 Rwy'n siaraddu i fynd i'r First Minister's Questions. Question 1, Ruth Davidson. Naid i'r First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day? First Minister. I have engagement to take forward the Government's program for Scotland. Ruth Davidson. Naid i'r First Minister, does she believe that Scotland's schools are staffed with enough teachers? First Minister. The Education Secretary and I have been very open about the recruitment challenges that there are in parts of our education system. That is why we have been focused on making sure that we are attracting the best and brightest people into the teaching profession, making it easier in partnership with the General Teaching Council for Scotland to get teachers into the classroom, and we will continue to take that action. We have funded local authorities over the past number of years to maintain the numbers of teachers in our schools, and that is absolutely the right thing to do. It is part of our overall programme of reform in education to make sure that we are driving up standards and closing the gap in attainment. Presiding Officer, the simple and correct answer there was no, there aren't, because here are the figures. Since the SNP came to power, the number of teachers has fallen from 55,000 to just under 51,000, down by more than 4,000. When schools need supply teachers to fill in, they are struggling more and more. This week, we contacted councils right across Scotland to find out how the stock of supply teachers had fallen in recent years. Here are the facts. In the Scottish Borders, there has been a drop of more than a third in supply teachers since 2011. In Edinburgh, it is even worse where the numbers have halved. In Glasgow alone, over the same time frame, we have lost 1,000 supply teachers, so fewer teachers, more vacancies and fewer supply teachers to fill in when needed. How can the First Minister defend that? For all teacher numbers, as we have debated in this chamber many times in the past, over a period of years, the numbers of teachers will fluctuate in line with fluctuations in the number of pupils in our schools. In recent years, we have—this is a statement of fact, Presiding Officer—funded local authorities, as pupil numbers started to rise to also maintain teacher numbers, so that we can broadly maintain the teacher pupil ratio as well. That is a fact. In terms of teacher recruitment challenges, we have, in recent times, opened up—as I said earlier, in partnership with the General Teaching Council for Scotland—11 new routes to get teachers into the classrooms to make it easier to get the best and brightest in our teaching profession into classrooms doing what they do best. We have also increased the future intake for teacher training. This year, we have increased that by just short of 400 or by about 370. We have asked the General Teaching Council to look at what more can be done to motivate supply teachers. We are taking a range of actions to make sure that we have the right numbers of teachers in our schools teaching our young people. Of course, that is part of the wider programme that I spoke about. We have taken the decision, as part of our budget this year, to get £120 million directly into the hands of headteachers so that they can invest those resources in the things that they believe will have the biggest impact on raising attainment. If that is more staff, whether teaching staff or specialist staff in particular areas, that is for the discretion of headteachers. We continue to take the action that is required to be taken to get standards up in our schools generally and to close that attainment gap. We will continue to focus on exactly that. Ruth Davidson She is standing there asking for applause for cleaning up our own mess. This is not a fluctuation. We are more than 4,000 teachers down. What we have learned this week is the real cost of teacher shortages. I got rather drowned out by the First Minister's referendum plans, but Education Scotland made clear that the recruitment crisis that we face is damaging the quality of education in Scotland, not just in primary school but in secondary school too. According to the head of school leaders Scotland, the shortage is such that headteachers are having to take on staff not because they are right for the job but because they are the only ones available. Does the First Minister think that this is a decent return for 10 years of SNP Government? The First Minister We have plenty of evidence of improving standards in our schools. I can point to the record exam passes that young people are achieving in our schools. I can point to the record positive destinations of young people leaving our schools, going into employment, further education or training. I can point to the beginning of the closing of the attainment gap, although I readily recognise that there is much more work to do. Yes, we have a challenge when it comes to recruitment of teachers in particular areas. That is not unique to Scotland, but what we are doing, as I said in my previous answer, is taking a range of actions to ensure that we meet that challenge. We will continue to focus on exactly that. The programme of reform and education I have already mentioned the additional funding going direct to headteachers, the attainment challenge focusing on literacy and numeracy, the introduction, which I know not everybody in this chamber agrees with, of national assessments so that we can publish robust information about the performance in our schools and measure the improvements that we are taking. That is a comprehensive programme of reform. I and the Deputy First Minister will continue to be absolutely focused on delivering it. Ruth Davidson The First Minister is going through actions that are being taken, but that is only necessary because her Government has been asleep at the wheel for the last decade. The real question