 The First Minister soffred to say that she's going to do the same thing. Let's get a picture of her in the future. Well done. Thank you minister for that, and for that, and all the questions. Before we move to the next item of business, members will wish to join me and welcome to the gallery Professor Manuel Hasasian, the head of the Palestinian mission in London. We now move to First Minister's questions. Question 1. Kezia Dugdale. To ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day. to offer engagement between the Government's programme for Scotland. Thank you. Earlier this week it was revealed that student enrolment at Edinburgh College had fallen by 40 per cent between 2010 and 2014. The EIS says that it is gravely concerned about the situation. Can the First Minister confirm whether the number of students at college has fallen across Scotland as a whole since 2007? As the member will be aware, we have maintained our commitment to maintain full-time equivalent places in colleges. We are also spending more in terms of the revenue budget on colleges than Labour ever did throughout the eight years that they were in government. Yes, we have restructured college education to make it more effective and efficient and to make sure that those who go to colleges are more likely to come out of college with a qualification that will help them to get into employment. I am proud of this Government's record on colleges, as I am proud of this Government's record on other aspects of education, but I also take the view—I take the view across the range of the responsibilities that I have and my Government has—that we will always look to do more and to do better, because we owe that to the people of Scotland. The First Minister just told the chamber that she has maintained the number of full-time places. I am afraid that that is incorrect, and the Audit Scotland report evidence is wrong. There are actually 3,000 fewer full-time places, and there are 140,000 fewer students going to colleges across Scotland compared to when the SNP came to office in 2000. That is because of cuts to college funding that this Government made. Today, pupils in Scotland are sitting their English exams, and we wish them well. Exams that will, to a large extent, determine their life chances. Yesterday, her education secretary said that there had been an increase in the pass rate for national qualifications. Can the First Minister confirm that the education secretary was correct when she said that? I am prepared to concede to Kezia Dugdale that something that I said in my first answer may actually not have been entirely accurate, because I said that we had maintained full-time equivalent college places in line with our commitment. That is not strictly true, because our commitment was to maintain 116,000 full-time equivalent college places. In the last year for which we have delivered 119,636 figures. In actual fact, if I am being strictly accurate, we have not met our commitment, we have actually exceeded our commitment. Kezia Dugdale also talked about funding for colleges. This year, in terms of revenue funding for colleges, we will invest—I think that the figure is £526 million—the maximum that Labour ever invested was £510 million, so both in terms of meeting and exceeding our commitment to universities and also in making sure that, in those tight financial times that we are investing in our college sector, I do believe that this Government's record stands very close scrutiny. In terms of exam passes, we have record exam passes in Scotland. I do not take the credit for that, Presiding Officer. The credit for that goes to young people and their teachers in every single part of our country. As I said at the end of my last answer, I will stand here and I will defend the record of this Government, because I believe that it is a good record, but I am ambitious for this country and for the people who live in it. Whether it is on education, whether it is on health, whether it is on tackling crime, I lead a Government that will continue to aspire to do even better. As long as we do, I hope that we will retain the trust of the people of Scotland that they put in us as recently as a week ago today. Presiding Officer, the First Minister just said that there was record pass rates. Here are the facts. New analysis by Dr Jim Scott, an education expert at Edinburgh University, shows that the number of candidates in Scotland gaining level 3 to 5 qualifications dropped by 20 per cent in the last year—a whopping 20 per cent, Presiding Officer. That is 102,000 fewer candidates getting the grades that they need to get on in life. The great strength of Scottish education known around the world has always been its breads, but Dr Scott's analysis is devastating. It shows that pupils in Scotland are studying fewer subjects and getting worse results. It is not the fault of our teachers who are dedicated and passionate about giving our young people the best possible start in life. We know that fewer people are going to college and that the number of pupils getting good grades is falling. So much of that is linked to what happened earlier in the education system. Given that, can the First Minister tell us what proportion of S2 pupils from the poorest backgrounds have the counting skills that they need? The answer to that question is not enough, which is why I have recently put a new focus on raising attainment and closing the attainment gap—a commitment back by £100 million of funding—so that we can do more to make sure that our young people, regardless of the background that they come from, get the best education, the best start in life and the best chance to fulfil their potential. I will never ever stop working until we have reached a position where background is no barrier to any young person fulfilling their potential. I will not stand here and allow Kezia Dugdale to deduce the achievements of young people and their teachers across the country. We have record exam results. The number of higher passes up 3 per cent from 2013 to 2014. School leaver destinations are right now the best on record. 