 Fodd Fylusaeth sgwetthaf ac yn gwneud i gael eich f tunaa hwn, Cazerdogdill Hywr angen? Fodd Fylusaeth angen, yn gwneud i gael eich fflasiwn i gael digwydd ddiag i ddweud i gael eich fflasiwn i gael eich fflasiwn i gael i Peirhanol. Cazerdogdill Efallai y mี o oedd ymdangosau sgwethaf o'r Eidliadol mewn tungur o'r eithaf o'r bwrnau yn gyffinno agliadau newid. In February, teachers told this Parliament that it could be a catastrophe. Head teachers warned of a disaster. They asked to delay the new hires and ministers chose to ignore those warnings. Last week, it all ended in tears, specifically the tears of pupils trying to set higher maths, which has widely been condemned as flawed and too difficult. Over 17,000 pupils and parents have signed a petition in protest. What has the First Minister done about it? The picture that Kezia Dugdale seeks to paint of our exams is an unfair one. It is an unfair one to pupils who are studying so hard right now for those exams. We know that the annual exam diet is a tense time for students and their parents, and young people work hard throughout the year. I do not think they deserve that kind of characterisation of the system. Obviously, we are aware of concerns that have been expressed about the recent higher mathematics exam, and we take those concerns very seriously. The Scottish Qualifications Authority is responsible for ensuring that exams are set fairly and that they are set to the correct standards. It is also responsible for ensuring that rigorous processes are in place to ensure that candidates get fair treatment every year and that standards are maintained. The Scottish Qualifications Authority has assured us, and more importantly, the people of Scotland, that no candidate will be disadvantaged if any exam paper is proven to be more demanding than it was intended to be. That is why those processes are in place every year, and they are there to make sure that our students who work so hard get the best treatment because that is what they deserve. With respect, Presiding Officer, it is the concerns of teachers and parents that I am bringing to this chamber. The First Minister is right that the SGA has said that it will change the pass marks, but changing the pass mark can only help candidates who tried the questions. Those who were too upset to complete the exam or spent too long trying to interpret the questions will get no benefit whatsoever. However, that is the SGA's answer. I asked what the First Minister is doing about it, because the Minister is perfectly happy to sit back and allow the Scottish Qualifications Authority to attract all the accusations and criticism. It was the Minister who forced the authority to introduce the new examination, and the Minister should have been able to prevent such a deplorable outcome. I hear that SNP-backed benches are not happy with that, but those are not my words. Those are the words of Nicola Sturgeon when she was shadow education minister back in the last Estuary crisis. Does the First Minister agree with Nicola Sturgeon that politicians should stop passing the buck? Of course, what Kezia Dugdale is referring to there is the episode under the last Labour Government when there was a comprehensive failure of the administration of the exam system. What we are talking about here is the content of the exam paper in a particular subject. I am sure—at least I hope—that Kezia Dugdale is not seriously suggesting that the First Minister, or indeed any other politician, should either set or mark the exams that our young people sit. The responsibility of the SQA is to ensure that exams are set to the correct standard. The SQA has given assurance that the live question paper for the maths exam was designed according to the course assessment specification for higher maths. It was developed by experienced teachers and both the current and the new higher maths papers were overseen by the same principal assessor. More importantly, as I said in my original answer, the SQA issued a statement last week, making clear that it has not new processes in place to take account of this. It has standard processes in place to moderate results each year if a paper proves either to be unexpectedly difficult or unexpectedly easy. The point of that is to ensure that consistent standards are maintained year on year. The SQA has also emphasised that no candidate will be disadvantaged if this year's exam is proven to be too difficult. The SQA also said that, as I would assume Kezia Dugdale would know, that it will take account of pupils sitting in that exam who were distressed because they thought that it was more difficult than expected. Those are the processes that are in place to ensure that we have a consistent and a consistently high-standard exam system. It is right that it is overseen by the professional SQA, and I would assume that that assurance would be positive for Kezia Dugdale and, more importantly, for parents and pupils across the country to hear. We are talking about the future prospects of thousands of children across Scotland. In January, I alerted the First Minister to the fact that the SQA appeal system is not fit for purpose. Access to it now depends on the school's ability to pay, and appeals have been replaced by reviews and remarks that take no account of circumstances on exam day. Parents in private schools are paying for a second mark of their children's exams. They can even pay extra for a priority review for just £39.75 as advertised on the SQA website. The appeal system is about to be tested to destruction by this year's higher math exam. It has been four months since I last raised this. Has the First Minister done anything to fix this unfair and unjust system? The implication lying behind Kezia Dugdale's question here that somehow better-off parents can buy better exam results for their children is simply not true. The SQA introduced its new post-results service in 2014 to replace the former appeals system. The new service is the result of very wide-ranging consultation between the SQA, schools, colleges and other education professionals, who all recognised that a review of the appeal service was required. The new