 The first item of business is First Minister's Questions, and as members will know having introduced a new format, I would like to take as many contributions as possible. In that spirit, I would ask all members where possible to keep their questions short and their answers as they think possible. Ruth Davidson Thank you, to ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day. I will have engagement to take forward. y Government's programme for Scotland. We learnt this week the following, that a third of S2 pupils aren't meeting basic standards in numeracy, and that, in the past four years, the percentage of P4 pupils performing well in numeracy has fallen by 10 per cent. The attainment gap between children from richer and poorer backgrounds has, under the SNP, got wider. We have already had one ministerial that the Parliament's performance this week. Aren't parents and pupils due 1-2? Felly, nid oedd I have made clear, as has the education secretary this week, that the findings of the SSLN survey are not acceptable to me. My duty as First Minister is to ensure those are to ensure that we have an education system in which standard are rising and an inequality gap is closing. That's what we are determined to bring about, which is why we have embarked on a major programme of reform and improvement in our education system. A key part of that is making sure that in future we have much better data than the data that is provided for us in SSLN. That is limited in its coverage, based on a sample that includes just four pupils per primary school, twelve pupils per secondary school and crucially, while it gives us a snapshot of performance at national level, it doesn't enable us to tell school by school how schools are performing. That's why the national improvement framework will lead to more comprehensive school by school data that allows us to target our efforts more closely. Of course, this survey predates any impact from the work that we have already started, work on the attainment challenge, focusing on literacy and numeracy and, of course, additional resources through the attainment fund targeted on schools in our most deprived areas. In the delivery plan that John Swinney will outline before the summer recess, we will set out plans for further reforms, a new funding formula, more resources going directly to schools and greater empowerment of headteachers and parents. I've made clear on numerous occasions and I do so again today how important this is to me and to this Government and we're determined to drive the improvements that all of us want to see. Well, you might be different from over here, but the answers are still the same and they're just as long. But let's turn to the First Minister's plan to make this right, because she mentioned their data. Last year, she said that she was frustrated that the Government didn't know enough about standards for younger pupils, that she wanted more information about performance made available. The Deputy First Minister, now of course the education secretary, also admitted that there was, and I quote, a weakness because information wasn't collected nationally. In other words, no one was able to see what was going on, and their answer was standardised assessment. So can I ask, are those assessments going to give all of the information that she said the country needs? If Ruth Davidson had read the national improvement framework, if she'd listened, as I'm sure she has to be fair to her closely to this debate over the previous weeks and months, she would know the answers to those questions. Standardised assessments will be introduced, and work is on-going to ensure that they are introduced later this year. Standardised assessments will, for the first time, inform the judgments that teachers make about the numbers of pupils that are meeting the required levels of curriculum for excellence. Then, for the first time, we are going to publish not just local authority by local authority, but school by school, the percentages of pupils that are and, crucially, who are not meeting the required levels of curriculum for excellence. That will give us data that allows us to target our efforts on a much closer basis. It will also enable us, for the first time, to measure comprehensively what the attainment gap is, because this information will also be broken down on a socio-economic basis. It will allow us to set measurable and tangible targets for closing that attainment gap. As I have said, I want to see us make significant progress in closing that attainment gap within the lifetime of this Parliament, and I want to see us substantially eliminate that gap over the next 10 years. I am very clear on what we are seeking to do. I am very clear about the plans that we have to put in place and implement to do that. I hope that all sides of this chamber will get behind us, because other parties are very fond and rightly so to be fair of talking about the importance of this. Let's see if they have the courage of their convictions when it comes to backing us in the action that we need to take. I am interested in the First Minister's reply, but I have to say that others have been an awful lot clearer than she has been on this, because the EIS has just published an advice note, which I have here. It claims that her plans, the plans of her Government, have been watered down. It says that the Government's original idea was to assess young people and have the results of all of those assessments published, but