 We turn to First Minister's questions. Question number one, Ruth Davidson. Ruth Davidson 1. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day. First Minister. First Lady, can I welcome Ruth Davidson back from Birmingham? I hope that she is thoroughly ashamed of the xenophobic rhetoric that she has been surrounded by over the past few days. Later today, Presiding Officer, I have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Ruth Davidson 1. I assume that even the First Minister would acknowledge that I made my positions at a party conference perfectly clear. Presiding Officer, today's report from the Fraser of Allander Institute spells out plainly the challenges that Scotland, along with the rest of the UK, will face over the coming years as we leave the European Union. Like most members of this chamber, I didn't vote to leave the EU, but the question now is about how we maximise opportunities ahead and, yes, of course, mitigate risks. The report says that the focus must now be on areas such as food and drink and on manufacturing. Can I ask what work the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that these two sectors get protection from risks and take advantage of opportunities? First Minister. It is about rich to be asked what this Government is doing to protect Scotland from the risks when these risks have been created by the Conservative Party that Ruth Davidson is a member of and leader of here in Scotland. As I have said repeatedly in this chamber and outside this chamber, this Government will do everything in its power to protect Scotland's interests and to mitigate the serious risk that Scotland now faces, risks that are set out quite clearly in the Fraser of Allander report today. We are working intensively with all sectors across our economy. That work has been led by our economy secretary and by Mike Russell, whom I have appointed to deal specifically with the Brexit negotiations. It is not just manufacturing and food and drink. This week, I sat down with the financial services sector to discuss the real concerns that they have, not just about Brexit but about the growing indications that what we are heading for under the Conservatives is the hardest of hard Brexit. Unlike Ruth Davidson, my position has not changed. I continue to think that Brexit is a bad idea, and therefore I continue to think that it is my responsibility to do everything that I can to protect Scotland from it. Ruth Davidson. Let's talk more specifically about things that this Government could do to drive Scotland forward as we go through this period. The First Minister's Government is today expecting an announcement on underground coal gasification. Let me quote Graham Blackett, the head of bigger economics and a member of the First Minister's own growth commission. He says that, subject to the robust planning and regulatory process that we rightly have, there are major advantages in being the first movers in this technology and becoming a world leader. I know that the First Minister is restricted in what she can say, but her own adviser thinks that we could use this type of new technology to boost thousands of jobs and add billions of pounds to the Scottish economy. Does she agree? The First Minister. I am sure that Ruth Davidson is aware that the United Kingdom Government is also looking carefully at the issues around UCG right now, and I am sure that she is aware, perhaps more aware than I am, of the direction of travel that they might be going in as well. Ruth Davidson, as she did last week, seems to want to suggest that we should actually ride roughshod over evidence and over the reports that we ourselves have commissioned. Paul Wheelhouse will make a statement to this chamber this afternoon. He will report on the work that we have asked Professor Campbell Gemmell to undertake on our behalf. All members of this chamber—indeed, everybody across the country—will be able to look in detail at that work. Paul Wheelhouse will confirm the conclusions that the Government has reached as a result of the work that we asked to be undertaken. I think that that is the responsible way to proceed, because it is putting the concerns that people have and the interests of our environment and our economy front and centre and reaching balanced judgments as a result of that work. That is the way that we will continue to proceed on this important matter. Ruth Davidson. In the same way that people can still, by going on the Scottish Government website, look at the last report that you commissioned on fracking, whose advice you did not take. We have moved to another sector that is emphasised by today's Fraser of Allander report, which is food and drink. Whiskey producers tell us that Latin America, a market of 600 million people, has a potential for massive growth in the coming year. Yet south of Texas, Scottish development international has only one tiny office. Like me and the First Minister, the Scottish Whiskey Association did not want us to leave the EU, but they now want us to focus on developing opportunities. What action is the First Minister taking to expand our trade footprint around the world? The First Minister. Let us walk ourselves step by step through that question. Those who know what they are talking about around UCG and fracking will know that Ruth Davidson managed to switch between the different technologies there. I do not know whether she did that in full knowledge, or