 Y squid ond y mewn皆さん yn ei fodf yn ychydig hi cyllid thanksfu i gyllid cycmoger cameras eich rai clusp f awards Do nad o'r arwain arepol a'l eich ym ymarffiad oherwydd gur Förlwyr te**iurraeth fel ywach yn dymi arfer arfer sy'n ni wnes yn siar picturen a blondi dawnydd y sausage sydd roedden cael ffordd ar remindai angvordanŵr kayfeydydd Yi Musel eraill a phethol yn gyfrifysgol iawn i ddweud irterrwyng I think that they should trust Derek Mackay. I put forward yesterday a sensible, responsible, balanced budget that reverses the cut to Scotland's budget imposed by the Conservative Government at Westminster, protects our public services and of course allows investment in the infrastructure and business support that is so important to growing our economy. As a result of the decisions made by Derek Mackay, 70 per cent of all taxpayers in Scotland will pay less in the next financial year than they do in this. 81 per cent of basic rate taxpayers will pay less. Of course, 55 per cent of all taxpayers will pay less than they would if they lived elsewhere in the United Kingdom, making Scotland not just the lowest tax part of the UK but the fairest tax part of the UK. Of course, what Ruth Davidson is really worried about, of course. What Ruth Davidson and the Tories are really worried about is that we are progressively asking those who earn the most to pay a little bit more to help protect our public services and invest in our economy. Somebody, for example, earning £100,000—yes, we are asking them to pay less than £50 a month to help protect our public services—but, of course, the Tories do not want us just to stand still on tax, they want us to cut tax for the very wealthiest in our society. We know that if we were to follow Tory tax policies, we would have to take more than £500 million out of our budget. Before Ruth Davidson says another word about tax, perhaps she will share with the chamber where she thinks that the tax should fall from £500 million of Tory tax cuts for the richest. Is it on our health service or on our education system? Perhaps Ruth Davidson would care to enlighten us. Ruth Davidson We would cut SNP Government waste, we would scrap SNP vanity projects and we would grow the Scottish economy. That answer was a lot more harvey than hunter. What the First Minister fails to grasp and which everyone in the real world can see are the consequences of her plan. I will spell them out. If you have markedly higher taxes here, you will, as the Scottish Chamber of Commerce said yesterday, make Scotland a less attractive part of the UK for skilled employees to locate and work or for business to recruit and invest. Can the First Minister explain to me and the chamber why the Scottish Chamber of Commerce is wrong? The First Minister Ruth Davidson I will tell Ruth Davidson something about waste, shall I? The waste of space that is the Tory party in this chamber. No matter how furiously we are going to do it, we are going to do it. How furiously Ruth Davidson wags her finger at me, she cannot escape the question about where the acts would fall from the £556 million of cuts that would have to be made to the health service, to the education system, to business support, to infrastructure if we were to follow the Tory plans to cut taxes for the very richest in our society. That might be the Tory way, but it is not the way of this progressive Scottish Government. On the issue of impact on our economy, unfortunately, for Ruth Davidson, the evidence does not bear her out. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has to do forecasts on our budget and assess the policies that we put forward. In the report that it published accompanying the draft budget, what it said about our tax policies is that it would have no impact on the economy in the way that Ruth Davidson and the Tories are suggesting. Let us cut to the chase here. The Scottish Government has put forward fair and progressive tax policies that will allow us to protect our public services, reverse Tory cuts and support our businesses. The Tories want us to cut taxes for the very wealthiest in our society. That is a difference between this Government and the Tories. Of course, we know from polling evidence that the majority of people in Scotland are on the side of this Government. Ruth Davidson? I am not the one who just lost a third of my seats at the last election, First Minister. If the First Minister wants to talk about the Scottish Fiscal Commission, let us talk about the Scottish Fiscal Commission, because, since the budget debate began, we have learned that the Scottish growth for the year to September was just 0.6 per cent. According to the Scottish Fiscal Commission's projections, Scotland is heading for the longest period of low growth in 60 years. Addressing that is what this budget should be trying to achieve and it simply fails to do so. The Federation of Small Business said that the next stage of the Scottish Government budget is a key opportunity for ministers to put Scotland's economy first. The economy should be a top priority for every department, not just to finance and business briefs. It said that two weeks ago. Why did not the First Minister take her advice? First Minister. We listened to advice of all stakeholders and we come to balanced decisions. Let me say through the Davidson that she is leader of the party that is slipping back into third place in Scottish politics. On today's performance, it is not difficult to see why. Let's debunk once and for all the Tory nonsense about Scotland's economy. Remember the economy that has lower unemployment than any other nation in the UK or the rest of the UK on average and one of the highest employment rates in the OECD, but