 That concludes general questions and will turn now to First Minister's questions. Question number one from Ruth Davidson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The resignation of two chief constables onto our third head of the Scottish Police Authority, an investigation's body that's overwhelmed by complaints, and a justice secretary pulling the strings when it suits him? Can the First Minister really say that, over the last five years, the single police force has been well managed? Mae Aelodau Lent yn hyn gyfrifolol cyhoeddiol yn bywyr. Mae Aelodau Lent yn gyfrifolol gyhoeddiol yn gyfrifolol gyhoeddiol ac yng nglyfnodau'n continued tofoddiol yn y Gwydden, mae'r bwysig yn ddweud o rhan fwy oedd yn y Llywodraeth, rydd yn ogynnu ffordd o'r cael ei chael y llunodolής Constable tendered his resignation yesterday. That is entirely a matter for him. I respect that decision. However, what it now allows is for policing in Scotland to move forward, with a clear focus on delivering the long-term strategy, which of course Phil Gormley helped to develop. That is what will happen now. It will now be for the Scottish Police Authority to decide what further consideration would be appropriate in terms of the time scale for appointing I hope that all of us can continue to support our police officers as they do that important job across the country in keeping all of us safe. Ruth Davidson I take my hat off to the rank and file officers that do the exemplary job that they do, but I think that they deserve better than they have had in the past five years. Here is the thing—this Parliament voted to create a single police force, but this Parliament also has a duty to learn from mistakes where they are exposed and to put them right. I think that there is an obvious flaw. The head of the Scottish Police Authority is supposed to be independent of government, yet it is the justice secretary that appoints them. As this affair has shown us, that same justice secretary can pull the head of the Scottish Police Authority into a room and make him change his mind. Does the First Minister think that that sounds like true independence to her? The First Minister First of all, as I have said on two previous occasions at First Minister's Questions, Ruth Davidson is simply wrong in her assertions about the actions of the justice secretary. She has brought no evidence to substantiate the claims that she is making. The justice secretary behaved entirely appropriately. He asked questions about the process that the Scottish Police Authority had followed. When those questions could not be answered, the Scottish Police Authority and the then chair of the Scottish Police Authority reconsidered that decision. As I have said to Ruth Davidson before, if she continues to maintain that she thinks that the justice secretary acted inappropriately in doing what he did, then logically her position must be that the justice secretary should not have asked those questions and the then chief constable should have been allowed to return to work the following day without the senior command having been informed, without Perk having been consulted about the impact in the on-going investigation and without any steps having been taken to ensure the welfare of officers who had made complaints. I do not think that I would have been the right course of events and I will leave Ruth Davidson to explain why she seemingly does. On the appointment of the chair of the Scottish Police Authority, we now have a new chair of the Scottish Police Authority in place. Of course, when that appointment was being made, firstly we have to act within the law in terms of how those appointments are made and it is laid down in law, but there was an MSP appointed, nominated by the parliamentary sub-committee to take part in that process. That was something that the Government was happy to accommodate and we are open to looking in future at how further changes can be made, but we have to be frank and telling Parliament that substantial changes to that appointment process would require primary legislation. We are open to discussing that and I am sure that those are debates that will be taken forward in the months ahead. Ruth Davidson Let us look at the timeline for this. Let us look at the way other statutory watchdogs are appointed, such as the information commissioner. That is selected by a cross-party panel that is approved by this Parliament. As a result, in the words of the Parliament Minister, Jo FitzPatrick, they are independent of government and able to function without fear or favour. He is right, and that is exactly what we need from a police authority chair as well. The First Minister is correct to say that five months ago every single party in this chamber barred the SNP, signed up for Parliament to be in charge of appointing the SPA chair to take it out of the hand of ministers and, like the appointment of the information commissioner, to put it in the hands of the whole chamber. Five months ago, she said that she would look at it. Today, she said the same. What has happened in between? The First Minister What happened in between is that an MSP was appointed to take part in the process. In that intervening period, the change that was made is one that was able to be made within the law that, frankly, we are bound by in making those appointments. If Davidson may think—in fact, she may well be right—that there are different processes in place with different bodies that are preferable. However, the point is that the process that we have to abide by right now is the one that is laid down in statute. We cannot simply ignore that. If we want to make more substantive changes in future, we will need to do that by primary legislation. That is something that it will be entirely appropriate for Parliament to consider, but that is what will be required. On the appointment that has just been made, we involved Parliament in that in a way that