here is about this Government's priorities. This week, Sir Tom Hunter wrote in a national newspaper setting out some of the positive steps that are finally being taken, such as leadership development for headteachers to ensure that we get better leaders in our schools. He also talked about the work that is being done by Skills Development Scotland to help to link up young people with employers. However, he finished his piece with this. Let me read it to you. Scotland faces challenges, so I ask, is independence our biggest priority? Grown, if you like, but Sir Tom is only asking the question that a lot of people want answered. Separation or education? Which is it, First Minister? Firstly, in terms of education, I know that there are many things that Ruth Davidson does not like to acknowledge. For example, the around 30 per cent increase in higher passes since 2007 and the 90 per cent of young people going into positive destinations, the improvement that we are seeing in closing the attainment gap, the increase in early years and childcare, which is so crucial to closing that attainment gap in schools, and the additional resources going into the hands of headteachers. Ruth Davidson has just spoken about the extra support that John Swinney was talking about just this very week to headteachers making sure that we have the best leadership in our schools. Let us come back to this point about who is concentrating on those matters and who, at every opportunity, tries to shoehorn in the reference to the constitution. I do not know. Ruth Davidson spends her week when she is not appearing in comedy shows or talking about independence. Here is just some of the things that I do in an average week. It is £10 million to support a food and drink sector, signing an economic partnership agreement with Bavaria. This is just the last few days. Chair and a Cabinet meeting decides the content of our social security bill that continues work on our 2018 budget plans that talks about what we are doing to reduce cancer waiting times, finalising the mental health strategy, which will be published this very day. Convening a meeting with the social security minister to talk about our new social security agency announcing 300 new jobs in the city of Glasgow. Talking to manufacturing companies about how we boost that sector of our economy. Reviewing, yes, with the Deputy First Minister, our education reform programme. Talking to the Transport Scotland and the Transport Minister about the Queensferry crossing. I could go on, Presiding Officer, but I know that I am running out of time. Let me focus on some of the things other ministers have been doing while the opposition talked about their priorities. The health secretary funding to widen access to medical schools, funding to increase cervical cancer screening, the education secretary funding for support for head teachers, the public health minister extending the family nurse partnership, the children's minister setting out plans to double childcare and, of course, last but not least, the community secretary, support for young homeless people who are having their housing benefit removed by the Conservative Government at Westminster. I will take no lectures about the day job. It is just a pity that so much of our day job is spent cleaning up the mess made by a Tory Government. Presiding Officer, the First Minister talks about priorities. Is she really coming here? I know that she has had a tough weekend, and I know that it is getting worse. Is she really coming here to say after forcing a two-day debate on independence, forcing through a referendum against the wishes of the people of Scotland, forcing through a vote on that, that she is going to stand here and still say that education is her priority, where her Government hasn't debated education on Government time in this chamber since October. How does she answer that? No education since October, independence every single day. The difference between this Government and the Tories is that they debate and we deliver £120 million for headteachers to improve standards in our schools. I will continue to allow Ruth Davidson and the Tories to debate with each other. I will get on with delivering for the people of Scotland. Ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the week. More engagements to deliver for the people of Scotland. Kezia Dugdale One thing that the First Minister hasn't done is deliver justice for the survivors of mesh, a group of women whom I met just a few days ago, women whose lives have been destroyed by a medical procedure that was supposed to help them to get better. One woman that I spoke with can't sit down without being in excruciating pain. Others have been paralysed. Those women feared that the review into the use of mesh products would be a whitewash, and, First Minister, that is exactly what it is. In their own words, those women have been left dismayed, disgusted and betrayed. Will the First Minister take this opportunity to apologise to the women who have been so badly let down? Of course, I am deeply sorry for the suffering of those women. The women that Kezia Dugdale mentions and many others who have suffered complications because of treatment with mesh. Now, as Kezia Dugdale knows, the health secretary will make a statement in this very chamber this afternoon on this issue. The independent review that was instructed by this Government to look into those issues was published on Monday of this week. That review contains eight important conclusions that health boards across this country will now be expected to take forward. The health secretary has recently met two of the women who have been understandably quoted in the media, Olive McElroy and Elaine Holmes, to hear directly in person their views. She met the women to make it clear that the Scottish mesh survivors group's views have been heard. More than that, as