whether she needed to do a bit more homework. What we are talking about today is underground coal gasification. That is a very, very different technology to fracking. Before she comes to this chamber to ask questions about that, I would have thought that she might know and understand that. Secondly, on whisky, I met the Scottish Whiskey Association last week or the week before. The issues that they wanted to raise with me were firstly the success of the Scottish whisky industry, but also the real concerns that they have about Brexit and the likely impact on them of that decision. On our international presence, I am sure that if anybody was to go and do a quick Google search, they would find plenty of examples of the Scottish Conservatives criticising the international presence of the Scottish Government, saying things like, it is nothing to do with us, we should leave these matters to the UK Government. Thankfully, we do not listen. As well as the excellent work that SDI is doing, and of course we are considering carefully how we make sure that SDI is properly equipped in the climate that we have now been put in as a result of the recklessness of the Tory Government. We have also announced recently the opening of new investment hubs in London, Dublin and Brussels, making sure that we are not reliant on the likes of Boris Johnson to represent us overseas. We have the ability to do so ourselves. Ruth Davidson The First Minister seems more interested in discussing my position than her Government's own. I do not believe that I have ever hidden it. My position is to say that people from the EU and elsewhere are welcome here and that this is their home. My position is to retain the closest possible trading relationship with our European friends and neighbours while expanding trade abroad. However, my position is also to face up to the realities ahead of us, to mitigate risks and to take advantage of opportunities. This Parliament now faces a choice about whether to put the lion's share of its efforts into examining practical solutions or simply complaining about the results. Which is it to be, First Minister? Ruth Davidson is perhaps protesting a bit too much. She says that I am more interested in her position. I have to say that if anybody can work out what Ruth Davidson's position is on these matters any more, then they are doing better than me because she has flipped and flopped and flipped and flopped over and over again since the referendum result. I commend her for it. She said yesterday that what I stood up and said the morning after the EU referendum that people who have chosen to make their homes here are welcome here, they make a contribution. We want them to stay and continue making that contribution. Unfortunately, the difference between Ruth Davidson and I is that she wants control over immigration to stay in the hands of the xenophobes. I want it to come into the hands of this Parliament so that we can put these sentiments into practice. Lastly, Scotland finds itself now in a situation that we did not ask to be in. We are in this situation facing all the risks that we face because of the recklessness of the Conservative Government at Westminster. My job, and the job of this Government, is to protect Scotland's interests, and that is exactly what we will continue to do. To ask the First Minister when she will next meet HIV Scotland. As an organisation almost fully funded by the Scottish Government, officials of the Scottish Government have regular contact with HIV Scotland. Indeed, the Minister for Public Health and Sport last met the chief executive of HIV Scotland on 23 August. Across Scotland this morning, tens of thousands of people stood on station platforms as they started their daily commute. As Minister for Transport in October 2014, Keith Brown said that the new franchise agreement awarded to Bello was a world-leading contract to deliver for rail staff and passengers. Not only that, but it was a contract that will benefit the whole of Scotland. Does the First Minister believe that those promises to passengers have been kept? The contract was awarded because it was considered that it was the contract in the best interests of passengers across Scotland. However, it is absolutely incumbent on Bello as the holder of that contract to continue to make sure that it delivers services that meet the expectations of the travelling public. The Scottish Government will continue to liaise on an on-going basis with ScotRail to make sure that that is the case. Indeed, I am delighted that the recent dispute around driver-operated doors has been settled and that the public does not have the expectation of further industrial action episodes as a result of that. I doubt commuters on the morning train from Dundee to Edinburgh, or North Berwick to Edinburgh, or the nightly commute from Cumbernauld to Dalmure. I agree that Scotland has a world-leading contract, or indeed that the expectations of the public are being met. In the past few months, Scotland's rail passengers have faced cancellations, delays and overcrowding. New figures this week show that a third of all routes in Scotland have services that are late more often than they are on time. At the same time, Abelio rydw i'n rhaid i'n 1 million pounds a month of profit from that franchise. Does the First Minister agree that, although Scotland's rail network might be working for the transport bosses, it is certainly not working