 Rwy'n rydyn ni geto liattwch ar wyb батaniau Cyfrouveordd a rydyn ni'nuning mor croeswyr nôl. Llyrgelliableig, have we recognised the work evaluated by the hard-press staff that reactions to although 999 calls? However, this meeting this week we have heard more evidence of things going tragically wrong. Elizabeth Bow called 999 to report a domestic abuse situation. 84 minutes later, gemeinsam police had been murdered in cold blood by her brother, yet the control room told her that they were refusing to send officers to her house. We know that this is not an isolated incident, and the question people are asking is this. How many more times will a call for help go unheeded before the situation in our emergency control rooms is sorted out? First Minister. Well, this is an extremely serious issue and involves an extremely serious case. I think that the first thing I would want to do here today, Presiding Officer, is convey my thoughts and sympathies, my heartfelt thoughts and sympathies to the family of Elizabeth Bow. This was a tragic incident. Police Scotland has rightly offered an apology to the family for its handling of the initial call that was made. It is beyond doubt that there were significant failings here and Police Scotland went out with their own procedures in dealing with these types of calls. In other words, Police Scotland did not provide the response that was expected of them. That is not acceptable and it is crucial that the police service learns lessons from that. In terms of Ruth Davidson's wider question, there are significant improvements that have been made to police call handling. That is not just my view. We know from the update report that was published by Her Majesty's inspectorate earlier this year that that is the view of the inspectorate as well. Clearly, following another tragic case, there was a review of call handling that was published in November 2015. There have been a number of improvements made and it is vital that the police continue to make those improvements. Indeed, since the incident that Ruth Davidson has raised today, further action has been taken. For example, the police have rolled out risk and vulnerability training to more than 800 staff. Further guidance has been issued to all control room staff in relation to the regrading and closing of incidents. A national quality assurance unit for police call handling has also been established. That was a tragic and unacceptable case and nothing I say today is intended to detract from the seriousness of that. It is simply not the case to say that significant improvements are not being made and have not been made to call handling. It is important that lessons from cases like that continue to be learned. Ruth Davidson. I thank the First Minister for that answer and she points to the assurance review by Her Majesty's inspectorate that was made in January of this year in her Government's defence. Let me run through some of the 200 incidents from the last year that we have uncovered, mostly since that report was made. In one case, a suicidal man was told to hang up. In another, two separate call handlers failed to record a report of a dead body in the house. In another, a couple rang 999 to report that their front door was being kicked in but did not get any help because firstly the wrong address was written down and secondly police officers weren't even dispatched. That is the reality of what is happening right now. Does that sound to the First Minister like a system that is functioning well yet? Every single one of the incidents that has been cited today by Ruth Davidson is serious and unacceptable. As I said in my initial answer, I do not want anybody to hear anything that I say today as detracting from the seriousness and the unacceptable of those incidents. However, I think that it is important to put the situation into context. Ruth Davidson cites 200 incidents, as I said, completely unacceptable. However, Police Scotland handles 2.6 million calls every year. Let me quote what Derek Penman, the chief inspector of constabulary, said on this very issue when he appeared earlier this year before the justice sub-committee on policing. He said, we must realise that there will always be risks and things will happen. Some people fail to accept that but we need to recognise that improvements have been made and that there is no crisis in police call handling. I am very clear that one incident of the type that Ruth Davidson cited here today is one too many. Lessons must be learned from all those incidents, as lessons will be learned from the one that Perk reported on this week. I also think that we need to recognise the number of calls that are handled and use that as context, but also to recognise, again, as has been recognised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate, the significant improvements that have been made. The responsibility of the police, overseen by the SPA and, of course, with the ultimate accountability of this Government, is to continue to make sure that those improvements are made and that all lessons, when they need to be learned, are learned. We keep hearing that things are getting better but, time and time again, members of this chamber have raised concerns about the way the centralisation of our police force has been administered. Time and time again, the justice secretary brushes those concerns aside and insists that the rush closure of control rooms under his watch is safe. As I have