90 per cent of pupils who left school during or at the end of the academic year 12-13 in sustained positive destinations in March 2014. Fewer young people, fewer young people leaving school with no qualifications at all—something that we should all celebrate. The June 2014 Audit Scotland report found that exam performance has improved over the last decade against all 10 of the attainment measures examined. Those are achievements not of this Government but achievements of young people, teachers and parents across the country. However, yes, there is more to do. As long as I am First Minister, we will have an iron focus on making sure that we do the work that is needed to be done in education to give every single young person in this country, regardless of their background, the best possible start in life. Kezia Dugdale, Mr Dugdale. For years, education professionals, teachers and parents have been warning this Government about the exam system. This evidence from a third party senior academic is very serious information that I would request that the First Minister takes very seriously indeed. We are talking about a 20 per cent drop in attainment in one year, and that answer did not give it any justification whatsoever. However, my question was specifically about numeracy, and the First Minister said that the progress was not enough. It is far from not enough. It is just 25 per cent. One quarter of S2 pupils from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have the numeracy skills that they should. It is clear that pupils from the wealthiest backgrounds do twice as well. Is that not a damning indictment of this SNP Government? In eight years, Presiding Officer, this really matters, that a child's ability to read and write still depends on the income of their parents should be a source of shame to this Parliament. After eight years in office, the SNP's record on education is this, the vast majority of S2 pupils from the poorest backgrounds falling behind on numeracy, the number of pupils passing exams plumeting and the number of people going to college falling dramatically. In a globalised world, where education matters more than any time in our history, Scotland's young people are being let down. Is this really a report card to be proud of? I will take seriously any evidence cited to me, but more than that, I will make sure that we act on that evidence, which is why, as I have already said, we have announced the attainment challenge back by £100 million of new funding so that we can continue to build on the work that we have been doing to improve education, not just for those in our least deprived areas, but for every single young person in this country. There is nothing more important to me, and I am sure that I speak on behalf of people right across this chamber than education. I said in this chamber last week or the week before that I would not be standing here if I had not had the benefit of a great education. As First Minister, I owe it to every single young person across our country to ensure that they get a great education too, and that is a responsibility that I take seriously. Let me turn to things such as damning indictments and report cards, because Kezia Dugdale talks about the last eight years. For the last eight years, Labour in Scotland has played the same old tune—SNP bad—in every single thing that we do according to Labour. The Scottish people issued their own report card on Scottish Labour just last week, and that report card resulted in Scottish Labour getting their worst election result, their lowest share of the vote in living memory. That is what the Scottish people think of Scottish Labour. I have heard this morning that there is a letter circulating. People are being asked to sign a letter to keep Jim Murphy in a job as Scottish Labour leader. I have only got one thing to ask Kezia Dugdale. Where can I sign? To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. First Minister, I have no plans present, although I spoke to him in the phone yesterday afternoon. In two of her answers to Ms Dugdale, the First Minister highlighted the £100 million attainment gap fund that was brought forward by her Government. Today, the SNP-dominated Education Committee has reported back on just such efforts by the Government to tackle the worrying gap in attainment between children in our poorest communities and those in the better off. The committee says that it is not clear how those efforts by the Government will in any way help to close that gap. Yet responding to legitimate concerns from this side of the chamber yesterday, the SNP's education secretary simply insisted that we had much to be proud of and issued an incoherent rant against school reform in England, which had not even been mentioned. It is a depressingly stock tactic to attack English measures in order to