we take this work forward, we want to make sure that their views remain at the centre of it. The chair of the review has ensured that all evidence that informed the review was made publicly available alongside the report when that report was published. I am very grateful to all the members of the review for the considerable time and effort that they have dedicated to this really important piece of work over the past number of years. The health secretary will set out in further detail this afternoon the actions that will now be taken to make sure that those recommendations are implemented in full. I hope that the chamber will welcome the health secretary's statement when she makes it later. That is a welcome apology, but make no mistake, there has been a cover-up and this is a national scandal. Whatever the minister says this afternoon, the report has been compromised because we know that the original draft report was supported by all members of the review group, but the final report has lost the faith of those involved. That is why the chair, the clinical expert and the patient's representatives have all resigned. Even the First Minister's own successor, Alex Neil, said that it was totally unacceptable. Most important of all, countless women whose lives have been destroyed by this think that it is a white wash. If those women do not have any faith in the report, how possibly can the First Minister? There are extremely important issues involved. As a matter of fact, and not to underplay any of the issues involved, the chair resigned for personal reasons, not for any reasons associated with concern about the report, as far as I am aware. I take very seriously the responsibility, and I know that the health secretary does, too. As we move forward from the statement that Shona Robison will give this afternoon to implement the recommendations, we work really hard to make sure that we build the faith of those who have been affected by this. That is one of the most important responsibilities that we have. As I said earlier on, the health secretary made very clear to establish with the chair of the review all the evidence that informed that review has been made publicly available alongside the report, so it is there available for anybody to read. The recommendations in the report must now be taken forward in a way that has the confidence of the women who have been affected. I ask members to wait to hear the statement that Shona Robison will make this afternoon. They will have the opportunity, rightly and properly, to ask questions about that statement, but Shona Robison will set out clearly the steps that will now be taken to make sure that all the right action is taken in a way that restores the confidence and the faith of the women who have been affected. That is a responsibility that I take seriously with the health secretary. I hope that, when that statement is made to Parliament this afternoon, members across the chamber will ask searching questions as they are right to do, but I hope that there will be support for the actions that the health secretary will set out. The women want to have faith in this process, but they also want to see some action too. Here is an email from Sophie. She is 18 and the daughter of a mesh survivor. Sophie emailed Shona Robison at half past two this morning, as she cared for her mother. Her email said this, I am struggling to remember my mum before mesh took her from me. No, she is not dead, but she is a shell of the women I had previously loved, adored and been inspired by. You should live a day in our life. On the days when the pain is so bad, my fiercely independent mum can't even brush her own teeth. Given what she knows about this, if a doctor told the First Minister or someone that she loves that they should have this procedure, would she go ahead with it? Nicola Sturgeon's answer is no, or even if she is not sure, then surely she must ban this devastating and dangerous practice once and for all. First, my heart goes out to the women that Kezia Dugdale has just referred to in the email on behalf of her daughter. Secondly, Kezia Dugdale rightly calls for action. That is exactly what the independent review was set up to recommend. The health secretary will set out to Parliament this afternoon exactly that, the action that is now being taken. Issues like informed consent, genuinely informed consent, are one of the issues. There has been a suspension on routine procedures of this nature, although there has been the ability, if women have the information and are in pain and choose to go ahead to do so. Safety, informed consent and making sure that there is absolutely the right guidance in place are all at the heart of the recommendations that the health secretary will talk about this afternoon. I know that from my years spent as health secretary. With some exceptions, even in the history of this Parliament, health secretaries are rarely clinicians. We have to rely on expert clinical advice. Sometimes that advice can be contradictory and sometimes it can be very difficult to find the right way forward on the basis of that advice. We use our best endeavours to do so. That is why the independent review was set up. That is why all the evidence that has informed the outcome of that review has been published. I recognise—the health secretary recognises—that some of the women involved in the review have lost faith in that. Therefore, it is a crucial part of our responsibility to restore that faith. The statement that the health secretary will make this afternoon outlining the action that we will take is a key part of that. I do not expect members across this chamber to stop asking, searching important question on behalf of their constituents. I absolutely accept the importance of that. However, I hope that we can build some consensus around the actions that will be outlined to the chamber