let's go back to the Scottish Fiscal Commission. It forecasts that Scottish tax revenues, even excluding our changes, will grow faster than the rest of the UK. It also projects that Scotland will close the gap with the UK in terms of GDP per capita. The gap in GDP growth, as the SFC says, is down to slower population growth. The last time I looked, most of the powers to influence population growth lie with Westminster. If the Tories are serious about growing our economy, they will back this Government in arguing for more powers over migration. If the Tories are serious about growing the economy, especially in the week in which we see the secret Tory analysis spelling out the damage of Brexit to our economy, they will get behind this Government in opposing the recklessness of Brexit. Ken Clark stood up this week and said this, because of the impact of the EU referendum, growth in the UK is feeble compared with the rest. The UK is the laggard in the G7, the laggard among the European economies against which we match our performance. That is the damaging consequence of the vote in 2016. The difference between Ken Clark and Ruth Davidson is that he sticks to his principles. Ruth Davidson abandons purse. It is not just UK growth that is feeble. Ruth Davidson is feeble. Ruth Davidson. With any Brexit uncertainty affecting the UK as well, it is hard to argue that Scotland's relatively weaker performance can be explained by the outcome of the EU referendum. The Fraser of Allander institute was used in aid by the First Minister at every opportunity. We already know that the SNP has put up taxes on buying a house. It has put up business taxes and now it is putting up tax on ordinary working people, breaking its own manifesto promise to do so. Instead of listening to Scotland's business community, the only person that Nicola Sturgeon listens to is Patrick Harvie. The Greens passed our budget last year, they are passing our budget this year and they have already told her which tax they want her to put up to pass our budget next year. Yesterday, Patrick Harvie told the chamber that he wanted meaningful progress on local tax reform. Translated, that means that next year he is coming for your council tax. Surely, even for the First Minister, that would be a tax rise too far. Will she rule it out? First Minister. Of course. We have lower average council tax bills in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. Increases in Scotland are capped at 3 per cent, which is much less than the potential increases in the rest of the UK. The difference between Ruth Davidson and this Government is quite simple. We are interested in protecting our public services. We are interested in making sure that we have the revenue to invest in world-class infrastructure and business support. We want to protect the most vulnerable in our society from the impact of Ruth Davidson's Tory cuts, particularly to welfare. All Ruth Davidson is interested in is tax cuts for the very richest in our society. That is the difference. I have to say to Ruth Davidson that she is on the wrong side of public opinion on this, and perhaps that is why her party has hit the buffers. Figures reported last week reveal that, in Scotland today, the richest 1 per cent now own more personal wealth than the whole of the poorest 50 per cent put together. In a country where more than a quarter of a million children are living in poverty, that suggests that there is something profoundly wrong, profoundly wrong with our economic system and the priorities of this Parliament. Why, then, First Minister, are you refusing to ask the richest people in Scotland to pay their fair share? First Minister. As I think we have just heard from the exchange with Ruth Davidson, we are asking the richest people in Scotland to pay their fair share. We are asking them to contribute to protecting our public services, but just as Ruth Davidson clearly only wants tax cuts for the richest, what we have from Labour is a completely incredible and incompetent tax policy. He said earlier this week that he put forward a policy that would raise an extra billion pounds. When you take account of all the measures that would require legislations or not available for our budget, or the measure that would require us to go against Audit Scotland recommendations and look just at the income tax policy that was put forward by Richard Leonard, he does not subject it to any behavioural analysis. The Scottish Fiscal Commission would do that, and whether you agree or disagree with their estimates, what they say your tax policy raises is all that you are allowed to spend. Our analysis shows that, when you apply all of those corrections to Labour policies, the billion pounds becomes, if you are being very generous to them, less than £300 million. Labour sums simply do not add up. They have no credibility and no competence, and that is a fact. Richard Leonard. Well, I do not know why the First Minister is so pessimistic, because we think it is right. Professor David Bell of Stirling University told a committee of the Parliament that the worldwide evidence on behavioural responses to tax changes tends to agree only on the belief that higher income tax rates will lead to behaviours that have a negative effect on tax... It is the belief that there is no evidence, which is why we think it is right that those at the top should pay a bit more, because all of us, rich and poor, benefit from a more equal society. We know that, since the Tories cut the top rate of income tax in 2013, the rich got richer. New analysis that is published today by Labour reveals a 24 per cent rise in the estimated number of people in Scotland who could be paying a top rate of £50, but