 Gall beth. I take the opportunity to welcome the First Minister to discuss with the Governments programme for Government. I extend a very special welcome to siting in school, who are here to list this session. I hope you find it interesting for your перепrule studies in the year to come. Felly, rymdodd yn y cyffroi'r gwaith ddim i. Yn y bryd ddodd dweud, Donkinc Neill, os yng Nghymru iawn y Feithfawr Ffordd, ychydig iawn i,וקwch i gyd yn y First Minister. Rhyw unrhyw ffordd y ffordd ar yr Yn Ymddai Sgwrth Fffordd yma i'r penunig iawn, nesaf iawn. Feithrfryd yn ddiddosion i hebngorffod yr ymddai Ffordd. Felly, yna yw ddatblyg ond a ydych chi'n gwasi Felly mae'n gweithio rhoi'r byw, mae'n viadog y fod yn eraill a'r dechrau'n trwych a'u cyfle. Mae hi'n gymuned Senfodol neu S vacuumau wrth ei fod yn dig快. Felly, ddweud hynny'n ei chy straightenigiynau rhaid o wahol o mor llawn dasgrwydd. Mae'r ffordd y ddefnyddio dd 솔직히 i'ch driffwyr sydd yn ni'n gwyraig ac y byddai'n gweithio'r ddyfodig a ddim yn gwneud yn ei ffordd i'ch gweld rwy'r ddefnyddio'r ddydd. Felly, mae'n meddwl o'r fffordd y mewn bydddofforddau o'r ffordd a byddai'n mynd i gael ond rwy'r misgwinelliad o'i maen nhw'n ni'n wneud. Mae'n edrychwch i'r ffordd o werth o'n gweld ffordd yddefnyddio'r ddydd â'i ffordd i haviae Ffarnwys NHS, dentus a GPs? Ffarnwys Dents give you a specific date for a specific announcement. The health secretary on the business policy and the FFLA is looking very hard to acknowledge and extend the principle i'r rhywun yn ei gweldol i'r ffordd ymniadol, yn wahanol syntrwy. Rwy'n rhoi'n rhaid i'r wyliadau yr aspolydd o gwaith o'r rhywun yn ei wahanol a'r wyliadau o'r mynd, o'r cyhoedd ddau i'w peolio iaith oedd. Rwy'n rhaid i'w gael i'r mewn ei wahanol aeth y gyfoeddws rygau ei gyrfa i'r gweithio i'r foudd. Rwy'n rhoi'n ymgyrch ar y bywau Rheïzana Cunningham Roseanna Cunningham is a fair work cabinet secretary leads and through the business pledge and through the fair work convention we are looking at how we extend the living wage into other areas of the economy where it is not currently paid at the same levels as it is economy wide. You mentioned some specific sectors there. There are other sectors like with the health sector, for example retail and tourism, where there is a particular need to extend the living wage. I fairly recently convened a living wage summit to look at how we do that. On the positive side, we have a slightly higher percentage of people in Scotland paid the living wage than is the case across the UK as a whole, but we want to extend that even further. We will look to discuss with specific sectors, including the ones that you mentioned. Those discussions in many respects will be on-going about how we extend the living wage further. I mentioned that Farners is obviously a dentist and GP practice because they are directly funded by the NHS and I welcome the initiative with the Scottish Government and local authorities and the funding arrangements can give you an added influence. I would hope that some work can be directed at the Farners is Dentist and GP practices to make progress and get more of them on the living wage register. Many of the workers that you talk about will already be paid the living wage and any NHS staff on agenda for change, for example, will already be paid the living wage because we pay the living wage throughout the NHS. If there are any remaining groups of staff working for independent contractors, I am happy to provide some detail specifically to your committee as to whether that is the case and what magnitude we might be looking at. We will certainly continue to make efforts to rectify that. I think that it will help them to focus as well in their responsibility quickly because we are limited in time. The Health and Sport Committee produced a report again when a common dentist with the Scottish Government on access to medicines in 2013. In early 2014, the Government responded and announced that the patient's voice would be put at the centre of the new drugs approval process. However, I heard recently in being contacted that since then all three breast cancer drugs put through the new system have been rejected, prompt and breast cancer campaign, charities to raise concerns over the impact of the new system and the patients in Scotland. Last night, I was very surprised to hear from a patient seeking access to new drugs that she was still subject to an ITPR process, an independent personal treatment review process that you will know about, First Minister, from your previous experience, that she was still subject to that. She had the support of her oncologist and failed to get this medicine. I thought that we had resolved some of those issues. I think that it might be worthy of review about where we are on new medicines to ensure that the Government's plan, the health committee's objective, has been met right across Scotland. I am happy to consider, as will the health secretary, any individual cases and any evidence of where we could further improve the system. I am loath to comment on the individual cases of sites. That is why I did not mention the individual cases. I would say that, if you want to pass that to me or to Shona, we would be happy to look at that. I will briefly make a couple of points. The Scottish Medicines Consortium, we have looked and you are very aware of that, given the work that your committee has done to improve and to streamline and to make the procedures that the SNC uses more transparent than they were previously. There will always be difficult decisions that the SNC requires to take and there will always be decisions that individual patients and patient groups, for understandable reasons, will disagree with, but