just read out, incidents are continuing and the problem in part of this Government's making is still live. The public has a right to expect better. The justice secretary claims that he is on top of this. Does the First Minister share his confidence? Ruth Davidson, to her credit, is raising a significantly important issue and one that is of concern to the public across Scotland. However, I think that she risks doing herself a bit of a disservice in how she is characterising the approach both of the police and of the Government. It is simply not true and it is not fair, Presiding Officer, to say that this Government or the justice secretary has ever brushed aside concerns of this nature that has been raised. Indeed, it was the justice secretary who commissioned the report into call-handling that Her Majesty's Inspectorate carried out and published in November 2015 with the update report that we have referred to in January of this year. It is also not just me or indeed the justice secretary who is saying that significant improvements have been made. That is the view of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. The vast majority of the recommendations that were made in that original report have already been implemented. Significant action, some of which I have already narrated today, has been taken to strengthen the call-handling processes and to make sure that the whole process is of the quality that people deserve. However, I will never ever stand here and say anything other than that the type of cases that we have heard reported this week or the ones that Ruth Davidson has quoted in this chamber are in anything other than completely unacceptable. In accepting that, it would equally be wrong for me somehow to say that no improvements have been made. It is wrong for Ruth Davidson to say that because that is not the case. Significant improvements have been made and will continue to be made and all lessons that are required to be learned absolutely will be learned. The issues that I am citing have happened since that report was published. That is not an issue that has been resolved, it is still on-going. We were promised all of us in this chamber that taking control rooms out of local areas would not result in a loss of local knowledge. Let me read some more cases from this year. A woman threatened by her ex-partner who did not get a response from police because they were sent to the wrong address. A man threatened with a knife where police were sent to the right flat, in the right street but in the wrong town. A caller who rang as their mother and their niece were being assaulted and again police sent to the wrong location. The justice secretary promised that if performance dropped at any of Police Scotland's call handling centres there would be rapid intervention and he made that promise two years ago. We are still seeing hundreds of serious incidents. Can the First Minister look those families in the eye and say that her Government has lived up to its promise? I would say to any family who has experienced the kind of experiences that Ruth Davidson has cited today that that is completely unacceptable. There is no dispute between Ruth Davidson and I on that fact. I would like nothing better to stand here and say and to be able to give an absolute category guarantee that in a police system that handles 2.6 million calls every year nothing will ever go wrong. However, there is no country on the face of this planet that has a Government that can stand up and give that category guarantee. However, we will continue to take all appropriate and necessary steps to make sure that the system that is in place is as robust as possible. The point that I am making is that there have been significant steps taken leading to significant improvements since the report in 2015. Again, I would say that if it was only me standing here saying that, I guess that the scepticism that Ruth Davidson is articulating today may have more justification. However, Her Majesty's inspectorate is saying that significant improvements have been made and has also made the point that given the volume of calls, unfortunately, and is of deep regret to everybody, there will be cases where things go wrong. Our duty is to try to make sure that that risk is minimised as much as possible and that is what we will do. Those lessons will continue to be learned and we will continue to give our police service the support that it needs to make sure that the public has assurance that the call handling arrangements that are in place are robust. I have already quoted Her Majesty's inspectorate. Let me also quote from this year, in fact, very recently, Niven Rennie, who used to be the president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. I do know that police receive millions of calls a year. The vast majority of them are answered extremely well, very professionally, but recognise that sometimes things will go wrong. Our duty is to make sure that we act in any case where that happens so that all appropriate lessons are learned and that is what we will continue to do. 2. Jackie Baillie Will the First Minister join with me in commending the bravery and courage of all those who have come forward to speak out about sexual harassment? First Minister. Yes, I absolutely join with Jackie Baillie in doing that. Many organisations, all political parties, indeed this Parliament and other parliaments have had to confront some very difficult situations