 P During all First Ministers Questions 1 What engagement she has planned for the rest of the day This is the last opportunity that we will have at our request to offer Parliament a very brief update on our work to secure a future for Scotland's steel industry Negotiations with Liberty House and Tata Steel and the Scottish Government are continuing... Society of Liberty House and operate the DL and Clydebridge steel plants." The final due diligence on that agreement is taking place at present. The agreement would be facilitated by the Scottish Government and involve us buying the plants and then immediately selling them on to liberty for the same consideration. You should know that Fergus Ewing is attending the Scottish steel task force this afternoon and will provide further details at that point. In the meantime I want to thank the workforce, the unions and companies for their patience and perseverance. We promise that we would leave no stone unturned in our efforts to secure the future of our steel industry, and that is what we continue to do. That is indeed very encouraging news, First Minister. I put on record my thanks to all those members of the steel task force for their hard work and determination, notably on my own benches at Drew Smith, James Kelly and John Pentland, and indeed our trade union partners. During the UK general election last year, Nicola Sturgeon said that she would reverse George Osborne's tax cut for the top 1%. Pledging to reintroduce the 50p top rate of tax, the First Minister said that it is right that those with the broadest shoulders pay a little bit more. Yesterday she changed her mind. The SNP will now go into this election with a commitment to keep George Osborne's tax cut for those earning more than £150,000 a year, even though we now have the power to make different choices from the Tories. Why does the First Minister no longer think that the richest 1% should pay their fair share? Raising the top rate of tax to 50p could raise zero money because of the ways in which people can avoid paying tax. Those are not my words, Presiding Officer. Those are the words of Kezia Dugdale. Let me say this and say it very seriously to the people of Scotland. Raising the top rate of tax would be politically easy to do. There are only 17,000 people in our country who pay it. There is no political risk attached to doing that. But doing it in the face of analysis that says that right now it could actually reduce the amount of money we have to invest in our national health service and our public services would not be radical, it would be reckless, it would not be daring, it would be daft. We will not do it straight away. Instead, we will continue to consider it in light of our experience and analysis. In the meantime, we will put forward fair, reasonable and progressive tax proposals. We will ask the better off in our society to shoulder a bit more of the burden. Over the life of the next Parliament, our proposals, local and national, will raise an additional £2 billion of revenue. Revenue that we can invest in our national health service, in our public services and in mitigating the impact of Tory austerity. That is why I will be proud to ask the people of Scotland to back our plans. The First Minister should really pay attention. Since I made those remarks, Her Majesty's revenues and customs has made it harder for people to move their tax liabilities throughout the United Kingdom. Do you know what? We have heard, time and time again, excuses made about how the richest could avoid paying more taxes than there would be a mass exodus from Scotland. It's just that we normally hear it from the Tory party, not from the First Minister. It wasn't just at the general election that the First Minister claimed to support the richest few paying their fair share. On the day of the Smith agreement to devolve the power over tax, she told this chamber, if I was taking that decision now, yes, I would raise the top rate of income tax to 50p. Yet now she has the power to reverse George Osborne's tax cut for the very richest and stop the cuts. She refuses to use it. This is the First Minister who made her name as the anti-asterity champion. She went down to England and said that she would stand up to George Osborne's tax cuts, yet the minute she gets the powers back home, the First Minister chooses not to act. It is no surprise that the STUC, the representatives of Scotland's workers and trade unions, described the First Minister's tax plans as timid and difficult to fathom. I want to ask the First Minister the same question that the STUC posed yesterday. If the SNP cannot summon the courage to propose major progressive change at this moment in time, will they ever? First Minister. I'll leave Labour, given that it remains in a battle for second place in this election, to indulge in political gestures. I will get on with putting forward the proposals that will see this country governed fairly and progressively. HMRC cannot stop people moving house. If just 7 per cent of top tax payers were to do that, we could lose in Scotland 30 million pounds a year. That's 30 million pounds less for our national health service and for our public services. I will get on with doing the right thing. That is why we are asking people in the top 10 per cent of income earners in our country to forgo the George Osborne tax cut. It is why we are asking those living in the biggest houses in our country to contribute a little bit more so that over the next Parliament we can generate an extra £2 billion. To invest in our national health service. To invest in our education system. To mitigate against Tory austerity. These are the sound principles, the sound policies that we are putting forward, which is why we know. We go into this election with unprecedented trust amongst the people of Scotland. There we have it, Presiding Officer. A nationalist First Minister arguing that Scotland can't go alone on tax really takes the biscuits. Why does this all matter? After nearly a decade under the SNP, there are 4,000 fewer teachers in our classrooms, 152,000 fewer college students and the gap between the richest and the rest in our schools as wide as ever. The new tax powers mean that we can change that. Last week, the teachers union called for all