who are not. So why, First Minister, won't you use your powers to reverse this Tory tax cut? First of all, the budget does raise the top rate of tax. It asks those at the top to pay more, but you know what? Perhaps radically, I do not know, but it does it in a way that will raise extra revenue, not in a way that will lose revenue for our public services. That is called competent government. Something that I appreciate Richard Leonard doesn't know much about. I have the greatest of respect for Professor David Bell, but unfortunately for Richard Leonard it's not Professor David Bell who does the forecast based on our tax policy. That's the Scottish Fiscal Commission and it was Labour. I think that at the time led by Jackie Baillie, I can't immediately see her, oh there she is, that asked for the Scottish Fiscal Commission to be put on a statutory basis. We are required to take account of their forecast. We might not always agree with them, but they determine how much money we spend. To put forward a policy that takes no account of the analysis that the SFC will apply to it is just completely and utterly incompetent. It would embarrass a school debating class, let alone a party that's supposed to be a credible opposition. Under Richard Leonard's leadership, Labour has even less credibility and competence on those matters than it did before, but let's give him credit. That is some achievement. It's good to see that we've moved on from the personal insults of last week. Let me be absolutely clear today. A large tax cut for 10 per cent of the population, those on the highest incomes at a time when support for the disabled is being cut, and at a time when our public services are under pressure is, in my view, the wrong choice. First Minister, that's what you said in March 2016 before an election. But now you have no plans to reverse the Tory tax cuts for top earners, and all it needs is political will and the moral courage, because this is not just a Parliament to serve the interests of the rich and their army of accountants—Scotland's children and our pensioners—grypt in poverty. They count as well. Home carers out every single night in all weathers. They count as well. So, First Minister, why on earth instead of relying on Reaganomics, why don't you stand up for all of those families? Why don't you stand up for all of those families gripped in poverty in Scotland? Why don't you stand up for our communities? And why don't you match your words with your deeds? Where to start? The incompetence, incoherence, sheer incredibility of what we have just heard from Richard Leonard is mind-boggling. Not fit for opposition, let alone government. Let me try and deconstruct some of this. He calls it Reaganomics, I think, is what he said. What I'm actually talking about are the rules by which the Scottish Government is required to set its budget, rules called for by the Scottish Labour Party. We subject our tax policies to the Scottish Fiscal Commission. They model them, they apply a behavioural analysis, and they tell us how much they think our tax policies will raise. Whether we think those forecasts are right or wrong, that is all the money that we are allowed to budget for. We can't budget for any more than that. It's like Richard Leonard is suggesting that we fund our NHS through monopoly money or something. It is simply not credible. Let me come to the quote that I said in 2016. I was referring to that, because I remember the quote well, was Tory plans to increase the higher-rate threshold by more than inflation. We are not doing that. As Derek Mackay said yesterday, we are increasing the higher-rate threshold by less than inflation, so there are no tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society under this Government. Instead, we are asking those at the top of the income scale to pay more to protect our public services. However, we are doing it in a way that we are confident that we will raise the extra revenue to invest in our public services, not in the reckless, incompetent way that Richard Leonard is suggesting that we will take resources away from our public services. If Richard Leonard wants to be taken seriously, he is really going to have to go back to the classroom and do his homework on tax before he comes and questions me again on it in this chamber. We have some constituency questions. The first is from Donald Cameron. The First Minister will be aware of the tragic incident involving the sinking of the Nancy Glenn fishing boat in Loch Ffine two weeks ago and the fact that two local fishermen Duncan MacDougall and Shemac Crowchick are still missing. This tragedy has devastated the local community in Tarbot and, in response, the Clyde Fishermen's Association has crowdfunded almost £200,000. Within the last hour, I spoke to Duncan's father and he has asked all politicians to work together to bring the boys home. What support can the Scottish Government offer the families affected and will she commit to working with the UK Government to ensure that the vessel is recovered as soon as possible? I thank the member for raising this tragic issue. I have written to both the bereaved families and I know that the thoughts of everybody across this chamber are very much with them at this unimaginably difficult time for them. The cabinet has, in fact, discussed this issue at some length, not just this week but last week as well. The marine accident investigation branch is in charge of the investigation. I understand that we will be speaking to the MAIB this afternoon. It will have to apply a number of considerations to their assessment of whether the vessel can be recovered. I am very clear, as First Minister, the Scottish Government is very clear