 Cymru Cymru. Chesad獵ilaeth. I have a big question today. The just published recommendation of the NHS pay review body for a 1 per cent consolidated pay rise for all agenda for change staff will be accepted in full by this Government. The Parliament will recall that, last year, Scotland was the only part of the UK to accept the pay review body recommendation. Kezia Dugdale. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and we very much welcome that. Yesterday, the First Minister confirmed that she still supports full fiscal autonomy for Scotland within the United Kingdom. That means that all tax and spending from Scotland remains in Scotland. Can the First Minister confirm that full fiscal autonomy means scrapping the Barnett formula? Yes or no? First Minister? Well, so much for the new style patriotic Scottish Labour Party. It didn't really last very long, did it? The first opportunity they grabbed to get right back on to the same side as the Tories to gleefully tell Scotland how useless they think we are. The Barnett formula, of course, will remain in place until such times as this Parliament is in charge of our own fiscal and economic decisions. It is members of the unionist parties on all sides of this chamber that pose the risk to the Barnett formula in the meantime. I also say to Kezia Dugdale that the only cuts that are on the horizon this year or the following year for Scotland are the cuts that were planned by Westminster, regardless of whether it is the Tories or Labour. It is only a few weeks since Labour trooped through the Tory lobbies to vote for £30 billion of cuts. It's Labour who, if left to their own devices, will impose cuts on Scotland, and the only way to stop them is to vote SNP because only the SNP offers an alternative to Tory austerity. Kezia Dugdale? As the First Minister well knows, full fiscal autonomy does mean scrapping the Barnett formula. Only in the world of the SNP would we stop paying into a UK-wide system but expect the same system to continue to pay out to us. Last year, the First Minister said that scrapping Barnett would cost Scotland £4 billion. Yesterday, Scotland's official accounts confirmed that she was absolutely right. Does Nicola Sturgeon still agree with herself that scrapping Barnett would have cost Scotland £4 billion last year? Everybody will be noticing that the people applauding most loudly for Kezia Dugdale were our colleagues on the Tory benches. Kezia Dugdale referred to the motion that Labour proposed and voted for in the House of Commons last week. Luckily, I brought a copy of that motion with me today, so I'm going to read it to Kezia Dugdale. It calls on the Government to take an approach that involves, and I quote, reductions in public spending. In other words, what Labour voted for in the House of Commons last week was further cuts to be imposed on Scotland, and it's because the SNP doesn't propose cuts that we voted against Labour's austerity motion in the House of Commons. We face a choice at the heart of the figures that were published yesterday. We can decide that we want to stay at the mercy of never-ending Westminster cuts, cuts that have already cost the Scottish budget £12 billion and are estimated to cost it £14.5 billion over the next five years. We can take more control over our own finances so that we can build a better future. I know what side of that choice I'm on. I also know what side of that choice Kezia Dugdale and Labour is on. It's the same side as the Tories. The First Minister has said repeatedly that scrapping the Barnett formula would have cost Scotland £4 billion last year. This SNP leaflet puts three doors at the moment and says that scrapping Barnett would lead to billions of pounds worth of cuts. SNP cuts, with a plumeting oil price, the independent air experts at the FSBC. The cost of Scotland will rise to around £6.6 billion. That means massive spending cuts over and above what we would get from the Tories winning in May. Huge cuts to the budget for our NHS and our schools. It's austerity on a scale never seen before in Scotland. It's austerity max, Presiding Officer. Can the First Minister tell us how many jobs in Scotland would be lost under the SNP's plans to scrap the Barnett formula? I don't think that it will have escaped anybody's notice that Kezia Dugdale has just said that Westminster Governments pose a threat to NHS funding in Scotland. I seem to remember that during the referendum Labour denied point blank that that was the case. It's because people know that they cannot trust a single word that Scottish Labour says any more, that people in Scotland are deserting them in their droves. Kezia Dugdale has got a nerve to come here today and scare monger mythical cuts when just 60 miles away from here, the most senior Labour councillor in the country is calling on the Scottish Government to take away the old people's bus passes, introduce tuition fees and start charging again for prescriptions. I think that Labour needs to sort itself out before it comes to this chamber to lecture anybody else. I asked the First Minister very specifically about jobs. According to the SNP Government's own economic modelling, reducing Government spending in Scotland by £6.5 billion would mean a cut of around 5 per cent in our GDP. Forget the dry theoretical numbers, Presiding Officer, I think that Labour needs to sort itself