later this afternoon. We have two constituency supplementaries. The first is from Daniel Johnson. This week, the Marchman and Sheen's community development trust made a formal submission for community interest bid for the Royal Sick Children's Hospital in my constituency. The Sick Kids is not just a hospital but a beloved institution for so many people living in Edinburgh and beyond. It has touched the lives of thousands of patients and parents, including my own family. Will the First Minister give me and the whole community the assurance that the submission, which must be approved by ministers in the coming weeks, will be treated carefully and seriously by the Government? There are clearly competing interests in this process, given that the Government has both an interest in the sale of the site but also must approve this bid as a valid community interest bid. Could the First Minister therefore spell out the criteria and approach that her Government will use to assess the submission? I know how important the issues are when a much-loved hospital is no longer used as a hospital. In this case, of course, it is because we have a new Sick Kids hospital being built in Edinburgh, but the use of that site and what happens to that for a community is very important. The question that has been asked is, will we as ministers make sure that careful and thorough consideration is given for the application that the member refers to? Absolutely, we will do. Obviously, I cannot pre-empt that consideration or that decision. Generally, we see that through legislation such as the Community Empowerment Act, not just in cases like this. Part of what we want to do is to make sure that communities are at the very heart of plans for the regeneration and redevelopment of areas in their own areas. Those principles and criteria will very much be used to judge the application that the member refers to. Oliver Mundell Thank you, Presiding Officer. This week, the Transport Minister confirmed that there have been over 700 separate deployments of temporary traffic lights on the A76 trunk roads in the last 1,000 days. Does the First Minister agree that that is unacceptable? Can she tell my constituents what action the Scottish Government will take to bring this strategically important route back up to standard? The First Minister Obviously, we do not want the use of temporary traffic lights where that can be avoided, but I am sure that all members and everybody listening to this will know that, in instances where we have, for example, roadworks or where there might have been landslips or problems caused by weather, often that is unavoidable as roads are repaired. I am very happy to come back to the member on the detail, particularly of the number of times temporary traffic lights have been used on the A76, but what I would absolutely say and agree with him about is that we want to keep that to a minimum. Sometimes repair work on our road system is unavoidable and it is necessary to make sure that we have an efficient and effective road system across our country. Patrick Harvie To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. The First Minister Tuesday 18 April Patrick Harvie Thank you, Presiding Officer. Coming just a day after the UK Government signalled its formal intention to withdraw not only from the EU but from the single market. Something that even leave campaigners promised would not happen and which will rip away our freedom of movement and undermine recruitment in education, health, social care and throughout our economy. I personally found it astonishing to hear the Conservatives raise the issue of recruitment in public services, but today that UK Government is publishing its absurd repeal bill covering huge areas of power that have no place being exercised by UK ministers. Can I ask what the First Minister's view is on the scope of that repeal bill? Does she agree that it must not be allowed to change legislation that is not specifically reserved under the Scotland Act? The First Minister Well, I think that Patrick Harvie raises a number of important points. Firstly, he is absolutely right to point out that the biggest risk to recruitment in our public services right now is the one that is posed by the Conservatives in the form of Brexit. It is quite breathtaking hypocrisy for any Conservative to stand up and talk about those issues without recognising the responsibility that they bear. Secondly, on the great repeal bill, this is hugely important—not just for this Government, it is hugely important for this Parliament. One of the things that I think should concern everybody is the way in which Conservative ministers at Westminster, echoed by Conservative party members in this chamber, choose their words so very carefully over the issue. They talk about not taking away any decisions that we already make here, as if we are somehow supposed to be grateful for that. However, the issue around the great repeal bill is about powers currently with the EU that, if they are to be repatriated in areas that are currently wholly devolved—agriculture, fishing, for example—where should those powers go? Under the current terms of the Scotland act, those powers should automatically come to this chamber, but nobody in the UK Government—and I discussed this with the Prime Minister on Monday—nobody on the Conservative benches will give that guarantee, which leads me to suspect that what the Tories are actually planning is a power grab on this Parliament. That will be absolutely unacceptable. When that happens, I do not expect the Tories to back us up, but at that point I will be looking very carefully at the Labour benches, because surely not even Labour in those circumstances could stay subservient to the Tories. Surely even they would have to stand up for Scotland's interests. It is not only the Scottish Government that should recognise the