that one of those considerations should be the very understandable desire of the families to recover the bodies of their loved ones. The Scottish Government will offer whatever support we can. I cannot pre-empt the conclusions that the MAIB will come to, but I can assure the member and the chamber that we will do everything possible, not just to support the families but to ensure that they can recover the bodies of their loved ones. I am sure that Fergus Ewing will keep the chamber appropriately updated. On Friday, I met workers and their union representatives from BiFab at their yard in Methill. I appreciate the important role that the Scottish Government played in staving off administration last year, but the yards are now coming to the end of the current Beatrice contract and there are concerns over the workforce's future if new contracts are not secured. Can I ask the First Minister what action and support the Scottish Government will be providing BiFab and its workforce to ensure that the yards' futures can be guaranteed, that new contracts can be secured and that there are no further job losses, even if there is to be a gap between the end of the Beatrice contract and the start of any new contracts going forward? The Scottish Government will do everything that we can, as we have done in past months to support the future of BiFab. I will be meeting Keith Brown this afternoon to discuss the latest situation and to look at the support that the Scottish Government is able to give. When we were able to secure the short term future of BiFab before Christmas, I said very frankly and candidly at the time that that is what we had done, to secure the short term. There was still significant work to do to secure the medium and long term of the yards. That remains the case, but the Scottish Government will continue to work with the management, with the trade unions, as we have done very constructively, to make sure that BiFab has a strong future. The markets in terms of the contracts that BiFab is competing for is a healthy one and will become more healthy in the years ahead, so we want to see a bright future for BiFab and we will do everything in our power to ensure that that happens. Since last Friday, 134 elective operations have been postponed at Regmore hospital due to dust contamination from building work being tracked into the main operating theatres. Patients and their families are understandably furious and their operations have been delayed. That comes on top of 149 operations that were cancelled in the first three weeks in January due to weather and illness. What assurances can the First Minister provide to the people of the Highlands that the health secretary will fully investigate how such a situation has arisen and does she still have full confidence in the management of NHS Highlands? The First Minister Can I separate my answer into two parts here? In terms of the first part of the question, the particular issues at Regmore around dust in operating theatres, the health secretary is in close contact with NHS Highlands, ensuring that everything is done possible to resolve that situation as quickly as possible. It is deeply regrettable that that has happened, but safety and cleanliness in operating theatres, as the member I know will appreciate, is of absolute paramount importance. Patients cannot and should not be put at risk. In terms of the wider situation in operations, during winter—not just in Scotland, but in health services across the world—an increase in elective operations that are postponed during the winter months because of winter pressures, that has been more of an issue this winter because we have had flu levels, for example, at five times what they were last winter, but cancelled postponed operations are kept at an absolute minimum. Of course, the situation in Scotland has to be contrasted with the one south of the border, where all 100 per cent of elective operations in England were cancelled for the entire month of January. We regret every operation that has to be postponed, but in Scotland that is kept at a minimum, and that is to the great credit of everybody who works in our national health service. Question 3, Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank Ruth Davidson for the lavish attention that she has given to the green impact successfully changing the Scottish Government's budget. That impact has allowed councils in every part of this country to spend their mornings cancelling many of the cuts that they have been under consideration for some time. Many councils have been forced to consider reducing the number of learning assistants, cutting back on secondary schools' subject choices, cutting back on waste and recycling services, or ending grants to voluntary organisations from the arts to women's crisis centres. I think that it is fantastic to know that councils across the country will be scrapping those cuts today. COSLA has welcomed that. The voice of local government in Scotland has said that they are pleased that both Mr Mackay and the Scottish Greens have listened to what COSLA said and have taken account of their concerns. The First Minister will also be aware that COSLA has made no secret of the longer-term challenges that councils remain under. They warn that Scottish local government should not remain the poor relation of the Scottish public sector. Does the First Minister accept that that pattern of cuts to local services first proposed and then cancelled under pressure cannot be repeated year after year, and that a new relationship is needed in which we give local government the long-term stability and autonomy that it needs and deserves? I do not accept Patrick Harvie's characterisation of