 I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holyrood campus, and I ask that members take care to observe those measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber, and please only use the aisles and walkways to access your seat and when moving around the chamber. The first item of business is First Minister's questions, and any supplementaries will be taken after question 7, but I would ask that any members press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as you can. Question 1, I called Douglas Ross. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish Government needs to reset its relationship with business? The Scottish Government has a duty to have a good constructive working relationship with all sectors of Scottish society that very much includes the business community. This has been a really difficult period for the business community. I personally and to an even greater extent, my ministers have engaged with business organisations and with different sectors of our economy over the course of the pandemic. However, yes, I took part in business discussions over the course of the election campaign and absolutely gave the commitment that if there is a need to whatever language you want to use, reset, restart, make sure that we are focusing on all the key issues then. As First Minister, of course, I am not just willing to do that, I am very keen to do that. Douglas Ross. Thank you, Presiding Officer, because it is not just myself or the Scottish Conservatives or others that are calling for this reset. It is the Scottish Chamber of Commerce. They said last month that a reset was necessary, but it has not happened. Six weeks after it was promised, taxi drivers are still waiting on the second £1,500 payment. Businesses in Glasgow have had their plans upturned at 48 hours' notice. The Federation of Small Businesses called that the latest in the line of miscommunications around unlocking that have had serious consequences. The Scottish hospitality group is now warning that more businesses will go bust unless they are given more help, and that they cannot continue with this loss and uncertainty. Yesterday, the First Minister said in this chamber that she would work with the business sector to provide as much clarity and support as possible. In that spirit, will she set out what specific progress is necessary to ease restrictions in Glasgow and, crucially, what further support will be provided to protect businesses right now? In relation to the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, they, as I understand it, were engaged in a call with the Deputy First Minister in his new capacity as overseeing Covid recovery. Earlier this week, I had a number of calls over the course of the pandemic with them myself, and that engagement will continue. I understand the frustration of the business community just as I understand the frustration of every single citizen across the country as we continue to grapple with a global pandemic of an infectious virus. In the past few weeks, as we were making very good progress, of course, being confronted with another new variant of this virus. Unfortunately, with the best will in the world, I cannot take away all the impacts of a virus of this nature, but we work as hard as we can and we work as closely as we can to give as much notice and detail of our response as possible. Sometimes, I am afraid, in the interests of health and human life, it is necessary for people in leadership positions like me to take very quick decisions because, as we know from bitter experience over the pandemic, it is often the failure to take quick and firm decisions that lead to loss of life. Anybody who has any doubt about that only had to listen to a fraction of what Dominic Cummings outlined about what he described as the chaotic response of the UK Government at key moments of the pandemic. I will continue to try to take difficult decisions as well as I possibly can. On the specific issues of business support, there is a range of different support streams in place for business. They will remain in place for as long as is necessary. Of course, we will continue to discuss with different sectors of the economy what more support we can give. In terms of getting Glasgow back on track, we want to do that as quickly as possible, but that has to be done responsibly and safely. In terms of today's numbers, I can tell the chamber that there were 464 positive cases identified yesterday, 1.8 per cent of all tests being positive. We see a reduction in hospital cases today and a small reduction in ICU cases. There are reasons to be optimistic there, but we have to continue in the interests of business and in the interests of everybody to take careful and cautious decisions to get the whole country back to normality. The First Minister answered a question about restrictions in Glasgow and more support for businesses affected there by referencing dominant comings. I am sure that there will be plenty of time from your back bench or scripted questions to answer about dominant comings. I want to focus what is happening in Scotland's largest city and the impact that is having on businesses in our communities. Glasgow has been under Covid restrictions for 269 days. 269 days were businesses have been struggling to survive. The chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, Stuart Patrick, said yesterday that funding grants fall far short. He said that 90 per cent of businesses will get less than they were promised. That is a direct quote from him. The financial support offered bears no relationship to the economic damage now being done by restrictions. Does the First Minister agree with the chief executive