for Scotland's commuters? Kezia Dugdale is right to raise concerns with the travelling public, because the travelling public has a right to expect services that run on time and that they can rely on. It is because the Scottish Government is so firm in that commitment that Kezia Dugdale, I assume, is aware that, under the contract terms, the Scottish Government requested from ScotRail on 26 August an improvement plan, which was then received on 16 September. We are absolutely committed to working with ScotRail to deliver a quality service to passengers. That is our responsibility and we are serious in making sure that we discharge that responsibility. Kezia Dugdale, that is interesting because I have that improvement plan in front of me. In fact, it is a boast of a press release from Humza Yousaf this week, £3 million worth of extra investment to improve passenger comfort and accessibility on our railways. One of the things that it says is that you are going to spend money on a passenger counting equipment so that you can see how overcrowded the trains are. I suggest to the First Minister that she just gets on one to appreciate how overcrowded the trains are. I need to be honest about the experience that is faced by passengers, because here is the thing. Since 2011, the average weekly earnings of commuters rose by only 6 per cent. However, the Scottish Government's cap on Russian rail fares increased by over 23 per cent. Let me make that absolutely clear. That is a rise four times faster than earnings. Those who travel to train for their work every day are paying more for a shocking service. Scottish commuters are fed up of the First Minister's excuses. That is her responsibility. What is she going to do to get things back on track? I do not think that anybody listening to this exchange will have heard me make any excuses. What I have said is that it is our responsibility working with ScotRail to make sure that quality service is delivered. That is exactly why the transport minister has been taking the action that he has been taking, and it is why we continue to invest significant sums of money in the rail network to make sure that that responsibility is discharged. I do not quibble at all about Kezia Dugdale's right to come to this chamber to raise these concerns. I understand the concerns of the travelling public, but my job and the transport minister's job is to get on with fixing the problems, not just to cart from the sidelines. The First Minister confirmed that she is aware that HSBC is intent on relocating around 200 high-quality jobs. Does the First Minister agree that that will have an obvious impact on individuals and the local economy? Given that disappointing news, does the First Minister also agree with me that that strengthens the case for sterling to successfully secure a city deal based on their excellent business case? Of course, I am aware of the situation at HSBC. I fully appreciate how anxious the time this is for the company's employees and their families. The Scottish Government will do all that it can to support those affected at this time. Scottish Enterprise is already engaging with HSBC to explore all possible avenues for supporting the business and its workforce. Of course, in the unfortunate event that any redundancies do proceed, our PACE organisation will be fully engaged. In terms of the sterling city deal, I had a brief conversation at another event with the leader of sterling council about this yesterday. I understand that these discussions are progressing well, although no conclusions have been reached. I hope that Bruce Crawford will see from the experience in other cities—Glasgow, Inverness and Aberdeen—that the Government is committed to taking forward city deals where we can. The First Minister will be aware that, on 23 October, First Glasgow will make substantial changes to bus routes. That will affect many of my constituents and bus passengers on her constituency and the transport ministers, too. Under the Government, the number of bus passenger journeys is down 74 million since 2007, and routes have been cut back by 66 million kilometres over the same period. How many more bus services have to be withdrawn before the Government backs any form of regulation? At the very least, does the First Minister not think that it should not be so easy for bus companies to walk away at short notice without any formal consultation from the communities that we represent? I think that First Glasgow and indeed all other bus companies should consult very closely with local communities before making any changes to local services. That is what I would expect of First Glasgow. As a local constituency MSP representing the south side of Glasgow, I regularly have discussions with First Glasgow about services that run in and through my constituency. I know that other MSPs will do likewise. Those are important issues. People in our constituencies depend on them, and I would expect bus services to take their views into account when reaching decisions. Will the First Minister join with me in welcoming to the galley today a delegation of campaigners from the Denun to Gwric ferry action group from my region? Can the First Minister confirm that it is the policy of the Scottish Government to provide a vehicle and passenger ferry service between Gwric and Denun town centres? Was David McBrain limited, which is wholly owned by the Scottish ministers, instructed to