the EIS now says that it has forced changes. It says that standardised test scores will not be collected nor published, and it adds that there is actually no need for all pupils to set assessments in the first place. The First Minister said that publishing more information and more data was vital if we are to improve our schools, but it now appears that she is backing off from her own original plans. Why is she not stuck by them? Firstly, very clearly I have. I think that if Ruth Davidson had been listening to the comments that I made when I published the national improvement framework earlier this year and indeed looked at the detail of the national improvement framework, she would find the answers to those questions. The data that we are going to publish, comprehensive data that has never been published before about the percentage of children meeting the required levels of curriculum for excellence, not a snapshot survey, not a national survey, but information that will be provided school by school, local authority by local authority, informed by the assessments that will be carried out. That was made clear in the national improvement framework and it will continue to be so. On the point about whether or not all pupils will be required to set assessments, let me make it absolutely clear. Yes, they will be. That is my expectation and that is what I intend to see happen. Clearly there will be some pupils for very particular reasons, special needs for example, where there may be a different approach. The general thrust of this is that those assessments will be carried out in our schools. We will inform the judgments that teachers make and that will lead to the publication of information that will give us for the first time a clear picture of what is happening in each of our schools. Then we will be able to take action if any particular school or any particular area is not performing in the way that we think is necessary. That is a clear plan of action and it is a clear plan of action designed to deliver the very clear objectives that I am setting. The fact is that this time last year the First Minister said that she was determined to publish more information for parents and for government to see school by school. She could not have been clearer. In January, when she was asked by the financial times, she said, do you think that you will make all the NIF data publicly available? She answered, yes. However, now we have the teachers union, the teachers themselves, saying that that is not what is happening. We have an education secretary who has asked for more time. This Government has had nine years, nine years of SNP education failures. We need much more information on the state of our schools. Not just a sample, full publication was the right answer six months ago. It is still the right answer today, but they are backing off from it. That is what they have told the teachers across our country. The First Minister and I agree that this needs to be done. We will absolutely stick by our guns. Why is she not sticking by hers? The leader of the main opposition party may have changed, but there does not appear to be any greater ability on that leader's part to adapt her questions to the answers that she is actually giving. Let me try and make it clearer. All of the data that the national improvement framework says will be gathered and published will be gathered and published. That has not changed. That remains the case now in the way that it was when I published the national improvement framework. No change whatsoever to that. Secondly, Ruth Davidson has just said that it should not be a sample. Was she not listening to a single word? I said that the problem with the SSLN data that we are all talking about this week is that that is sample information. If you go to section 6 of the SSLN publication and see the methodology, what you find is that that is a sample drawn from information based on four pupils in every participating primary school and 12 pupils in every secondary school. That is a sample survey. What we are talking now about publishing is information on the percentages of pupils, all pupils, not samples of pupils, all pupils and whether or not they meet the required levels of curriculum for excellence on a local authority by a local authority basis and on a school by school basis. Detailed, comprehensive information that allows us to tell not just a snapshot of how our education system is performing but how each and every school across the country is performing. That means that if we have to take action in particular areas or particular schools that should be done. That is information that no previous Government has published. That will be published for the first time and it is a sign of the determination that we have to deal with the problem that we are talking about. If Ruth Davidson is serious about what she is saying about wanting to get behind the Government, then she should stop trying to find manufactured differences and actually get behind us, put our money where our mouth is. To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the general secretary of the STUC. I meet the general secretary of the STUC on a regular basis bi-annually at our last meeting which took place on 9 March. We discussed matters including the economy, the trade union bill and the EU referendum. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work will meet the general secretary of the STUC later today. We have just heard the First Minister and the Tories dance around how they would collaborate to test our pupils harder, but surely the priority has to be to ensure that our children can learn better in our schools. There is one thing missing from that exchange—neither the SNP or the Tories have faced up to the fact that government cuts are devastating our schools. This week, the Government's own figures showed a scandalous decline in numeracy levels, every stage getting worse, the gap between the richest and the rest growing, just one in four children from the most deprived backgrounds with the math skills that they need to get on in life. A disgrace, First Minister. Does the First Minister agree with the conclusion of one newspaper this week when it simply said that you have failed our kids? Interestingly, when the national improvement framework was published earlier this year, I seem to recall—I am sure that she will correct me if I am wrong—Kezia Dugdale and Ian Gray backing the approach that we are taking to assessment. Today, of course, she appears to be jumping on the bandwagon, the Liberal Democrat bandwagon, of saying that it is all about testing our children. She should really make her mind up what side of this debate she is on. In terms of resources, we have been very clear about the need to increase resources to tackle attainment. That is why the plans that we set out in the election were approved by the Scottish electorate, which is why I am standing here answering questions again today, are to increase funding by an extra £750 million over this Parliament, specifically targeted at attainment. By the end of this Parliament, it will be spending an extra £0.5 billion a year on early years education and childcare, because all the evidence says that giving young people the best start to their educational life is key to solving this challenge. We are also getting more of that resource direct to headteachers. We have said not just that we are going to increase the resource, but that we are going to have a new funding formula so that that resource gets to the places where it is needed most, places where more children come from backgrounds of deprivation. Not only do we have the plans through the national improvement framework, the reform plans that will be set out in the delivery plan are backed by substantial additional resources. I say the same to Kezia Dugdale, as I have just said to Ruth Davidson. If you are serious about wanting to see us raise standards in education and close the equality gap, then get behind us. Let us make it a national effort on behalf of our children rather than another petty party political point-scoring exercise. First Minister, if you are serious about tackling the attainment gap, we do not wait nine years to get started. Here goes. She tells us that it is our number one priority, but here is our 2007 manifesto, page 48. We will pay particular attention to raising the achievement of the poorest 20 per cent of school pupils with increased early intervention and support. How dare the First Minister come to Parliament after nine years and say that she is finally getting round to it? It is a disgrace. These stats are the reality of this Government cutting the education budget by 10 per cent. Young people left without the basic skills that they need to prosper. Young working-class people denied a place in our universities. Real people paying a real price for the real cuts that this SNP Government has made. You have been in power for nearly a decade now. Surely the First Minister regrets cutting 10 per cent from the education and skills budget? Talk about some of the progress that has been made during our time in office. I do not think that it is enough, which is why we are making this such a big priority. Let me look at what the situation was in terms of the gap between our 20 per cent most and least deprived pupils, achieving a qualification at level 5, when we took office, that gap was 36 per centage points. Today it is still too big, but it is down to 22 per centage points. The number of pupils from the 20 per cent least deprived areas leaving school without any qualifications has more than half since we took office in 2007. That is the progress that we have made. I do not think that progress is far enough or fast enough, which is why we have made this such a priority, backed by the substantial extra resources that I have spoken about. I have left no doubt about the scale of the challenge that rests on my shoulders and on the shoulders of this Government, but I think that there is a challenge here for the Parliament as a whole as well. If we are all serious about raising attainment and closing that equality gap, then it is time to get behind the efforts of the Government so that we can together make the progress that we need to see. The question today is the opposition capable of rising to that challenge. 