 Rwy'n gallu fod yn dweud i Gwylechol, ond gan trun iawn o'r teimloon rwy'n gy oystersu. Rwy'n gallu fod yn dweud i Gwylechol, ond gan thrun iawn o'r teimloon rwy'n gyarbeiteniad o'r teimloon, ond yn dod o'r dewis ac yn de Course, yn hynny nesaf cam o'i anghofu i gael arloedd ar gyfer Dweudiaeth Gawr. Rydyn ni'n rhoi i'n mynd i'n cael ei gael cyflawn. Rydyn ni'n rhoi i'n gael ar gyflosasu sy'n gumru oedd巧ch cyflawn i'n gael cyflawn i'n tax changes that she makes. Will she grant the request that has been made by economists and trade bodies to conduct a full, independent and thorough economic assessment of any tax changes before they are undertaken? First Minister. We will consider any reasonable request that is made in the context of the discussions that we will have following the publication of today's paper. Of course, it is incumbent on the finance secretary and the Government generally to put forward proposals that we consider to be in the best interests of the country as a whole. In my view, the most important aspect of the paper that we have published today are the four key tests that should guide our decision making. We need to make sure that we protect the ability of this Parliament to fund our public services. We need to protect those on the lowest incomes. We need to make the tax system fair and tackle inequality. Of course, we need to make sure that the interests of our economy are absolutely at the heart of all the decisions that we take. One of the things that I said this morning—and I genuinely think that all of us in Parliament should try to embrace this—often debates on tax are seen as the interests of the economy on the one hand versus the interests of public services on the other. I think that that is the wrong way to look at it. Our taxes pay for the infrastructure that our economy needs and the additional support for entrepreneurs that I was announcing just yesterday. They pay for the small business bonus, which removes small businesses from the burden of business rates. We need to look at this from the point of view of what kind of country we want to be, what kind of economy we want to have and what kind of society we want. The final point that I would make is this. In the spirit of an open discussion, I hope that the Conservatives would reflect on the fact that their policy, which has been analysed in the paper, along with the policies from our manifestos last year of all the parties, the Conservative proposal would reduce public spending in Scotland by £140 million. Given that Ruth Davidson regularly asks me to increase public spending on a range of issues, I think that that is something that the Tories have to seriously reflect upon. Ruth Davidson There is a reason, Presiding Officer, that I asked specifically about the economic assessment that economists and trade bodies want. That is because—and it perhaps properly hasn't been understood—under the new deal agreed between the UK and Scottish Governments, if Scotland's economy grows more quickly than the rest of the UK, the additional revenues will flow directly to Holyrood, whereas if Scotland grows more slowly, revenue will drop. We all need to know if a tax rise will slow down growth in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK. Job creators, retailers and industry figures have stated their belief that this will happen if taxes rise. How does the First Minister answer their concerns? The First Minister Her concerns will be answered in the round of decisions that we take. As I have said very clearly, those decisions must have the interests of public services, the lowest earners in our society and the economy at heart. It is coming to balanced, responsible and progressive decisions that are the objective of this Government. Of course, as Ruth Davidson is also aware, the Scottish Fiscal Commission now has the statutory responsibility for providing the tax forecast that the Scottish budget will be based upon. We have had the office of the chief economist carry out the analysis in the paper, but the analysis that will guide our budget, of course, is done by the Fiscal Commission, who will take into account a range of different factors. Two final points to make on that. First, on Ruth Davidson's point about tax generally, one of the points that I made this morning—I see a think tank reform Scotland making this same point—is that it would be better for all of us if Scotland had a wider range of tax powers at our disposal. It is not an ideal position to be in to simply have income tax to look at, but that is the position that we are in, and therefore we have to take balanced, progressive decisions on the basis of that. Finally, the competitiveness and the attractiveness of our economy is not just about our tax rates—important, though that is. It is also about the quality of our public services, it is about the skills of our population, it is about the infrastructure that we have as a country. Right now, Scotland has the highest quality public service provision anywhere in the UK. We have the most generous social contract anywhere in the UK, and taking account of any of the potential options in the tax paper that we have published today, Scotland will remain the most cost-effective place to be in the UK. That is a great position to be in, but because of Brexit, because of austerity, policies imposed by Ruth Davidson's party, we have to ask ourselves how we protect all that matters to us as a country. That is what will drive the decisions that this Government takes. Ruth Davidson. There is another principle that I would hope that the Scottish Government would follow that it has not mentioned so far, and that is simplicity, because the Fraser Valander Institute has made clear that there is a strong argument for keeping the tax system as straightforward and transparent as possible. As it points out, the more complex it becomes, the more inefficient it is. One of the proposals that I put forward this morning suggests