then we have the IPTR process, the individual patient treatment process, which is an absolutely fundamental part of the overall arrangements in place, because they are there to make sure that, where there are particular circumstances in an individual case, where a drug that might not have been deemed to be generally meeting the criteria for approval, where it would benefit an individual, they can still be prescribed that drug. Of course, we have established the Rearer Drugs Fund in order that there is additional financial resources available to health boards in those circumstances. As you alluded to earlier on in your question, I have got some considerable knowledge and experience as health secretary of how those systems operate. Their deficiencies as well as their strengths and I think that the changes that have been made in recent times have considerably strengthened the systems that we have in place, but if there are ways that we can do that further, then I am certainly open to looking at that. The last point that I would make is a point that I do not particularly like making in those discussions, but I think that it is one that we all have to recognise. We will always have, given what we are talking about here, very difficult cases where patients, either groups of patients or individual patients, are not able to access a drug that they believe and they understandably believe would be of benefit to them, because the nature of those discussions and the nature of the procedures that are in place is that that is inevitable. What we want to do is minimise the cases in which that happens. I am going to call Kenneth Gibson, convener of finance, followed by Christina McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Next week, Palma will debate the finance committee's report into Scotland's fiscal framework, the relationship between Scotland and the UK as we move forward. I am just wondering where we are in terms of some of the key discussions in relation to that fiscal framework. In particular, I am thinking about resource borrowing in order to deal with potential economic shocks, the kind of baseline position in relation to the block grant adjustment and also the no detriment principle whereby powers devolved from the UK to Scotland will not disadvantage either Scotland or the UK. There is not yet any conclusion to the discussions that are on-going between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. John Swinney had the most recent of these meetings last week and I know that he has committed to keeping your committee and Parliament as updated as possible as those discussions progress. I think that next week's parliamentary debate will be a good opportunity not just for the Deputy First Minister to feedback in the detail of where those discussions have got to but also for MSPs to feed in views or to ask further questions about the detail of some of that. There is a debate about the degree of transparency that it is possible to have around intergovernmental discussions like this when they are on going, but we work on the basis that we want Parliament to be as involved as possible. You mentioned some of the substantive areas that are not yet concluded, so we do not yet have agreement on that. The block grant adjustment mechanism is of critical importance, both in terms of the reductions to our block grant that will flow from the Scottish Parliament having enhanced revenue-raising powers but also the additions to the block grant that will flow from the Scottish Parliament taking on additional spending responsibilities in particular around welfare issues. Getting those mechanisms right—not just in the first instance but making sure that those mechanisms are right for the future—is going to be hugely important. We continue to have discussions around the borrowing powers of the Parliament. There has been a suggestion that a prudential borrowing regime should replace our existing capital, Dell. That was never the understanding that the Scottish Government had when we were making the case for borrowing powers for the Parliament. Although I cannot speak for the Smith commission, I would doubt very much if that was the understanding that the Smith commission had. Those are issues that we require to resolve. I am optimistic and we will resolve them. I remain absolutely determined that we resolve them, because I want to see my views on the inadequacies of the current Scotland Bill powers are well known. Nevertheless, I want to see that process come to a conclusion in the timescale that was promised. As I said in the programme for government statement, the fiscal framework that surrounds the Scotland Bill powers is so important that the Scottish Government would not feel able to recommend legislative consent for the Scotland Bill unless we had in place a fiscal framework that we also thought was fair to the Parliament and fair to Scotland. I very much hope that we get to that position. Thank you very much. There are just a couple of points to ask for further information. Do you know when deliberations have been concluded, given the fact that the Scotland Bill is obviously going through Westminster at the moment, and in terms of the prudential boring, the financial committee across the board took the view that prudential boring would be permissible, we would hope, in addition to capital, departmental expenditure limit and not as a replacement for it? The objective and the hope of both Governments is to have the fiscal framework discussions concluded by the time the Scotland Bill is concluded so that by the time this Parliament is taking the decision on whether not to grant legislative consent, we have clarity around the details of the fiscal framework, but