of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce and what will she do to now deliver on the promises that she and her Government made to those businesses? I would say to Douglas Ross that the point that I was making in my earlier answer was about the importance of careful, cautious, responsible decision making in the face of a deadly virus. I was also pointing out, with reference to some of what we heard yesterday, what the impact and implications can be if a leader does not take careful, cautious and responsible decisions. I think that most people across the country understand the seriousness of the point that I am making. Why is that relevant and not deflective? We are still in the face of this pandemic, and it remains important that we take those careful decisions. To Douglas Ross, I know how long the city of Glasgow has been under restrictions because, unlike him, I am a resident of the city of Glasgow. Those restrictions apply to me just as they apply to others. I know how difficult it is for residents and businesses across Glasgow, but I also know how dangerous it would be if we eased restrictions too quickly and allowed a new variant of the virus that we know is spreading perhaps even more quickly than the variant at the start of the year to take a grip again. That is why there are the public health interventions under way across Glasgow right now—surge testing, accelerated vaccination. I said earlier in the week that we see cautious signs for optimism that that is working, and we will continue to monitor that carefully. We will continue to discuss with businesses how, in the face of the difficult situation, we support them to the best of our ability and to the best of the resources that we have at our disposal. However frustrating, I know that it is for business. The worst thing that somebody in my position could do for businesses and individuals is to act in a way that will allow the virus to take over again, because that would lead to more businesses being closed and it would lead to more lives being lost. We need to continue to steer a careful course through this, and it is difficult, although I know that that is for everyone. That is what I will seek to do. The minister knows Glasgow. She answered her question about knowing the numbers of Glasgow, but she completely ignored the point from the Glasgow chambers of commerce. Her chief executive, who is saying that 90 per cent of businesses will get less than was promised by the First Minister and the Scottish Government. The Government's approach to business needs a reset, but more than that, it needs a complete overhaul. Businesses do not see anyone around the Scottish Government table who is fighting their corner. Even one of the First Minister's own economic advisers has said that her Government is anti-business, one of the First Minister's own advisers. However, instead of business people who understand how to create jobs, it is the Greens who might get seat around the First Minister's table. A Green Party that does not even believe in economic growth, a Green Party that ignores business unless they want to celebrate at a high-end bar in George Street and a Green Party that wants to risk the entire oil and gas industry and the tens of thousands of jobs that it supports. This SNP Government needs to reset its relationship with business. Does the First Minister honestly believe that a coalition with the Greens is the way to do that? I think that most people across the country and most responsible businesses that I speak to and have interaction with know that, yes, it is important to support a strong, vibrant, sustainable economy, but it is also vital—in fact, it is a moral imperative—to do that in a way that meets our obligations to the planet and delivers our climate change targets. From that last question, I am not sure that the climate is particularly high up the agenda of Douglas Ross. We will continue to make sure that we support industry and the economy, but that we also support the country to move to net zero, which is a key priority and should be a key priority for all of us. On the questions about the Glasgow business community and the Glasgow chambers of commerce, I believe that Stuart Patrick himself was in a call with the Deputy First Minister and the Finance and Economy Secretary on Tuesday of this week. I am sure that the issues that have been raised—I would expect and assume that the issues that have been raised here today were raised on that call, and the Scottish Government will be taking them seriously and working with the business community to address them. That is how we operate as a Government. We are always looking for ways in which we can improve engagement and responsiveness, and we will continue to do that. I come back to the central point here. This country, like much of the world right now, is in the grip of a global pandemic. It has taken too many lives already, and it has the capacity and potential if we do not get the decisions right to take more lives in future. This is very difficult for everybody—businesses and individuals. My responsibility—I am not complaining about this—is what I am elected to do. My responsibility is to try to take those difficult decisions in the best way possible to get the country through this as safely as possible. That is a responsibility that I will continue to treat with the utmost seriousness. 