brush aside the problems in Scotland. We all know that this Government has set aside £100 million to boost attainment, but if even an SNP-dominated education committee has no idea what effect it will have, what chance to the rest of us? First Minister. We are currently working with the seven local authorities that will benefit in the first instance from our attainment fund to make sure that we have in place with them robust and measurable plans to ensure that the money that we are investing does deliver results in closing the attainment gap. I understand that the education secretary has or will receive a letter from the education committee. It will be responded to in full with the detail that the committee is looking for. That is exactly how the Government should treat reasonable requests of committees. In all sincerity, we will have our political ding-dongs across the chamber. I said to Kezia Dugdale and I will say it again. There is nothing. Nothing matters to me more personally than making sure that we face up to any challenges in our education system. There will be no ideology that gets in the way of doing what needs to be done. I will invite Ruth Davidson, Kezia Dugdale and anybody across the chamber. If they have ideas and suggestions about what they think the Government should be doing, I will listen to that. I am not going to make any excuses. I am proud and I have read out—I will not do it again—the achievements of young people, teachers and parents across this country. We have got a good education system. The OECD's piece of study shows that Scotland is narrowing the attainment gap, but there is much, much, much more work to do. I am absolutely determined that we do it. Ruth Davidson. The education committee did not just stop there in its letter, which I have in front of me here. It also states that in many schools there is far too much emphasis on driving pupils towards university to the detriment of some. Those are issues that the Scottish Conservatives have been raising with the First Minister for some time. We need an expansion of college places, and we are committed to 10,000 more apprenticeships so that young people can earn while they learn. The First Minister likes to write shopping lists of further powers that she wants to see devolved, but the SNP has had full control of our education system for eight years with no limits whatsoever. Yet in that time, this Government has slashed college places. It has presided over a slump in both literacy and numeracy standards, and it has got Scotland to a position where far fewer youngsters from poor backgrounds are now going to university than anywhere else in these islands. So is it not the case that on-school standards, in university attendance and at college, Scotland's poorer children are now getting a worse deal than they did when the SNP came to power? No, that is absolutely and fatically not the case. Just as an aside, let me offer the view that swinging austerity cuts to the Scottish Government budget does not amount to no limitations on what this Government can do, but that is an aside because I take seriously our responsibility. Ruth Davidson mentioned university education. Let me say two things about that. Firstly, when a young person wants to go to university and aspires to go to university, they should have the opportunity to do so regardless of their background, just like I did when I was a 17-year-old. That is why we set up the commission to look at tackling inequality and access to university, because I want a young person born today to have the same chance of going to university regardless of their background. However, Ruth Davidson wants to stop talking at me across the chamber and listen to me. We might actually manage to get some consensus going here. The second point that I would make is this one. Where a young person doesn't want to go to university or wants to pursue a career in a different direction, they should be supported to do so. That is why we are delivering record numbers of modern apprenticeships. I visited GSK in Irvine a few weeks ago, a few months ago perhaps it is now, talking to young people who would have been perfectly capable of going to university but chose to follow the vocational route instead. We are supporting young people who want to do that. We also set up the wood commission on developing Scotland's young workforce, and we are investing the resources to take forward the recommendations, making sure that there are the right links between schools and businesses, making sure that young people know all of the options that are open to them and then have the support to follow the options that they think are most appropriate to them. Whether it is on early years, whether it is on school education, whether it is on college education or whether it is on access to university—access to university without the burden of tuition fees, I hasten to add—this Government will never ever, as long as I am in charge of it, shy away from our responsibility to give our young people the best education and the best start in life. Dennis Robertson The First Minister will be aware of the recent announcement by sub-C7 in my constituency of over 400 job losses to the energy sector. That is on top of job losses that we have had announcements of over the past few weeks. Will the First Minister consider meeting with the energy sector in the north-east to try to ensure that we do not have a situation where the job losses mean that we cannot