contempt that has been shown by the UK. It is all of this Parliament that should recognise that contempt. They have not only refused to discuss with ministers the timing of article 50 or any of the other details of their plans. They have refused to come and answer questions to our parliamentary committees, which would give all of us whatever our view on those matters the ability to ask them serious questions. In the face of that contempt that has been shown to Scotland by the UK Government, we want to put the power over Scotland's future back into the hands of the voters who live here. The UK ministers want that power for themselves—the ability to rewrite laws by fiat without the normal checks and balances. Let's remember that this is the same UK Government that promised to write into law the permanence of this Parliament, the permanence of a Parliament that 74 per cent of people in Scotland voted to create and they abandoned that promise as well. So, while UK ministers wish to seek for themselves that power to rewrite laws with the abuse of antique powers to bypass Parliament, can I ask for the First Minister's commitment to ensure that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny, because it's not only one Parliament but all Parliaments that need the ability to hold all ministers to account? I absolutely agree with Patrick Harvie. Before we get the usual arrogant sniggering from the Tory benches, everybody across this chamber who actually wants this Parliament to be respected should agree with Patrick Harvie, because not just Scotland but all the devolved administrations have been treated with contempt by the UK Government so far in this process. Patrick Harvie rightly said that we didn't see the article 50 letter before it was published. We didn't know when it was going to be published until we read it in the BBC. We didn't know what it was going to say. To be fair, though, the Prime Minister did give me an insight into its contents on Monday of this week. She told me—this is a direct quote—that the article 50 letter would be not detailed, not short, but not lengthy either. So I'm grateful to her for that insight into the Government's thinking. In case anybody is thinking, of course, that this is just me as an SNP First Minister complaining about the UK Government, people should also listen to Carwin Jones, the First Minister of Wales, who yesterday said that in his view the devolved administrations had been treated with contempt and that it was the behaviour of the UK Government that was doing more than anything else to undermine the United Kingdom. I think that it is really important that everybody across this chamber stands up for the rights of this Parliament before we go any further in this process. The last point that I would make, Presiding Officer, which I'm sure the Conservatives in particular will be interested in, because I've seen them. Ruth Davidson, Adam Tomkins, Murdo Fraser, tweeted furiously this morning about research that was published by John Curtis. Let me point to a finding in this research. As respondents this question, what did they think of this statement? Scotland is a nation and so should not have to leave the EU when a majority of Scots voted to stay. A majority of people agreed with that statement, so the fact of the matter is that people do not want Tory Brexit. The question is, what are we going to do to protect people from the impact of Tory Brexit? Thank you, Presiding Officer. This morning, a damning report into forensic medical services provided the victims of sexual crime was published, described the service that some receive as unacceptable. There are significant gaps in provision around the country and we've fallen behind both best practice and services elsewhere in the UK. The report also confirmed that in the islands victims have to make often traumatic trips to the mainland for examination. I know that the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice feel that it compounds the trauma that they've suffered. Will the First Minister give a commitment to update the Parliament as soon as we return from recess on the actions that her Government plans to take on the back of the report? Yes, I will be happy to ensure that there is a full ministerial statement made on the issue. I think that all of us agree that the consequences and the impact of rape and sexual assault are devastating. We must do all that we can to support victims when they suffer those heinous crimes. The Government has announced today in response to the report that the chief medical officer will chair a group of experts from both health and justice to ensure that health boards improve the provision of appropriate healthcare facilities for any victim who requires a forensic examination. Of course, that will complement work that Healthcare Improvement Scotland is already doing to develop new national standards for use by health boards. There will be a consultation on those standards and they will be published by the end of this year. Many people talk about the importance of the sexual assault referral centre model and that's certainly one way of delivering this care. We don't think that it necessarily will work for all parts of Scotland but, nevertheless, it is vital that in all parts of Scotland victims of sexual offences get the support that they require. Liam McArthur rightly raised the particular issues that are faced by island communities. I know that he is the MSP for Orkney, but he would be interested. I know that, as will Tavish Scott, the NHS Shetland has already made a public commitment to providing a holistic approach to victims of rape and sexual assault, and they are already working to put in place the necessary equipment, accommodation and appropriately trained staff to ensure that they can deliver on that. We will work with other health boards and, in particular, island health