we are not yet at a stage where I can give you a date when those discussions will conclude, because there are significant issues of substance that still require to have agreement between the two Governments. Your second point is what you have just narrated there as the understanding of the committee is entirely the understanding that the Scottish Government has always had, that borrowing is intended to be in addition to the capital deal arrangements in order to enhance the ability of the Government and the Scottish Parliament to invest in infrastructure. That is our understanding, and I think that that would be any reasonable understanding of that, but we continue to seek to bring that to a satisfactory mutual understanding. Thank you. Christina McKelvie, convener of the European External Relations Committee, and Christina will be followed by Hugh Henry. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Good afternoon, First Minister. The European External Relations Committee is undertaking three discrete pieces of work right now, one immediately tomorrow on the refugee crisis and how we can support that. We will hear from the UNHRC a high representative tomorrow on that. The other issue is obviously the impact on Scotland of an in-and-out referendum on Europe. The third thing is the impact on Scotland, not just the Scottish Government, not just the rights of the Scottish people, but the actual function of this place on the repeal of the Human Rights Act. First Minister, I ask you if you can maybe give us some update on where you are with all of those things and maybe some of your thoughts on the actions that can be taken. Okay, let me, as briefly as I can, take three rather big items in turn. First, in terms of the refugee crisis, I met the foreign secretary last week, and Hamza Yousaf, the minister who is leading the work for the Scottish Government on the refugee crisis, also met the newly appointed UK minister for refugees on the same day. Obviously, the UK Government, in terms of deciding how many refugees come into the country over what time period and where those refugees come from, the UK Government is very much in the lead. What the Scottish Government has been doing is twofold. Firstly, seeking to persuade the UK Government, although we welcome the movement that has been made, persuade it to go further, not to necessarily see 20,000 over the lifetime of the Parliament as the absolute cap, also to look at perhaps front-loading the number of those so that we are responding in an appropriate way given the scale of the crisis that has been faced just now. We have also been seeking to persuade the UK Government not simply, although I do not underestimate the importance of that, not simply to focus on accepting refugees from the camps around Syria, but also to look at playing a part in relocation and resettlement of refugees who have already made the journey to other European countries. It is fair to say that the UK Government is not indicating that it is going to change its position on those things, but we will continue to make, I hope, a persuasive case. In terms of what we understand to be the case, the 20,000 commitment from the UK Government is over the period of this UK Parliament. It is not yet clear what the profile of that will be, although the best information that we have is that, for the remainder of this year, those numbers may continue to be relatively small, perhaps in the hundreds, although we do not know that for certain yet. Obviously, because the UK Government is working through an expanded version of the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme, the process of accepting refugees through that scheme goes through the United Nations in terms of recommending who comes here. That clearly adds to the time scale, but we are hopeful that that process will speed up. That is the first aspect of the Scottish Government's work to seek to work with and persuade the UK Government to expand what it is seeking to do. Secondly, to make sure that whatever the numbers are that come to the UK, Scotland is ready to take a proportionate share of those refugees in Scotland. Humza Yousaf has been chairing the refugee task force that I established to work with local authorities and other agencies to make sure that, in terms of housing, provision, support services, health services and support for language, we have those practical arrangements in place and we are confident that we are well placed to do that. We have already a very good set of arrangements in place in Scotland for integrating refugees, which allows us to build on that. Secondly, on European Union, my position on the EU is well known to everybody. It is in Scotland's strong interests and, indeed, it is in the UK's strong interests to remain members of the European Union. I think that there are many aspects of the European Union that are right for reform, but, in all circumstances, our interests are better served by being in the EU. Obviously, that was one of the other issues that I was discussing with the foreign secretary. He was able to update me as far as he could on the progress of negotiations. I think that it is fair to say that my impression is that the UK Government does not yet have an absolutely clear sense of, in detail, what it is asking for or what it is likely to get out of the current renegotiation, so we will continue to watch that with intense interest. The other point that I was impressing on him was the need for Scottish ministers to be fully updated as the negotiations progress and to have the opportunity to influence those negotiations, given that the outcome of them may impact very centrally on our devolved responsibilities. To be fair to the foreign