the treatment of local government or the relationship between the Scottish Government and local government. That relationship is important. In incredibly difficult financial times, we have treated local government fairly. That has not led to easy settlements for local government. I would be the first to concede. I agree with Patrick Harvie that, as a result of the announcements that was made by Derek Mackay yesterday, brought about in part due to the constructive negotiations that the Greens were part of. We now have a situation in which local government funding is increasing next year in real terms, and I think that that is a really positive outcome and a good advert for constructive consensual politics. Perhaps other parties across the chamber could learn some lessons from it. Of course, that real terms increase in local government funding comes before any account is taken of local government's own flexibility to raise more revenue. I think that that is a good outcome and will be good for communities, people and services right across the country. Patrick Harvie. It is perfectly true that COSLA has welcomed the change to the budget and that will protect services across Scotland, but they also say—I put it again to the First Minister—that there are long-term financial challenges ahead and that those can only be expected to grow in the future. The Parliament is now able to make meaningful decisions about national taxation policy and, quite rightly, opposing the hard-right ideology of the Conservatives and their cheerleaders, who only care about tax cuts for the richest. We can put into practice that reasonable principle that wealthy people should pay more to protect public services and cut inequality. Why, then, are we still micromanaging local councils with national decisions determining the local taxes being paid by a bungalow in Buley or a flat in Fort William? It was this Government, when we first took office, that removed most of the ring-fencing from local government budgets. We are the elected Government of Scotland. It is reasonable for us, in some areas—for example, the expansion of childcare—to set national policies and set ambitions for what we want to achieve, and then work with local government in terms of how that is delivered. Patrick Harvie is right to say that we face local government challenges, and it is not alone in that. If we look ahead, we are seeing challenges coming from the changing demographics of our country and the national health service, possibly even more than local government faces the implications of that. Despite our ability to cancel the real-terms Tory cut in next year's budget, we still face the implications of continued Tory austerity. We see from the leaked secret Tory analysis that Brexit will compound all those challenges. As the Government, we require to work with all those stakeholders and others across the chamber to steer our public services through those challenges as best we possibly can. We will do that, as we have demonstrated, by using the powers of this Parliament in a constructive, responsible way. We will continue to do exactly that. Although I am sure that Patrick Harvie and I will not agree on everything, I hope that we will continue to see the constructive approach that we have seen from the Greens, and I hope that we will see more of that constructive approach from other parties across the chamber. Back in November, I asked the First Minister about the shocking murder of Elizabeth Bow from St Andrews. Failings were identified by the police investigations organisation, PERC. When councillors in Fife asked for a report on the case, they were told by the convener of the committee to watch a recording of the First Minister's questions on the BBC iPlayer. When councillors made a second request for a report, the police asked for it to be removed from the agenda. Does the First Minister believe that that lives up to the ambition of the Government to strengthen the links between the police and the communities that they serve? Can I try to respond to that in a very sincere and genuine way? I am not entirely sure—and apologies if it is my inability to understand all of Willie Rennie's question—I am not entirely sure what report he is referring to. If it is a PERC report, it would be a matter for PERC. If it is police reports, I would have to look into that more to see whether it was appropriate for that particular report to be released. As a general principle, of course, local authorities, the public at large, should see as much information as possible. In a genuine offer to try to move this forward, if Willie Rennie wants to correspond with me about the particular details that he is raising today, I am happy to look into it and see whether I can be helpful in getting the information that he is requesting. Willie Rennie However, the First Minister needs to understand that this is about the scrutiny of local policing by the local authority. If failings of a local murder case do not justify the scrutiny by the local representatives, where is that local accountability? The evidence is building that the structure of Police Scotland is not fit for purpose. There has been pressure on PERC from the Justice Department. Clear dissatisfaction in the members of the SPA from the Justice Secretary. We are on our third chief constable, third chairman of the police authority, third chief executive of the police authority, and now we see the faults and local accountability of policing in Fife. Surely it is time to admit that this is not working. Ian Livingston, the acting chief constable, said today that the centralisation of the police was rushed. Will the First Minister now recognise that now is the time for an