out before it comes to this chamber to lecture anybody else. That's one in every 16 jobs. Thousands of families facing the prospect of being out of work and struggling to make ends meet, and the cause of it would be the SNP's reckless plan for full fiscal autonomy. After years of telling us only they stand up for so many years of telling us that the SNP is going to take away the old people's bus passes. I think that Labour needs to sort itself out before it comes to this chamber to lecture anybody else. I think that Labour needs to sort itself out before it comes to this chamber to lecture everybody else. If they stand up for Scotland, we now know that the reality is different. Far from standing up for Scotland, isn't it the case that the SNP's Barnett bombshell would cost well over 100,000 Scottish jobs? If anybody wonders why Labour is in the dire straits that it is in, it only has to listen to Kezia Dugdale today. She's got the temerity to mention jobs. Under this Government, we've got lower unemployment and higher employment than any other part of the UK. People in Scotland know that I and the SNP and the Scottish Government don't propose cuts. We want to grow our economy so that we can protect Scotland from Labour and Tory cuts. The only people proposing cuts are the Tories, the Liberals and the Labour Party. We know that they want to impose more cuts on Scotland and the only way to stop that is to send SNP MPs to Westminster to force them into an alternative. Ruth Davidson to ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. I've no current plans to meet the Prime Minister unless, of course, he finds the backbone to join the TV leaders debate on 2 April. I'm pleased, as we've all heard the announcement in just the last hour, that all of the four main party leaders in here have agreed to an STV debate just a month before the election. Can I ask the First Minister about a recent speech of hers where she said that she wanted Britain to borrow an extra £180 billion, landing the UK even deeper in the red? Yesterday, my colleague Gavin Brown asked the Deputy First Minister when, under the SNP's plans, Britain would have finally eliminated the deficit. The Deputy First Minister replied and I quote, much later. So can I ask the First Minister to be more specific? How much later? In which year, under her plans, would the UK no longer be in deficit? It's no secret that I take a very, very different approach on austerity to Ruth Davidson and her colleagues. Under the plans that we have published that would see modest increases in public spending, modest increases that would help us to invest in skills, infrastructure and innovation, invest more in our public services, invest to protect the vulnerable that her party's policies are hitting so hard. Under those plans, debt and deficit, as a share of our national income, would reduce every year over the next Parliament. I do not pretend otherwise that I argue for a slower debt and deficit reduction than the Tories do, because I want an alternative to austerity. I don't want the cuts that Tories are proposing to go on harming the most vulnerable and harming our public services. That's the difference between us. Ruth Davidson said, it was a pretty long answer, but I only asked for a short one, just one year. That's all I asked for, but it's clear the SNP haven't a clue, so they have no answer about their own plans for Britain. So let me ask the First Minister about her plan for Scotland, because yesterday she was quoted as saying, short of independence, I believe we should have full fiscal autonomy. In response to yesterday's GERS figures and to that statement, the Impartial Institute for Fiscal Studies said that this would result in, and I quote again, substantial spending cuts or tax rises in Scotland, tax rises equaling 15 pence to income tax for every earner in Scotland. In the past, Presiding Officer, I repeatedly asked the First Minister's predecessor to give a detailed rebuttal to IFS projections, but he never did. So I am asking this First Minister, can she tell us now in this chamber why the IFS is wrong? Let's look in detail at the IFS report from yesterday that Ruth Davidson talks about. What she has quoted was predicated on Scotland being fiscally autonomous in 2015-16. For Ruth Davidson's information, 2015-16 starts in two and a half weeks time. We are not going to have fiscal autonomy then, but perhaps more fundamentally. If Ruth Davidson had had the honesty to complete the IFS sentence about tax rises or spending cuts, she'd find it says this and I quote, Unless credible policies to boost growth of Scotland's onshore economy and revenues are developed. That's the whole point. We have a choice. We can accept never ending Westminster cuts from the Tories, the Liberals and Labour, or we can take more control of our own finances and we can build a better future for this country. I know what side I stand on. John Mason. Given that it is Commonwealth week, can the First Minister affirm the Government's commitment to the Commonwealth legacy in my constituency and the rest of the east end of Glasgow, and would she welcome the Auditor General's report on the successful management of the games? As today's Audit Scotland report shows, Glasgow 2014 was a spectacular success, delivered under budget and we are firmly committed to securing a lasting social, cultural