that many are six tax bans, so will the First Minister take heed of warnings that a new more complex tax system could create unintended consequences that will detrimentally impact the amount of money that has been raised? First Minister. There is an irony behind that question, because it is commonly accepted that the UK right now has the most complex tax system anywhere in the world. Much of what lies behind that, even with income tax, remains outwith the power and responsibility of this Parliament. However, let me look at the proposals that are in the paper for discussion to illustrate the options that are open to us. Some of them propose a greater number of tax bans. One of the things that is commented on in the paper is that, by international standards, that number, even the highest number in those options today, which would be six tax bans, would not be unusual in an international context. It is also a point that is made in the paper. Often in tax systems, the more bans there are, the more progressive the tax system is overall, because it allows tax to be more acutely aligned to the ability to pay now. I know that progressive tax and relating it to the ability to pay is not a principle particularly close to the hearts of the Conservatives, but it is a principle very close to the hearts of this Government. I come back to the central point. We have good-quality public services, albeit that they have challenges. We have a good social contract, good support for business and infrastructure, but we face further austerity from the Tories and the impact of Brexit. We know that we face an ageing population. If we want to protect the society and the economy that we want to have, then those discussions are vital. That is why the question, or the point that I posed earlier on to Ruth Davidson, is an important one. The Tories' proposal analysing the paper is to give a tax cut to the top 10 per cent of earners in the country, which would take £140 million out of the Scottish budget. Ruth Davidson and the Conservatives, before they go any further in this tax debate, have to explain how they would pay for that and who would bear the burden of that. Ruth Davidson? Despite the attempt of distortions, the reasons that we support a competitive tax regime is because we believe that that will develop Scotland's economy, boosting the income tax that we need for our schools and hospitals. We do not think that it is right that every Scot earning more than £24,000 should have to pay more, because the bottom line here is about getting growth, and we are lagging behind. Scotland's economy is currently growing at a third of the rate of the United Kingdom. When we looked to the Scottish Government just this week, we discovered a £500 million growth scheme announced a year ago still to distribute a single penny. We see that it has failed to meet a pledge to set up a new strategic board to take forward its plans on enterprise and skills by the deadline that was set. We have a First Minister who wants to start a debate about raising taxes, but does she not see that, first and foremost, we need to have a debate about boosting economic growth in Scotland to levels at least that of elsewhere in these islands? I do not know—I am not quite sure where Ruth Davidson has been in recent weeks—but Nora Signe, a very highly respected businesswoman in Scotland, has been appointed to chair the strategic board and is currently working hard to put that in place to make sure that we align the work of our enterprise and skills agencies. I can also point out to Ruth Davidson that it may have passed her by, but one of the illustrative options in this paper would reduce tax for the very lowest-income earners in Scotland, making the system even more progressive. We come back to the central point. I absolutely agree—and let's make this a point of consensus—that it is absolutely of central importance to support the growth of our economy. Ruth Davidson's proposal would involve in the budget that we will set in a matter of weeks time if we were to take forward Ruth Davidson's proposal for a tax cut for the very richest and highest earners in our society of finding £140 million to take out of our budget before we do anything else. I say again to Ruth Davidson that that is an issue that she has to answer in this debate. For the part of our Government, we will put forward our proposals to protect our public services, to protect our ability to invest in the economy and to make sure that we are doing everything that we possibly can to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Those are our priorities and they will guide the development and the decisions in our budget. Jackie Baillie I welcome the discussion paper on tax and the focus on progressive taxation, but can the First Minister tell the chamber how much she needs to raise to endosterity? The First Minister. Jackie Baillie I encourage Labour to take part in this discussion, in the spirit that we are opening this discussion. The analysis sets out very openly how much each of the proposals of the parties at the election last year would raise. It sets out how much would be raised by the alternative proposals that we have put forward. That is a starting point for discussion. We have to balance a budget, we have to take account of different things, we have to mitigate austerity. As I have said before, we have to provide a fair pay increase for our public sector workers. Let us have that discussion and let us try to come to a consensus that is in the best interest of everybody across our country. Jackie Baillie Let me help the First Minister with an answer, because I think that you need to know the scale of the challenge that you face. To endosterity, you need to raise more than £800 million in revenue over the next two years. That is before we consider additional commitments. However, the Government's proposals, published today in the tax paper, raised a maximum of £290 million. That does not