 I thank you very much, and that concludes topical questions. Before we turn to First Minister's questions, I'm sure that members would like to join me in welcoming to our Gallery Dr Gavreil Andretta, president of the State Parliament of Lower Saxony. I'd also like to extend, I can a warm welcome to the Scottish Parliament. My sign language is very rusty. To many members of the deaf community, BSL users and signers who are present in our gallery today, I'm sure that members will be pleased to hear that for the next six months we are going to be providing a signed translation of FMQs, which will be available and then we'll review that after the summer. I'd like to, before we turn to FMQs itself, I'd like to end with one final appeal, and that is to the First Minister, to our party leaders and to all members who wish to ask a question today, and that is please to keep your questions concise. Yes, and the answers. The First Minister signed her approval. I can try, but I can't promise. I'd very much like to give the First Minister a further opportunity to explain some of the inconsistencies surrounding the investigation into Alex Salmond. On Tuesday, the First Minister claimed that there is no manual for dealing with situations like the complaints facing Mr Salmond, except that such a manual does indeed exist. It's the Scottish Government's own complaints process, which she signed off in December 2017, and it makes clear that the First Minister should only become involved when an investigation is complete. Discussing the case with the subject of the investigation on five separate occasions is surely getting involved, isn't it? No, it is not. At no stage intervened in the process, it would have been wholly inappropriate for me to do so. The process procedure that was signed off, as Jackson Carlaw rightly points out, says that I should not have known about the process, that is why the permanent secretary did not tell me about the investigation that followed on the complaints. As First Minister, I had no role in that process, and that is the position, and that is right and proper. Obviously, I, as other leaders here, have responsibilities as leader of my party, and meetings took place in that capacity. All along, in every decision that I took, I was anxious to and determined to ensure that I did not intervene in a process in which I had no role to play. Jackson Carlaw I'm sorry, First Minister, but I think that my grandmother would have given you what she would have called a very old-fashioned look if you'd said that to her. Meeting the subject of a complaint is getting involved in my book. I'm surprised that you don't appreciate that as well. The First Minister said in her statement this week that she did not know what was going on in the investigation, yet she also told us this. On April 2, Mr Salmond detailed to her the nature of the complaints and that, in subsequent meetings, he set out his concerns about the process and the proposals that he was making for mediation and arbitration. She did know because Mr Salmond told her. How does the First Minister square her claim that she didn't know what was going on, with the fact that Mr Salmond was telling her what was going on? The First Minister I did not know how the Scottish Government was dealing with the complaint. I did not know how the Scottish Government was intending to deal with the complaint. I did not make any effort to find out how the Scottish Government was dealing with the complaint or intervene in how the Scottish Government was dealing with the complaint. As Jackson Carlaw has said, Alex Salmond informed me of the investigation at a meeting on 2 April. I was anxious that I did not even inadvertently create any impression that I was seeking to intervene. I did not immediately tell the permanent secretary that I was aware of the investigation. I changed the judgment when Alex Salmond asked to meet me a second time. As Jackson Carlaw said, as I set out on Tuesday, Alex Salmond had set out his concerns about the process. It was clear from what he told me then that he was considering a legal challenge. When he requested a second meeting, I was concerned that that could be imminent. I told the permanent secretary then that I knew about the investigation, about the previous meeting, including the reference to potential legal challenge. I told her that I supported her decision to investigate and that I would not seek to intervene in the investigation in any way. I also said that I would make it clear to Alex Salmond again that I would not intervene. That is what I did in the second meeting on 7 June. I told the permanent secretary of all subsequent contact that I did not self-evidently intervene in the process. It seems to me that I am being simultaneously accused of being involved in a conspiracy against Alex Salmond and of colluding with Alex Salmond. Nothing could be further from the truth in both of those. Neither of those things are true. Since I found out about the investigation, I have tried to do the right thing in a situation in which, no matter what happened, it was never going to be easy for me. The most important thing here has always been and continues to be the complaints that were made and the people who made those complaints. First Minister, you are an experienced politician. The