was consistent with the law that we are bound by. That was the right thing to do. Of course, we now have a new chair of the SPA in place. I hope that all of us will support her in getting on with the job that she is doing, because I think that she has made an excellent start to the job that she is there to do. Ruth Davidson The First Minister stands here again five months after she stood here before and says that she cannot go further because it would require a change in the law. Guess what, First Minister? This is a Parliament. Changing the law is what we do. If the First Minister is serious about strengthening the structure and oversight of the single police force, having its chair appointed by Parliament and not at the grace of ministers, whether without a token person from the policing sub-committee there, is a good place to start. You have said throughout this process that you are not unsympathetic. I am telling the First Minister if she brings forward a change in the law that she will have the support from all of the Conservative benches and we can pass that change in law together. I make her this offer in good faith. Will she act on it? First Minister Can I say to Ruth Davidson that Mary Fee is the chair of the policing sub-committee of this Parliament? She was the MSP that took part in this process. Mary Fee and I are political opponents. We have many disagreements. I do not think that she was a token appointment. I think that she was there to do her job and she did it appropriately and she did it well. Of course we can consider whether legislative change would be appropriate. I suggest that it is proper to consider that fully and robustly. Why should we take time? We have a new chair of the Scottish Police Authority in place. She is at the start of her term of office. I think that she is doing an excellent job and I think that we should get behind her in that. Yes, we should consider in the fullness of time before we come to a point a new chair whether there is changes necessary. That is the right and proper way to do things, which is probably why it is not the one being proposed by the Scottish Conservatives. Richard Leonard The merger of Scotland's eight regional police forces into one national force is the biggest single public sector reform undertaken by this Government. So far, it has been nothing less than an adject failure. From the axing of over 2,000 civilian jobs to pay restraint year upon year, from the sheer incompetence that led to a VAT liability and to an IT disaster to the on-going crisis at the top, it has been gravely demoralising for all of those rank-and-file officers across Scotland who turn out every shift regardless. Following the departure of yet another chief constable, what reassurance can the First Minister give to all those front-line officers and those remaining civilian police staff serving our communities across Scotland today? The First Minister Our police officers serving our communities across Scotland are, and I am glad that Richard Leonard has recognised that, doing a fantastic job. That is why we have crime now at a 43-year low in Scotland. I do not think that it is fair for anybody across the chamber notwithstanding the issues that we have been facing to describe policing is in any way shape or form in a crisis. Our police officers are keeping this country and the communities of this country safe, and they deserve our thanks for doing so. In order to support them, we are ensuring increased investment in our police service. We are ensuring that the front-line resource spending of Police Scotland is increasing in real terms, and that is right. We will continue to support our police service in this way. We have argued over many years that we were eventually backed in this by Scottish Labour, although it took a long time. We argued that the position on that was indefensible, and rather than back us from day one on that, I think that for a long time Labour backed the position of the Scottish Conservatives on that. On the issue of a single police force, if Labour eventually ran out of members of their own ranks to be leader of the Scottish Labour Party—I am sure that Richard Lochhead would be prepared to stand in temporarily—I still remember the days when Ian Gray was leader of Scottish Labour. I vividly remember that it was a Saturday watching Ian Gray's conference speech as leader of the Scottish Labour Party, when he announced that the policy of Scottish Labour was for a single police force and criticised the Scottish Government for dragging its feet in not committing to the same thing. It used to be the case when Scottish Labour claimed that as its idea. Let's get behind our police service, let's get behind the new chair of the Scottish Police Authority and when the new chief constable is in place—that will be on a timetable to be determined by the SPA—let's get behind him or her as well and support our police officers to continue to do the job that they are doing so exceptionally well right now in keeping this country safe from crime. Richard Leonard Scottish Labour did support the creation of a single force, but not one that concentrated too much power in too few hands with too little accountability. In fact, we came up with constructive proposals and solutions to make it work. In November 2015, Scottish Labour published a review of policing in Scotland led by Graham Pearson, a former senior police officer. It came up with 10 recommendations from improved parliamentary oversight, staffing support and meaningful local accountability. We submitted it to Michael Matheson at the time, so can the First Minister tell me which, if any of its recommendations were implemented and if not, why not? As I assume that Richard Leonard knows, there has been a governance review under way that. Indeed, it is due to be published soon, and no doubt it will make recommendations for change. I am very happy at that stage to go into the