in recent days but it is absolutely right and proper that we have been prepared to do so. I think that the priority for all of us in this and these are not easy situations is to encourage women to come forward and to make sure that when women do, the environment that is being provided for them is as supportive as possible. I think that they have confidence that they will be listened to and believed and that any concerns or complaints that they bring forward will be robustly investigated. I think that that has led to all of us looking afresh at our procedures and tightening those procedures. I know that my own party has done that and I know that the Scottish Parliament is doing likewise but we should pay tribute to women coming forward and we should encourage others to do so if they feel that is what they want to do. Jackie Baillie. I agree with the First Minister on that point because it does take incredible bravery to speak out about harassment, especially when often it is a woman having to report the behaviour of a man in a position of power. A helpline is a welcome first step but it is pointless if it does not ring and it will not ring if victims do not see that allegations made are then investigated transparently because an absence of complaints does not mean an absence of harassment. Our response needs to go further because we know that apologies are not always enough. Can the First Minister tell us what changes she wants to see in the Parliament to create that safe space for people to speak out? Of course that is not just a matter for me, that is a matter for Parliament collectively. I met with representatives of other parties last week where we talked about the changes and procedures that the Parliament should make. I made the point at that meeting, I have made this point publicly, that changes and procedures are necessary and important but it is the underlying culture that allows some men and I stress some men but it is predominantly men to behave in a way that leads to women feeling the way that many women have done and we have to change that underlying culture. John Swinney last week in this chamber rightly said that it was for all men to reflect on their behaviour and I again would reiterate that point. I think that in terms of the Parliament's own procedures that I stress before the Presiding Officer points it out to me that this is not a matter for me as First Minister, this is a matter for Parliament. I think that the situation with the Parliament's corporate body where there are no women represented on it is unacceptable and will have to be addressed and resolved by this Parliament. We are about as a Parliament to consider legislation about gender balance on public bodies. This Parliament has a duty to lead by example so that is a matter for all of Parliament to address but I think that I am making pretty clear this afternoon what my views on that issue are. Jackie Baillie Again, there is much that I can agree with the First Minister on but I think that we all know that a woman will not speak out if she thinks that she will be ignored or if the man's behaviour goes unchallenged or simply excused as a joke. This should be a watershed moment. This is our opportunity to tackle sexual harassment in our Parliament, in our country and in our society and the Scottish Parliament must lead the way. No matter if you are a backbencher or a minister, no matter whether it is at Holyrood or Westminster, sexual harassment needs to be challenged and challenged transparently. First Minister, if the standard of behaviour is not good enough for someone to remain as a minister then how can it be good enough for an MSP? Jackie Baillie is referring to the situation of Mark MacDonald. Mark MacDonald did what John Swinney had asked all men to do last week and reflect on his behaviour. He came to the conclusion that that behaviour, whatever he might have thought of it at the time, was behaviour that was not appropriate. He did, in my view, the right thing by resigning. Let me be clear that that behaviour was about language, not physical conduct. While I think that it justified the step that Mark MacDonald took, let me also make it clear that it was not language that would come in any way close to being something that would require to be referred to the police. That context is important. I agree with Jackie Baillie 100 per cent on the point that women will not be encouraged to come forward if they do not believe that they will be taken seriously, if the behaviour that they are complaining of will simply be dismissed or they feel that they will be ignored. I think that there is another issue here. This is particularly relevant to politics and it is particularly difficult for politics. Women will possibly also be discouraged from coming forward if they think that the moment they do every aspect of what they are raising as a concern will be all over the media. In that situation, I think that we would unintentionally give politicians perhaps more protection than others in society and that is not what any of us want to do. That supportive environment that we want to create for women coming forward also on occasion has to involve respecting the confidentiality and the privacy of the issues that women are raising. That will mean that sometimes we have to find balances in those things that are not always easy for those of us standing up in Parliament explaining, but none of that is easy. It is all about making