2. Anna Sarwar In November 2019, I shared damning evidence from senior clinicians that contaminated water at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital had led to the death of at least one child cancer patient and that their family had not been informed. Millie Main's mum, Kimberly, had to learn the true cause of her daughter's death in the newspaper and join the dots. That is unforgivable. The evidence that I shared back then warned that there may have been a second child and that their parents too may not know the truth. A case note review in March confirmed over 30 infections in children and two children's deaths due to waterborne infections. The First Minister promised then that all the families affected would be told within weeks, but this morning it has been confirmed that one family has not been informed and it is feared that this is the family of the second child who tragically died. Can I ask the First Minister when the first attempt was made to contact this family, how many attempts have been made and why this family does not yet know the truth? Can I yet again take the opportunity to extend my deepest sympathies to the families of patients who died and indeed to everyone who was affected as a result of the issues at the Queen Elizabeth hospital? It would of course not be appropriate for me to comment on any individuals' care but I will seek to answer the question as best I can in general terms. The expert panel has provided individual reports to the families of patients included in the case note review and offered to discuss individual findings with them. I understand that the review team has managed to contact all families with the exception of one family. One family, regrettably and despite extensive efforts by the team and by NHS greater Glasgow and Clyde, has not been able to be contacted. Any family who wishes to get in touch with the independent case note review team is able to email the following address, nss.casenotreview at nhs.scot. I am happy to seek to provide later on the specific answers of when the first attempt to contact was made and how many attempts have been made but I have had an assurance that there have been rigorous attempts made to contact the one remaining family that there has not been contact with and unfortunately and regrettably it has not been possible to contact them. I know that greater Glasgow and Clyde will continue to take all reasonable and appropriate steps to locate that family. I am sorry, First Minister, but that is not good enough. The reason why it is not good enough is because the key question is when that first attempt was made. I raised this case in November 2019. The case note review should not be the ones that we are trying to inform that family because senior clinicians actually informed the health board about the death of two children months earlier in July 2019 and Scotland's duty of candor law means that families should have been informed as soon as the health board became aware. That means that the family should have been informed at least 18 months ago, not contacted for the first time just a few weeks ago. You have broken that law. Just to be clear, two children died in Scotland's flagship hospital due to a waterborne infection. One family had to find out by fighting the health board and the other family may not even know. With all due respect, handing out an email address is not good enough. One family still does not know that this is the biggest scandal of the devolution era, so will the First Minister take personal responsibility that this family will be found and told the truth about what happened to their child? This is a matter of the utmost seriousness and it is because of that that I think that it is really important to be clear. There was a case note review undertaken. That case note review looked at 118 episodes of serious bacterial infection in 84 children. All of the families of those children, with one exception, have been contacted. The information from the case note review shared with them, and I am sure that a number of questions have been asked. There is one family that serious attempts have been made to contact, and it has not proved possible to contact them. I think that that is deeply regrettable, but in a situation in which 83 out of 84 have been contacted, I would simply say to Anna Sarwar that it is reasonable to conclude that it is not because the health board does not want to contact the family that those attempts have not so far proved possible. To characterise that as me simply handing out an email address is unfair. That is about an inability to make contact with a family. I certainly will seek to provide further information about the number of attempts that have been made when the first attempt was made, and I will be ensuring that the health board is doing everything that is reasonably possible to locate this family. However, as I understand it, this is a case of attempts having been made and that they have not proven possible in terms of locating the family. I think that everybody involved in this wants that family to be located so that information can be shared and any questions can be answered, but I repeat again that all the families with one exception have been contacted. I think that it is important that any further reasonable attempts to contact the remaining family do continue. I think that the First Minister misses the fundamental point. The case note review happened as a result of families fighting with the health board to get that review, which happened in 2019. This child died in 2017. Conditions highlighted this case to health board officials in 2017 and 2019. Why did we wait until now, this year, to try to find that family? It is one thing breaking the law when it comes to the treatment waiting time. It is another thing breaking the law when it comes to telling a family the truth about how their child died. This scandal involved denials, bullying of clinicians, cover-ups and parents of six children being blamed for their illnesses. Clinicians have been raising the alarm for years The