boards to make sure that the same approaches are taken. One final point on this, which is an important point. Many victims of these kinds of crime, when they have to undergo a forensic examination, want that to be done by a female doctor for reasons that all of us can absolutely understand. One of the issues that we have been trying to understand better is why more female doctors do not come forward to work in this area. We have been working with NHS Education Scotland to understand that they carried out a survey that closed at the end of February and we are working to analyse those responses. I recognise that the report that is published today is not good enough, and I have no hesitation in saying that. We have worked under way already to address those challenges. The group that has been announced today, chaired by the chief medical officer, will make sure that we take whatever further action is required. Andy Wightman Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister will be aware of the excellent investigative reporting by Richard Smith, David Leeskey and Fraser and others in the Herald newspaper on the havoc caused by criminal enterprises conducted by Scottish limited partnerships across the world. Following a report on Monday that SLPs were involved in the £16 billion laundromat money laundering scheme, can the First Minister advise me whether the Scottish Government is considering any reforms to the criminal law of Scotland that could be deployed to crackdown on the litany of crime being perpetrated under the cover of the secretive and unaccountable legal vehicles? In particular, does she agree that a new offence of vicarious liability could be one way to hold to account the individuals and firms that incorporate SLPs involved in criminal activity in cases where they undertake no steps of due diligence on the identity motives or purposes of the partnerships that they are responsible for creating? I thank Andy Wightman for raising the issue. Let me pay tribute to David Leeskey and his colleagues at the Herald for the excellent work that they have done to shine a light on some of those practices. Yes, we will continue to look at whether there is action that we can take within our devolved powers to better tackle those issues. Andy Wightman has particularly raised the issue of an offence of vicarious liability. For reasons that he will understand, I will not give him an answer to that today, but I will ask the justice secretary, as part of an overall look at this, to consider that option. As Andy Wightman and other members know, we are talking here about the conduct of limited partnerships. Much of the solutions to the problems that are identified here lie in the hands of the Westminster Government. We have been pressing the Westminster Government to act. Indeed, SNP MPs in the House of Commons have been particularly vociferous in doing so, and we will continue to press for action there. We will not shy away from taking action if we have the ability to do that within our own powers. We will continue to look at that, and I will ask the justice secretary to respond in detail to Andy Wightman in due course. Scotland has a great record in attracting investment, second only to London in recent years. Can the First Minister provide an update on inward investment and plans to reach out beyond our borders to attract jobs and growth to Scotland? It is really important, particularly now, that we give a message that Scotland is open for business. We continue to be considered as a prime business location for global companies, looking for a foothold in and access to Europe. Just yesterday, I was able to visit GenPact in Glasgow to announce their growth and expansion plans, which involve more than 300 new jobs for the city of Glasgow. I hope that everybody across the chamber would find it within themselves to welcome that. Of course, the Ernst and Young attractiveness survey, which is published regularly, highlights that, in the most recent one, we had a record level of investment projects in Scotland. Of course, for some years now, we have seen that Scotland is the most successful part of the UK for inward investment outside of London and the south-east. We need to work ever harder now to continue that success, given the implications of Brexit. That is why we have been taking action, for example, to establish investment hubs in Dublin, in London and in Berlin. Next week, I will undertake a series of engagements in the United States focused on creating jobs, opportunities and economic links for Scotland. We will continue to focus notwithstanding all the challenges that we face that are not of our making and doing everything that we can to bring jobs and investment here to Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what further initiatives the Scottish Government will take to boost tourism, unlike a 15.6 per cent increase in attendance at Scotland's Visit Attractions in 2016. As those figures illustrate, that has been a record gear for Scotland's leading visitor attractions, as they again outperform the rest of the UK in terms of the growth in visitor numbers. The success of our leading visitor attractions will continue to play a vital role in making Scotland a destination of first choice for visitors from the UK and across the world. We will continue to work with Visit Scotland and other stakeholders to explore how we can achieve the aims of our tourism Scotland 2020 strategy, delivering a greater degree of connectivity than ever before through new direct air routes and maximising the economic impact of this key growth sector of our economy. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Last year was indeed a bumper year for Scottish tourism, with visitor numbers growing more than twice as fast as the rest of the UK. Such attractions are vital in attracting visitors to Scotland, at whose expenditure will serve to grow employment in our thriving tourism and hospitality sectors. However, the 10 most popular UK attractions were all in London, with the National Museum of Scotland and the most visited attraction with 1.8 million visitors. In Ayrshire, our top attraction, Colleen Castle and Country Park, was only 1.33 million. Although a wide range of attractions and excellent heritage in museum collections continue to provide high quality and exciting experiences, what more can be done to encourage people not just to make Scotland a destination of first choice but to visit areas such as Ayrshire when in Scotland? I absolutely share Kenny Gibson's focus on the importance of getting the benefits of tourism to all parts of our country, not just to our cities or our most famous attractions. As somebody who was born and brought up in Ayrshire, I know that there are many excellent visitor attractions in Ayrshire, including, of course, the fantastic Colleen Castle. Scotland has got so much to offer tourists. We are not only steeped in history and heritage. We have got the best landscapes in the world. We have got a huge opportunity in capturing interest in marine tourism. We will continue to work with partners, including in Ayrshire, to implement, for example, our marine and coastal strategy, the very first of its kind in the UK. That will have particular relevance to Kenny Gibson's constituency. We will work with everybody across Scotland to make sure that we are attracting more people to come to Scotland, to spend money here in Scotland, to enjoy everything that our country has to offer. Tourism is one of our most important and most successful economic sectors, and we have to do everything possible to make sure that it continues to be so. Question 5, Jamie Greene. To ask the First Minister whether Police Scotland plans to increase the number of armed officers. The number of armed police officers is principally an operational decision for the chief constable who takes account of a range of factors, including intelligence reports and threat and risk assessments. I spoke to the chief constable last week, as I said in the chamber last week's FMQs after the tragic events at Westminster, and he assured me that he had the resources that he required to respond appropriately to that incident. That included the uplift in armed officers announced last year. Following the incident in London last week, we saw a substantial increase in the numbers of armed officers on duty here in Scotland and a configuration of resources to ensure that there was a high-profile, non-armed police presence across the country. Jamie Greene. I thank the First Minister for that answer. This is indeed an operational matter for the police, but we had very mixed messages yesterday. Police chiefs have said that they already match fit and do not see the need for more firearms officers. The Scottish Police Federation, representing rank and file, has said that they do not have the capability right now to use armed police if required. Who does the First Minister think is right? First Minister. We will always work to make sure that the police have the resources that they need. That is why, in June last year, we agreed with the police, although that was driven by the judgment of the chief constable that there should be an increase in armed officers in Scotland of 124, taking the total number to 479 officers. In the wake of last week's incident, it was possible immediately for the chief constable to substantially increase. In fact, in fact, almost double the number of armed officers who were on duty. I and the justice secretary have discussions with the chief constable and his colleagues on a regular basis, obviously, about policing in general. Given the threats that we face right now, in particular about the capacity and capability of the police to deal with the increased risk from terrorist attacks, we will continue to do so. As part of those discussions, of course, we continue to listen very carefully to what rank and file officers through the Scottish Police Federation tell us. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reports that only one in 18 schools were inspected last year. Education Scotland is committed to increasing the number and frequency of inspections in future years. That is one of the reasons why it has been undertaking a review of inspection approaches in consultation with schools and key stakeholders. Those new approaches will help support the achievement of the 20 aims of closing the attainment gap and raising the bar for all in Scottish education. Of course, it is important to add that, in addition to inspections, Education Scotland also provides support to schools. It also, in 2015-16, carried out a review of every local authority and a specific inspection of Argyll and Bute's education functions. The fact is that Education Scotland has not been increasing and has been reducing the number of inspections. In fact, the rate is less than half the rate of inspections in 2007, when the SNP came to power. Does the First Minister not see that the problem here is that Education Scotland is inspecting its own delivery of educational policy? It has clearly been deciding to do less of it. Will she accept that the merging of the inspectorate into Education Scotland was a mistake that should be reversed? On the last point, those are matters that we are considering in the context of the Education and Governance review, which we will report to Parliament on in due course. In terms of the trend in the last couple of years around inspections in 1415, there was 138, 143, 1516, 1617, I think, is the same number. As I said, Education Scotland is reviewing its approach to inspection with a view to increasing the number of inspections. I have to say that I am perplexed by Iain Gray's question when he seems to be saying fairly legitimately, in some