obvious common sensical thing to have done after Alex Salmond advised you of the allegation on April 2 would have been to decline to meet him or speak with him on four separate occasions. Again on Tuesday, the First Minister said that the five conversations that she had with Mr Salmond about this matter were not Government meetings. In other words, her position appears to be that a meeting between the First Minister of the Government and the former First Minister of the Government about a Government investigation involving two Government employees was not Government business. Really, how? Just to be completely clear, will the First Minister confirm if she and the former First Minister were the only two people at these meetings or were other people present and, if so, who were they? The first meeting that my chief of staff was with me, Mr Salmond, was represented. Of course, my chief of staff is a special adviser who also has the ability to assist me in party matters at the other meetings that no one else was present. I accept, absolutely, unreservedly the scrutiny that comes on me. I did not choose to be in the situation that we are in. All along have been absolutely clear that the most important thing was that I did not intervene in the Government process in which I had no role. The fact that I had no role in the Government process is why it would not have been appropriate for the meetings to be Government meetings. I have responsibilities as party leader, as other leaders do. I did not intervene in the process. Self-evidently, I did not intervene in the process because, as Jackson Carroll referred to, mediation and arbitration did not take place. I acted appropriately. I absolutely accept that there will be others who think that I made wrong judgments along the way, and that is absolutely their entitlement. However, I made the judgments that I made. I will stand by and defend those judgments, and I will be absolutely adamant that I did not intervene in the process, as it would have been entirely inappropriate for me to have done so. Jackson Carroll A Scottish Government special adviser, who is an employee of the Government, was present at the meetings that we are told were not Government meetings. This whole sorry business simply does not stack up. At the heart of it are two women whose complaint has been entirely botched by this Government. We have the former First Minister claiming incredibly that there is a political plot led by this Government to destroy its reputation. Incredible. All we have to show for it is a bill that is estimated to be at least £500,000, which the taxpayer will now be left to settle. If the Government will not explain convincingly what has happened and the First Minister, frankly, today has not, then I and others believe that Parliament should be given the authority to do so. Will the First Minister agree today that her officials and ministers will provide evidence on the matter, because the public deserve to know? As all Members know, it is entirely and properly for Parliament to decide what it wants to look into and inquire into. Ministers and Government officials will, as they do in all inquiries, co-operate fully with that. Jackson Carroll puts his finger on a point that I made earlier. I am right now simultaneously being accused of being engaged in a political conspiracy against Alex Salmond, and I am also being accused of colluding with Alex Salmond. Neither of those things are true. The fact of the matter is that complaints came forward. The permanent secretary was right to investigate those. I absolutely agree with Jackson Carroll that that is the most important thing here. People brought forward complaints, and it is right that those complaints are investigated. The question of whether behaviour is criminal is a matter for the police, and that is not for me to comment. It was for the Scottish Government to investigate whether the behaviour was inappropriate. The Scottish Government did not get that right. That is what, in all of this, I deeply regret. That is why I am also determined that the Government will learn lessons from that. If Parliament wants to be part of that process, then I certainly would welcome that. I hope that all of us in this chamber are at the centre of this week's court case are two courageous women who put their faith in a system that has badly let them down. We owe a duty of care to them, and they have a right of access to justice. Labour backs a parliamentary inquiry because serious questions need to be answered. Questions such as the First Minister's five conversations with Alex Salmond. The First Minister has already said that she does not consider those to be Government meetings, even though those were meetings and conversations between the current First Minister of the Scottish Government and the former First Minister of the Scottish Government about a Scottish Government investigation into allegations of sexual assault that were reportedly made by two Scottish Government civil servants. Why does the First Minister not think that the public has a right to know the basic facts of those discussions? On Tuesday and again today, I have just told Parliament and, by extension, the public what the subject matter was of that. I still say the most important thing here, and this is a