10 per cent cuts. Let us put that into real money. That is £850 million that you have cut from education and training budgets since 2007. You stand there and tell us that you have put £750 million more in over the next five years, yet you have taken £850 million out. I know that numeracy is not a strength for the First Minister this week, but surely she can work that one out. The First Minister is faced with a choice. She can work with parties on the left to invest in education and skills, or she can side with the Tories and impose even deeper cuts on our schools. The First Minister and I are agreed that the gap between the richest and the rest in our schools is shameful, but there is an even bigger gap, and that is the one between the First Minister's ambition and the reality of her budgets. When will the First Minister do the math and accept that she cannot cut the attainment gap while she is cutting school budgets? Again, just in point of fact, between this Government taking office and 2014-15, the most recent figure that I have here, the money available in education and training rose by 7.8 per cent, but that is just one particular fact to chair with the chamber. Kezia Dugdale asks me to pick sides in this chamber on this question of education and raising attainment for children across Scotland, particularly for those from most disadvantaged backgrounds. Let me be very clear about this, Presiding Officer. I am on the side of Scotland's children and Scotland's young people, nobody else's. I will do whatever it takes to make sure that we have an education system with rising standards and with a quality gap that is closing, not growing. As I have already cited today, there are signs of progress in key areas, but there are other areas where we need to do more and we need to do it faster. So I am clear about the challenge that I face. I believe that I am up to that challenge. The question for the Opposition is, are they? Thank you. I am going to take the first of a number of constituency questions from Jenny Gilruth. Before I do, I would like to make the chamber aware that the first question relates to the tragic case of Liam Fee. Members might be aware that the case is still active, and the sentence has not yet been passed, so there are a number of restrictions in place both on the questioner and on the response. Jenny Gilruth. I know that the First Minister and every member in the chamber will join me in condemning the murder of Liam Fee in my constituency. I recognise that the 5-child protection committee has instructed a significant case review, but will the First Minister assure me that, once this review is concluded, all relevant facts pertaining to Liam's short life and his untimely death will be placed in the public domain and that any failings of the relevant organisations involved will be dealt with robustly? First Minister. I am sure that I do this on behalf of all of us in this chamber. I express my honour and my sadness at the tragic death of Liam Fee. My deepest sympathies go to everyone affected by this horrific crime, including, of course, the two other young boys who also suffered appalling abuse and neglect. I very much welcome the announcement by the 5-child protection committee that a significant case review will now be carried out. We fully support the publication of all appropriate findings from significant case reviews. The decision on whether to publish the report will ultimately be for the relevant child protection committee and, of course, there will always be in cases like this sensitive information that cannot be shared. However, taking that into account, we would hope and expect that the committee would decide to publish as much of the information as they possibly can. It is absolutely essential that any lessons that need to be learned from this appalling tragedy are learned and acted upon very swiftly. In order to ensure that learning gets into the system more quickly and consistently, we are also reviewing key aspects right now of the child protection system, including significant case reviews as part of our child protection improvement programme. Finally, it is important—and this is a fundamental point to make—that the only people responsible for the death of Liam Fee are the people who were convicted of his murder. They are to blame and no one else. However, there are questions rightly being asked about whether there is any more that the system could or should have done to protect this little boy. Those questions must be examined in detail and answers must be given, and that is what will now happen in the weeks and months that lie ahead. To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government will provide to the 88 workers likely to be affected by the first bus proposal to cease operations in East Lothian and close its depots in Musselborough and North Berwick. I am concerned at the prospect of job losses at first bus, and I know that this will be a difficult time for all those who are affected and for their families. The Minister for Transport has met First Scotland East Management to discuss their plans. The company has started a collective consultation process with trade unions to discuss potential redundancies and options for redeployment within the company. In parallel, East Lothian Council is in contact with other operators to consider how to mitigate the impacts on passengers of first withdrawal of bus services. Of course, through our PACE initiative, we have already offered support for any employees who may be affected, and the company has accepted the offer of support. We will continue to engage with the company to try to mitigate the impact of its plans and to do everything that we can to help the employees who might be affected by those plans. The First Minister will know that the university of the Highlands Islands is planning new student accommodation. Is she aware that the proposed development in Lerwick would mean the removal of an engineering business that currently employs 16 men and women on that particular site? Would she be prepared to speak to the UHI or be in contact with