respects, that there is not enough inspections in our schools. However, the reason I am perplexed is because I remember very well the speech that his party leader made in this chamber in September 2015, in response to me outlining the programme for government. When Kezia Dugdale said that, and this is a direct quote, the First Minister should immediately suspend all school inspection visits for one year. Had Labour been in power, there would not have been 143 inspections in our schools. There would have been zero inspections in our schools, which is why I am slightly perplexed by Iain Gray's question. To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government has made on its commitment to reduce the number of working hours for junior doctors. The passionate campaigning of Brian Connolly following the tragic death of his daughter, Lauren, has led already to real improvements in the hours that junior doctors work. Working with the BMA and the NHS, we have already ended the practice of junior doctors being rostered to work for seven nights in a row. That is a major advance and it is a tribute to Mr Connolly's campaign. As a result of that, in other steps, the number of hours worked by junior doctors has fallen from an average of 58 hours a week in 2004 to 48 hours a week on average now. However, we are determined, as the health secretary has said previously, to go further. Right now, we are working with the BMA's Scottish junior doctor committee to ensure minimum rest periods following night shifts and improvement to rest facilities while we work towards what remains our goal of a 48-hour maximum week for junior doctors. I am pleased that the First Minister raises the heroic efforts of Brian Connolly, who lost his daughter just before she was 24, Lauren as she was driving home after working as a junior doctor. I want to read directly from Mr Connolly's letter to the health secretary just this week. I quote, You have broken your commitment to implement an actual working week of 48 hours with no averaging as you promised to me in writing. Doctors are still being scheduled to work 12 days in a row with some working over 117 hours between days off. Your quote to The Times in response is yet further evidence of your failure to treat this issue with the seriousness and urgency that it deserves. Mr Connolly goes on. You blithly confirm that all junior doctor rotas in Scotland fully comply with the working time directive, knowing full well that any compliance with the letter of the directive is only being achieved by a combination of averaging and the continuing failure to record actual working hours. He adds, Sound bites for the press are no substitute for action and are a poor camouflage for the leadership that is required to tackle this national scandal. Their excessive working hours cannot be justified, they are inherently dangerous and they must change and change soon before there are even more deaths. The responsibility for affecting the necessary change rests firmly upon your Government's shoulders, so I asked the First Minister directly, will she instruct the health secretary to apologise to Mr Connolly and to get to grip with this scandal? Nothing I can say in this chamber will ever satisfy anas Sarwar, but I hope I can reassure Mr Connolly. I hope I can reassure Mr Connolly because he has campaigned on this issue and can take great credit for some of the improvements that we have already made. When the health secretary wrote to Mr Connolly in 2015 after she met him, she said this, I believe that we can commit to this, which is the 48-hour maximum working week as the longer term aim, but as I said, I wish to be in a position to be able to make this commitment with a firm and achievable timescale. That remains our position. The later letter simply recognised that in order to deliver that, we have to work with the BMA and the junior doctors committee. It would be worth anas Sarwar. He mentioned the times, it would be worth anas Sarwar reading a letter in the times two days ago from the junior doctors committee when it said that it is vital for patient safety that rotas are well designed and adequately staffed. However, rather than just focusing on the number of working hours in one week, a more effective way of doing this is to address specific risk areas as a priority. All we are saying is that we are working with the junior doctors committee to work at how best we deliver the commitment that we have. That commitment, to put it beyond any doubt, is to work towards a maximum 48-hour week. That is what Mr Connolly rightly wants us to do. I would say again along the way that, in great part to Mr Connolly, we have already made a number of improvements. The end, for example, to junior doctors being rostered to work for seven nights in a row, was one of the early demands that was made. It was also reducing the average hours from 58 to 48. Progress has been made, as I say, thanks in large part to Mr Connolly, and I want to assure him today. The health secretary will be very happy to meet him again. I want to assure him today that we remain committed to working with doctors to delivering that maximum 48-hour week for junior doctors. Freedom of information requests have confirmed that that is not ended in the national health service, as is confirmed by Mr Connolly's letter to the health secretary, where people are still working 12 days in a row without a day off. I ask the First Minister to please withdraw that false statement, as it is incorrect and disrespectful to Drs Alenton Bread of Scotland. That is not a point of order. He may pursue that issue with questions or through the chamber or through any means that he may support. It is not a point of order for now. We are not going to move to members' business in the name of Willie Rennie. I would ask members to leave quietly. We will just take a few moments to change seats.