secretary, there was a willingness to seek to do that. The GMC on Europe will have updates at its meetings and there was a willingness for ministerial updates, so I will certainly take the foreign secretary up on that. Lastly, on the human rights act, again, I have made my position and the position of the Scottish Government clear. We think that repealing the human rights act would be a backward step. Obviously, it is not yet clear whether what the UK Government wants to do simply repeal the human rights act or withdraw from the European convention on human rights. I think that the latter of those would be catastrophically backward looking, but I think that even just repealing the human rights act would be a backward step. Ironically, as far as I can see, it would not help with one of the stated objectives, which is to make the UK courts more supreme, because it would actually mean that people had to go to Strasbourg to exercise or assert their human rights. The last point that I would make on that is my strong view, given the way human rights is embedded hardwired into the infrastructure of this Parliament, is that repeal of the human rights act would require a legislative consent motion. If one comes forward, it would be my strong advice to this Parliament that we shouldn't give legislative consent to the repeal of the human rights act. Hugh Henry, convener of the welfare reform committee, and he will be followed by Bruce Crawford. First Minister, the welfare reform committee has commissioned research from Sheffield Hallam University, which has demonstrated that the biggest factor in getting people off benefits is not cuts to benefits but is economic growth, which can encourage people into employment. I do not know if the Scottish Government has had a chance to look at that research and what your comments on that would be, but more specifically, once we get the additional powers that will be granted over benefits, will you give a commitment that the budget will be, as it is just now, before any UK Government cuts? Will you also give a commitment that those who are currently on benefits before there are any further changes by the UK Government that none of them will be losers in any new benefit system? First, in terms of the Sheffield Hallam research, the Government pays very close attention to all of the very good research that has been done for the welfare reform committee from Sheffield Hallam. In principle and in summary, I very much agree with that conclusion that we will help people out of poverty and off benefits by helping them into jobs, and we find it easier to help people into jobs when we have a growing, vibrant economy creating jobs. That is very much the focus of the Scottish Government's approach, and of course we have employment levels now in Scotland that are higher than anywhere else in the UK, including youth employment levels that are, I think, at a 10-year high, female employment levels that are at a record high as well, so that is all positive. In terms of the second part of your question, those are issues that relate back very strongly to the question and the issue that Kenny Gibson raised with me around the fiscal framework. I want to have more powers over welfare, and I do not think that the powers that are in the Scotland Bill go far enough here, but, nevertheless, they give us more powers than we have just now. I want to have them in part so that we can have a better social security system and that we can protect people from the cuts, often indiscriminate cuts, that are being made by the UK Government. There are some of those cuts to working tax credits, of course, that are going to affect 200,000 families with children across Scotland to the tune of about £3,000 a year on average, that we will not have the ability to do anything about because those powers are staying with Westminster, but around disability payments, for example, we will have the scope to do things differently. In terms of your point about what budget is transferred to Scotland is a material point. You will probably recall that, after the general election—or roundabout the general election, I think that we initially called for this beforehand—we called on the UK Government to stop the roll-out of personal independence payments because that roll-out from DLA to PIP encapsulates a massive cut in budget. We have called and we still call for that to stop so that what we get transferred to is the budget before those cuts are made. I would hope that the welfare reform committee and all members of this Parliament can agree to that. If the budget that is transferred to us comes with that—I will correct myself if I am wrong on that—it is a £2 billion cut that Scotland would take a share of. If the money that is transferred to us comes with that cut, then clearly there will be more difficult decisions and more difficult issues for this Parliament to grapple with. However, make no mistake about it, my objective is to protect people as far as we possibly can from the cuts that are being made to disability and to other benefits. The point, First Minister, is that if those cuts are unwelcome as they are, do happen? Will you take steps to make sure that there are no losers? The other thing that I wanted to ask was whether there has been some concern expressed—or someone's certainty is a better way of putting it—by a lot of voluntary and charitable organisations about how a new benefit system would work. They are not quite clear about whether assessments and then delivery of benefits will be done by a national agency or local agencies. Some are more inclined to not have local decision making, but there are implications. What thoughts have the Scottish Government given to any new