even come close to closing the gap. There is a black hole in the budget and more services will end up being cut. On top of that, after months of labour pressure, the First Minister has promised public sector workers a pay rise, and that is very welcome indeed. However, public sector workers have not had a pay rise since 2010—not a proper decent pay rise, so we need to be clear and we need a specific answer from the First Minister. Will she keep her promise and deliver a cost of living real terms pay rise to public sector workers and will it be fully funded by the Scottish Government? Labour seems mired in confusion in this debate. Jackie Baillie puts a figure of £800 million before us today. Labour's proposals—or at least the latest Labour proposals, because there have been so many—don't come close to raising that. Unless Labour is saying that it is going to pile more pressure on to the lowest income tax payers, then they have questions to answer there. On public sector pay, I have been very clear. We will set out our public sector pay policy, the detail of that when we publish our budget. That is the normal course of events. I want to see fair pay increases for our public sector workers. Of course they have got to be affordable, which is one of the reasons that this debate on tax is so important. We have set out here a range of possible options. There may be other options that parties want to bring forward, but let us go into the discussion in the spirit of trying to find consensus that is in the interests of our society, our public services and our economy. That is what I would encourage all parties to do. At least those of us on this side of the chamber, let us not forget that, yes, the impact of Tory austerity goes further than anything that this Parliament can do to mitigate it. That is why we should keep up the pressure on the Conservatives and on the Chancellor as we go forward to his budget to stop austerity, to end austerity at source, not to have it passed on to the shoulders of the most vulnerable in our society. Jackie Baillie Let me provide the First Minister with some detail. Can I refer to page 32 of her own document when Labour's proposals are costed at around £700 million in one year? I talked about £800 million in two years. I think that even she will agree that there is more than enough in Labour's proposals to end austerity, something that she has so far refused to do. However, with this Government, promises are made to be broken. Her promise to parents and teachers to cut class sizes is broken. Her promise to our young people to abolish student debt is broken. Her promise to our elderly to eradicate delayed discharge in our hospitals is broken. Now she also has a promise that she made to patients of a legal guarantee to treatment within 12 weeks is also broken. Now we have, before us, a tax plan that simply does not add up and a list of commitments she knows that she cannot pay for. So tell me, First Minister, who are you going to fail next? First Minister. On the basis of that performance, no wonder Labour is going through leaders or people at the dispatch block at the rate that they are. Maybe one of those days they will find one capable of asking a decent question. However, let's get back to this. In all seriousness, Jackie Baillie, James Kelly, is shouting at me, watching the answer. What was the question? She asked me. I mean, if anybody could work that out, they're doing a lot better than me, but I think that Labour has just demonstrated that it is incapable of the kind of mature, serious and honest debate that this document actually opens the door to. You know what, Jackie Baillie? I'm not sure if Jackie Baillie did this deliberately, or whether she just doesn't understand the figures in this paper. However, when she was quoting figures about the Labour policy, she deliberately excluded the behaviour change element, but when she quoted the figures about the SNP policy, she included that. So you can do it one way or the other, but you've got to be consistent. So let's get back to the central point at issue here. We have opened the door today to a serious, mature, grown-up discussion about how we fund our public services and our economy. Let's see if any of the other parties in this chamber are capable of such maturity. Members, please be a little bit more quiet. Listen to the question and then listen to the answer respectfully. I live and hope that we'll take some constituency questions. The First Minister will be aware of proposals by the City of Edinburgh Council to close one of Scotland's national centres of excellence at City of Edinburgh music school. I declare a personal interest as my daughter is an alumna of the school. Can the First Minister confirm that funding for Scotland's national centres of excellence across the country continues to be provided by the Scottish Government? Does she agree that the City of Edinburgh Council does not have unfettered discretion to close the school? Importantly, will she consider how in the near future the financial arrangements in place to support all of Scotland's national centres of excellence can be restated and made clear to ensure that staff, parents, pupils and future pupils have clarity and certainty about the future of those world-class facilities? First Minister, I agree that those are world-class facilities. In answer to the specific parts of Andy Wightman's question, yes, there is specific funding for the school, although that is now rolled up within the total local government settlement. We highly value the role of all six centres of excellence in Scotland, including the City of Edinburgh music school. The Scottish Government has been engaging with the City of Edinburgh Council on the matter. Of course, it is only a proposal that the council is considering at this stage in its budget consultation, but I think that the council will want to reflect the fact that those centres of excellence, including the music