point that is absolutely self-evident, that I did not intervene in this process in any way. On the question of wider inquiry, it is entirely for Parliament to decide at once an inquiry into all of this. As I said on Tuesday—as the permanent secretary said on Tuesday—the Government intends to review the aspect of the procedure that it applied in error, and that is something that Parliament will have an interest in. Of course, Parliament has an interest in wider issues around that, so it is not for me to say what Parliament should and should not do. Obviously, the Scottish Government, myself, the permanent secretary and any other member or official of the Scottish Government will co-operate fully with whatever Parliament decides to do. Richard Leonard Presiding Officer, if ministers meet external organisations or individuals and find themselves discussing official business without an official present—for example, at a party conference or social occasion—any significant content should be passed back to their private offices as soon as possible after the event, which should arrange for the basic facts of such meetings to be recorded, that section 4.23 of the Scottish ministerial code. Can the First Minister explain whether she is in breach of that code, or whether she did place a record with the permanent secretary? Will she publish it? If there is a parliamentary inquiry, of course we will make all appropriate information available. I have just said it to Jackson Carlaw when and what I informed the permanent secretary of, and we will make available any information around that. I am satisfied that I conducted myself appropriately in line with all of the rules. Parliament, of course, will perform its scrutiny role in the best way that it considers necessary. Richard Leonard Presiding Officer, on Tuesday the First Minister invited us to judge her decision to hold a series of meetings and discussions about those cases with Alex Salmond. First Minister, that was a grave error of judgment, but it was also a clear potential breach of the ministerial code of conduct. After the events of this week, people need to have trust and confidence in the system, and that is why the First Minister herself should back a full parliamentary inquiry, and that is why she should refer herself today to the panel of independent advisers on the Scottish ministerial code. Can she commit to doing that? I will consider any request that is made, including that one. On the question of whether I back an inquiry or not, I am perfectly happy for Parliament to have an inquiry. The simple point that I am making is that it is not for me, as First Minister, to tell Parliament what it should and should not inquire into. I will make sure that, if there is a parliamentary inquiry, the Scottish Government, all aspects of the Scottish Government will co-operate fully with that. For the next question, we have a couple of constituency supplementaries, the first from Alasdair Allan. Presiding Officer, the communities of Lewis and Harris recently commemorated the centenary of the loss of HMY ILA, which, on New Year's Day 1919, claimed the lives of 201 servicemen. The First Minister will be aware from her recent very welcome visit to Lewis of the deep feelings that this tragedy still evokes. Will the Scottish Government give it support to calls from the community for the Ministry of Defence to designate the site as a military maritime grave? First Minister. I thank Alasdair Allan for raising the commemoration for the loss of HMY ILA on 1 January. I attended that commemoration. It was very moving and clearly the event is still keenly felt by the local community. The bodies of around one-third of those who were lost in that tragedy were, of course, never recovered. I am supportive of calls to have the wreck of the ILA recognised as a war grave. Members of the Scottish commemorations panel, which is appointed by the Scottish Government and others, have already raised the issue with the Ministry of Defence, with whom the decision rests. However, the Scottish Government will continue to be supportive of that call. Presiding Officer, it was reported last week that patients at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow were unable to wash because of a lack of fresh linen. There were also patients waiting surgery having to sleep in dirty linen. That is completely unacceptable and a demonstration of the crisis in the NHS. Will the First Minister apologise to the patients who are affected and set out what immediate action the Government will take to ensure that this disgraceful episode does not happen again? I understand from Glasgow Health Board that laundry supplies were affected by a particularly busy period over the new year, but I understand that the board has apologised already. I would certainly echo that and give assurances that the issue has been resolved. I understand that the issue was quickly resolved, but those issues should not happen. I would expect the board to learn and apply any lessons from it. John Scott Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister will be aware that it appears that Hurston's in-ear is scheduled to close on 16 February. While my primary concern is for the future of the 81 staff involved, I am also concerned about the loss of the long-established