service was introduced precisely so that there was a fairer, more rigorous system in place. I say this in all sincerity. Those are important issues. I do not, for a second, deny or demur from that point. However, it is not fair to pupils around this country right now to come here with particular concerns such as the concern over the higher maths paper, which has been addressed and will be addressed by the Scottish Qualifications Authority, and somehow suggest that our entire exams system is flawed. Why is that not fair? That undermines the efforts and is in danger of undermining the results of those students who have worked so hard to achieve exam passes. Where issues are raised by pupils and parents, as was the case with the maths exam, they will be addressed and responded to. We will do that responsibly, and we will do that while still wishing all the students across the country who are still sitting exams the very best of success. The First Minister questions the unfairness of this. Perhaps I can remind her of what Larry Flanagan said when I last brought this up. Appeals should be based upon the professional judgment of teachers rather than on the wishes of the parent, and what is now happening is fundamentally wrong. There are serious concerns and she should reflect on that. We heard this week that 25 per cent of medical students come from private schools. Some of the pupils who are defeated by this unfair exam in maths and those who are in chemistry today might have been hoping to change that. They are afraid that their chance could be gone, and so are their parents. The back benches are gafoing, but here are a couple of quotes. Chloe Thompson from Hoik, I have studied very hard all year in preparation for my exams in the hope of attaining five A's in order to apply to university to study medicine. This dream now seems completely out of reach due to the awful maths exam that I endured yesterday. Alana McRone from Dumfries, my son studied hard for this exam. He came home devastated afterwards, and this has added to extra stress to him as he still has exams to sit. The First Minister took two pages of the daily record this week to tell us how well she was served by the education system, but perhaps she should worry more about what is happening in our schools today. The appeal system and the new exams need sorted out. She said that education is her sacred responsibility. Surely it is time for some divine intervention from this First Minister. The First Minister is very clear indeed that Kezia Dugdale was not listening to a word that I said in my earlier answers, or maybe she was listening and just could not change her script to respond to it. Kezia Dugdale read out the very distressed comments of somebody who had sat the higher maths paper. I have huge sympathy for anybody who sits in an exam and comes out of it feeling like that, but surely Kezia Dugdale's responsibility is to relay back to that young person the assurances and reassurances that the SQA has given and that I have outlined in this chamber today. Let me repeat it. No young person sitting the higher maths exam will be disadvantaged if it is found out that the exam was more difficult than intended. How can we say that with confidence? The SQA has the processes in place every single year to moderate results to take account of the fact that an exam might be found to be easier or harder than was intended. Those are the systems that are in place precisely to protect against the understandable fears that that young person has expressed, but instead of trying to play up those fears surely Kezia Dugdale's responsibility is to join us in reassuring that young person. I think that that would be more responsible. I do not think that Labour members who are shouting abuse across the chamber right now are remotely interested in the fortunes of our young people. As always, of Labour members is simply to hurl abuse at the SNP and that will not be lost in anyone. I wanted to come on to the second substantive and important point that Kezia Dugdale raised around the new system for appeals. Now, as with all SQA charges and it is important to emphasise this, local authorities will meet the costs of requests by any public sector schools to use the service. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland made clear in a statement back in February that no young person will be disadvantaged under the new system. Headteachers are also clear that decisions are made on an educational basis, not on a cost basis. Ken Cunningham, the general secretary of school leaders Scotland, said that the decision to appeal will not be reached based on looking at the books but on what schools feel is right for their pupils. Those are the kinds of assurances that are important for our young people and instead of trying to scare monger, Labour should be doing their bit to get those assurances out there. The First Minister is meeting parents from the fair funding for our kids programme today, which is a campaign group dedicated to ensuring that promises made on childcare are actually delivered. We spoke to them this morning and they raised the case of a single mum in Glasgow called Marisa. She is working now, but last year, when she tried to get back to work, she had to turn down three separate jobs because she was restricted to three hours' nursery each morning for her four-year-old daughter. For a woman trying to get back into the workplace, that is not good enough. She needs to be able to fit the hours of nursery around the demands of her job, not have to reject jobs to fit around nursery hours. Parents should be able to take their free nursery hours whenever they want and wherever they want, and surely the First Minister would agree with that. I do have a lot of sympathy with that. On the case that Ruth Davidson has cited, she is absolutely right to say that I with the Education Secretary will be meeting fair funding for our kids later this afternoon. This will be the second time that I have met them. I am very happy to take the case study that Ruth Davidson has cited and look into that in particular. Let us put the issue into context. We have, as a Government, increased entitlement to childcare for three and four-year-olds by almost half, up from 412 and a half hours when we took office to 600 hours a year right now. We have ambitions to go even further. That commitment is fully funded. Uptake is high. Every child is offered a place. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that children are not offered places. However, that said, I do appreciate—this is the substance of the discussions that I will be having with fair funding for our kids later—that some parents believe that there is insufficient flexibility and choice in the implementation by local authorities to enable them to take up their entitlement. For example, a patient who is offered a place at a council nursery that perhaps does not suit their working patterns and then cannot get funding in a partnership nursery. We have given a commitment to look firstly at how we improve the gathering of data so that we can get a better idea of the extent of that particular issue. Secondly, to look at how we work with local authorities to make sure that there are increasing levels of flexibility and choice in the system. There are examples of very good practice already around the country. I commend Ruth Davidson and the examples of the council in this city in Edinburgh and Dumfries and Galloway Council, who offer places in any of their partnership nurseries as long as a place is available. We will continue to look at how we improve the system, but let us be clear, Presiding Officer. Those are issues that arise out of an expanding system. They are issues arising because we are improving the provision of childcare and we will continue to do that. Once again, we seem to have an acknowledgement of an issue, warm words, someone else's problem but no actual clear plan. Listening to the First Minister just then, it is no wonder that fair funding for our kids said just this morning that there is a great deal of smoke and mirrors around the free nursery policy. No one is on top of how it is being delivered. I tell you what, it is certainly not delivering for people like Marissa. As always, it is not the better off families that are hurt most. It is the single parents or the families on low incomes who have no other options. The 600 hours of childcare is there to help families, but it is only a help if they can choose when to take it. Can the First Minister give us assurance that we have had enough of the smoke and mirrors and that, when she meets parents today, she will simply promise them something like more flexibility and a real plan on its delivery? I do not expect the leaders of any of the opposition parties to listen to my answers and then treat them fairly, but any objective person listening to the answer that I gave to Ruth Davidson would not have heard me say it is someone else's problem. They would have heard me talk in quite some detail about the work that we are seeking to do with councils because councils are statutially responsible for implementing early care. There are many parties across this chamber who frequently and wrongly accuse this Government of being centralising, but then when we trust local authorities to implement policies, they tell us that we should centralise the responsibility, so they should make up their mind what side of this they are on. Ruth Davidson is right that this is an issue of real importance to parents in Scotland. The vast majority of parents are accessing and benefiting from the policy that is in place. There are a small number of parents who believe that there is not sufficient flexibility in the system. We need to understand exactly how many that is, and that is why I have committed to the further work. On an on-going basis, we are seeking to introduce greater flexibility. We have introduced a statutory responsibility on local authorities to consult parents about the flexibility that is required. As I have already said, many councils across the country are already delivering this policy in a more flexible way than some others. That is on-going work, and we will get on with doing it and let the opposition carp. The First Minister knows that porters from Ninewell hospital are in a long-running pay dispute. They are being paid less than other porters in NHS Tayside hospitals. This is a matter of fairness. The porters are here in Parliament today. Will the First Minister now ask NHS Tayside to bring in ACAS to resolve this dispute fairly and let the porters get back to work? First, I take the opportunity to welcome the Tayside porters to the gallery today. They are a fantastic bunch of people. I had the privilege of meeting some of them when I attended the STUC Congress a few weeks ago. More importantly than that, they, with porters right across the national health service, do an absolutely fantastic job. They are often among the unsung heroes of our health service, the people without whom the health service would not be able to deliver the excellent patient care that it does now. As Jenny Marra will be aware, discussions around this particular dispute are on-going, and the Scottish Terms and Conditions Committee's stack, which is the appropriate body within the national health service bargaining framework, is involved, has spoken to both sides, has had a number of exchanges over the past two weeks. I am very hopeful that that process will lead to a resolution. It is right and proper that we allow it to reach its due course, but I am hopeful that it will lead to that successful resolution. I hope that all of us will join with us today in thanking not just the Tayside porters, but porters everywhere across our national health service. To relieve Scottish fishermen from the financial burden of new EU rules on the discarding of fish, Ian Duncan MEP secured a change in EU law, ensuring that the Scottish Government covers the cost of transporting and storing unsellable catch. However, it has emerged from correspondence with the Shetland Fishermen's Association that Marine Scotland is refusing to foot the bill despite its new obligation under EU law. Can the First Minister explain why the Scottish Government will not support Scottish fishermen, and can she further explain why, in