the UHI and make sure that the timescale for that development means that the engineering business has enough time to move to new premises that they are currently planning? I am aware of that, and I believe that if it is the business that Tavish Scott is referring to, it is HMP-limited and engineering business in Lerwick. I understand the concerns that the member has expressed today, and I understand that a number of local partners have already been involved in dialogue about the sale and future use of the land on the site. I will be very happy to make sure that officials make contact with all relevant colleagues in Shetland, including the University of the Highlands and Islands, to establish the current context and provide any advice and assistance that we can to help to secure a satisfactory outcome for all parties involved, including the company that Tavish Scott has mentioned. I will be happy to ask the minister concerned to meet with Tavish Scott to discuss what more can be done as well. The First Minister will be aware of the Airbus Superpuma that crashed off Norway in April, killing 13 people, including Ian Stewart, an oil worker from Lawrence Kirk in my constituency. There is news today that Norway has added search-and-rescue flights to its ban on the Airbus Superpuma H225 helicopters due to signs of metal fatigue in the crashed helicopter's gearbox. What assurances can the First Minister provide to ensure that the Superpuma fleet in Scotland is held to the highest safety standards? First, I take this opportunity to convey my sympathies and condolences, and I'm sure the sympathies and condolences of the whole chamber to the family of Ian Stewart, who sadly died in this tragic accident. The safety of workers both in the North Sea and on search-and-rescue remains absolutely paramount. I give an assurance that the Scottish Government will continue to liaise very closely with the oil and gas industry and with relevant regulators. In addition, Industry Body Oil and Gas UK has formed a helicopter resilience working group that seeks to bring platform operators together to share information and to develop further opportunities to safeguard the safety of workers and collaborate on maintaining and improving production. We will continue to liaise with all interested parties to make sure that safety is absolutely at the top of everybody's agenda. I will be very happy to ask the minister responsible for these issues to liaise with Mary Evans to make sure that any matters of interest to her constituents are shared with her. To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. Tuesday morning. Many of us had expected before the end of the last parliamentary session to hear a formal response from the Government to its independent poverty adviser, her report and recommendations. We didn't get that before the end of the last session, but now the First Minister has given us a commitment in her statement last week to implement all of those recommendations. I very much welcome that commitment. Recommendation 9 was for the Government to be bold on local tax reform and the report recognised that council tax is widely viewed as no longer fit for purpose. Does the First Minister now agree, as she always used to, that the council tax is indeed no longer fit for purpose? I can confirm again today, as we did in our manifesto and as I did in the chamber last week, when I outlined our priorities for government, that we accept and will take forward all of the recommendations of the independent poverty adviser. The formal response to her report will be published shortly and, indeed, I will also very soon reappoint an independent poverty adviser. The work that has been done there has been valuable and I want to make sure that we continue to have that input in future. It was a prize Patrick Harvie to hear me say that the plans that we put forward in the election, plans that seemed to meet with the approval of a significant proportion of the Scottish electorate to reform local taxation, both in the short term and more fundamentally in the longer term, are bold plans. They are about making local taxation fairer and more progressive and they ask those living in the most expensive households to pay more. They are also crucially going back to some of the issues that we have been discussing earlier in this session. They will raise an additional £100 million every year for education money that I intend will go direct to headteachers in our schools. I believe that those are bold and far-reaching plans, but, of course, on this, as on a range of other issues as we go through this session, particularly as the finance minister starts to put together our budget for next year, we will liaise and consult and talk to parties across the chamber and we will be happy to listen to any ideas for how we can further improve our plans. Mr Harvie. Tweaking the upper bands on the council tax does not sound to anybody, surely, like bold reform of local taxation. That is not a time for tinkering with a broken system. As the advisers report stated, this is a central moment of political decision, an opportunity to introduce a much more progressive system. What the First Minister has already announced clearly falls well short of that. She has the commission on local taxation reforms report on one hand and the report from the poverty adviser on the other. Following a stated commitment to the chamber last week to implement that recommendation for bold local tax reform, that