parties to protect all education spending in real terms over the next five years. Because of the tax plans that we have set out, Labour can make that commitment. The SNP's tax plans don't raise anywhere near enough to do the same. Why won't the First Minister stop the cuts to education? First of all, we are going alone on tax. We are rejecting the George Osborne tax cuts that John O'Donnell and Jeremy Corbyn are supporting. We are taking the decisions that are right for Scotland. We are also taking decisions that will allow us over the next Parliament to invest £3.25 billion in tackling attainment in our schools. I am proud of the record of this Government. We have more people working in our health service. We have got some of the best and fastest treatment anywhere in the UK. We have rebuilt or refurbished a quarter of all schools across our country. We have got the best lever destinations on record. Young people going into training or education or work more than ever before. This Government has a record to be proud of, but there is much more to do. I am looking forward to persuading the people of our country that me and this Government are the people to get on and do that job. She won't raise the basic rate. She won't fully reverse the higher rate and she won't increase the top rate. Yet Nicola Sturgeon wants us to believe that she can find the money to protect education is utter nonsense. The First Minister, who has campaigned for years on the mantra that more powers means fewer cuts, now refuses to use the powers to stop the cuts. The First Minister, who says that education is a priority, won't ask the richest 1 per cent to pay more to invest in our schools. The SNP says that they are an anti-austerity for our content to use this Parliament as a conveyor belt for Tory cuts. Faced with the choice between using the powers of this place and passing on Tory austerity, Labour will use the powers. Why is the First Minister's choice always more cuts? I think that it will be a long, long, long time before the people of Scotland forget the grotesque sight of Labour campaigning with the Tories to keep Scotland subject to Tory governments now and in the future. That's why they are paying a price. The tax proposals that we will be proud to put forward in this election will raise an additional £2 billion. That will be £3 billion for our public services and enable us to mitigate against Tory austerity. What we have in this chamber are Tories telling us that we are taxing too much, Labour telling us that we are not taxing ordinary working people enough. I suspect that the people of Scotland will look at what we are offering and say that it is right, proper and sensible and progressive. That is why they will choose us to continue to govern this country. To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. No immediate plans. The SNP Government wants to impose a named person on every child in Scotland. They want to do it over the heads of parents, against the wishes of the majority of this country and against the concerns of many, including the police, who believe that it will take resource away from the most vulnerable families who need it most. The First Minister now claims that the scheme, due to start in August, is somehow not mandatory or not compulsory and that parents can choose not to have anything to do with it. Can I ask her to make it absolutely clear today? Are parents who don't agree with this scheme able to stop their child from having a named person and withdraw their child from all named person provisions? As I have said and I will say again today, the named person scheme is an entitlement. I think that it is a good and sensible entitlement. It is not an obligation. It helps children and families to get the support they need from services when they need it. It does not, in any way, shape or form, replace or change the role of the parent or carer or undermine families. The fact of the matter is that all of us should seek to remember that it is not possible, however hard we might try, to predict in advance which children might become vulnerable. The named person service is intended to ensure or to help ensure that we do not have children falling through the net. It is not a state guardian. The legislation builds on the role of teachers and health visitors, the role they have long held in relation to children, and it is not a new approach. It is already operating across much of Scotland, so the new legislation makes good standard practice across our country. I think that when it comes to protecting our children, we should be prepared to make sure that the right support services are in place and they are available when and if they are needed for every child. Ruth Davidson? That was anything but clear. I remind the chamber that the Scottish Conservatives laid specific amendments to the bill, allowing parents to opt out of the named person scheme. Those amendments were voted down by her party and shouted down by her minister, who said that such state guardians were to be a universal service. Every child from birth to 18 with a named person attached, a named person with access to private and sensitive information, all recorded in a database and able to be accessed without the consent or even the knowledge of the parents in some cases. Named person legislation is so sweeping and now so unpopular that it is no wonder that the First Minister is trying to spin her way out of it, but is it dishonest to suggest that a parent choosing not to engage with a named person is the same thing as being able to stop their child from having one imposed in the first place? The fact of the matter is that the children and parents are not legally obliged to use the named person service or to take up any of the advice or help that is offered to them, but it will be available to them if they need it at any point in the future. As families around this country will understand, families that today are coping very well and for whom there are no issues do not know what the future holds. None of us know which children may fall into a position where they are vulnerable or at risk. That is why the availability of the named person service is right to be on a universal basis, but let me repeat again today that parents are not legally obliged