result of inaction is tens of children getting infections and tragically two children dying, but inexplicably there are still families fighting for truth and justice. This case proves that the response when the First Minister has not been good enough. She was health secretary when this health board, sorry, this hospital was commissioned. She was First Minister when it opened despite an independent review finding that the water supply was not safe, but the only people who have paid the price for this scandal have been the families and the whistleblowers. Years on, why has no one taken responsibility? Why have there been no consequences? Why are families still having to fight for the truth? Who is going to be held accountable? In all of those very serious points that Anna Sarwar raises, there is one important fact that he omits to raise, that this Government has established a full independent public inquiry. That public inquiry is under way and is still to do its work and to report. Anna Sarwar is saying that we can't wait for that. It is really important that he called for a public inquiry, we have established a public inquiry. In the lead-up to that public inquiry there has been an independent review, there has been a report from the oversight board that was established and there has now been the case note review process, which has produced an overview report and has also produced, of course, the individual case reviews for each of the affected children and families. What I am not disputing because nobody could or should is that this is an incredibly serious matter. What I am disputing is that the Government is not taking this seriously and that the Government is not determined through ultimately the full independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of everything that happened from the opening of the hospital right through to now to make sure that families have the answers to the questions that they need. That is a process that will continue until we feel that we have got to the point where all questions that can be answered have been answered. It is a real omission to say all of the things Anna Sarwar has rightly said, but to leave out the fact of the full independent public inquiry that is already under way. Finally, just to come back to the one family that has not been contacted, that is regrettable, but I want to stress that that is not because there have not been attempts to contact that family and the health board will continue to take steps to contact that family as they have already contacted the other families involved. 3. Patrick Harvie The UK Home Secretary has declared that immigration dawn raids in Glasgow are what the British public voted for. I expect that the First Minister will agree that Scotland did not vote for that. The Conservatives were rejected at the ballot box in Glasgow and across Scotland, and this month we witnessed the people of Glasgow taking direct action to protect their neighbours from the actions of an institutionally racist home office. Immigration and asylum are reserved to the UK government, but there is no doubt more that we can be doing here in Scotland. Is the First Minister aware of the freedom to crawl campaign being launched today by the Roof Coalition, including Shelter and other charities and grassroots organisations, drawing attention to the abysmal standard of accommodation provided by meers on behalf of the home office for asylum seekers who are pregnant or who have babies and toddlers? Does she agree that the rights set out in the UN convention on the rights of the child are being breached? What will she do to challenge the UK Government on its failings towards some of the most vulnerable people in our communities? I have not seen the detail of the campaign that Patrick Harvie refers to, but I will, of course, look at that. I have profound and fundamental objections to the principles underpinning the UK Government's system of immigration and asylum, but also many of the practical aspects of that, not least the provision of inadequate accommodation for asylum seekers in the city of Glasgow. The Government has on many occasions raised those concerns directly with the home office and has often been met with indifference to those concerns, but we will continue to raise those. The provision of accommodation for anyone is an important right, but particularly where children are concerned. Obviously, this Parliament, just before the election, took a decision, a unanimous decision to incorporate the United Nations convention on the rights of the child into domestic law. That is something that is being challenged in court by the UK Government. That brings into sharp focus perhaps why the UK Government is seeking to challenge that, because it does not want the decisions that it is taking over things such as immigration to be subject to that kind of legal protection and scrutiny. In my view, that is exactly why we need the UN convention to apply to everything that happens in Scotland, because the rights of a child matter, whether that child was born here in Scotland or is the child of an asylum seeker, is a child living in Scotland and they should all have the same rights. The campaign was only launched today, but just so that the First Minister and everybody here is aware of the concerns being raised about the accommodation for mothers and babies in Glasgow, the campaign says that the rooms are cramped and inadequately furnished, that there is virtually no floor space within the rooms for children to play or move around safely, that there are multiple safety issues with the living, cooking and sleeping areas, that there is no respect for privacy and that alleged infractions against the rules are posted