iconic store in-ear. While I am aware that the Government teams have already met with Hurston's staff, can I ask the First Minister if there is anything further that can be done to help both and protect the future of the staff and the business itself? The First Minister I am also concerned to hear about this news. Hurston's in-ear, given my upbringing in-ear, is a store that I personally knew well when I was much younger than I am today. Clearly, that is not only a blow to the staff concerned. Given the longevity of that store in-ear, it is a blow to the town as well. The Scottish Government will, as we always do in these situations, liaise with the employer to see whether there is anything that can be done to help, and if, unfortunately, the closure cannot be averted, we will make sure through the PACE initiative that appropriate support is provided to staff. I am sure that that will raise wider issues about regeneration in-ear, which the Government would be happy to be involved in. Monica Lennon In the chamber at the end of November, I raised the plight of six-year-old Cole Thomson from East Kilbride with the health secretary. Cole has debilitating epilepsy and medicinal cannabis that could save and transform his life. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for meeting Cole's mum, Lisa Quarrow, last month. However, I have learned that epidiolex has been rationed to only a handful of children in Scotland and that Cole is on a very long waiting list. In a letter to Lisa, Jean Freeman said that specialist centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh will each be limited to applying for treatment for five children. Lisa is now secured medicinal cannabis privately in Spain, but at significant financial costs. Will the First Minister do everything that she can to help Cole and other children, like him, who are suffering in Scotland to receive the medicine and treatment that she needs from her NHS? I again express my thoughts for this family. Watching any loved one suffer is absolutely heartbreaking, and that is even more so when it is a child. We take those calls from families very seriously. I know that Monica Lennon knows the position of medicinal cannabis and the fact that it is unlicensed in the UK medicine that the manufacturer has applied for a license on which the European Medicines Agency had expected to make a decision earlier this year. In light of Monica Lennon's latest question, I will ask Jean Freeman to look again at the issue of Cole in particular to see whether there is any more that the Scottish Government can reasonably do to help in his particular situation. MSPs across the chamber have been hearing from colleagues and constituents from around the country about the cuts that local councils are now having to contemplate and the devastating impact if they are forced down that road. I would like to tell the First Minister about one disturbing example. Ryan is five years old, lives in Falkirk and has severe autism. His mum wrote to explain that the family were happy when his nursery recommended sending him to a mainstream primary school because the support that he needed was there. She said that the first few weeks were challenging, but we were amazed at how his social interaction improved. He can now speak. He is very intelligent and we are very proud to be his parents and want to thank the school for all their support. On Monday, my husband was pulled aside by his teacher who told us that, as of that day, Ryan's support has been slashed from two hours a day to two and a half hours per week. This is a young boy whose condition means that he cannot go to the toilet himself. In order for him to remain in school, his parents will have to go into his class twice a day to change him while he is in school. Those two hours a day of support were essential in giving him a chance to benefit from his education and to flourish. Ryan's parents have been told clearly that the school can do nothing about this cut. Ryan's mum says that not only is this disappointing and stressful, we fear that it will completely undo all the work that has been done to give Ryan a routine. God forbid that he has a bowel movement in between the allocated changing times. The slash of hours affects all kids with support needs, not just our son. Does the First Minister think that this situation is remotely acceptable? The situation that Patrick Harvie has described would not strike me as unacceptable, and I know how important it is for children with special needs in mainstream education to have the appropriate support. Obviously, Patrick Harvie has given a fair amount of detail about the individual case, but I do not know all the circumstances of Ryan's individual case. I will ask the Deputy First Minister and education secretary to look at that case and any wider issues that it raises. He would be happy to correspond with Patrick Harvie when he has had the opportunity to do so. I appreciate the offer to correspond. I understand that the First Minister does not know all the individual details, but the First Minister knows that there are 500 fewer additional support need teachers in Scotland schools in 2018 than there were in 2010. We have been making that case, as have others, across the spectrum for a long time now, despite the more than