to use it because it is an entitlement, not an obligation. I think that that is sensible, making sure that it is there for everybody when they do need it, if they do need it, but not obliging anybody to use it if they feel they do not need it. That strikes me as a sensible way to ensure the protection of our children. The protection of our children, Presiding Officer, surely should be the one thing that unites all of us across this chamber. Do you ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet? The Cabinet will not meet again now until after the election and the new parliamentary term. I hope that they will take nothing for granted that I will be chairing that next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet and that it will discuss matters of importance to the people of Scotland. The First Minister's big idea on tax is the status quo, to do literally nothing at all. Isn't she just a little bit disappointed that, after waiting for 80 years to get those powers, she has been so timid with them? I remind Willie Rennie of the budget that took place in the last Westminster Government when I seemed to remember a certain party was part of that Government. When George Osborne took the decision to reduce the top rate of tax, the then leader and Deputy Prime Minister said that it was a budget that every Liberal can be proud of. Willie Rennie might want to rewrite history, but I suspect that the memory of the people of Scotland will be a lot longer than has. On the question of my party's policy, we will put forward and are putting forward fair, balanced and progressive tax policies that will raise additional revenue to invest in our public services but will do that without clobbering ordinary working people across our country. Willie Rennie claims that that will raise £1 billion, but the official press release yesterday said that additional revenue is more than £1 billion. It also said that no taxpayer will see their bill increase. If nobody pays any more, no Government can spend any more. That means that the opportunity to transform education is missed. Willie Rennie claims that nursery education targets will be missed. The attainment gap in schools will keep being missed and the colleges that have been hammered by the SNP will stay on their knees. Big change needs big bold measures. That is why the Liberal Democrat penned for education works and her plan does not deliver. She prepared to say to Scotland's teachers, parents and pupils that they are not worth a penny more. Willie Rennie has just displayed in that question breathtaking ignorance of how the fiscal framework that has been negotiated between the Scottish Government and the UK Government actually works. I suggest that he might want to go and read it before he goes any further. The truth of the matter is that our proposals for income tax, our proposals for local taxation over the life of the next Parliament will raise an additional £2 billion to invest in our public services, our health services, our education system and, of course, that extra revenue will also enable us to mitigate Tory austerity. The Tory austerity that first started while Willie Rennie's party was propping up a Tory Government. Question 4 Kevin Stewart Thank you very much, Presiding Officer and the very best queen. To ask the First Minister what actions the Scottish Government can and will take to create a fairer Scotland in light of recent UK Government decisions. Just months after the tax credits fiasco, the UK Chancellor has had to backtrack on his deeply misguided plans to cut benefits to disabled people. That is a cut that would have seen a loss of thousands of pounds a year for 40,000 disabled people across Scotland. The decision to cut benefits was ill thought through with a lack of any consultation and any evidence for change. That is in contrast to the Scottish Government, which has had extensive consultation with users and organisations about the direction of new devolved powers, including employability and social security, which will be underpinned by principles of dignity and respect. We have made clear that boosting economic growth and tackling inequalities go hand in hand and we will use those new powers to create a better and a fairer Scotland. That is what I hope to be able to continue to do in the next session of Parliament. I thank the First Minister for that answer. The Tories have definitively shown themselves to be the nasty party with continued attacks on disabled people and our social security system, which was of course designed to provide a safety net to protect our most vulnerable folk. Can the First Minister assure me and disabled people in Scotland that the Scottish Government will continue to offer them the protection that they need and deserve? When you have a situation where Tory policies are too cruel and a step too far for Ian Duncan-Smith, we know how far adrift the Tories have gone. It is to the shame of the Scottish Conservative Party that they did not speak up against these disability cuts before Ian Duncan-Smith's resignation. We are firmly committed to promoting and protecting equality in human rights for disabled people. That is why we are implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have invested £50 million in the Self-Directed Support Act to give disabled people greater control over their lives. Of course, when the Tories cut the independent living fund, we created our own fund and put extra money into that fund. We are also fully mitigating the bedroom tax to protect 72,000 households, 80 per cent of which have a disabled adult living in the household. As soon as we have the powers, we will make sure that we abolish the pernicious bedroom tax once and for all. That is a Government that is shown by action and by deeds that we will create a Scotland that is fair and inclusive for all of our citizens. The First Minister may ask what the Scottish Government's position is on the call from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for a constitutional convention to restore and strengthen local democracy. We welcome COSLA's 2014 commission on strengthening local democracy and the continuing contribution that it is making to the debate. Passing power to communities is at the heart of our community empowerment