detail of what those recommendations might be and how the Scottish Government might respond to them. Richard Leonard mentions parliamentary oversight. As I have just said in exchanges with Ruth Davidson, Mary Fee, as the convener of the policing sub-committee, was involved in the process around the appointment of the chair of the Scottish Police Authority. Of course, we will listen to where proposals are made that are sensible, and we will continue to do so. I come back to the fundamental point. Nobody on those benches is seeking to deny the challenges that we have faced around the leadership of Police Scotland. They are deeply regrettable. Let me say that very seriously. The central point is that we have an excellent police force in this country. We have a police force that is working hard day in and day out to make sure that crime is at a 43-year low, and we should not lose sight of that. Sometimes, when I listen to the debates in this chamber, I think that some members do occasionally lose sight of that fact. Richard Leonard. The problem is that, week after week, the First Minister stands up in this chamber and demands solutions from Opposition parties, solutions to problems that her Government has created in the first place. Labour offered 10, but her justice secretary ignored them. Since then, two chief constables have now gone. Morale among rank-and-file officers has sunk. Public confidence has declined. All the time, the First Minister refuses to take responsibility, so will she take responsibility? Will she look again at the recommendations of the Pearson review and will she find a new justice secretary to deliver them? As I said in my previous answer, there has been a governance review under way. That will report shortly, and all of us across the Parliament can consider any proposals and suggestions that come forward as part of that. Some of what Richard Leonard has talked about—take local engagement, for example—is the responsibility of the Scottish Police Authority to make sure that local engagement arrangements are in place. Over the past few weeks, I have had to be fair to Richard Leonard, usually the Scottish Conservatives, but some members of the Scottish Labour Party have done so, too. On to this chamber, criticising the justice secretary erroneously, I may add, for inappropriately interfering in the work of the Scottish Police Authority. Today, of course, they come here and they stand up and demand that I, as First Minister and the justice secretary, intervene in the responsibilities of the Scottish Police Authority. We have a new chair in place of the Scottish Police Authority. She is doing a good job. I think that we should get behind her. I think that we should support her in seeking to tackle the challenges that have been faced. Above all, we should support the police, men and women across this country who are doing such an excellent job on our behalf. We have three additional constituency supplementaries. The first is from Jenny Gilruth. Blueprint R is a glenrothus-based recruitment company that was sub-contracted by Carillion to provide labour for the Aberdeen western peripheral route. It erodes more than £360,000 for work that has already been completed and its future now hangs in the balance. Given that the impact of Carillion's collapse reaches far beyond the company's own workforce, can the First Minister offer Blueprint any advice or support? I thank Jenny Gilruth for raising the question. I understand that Transport Scotland has written to the company this morning, and I hope that that letter will be helpful. Obviously, we are deeply concerned for all of Carillion's employees and subcontractors. I should say that everyone will be paid for what they have been instructed to do since the company went into liquidation. For agency workers on the Aberdeen western peripheral route, the joint venture partners Balfour, BT and Galliford try are currently exploring ways to ensure affected agency staff and operatives can remain on that project. However, for work carried out before the company's liquidation, all of Carillion's creditors, including their subcontractors, must submit their claims to the UK official receiver. The official receiver is following a legally defined process for distributing money to creditors. I fully appreciate that this still leaves many companies in a very difficult situation. That is deeply regrettable. The British Business Bank is offering support to subcontractors through Government-guaranteed loans. I understand that that will help to ease pressure on firms that are owed money by Carillion. I hope that the information that Transport Scotland has provided to the company will be useful. Keith Brown, the economy secretary, will be happy to continue to provide any advice that he is able to do. John Finnie The First Minister will be aware of the proposal for a golf development at Coal Links in Sutherland. In 2016, the planning minister rightly advised me that this is a matter for Highland Council as planning authority. Since that time, I have put a series of freedom of information requests and parliamentary questions, which have revealed that the developers have had many meetings with the Government, including the rural economy secretary. When Donald Trump built his course in Aberdeen, we were told that it would improve the environment, that site is now in danger of de-designation. Some of our environmental improvement claims have been made about Coal Links. Does the First Minister not see that history is repeating itself? First Minister, how can we have faith in a planning process when there is this level of interference? The First Minister I think that this is really important. I should say that this is a live planning case. In this case, the planning application is currently being considered by Highland Council. No meetings with Scottish Government ministers or officials have taken place since the planning application