publicly, humiliating the mothers. They say that all of that breaches the UN convention on the rights of the child, the health and care standards and the current care inspectorate space standards. The Scottish Greens have long argued that responsibility for housing asylum seekers should lie with local authorities, who are much better placed and frankly more inclined to provide appropriate accommodation than the institutionally racist home office. In the Smith commission, the UK Government and every political party committed to discussions on powers coming to Scotland on asylum housing and support services. Those discussions have still not taken place more than six years later. Will the Scottish Government put that issue on the agenda for the next joint ministerial committee and work with Glasgow City Council and charities to develop a public sector bed for those services, so that Scotland can provide them to a standard that we can be proud of instead of allowing that shameful situation to continue? Yes, we will seek to put it on the agenda for the next joint ministerial committee, but since these do not exactly take place frequently, it is important that we continue to take it up in other ways as well. Patrick Harvie is right about the Smith commission. Discussions to devolve more powers to this Parliament in the area of immigration have not progressed, but then we have a UK Tory Government that is more interested in taking powers away from this Parliament, not bringing powers to this Parliament. That is a reality. I know that it is an uncomfortable reality for Mr Ross, but it is a reality nevertheless. I am sorry if it was not Mr Ross that shouted rubbish if it was one of his colleagues, but it is a fact that the UK Government seems more interested in taking powers away. Those issues are important because they are about fundamental human rights and fundamental human dignity. They bring into sharp focus why those powers should lie with this Parliament. Actually, notwithstanding the many differences that we have across this chamber, I really believe that this Parliament would take a much more humane approach to immigration and asylum. I believe that we would respond more positively to the demographic challenges that we face and therefore the need to attract more people to live and work in Scotland. It is a good example of why we need to see those powers lie with this Parliament and the sooner, as with so many other things, we can get those powers out of the hands of a Tory Westminster Government, the better for everyone. Congratulations, Presiding Officer, on your new role. I look forward to working with you and engaging with you over the coming years. I would like to ask the First Minister what dialogue the Scottish Government has had with the UK Government on the potentially damaging tariff and quota-free trade deal that has been proposed by the UK and Australian Governments. Can I first take the opportunity to welcome Jim Fairlie to Parliament? It makes that afternoon and let him in the torrential rain. It is all the more worth it to see him in his place in this chamber. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Minister for Business met UK Government ministers on 25 May to reiterate our concerns about the devastating impact that the UK Government proposed deal could have on our farming communities. That followed an earlier letter from the Rural Affairs Secretary to the UK Trade Secretary on 19 May, but the UK Government seems determined to shut the Scottish Government out of this decision-making process just as it has ignored our interests throughout the Brexit process. We are extremely concerned that yet again a crucial decision affecting Scotland's future is being taken by this Tory Government, not just against the wishes of people who live here, but fundamentally against the interests of people who live here. Jim Fairlie? I would like to thank the First Minister for that answer. Yesterday, he gave multiple opportunities for the Opposition parties to work with the Scottish Government in supporting the people of Scotland. Does the First Minister share the concerns of the President of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, who is in John Swinney's constituency, who said, I quote, "...we were promised that any future deal wouldn't undermine Scottish and UK farmers with any deal. We would feel betrayed if that were to happen." Douglas Ross wrote to all the farmers in my constituency four days after my nomination, telling them that he was going to be the farmers champion here in Scotland. I'm just wondering if this is going to be one of those red lines that he's going to gaily skip over like a newborn calf. Would the First Minister agree with me if that will be a total betrayal of Scotland's farmers as it has been by the Fishermen? Douglas Ross seems intent on telling Jim Fairlie, for some reason, best known to him, that he's a lamb, not a calf. The general point stands that nobody on the Tory benches seems willing to stand up for the interests of Scottish farmers. This is a Tory party of course that has already betrayed Scotland's fishing communities and it now seems to be about to betray Scotland's farming communities. What we must see is that any imports of Australian agri food should be produced to equivalent standards of Scottish production, imports must be controlled by tariff rate, quotas, anything short of that, short of what the Tories promised, will be a betrayal of our farmers and will be deeply damaging to the Scottish economy. We hear a lot of rhetoric from the Conservatives about standing up for Scottish business. We've heard it again today. Perhaps it's about time they actually stood up for our farming community and told their bosses in the UK Government that what is proposed is simply not acceptable. 