tender under the Gwric to Denun procurement exercise? First, I would welcome the campaigners for the Denun to Gwric ferry service to the chamber. I know many of them well as, in one of my previous Government jobs, I had the responsibility for taking forward this work. I absolutely appreciate the strength of feeling around the town centre vehicle service issue. I know that the member will appreciate that, now that we are in a live procurement exercise, there are strict limitations on ministerial involvement in that tendering exercise and what I am able to say at this stage. I hope that he will appreciate—indeed, the campaigners will appreciate—from my previous involvement how serious we are in seeking to make sure that there is a service running in that route that meets the expectations of those who rely on it. 3. Willie Rennie To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Matters of importance to the people of Scotland. We have heard the Conservative international trade secretary branding European citizens working here as cards in an EU negotiation. We have heard the Conservative Home Secretary advocating listing foreign workers. Those cards are our neighbours and our friends. They are our family. People who voted for Brexit across the UK did not vote to send their friends home. So what can she do to ensure that EU citizens are treated with respect and dignity in those negotiations? The First Minister The first thing I can do, which is what I did do in the morning after the EU referendum, is say unequivocally that people who have come from other European countries or indeed from any country and chosen to make Scotland their home and make a contribution here are welcome here. This is their home, this is where they belong and it is where we want them to stay. All of us have a responsibility to say that as often as we possibly can. We have also, since the EU referendum, taken steps to liaise with the community of EU nationals living in Scotland. The cabinet held a question and answer session a number of weeks ago in order to hear directly their concerns. We have taken some practical steps, for example, around university tuition fees to give some reassurance to EU nationals where we can. We will continue to look for other areas in which we can do that. Unfortunately, it is a matter of real regret to me that I do not have the power to guarantee the right of EU nationals to stay here in Scotland. I hope that I will have the backing of every single person in this chamber when I say that. That is to call on the UK Government to stop using human beings as bargaining chips and to give them the guaranteed right to stay where they belong here in Scotland. Many of those European citizens work in places like Amazon. They deserve decent treatment, too. This week, Amazon celebrated recruiting more people below the proper living wage. It was described as a bonanza. I have raised this issue before an action was promised by the First Minister but nothing has changed. This week, the Scottish Government did not utter a peep—not one word of criticism. This is Amazon that has had millions of pounds of Scottish Government grants paying poverty wages. Does she still intend to do anything or has she lost interest? I think that that is a really unfair criticism for Willie Rennie because he knows—I know that he agrees with this—how seriously we treat the issue of the living wage. We encourage and I would go further than that and say that we expect all companies where they can to pay the living wage. We have taken a real lead in that. I wish I had the power here in Scotland not just to guarantee the right of EU nationals to stay but to legislate on minimum wage levels so that we could raise the statutory minimum wage to the level of the living wage. Let us argue not just for companies to do the right thing. Let us argue for having some of those powers in the hands of this Parliament so that we do not have to simply call on the UK Government to do the right thing for us. The First Minister will share my concerns at today's news that a hard Brexit could cost Scotland 80,000 jobs. The Fraser of Allander Institute report shows that the weaker our economic integration with the EU, the greater the negative impact. Does the First Minister think that it is high time for the Tories to drop their bluster over leaving the single market and at long last reveal a plan? The Tories should have had a plan to deal with this before the referendum. It is absolutely shocking that they did not have that. It is equally shocking that, three months on, we still have only the sketchiest of details about what happens now. Unfortunately, the details that we do have suggest that we are heading down the road of a hard Brexit, which, as the Fraser of Allander Institute report says today, will cost people in Scotland in terms of lost wages and lost jobs. That is completely and utterly unacceptable. What I think has been really clear from the Conservative conference this week is that decisions by the Prime Minister are being driven more by her desire to appease the Tory right than they are by the genuine interests of the country. I think that that is wrong, I think that it is regrettable and I think that it is deeply irresponsible. Douglas Ross Thank you, Presiding Officer. When Andrew Flanagan, the chair of the Scottish Police Authority, was asked yesterday about public concern over sex offenders and violent criminals being