was made. However, of course, Government engages with companies proposing planning developments. In the suggestion that we should never do that, pre-planning applications being made is a ridiculous one. We regularly engage and try to encourage companies to invest in Scotland. Part of the reason for the engagement is about helping people who propose major developments to understand the strict planning rules that they must then adhere to. There is a range of different developments from the Lochaber-Smelter, Aberdeen Harbour, Inverness Castle, for example, where there has been that kind of engagement. Let me stress that, before a planning application is lodged, it becomes live and it is entirely a matter for the planning authority. That is right and proper and completely follows due process. Jenny Marra I am sure that the First Minister's intention cannot be to tax community sports facilities and all the implications that that has for public health. However, her budget looks like it will land the planned regional performance centre in Dundee with an £800,000 tax bill through the Barclay review. Can she please take this opportunity today to reassure the people of Dundee that the Barclay review will not tax community sports facilities and that she will deliver our regional performance centre in Dundee that she promised, that she has shown a Robison promised, and that she will deliver that tax free? The First Minister Derek Mackay set out in the budget and, partly in advance of the budget, the Government responded to the Barclay review of business rates and there were recommendations made in that regard. Of course, we do not want to put burdens on community sports facilities and Derek Mackay has made that clear. I understand that there may have been some discussions or may be about to be some discussions between the finance secretary and Dundee City Council in respect of the Dundee regional sports centre. I will ask Derek Mackay to update the member on those discussions in due course. Question 3, Patrick Harvie. When I last asked the First Minister about the Scottish Government's oversight of publicly owned Presswick airport, she told me very clearly that the Government had had no discussions about the relationship between the airport and the Trump organisation. Thanks to the work of the Guardian newspaper, we now know that such discussions had taken place with the Government's own transport agency lobbying ministers to meet with Trump's representatives and the airport being marketed as the staging post for Trump's business. We also know that the concerns about that public asset go far deeper than that, a contractual relationship with the US military involving the servicing of aircraft on active missions. That is at a time when the US has been involved in air strikes in Syria, which the First Minister has vocally opposed. The Scottish Government must take responsibility for the use of its own property in this way. Will the First Minister find out and report back to Parliament how many military strikes have been facilitated by Presswick airport and its relationship with the US military? What I said to Patrick Harvie the last time he raised this question in Parliament was absolutely correct. There are two key so-called revelations at the heart of the story. The first is that ministers somehow lobbied Trump on behalf of Presswick airport, and that is based on the fact that Transport Scotland, back in early 2015, when just incidentally, that was way before Trump was even a candidate for president, let alone president, but they passed on a request from Presswick for ministers to meet with the Trump Organization during Scotland week in 2015. Those meetings did not happen, so that part of the story is categorically untrue. There has been no contact whatsoever by the Scottish Government or Transport Scotland with the US military, with the Trump Organization or with Trump Turnbury in relation to Presswick airport. The second part of the so-called revelations is that Presswick handles military flights, including for the United States. I have to say that the fact that Presswick airport provides fixed-based operations and refuelling facilities for military flights is neither new nor is it a revelation. Its strategic plan, which was published last April, talks about it. Its annual accounts, published in December, talk about it. Its website actively promotes it. What is more, Presswick airport has been doing this kind of work for 80 years. I am not old enough to remember this. I do not think that Patrick Harvie is either, but remember those who are old enough. The day Elvis Presley touched a hoon at Presswick airport, the reason he was there is that he was on his way home from his national service on a military plane that landed at Presswick airport to refue. That is not new, it is not a revelation, it is a load of bunkham. Patrick Harvie. That dismissive response is extremely disappointing from the First Minister. The First Minister denies that meetings took place between ministers and the Trump organisation. No-one has suggested that they had, but the discussions most certainly did take place. The First Minister should acknowledge that the Government was aware of those discussions at the time. The First Minister also talks about the long history—an 80-year history of press work. Presswick airport is Scottish ministers' property now, and that brings a new responsibility. The First Minister and her colleagues have quite rightly challenged the UK Government for refusing to step in when a business that it largely owns, RBS, fails to work in the public interest. Public ownership does indeed carry a responsibility for the proper conduct of a business, yet the public asset that the First Minister has said should be looking to freight and retail development for its future now appears to be basing its business model on servicing military attacks that the Scottish Government claims to