sure that we provide the right environment for women because I want every woman who has had any experience of this nature who wants to come forward now to feel that they can do that and that they can do that in the right way and get all of the support, including at times confidentiality that they require to enable them to do so. I will take a couple of constituency supplementaries, the first one is from Alexander Stewart. Flairing at Mossmorran has been causing anger, distress and upset amongst many Fife residents in my region. The flare that lights up the sky with a pulsating glow can be seen as far away as Angus. The night sky has been turned to daylight in the areas in Cowdenbeath and Kelty, causing anxiety, sleeplessness and distress. Day after day residents have had to endure noise pollution and vibrations, not to talk about the impact of quality of air and the environment. Will the First Minister take affirmative action to hold Exxonwable to account over their unannounced flaring and give my constituents proper answers after months of worry and lack of updates? I understand the issue that has been raised by the member and have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns that the public are expressing over the situation. In all issues like this, in due course, if there are issues of accountability, those must be taken seriously. Here, of course, the regulatory body is SEPA, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. SEPA is very closely engaged in this issue, is looking into it and I understand that its engagement includes engaging with the local population. I will ask the environment secretary to write to the member updating on the action and investigations that are under way by SEPA, but this is a serious matter that must be properly and transparently resolved. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to support Adam Maxwell, who has barely slept since the death of his wife, Kirsty, in Benidorm in April this year, as he and Kirsty's family pressed for a full investigation into the circumstances of the tragic loss. First Minister? Firstly, let me offer my sincere condolences to Mr Maxwell and to all of Kirsty's family on their tragic loss. It is impossible for any of us to imagine what he and his wider family are going through at this time, but they should know my thoughts, and I am sure that the thoughts of everybody across the Parliament are with them. The justice secretary met the family in September to listen to their concerns. I understand the investigation by the Spanish authorities into the circumstances surrounding Kirsty's death is still on-going and police Scotland officers continue to offer support to the Spanish authorities. I can give Alison Johnstone the assurance that police Scotland will continue to liaise closely with the family or indeed interview any potential witnesses who reside in Scotland. The Scottish family deserves answers about what happened to their loved ones, and the police in Scotland will do everything that they possibly can to make sure that they get them. To ask the First Minister following the sudden decision by VG Energy in Galston to enter liquidation, what action the Scottish Government can take to support the firm's 39 staff? First of all, this will be an extremely difficult time for the staff of the company concerned. As is always the case in these situations, the Scottish Government will liaise with the company to see if there are any ways in which employment can be protected. If it is not already fully engaged, our approach to supporting people facing redundancy will be to offer appropriate support to those affected. I am sure that the employment secretary would be happy to discuss the situation further with the member if there are any other issues that he wishes to raise. 3. Willie Rennie I am sure that the First Minister will join me in wishing a superior recovery to the police officer stabbed at Edinburgh College on Monday. We all stand together in appreciation of his service and his duty. 4. Elizabeth Bowe My constituency's case is deeply troubling. It is an issue that I have raised repeatedly over recent years since the centralisation of the call centres. It is reasonable to ask those questions because Bilston Glen was at the centre of the N9 crash tragedy where two victims were left dying at the side of the motorway for days because of a shortage of experienced call handlers. We perk have recommended in this particular case that there should be additional training. Can the First Minister give us a guarantee that all the staff at Bilston Glen have the appropriate experience and that the staff in this individual case have the appropriate experience as well? 5. Willie Rennie I would join the member in wishing, while the police officer who was stabbed earlier this week wished him a superior recovery. That incident is a reminder of the risks that our police officers take on a daily basis as they work hard to keep all of us safe. 6. Willie Rennie Rennie is, of course, entirely reasonable and legitimate for those questions to be raised. Willie Rennie has indeed raised those issues over a period of time, and that is to his credit. 