and economic legacy from the games for the east end of Glasgow and indeed for the whole of the country. At the heart of the success is the transformation that we have seen in the east end of Glasgow, world class sporting facilities and venues, new community facilities, improved infrastructure and an award winning housing development at the athlete's village. I saw that for myself recently. Today, we have announced £600,000 funding for Clyde Gateway to ensure that the legacy continues, helping more communities across the east end by providing training and employment opportunities and by encouraging people to get more active. I would hope that everybody across the chamber would welcome that and take this opportunity to again congratulate everybody associated with the success of Glasgow 2014. Dundee's last independent mid-sized builder, Muirfield, has applied to the court for the appointment of an administrator. What can the Scottish Government do to support the 250 people whose jobs are under threat? And what does the First Minister think about the economic situation where we are seeing local firms of this size and importance in our communities unable to survive? Jenny Marra raises an important issue and we have to do everything we can to protect local companies. In the particular case, she cites that the Government will of course be in contact, pace arrangements will be in place and we will be in dialogue with Dundee City Council. Of course there is going to be a huge construction boost to the city of Dundee through the V&E and we should all welcome that but we should also make sure that we are doing everything we can to support smaller businesses as we recover from the recession. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. First Minister, what is the importance to the people of Scotland? On Monday the First Minister was wrong on her plan to borrow £180 billion. She said that debt would go down but yesterday John Swinney admitted that it will go up. Her whole Government was wrong to base its plans on an oil boom. Yesterday's GERS figures were the final devastating blow to her economics. When she gets so much wrong, what economic plan does she have left? I would have thought that money might have been the last subject that the Liberal Democrats wanted to talk about today. I think that we have had an interesting insight into how they deal with the indebtedness of their own party today. On the specific question that Willie Rennie raises, I absolutely stand by what I said about the opportunity for £180 billion additional spending, modest increases in spending but not 0.5 per cent a year in real terms. I think that that is preferable to the painful cuts that the Tories and the Liberals are imposing. Even if I am being very charitable and I am accepting in full the Treasury methodology in the paper that they published this week, in order to get debt reducing in every year and to be lower at the end of the Parliament, you could still spend £165 billion. I am happy to compromise with Willie Rennie if he is happy for extra spending as long as we can get debt reducing. Why do not we settle in £165 billion? Willie Rennie needs to come clean about what she claims. She said that debt would go down as a proportion of GDP and it is going up. John Swinney admitted yesterday that she should have the courage to admit it as well. The UK economic record is sound. Let us just remember that record high employment wages outstripping inflation, the highest growth in the G7 and the prospect of balancing the books so that we do not have to borrow to pay for day-to-day services. That is the economics that she said would not work. Her plan adds £4.7 billion worth of debt interest to the books. That is 180 secondary schools not being built every year because we have to pay her debts. How is that fair to future generations? Let me go back to the start of Willie Rennie's question. There is certainly somebody who needs to come clean today in politics but it is nobody on these benches. Willie Rennie also says that the policy of the Tory Liberal government is working. The policies of the Tory and Liberal Westminster government are hitting the 10 per cent poorest in our country hardest. If Willie Rennie is proud of that, that is his prerogative, but if that is what the Liberal Democrats have come to stand for, no wonder people cannot wait to give them a complete doing at the ballot box on May 7. I think people, today watching this session of First Minister's questions will have come to a very clear conclusion. If you want cuts, then you can vote for any one of the Tories, the Liberals or Labour, but if you want a clear and principled alternative to austerity, the only way to get it is to vote SNP. To ask the First Minister what the impact on rural businesses and communities will be of Royal Mail's decision to reduce collection times at 3,300 Scottish postboxes. I am concerned about any decisions that would have an adverse impact on Scotland's rural businesses and communities. The UK Government mishandled the unwanted sale of Royal Mail. It must now ensure that a privatised Royal Mail provides a service that suits Scotland's needs, in particular the vital service to our remote and rural communities. I thank the First Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the inevitable job losses among postal workers in the effect that