doubling of the number of children with additional needs. That situation and others in other local services is only going to get worse if more cuts are forced on our councils. ASN and every other local service will suffer. New ring fence funds for new policies imposed on councils will not make up for the cuts proposed to their core services. Since the SNP lost its majority, the Greens have been persistent in seeking positive changes to protect local services, but we do not demand the impossible. In fact, the Government admits that there is an extra £500 million in the coming year's budget because of the fairer tax plans that we persuaded them to adopt last year. Why, then, should we saddle our councils with a staggering level of funding cuts that the First Minister knows will inevitably deny vulnerable pupils and so many other people in Scotland the support that they need? Before I come on to the budget point, let me return to the ASN point, because it is an important issue. I had an exchange with Richard Leonard in the chamber on this point a few weeks ago in terms of the overall numbers of staff in school working with children with ASN has increased. Obviously, teacher numbers generally have increased in the last couple of years, but I do not underestimate the pressures that are there when dealing with children with special needs of this nature. On the budget point, I say what I have said to Patrick Harvie and others before. We have put forward a draft budget. Patrick Harvie is right that there is resource available in that draft budget because of the tax decisions that the Government has taken, but we have allocated that resource to the national health service to local authorities, for example, for the roll-out of the doubling of childcare. The simple point that I will make to Patrick Harvie and others is that if you want us to change the judgments about allocations that we have made in order to put more money into one area of the budget, there also has to be a discussion about which area of the budget that money should come from. That part of the discussion cannot be allocated because what is not in the budget is £500 million of unallocated resource. Every penny that we have available to us has been allocated. Obviously, we want to have budget discussions. We are prepared to have those budget discussions from parties across the chamber, but that has to be a discussion rooted in reality. We cannot create money from nowhere. If more money is to go to one area of our budget, we have to be honest about where we are taking that money from. First Minister John Swinney has repeatedly claimed that there are many people who emphatically support his primary 1 national test. We asked the Government who those many people were. It turns out that there were just two of them. One was Professor Dylan William, an education adviser to Education Scotland. He said that John Swinney's claim that he emphatically argued for the Government's test was a substantial and perverse misrepresentation of his work and that the person who made the claim was too stupid to be doing that job or deliberately misleading. Can the First Minister tell us, was John Swinney deliberately misleading or is he too stupid to do that job? Let me address the substance of the issue. The Scottish Government referenced Professor William's work because we interpreted research as being supportive of a formative approach to assessment. If that is not the case, we are happy to recognise that. It was not our intention to imply that he supported the specifics of the Scottish national standardised assessments. However, it is the Scottish Government's view that, in line with best practice internationally, the assessments provide formative diagnostic information to teachers on aspects of literacy and numeracy and that that information is then important in allowing teachers to ensure that their judgments are allowing the right support to get to pupils in the right way. All of that is crucial to our objective of raising attainment and closing the attainment gap. Before the second question, the first question was on the borderline of what is acceptable. Just be careful about insulting other members of the Parliament, Mr Rennie. Those were the professor's words. Mr Rennie quoted the professor and then tried to turn it into a clever question or almost an insult. I will not accept other members being insulted in this chamber. Just be careful about how you word your next question. The First Minister is absolutely wrong. We asked John Swinney's office for the names of the academics who support P1 tests. The professor's name was supplied. The professor is now owed an apology, and so is Professor W James Popham, the second name on the list. He said the claim that whether made from ignorance or malevolence is flat out incorrect. She must apologise for insulting this global expert as well. Teachers are against the test. The EIS opposed the test. Councils are ditching the test. Parliament voted against the test. Now the ministers-preferred experts think that his tests are useless, ignorant, useless, malevolent, stupid, misleading. Will the First Minister finally dump those tests? In terms of the professors, their work was cited as we believed that it was evidence of support for formative assessments. If we got that