7. Elizabeth Bowell I have already had exchanges with Ruth Davidson. I can give an assurance that all the recommendations in the perk report will be taken forward by Police Scotland. Implemented in some of the specifics about individual officers, I am not going to get into detail, I am happy to ask the justice secretary to write to Willie Rennie with more detail if he wishes that. As I said earlier, in response to Ruth Davidson, Police Scotland has already taken action to deliver risk and vulnerability training to more than 800 staff. That process will continue. That is about helping staff to better identify and assess risk and to capture all relevant information on calls. I will continue to make sure that everything that is required to be done following those cases is done. I will continue to pay close attention to this as First Minister, but the justice secretary continues to be engaged on those issues on an on-going basis. I would appreciate some more detailed response from the justice secretary in this case, because it is particularly important to understand the level of experience of the staff at Bilston Glen. It is disturbing, however, that the inline crash happened over two years ago, but the family have still not had that fatal accident inquiry that was promised to them at that time. We need to understand what needs to be improved in order for improvements to be made. There are still questions about the underlying reasons for what went wrong in St Andrews. We still do not know what exactly went wrong on the M9. What guarantees can the First Minister give that we will be told before another tragedy happens? In terms of a fatal accident inquiry, I absolutely understand the desire of the family in that case to have all of the answers to the questions that they have. As Willie Rennie knows—and it is important that I make this clear—decisions on fatal accident inquiries are not for me, as First Minister, but for the justice secretary. They are for the Crown Office, and I am sure that the Lord Advocate would be more than willing to update Willie Rennie on the decision-making around a fatal accident inquiry in that case. As I said to Ruth Davidson, I want to make it clear, not just for the benefit of those of us in this chamber but for the wider public, that there is no sense in any of those cases of waiting until fatal accident inquiries before action is taken to learn lessons and address any failings that have been identified. The work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, the work of Perk, is hugely important in that regard. I repeat what I said to Ruth Davidson. Again, I will stress not seeking in any way to diminish the seriousness of those cases, but it is the case that significant lessons have been learned, significant improvements have been made, that has been recognised by the inspectorate, and we will continue to make sure that that is the case in all cases and that whatever action requires to be taken is taken. The First Minister is the first from Bruce Crawford. In this important week in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday, can I ask the First Minister to outline what support the Scottish Government provides for veterans to make the transition from military to civilian life? My constituency of Stilling has a long and proud connections with the military, but I am sure that veterans across Scotland will be interested to hear the First Minister's response. As we approach Remembrance Sunday, the interests and sacrifices of our armed services and our veterans are very much at the forefront of our minds. Last year, the Scottish Government published a summary of our work to support our armed forces community in Scotland. Next week, the Veterans Minister will update Parliament fully on this. We have invested more than £1 million through the Scottish Veterans Fund since 2008 to support over 140 projects across Scotland that provide valuable housing, health and employment support for veterans. We also established a veterans employability group to lead work in this area. This year, we committed £5 million to ensure that veterans in receipt of social care receive the full value of their war pensions. Although transition issues are reserved, we will continue to give veterans across Scotland the support that they deserve. All year round, but particularly at this time of year, all of us recognise that nothing we can do of this nature will ever repay fully the debt of gratitude that we owe to our armed services and our veterans community. Graeme Dey? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Although the legal obstacle to the development of four offshore wind farms in the first of fourth and Tate has now been removed, three of their proposed developments, including Inchcafe, of the Angus Coast, still require contract for different support to proceed. In this offshore wind week, would the First Minister join me in encouraging the UK Government to provide such backing and ensure that we are able to take the significant step forward in renewable electricity generation and meeting our climate change obligations? I absolutely agree with Graeme Dey. We have the Beatrice project now well under construction to be followed by N and G and Murray wind farms in the coming years. Together, those projects are going to provide 2 gigawatts of renewable energy plus huge economic benefits for the entire country. The UK Government has committed to a third contract for difference auction in spring 2019, providing an opportunity for the remaining projects in the fourth and Tate to secure a contract that will build on this momentum to deliver a sustainable and inclusive economy for Scotland. We are absolutely committed to predicting our marine environment, which, of course, is threatened by climate change, so we all need to play our part in tackling this global challenge. It is widely recognised that Scotland is a world leader in this field, and we want to make sure that the support is there that ensures that we can continue to be so. To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government can put in place to curtail tax avoidance. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government only has power to directly tackle tax avoidance in relation to two fully devolved taxis—LBTT and the Scottish landfill tax. We take a simple, clear and very robust approach. We have a general anti-avoidance rule that is wider than the corresponding UK rule. That allows Revenue Scotland to take action against tax avoidance arrangements that are considered to be artificial, even if they otherwise operate within the law. Following recent reports about the use of offshore tax havens, the finance secretary has written to the Chancellor seeking urgent reassurance that the UK Government will now take the issue of tax avoidance seriously and demanding that concrete action is now taken. I thank the First Minister for her answer and, in particular, the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to reduce tax avoidance. However, does she share my disgust, particularly towards those disclosed in the Paradise Papers, whose salaries are paid by the public, such as Fiona and Mark Delaney and Patty Houlin, actors in the hit show Mrs Brown's Boys, whose wages are paid by the BBC, funded by the licensed bearers, with them squirreling away some £2 million offshore to avoid income tax? Does she agree with me that they should consider disbarring themselves from using, for example, any health service across the UK that they obviously do not want to pay for, or would not they like that script? I think that Christine Grahame is right. The anger that underlies Christine Grahame's question is shared by the vast majority of people across the UK. People should pay the taxes that they are due to pay. Paying tax is the collective duty that we have to ensure that we have public services that are there for all of us when we need them. The taxes that we pay provide our national health service, our education system, the infrastructure and the other support that our businesses need to prosper and thrive. When somebody puts money into an offshore haven, for example, that is about not paying full tax, they are depriving the public services of the money that they rely on, and that is wrong. We know that, according to HMRC estimates, the Treasury lost out on £6.9 billion from evasion and avoidance in 2015-16, and £1.7 billion of that was down to tax avoidance. For individuals and businesses, tax contributions should be a matter not of what they can get away with but of respecting the spirit of the law and paying a fair contribution. That would be my message to individuals, but my message to the UK Government is that it is within their power to crack down on some of this stuff. I think that it is a matter of regret and shame that they have not done so. I hope that we will now see some action before the next set of papers are released no doubt sometime in the future. Murdo Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. While I accept that there is always much more to be done to clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion, I wonder if the First Minister would acknowledge that the tax gap in the UK at 6 per cent is the lowest it has ever been and is amongst the lowest in the world. On the subject of regret and shame, I wonder if the First Minister now regrets being part of a Government that paid £10 million of taxpayers' money to Amazon, a company that hardly has an excellent record when it comes to paying tax. If I had to guess what MSP would have lept to their feet today to defend the tax avoiders, I would probably have put Murdo Fraser quite close to the top of that list. We can cite figures as Murdo Fraser has just done about the tax gap being less than it is in other countries, but let me repeat what I said earlier on. Close to £7 billion has been lost to public services in our country because of tax avoidance and evasion. That is unacceptable, and even if Murdo Fraser cannot quite bring himself to see it and to say so, I think that the vast majority of people across the country will do so. We call on all companies, Amazon included, to pay their due tax and we call on the UK Government, where power on this lies, to take the action to ensure that people pay the tax that is due. James Kelly The First Minister correctly points out that companies that participate in tax evasion and tax avoidance reduce the amount of money that goes to public services to address the issues that we talk about weekend and week out in this chamber, building a better health service and supporting education. Will the First Minister therefore agree to call in and cancel any public contracts where companies have been shown to have participated in tax avoidance to ensure that all public contracts are awarded to companies who organise their tax affairs in a fair and transparent manner and pay fairly into the public purse? I generally agree with the sentiment of the question. As James Kelly knows, we have made significant reforms to public procurement over a number of years to make sure that where companies are benefitting from public contracts they are expected to behave, not just within the letter