clearly is a moment for much bolder action. If that is not enough, what on earth will it take to persuade the Government that it is time to kill off the council tax for good and adopt a modern, fair and flexible system of funding our local services? First Minister. Can I say firstly that we put forward our plans that I believe were bold in the election? Patrick Harvie put forward his plans in the election and the electorate cast their votes. I am standing here as First Minister with a mandate to take forward the proposals that we were elected on. I think that it is fair to say that. As I have always said and will continue to say, we will seek to reach out across the chamber to try to build consensus on some of the big issues that confront us. I am happy to confirm to Patrick Harvie that, as we head towards our budget, we will talk to him and his colleagues and others in this chamber to hear the ideas that other parties have to strengthen proposals. That is an open invitation to Patrick Harvie and others. I intend to be as collaborative as I possibly can be in seeking to take forward the proposals and policies of this Government and to do the right thing for the country. However, I am also mindful of the fact that I stood in a manifesto and a significant proportion of the Scottish electorate voted for me to be First Minister on the strength of that manifesto. I have a duty to be true to that as well. What issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet? Matters of importance to the people of Scotland. Can the First Minister give a guarantee that there will be no Scottish Government contracts with the China rail group CR3? Any proposals that came forward for specific contracts involving specific projects would be subject to the full and normal due diligence and the opportunity for this Parliament to scrutinise and to reach a view on the pros and cons merits or otherwise of any particular proposal. The fact of the matter is that there are no particular proposals at that stage right now. In a sense, Willie Rennie is asking me an entirely hypothetical question, but I will continue to make sure that Parliament has the full opportunity to scrutinise any proposals that do come forward. Willie Rennie This was no email chain between office juniors. It is an official Government document. It has the signature of the First Minister of our country. It is with one of the most powerful nations in the world. It is worth £10 billion. Why would the First Minister bother signing this agreement if it did not mean anything? We are right to ask why she put her name to this document when Amnesty International condemned the company's human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Why is she signed with a company that is blacklisted by the Norwegian oil fund because of the risk of gross corruption? I cannot understand why she continues to defend this. Why does she continue to defend this? The First Minister Hold the front page. The First Minister of Scotland seeks to explore opportunities for investment in jobs into Scotland. Shock horror. That is part of the job of the First Minister of this country. The fact that Willie Rennie does not recognise that as a core responsibility of the First Minister is probably part of the reason why he will never stand here as First Minister of this country. The memorandum of understanding that was signed was, as anybody can see, because it is there to be read on the Scottish Government's website, was an agreement to explore where there might be opportunities. There is not a single penny of investment that has been agreed or released or invested yet. If there are proposals brought forward for specific investments, then they will go through full due diligence. All of the issues that Willie Rennie has just cited in this chamber will be fully examined and taken into account. That is the right and proper way to proceed. I will always, as First Minister, seek to act in the best interests of this country. Part of acting in the best interests of this country is to encourage investment that then supports job creation in Scotland. I will continue to do that job to the best of my ability. Neil Findlay Will the First Minister join me in calling on the economy committee, or the European External Affairs Committee, to look not just at the China deal, but also at the Qatar deal, because there are elements of this that really need to be put under real scrutiny? The First Minister I would be delighted for any committee of this Parliament that so wished to look into any of those matters. It is not for me to tell committees what they should look into, but I would be very happy if they chose to do so and the Scottish Government would fully co-operate with it. Gillian Martin To ask the First Minister what impact the introduction of a ban on air weapons has had. The Air Weapons and Licensing Scotland Act, which gained royal assent on 4 August last year, sets out a new licensing regime that will allow the police to issue certificates only to those who have a legitimate need or use for an air weapon. That will help to reduce gun crime and improve public safety. Advanced applications for licences can be made to the police from 1 July this year and from 31 December. It will be an offence to use, possess, purchase or acquire an air weapon without the necessary certificate or permit, unless a person is exempt under the legislation. Head of that, of course, the police are running a three-week hand-in campaign, which runs