wrong, we apologised to the professors for that. We did not say that they specifically supported the Scottish national standardised assessments. I believe that the assessments are important. It is important to have something that allows teachers to moderate their own judgments. Teacher judgment remains the definitive assessment tool in our schools. I think that it is important that we are able to know which pupils are doing well, which pupils need to stretch, which pupils need extra help. Finally, on the issue of councils withdrawing from assessments, that is not the case. Councils who withdraw from the standardised assessments that we have put in place are going back to old assessments. In some cases—in the case of Fife, for example—they are going back to doing two assessments a year instead of one assessment, and they are using a system of assessment that is not aligned to curriculum for excellence. I think that it is important to be clear about that. We will continue to support an approach in our schools that allows us to get the right support to pupils and help to close the attainment gap. We have some further supplementaries. The first is from Shona Robison. On Monday, the First Minister announced £10 million for the Tayside industrial strategy, which is, of course, welcome, but can the First Minister reconfirm and reiterate the previous Scottish Government commitment that made that Michelin and my constituency will receive resources beyond those already allocated in the Tay cities deal in order to repurpose the site and create a true economic legacy for the Michelin workforce? Will she also undertake to further press the UK Government into stepping up to the plate to also help to fund a Michelin legacy, given that they have already shortchanged the Tay city steel by £50 million? I thank Shona Robison for the question. The Scottish Government has been clear all along that we were prepared to invest £200 million into the Tay cities region and we have delivered on that promise. I remain, like Shona Robison, disappointed that the UK Government has chosen not to match that scale of ambition. I hope even now that it changes its mind. The £50 million that I announced on Monday will include £10 million for the needs of manufacturing businesses across the region, and I am sure that future options for the Michelin plant in Dundee will be a key focus of the discussions with regional partners as they work with us to shape the industrial investment programme. However, we are absolutely clear that we will provide additional support to deliver on the MOU signed with Michelin in December. As a member of the Michelin action group, I would hope and expect the UK Government to do likewise. Jenny Marra, I am disappointed that this week you had £50 million to allocate to our region and, following the closure of Michelin, you only managed to find £10 million for any industrial development in Dundee. I would have expected—and many people in Dundee would have expected—that full share of the £50 million to come to our city. However, as a result of her budget, jobs are under threat in Dundee. Compulsory redundancies have been mooted by SNP councillors in Dundee. We all know that the First Minister has a policy of no compulsory redundancies. Will she confirm this policy today and guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies in Dundee City Council, while she is First Minister? As I am frequently reminded by members across the chamber, councils are autonomous and they take their own decisions. The Scottish Government's no compulsory redundancy policy remains in place. I do not think that, if memory serves me correctly, there was any such policy, while Labour was last in administration in the Scottish Government. As for the start of Jenny Marra's question, it could only be a Labour MSP that stands up in this chamber and says, I am furious that you announced £50 million of additional investment. What a pathetic response. £40 million is for transport infrastructure that will open investment across Tayside and £10 million to help with manufacturing, which will be important for Dundee as well as for other parts of Tayside. There was a very warm welcome from all parts of Tayside from this announcement on Monday, and I think that it is really disappointing that Jenny Marra cannot find it within herself to welcome it as well. Presiding Officer, with fox hunting legislation set to be significantly strengthened in Scotland, what message does this send to those who might seek to flout the rules and how will they strengthen the hand of Police Scotland in tackling illegal hunts? First Minister. Well, Mary Gageon, of course, the minister responsible set out our proposed way forward on fox hunting yesterday. We are going to implement the majority of Lord Bonamy's recommendations and also introduce a new limit of no more than two dogs to be used to find or flush foxes hunting or chasing wild mammals, including foxes, will continue to be against the law as it is at present. We also intend to ensure that there are no loopholes that would allow hunting to continue. I think that this sends an important message about animal welfare and the importance that we attach to animal welfare. I hope that the member and others will welcome that. Obviously, as with any strengthening