of the law but to behave in a way that people would think is acceptable. I also would hope that James Kelly would recognise that the powers around tax avoidance and cracking down on tax avoidance principally lie, unfortunately, not in this Parliament but with the UK Government and I would hope that James Kelly will join us in calling on the UK Government to at last do something about it. The First Minister will be aware of reports on the Paradise Papers regarding the St Enoc Centre in Glasgow. She will also be aware that, for example, Edinburgh airports owned by a complex structure located in Grand Cayman and Luxembourg, and there is a large rural estate sale currently being negotiated that involves the transfer of shares in an offshore company that is avoiding land and buildings transaction tax. What additional work has the Scottish Government undertaking to ensure that those risks of tax avoidance by offshore companies are identified and ended? We will continue to do everything within our power to try to crack down on that kind of behaviour. I have already spoken about the fact that we have more robust rules and the two taxes where we have responsibility than is the case across the UK. Andy Wightman is also aware and has a keen interest in some of the work that we are progressing in the context of land reform to increase transparency with a register of controlling interest. I really wish that this Parliament had more power in this area than we do. Unfortunately, we do not. Let those of us who think that that is wrong come together firstly to demand that the UK Government takes action that it has so far dragged its feet on taking, but perhaps ultimately calling for these powers to lie in the hands of this Parliament so that we can have the crack down that people want. To ask the First Minister, in light of reports of crews being attacked when dealing with bonfires over the weekend, what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure the safety of emergency responders? None of us should ever tolerate attacks against firefighters or indeed any member of our emergency services who do a remarkable job in very challenging circumstances. The Minister for Community Safety visited Dalkeith fire station on Tuesday and spoke to firefighters who had been attacked while on duty on bonfire night and thankfully none sustained any significant injuries. Unfortunately, one police officer suffered burns from a firework-related attack, which I understand to be serious but not life-threatening, and I am sure that the whole chamber will join me in wishing that officer a speedy recovery. We fully support the police and our courts in dealing robustly with those offences. Those charged with attacks against our emergency service workers can face a prison sentence at £10,000 fine or both. Liam Kerr. I thank the First Minister for that answer. As she pointed out, last weekend our emergency services were the target of mindless violence and today there are reports that specialist public order support was demanded by front-line officers but was refused and as a result the officer suffered serious burns from a firework thrown at her face. The Scottish Government does not collate data on how many of those incidents take place. Therefore, if it does not know the scale of the problem, it cannot have any idea whether its solutions will be the right ones. As a first step to protecting those who dedicate their lives to protecting us, will the Scottish Government immediately begin gathering and publishing data on the number of assaults that have taken place against the emergency services and commit to an urgent review of resourcing and protective equipment based on that data? I do believe that there is work already being progressed around the very reasonable issue of data that the member has raised but I will have the justice secretary or the minister for community safety who I believe is overseeing this work right to him with further details. The point about data, not just when we are looking at this issue but generally is an important and reasonable one so we will take that forward and reflect on whether further action is required on that front. More generally, I am sure that all of us want to send our sympathies and good wishes to the officer who was injured. I understand that Police Scotland had put in place a significant amount of planning for bonfire night. A significant number of additional officers had been deployed double the number normally on duty. A formal debrief to review those events has been scheduled to ensure that any lessons that are required to be learned are learned for the future. We should come together to send the clearest of messages. Our emergency services workers put their lives literally on the line each and every day to keep us safe. It is unconscionable and awful that anybody could ever contemplate attacking a member of our emergency services while they are going about their duty and we must condemn that and make clear that there will be zero tolerance towards it. Alex Cole-Hamilton has a lot of interest in that particular question. Last year, the anti-social use of fireworks resulted in several convictions for mobbing and rioting in the Muirhouse area of my constituency. As Liam Kerr mentioned this year, a police officer was hospitalised for burns following a direct hit from a firework that was deliberately thrown at her. Year-on-year, we are seeing an escalation in this kind of behaviour. Does