until 12 June. There has been a good response so far with more than 2,300 air weapons surrendered in the first week alone. Gillian Martin In many communities such as Rudol Aberdeenshire, which I represent, the use of air weapons are a part of life, particularly in land management, can the First Minister assure me that the legislation will not change that and will simply help to ensure that such weapons are only ever used in a safe and responsible way? First Minister? We have always acknowledged the important role that shooting plays in rural and agricultural life. In fact, the legislation itself makes specific provision to allow young people to continue to shoot to help protect crops and livestock or to control pests. As in all, other cases of a person can satisfy the chief constable that they are a proper person to have an air weapon, that they have a legitimate reason for having it and that they can shoot in a safe environment, then they should be able to apply for and obtain a certificate. I think that that takes account of the legitimate concerns that Gillian Martin has raised. Although more than 2,000 air weapons have been handed into the police already, it is estimated that there are 500,000 air guns in Scotland and Police Scotland is already facing a backlog of firearms and shotgun licences. What additional funding will the Scottish Government put in place to help Police Scotland to deal with the new air weapons regime? As I understand it, the police are satisfied that they have the resources in place to deal with the implications of the legislation. I will ask the Justice Secretary to write to Oliver Mundell with the detail of the resource requirements and the resources that are available. I hope that all of us across the chamber would recognise the objective of the legislation and the objective of the hand-in campaign, which is to get guns off our streets and make Scotland safer. The police have got a crucial part to play in that and the Government has got a crucial part to play in supporting the police to do that job. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the former Cabinet Secretary for Justice prior to and since the publication of his recent book. The content of the recently published book is, of course, a matter for the former Justice Secretary and his publishers, in line with the requirements of the ministerial code and what are called the Radcliffe Principles. A draft of the manuscript was provided to the permanent secretary in February this year by Kenny MacAskill. In response and again, in line with the requirements of the code and the Radcliffe Principles, it was made clear to Kenny MacAskill that ultimate responsibility for the content of the book was a matter for him. No discussions have taken place since publication. Mr Ross. I thank the First Minister for that response. In his book, the former Cabinet Secretary reopened old wounds. He contested the judgment of three law lords and cast significant doubts over the Scottish judicial system that he was responsible for. Will the First Minister ask the new Lord Advocate to investigate the former Justice Secretary and the claims made? Given the First Minister sat round the same cabinet table as Kenny MacAskill, both were part of a Government that repeatedly stated that it did not doubt the safety of the conviction. Will she make herself and all other ministers who served with Mr MacAskill available to an inquiry? In fairness to the member, I know that he has not been in Parliament for very long, but the First Minister does not direct the Lord Advocate when it comes to investigations. That is a pretty fundamental element of our constitution. On some of the other aspects of the question, I think that much of it was ludicrous in nature. I have not actually had the opportunity yet to read the book, so I am going on what has been printed in newspapers. I am sure that it is an interesting read, but of course the content of it is a matter for Kenny MacAskill and for his publishers. On the Lockerbie conviction, the conviction stands. I say again, as the Crown Office has said in the past, that there is confidence in the safety of that conviction and, of course, for that conviction to be overturned, it would require to be an appeal taken and an appeal being successful. That is the situation now. It is the situation before the book was published and it remains the situation today. First, I must declare an interest as a signatory to the Justice for McGregor campaign. First Minister, given that there is an issue that the former Justice Secretary and the former First Minister now both state that McGregor was not the purchaser of the clothes in Malta, and having regard to the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, that if McGregor was not the purchaser, there was insufficient evidence to convict him, can I ask the Government to reconsider its position? I quote that they say that there is no reason to doubt the safety of that conviction, because surely there is, definitely now. It is not for me, for any First Minister or for any member of the Government to decide that a conviction is unsafe. That is a matter for the courts of the land. That is the case in this case, and it is the case in any other criminal matter. Of course, the situation is clear. It remains open for close relatives of Mr Al McGregor to ask the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case to the appeal court again. Ministers have repeatedly made clear that they would be comfortable if that was to happen, but that is the process that must be undertaken if this case is to be looked at by the appeal court. Convictions are determined in courts and convictions can only be upheld or overturned in courts. That is the way that we do those things in this country, and it is the right way to do them. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that victims of rape are supported during a police investigation. The Government is committed to ensuring that the justice system responds sensitively and appropriately to those who report sexual offences. That is why, in line with the commitment that we made in our manifesto, we have prioritised the allocation of resources to fund a review into the way forensic medical examinations are undertaken by health boards. We have also legislated through the Victims and Witnesses Act to ensure that those who report sexual offences should be able to choose the gender of their police interviewer. Additionally, we have awarded just under £2 million to Rape Crisis Scotland last year to enhance the support that is available for survivors of sexual violence and Police Scotland's national rape task force, which was established in 2013, ensures that specifically trained officers are involved in the investigation of rape and sexual offence cases. I welcome the First Minister's answer. The First Minister will be aware of the recent study from Glasgow Caledonian University into the treatment of rape victims. Medical examinations are still predominantly carried out by male specialists. Examinations are often delayed due to the lack of an available doctor, and Police Scotland officers described the treatment of some victims as despicable and horrendous. I welcome the resources pledged by the Government over the next few years, but victims are reporting those concerns now. When can we expect to see the much-needed improvements that are delivered, including an increase in the number of female specialists? I intend that we see those improvements delivered on an on-going basis. I recognise the difficulties that Clare Baker has outlined and some of the issues around the implementation of what is now in statute about allowing people to choose the gender of their interviewer. Some of the difficulties with implementation of that comes down to a lack of female specialist, so that is something that is currently being considered. There are also issues around forensic examinations, which is why we have allocated funding to deal specifically with that. The objective here is a clear one, and I know that it is one that Clare Baker will absolutely support. Victims should be offered an examination done by someone of the gender of their choice in an appropriate location and within an appropriate timescale. I accept that that does not always happen right now for victims of rape, and the purpose of all the work that is under way is to make sure that in future that does happen. People who are victims of rape have already undergone horror and trauma that nobody should ever have to undergo, and what we must make sure is that the justice system, however inadvertently it might be, does not add to that trauma and that horror by the way in which investigations are carried out. I am sure that there is a determination, not just across this chamber, but across all the relevant services to make sure that those improvements happen and that they happen quickly. Kenneth Gibson Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government plans are for local government reform. First Minister. We will continue to work positively and collaboratively with local government. Our aim is to transform our democratic landscape while protecting and reforming our public services. Our Community Empowerment Act will strengthen the voices of communities and the decisions that affect them, and in the future we will work with local authorities to review their roles and responsibilities and put more power into the hands of communities. We will also consult in a bill that will require local authorities where appropriate to decentralise functions, budgets and democratic oversight to local communities. One size does not fit all, but the principle of enabling local control not on behalf of a community but by a community should be the key principle that guides us in all of this. Mr Gibson I thank the First Minister for her comprehensive answer. This year, the UK Tory Government cut a resource budget by £371 million, with similar cuts to come in each of the next three years. Labour's only answer is to burn low-income Scots by hiking their income tax year on year. The SNP manifesto pledges to review the roles and responsibilities of local authorities and their relationships with health boards. When will this review begin and will the protection and enhancement of front-line service delivery to minimise the impact of Westminster cuts be a key driver? We have committed to work with local authorities to review the roles and responsibilities and also the relationships with health boards. The purpose of all of this is to get more powers into the hands of communities. We will outline the details of how we will take this forward in the forthcoming legislative programme at the start of the new session. We will begin discussions shortly with key stakeholders on the scope and timing of this review, and it will be under way before the end of this year. The First Minister concludes her questions, and I suspend this meeting of Parliament.