5. Megan Gallacher To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government plans to implement a national moratorium on incinerators, such as the proposal at Overwood Farm site near Stonehouse, in light of the reported detrimental impacts that incinerators could have on Scotland's bid to tackle the climate emergency. First Minister, welcome Megan Gallacher to Parliament as well. Our commitment is to transition to net zero by 2045 and to help to do this, building a circular economy and reducing recycling and reusing resources as vital. With that and our climate change targets in mind, my party stood on a commitment in the election to review the role that incineration plays in Scotland's waste system. We will update Parliament on plans for this as soon as possible. I know that that is something that, in its constituency capacities, my colleagues Christina McKelvie and Mary McCallan have also been pushing for. It is worth noting, though, that in 2019 the whole-life carbon impact of Scotland's household waste reached its lowest level since official recording began. We are fully committed to further accelerating progress by ending the practice of sending biodegradable municipal waste to landfill by 2025. I thank the First Minister for her answer and I would like to refer to my register of interests as I am a councillor in North Lanarkshire. Residents of Stonehouse and surrounding areas feel let down as this is the second time they have had to fight against a proposed incinerator being built in that area. What will the Scottish Government do to reassure my constituents that, should South Lanarkshire Council oppose the planning application, the Scottish Government will not overrule its local decision if it were to be brought before the Scottish Government reporter? I am sure that, as a councillor, I know that, if I were to answer that question, that in any way pre-emptied or prejudged any planning decisions that may ultimately come to the Scottish ministers, that would not be helpful for any of the interests concerned. Fundamentally and initially, of course, it is a matter for the local council, but then there are robust, rightly robust statutory processes in place for any applications that come to ministers, and it is really important that ministers do not prejudge any of that. I understand the concerns that are raised in general here, which is why what I said in my initial answer is important that it is time, and this Government is committed to doing it, to review the role that incineration plays in our overall waste system. It is also important to recognise the progress that we have made in reducing the whole-life carbon impact of household waste, and to look at the variety of things that we need to do to continue that. However, I am sure that the application, if there is an application in this case, will be treated and dealt with in all of the appropriate processes. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government plans to take to support teachers with the challenges that they face in light of the reported concerns from teaching unions that there is a culture of fear and anxiety across Scottish education. The past year, teachers have done an extraordinary job in the most challenging of circumstances. They have refocused their work to support pupils in a range of different ways. We recognise the pressure on schools and want all teachers at all times to work in a safe, positive, respectful and supportive environment. We have already committed more than £400 million to education recovery, introduced a support package for schools, including a very important focus on mental health support for staff, in addition to existing guidance for local authorities and schools to manage behaviour, and we will continue to put the health and well-being of both pupils and staff at the forefront of recovery plans. We look forward to continuing to work constructively with stakeholders to ensure that everybody nurtures an environment in our schools that has, at its core, the highest quality of learning and teaching. I am sure that she, like me, is very worried that the NASUWT has said this week that violence and abuse of teachers is becoming normalised. She also revealed that a union survey found that 53 per cent of teachers considered leaving the profession in the last year feeling demoralised unsupported and unrecognised. Does the Government recognise those concerns? Do you accept that, among the actions that must be taken, there must be a year-on-year substantial increase in school budgets and that we also need to see significant increases in teacher numbers and teaching assistance across the school estate? First, on education spending, I think, has risen in every single one of the last four years, and there has been significant additional resource that is provided to local authorities in the face of Covid. That is supporting a range of activities, including additional teachers in our schools. Of course, I recognise the concerns of teachers and so many others after what has been the most difficult challenging bruising in many respects of years, as we have all in different ways had to cope with the implications of Covid. It is really important that we understand, listen to that and respond in a variety of different ways. No teacher should have to suffer verbal or physical abuse in school and nobody should ever accept violence becoming normalised in our schools. I am sure that the education secretary will be more than happy to discuss those concerns in more detail with the trade union concern. It is really important that we support teachers in a range of different ways, and we are