not complying with the law, the Scottish Government is willing to pay financial penalties to Brussels that are greater than the cost of supporting the Scottish fishermen in the first place? Jamie McGregor raises what certainly sounds like an important and serious issue. I will undertake to him today to look into this issue, to discuss it with the fishing secretary who is sitting a couple of rows behind me in the chamber right now, and we will write to the member with a detailed answer to the question. If the member, when he receives that detailed explanation, wants to meet with Richard Lockhead, Richard Lockhead will be very happy to meet him. Nigel Dawn Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The First Minister will be aware of a very serious road accident that occurred on the A90 in my constituency at the Lawrence Church South junction last Friday, and I am sure that she shares my concern for those who were affected by it. Given that the junction has already been identified as one that does need to be grade separated, can the First Minister give me any assurance of how quickly that will be done, please? My first thoughts—I am sure that this is the case for everybody across the chamber—are with the individuals involved in the accident, and I extend my very best wishes to those who were injured for a speedy and full recovery. The circumstances of the particular accident that the member raises will obviously need to be fully investigated, and he will know that the Scottish Government, working alongside Nestrands, Angus and Aberdeenshire councils, is currently examining whether improvements are required to the Lawrence Church South junction. Indeed, Transport Scotland will publish a study next month, which will then help to inform how access to that junction can be improved. When that study is published, I know that the transport minister will be very happy to meet Nigel Dawn to discuss it further. Question 3, Willie Rennie. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Matters of importance to the people of Scotland. Willie Rennie A freedom of information request has found that 350,000 Scottish photographs have been added to the police national database. The biometric commissioner has concerns about accessing that database using new facial recognition technology that does not have legal underpinning. Does the First Minister agree with the biometric commissioner? First Minister Well, in all of these things, the right balance has to be struck between the need to protect the public and keep communities safe, and the need to safeguard the rights of individuals. Police Scotland operates in accordance with human rights and data protection legislation. Scottish legislation regulates the information that is uploaded by Police Scotland and how long that information is kept for. Legislation also outlines the alignment of case information and associated retention periods of those records. There are rules, regulations and safeguards in place. On the particular issue of facial recognition that Willie Rennie raises, he will be aware. I understand that the way in which Police Scotland uses this is more restrictive than certain other police forces in other parts of the UK. It is only images of those who are either convicted of or arrested and or charged with an offence whose image would be uploaded to the police national database, and it is only images of those convicted that will be kept on the database. I think that when we look at that balance between the need to protect the public and the very important need to protect civil liberties, it strikes me that we have got it right in this case. Of course, those things continue and always will continue, rightly so, to be kept under review. Willie Rennie. I thank the First Minister for that answer, but my question is not about the retention of the photographs in the database. It is about the photographs taken to check against the database that we are concerned about. There are strict rules on taking fingerprints and DNA to check against those databases, but the same rules do not apply to the photograph database. The concern is people's privacy. If the police can take photographs that say football matches or political demonstrations to compare those photographs with the database using this new technology, their safeguards are in place for fingerprints and DNA. Does the First Minister think that there are adequate safeguards covering photographs, too? I am very happy to look at that particular point in more detail and perhaps correspond or discuss this with Willie Rennie in the future. I suspect that, although those are matters for front-line police officers and those involved in the investigation and detection of crime, most routinely it will be images from CCTV cameras that will be used to identify people through the images that are held on the police national database. I am only speaking personally here, but if I or a member of my family was, for example, the victim of an assault in the street and there were CCTV images of somebody who there was a suspicion that might be guilty of that, I think that I would want that to be used to see if we could identify the perpetrator of that crime. Let us not lose sight of the purpose and the objective of that. It is to apprehend and bring to justice criminals. In my view, that is a good thing. However, yes, civil liberties and human rights are important. As technology advances, we have to keep the ways in which we protect those civil liberties under review, and we will always do that. I will look at the particular point raised by Willie Rennie and come back to him perhaps with some more detail once I have had the opportunity to consider it. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the Queen's speech. The Scottish Government will be a constructive critic of the programme set out in the Queen's speech. The proposals from the UK Government failed to recognise that Tory policies were roundly rejected by the Scottish electorate earlier this month. Where we disagree with the provisions in the Queen's speech, we will make our opposition to those plans very clear. We will not support policies that continue with austerity, we will not support policies that put more children at risk of poverty and we will not support policies that put Scotland's membership of the European Union and our valuable human rights protections at risk. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Does she share my concerns that the Scotland Bill published this morning will not deliver the Smith commission proposals in full as promised, let alone those pledged in the pre-referendum vow? The UK Government had a very clear test today to deliver a bill that lived up in full in spirit and in letter to the Smith commission. The bill has been published within the last hour or so, and from my glance at it, I think that it falls short in almost every area. The bill, for example, does not contain the full welfare powers recommended by the Smith commission, and in some key powers it retains, unbelievably in my view, given the amount of concern that was expressed about this. It retains a veto for the UK Government on key policy areas. So, for example, if this Parliament wants to abolish the bedroom tax, as I hope we do, the UK Government would still have a right of veto over whether we could do it or not. I am sorry, but that is not devolution, so I hope that all parties will support us and indeed support the recommendations of the All Party Devolution Further Powers Committee as we seek to get a Scotland bill that really does live up to and deliver the Smith recommendations. To ask the First Minister how much revenue has been raised by the land and buildings transaction tax and the landfill tax since April 2015. Land and buildings transaction tax was successfully introduced by Revenue Scotland on 1 April. Revenue Scotland published its first set of monthly statistics on 21 May, based on returns submitted in April. Those show that a successful first month was over 7,500 returns received and almost £18 million collected and taxed from residential and non-residential property sales. Those results are in line with our expectations. We are, of course, in discussion with the UK Government on the impact of forestalling, which the UK Government has agreed to compensate us for. Scottish landfill tax is collected quarterly with the first returns due from landfill operators in August this year. Revenue Scotland will publish quarterly statistics for Scottish landfill tax from September 2015. I am sure that even Jackie Baillie will agree that this is an encouraging beginning for Revenue Scotland, which launched on time and on budget. I thank the First Minister for her response. If you were to look at the overall figures anticipated by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, you would probably be looking at figures in relation to about £41 million in the first month of operation. I absolutely accept how spying is seasonal, there was some for stalling and the figures may well improve. But what it demonstrates is the variability of these taxes, as will be the case with the new tax powers in the Scotland Bill. There is a direct relationship with ensuring continued funding for our public services. Given the importance of that, what capacity is the Scottish Government developing to support better forecasting and a robust fiscal framework? As Jackie Baillie rightly acknowledges, there is variability. That is why we make predictions on the basis that we do. In relation to LBTT, the early results are in line with our expectations. We always anticipated a degree of for stalling, which is precisely why the Deputy First Minister is in discussion with the UK Government about how we are compensated for that. In terms of her wider point about how we make sure that we have robust information underpinning the modelling and the projections, that is precisely why we are taking steps to put the Scottish Fiscal Commission on a statutory footing and making sure that, as we take more responsibility for more tax powers, the Scottish Fiscal Commission is properly equipped to do that very important job. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government agrees with the concerns expressed by parents and pupils about the recent SQA higher mathematics paper. As I said earlier on, we all know that this time of year, with the annual exams, is a tense time for students and their parents. Young people work really hard throughout the year and, for many, the exams are the culmination of that hard work. Yes, we are aware of the concerns expressed about the recent higher maths exam, and, as I said earlier on in this session, the SQA is responsible for ensuring that exams are set fairly and to the correct standards, and it has rigorous processes in place to ensure that candidates get fair treatment. I thank the First Minister for that. I listened extremely carefully to her response to Kezia Dugdale. I do not think that the issue is quite so much that the maths higher was seen as particularly hard, as she rightly pointed out, SQA can address, but the structure of some of the papers and the style of questioning does not appear to be in line with what many schools adopting the new higher had in prelims. Given that half the schools actually opted to have the old higher, if she thinks that that, combined with the concerns of the criticisms that we had in this last week, reflects deeper concerns about the deployment of exemplar materials for the exam? I do not think that it necessarily does that, although those will be issues that we want to study very carefully. The double running of the old and new hires this year for one year only was, as a result of careful discussion, consultation and agreement, that that was the right thing to do. Liz Smith rightly acknowledges that there are processes in place to moderate results based on the difficulty or otherwise of exams compared to what they are intended to do. Of course, if there are other issues raised after the experience of the exam diet this year, the education secretary will raise those with SQA. I am sure that the Scottish Qualifications Authority would be very happy to meet Liz Smith to discuss those issues in more detail. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber and should do so quickly and quietly.