fulfil our contracts in terms of extracting the energy and ensuring that we have a skilled force for the future? The Scottish Government, in particular, meets regularly with companies working in the energy sector and in the oil and gas sector. The energy advisory board will meet shortly, and I will continue to meet regularly and appropriately with companies and other interested individuals. Sub-C, the company cited by Dennis Robertson, is one that the Government knows well and will continue to be in contact with. The jobs task force that I established in January is also working with a range of companies in the north-east sector to seek to minimise job losses and to help those who are affected by redundancy situations into alternative employment. It is met already on a number of occasions. Of course, PACE is also deployed in any circumstances where people are facing redundancy in order to provide appropriate support. I am sure that John Swinney or Fergus Ewing would be very happy to meet with the member to discuss those issues in more detail. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has made an assessment of the likely impact on Scotland of a £12 billion reduction in the UK welfare system. Well, the UK Government, of course, has not yet set out how it will achieve those cuts, so we have not yet been able to make a full assessment of the impact in Scotland. However, it is assumed that Scotland took a proportionate share of the £12 billion cut. Benefit expenditure in Scotland would be reduced by around £1 billion. That reduction would, of course, be in addition to the estimated £6 billion cut to the Scottish welfare bill over the six years to this financial year. The Scottish Government is already working hard to mitigate against the worst of those measures and our current funding will result in an investment of around £296 million over the period 2013-14 to 15-16. I want to see an alternative to those measures because I do not believe that it is right that we continue to see some of the most vulnerable people in our society being placed into poverty or pushed further into poverty. Patrick Harvie Well, we cannot know what the impact of those cuts will be given that the Conservative party committed to them without caring how they are going to be achieved. No wonder, then, that one of the attendees at the poverty alliance event here last night told me that she has never seen such a tangible level of fear among so many people in the face of this threat to what remains of the welfare state. We can argue for greater control of social security in Scotland, but surely we also have a responsibility to build widespread opposition to those cuts across the whole of the UK. Does the First Minister agree that the assault on those in greatest need follows years of stigmatising and blaming people in poverty—indeed, a propaganda war against the welfare state itself? What will the Scottish Government do in its actions and in its use of language to reclaim the principle of a society based on mutual care and compassion, where everyone's dignity matters, not just those who are labelled strivers or hard-working families? The First Minister I very much agree with Patrick Harvie. I agree with him both on the substance of his question and the sentiment that lies behind it. For our part, the Scottish Government will never seek to stigmatise the most vulnerable in our society. I take the view—I hope that it is shared on most sides of the chamber, if not on all sides of the chamber—that a decent social security system that looks after people in need is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society. What the Conservatives over the past five years helped by the Liberals have done to start to rip away that safety net is absolutely appalling. I believe that we all have a duty to oppose any further attempts to take that safety net away. Patrick Harvie rightly talked about the lack of care taken over the detail of the £12 billion cuts. I cannot have been the only person completely and utterly appalled to hear Ian Duncan-Smith three days before the general election say this. As soon as we have done the work and had it properly modelled, then we will let everybody know what the impact is. That really does sum it up. The Government will continue to do a number of things. First, we will continue as far as we can. As I said yesterday, there will be a limit to how effectively we can do this, but as far as we can, we will seek to mitigate the worst impact of those cuts. Secondly, as Patrick Harvie has invited us to do, we will be part of marshalling the opposition to £12 billion additional of cuts to our welfare budget. Thirdly, and most importantly, and I repeat what I said yesterday to Labour, please be part of this, we will do everything in our power to rest the powers over welfare out of the hands of the Tory Government and put them into the hands of this democratically elected Parliament. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister how Scotland compares to EU member states on the issue of LGBTI equality. First Minister. I am very proud of Scotland's record as a leader in LGBTI equality and I am delighted that ILGA Europe last week recognised us as the best European country for legal equality for LGBTI people, ranking Scotland ahead of the UK as a whole. We were the first national government in Europe to fund a transgender rights project, the first country in the UK to consult on introducing same-sex marriage, and Pride House Glasgow at last year's Commonwealth Games was the first Pride House to receive government support. Although we have made great progress, there is still room for improvement and that is why we continue to work closely with stakeholders like the equality network to help ensure that LGBTI people experience full equality in all areas of their lives. Thank you, First Minister, for her answer and I agree that while it is encouraging that Scotland is leading way, there is still much work to be done. However, does the First Minister share my concerns that barriers to further progress in tackling discrimination against the LGBTI individuals in her society may arise if the Conservative Westminster Government progressed in its intention to repeal the human rights act? Yes, I agree with that. The human rights act matters because it protects the rights to which everybody in our society is entitled. It has been instrumental in allowing people who have historically suffered discrimination and exclusion to challenge treatment that has no place in my view in a modern civilised society. That matters hugely to LGBTI people in Scotland throughout the UK and beyond. Without the underpinning of fundamental rights provided by the European Convention on Human Rights and legislation like the human rights act, the immense progress that we have seen since the 1980s on LGBTI rights would undoubtedly have been more difficult. Although that progress has been achieved in Scotland, there are far too many countries around the world where LGBTI people continue to live in fear of their lives. I think that it is hugely disappointing that the UK Government now appears intent on attacking human rights in the way that they have indicated. As I have said previously this week, the Scottish Government will do everything in our power to ensure that vital human rights protections remain for people in Scotland. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that there is a need to protect private tenants from unfair rent rises. The Scottish Government's vision is for a private rented sector that provides good quality homes, high management standards and inspires consumer confidence. We want tenants to have more security and to be able to assert their rights without fear of eviction. That is why we have consulted on a new tendency for the private rented sector, which proposes to end unpredictability and rent increases by prohibiting more than one rent increase a year with 12 weeks notice required for any change and protection for tenants against unfair or excessive rent heights through a process of adjudication. There is widespread support for the Government's plans to simplify and clarify the private rented sector tenancy system and improve security of tenure by removing the no-fault grounds for repossession. Does the First Minister recognise that there are also concerns that, by holding a second consultation, that could mean that the timetable for legislation is in danger of slipping and that the Government's proposals do not go far enough to make the private rented sector secure, flexible and affordable for tenants? While we wait for the bill, could the First Minister confirm whether she supports the reintroduction of rent controls? Does she believe that tenants' welfare should be put first and that tenants must be protected by being given sufficient and justifiable notice to leave by Wang Lord? It is all those objectives that have led to us consulting in the way that I have outlined. The consultation that I referred to and that Michael McMahon has referred to attracted over seven and a half thousand responses to be analysed by an independent social research company. We expect to publish the findings in early August and we have committed to introducing a bill to Parliament this autumn, so we are determined to keep that timetable on track. We want to see a private rented sector that provides good quality homes and high standards of management and make sure that tenants who live in those homes have the protection that they deserve. We have consulted on a range of proposals around a new tenancy and some of the issues to do with rent increases that Michael McMahon speaks about. We are serious about tackling those issues, but I am sure that all members will understand that having embarked on the consultation is absolutely essential that we now complete the process. I am glad to hear and look forward to the new modern tenancy regime where rent rises will be more proportionate. Will the First Minister and her Government support tenants to have the right to stay longer than the current six months in their homes? The First Minister and her Government want to make sure that tenants have appropriate security of tenure. That is what this is entirely about. When we bring forward the bill, as we plan to do, as I said, in the autumn, our proposals will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Members like Jim Hume, if they do not think that they go far enough in any particular area, will have the opportunity to put forward amendments. We are absolutely determined that we deliver a modern private rented sector tenancy fit for the future. That encourages people to make available homes for rent because they are required, but also makes sure that people who rely on the private rented sector can also rely on very high-quality standards. That is a commitment that we have given and are absolutely determined to deliver. The last point that I would make in this, of course, is that, while this is hugely important, the way, ultimately, to improve the affordability of housing is to increase supply of housing. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, our planned investment in affordable housing will exceed £1.7 billion, with three quarters of the way into our five-year target for affordable housing and are confident that we are going to meet that target. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the concerns raised by the charity clan child law regarding the data-sharing aspect of the name person legislation? The name person service has been developed very carefully over more than a decade, with extensive input and wide support from experts. It seeks to put the best interests of every child and young person at the heart of decision making. We have been very clear that information should only be shared in a manner that is proportionate and respects the views of children and young people and, of course, within existing legal frameworks. It is worth also pointing out that, in January, Lord Pentland rejected the petition against the name person on all grounds and ruled that it did not contravene ECHR or EU law. I thank the First Minister for that, but, despite that court ruling by Lord Pentland, clan child law is arguing very strongly that the balance between the data-sharing amongst professionals and the ability of the young person to access confidential services has shifted far too far to the data-sharing, meaning that young people will be less likely to engage with the existing services that should protect them. That is at the same time as the Scottish Association of Social Workers says that its members are increasingly concerned about the very low threshold for intervention in family life. Isn't it time, First Minister, that name persons were scrapped? First Minister? No, I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with that. Information sharing should always be proportionate to concerns about wellbeing, but reports over the past 20 years on significant case reviews into the deaths of children show that very often a key weakness in protecting those children was the failure to share information about the child's wellbeing. The court's decision on the judicial review of the name person makes clear that the provisions within the act on information sharing are entirely lawful and do not contravene the data protection act or the European convention on human rights. The courts finding on the data protection act is consistent with advice from the information commissioner's office. We will continue to work with the information commissioner's office and with stakeholders on clear guidance on how to fulfil the obligations to share information in the circumstances that sit out in the act. What I have said about proportionality is important. Of course, young people in many circumstances will seek to take advice or share information on a confidential basis, and we need to make sure that they have the ability to do that. None of us, in whatever positions we hold, can give absolute guarantees around that. I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say that none of us want to be reading in the years to come further reports into the death of a child where lack of information sharing put that child at greater risk. We will continue to act appropriately here and we will continue to act in a way that has the wellbeing of all children absolutely at the heart of our decision making. That ends First Minister's questions. A point of order, Stuart Maxwell. I seek your guidance. Ruth Davidson, on her first question to the First Minister, stated that the Education and Skills Committee had published a report on attainment. That statement is untrue. The Education and Skills Committee wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Education to seek the Government's views on a number of questions raised by submissions to the committee on their education inquiry into attainment. Secondly, Ruth Davidson then went on to suggest and strongly suggest that the committee had taken a view and in fact reached conclusions on those submissions to our inquiry. That is also untrue and I would ask how a member can get the record corrected so that Ruth Davidson does not tell something to this chamber, which is frankly untrue on at least two points. The convener of the education committee has raised some questions. What I will do is go away and reflect on the issues that are raised and I will come back later in the session. Ms Davidson, do you wish to say something? I would happily respond to the convener of the education committee, Presiding Officer, and I take this opportunity to do so when I have it recorded on the record. I made clear in my exchange between the First Minister and myself that it was a letter. I even said that I had a copy of the letter here. Order. Let's hear Ms Davidson. I am happy to read directly from it. It says, It is clearly a desire for improvements to be made to our education system in order to ensure that far more pupils leave school and achieve a good outcome, be that a job or further education that leads to a job. It is not clear, however, the extent to which the efforts under way and the further improvements suggested will serve to now look at the team. Ms Davidson, that is not a point of order. I can read the official report as well as anybody. What I did say was that I will go away and I will reflect on it and I will come back.