doing that. We will continue to talk to teaching unions about what more can be done to support teachers as they do the very important job that they perform on behalf of all of us. To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to reform the roles of the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office in procurating a fiscal service in light of the resignations of the Lord Advocate and the solicitor general. Can I briefly take the opportunity to put on record my deep gratitude to both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for their extremely distinguished service over the past five years? I am sure I will have more to say about that over the next days and weeks, but I want to record my appreciation and gratitude and respect for both of them. The Government will put nominations for new law officers to Parliament for approval shortly. Until then, the current law officers remain in office. As we said in our manifesto, the Government intends to publish a consultation on the dual functions of the law officers, and we will do that in due course. It is vital that both the systems of criminal prosecution and the investigation of death and the role of the law officers in Government continue to enjoy the full confidence of the public, and indeed I believe that they do. I also pay tribute to James Wolff and Alison Derulo for their service and their willingness to engage, particularly those of us who have sat on the Justice Committee. Reform is needed, and the First Minister has the power to deliver change. The role of the Lord Advocate needs split to end the conflicts of interest, including appointing a director of prosecutions. Fadal accident inquiries must be removed from the Crown Office as families are still waiting too long. It is a scandal that we still do not know the circumstances surrounding the death of Lamara Bell and James Ewell on the M9 six years ago. After the landmark vote in this Parliament in March, we need change to ensure that those in the grip of drugs are diverted to treatment rather than to prosecution and imprisonment. In hiring new law officers, therefore, will the First Minister commit to those much needed reforms? Let me make a number of points. I hope that they are helpful, because I genuinely hope, because I think that this is necessary given a potential reform of this nature, that there is widespread consensus on the eventual path that we take. Firstly, though, it is really important to recognise, as I am sure everybody in this chamber does, that the dual role of the law officers is not new. It is not something that was created under an SNP administration. It has been that way since the dawn of devolution. Under previous Governments, there was that dual role. Secondly, I think that there is a case for reform, which is why my manifesto committed to a consultation on that. I think that it is really important that we take the time to get that right. Just listening to Liam McArthur there, one thing came to mind that will be something that this Parliament in the course of a consultation will want to consider. Because of the dual role of law officers, law officers can be called to this Parliament to answer questions on all the issues that perhaps fall within the prosecutorial function of the law officers. They can be questioned in this chamber. If we separate those roles, that may not be possible in future to do that in the same way. Now, that may be something that Parliament is comfortable with, but it is just one example of the need to take care over that and to make sure that we get it right and that we try to move forward on the basis of as much consensus and proper consideration as possible. Those are really serious issues. I hope that all members, including Liam McArthur, will engage in them seriously over the course of any consultation that comes. Thank you. We will now move on to supplementaries. I would be grateful for succinct questions and responses. I call John Mason to be followed by Liam Kerr. I think that the First Minister will be aware of the Pladys McVity's plan to close their factory and tow cross in my constituency, with a potential loss of over 450 jobs. Can the First Minister reassure the staff and myself and my constituents that the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise will do all that they can to persuade Pladys to remain in Glasgow? John Mason for raising an extremely important issue. I, like many others in Glasgow and beyond, was deeply concerned to learn that Pladys had entered into consultation with its tow cross workforce. That is a bitter blow to the company's staff, who have been so loyal to that company over such a long period of time, and indeed a big blow to the local area, given the importance of the McVity's factory to tow cross. We will do everything that we can by we, the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise, and I know that Glasgow City Council has that commitment too. We have put together an action group, which is co-chaired by the Economy Secretary and by the leader of the council, Susan Aitken. Membership of the action group includes trade unions, Scottish Enterprise, Clyde Gateway and Skills Development Scotland. The group met yesterday, and it will pursue every opportunity to secure the long-term future of the tow cross site and the associated jobs. That requires a willingness from Pladys to engage in that process. Let me be very clear here in Parliament today that I am calling on Pladys to do that and to engage constructively in the interests of their workforce. The Cabinet Secretary for the Economy is also writing to the UK business secretary, making him aware of the situation and of the on-going work of the action group. Recent