agenda. For example, through the Community Empowerment Act, we have given communities a much greater control in public decision making and a voice to communities in the decisions that matter to them. We have also supported that increased democracy with our empowering communities fund. Importantly, we have also enabled Scottish councils to reduce business rates to reflect their local economic development priorities, which will also further help strengthen local democracy. I thank the First Minister for that answer and wish her, you and all members well. Would it not be a fitting legacy of the debate that we have had in this Parliament about our own powers to engage with the proposal of a constitutional convention and finally restore local government in Scotland rather than simply local administration? I think that that is a fair point. I know that Drew Smith is standing down from this Parliament. Can I praise him for the contribution that he has made and wish him every success for the future? I think that we have an opportunity in the next Parliament as we take more powers to decide what powers are best evolved to other parts of Scotland. I am sure that COSLA will be a constructive partner in that discussion and I very much look forward to having it. The Land Settlement Act was an attempt to address specific concerns 100 years ago. The Land Reform Bill that was passed by Parliament last week is a further step in this Government's journey towards a more equal and socially just Scotland for the 21st century. The provisions in the bill, including a new right to buy and the establishment of a Scottish Land Commission, build on our wider programme of land reform and plans for future action in the next parliamentary term. While we will consider all suggestions, we think that our continuing work in this area is the best way to ensure that those who wish to acquire land in Scotland have a range of opportunities to do so. I certainly recognise the value of the land reform legislation that we have just passed. Last week, most of the Parliament united to support that legislation. Even those of us who wished that it could have gone further agreed that it was the right direction of travel. The cabinet secretary in moving the bill at stage 3 stated his view that the bill is not the end of Scotland's land reform journey. We still have hugely concentrated patterns of land ownership in Scotland and that needs to change. Does the First Minister not agree that a modernised land settlement act would be a natural next step in Scotland's land reform journey? That it could unlock the power of our land and see many more people able to access land for productive use, for food, for homes, for regeneration at a human scale, ensuring that Scotland's land is put to the use of Scotland's people, all our people, to serve the common good instead of the private interests of a tiny entitled few? Let me say to Patrick Harvie that we are re-elected in a few weeks time. I'm happy to consider whether a reformed land settlement act does fit into our wider plans for further land reform. I agree with the sentiment of Patrick Harvie's question. I think that we've made huge strides forward in this Parliament but, as the minister did say last week, it's not the end of the journey. There is still work to be done on land reform. I hope that this Parliament, when it is re-elected in whatever shape, form or balance after the elections in May, will take forward this journey and do so with the same ambition and spirit that was shown in this session of Parliament. Will the First Minister ensure that the current planning review helps, not hinders, the much more diverse pattern of land ownership that will assuredly flow from the Community Empowerment Act and the Land Reform Bill? The Community Empowerment Act and the Land Reform Bill have increased the opportunities to allow communities across Scotland to own land. The planning review that is being undertaken by an independent panel will make recommendations in due course and we will respond to that panel's recommendations when we have them. I can assure the chamber that land reform and community empowerment will be key drivers for any further planning reform that we undertake. The Scottish Government will continue to do all that we can to encourage and support responsible and diverse land ownership and we have a target of 1 million acres in community ownership by 2020. I think that it is very appropriate that Rob Gibson's last question in this Parliament is on land reform. This is an issue that Rob Gibson has championed for decades. Our new land reform bill is, in large part, testament to his campaigning. I thank him for his work and I think that he will be a great loss to this chamber. I also ask the First Minister if she will promote community and co-operative forms of ownership as part of the land reform agenda in the next term of the Scottish Parliament. We have seen many community renewables projects across the country and with the opportunities in the new land reform act, let's see that opening up to our urban communities so that we have democratic accountability and value and community benefit shared across our community. I thank Sarah Boyack for her assumption that I will be in this seat. When we return after the election, I certainly appreciate the vote of confidence that she has just shown in this Government. I, of course, take nothing for granted. I will be campaigning hard over these next few weeks to earn the right to be back here governing our country. If we do persuade the people of Scotland that that is the right way forward, then yes, I will be very keen to see us take forward land reform based on the kind of principles that Sarah Boyack has just outlined. I hope that we will have many members old and new across this chamber who join us in the next phase of that journey. The First Minister will be aware of the situation of Lord Apec, a student at Strathclyde University, in my constituency. I am sorry, Ms White, that this question is on land reform. I know how important your question is. I have tried a few times already, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, Ms White, but you need to follow up the question. That ends First Minister's questions. We now move to next item of business.