oppose and promoting the toxic Trump brand, which can only damage Scotland's reputation. Full disclosure is now needed. Will the Scottish Government now release all the information that holds on this situation, with nothing redacted or held back by ministers or special advisers simply because it is inconvenient or unhelpful to the Government? Will it publish? The First Minister and her colleagues have published, as I understand it. It was a freedom of information request that was submitted by the Guardian that allowed the story that we are talking about to be published in the first place. I think that Patrick Harvie has got to be careful to be clear here as well. There have been no discussions on the part of the Scottish Government ministers or officials or Transport Scotland with the US military, the Trump organisation or Trump Turnberry. That is what I said in my first answer in the last time in Parliament, and it is absolutely the case. Transport Scotland passed on a request from Presswick airport that was never followed up. The meetings did not take place. When we were first asked about this by the Guardian, I think that the suggestion was that it would have been a request for me to do these meetings during Scotland week in 2015. I did not even go to Scotland week in 2015. The meetings and the discussions did not happen, but in terms of the work, Glasgow Presswick offers refuelling and fixed-based operations for a wide range of private flights, scientific research flights and military flights. Those are not contracts, they are non-contractual agreements that are in place. They are the same type of agreements that have been placed well before the airport was in public ownership and, indeed, they have been in existence for decades. This is not new, it is not a revelation. This is the kind of work that Presswick airport offers. My mother is from Presswick, my grandparents lived in Presswick. We used to watch the flights on a Sunday afternoon. That is not new, and I had an exciting life as a child. Very few televisions in those days. I have to say that no grief that I get in this session of First Minister's Questions is going to equal the grief that I get from my mother later on for what I have just said. This is a serious issue, but this is work that Presswick airport has been doing for 80 years. However, let us come back to the fundamental point here. Presswick airport would not be open right now if this Government had not stepped in to save it. We want to get it back into private hands as soon as it is possible to do so, but it is open to providing employment for lots of people in Presswick and further a field in Ayrshire right now because of the action that this Government took. The First Minister is from Alex Cole-Hamilton. Stagecoach have failed to meet a number of contractual obligations that they have in respect of the operation of the east coast main lines service, which goes through my constituency and that of many members in this chamber. They have walked away from millions upon millions of pounds-worth of taxpayer obligations. Will the First Minister now take this opportunity to join cross-party calls, started by Lord Adonis, to finally strip Stagecoach of this franchise in its entirety, to have Stagecoach stripped of its franchise in this regard and prohibited from bidding for any future rail contracts in this country? I am delighted that Alex Cole-Hamilton seems to have just declared Scotland independent because this is unbeknown. Let me just explain to him that this franchise is not a franchise that the Scottish Government is a party to. This is a UK Government franchise. It is clearly a franchise that it has made a mess of. I agree that serious questions have to be asked, undoubtedly, of the operator and also of the UK Government. We will continue to bring whatever pressure we can to bear, because obviously this is an issue that matters to many members of the Scottish travelling public. We will bring whatever influence we can to bear to make sure that those questions are asked and answered. Fundamentally, this franchise is a matter for the UK Government. Alex Cole-Hamilton would like to put some pressure on them as well. Rhoda Grant The First Minister appears to be aware that her Government and their special advisers are holding back material from FOIs that could cause them embarrassment. Does she therefore believe that saving their own blushes is more important than transparency and indeed the law? The Great irony here is that I have just been asked questions by Patrick Harvie based on information that is released under freedom of information legislation. If we were withholding it in some way, then presumably Patrick Harvie could not have asked me the questions that he has just asked me. FOIs are handled by Scottish Government officials. They seek comments from relevant parts of the Scottish Government and consider whether ministerial clearance should be sought. That is entirely appropriate, because the legal duty to comply with FOI legislation lies with Scottish ministers. I think that it is schedule 1, paragraph 1. Scottish ministers are subject to FOI. At all times, FOI requests are handled in line with the legislation, and that includes whether or not particular exemptions are applied. Miles Briggs First Minister, four years ago, the Scottish National Party Government promised to bring an end to the indignity of 15-minute social care visits. A report published this morning by Leonard Cheshire disability reveals that 5,000 people in Scotland are still being subjected to 15-minute visits to support their free personal care needs. Can the First Minister explain why so many vulnerable members of our society still continue to receive those vital care visits in arbitrary 15-minute slots? Why has the Government not kept their promise to end this practice? Can the First Minister tell Parliament today when these 15-minute social care visits will end in Scotland? The First Minister As the member raises an important issue, an issue that is important to many elderly people and their families right across the country. As I know, he is aware through our on-going reform of adult social care, we are working to shift to a model of care that focuses not on tasks but on outcomes. Where a person is assessed as needing a level of care, we expect that to be delivered and the appropriate length of visit should be provided to ensure that care is given to a high standard. 