reduced services will bring is a negation of the spirit if not the letter of the universal service obligation? Does that not show the detrimental impact that the privatisation of Royal Mail is having? The Government opposed the privatisation of the Royal Mail. The sale-off is inevitably leading to concerns over the Royal Mail's ability to deliver the universal service obligation. Any job losses are to be deeply regretted and, of course, will make it more challenging for Royal Mail to meet its obligations. The report from the House of Commons Business Innovation and Skills Committee about competition in the postal sector and the universal service obligation recognises that market conditions are changing rapidly. Off-com, the postal regulator must ensure that it closely monitors the situation in Scotland and responds quickly if needed. The vital lifeline for many of Scotland's communities absolutely must be protected. Kenneth Gibson is absolutely right that this has been caused by the privatisation, but this specific problem has also been driven by off-com. Will the First Minister ask off-com to insist that later collections should be protected and will she support the CWU, the trade union, in asking Royal Mail to provide better information to customers about collection times? I am certainly very happy to communicate that view and to support the general concerns that Hugh Henry has expressed. I hope that we can get a degree of consensus in this chamber that some of the changes that we are seeing pose a risk to some of our communities and that it is absolutely essential that we do everything that we can to protect the lifeline service that so many of our communities rely on. To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government is giving the poorest university students. One of the Government's proudest achievements is the restoration of free higher education. In addition to free tuition, our minimum income guarantee provides students from the poorest households with £7,500 of living cost support every year. The support has helped to ensure that record levels of 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas are being accepted to university, but we recognise and I believe strongly that we must do much more. That is why I announced in the programme for government that we will form a commission on widening access to advise on the clear milestones we must meet to ensure that every child has the same chance of going to university and what practical measures we need to take to ensure that we achieve that ambition. The fact of the matter is that this Government in recent years has systematically cut maintenance grants for these students. In fact, such students in Scotland now receive a maximum of £1,750. Students in England in their position would receive twice that. In Northern Ireland, they would receive twice that. In Wales, they would receive three times that level of grant support. Apart from Iceland, where there are no maintenance grants, every single country in Western Europe provides more support for poorer students than Scotland does. The First Minister has talked a lot about hypothetical cuts today. This is a real cut. Will she reverse it as Labour has promised to do? Of course, the students in England that Ian Gray refers to pay tuition fees. Students in Scotland do not pay tuition fees. For students living at home, our minimum income guarantee of £7,500 a year for students from the poorest background is the highest in the UK. I agree that we need to do more. I would hope that Ian Gray and I could accept that we perhaps agree on this. I think that we have to do more to support students from the most disadvantaged parts of our country, Access University, if that is what they want to do. That is why I have already announced the intention to set up the widening access commission. I think that people should be cautious about believing a word that Labour says when it comes to student support. After all, it was Labour in 1997 in the election who said that it would not introduce tuition fees, who after the election did introduce tuition fees. It was Labour who in the 2001 election said that it would not introduce top-up tuition fees, who then after the election did introduce top-up tuition fees. I stand by this Government's record on student support. We will continue to take action to improve it, but I do not think that people will believe a word that Labour says when it comes to students. NUS Scotland described the Scottish Government's package of student support as the best support package in the whole of the United Kingdom. Does the First Minister agree with me that it is a bit rich for parties that were pro-tuition fees to now try to rebrand themselves as parties for the students? As I have just said, I do not think that people can believe a word that Labour says. Labour has consistently broken their promises when it comes to tuition fees. I know that they do not like hearing this, but they fought the 1997 election on a no fees promise. They broke that promise. They fought the 2001 election on a no top-up fees promise. I heard somebody shout earlier on what about in Scotland when they came to office in the Scottish Parliament. They moved tuition fees from the front door to the back door, but they still imposed tuition fees. You cannot trust Labour on student support. You can trust the SNP because