school, allow children and young people across Scotland the opportunity to receive expert tuition in their specialism, in this case music. That is something very valuable, and I think that there is plenty of evidence of that, and I am sure that the importance of that is something that the City of Edinburgh Council is reflecting on carefully. Maurice Golden Molly is 18 months old. She suffers from reflux and will not eat solid food. Facing a 12-week weight to see a specialist, Molly's parents were extremely concerned about the physical and psychological impact of the condition. Molly was then told by Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS that her weight had increased to 21 weeks. The development and wellbeing of a baby is on the line. Will the First Minister agree to meet Molly's parents and urgently look into this case? First Minister, based on what I have heard from the member, I absolutely understand the anxiety of Molly's parents. This is a situation that will be of huge concern to them. The wellbeing and development of all babies is of absolutely paramount importance. I will certainly urgently look into this case and avail myself of the detail of it, and I will ask the health secretary to write to the member. If necessary, I will certainly engage with the parents of Molly, and I am sure that we all want to wish them and Molly the very best. Jamie Greene Technical issues and staffing problems are severely disrupting the guructical Craig and Ferry service. The service is regularly off for weeks on end, and it is again suspended this week. The current situation is untenable and unacceptable. The transport minister has promised to get a grip of the situation, but local patients are running extremely thin. What assurance can the First Minister provide today that a solution is in sight and that users of the Cocheg and Ferry will finally get the service that they deserve? The First Minister Well, it is hugely important that people who rely on our ferry services have reliable services to use. That is the case in this route, as it is with all the routes that we invest heavily in our ferry services. There are many new routes available now on the specifics of guructical Craig and the issues that the member is raising. I will speak directly to the transport minister and ask him to reply to the member. It is vital that there are issues that are being experienced, that everything that is possible is done to rectify and resolve them. Question 3, Patrick Harvie. Thank you. I also welcome the very interesting discussion paper on income tax from the Government today. Last year in the election, between all the political parties, three basic ideas were put forward on tax. One, no change, whether without a little tweaking on the thresholds that would have benefited only the wealthiest. Or an increase on the basic rate, which would have increased tax for low earners. Finally, the green proposition showed that we can raise revenue for our public services while protecting low earners and reducing inequalities with a fairer range of rates and bans. Is not it clear now that there is no change option that the SNP put forward is off the table and an increase in the basic rate is off the table and the green option of a fairer range of rates and bans is the only serious option left standing? 10 out of 10 for effort in claiming credit for everything in the paper. Let me just say in point of fact that the SNP's proposal from our manifesto last year was not no change, and that is borne out in the paper in terms of the revenue forecasts for that. Patrick Harvie is right to say that we were not in agreement with proposals that would increase tax for the lowest earners, and I still do not favour proposals that increase tax for the lowest earners. However, I recognise in the programme for government that, given the pressures that we face and given our desire and determination to protect what really matters to people across Scotland, we must have an open and honest discussion about whether those on the highest incomes pay a modest amount more to try to enable us to protect services. We look forward to engaging in those discussions. I hope that all parties will do so constructively. The other point, and to be fair to Patrick Harvie, is a point that he has made previously. I am frequently told in this chamber that we are a minority administration. If all parties simply stick to their manifesto positions, we will not pass a budget. If this Parliament does not pass a budget, this Parliament fails in its duty to the Scottish people. We have an opportunity now not to stick doggedly to previous positions, but to come into discussion with the best interests of the country at heart. If we all do that, we will get a budget pass, but more importantly, we will get the right budget pass. My first question was not meant as a criticism. I congratulate the First Minister for seeing the sense in what the Greens have been advocating for the past couple of years. It is very clear that the only way that the Scottish Government can pass a budget this year is by raising enough revenue for public priorities such as an inflation-based increase in public sector pay, but to do it fairly in a way that reduces inequality. If we do that, is it not also clear that there must then be an equally open and creative discussion about the other side of the tax picture, the local tax picture, where the SNP has stalled on local tax reform for far too long, something that is overdue and a project that must be put back on to the agenda? First, we made reforms last year to the system of local taxation. Those reforms are right now providing additional revenue that are helping to support public services right across the country. I know Patrick Harvie's position on wider reform to local tax, and no doubt that is a discussion that we will all continue to have in the years to come. However, this Parliament has a job ahead of it over the next few weeks, and