the First Minister agree that, as well as a mature discussion around the licensing of private firework use, we also need to dramatically invest funding in detached and sectional youth work in areas like Muirhouse as a means of diverting young people from this kind of activity in the first place? Yes, I do. That is a reasonable point to make. There are a number of things that we need to do to make sure that our police officers and firefighters are properly resourced on and around occasions like bonfire night. I have already said that there were double the number of officers who were on duty in bonfire night, given some of the disorder that we have seen previously. I also think that there is a discussion to be had and probably a look required at the rules and regulations and laws around both the sale of fireworks and the permitted use of fireworks. As the member will be aware, there is split responsibility between this Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. The Scottish Government has responsibility for legislation on the use of fireworks, but it is reserved to Westminster in terms of sale and possession of fireworks. In fact, I am sure that there is nobody in this chamber who has not had concerns raised by constituents this week about firework use. The Scottish Government will certainly take a look at where we have powers, whether we should do any more or take any further action. Finally, the point that Alec Cole-Hamilton raises about diversion, not just in this context but more generally, is an important one. I have already praised and paid tribute to our emergency service workers, but we also need to pay tribute to those who do youth workers who work with our young people seeking to engage them in more productive conduct than some of the conduct that we are speaking about. That is a valid point to make. I support everything that the First Minister has said about attacks on fire service crew, but attacks on the fire service come in many guises. Can we also condemn any proposals to reduce fire service numbers and close fire stations, because those are a further attack on the fire service? Will she commit today to halt any proposals that may come forward in the future that would reduce fire service jobs and reduce the number of fire stations? We will continue to take action to protect the front line of our fire service to do the job that they are there to do. There have been no closures of fire stations since the reform of the fire service took place. It is absolutely right that the fire service, given the changing demands on them, look at the action that it has to take to make sure that our firefighters are properly equipped to do the job that we expect them to do. As we see in this year's budget, where we have increased the revenue operating budget of the fire service, we will continue to work with the fire service to make sure that they are equipped to do the vital job that all of us depend on them doing. 6. Rhoda Grant To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the UK Government regarding reports that the UK could leave the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy in March 2019 with no transition period. The First Minister On Monday, the rural economy and environment secretaries met the DEFRA Secretary of State, along with the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs. During the meeting, they pressed the Secretary of State on the issue of transition for the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. The UK Government at that meeting was not able to give any clear position at all. Farmers and fishermen need to know what regime they will be operating under in less than 18 months time. It is simply unacceptable that the UK Government has so far been unable to provide the clarity that has been requested and that is required. We will continue to press DEFRA and UK ministers on this critical issue in the coming weeks. Rhoda Grant The First Minister knows that many of our fishers and farmers depend on access to UK markets to sell their produce and also on EU subsidies to make our food more affordable and to protect the environment. What steps can she take to provide them with some comfort that that will continue post March 2019? Rhoda Grant We will do everything we can to make sure that the support that our farmers and fishermen depend on continues after the UK leaves the European Union. Right now, the UK Government requires to provide that clarity. We do not even know right now whether CAP and the common fisheries policy will continue for a transitional period or whether the UK will exit at the point of Brexit in March 2019. I mean, just to underline the confusion that reigns in the UK Government, I mean, here's two quotes, a matter of days apart. Lord Duncan from the Scotland office speaking to the AFU said, the Secretary of State, Michael Goff, has been very clear that he believes that farming and fishing should not be part of any transitional deal. Michael Goff, five days later, certainly a transition period of around two years will follow and I have some thoughts about what might happen to CAP during that period. It is unconscionable that our farmers and fishermen who, as the member said, do rely so much on these EU subsidies, still have no clarity whatsoever. I hope that everybody across this chamber will join with us in putting pressure on the UK Government to resolve this situation and give the clarity that is so urgently needed.