tagged, he said, and I quote, I think that that worry would be understandable. Can the First Minister assure the public that her Government will not use the extension of electronic monitoring for those criminals, given the very real concerns that have been voiced by the public and victims of crime? Public safety is at the heart of all of those decisions. As I have said previously in an exchange just a couple of weeks ago, it is not for politicians to decide sentences, it is for courts to decide appropriate sentences. But when a court is deciding the appropriate sentence in any case, whether that is prison or an alternative to prison, including the use of electronic monitoring, then risk assessment and issues of public safety will be absolutely integral to that decision. That is right and proper and the public would expect no less. Daniel Johnson Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the First Minister is no doubt aware, two weeks ago today, there was a very major rupture in the water main supplying Edinburgh that occurred in Liberty in my constituency. The destruction that was caused was very substantial. Many families have had to vacate their homes. Frankly, the only reason there wasn't a loss of life was because an elderly couple are currently in a care home where the greatest destruction took place. I had a very constructive meeting with Scottish Water in Tuesday this week, but it was revealed that the main regulating valves for the supply of water to Edinburgh are causing serious issues for Scottish Water to the point where they are supplying 24-hour supervision. The same valves are also used to regulate the supply of water to Glasgow and the Malgi. Will the First Minister assure me that her ministers are looking into this matter and detail to the Parliament what steps they are taking to make sure that the issue is remedied? The First Minister First, I am aware of the disruption and concern that was caused to the member's constituents as a result of the incident that he has talked about. I know that Scottish Water will deeply regret that inconvenience. I am more than happy to ask the minister with responsibility to raise the particular issue that the member has brought to the chamber today with Scottish Water and ask him to correspond with the member when he has Scottish Water's feedback on that. Is the First Minister aware of the turmoil in the Crofters Commission caused by the intolerable behaviour of the current convener? Does she know that other commissioners have asked for his resignation and that the previous chief executive, Katrina McLean, left because of the convener's behaviour and the pressure that is being placed on commission staff? In those circumstances, will she and her rural secretary now take action to make the commission work for crofters across the Crofting counties without the disruptive presence of the convener? The First Minister Tavish Scott raises an important issue. The cabinet secretary for the rural economy has already welcomed the apology from the board of the Crofting commission, but it is disappointing that the convener was not a party to that apology. It is important that we get to the stage of being able to draw a line under recent events. The resources that were spent in dealing with those issues by the commission would, in my view, be far better used and be an effective regulator in contributing to a sustainable future for crofting. I note that crofting commissioners have unanimously called on the convener to resign. The Scottish Government has requested further information from the convener in relation to last week's events. Although the Government would not ordinarily intervene in the internal operations of an independent statutory body, the legislation does give the Scottish ministers power to act if required, and I can assure Tavish Scott that the cabinet secretary continues to monitor the situation very closely. We will be very happy to discuss it further with Tavish Scott. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the recent Scottish social attitude survey, which shows that levels of prejudice in Scotland are falling. I welcome the findings from the survey. It is encouraging to see that Scotland is becoming a more inclusive society with more people embracing and valuing diversity. However, we should not be complacent. It is completely unacceptable that some groups in society still face prejudice. We need to continue to work together to eradicate discriminatory attitudes in Scotland. I can assure the member that this Government is absolutely committed to doing so. I thank the First Minister for that answer and that commitment. This week's Tory party conference saw the most disgraceful display of reactionary right-wing politics and living memory, with the Tories hinting that they will target foreign workers and name and shame businesses for not hiring British employees. We perhaps saw an early glimpse of that from the Scottish Tories in recent weeks, when they questioned Christian Allard's right to take part in public life. How will the First Minister work to ensure that we build a tolerant, inclusive Scotland, where people are judged on the contribution that they make to our society and not by the place that they were born? We do that by standing strong and, I hope, united in defence of that inclusive, tolerant society. We should value people by the contribution that they make here, not by where they were