that is to come to a position on tax and to pass a budget that protects our public services and protects investment in our economy. The document that we have published today I think gives us a really good foundation to try to do that. This will be a test not just of the Government's ability to be open and honest and realistic and mature in our approach to this. It will be a test of every party in this Parliament as well. Let's see if we can live up to that test, all of us collectively. The next few weeks will answer that question for us. Some more supplementaries. The first is from Mary Fee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Papers released this week from the joint programme board overseeing the British Transport Police merger show that there is still work required to assess the cost of the merger. Does the First Minister agree that progressing the merger of the British Transport Police and Police Scotland without doing a full cost analysis in the first instance demonstrates a shocking lack of financial prudence on the part of the Scottish Government? Further, what comments does the First Minister have on the petition handed in this week with more than 11,500 signatures against the merger? The First Minister. No, I do not agree with Mary Fee. The merger of the British Transport Police, which has now been devolved to the Scottish Government, is something that Labour supported in the context of the Smith commission. It has been taken forward for three main reasons, to improve accountability, to make sure that transport police have access to the wider range of resources of Police Scotland, but also to future-proof the governance of the British Transport Police. We know that the Conservative UK manifesto at the last election said that they were going to create a bigger infrastructure police force and absorb the British Transport Police within that. If we do not take actions here, we risk leaving the British Transport Police isolated within that governance structure. We will take forward those proposals sensibly and responsibly. The joint programme board is there precisely to do the detailed work to make sure that that is a success. We will continue, of course, to work with those who are employed in the British Transport Police to make sure that we are taking account of all of their concerns as we go forward. Thank you, Presiding Officer. 50 years ago today, the people of Hamilton and Blantire elected Winnie Ewing. 2 November 1967 was in many ways the start of modern Scottish politics in which this nation aspires to being an outward-looking, gender-balanced European nation. Does the First Minister agree now that, in 1967, the message should ring out, stop the world that Scotland wants to get on? Of course, it was in this day in 1967 that Winnie Ewing won the Hamilton by-election. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that that by-election changed the course of Scottish political history. Winnie Ewing has been a trailblazer in so many ways, as a champion of Scottish independence, as a woman in a man's world, and in this Parliament, when she famously reconvened it in 1999, Winnie Ewing is quite simply a legend in her own lifetime. If you are watching, we send you our love, and we thank you. This week, the UK Government published the report of the independent inquiry, chaired by Dame Elish Angelini, into death in custody, along with their response. I have previously called for an inquiry into death in custody in Scotland, because I strongly believe that there could be improvements both in the interests of families and the police, particularly following the death of Shekou Bayou while in police custody in Fife. Will the First Minister commit to holding an inquiry, and can I also ask for her response to Dame Angelini's report and the relevance of its recommendations for Scotland? First Minister. Of course, we will carefully consider Dame Elish Angelini's report. The Government will do that. I am sure that the Crown Office will do that as well. It is important to remind members that custody arrangements in Scotland are distinct from those in England and Wales. Under the fatal accidents and sudden death Scotland Act 2016, an FAI fatal accident inquiry must be held into any death in police custody unless the Lord Advocate is satisfied that the circumstances have already been clearly established in other proceedings. However, we recognise that improvements could be made, so we will study the report carefully and determine whether there are any actions that either the Scottish Government or the Crown Office will decide whether there are any actions that they require to take. While understanding the concern that members have in the circumstances surrounding the death of Shekou Bayou, the member will appreciate that I am not able to comment more directly on that right now, because that is still under consideration by the Crown Office. However, those are important issues that the Government will pay serious attention to. Question 4, Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister. In light of reports, that McMillan cancer support is acting to combat so-called fake news regarding health conditions, what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that people are not misled by fake medical information online? That is an important question. I think that McMillan's appointment of a digital nurse is really welcome and will be a very useful resource for patients. Accessible, robust and accurate medical information is vital, which is why NHS 24 produces the website NHSinform.scot. NHS Inform follows strict on-going clinical quality assurance processes in partnership with a range of organisations, including McMillan cancer support, to verify the accuracy and quality of content. I urge anybody who wants to go online to look into any medical condition to use NHSinform.scot, because they can be assured that they get reliable and accurate information there. Stuart McMillan. I