaviour. The scheme helps to highlight the day-to-day work of Police Scotland officers in helping to keep people safe, and we will continue to work closely with criminal justice and third sector partners to reduce and ultimately eliminate domestic abuse. I thank the First Minister for that reply, but does the First Minister agree with me that the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse in Scotland has successfully acted as a safeguard for individuals who may be a victim or at risk of domestic violence and that raising more awareness of the scheme would actually go even further to protecting people in Scotland from abusive partners? Yes, I think that that is an important point. When the scheme was first launched, the Government funded an awareness raising campaign. Given the benefits arising from the scheme already, we will certainly continue to work with Police Scotland ensuring that anyone feels that they are at risk can take advantage of the scheme. Last week, of course, the chamber also unanimously supported the creation of a new offence of domestic abuse. We know that, while reporting of abuse has increased, there are still many people who suffer in silence. That is why there will be a comprehensive publicity campaign for the new offence to ensure that people know that it will make it easier to hold domestic abusers to account, especially for acts of coercive or controlling behaviour. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will review the school inspection process. As I am sure that Liz Smith is aware, earlier this week, Education Scotland announced a significant increase in school inspections of over 30 per cent in this school year, beginning in April 2018. As a result, the number of school inspections will rise from 180 to 250 schools per year initially. That will strengthen the role of inspection as a crucial tool to support improvement and is one of a range of improvement approaches announced by Education Scotland to enable them to reach every school every year through a variety of different channels. Liz Smith, last November, Education Scotland could not confirm to MSPs on the Education Committee whether school inspection numbers had gone up or down. At the same meeting, they could not confirm how many full-time inspectors there were for 2017. Last week, it was revealed that key elements of historical school inspection data had been deleted. Will the First Minister accept that those are not the hallmarks that are required to inspire full trust in the administration of the school inspection process? To that end, will she now agree with the Conservatives and all the other opposition parties that the HMIE inspection process should be fully independent of Education Scotland? Of course, we will bring forward legislation on governance changes in education, and those issues I am sure will continue to be debated. The Education Secretary has set out his view on that. The issues are not identical—I know that they are not—but I remember when I was health secretary facing a similar decision about the role of health inspectors. Absolutely, those who inspect our hospitals, like those who inspect our schools, are independent. However, it is important that we also have a link between inspection and improvement. That is the link that risks being lost if we go down the route that Liz Smith is proposing today. Inspection is not there for its own sake. It is there to identify any failings or any areas where there needs to be improvement and then make sure that improvement is made. That is why the statement that the Deputy First Minister gave earlier this week about regional improvement collaboratives is such an important part of our reform agenda. We will continue to debate those issues in the chamber, but I hope that whatever the eventual outcome of that particular debate is, everybody will welcome the announcement this week of the increase in inspections that I have just set out. The extra inspections that are announced by Education Scotland will be helpful in supporting schools' work towards closing the attainment gap. The Scottish Government is only this week consulting on how it will measure that gap and progress. It is two years since the First Minister told us that closing the gap was her top priority. Does she not think that two years to get round to thinking about what she means by the attainment gap is a little well lethargic to put it kindly? No, we have been getting on with putting in place the national improvement framework, introducing standardised assessments that are now across the country that will inform the teacher judgment that we will then publish in terms of the percentage of young people meeting the required levels of curriculum for excellence. That is, for the first time, a comprehensive, very transparent indication of how not just our education system is performing nationally, but how individual schools and individual local authorities are performing as well. That is the action that we have already taken, but we have always said that there is not one single measure that should be necessarily used to measure attainment. That is why the consultation that was launched yesterday looks at a range of different measures to make sure that, as we continue to work to close the attainment gap, we are doing that in a way that respects and enhances the overall development of young people. That is what curriculum for excellence is all about. Iain Gray's characterisation is not, for the first time, not strictly accurate. We have been taking a series of steps to make sure not only that the money, for example, we are putting in through the pupil equity fund, is helping to close the attainment gap, but there are the measures to record that and there is a transparency that means ministers and the wider system is completely accountable to Parliament and the public. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will undertake a national audit of a number of people who are rough sleeping. The programme for government set out our national objective to eradicate rough sleeping. We are backing that commitment with a £50 million ending homelessness together fund. Of course, we also established a short-term homelessness and rough sleeping action group, which is chaired by the chief executive of homelessness charity crisis. That group, which meets today, will make recommendations on what further actions need to be taken on rough sleeping, including any additional information or data that we need to gather. I welcome the establishment of the working group on homelessness. Would the First Minister recognise that rough sleeping is sadly on the rise and that it is likely that we face a further increase in rough sleeping through a bleak winter and that there is an urgency to act? I am sure that she agrees that it is not acceptable for anyone to be sleeping on the streets anywhere in Scotland. Shelter confirmed that the number of homeless applications where the applicant slept rough the night before making the application increased by 10 per cent last year. In view of that, would the First Minister agree that it would be helpful to have a fresh assessment on the scale of the issue, albeit through the working group, because there has not been an audit since 2003, according to homeless action Scotland? I would ask the First Minister in a constructive manner to consider that, in going forward, there should be a housing-led approach and not a hostile led approach going forward. Recognising the work of the charity sector and local government partners who are key to this, does she agree that there is a case for the national roll-out of the housing first model, which I know that she has acknowledged in the past, which recognises the multiple disadvantages that homeless people face establishing stability in their life? I hope that she would agree that it can't simply be left to the charity sector, but the Government has to leave from the front. The Government is leading from the front, which is why we have established the £50 million fund that I have already spoken about and set up the expert group that meets for the first time today. Some of the issues—I am actually, as Pauline McNeill knows, very sympathetic to, but we set up an expert group to give us ordered recommendations on the actions that they think are most important for us to take forward. That may well include an audit, and if that is the case, of course, we will carry that out. There is also a debate about what she characterised as the housing versus hostile approach to that. Again, recommendations may come forward. One of the things that I think is most important is that we do not just see that as an accommodation issue—whether that is houses, hostels or often rough-sleeping—is the package of support that needs to go around people. That is why the housing first model that she talks about is important. I have already said that it offers opportunities for individuals with more complex needs to help to stabilise their lives and prevent repeat homelessness. Again, the reason that we set up the expert group is to look at this to make sure that we are doing the right things. We know that rough sleeping is increasing. I said that when I set out the programme for government. We also know, going back to Alex Rowley's question, that that increase in rough sleeping and homelessness generally is very much being driven by the kind of welfare cuts that we have already spoken about. Unfortunately, we cannot deal with all of this problem at source. I wish we could, but we can make sure that we are doing as much as we can to deal with the consequences, and we will continue to do exactly that. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's responses to the concerns of front-line nursing staff in Scotland, which have been highlighted in the RCN report, safe and effective staffing nursing against the odds. The link between nurse staffing levels and high-quality care for patients is well established. Staff welfare is a top priority. We take staff's views on those issues very seriously. The RCN has called for safe staffing legislation, and as we set out in the programme for government, we intend to take that forward. Of course, the UK Government has given no commitment to similar legislation in England. In addition, we are committing an additional £40 million to create an estimated 2,600 extra training places over the next four years, and we will continue to work closely with the RCN and others to help to shape future action. Miles Briggs First Minister, in the last two weeks, we have heard warnings from the Royal College of GPs that Scotland is now 856 GPs short. This week, RCN Scotland predicted that Scotland is 2,800 nurses short. Obviously, the 2,600 are not going to cover that shortage, a situation that is now directly impacting on staff and patient care. Does the First Minister have been in control of our NHS for 10.5 years, not now accept that the Scottish Government's NHS workforce planning has been totally mismanaged? The First Minister No, I do not. There are almost 12,000 more people working in our health service today, compared to the situation when this Government took office. We are also, as I said, in relation to nursing students taking a range of actions, including the safe staffing legislation that I spoke about, an increase in intakes to preregistration nursing and midwifery programmes. Under the SNP, the Government has been an average of 1,000 more nurses in training every year, compared to the previous administration. As I said, we are spending £40 million on increasing training places. We have also kept the nursing bursary, which has been abolished by the Tories south of the border, which is leading to a rapid reduction in the numbers coming into nurse training in England. We will continue to take a range of actions in nursing and across other elements of the NHS workforce. I will end where I often do on questions about this. As we take all of those actions to try to increase the number of people coming into the NHS and the different professional groups within the NHS, we face the looming threat of Brexit, which is making it harder for those already here to stay here and contribute to our NHS. Of course, we will make it harder for us to recruit those who want to come here. I say to the Tories that, whether it is on this or welfare or any of those, it should shame on them for coming here to lecture others, while their own Government is doing so much damage to those things that we hold dear. That concludes First Minister's questions. I ask all members to remain seated for a second. I suspend the meeting until 2 p.m.