born or, indeed, the colour of their passport. I think that that work is undermined by some of the rhetoric that we have heard from the Tory conference this week. Yesterday, Theresa May's speech was endorsed by Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French far-right. Nigel Farage said yesterday that virtually everything that Theresa May said in her speech were things that he had said over the last few years. I think that all of us have an obligation to stand up against intolerance, against prejudice, against discrimination and against xenophobia in all of its forms, and I hope that everybody in this Parliament will do so. The First Minister has already called out the hateful, disgusting rhetoric that came out of the Tory party conference this week. Perhaps the most sinister of their proposals was that from Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, that companies will be forced to disclose the proportion of their workers who were born outside of the United Kingdom. Will the First Minister and the Scottish Government support businesses in Scotland who refuse to comply with that disgusting proposal? I would absolutely stand full square beside any company that refused to comply with any request to publish details of foreign workers. What I found particularly offensive was the idea that companies would be named and shamed for the foreign workers they employed, as if there was something shameful about employing workers from other countries. It is absolutely disgraceful. I know that Amber Rudd went on the radio yesterday morning and tried to roll back from this proposal by saying that it was not something that the Tories were definitely going to do. I think that, as about time, the Tories stood up and said this that it is definitely something that they will not ever do, because it would be downright disgraceful and disgusting, and this Government would have absolutely nothing to do with it. First of all, can I associate myself with the comments that the First Minister has made about the Tory party conference? I think that all of us on this side would be in full agreement with her on that point. We welcomed the broad findings on the social attitudes survey, as well as the figures out last week that showed that hate crimes in Scotland had fallen over the last year, but we cannot be complacent, First Minister. We still have bad things happening in Scotland too often. For example, in the last year, islamophobic hate crimes have increased by 89 per cent. Prejudice and hatred have no place in any of our communities and certainly not in any part of our society. What specific action will we take to highlight the issue of islamophobia and to reduce hate crimes such as this? Firstly, I agree absolutely with Anas Sarwar's comments. Indeed, I did say in my first answer to this question that we should not and must not be complacent, so there is no disagreement whatsoever from me on that. We do see a rise in islamophobia. The Government continues to work with faith communities and, indeed, through all of our equality work, to combat discrimination in particular, to combat the rising trend of islamophobia. We have seen that. I was speaking at an event at the end of last week in Friday night, an interfaith event organised by the Alibate Society, where I made specific mention of the need to make sure that we continue to welcome the fact that hate crimes have fallen, but not in any way be complacent about that. I know that Anas Sarwar is very familiar with the range of work that we do seeking to work with communities to bring people together to make diversity something that we celebrate as a key strength of our country, not something that we should fear and exploit. That will always be the way that this Government behaves and conducts itself, and I hope that, in doing so, we will continue to have the unanimous support of everybody in this chamber. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to tackle the rise in the number of drug-related acute hospital stays. While drug-taking among the general population is falling, and indeed the number of young people taking drugs is at the lowest level in a decade, we remain determined to tackle problem drug use. With our partners and supported by an investment of more than £600 million since 2008, we are working to reduce the harm caused by drug and alcohol use. The rise in the number of hospital stays is the result of an ageing cohort of drug users. The reality is that, as they get older, they become more vulnerable, and that means that they have a greater need for the support and care of the NHS. We will continue to work with third sector groups to identify and understand the current and particular needs of those individuals. The First Minister will be aware from the recently published drug-related hospital statistics report that general acute emissions increased by almost 500 in the last financial year. The same report showed that around half of those patients lived in the 20 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland. Will the First Minister accept that the Scottish Government needs to do much more to reduce serious drug misuse in our most deprived areas? Of course I will. While we still have a problem of drug use, there will always be more that government needs to do. I would genuinely point the member to some of the trends that I highlighted in my opening answer. We are now seeing the number of young people