thank the First Minister for that reply. As the services on NHS Inform, such as the information on treatments and tests and guided to finding the right local services, can be of use to many people across Scotland, can the First Minister outline what steps have been taken to promote the website for better use in Scotland? NHS Inform provides a range of information, not just on procedures but also advice on healthy living, on different illnesses and conditions and on health rights, among other subjects. In April of this year, NHS 24 launched a publicity campaign, including social media activity and advertisements on buses and trains, that has significantly raised public awareness of NHS Inform. The number of visits to it has almost quadrupled since the launch of that campaign, from 116,000 visits in April 2017 to 463,000 in September. The NHS will continue to take steps to make people aware of that. As MSPs, all of us have a role to play in making sure that our constituents are aware of it, too. Alex Cole-Hamilton. McMillan cancer support is also rightly concerned about cancer waiting times. They point to the fact that NHS Lanarkshire seems, in fact, to be the only health board achieving target in this area. That is due, in part, to the fact that Lanarkshire published not only details of its delays but reasons for those delays and steps that it is taking to mitigate. Does the First Minister agree that it is now time to roll this practice across all of our health boards so that we can reduce cancer waiting times in the same way that Lanarkshire has done? It is a little bit wide, but, First Minister— Of course, the Health Secretary has already chaired a group to look at what more needs to be done to further reduce cancer waiting times. One of the key objectives of that group is to look at the learning from NHS Lanarkshire, which is to be applauded for the work that it has done to see how that can better be rolled out across the rest of Scotland. I will ask the Health Secretary to keep the member up-to-date as that work progresses. Question 5, Liz Smith. To ask the First Minister what criteria will be used to assess the outcomes of pupil equity funding? Nationally, we are currently consulting on the criteria that will be used to measure progress towards closing the attainment gap, and we will confirm our approach within the 2018 national improvement plan, which will be published in December. Locally, we expect schools and authorities to make use of data that they already have and to incorporate details of their pupil equity funding into existing planning and reporting processes, including in their annual school improvement plans and standards and quality reports. School inspection and other review processes will also be used where it is necessary to ensure that schools are using their funding appropriately. The First Minister will be aware of the recent reports that indicate that the pupil equity fund is being used in some councils to plug gaps in other areas of local education budgets, for example, on janitors over time. Does the First Minister agree that some of those decisions do not have the necessary focus on literacy and numeracy in the way that the Scottish Government has stated? In order to help to restore that focus, will the First Minister agree to reverse the Scottish Government's decision to remove Scotland from well-respected international measurements on literacy and numeracy? The discussion that we regularly have in this Parliament about PISA results is a fair amount of international scrutiny on the performance of the Scottish education system. Part of the purpose of the national improvement framework is to make sure that we have much more rigorous and detailed information here in Scotland on the performance of our schools and the education system more generally. On the issue of PEF funding, PEF funding is there to provide additionality in our schools, particularly targeted at closing the attainment gap. Liz Smith will be aware that claims, for example, that Glasgow City Council planned to use PEF money to part fund the settlement of the janitor's pay dispute are quite simply wrong, factually inaccurate. That settlement is funded without a single penny of PEF money being used. Obviously, it is for headteachers to determine how they think it best to use that money, but the money should be for new services in line with the criteria for PEF and services that are about improving standards in our school and closing the attainment gap. The work that I spoke about in my initial answer will help us to monitor that as the pupil equity fund scheme continues. Pupil equity fund is indeed a good thing, but it must indeed be additional. It is common sense that there will be pressure on the fund to plug gaps in core funding, as long as core council and school budgets are being cut year on year alongside PEF being made available. Will the First Minister promise to end those cuts to councils and schools in the budget so that the equity fund can indeed do the job that it is designed to do? A few quick points to that. I am glad to hear Ian Gray say that the pupil equity fund is a good thing. He might want to try and explain why Labour voted against it in the budget, if he thinks that it is such a good thing. Secondly, it is amazing how Labour really does not like having some basic facts pointed out to them. They get very uncomfortable, but back to the serious issue at hand. Secondly, local budgets, the spending power of local councils, as we heard the finance secretary talk about just before First Minister's questions, increased in this financial year. We continue to protect local services as part of the discussion that we have opened today around tax. The third and final point that I would make is that local councils also had the opportunity to increase their council tax up to 3 per cent in this financial year. Strangely, the only councils across Scotland who did not use that power were Labour councils. They come here asking for more money from the Scottish Government, where their councils will not exercise the powers that they have to increase funding available. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government plans to take to help families who face financial hardship should interest rates rise. In November 2014, we launched Scotland's financial health service. This is a one-stop web-based service that provides impartial information for anyone with a concern about debt, borrowing, managing money or general financial concerns. The service can signpost anyone to the most appropriate area of support and can find the help that they need in one place. In addition, we are committed to establishing a financial health check guarantee that provides advice on how people can maximise their income and access the best deals on utility and financial products. We also support families in need through the Scottish welfare fund. Pauli McNeill 10 years of wage stagnation, low wages and the rising costs of living means that more households could be tipped over the edge into serious financial difficulty. Should there even be a small rise in interest rates later on today, one of the First Minister shares my concern. However, there are one-third of Scots who are worried about the amount of money that they owe. There are many turning to credit for essential things. That includes things such as their gas and their electricity and basic things. Indeed, the OBR—this is a very serious point—said that household debt in four years' time could be as high as 47 per cent. I realise that it is difficult to respond to the magnitude of that question, but, in view of the First Minister's answer and the importance of affordable credit, is it time for the Government to invest more seriously in affordable credit and to promote credit unions more seriously? Does it have a crucial role to play in increasing financial inclusion? One area that I think is worth looking at— A question, please. I am really genuinely surprised at the reaction to the question now. As the First Minister, she would look at not-for-profit lending schemes such as Conduit Scotland and Fife, because there is a significant and serious role that credit unions and schemes such as this can play. Let us not forget that many Scots will face financial hardship. Will she be prepared to take a personal interest in taking that forward? First, on the point of consensus, because there is a big area of consensus, I agree with the thrust of Pauline McNeill's question. I am a massive supporter of the credit union movement. I think that it does fantastic work. This Government has supported the credit union movement and will continue to do so. We will look at what more we can do for that. I understand that the Bank of England has just announced the first rise in interest rates since, I think, July 2007, a 0.25 per cent increase. I know that that will be of concern to families across the country. We will continue to look at how we support those on the lowest incomes. Going back to one of the central issues that we have been discussing at First Minister's Questions today, this is genuinely one of the points of disagreement between those of us in those benches and Labour about our approach to income tax. We do not think that we should increase income tax on the lowest income families for many of the reasons that Pauline McNeill has been talking about. Those issues have to be at the heart of all of the decisions that we take, and they will continue to be so from the perspective of this Government. To ask the First Minister how many households have received support from the Scottish welfare fund? Since the creation of the Scottish welfare fund in April 2013, over 265,000 households in Scotland have received grants totaling £140 million. One third of those households were families with children. Of course, it is not acceptable that this type of support covering the basic cost of living, such as food and heating, is needed by so many people, but we know that the impact of the United Kingdom Government's harsh welfare cuts is having on people. We have repeatedly warned that the chaotic roll-out of universal credit, particularly the six-week delay for first payment, is pushing more households into crisis. We will continue to do all that we can to support our press families and remain absolutely committed to a welfare system that treats people with respect and dignity. George Adam, I thank the First Minister for her answer. Is the First Minister aware that reports this week warned that disabled people and their families are being left hungry, cold and homeless by Tory welfare cuts, with some being driven to thoughts of suicide? Given that 30,000 people in Scotland could lose out once the UK Government's PIP roll-out is complete, does the First Minister foresee demand for Scottish welfare fund growing further as the Tory obsession with austerity continues? Yes, I do. I was very concerned—like many will have been very concerned—at the findings of the report, which highlighted that 44 per cent of disabled people could see their disability benefits reduced or completely removed. That is just an example of the continued onslaught of welfare cuts from the Tory Government hitting the most vulnerable in our society. It is putting immense financial and, at times, emotional pressure on them. When there is still a lot of month left at the end of the money, people need to have somewhere to turn. While I wish it was not necessary, that is why I am glad that we do provide a safety net through the Scottish welfare fund. However, people need more than just that. They need the UK Government to pay attention to the catalogue of evidence of damage that it is causing to the most vulnerable and to act now to reverse those cuts. That concludes First Minister's questions, when I move on to members' business in the name of Annie Wells. I will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.