of the law—and, of course, that still requires to get the support of Parliament, but, as with any strengthening of the law, that gives options to the police to make sure that illegal activity does not take place. Neil Findlay. The Government acted at Michelin and Dundee when problems were identified, working with the company and the workforce, keeping employees informed of developments. Contrast that to Cayam at Livingston, where workers were kept in the dark despite the Government knowing about the company's problems a month before it went into administration. This week, we learned that the minister, Jamie Hepburn, did not even lift the phone to the company throughout the month-long period up to the closure. First Minister, do you think that that is good enough? First, can I put on record my sympathy for the position that the Cayam workers are in and the support that any support that the Scottish Government can give to them to find alternative employment or other support will be provided? I do think that Neil Findlay misrepresents—I am not saying that he is deliberately misrepresenting, but I think that it is a mischaracterisation of the position of the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government will frequently be given information that companies are in difficulty or having cash flow problems or that their future is in jeopardy. Principally through Scottish Enterprise, we will seek to support the company. As I understand, through Scottish Enterprise was the case here to try to find an alternative buyer, to try to find ways of solving any cash flow issues and getting investment into companies. In some cases, that will prove successful. In many cases that people will never hear about, it is because that kind of work proves successful. In some cases, regrettably, this cannot be the case and that was the case here. It is not when efforts to save a company are on-going, it is not for the Scottish Government to tell employees that that is a matter for companies and it is not for the Scottish Government to do anything that would undermine the efforts of a company to find alternative ways forward. We will continue, as I think that, to be fair, Neil Findlay recognises in the case of Michelin and in the case of other companies where we can make an intervention to save a company from closure. We will do that, but we are not going to pretend that that is always possible, because it is not always possible to do unfortunately. Gil Paterson. First Minister, we are within 80 days of a potential disaster of a no-deal Brexit. What we have seen this week lorries parked in an airfield and a ferry contract awarded to a company with no ferries does not install any confidence in the general population. Does the First Minister think that those preparations are adequate? What share of resources is Scotland receiving to help our country to prepare? Can Scotland look to establish a better direct link with Europe, ourselves, by sea and air to counter the damage of Brexit? A no-deal Brexit, as everybody knows, will be catastrophic, but let's be plain about it. Any Brexit is going to be bad for Scotland and Scotland voted against Brexit. The Prime Minister's deal is bad for Scotland and the UK, which is why it looks like a majority of people in the House of Commons will vote against it. In response to Gil Paterson, of course, we have got to, in the Scottish Government, look at all contingency options, including looking at how Scottish companies in different sectors of the economy can get their products to market, and we will continue to do that. Fundamentally, there is an issue that, for people in Scotland, becomes ever clearer, until, in Scotland, we are in charge of our own destiny, able to make those decisions ourselves by being an independent country, then we will always be at the mercy of damaging Westminster decisions. The sooner, in that respect, Scotland decides to become independent, the better. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reports that the UK Government plans to halt the full roll-out of universal credit. The Ambor Rudd announcement of a pilot for managed migration does not change the reality of those already suffering under universal credit, because previous calls to halt the roll-out were completely ignored. Nor will that announcement stop an estimated 1.6 million people across the UK naturally migrating to universal credit due to changed circumstances ahead of full migration from 2020. As I have done previously, I still take the view that there should be a complete halt to universal credit in order that fundamental changes are made, because people are suffering, people are being driven into poverty and debt because of universal credit, and it is completely and utterly unacceptable. Can I thank the First Minister for her response and advice that my constituency of Club Manusher and Dumblane was unfortunate enough to be at the vanguard of universal credit, which for Scotland, in many respects, is reminiscent of thatcher's poll tax? Despite the hardship and damage that it has caused and continues to cause to many of my constituents, and despite the fact that Conservative members in this chamber have ignored, denied and downplayed its effects, I am hugely disappointed that the UK Government planned to proceed with air-managed migration without any changes to the current deeply flawed system that has already forced many thousands into poverty. Does the First Minister agree that the UK Government must listen to the calls of so many people, including the UN, to fix this failing policy? Will her Government raise that with the working pension secretary, and does she agree that the full powers of the welfare system should be devolved to Scotland? Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that. Keith Brown talked about universal credit being reminiscent of thatcher's poll tax. I hope that I am not misquoting him here, but I think that John Major, a former Tory Prime Minister, has described universal credit as being like the poll tax. It is time for the UK Government to listen to the overwhelming evidence of the failings of universal credit, which the UN special rapporteur in poverty recently described as universal discredit. The UK Government should make fundamental changes to make it fit for purpose and halt it in the meantime. The Scottish Government has repeatedly raised the failings with the succession of working pension secretaries, and we will continue to do so. However, as I have said in this chamber before, I would rather be in a position of, rather than just having to plead with a DWP minister in Westminster, so that this Parliament had full powers over universal credit and the wider social security system, so that we could take our own decisions. It is another reason why this country should sooner rather than later become independent. Jamie Greene To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle antisemitism. The Scottish Government, in common, I hope with everybody across the chamber, is committed to tackling hate crime and prejudice. I want to reassure Scotland's Jewish communities that there is no place in Scotland for any form of antisemitism or religious hatred. We value our Jewish communities and the contribution that they make to Scotland, and I think that that is a message that should go out strongly from this chamber. As well as our ambitious programme of work to tackle hate crime and build community cohesion, we have also adopted the international Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism. This sends a strong message that we believe antisemitism to be entirely unacceptable in Scotland. Jamie Greene I thank the First Minister for that response, but the First Minister will be aware of recent press reporting comments made by Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, in this very Parliament. I quote from him, "...mostly the Jewish community used to feel that Scotland was a good place to be Jewish, but for many that has reversed. Many Jews actively discussed leaving Scotland because they feel alienated, vulnerable and not at home." Presiding Officer, I hope that the First Minister is as worried and saddened by that assertion as those benches are. So, can I ask her what guidance has been issued specifically to Police Scotland to address the scourge of antisemitism in Scotland, and will she join me in calling for all political parties represented in this Parliament to do everything in their power to make sure that no one in the Jewish community should feel vulnerable or unwelcome in Scotland? The First Minister Well, yes, I will encourage all parties to do exactly as Jamie Greene has called for. In terms of the police, I believe that the police have a good relationship with the Jewish community and work very closely with the Jewish community around tackling antisemitism and also addressing the concerns of the Jewish community around security. In terms of Ephraim Borowski's comments, I have huge respect for Ephraim and the work that he does. I have discussed that issue with him personally in the past. He is more than capable of speaking for himself, but I do not think that there was any suggestion that the very legitimate concerns that he raised at the weekend were in any way unique to Scotland. I think that he was reflecting a feeling of the Jewish community across the whole of the UK, including Scotland, but also reflecting an apparent rise in antisemitism not just across the UK, but further afield. I think that all of us have to be vigilant about that. My responsibility is to make sure that that is the case particularly in Scotland. As I have said, I have had discussions and will continue to have discussions with the Jewish community about exactly that. I made this point when I spoke at the reception in this Parliament earlier this week of the Holocaust Educational Trust. I will say this again here. The Jewish community is a valuable, vital part of our society in Scotland. If one member of that community feels unsafe here, all of us have a duty to respond to that and to do everything possible to change that. That is a responsibility that I take very seriously for the Jewish community and for any other minority community living in our diverse country. I hope that all members will agree with and echo that. Thank you very much. That concludes First Minister's questions. We are going to move shortly to members' business in the name of Mark Griffin on Macmillan and Marie Curie support, but we will have a short suspension to allow the chamber and members to change seats and the gallery to clear a short suspension.