we abolished tuition fees. John Scott. The First Minister will be aware of the high drop-out rate of students at Scottish universities, particularly at the University of the West of Scotland. What help could the Scottish Government give to both students and universities to help to address this difficult, sensitive and complex problem? It is a difficult and complex problem, but it is also an important issue for us to challenge. One of the issues that I want the widening access commission to look at is not just how we support and encourage more students from the poorest backgrounds to access university, but how we support them to carry on through their university courses and complete those courses into graduate. I will be very keen as the widening access commission is set up and develops to share our thinking on that with members across the chamber. I am absolutely determined that we do everything that we can to make sure that every young person in Scotland has an equal chance of going to university and completing their university education. I hope that it is something that all of us across the chamber, regardless of our party background, can come together and support. Leah MacArthur. In the recent budget negotiations, the Scottish Liberal Democrats urged the Deputy First Minister to increase the earnings threshold for repaying student loans from just under £17,000 to £21,000, as in the rest of the UK. That would save young graduates £368 a year. It is also something that the Government could do immediately with no impact on their budget. The First Minister says that she wants to do more, so will she explain why her deputy rejected that move? We are and will continue to consider those issues. I do believe that, although the differential threshold that Leah MacArthur refers to is in place, students, when they pay back their loans, pay them back at a lower rate of interest in order to compensate for that. Nevertheless, Leah MacArthur has raised that before. I think that he raises a legitimate issue, and it is one that the Government will continue to consider. To ask the First Minister what assistance the Scottish Government provides to cancer patients for day-to-day tasks. The Government recognises that there are physical, financial and often emotional consequences associated with a cancer diagnosis, which is why our cancer action plan, Better Cancer Care, gives focus to supporting people living both with and beyond cancer. We work with a number of support organisations such as Macmillan to ensure that cancer patients are getting advice on the benefits and support that they are entitled to. Lord Campbell. Thank the First Minister for that answer. She may be aware of the Macmillan cancer research recent research paper hidden at home, which revealed that half of cancer patients throughout the UK who have support or personal care needs only receive care from friends and family. What more can the Scottish Government do to provide support to those patients and indeed their carers? Anybody who has read the recent hidden at home Macmillan report will recognise that supporting cancer patients outwith and beyond their clinical treatment is absolutely essential in ensuring that they get the best possible care and the best possible outcomes. That is why we are working with Macmillan cancer support to take forward the transforming care after treatment programme. That programme is an excellent example of the third sector and Scottish Government working together to improve how care is delivered for people following a diagnosis of cancer. The First Minister will be aware that the report highlights that council cuts are impacting on people with cancer and indeed with other long-term conditions. Will she make it a priority to look at the services that are delivered to those people to make sure they are in place to support them? We have to look to make sure that all agencies, whether it is the NHS, local authorities or indeed third sector organisations that have such a big part to play here, are equipped as well as they need to be in order to support people who have a diagnosis of cancer. That is one of the many reasons that we are working to integrate health and social care services so that there is a genuinely joined up approach to care. I think that in Scotland we should be very proud of the cancer treatment and care that we provide for patients, but I, when I was health secretary, saw very, very regularly for myself how difficult it is for patients diagnosed with cancer, not just to get through their treatment and the clinical part of their care, but to cope with all of the other consequences, whether they be financial or work-related or emotional, and we have a duty to make sure that we are providing adequate support across all of these issues. Thank you. That ends First Minister's questions. We are now deployed to Forder James Kelly. Forder, let me hear Mr Kelly. Thank you Presiding Officer. I know that during exchanges between the First Minister and Kezia Dugdale in relation to last week's debate in the House of Commons, the First Minister stated that the SNP voted against that motion when in actual fact they abstained. Can I therefore? In order that the records are accurate, can I ask that the First Minister acknowledge her inaccuracy and have the record corrected during this session? Mr Kelly, you have made your point.