reports and representations to me by Aberdeen airport suggest that passengers returning to Scotland from abroad may have to pay more than twice as much for Covid tests than those returning to England. That will price many people in the north-east out of travelling, it will hinder the ability for Scottish airports to re-establish connectivity and potentially pushes passengers to travel to and from English airports. Can the First Minister offer any comfort to the industry and hard-pressed passengers by committing to review the guidelines and introduce a more equal testing system? Of course, and I will give an undertaking to look at it as an issue that was raised with me earlier this week. My understanding and I will be corrected if I am getting any of the detail of this as it pertains to England wrong, but in summary the difference is that we require all tests in Scotland to be NHS tests, where in England many of the tests are outsourced to private companies. One of the reassurances that I suppose I can give is around quality, because we believe that the NHS provides that quality assurance. I am not sure to be blunt that going down the same route as England on this is the right thing to do, but of course we will review that and give those points consideration. More generally, I do not want, nobody wants the requirement for testing and quarantine to be in place any longer than is necessary, but those are protections that are important right now. Everybody knows the frustration that I have about what I would describe as the lack of robustness in terms of UK border control in the past, but those are important protections to try to do everything that we can to minimise the risk of importation of the virus. That is why it is important that everybody abides by the requirements for testing and quarantine if they are coming into the country. Colin Smyth, to be followed by Rona Mackay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister will be aware that the world's first savings bank was established by the Reverend Henry Duncan in the village of Rathall in Dumfrieshire in 1810. The very building that housed the bank is today home to the savings bank museum, but the owners of the TSB have just announced plans to close the museum, remove the historic artefacts from the community and place them in their head office in Edinburgh. Can I ask the First Minister to consider whether the Government would make representations to the TSB and ask them to put those closure plans on hold and work with the local community to find a way to retain this important part of our nation's history where it belongs in the village of Rathall? In the interests of fairness, I should say that Oliver Mundell just raised this issue with me in advance of First Minister's questions and indicated that he, as I think constituency member, was intending to raise it. I thank him for that and Colin Smyth for raising this today. It is not an issue that I am aware of all the detail around, but given that it has been raised with me by two members today, I will certainly look at the circumstances and, yes, absolutely consider if the Scottish Government can make representations to retain a museum that certainly sounds to me as if it is a valued part of the local community and something that should be treasured in terms of the history and indeed the ability of future generations to learn all that it has to offer. I will look at it and come back to both members in due course. The Children's Commissioner said that the UK Government's two-child limit is a clear breach of children's rights and dropping the universal credit uplift will effectively knock out the benefits that the Scottish child payment brings to families. Does the First Minister think that the UK Government should focus on strengthening children's rights rather than continually undermining those efforts? Yes, I do. I think that that is a really important point. Actually, this issue shows I think quite starkly the difference between our two Governments and our two Parliaments. This Government and this Parliament is focused on tackling poverty through significant investments, including £100 million to support families through the pandemic payments, £50 million for universal free school meals expansion and, of course, the introduction of the Scottish child payment, which we are committed to doubling. By contrast, the UK Government penalises families through the two-child limit, cutting £500 million from low-income families in Scotland alone, the benefit cap, the plan to remove the universal credit uplift. This Government, with the unanimous backing of Parliament, has strengthened children's rights by enshrining them in law, yet the UK Government wants to take its décor over that. Again, that illustrates why we need more powers out of the hands of the Tory Government at Westminster and into the hands of this Government and this Parliament. Communities in Perthshire and across the Highlands have for years campaigned for the A9 trunk roads that have been made up to a dual carriageway between Perth and Inverness, and it is good to see works progressing on one stretch at the moment. However, concerns have already been raised that this vital road safety project could be jeopardised by any deal struck between the Scottish National Party Government and the Green Party. Can the First Minister assure us that that will not be the case? When Murdo Fraser says that concerns have already been raised, what he really means is that he is desperately trying to stir up any concerns of that description. He should know by now that the two things are not really the same. This Government's commitment to the A9 is clear and this Government's commitment to the A9 continues.