independent review of the structure of police? Ian Livingston also said that he thinks Scotland is safer now than it would be if we had not gone through the reform programmes. I think that just in the interest of completeness it is probably important to say that. I am not entirely sure, and I say this sincerely, whether Willie Rennie is wanting to have an exchange about the generalities of police reform. He said a number of things there that clearly I absolutely would refute. In fact, PERC would refute his point about interference indeed at the weekend, or whether he is asking me about a specific report into a specific case. I think that it is important to be clear, and I am not clear from the line of Willie Rennie's questioning. I do think that it is important for local politicians to apply scrutiny to local policing. As I said in my first answer, I am not entirely clear what report he is referring to. If he wants to tell me that, I will look into that and see if action is required. On the broader issues of police reform, Willie Rennie and I do not agree on all of those issues. Of course, we recognise challenges associated with Police Scotland. Work is on-going to make sure that we resolve all those challenges, but we live in a country now, where crime is at a 40-plus year low, and that is to the great credit of our police officers right across the country. However, if Willie Rennie wants to be a bit clearer about that, I genuinely want to help if there is a particular issue about a particular case. Apart from anything else, the family in such a case would deserve this to be treated seriously. If Willie Rennie wants to decide what it is specifically that he is asking me, I will be very happy to respond. Some more additional supplementaries at the first from Graham Day. Brexit, as it looks like playing out, will have deeply damaging consequences for my constituency, particularly around the college, agriculture and tourism sectors. Now that we know that the UK Government's elite Brexit analysis shows broadly the same thing as the projections published by the Scottish Government, does the First Minister think that it was reasonable for Ruth Davidson to describe those as over-the-top scaremongering? First Minister. No, I don't, and probably in our heart of hearts neither does she. We published the Scottish Government analysis in a stress. We published the Scottish Government analysis for everybody to see. The Tories at the time said that it was all scaremongering. We were making it up and all the rest of it. Then, just a couple of weeks later, we find that there is secret Tory analysis that they are refusing to publish on this issue of such massive seriousness importance to the future of the whole UK that shows pretty much exactly the same things. I think that it is time on Brexit, firstly perhaps for the Scottish Tories to apologise for saying that about the Scottish Government analysis and secondly to get real on Brexit. The Tories are leading not just Scotland but the entire UK of a cliff edge. They are fighting like ferrets in a sack as they do it. They are a disgrace to this entire country, and the sooner they are out of office, the better. In the last few days, I have been inundated with stories of everyday racism and Islamophobia. This includes a young woman who had her hijab ripped off her head at the underground station, a child scared to go to school because she is regularly called a terrorist, a hotel worker who is regularly racially abused but is told by his employer that the customer comes first. A council worker is convinced that he missed out on that promotion because of his colour and religion. That is not about one individual or one organisation, it is about a culture. On Tuesday in this Parliament, we launched the cross-party group on tackling Islamophobia with the support of over 50 organisations. Will the First Minister commit herself and her Government to work constructively with us on the important issues that are raised by the cross-party group? It is in the interests of all our citizens to defeat prejudice, no matter of gender, no matter of religion and no matter of colour. I will give that commitment. I will also take the opportunity to pay tribute to Anna Sarwar, Anna Sinai, our political opponents locally and nationally. I have genuinely admired the way in which she has spoken up this week and the bravery with which she has done it. It would be brave in any circumstances, but I think that all of us know that when we are raising issues that involve people within our own parties, that is even more difficult to do, and therefore I think that the praise should be even greater for having done so. Every day racism, Islamophobia and any form of prejudice and bigotry is unacceptable. It is unacceptable when Anna Sarwar is the subject or victim of that, or Humza Yousaf, or anybody across our society. I am very proud that, in our Parliament today, we have people celebrating Hijab Awareness week. Women, Muslim women, should be allowed to wear exactly what they want. Scotland should never ever presume to think that we are immune from racism like this. Anna Sarwar has demonstrated that this week, but what we must do is unite against it. Many things divide us in this chamber, and that is the mark of a healthy democracy. However, that is one of those things that should absolutely unite us, and it is to Anna Sarwar's credit that he has put this issue even higher up the agenda, and all of us should resolve to do everything that it takes to make sure that Scotland is a place where there is zero tolerance of racism in any form. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the Centre for Cities report, Cities Outlook 2018, which suggests that automation and globalisation could displace 230,000 Scottish jobs by 2030. First Minister. As set out in last year's programme for government, technological change presents certainly challenges but also big economic opportunities. The Cities Outlook acknowledges that, although some occupations are likely to contract, others have the potential to grow. The report makes a number of recommendations that the Scottish Government is already taking steps to implement. We are working with partners across the education system, for example, to prepare young people for the modern labour market. At the same time, as part of the implementation of the Enterprise and Skills review, we are looking to significantly enhance the system of enterprise and skills support to allow our businesses and workforce to compete successfully in the 21st century global economy. I thank the First Minister for that answer. In order to ensure maximum employability for people already in or entering the labour market over the next few years, it is important that they are equipped with the right set of skills and knowledge to succeed in the future. The First Minister has set out how the Scottish Government is helping specifically to upskill our current and future workforce to ensure that automation and artificial intelligence present opportunities to increase Scottish prosperity rather than a threat. Given the importance of the issue, does the First Minister agree that matters relating to automation and artificial intelligence deserve to be fully debated and discussed in the chamber? In terms of the last part of that question, yes, absolutely. I think that it is important to discuss and debate those things in a very upfront way, not just in this chamber but across society. In terms of the economic opportunities, though, I think that the first thing that we need to do is, as Kenny Gibson suggests, to see it not just as a threat but as a potential opportunity and a potentially very big opportunity. That is why I talk repeatedly about the need for Scotland to see itself not just as a user or consumer of new technologies but as the inventor, the designer, the manufacturer of the new technologies. That is very much what will drive our economic and industrial strategy in the years ahead. In terms of skills, we have a highly skilled workforce in Scotland. We will continue to support it in particular through curriculum for excellence and developing the young workforce programme. Through the enterprise and skills strategic board, we are working to ensure that the planning and commissioning of our £2 billion annual investment in skills is better co-ordinated and more responsive. That is the right approach to developing a skilled and productive workforce that can maximise our future economic opportunities whatever shape they might take. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle violence in our schools. First Minister. Violence towards anyone is unacceptable and the safety of children, young people and staff in schools is paramount. We are determined to continue to work with schools and local authorities to tackle serious and discipline and violence, as well as the publication of guidance for schools on how to manage behaviour, including violent incidents. We continue to invest in violence prevention programmes, including no knives better lives and the mentors in violence prevention programme. The recent behaviour in Scottish schools report highlights that overall pupils are well behaved. Violent incidents, especially those involving a knife, are thankfully very rare, but we will always work with all of our partners to seek a way to drive down the unacceptable behaviour. Michelle Ballantyn I am not sure whether there has been another report since, but the 2012 report certainly identified the First Minister's words. However, Police Scotland figures show that 80 school pupils were found with knives on school premises between April and November last year, with a further 45 incidents of pupils being caught carrying an offensive weapon. I would like to ask the First Minister, in the light of what she has already said, what precise steps will she take in the next year to ensure that those numbers come down? The First Minister First, in terms of the data, it is an important point that has been raised with me in the past, I think, including by Ruth Davidson. The data that is being provided by Police Scotland at the moment is provisional in nature, but it does serve as a timely reminder as to why we are right to keep the issue of weapons in schools under review and support targeted and preventative action. Information has now been collected in a way that allows the police to identify specific cases of knives in schools before that would have just been part of the general data about knives and offensive weapons. In terms of the action that we are taking, I highlighted some of that in my initial answer. We are investing millions of pounds in violent reductions programmes for young people, the known eyes, better lives, youth engagement programme has received funding since 2009. The mentors in violence prevention programme is about empowering young people themselves to challenge and speak out against violent and abusive behaviour. The police have an important role here to play when crimes are committed and also an important role to play in prevention, but I think that much of our focus should be on working with young people themselves to prevent behaviour of this type. Thank you very much. That concludes First Minister's questions. We will now move on to members' business in the name of Richard Lochhead on World Cancer Day, and we will just take a few moments for members to change seats.