15-minute visits are only appropriate in limited circumstances, for example, to check that someone has taken their required medication. We continue to work towards that model of care. Of course, we are investing significantly in social care. In the current financial year, we are almost half a billion pounds of front-line NHS spending will be invested in social care services and integration. We will continue to work to deliver that shift, which is so important not just to the older people who are getting care right now, but to the future sustainability of our health and social care services. Richard Lochhead The First Minister will be aware that yesterday ministers accepted the recommendations of the group that is set up to improve mortuary standards in Scotland. She may also be aware that this is the result of my constituent, Mrs White and her daughters, launching a campaign to improve standards after their own horrific experience at the Murray mortuary. Does she agree that their achievement is truly exceptional, given that they campaigned at the same time as grieving the loss of a loved one, their husband and father, Frank White? Will she join me in paying tribute to the family whose efforts should ensure that other families do not go through what they went through, with improved standards ensuring that the needs of grieving families are taken into account, that there is dignity for the deceased and that there are better working environments for the staff and that the task is now to implement the recommendations as quickly as possible. I thank Richard Lochhead for his question and for his involvement on behalf of his constituents on the issue. We welcome the mortuary review group report recommendations, which aim to produce mortuary service standards across NHS boards. It is correct to say that that would not have happened without the commitment of the White family, who very bravely shared their painful experience with us. Of course, they continue to play a crucial role as part of the group, and I want to take the opportunity to thank them for that. The information gathered from each of our NHS boards and other providers has helped to identify areas in which we need to now focus our efforts to ensure that the appropriate standard of service is being provided. We want to see post-mortem examinations carried out exclusively in health board facilities in the appropriate environment with an agreed protocol, so our focus very much now is on implementation. I thank all those, including the White family, for their input and getting as to where we now are. I remind the chamber that I am a PLO to the First Minister. To ask the First Minister what engagement the Scottish Government is carrying out with the banking sector regarding the importance of maintaining branches across communities in rural Scotland. Bank branch closures can, we know, have an adverse impact on the sustainability of communities, particularly those in rural areas. RBS and Bank of Scotland closures announced that the end of last year are, of course, of particular concern. Since those announcements, ministers have engaged directly with the banking sector through the financial services advisory board, we certainly welcome the news that RBS has decided to keep some branches open for the time being at least. However, I know that there will still be many communities and staff concerned about their future. The issue of rural bank closures concerns all banks in a sector-wide approach, I think, is needed to ensure that communities can access the services that they need, so we will continue to work with all banks to ensure that essential services remain accessible to everyone. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Obviously, I am pleased about the tongue branch in my constituency getting a reprieve until the end of the year, thanks to a sustained campaign by both the community and the SNP. However, WIC and Tain branches still face closure, as do a further 50 branches throughout Scotland. Will the First Minister join me in calling for RBS to listen to its biggest shareholder, the taxpayer, to stop the decimation of High Street Banking across Scotland? I think that RBS should listen to the voice of the public on the issue. That said, I welcome its announcements the other day about the reprieve given to 10 branches. That is welcome, but, of course, it leaves many other communities facing continued uncertainty. I pay tribute to MPs, led by Ian Blackford, who has persuaded RBS to make the announcement that they made earlier this week. I think that we all understand that the way that people access banking services has been and is continuing to change with online services being used much more widely. However, we also know that, for many local communities, those banking facilities are a crucial part of the sustainability of the community. We have to find the right balance as we look to the future. I think that a sector-wide approach is needed. As I said, we are engaging with the banking sector through the financial services advisory board and we will continue to do so. However, all banks, particularly those who have had the assistance that RBS has had over recent years from the taxpayer, should be very attuned to public opinion, and I hope that they will continue to work hard to be so. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to protect politicians and candidates from abuse. The first thing that it is important to say is that freedom of speech is a crucial part of democracy. The public have a right to make their views known to politicians and they have a right on occasions to protest if they do not like the decisions that politicians are taking. That freedom of speech is an absolutely essential part of any healthy democracy. That said, abuse of any nature, whether it is online or otherwise, should not be tolerated against anyone, whether they are in public life or not. The Scottish Government fully supports the police prosecutors and our courts in taking a robust approach when dealing with offending against anyone who suffers abuse. Of course, this administration introduced the statutory offence of threatening and abusive behaviour in 2010, which provides legal protections for everyone, including politicians and candidates. In the week, we celebrated some women getting the right to vote. We should realise that encouraging women into politics is not just a matter of law, it is also about culture. This Parliament has done good work in calling out sexual harassment and setting up a platform for such incidences. To that end, does the First Minister believe that a healthy political culture starts with all current politicians calling out trolling, online abuse, misogyny and, to that end, would the First Minister support setting up a platform to report it to? The First Minister I am happy to consider any suggestions about platforms for reporting, but we all have a responsibility here. Many of us in the chamber are not exclusively, but I am pretty sure that particularly the women among us will have experienced, particularly online, abuse of the most horrendous nature. I have to say that I have experienced some of it from members of your own party. Some of them are not called to account or disciplined always about that. We all have to take responsibility and put across the message that it is not just justified—it is absolutely right and proper in a democracy—that people can share their views with politicians. That is one of the great things about social media. It brings all of us closer to those that we represent, but it has to be in a proper, dignified and tolerant way. Abuse should not be tolerated. We have to all start with our own behaviour, calling out those within our own parties and leading by examples in the standards that we set. If we all do that, perhaps we can play our part in contributing to a much healthier space for public discourse on social media. I believe that, very strongly, as a fairly affid user of Twitter, if not of all other social media platforms, that it should be a real force for good in democracy. If we all lead by example in how we use it, perhaps we can contribute to making sure that it is. Would the First Minister accept that there is a balance to be struck in all of this? On the one hand, we want to protect politicians, candidates and so on, but on the other hand, we have to be prepared to take a certain amount of insults and robust challenge. I have certainly had a few insults along the way. The First Minister? I agree with the point about balance, as I said in my previous answer. The ability to challenge politicians, the ability to criticise politicians—actually, on occasion, the ability to insult politicians, if that is not done abusively—is not always comfortable for those of us who are politicians but is an essential part of a healthy democracy in any country. It is important that we all contribute to a public discourse that is respectful and encourages debate about often some difficult and complex issues and does not immediately get reduced to the hurling of insults in different directions. That is not always easy territory for any of us, but, as I said earlier on, where we start is with our own behaviour and the behaviour of our own parties. If we all do that, perhaps we will help to improve something that I know is of great concern to many in politics, but particularly to women. Mark Griffin To ask the First Minister how the UK Government's proposed changes to the support for mortgage interest scheme could impact on householders in Scotland. Is it asked UK ministers to pause the introduction of those changes? The Scottish Government estimates that changes to support for mortgage interest being introduced by the UK Government would affect between 10,000 and 20,000 households in Scotland, reducing social security spending by £20 million a year by 2020-21. Those changes are just another example of cost-cutting, with no thought whatsoever for how they will impact on those who desperately need help. In Scotland, of course, we continue to protect the most vulnerable and those in low incomes by investing more than £100 million every year to mitigate the worst impacts of the UK Government's welfare cuts, as well as arguing against those cuts. However, the sooner comprehensive welfare powers are in the hands of this Parliament, the better. That will mean that we are able to make decisions that are in the best interests of the people that we serve. Mark Griffin I thank the First Minister for her response. The bedroom tax is an illiteratory policy, which will hit those in low incomes, puts at risk their home and will drive them further into debt when they are already out of work. Right now, 11,000 Scots who rely on the current scheme have little over two months to decide if they will take out what is effectively a second mortgage at the behest of Serco and the DWP. The First Minister will be aware that Royal London has published statistics showing that barely 7,000 people right across the UK have moved over to that new scheme. For thousands of Scots without work, disproportionately, pensioners and the disabled, they are at risk of having their home repossessed if they do not move over. My colleagues at Westminster and I, like the First Minister, would like to see the scheme changes reversed altogether. Can the First Minister