taking drugs at the lowest level in a decade. That would suggest that the initiatives that we are taking are having some success. Coupled with that, it is right to say that we are seeing an increasing trend of hospital admissions, but that is related to the ageing cohort of drug users. As people become older, having had a lifetime or substantial parts of their lifetime taking drugs, then they do more and more need hospital treatment, and that is the explanation behind that particular trend. Drug use in any community, but particularly in our most deprived communities, is something that we should not and cannot be complacent about and we must continue to do everything possible to combat it. Does the First Minister agree that drug-related acute hospital stays are often related to illegal drug use? Can she confirm that drug-related crime has fallen dramatically since the SNP came to office with a fall of 45.7 per cent in North Ayrshire alone from 1,235 cases a decade ago to 671 last year? I certainly would welcome in point to the recently published recorded crime figures, which highlight the reduction in drug offences in North Ayrshire and reflect other positive trends in that area. North Ayrshire routinely exceeds a national performance standard that expects 90 per cent of people in need of drug or alcohol treatment to access it within three weeks. However, as I have just said in response to the earlier questions, we know that there is no room for complacency. We know about the vulnerability of an ageing cohort of people who have been using drugs for many years, and we must deal with that. Kenny Gibson is right to point it out. There is also cause for optimism. Nationally, drug-taking among the general population is falling. As I have already said today for young people, it is now at the lowest level that it has been in a decade. There is cause for optimism, but we must continue to tackle the problem because it is one that affects too many lives and can often affect those lives in a very dramatic way. To ask the First Minister what impact the breaching of EU spending rules has had on the funding of infrastructure projects. In 2015, the European Commission suspended three European structural and investment fund programmes. The suspensions prevented the Scottish Government from being reimbursed for money that it had already spent for the duration of the suspensions, but there was no impact on the projects themselves. All suspensions have now been lifted, with the final one being lifted in September of this year. I think that the First Minister has been badly advised in her response, because I am talking about European Statistics Authority regulations in relation to infrastructure projects. She has answered perhaps a different question. The First Minister will hopefully now be aware that there are at least four major capital projects that breach EU rules on funding. The Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, the Edinburgh Sick Kids, Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary and the National Blood Centre. The total capital required for all four projects will be at least £900 million. According to Audit Scotland, capital was transferred from housing, and capital was transferred from Scottish Water, and £300 million was borrowed last year to fill part of the gap. What further borrowing will be necessary to finance those and other planned projects? What is the opportunity cost if we still have to find the balance of the £900 million, and what projects will be delayed? I now understand that Jackie Baillie was talking about the ONS reclassification. I am not sure how anybody could have taken that from the wording of her question. Nevertheless, I am glad that we now have a meeting of minds on the question that we are answering. As Jackie Baillie knows, the ONS reclassification and there are a number of issues. We have seen one in recent weeks about housing associations where the ONS reclassifies from private to public. The UK Government also has similar issues to contend with. In terms of the capital projects that she talks about, the Scottish Government has made full provision for those. There has been no interruption in the capital projects, and we continue to make sure that our capital programme is taken forward to deliver the infrastructure that the country needs and deserves. The Auditor General's report last week tells us that a sum of £14 million has been lost from the Scottish Government's accounts due to its financial incompetence and its inability to comply with EU accounting rules, which projects have been cut or delayed because of the incompetence. I see that Murdo Fraser made the same interpretation of Jackie Baillie's question as I did, so I should say that my previous answer to Jackie Baillie stands in respect of this. In terms of the suspensions, the effect of the suspensions that have all now been lifted is to temporarily prevent the Scottish Government from being reimbursed for money that we have already paid out to the projects. There is no impact whatsoever on the projects concerned. We learn lessons that, as other Governments do, the European Commission regularly and routinely audits projects under those funds. We learn lessons and we have applied those lessons in terms of the current rounds of structural funding. I would say, of course, that it is the actions of Murdo Fraser's party that is putting the future of structural funding under so much stress. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the proposed deadline of March 2017 for the triggering of article 50. It seems clear that the decision on the timing of article 50 is being driven more by the Prime Minister's desire to appease the Tory Eurosceptics than it is by any rational consideration of what is in the best interests of the country. I think that that is deeply irresponsible. As we have already heard in this session of First Minister's Questions, we can see in the report by the Fraser of Ireland Institute this morning that the damage that Brexit, especially the hard Brexit that the Prime Minister now seems to favour, will do to our economy. That is why the Scottish Government will continue to do absolutely everything in our power to protect Scotland's interests. Emma Harper I thank the First Minister for that answer. Given the timescale that it has taken for the Prime Minister to set a timescale, what is the First Minister's best bet on how long it will take the UK Government to come up with a plan, or any substantial notion of what Brexit means? Well, I have no idea how long it is going to take the UK Government to come up with a plan. They should have had one by now. What I am more concerned about with every day that passes is the direction that the UK Government seems to be going down, not just exit from the European Union but exit from the single market. Let us be quite clear about what that will mean. That will mean tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers to our companies who export to the European Union. It could mean our financial services companies losing their passport rights. It could mean all of us having to pay for the privilege of travelling across Europe. Those are real implications for each and every single one of us. That would be bad enough, but it is even worse because Scotland did not vote to be in this position. I hope that everybody in this chamber will unite behind a call from the Scottish Government to stay in the single market. I do not believe—notwithstanding the result of the referendum—that Theresa May has any mandate to take the UK out of the single market. How many times did we hear the leave campaign say that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market? I hope that Ruth Davidson will go back to one of her previous positions and again get right behind the Scottish Government when it says to Theresa May, keep the UK as a whole in the single market and stop putting the interests of the Tory Eurosceptics in UKIP ahead of the interests of the country. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government is having with the governing bodies of sports, contact sports, regarding head injuries. First Minister, on behalf of Parliament, can I take this opportunity to convey sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mike Tewall, who sadly lost his life following a boxing match in Glasgow last Thursday? The British Boxing Board of Control is investigating the circumstances of the incident, and it would be, obviously, inappropriate for any of us to comment on the details at this time. On the broader issue of concussion in sport, as Liz Smith is aware, we were the first country in the world to introduce standard guidelines for dealing with concussion in sports when the Scottish Sports Concussion Guidelines were published in May last year. Those guidelines were developed with a range of experts, including the chief medical officers at the Scottish Government, Scottish Rugby and the Scottish Football Association. They have been made available to all sports clubs and coaches for both contact and non-contact sports. Liz Smith, I thank the First Minister for that response. I also thank her for the helpful letter that she sent to me this time last year following another FMQ that I raised the same issue. In that letter, she says that she fully recognised the seriousness of the issue and intimated that guidance would be updated on a regular basis. I wonder whether those updates have taken place and whether consideration has been given to the fact that there is currently different guidance for serious concussion injuries in different sports. For example, in boxing, the suspension from the ring is a minimum of 28 days, whereas in rugby the minimum is seven days away from the sport. Would she agree that the medical expert panel to which she referred in her letter might like to look at whether there should be a standard approach? As I said in my original answer, we have introduced standard guidelines for dealing with concussion in sports. However, as I said previously, when Liz Smith last raised this issue with me and was raising it, I think that at that time the prospect of legislation, which the consensus among medical experts appears to be at this stage that legislation would not necessarily be helpful. However, when I said what I will say today, we need to make sure that we keep this under review and that, as we do so, we are informed with the best medical opinion. So I am very happy to take the comments that Liz Smith has made today and make sure that they are discussed by the panel of medical experts that inform those decisions. I will be happy to enter into further correspondence with her when we have done so. Thank you. That concludes question time today. We will now move on to members' business in Liam McArthur's name. We will just take a few minutes to change seats.