confirm that, if the Scottish Government is working with its partners and local government, the third sector, and possibly lenders, ready to step in to support anyone who is at risk of losing their home in a matter of months? We will work with local authorities and other partners to provide whatever support we can to any individual who is facing this situation. As the member knows—I think that people across the chamber know—we mitigate, as far as we possibly can, the impact of welfare changes. We cannot, with the best will in the world—believe me, we have the will—we cannot mitigate the impact of every UK Government's welfare change. When they make the cuts, they do not give us our share of the money, they keep the money that they save from the cut that they make. Every penny of mitigation that we invest has to come from the health service, education or other services that we are responsible for. We will mitigate where we can, but it comes back to the fundamental issue here. I am just looking here—not one of the Tories can look up, I think, from their desk at the moment, because we are talking here about the impact of their dreadful welfare cuts on the most vulnerable people in our society. I hope that Labour's position is changing and that we can have consensus and a joint approach to that. The real answer to that is to get those powers completely out of the hands of Tory Governments at Westminster and into the hands of this Parliament, where we can exercise them in the best interests of the people that we serve. I will try to squeeze in question 7, Leigh MacArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister on what date funds from the Saltire prize for marine energy will be distributed. First Minister. The Saltire prize has already helped to draw international attention to the potential of marine energy. It has sparked the interest of technology developers around the world and put Scotland and particularly Orkney and its marine expertise on the map. The prize has not, however, been awarded as the independent competition judging panel's view was that no competitor was in a position to meet the criteria for it. The simple reality is that the industry has found it harder to meet the challenge than was perhaps expected back in 2008. That is why I asked officials to work with the Saltire prize challenge committee to reshape the prize so that it can continue to drive innovation and incentivise investment in Scotland. Research has been commissioned on the current state of the industry and a report will be published shortly, which should assist the committee with its deliberations. Leigh MacArthur. I thank the First Minister for that response. The Saltire prize, as she says, was launched first in 2008. It seemed barely a month went by without Mr Salmond relaunching it. The value to the marine energy sector having a statement of intent from the Scottish Government and one that might, as she says, stimulate the interest in the world-leading work being done on marine energy in Scotland, including in my Orkney constituency, is not in question. However, a decade on, the Saltire prize appears to have gone the way of the historic Concordat. Does the First Minister believe that the Saltire prize will be won before the end of this Parliament? If so, will she recognise the need for the prize to better reflect where the marine energy sector is and will be over the next few years? I recognise that, which is why I have asked officials to work with the challenge committee to reshape the prize so that it can continue to drive innovation and incentivise investment. I think that it is important to recognise that, notwithstanding the fact that the prize has not been awarded, the marine energy industry—and I know that Liam MacArthur knows this from his constituency interests—has taken major steps forward since the prize was first established in 2008. There are a number of high-profile excesses, such as Nova Innovation, Atlantis and Scot renewables, for example. However, the hard reality is that the path to commercialisation is taking longer and proving more difficult than was initially anticipated. The industry has faced a whole series of challenges—technological, financial, environmental and the availability of grid connections. In fact, the investment climate has not been held by the UK Government's decision to remove the ring-fen subsidy for marine energy. Those are the reasons why no competitor was able to meet the deadline of June 2017. However, the challenge committee, which oversees the prize, has been keeping the criteria and competitor progress under review. It asked for an up-to-date analysis of the industry before recommending a way forward for the prize. That was commissioned in 2017. As I said earlier, that report is due to be published shortly. In relation to Rhoda Grant's question, yesterday, the journalist James McEnna exposed yet again the Government's conduct in their handling of freedom of information requests, with special advisers routinely copied into and politically interfering in replies. The Deputy First Minister caught ordering key documents to be withdrawn. I hope that you agree that this is a very serious issue. Last year, the Parliament supported a fully independent review of the Government's performance of freedom of information. I therefore ask if you have been informed when that review will take place and how you can assist us in ensuring that the will of Parliament prevails. Thank you, Mr Findlay. I do not regard that as a point of order at all. The member knows that, if Parliament has passed a motion for the Government to choose how to respond, we do respect the will of Parliament to be responded to. Thank you very much. That concludes First Minister's questions. We will now move on to the member's business, the name of Willie Rennie, on East Newk First Responders. We will just take a few moments for members and the minister to take their seats.