system, whether it is national or local assessments and national or local delivery? We have some experience, as you will be well aware of, as convener of the welfare reform committee when we were establishing the Scottish welfare fund around exactly those debates. What we found there was actually a difference of opinion. Some thought that it should be a nationally delivered system, some thought that it should be a locally delivered system. What we went for there was a system that was delivered by local authorities within the context of national guidance. No system will work perfectly and a new system we always have to learn from, but the experience of the welfare fund is that that is being delivered well and is benefiting a lot of people. That model will not necessarily be appropriate for the other benefits that we are taking responsibility for, so those are discussions that we will continue to have. It may not be a one-size-fits-all approach. You will be aware and you will recollect from the programme for government that I have said. We will set out more of our thinking around the new social security powers later this year and assuming that we are re-elected. Next May it would be our intention to bring forward a social security bill in the first year of the next Parliament in order that we are with the full input of Parliament preparing to assume those powers. Those decisions will be a part of that. We have not reached final decisions on all of those issues yet. Some of it will flow from the final shape of the Scotland bill and the fiscal framework. Some of it will flow from our experience and the input of various different organisations. I would anticipate that the welfare committee will be involved in those deliberations as well. First Minister, the Smith report was very clear on the need to put the legislative consent mechanism on a statutory basis. It will be useful to hear from the First Minister where discussions have got to with the UK Government in that regard. How important is it to ensure that the legislative consent provisions in the new Scotland bill are clear that the UK Parliament cannot legislate without the Scottish Parliament's consent? Given your strong perspective on where you stand in the human rights potential repeal at the human rights act, do you believe that the proposed changes to trade union law should also require the consent of the Scottish Parliament? First, I will take the last part of your question first. Yes, I do. I absolutely think that the trade union bill should require a legislative consent motion. The position of the UK Government will be that it does not, because employment law is reserved, but that bill, which I fundamentally oppose—and I think that many people in this Parliament will have a significant impact, potentially on the relationship of the Scottish Government with its own employees and on employment relations generally in Scotland. It will have an impact on the work that has been done, for example, through the fair work convention. Given the impact that it would have on devolved responsibilities, it is absolutely the case that it should require a legislative consent motion. That neatly takes me on to where we are with the discussions around the Smith commission proposal and the Scotland Bill in terms of putting that convention on to a statutory footing. First, we welcome the agreement to put it on to a statutory footing, but the proposal that is currently in the Scotland Bill, we are concerned—I am concerned—does not go as far as it should do. I do not want to get overly technical here, but there are effectively three elements to the Sule convention, as it was known. Firstly, the consent of the Scottish Parliament should be required for bills that contain provisions that apply to Scotland and which are for devolved purposes. Secondly, bills that would alter the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Thirdly, bills that would alter the executive competence of the Scottish ministers. When you read the clause in the draft bill, where it simply says that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolve matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, you could read that as saying that that only applies to the first of those three aspects of the convention. That comes back to, I guess, how this has been done. What the Scotland Bill and its current form seems to be doing is placing the convention on a statutory into legislation as a convention, as opposed to unpacking the convention and putting all of the specific aspects of it into law. We will continue to argue the case that that has to be set out much more clearly. The danger would be—I put it more strongly than that—the danger would be trying to translate it into law. The other thing that it does not do, of course, is putting into statute all of the consultation and the mechanisms between the two Governments in advance of making those decisions. If it does not do all of that, the danger is that we end up in a weaker position than we are with the operation of the convention just now, so we have to guard against that. The trade union bill is quite a good example of a bill that, if we get it right in the legislation, it would be beyond doubt that a bill that had such an impact on aspects of how we do our business here in Scotland clearly required the legislative consent of the Parliament. Stuart Stevenson, the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, will be followed by Stuart Maxwell. First Minister, you will be aware that the Standards Committee looked at the process of lobbying Parliament and produced a report to inform the Government's own plans to introduce the lobbying bill. In our report, we strictly looked at the behaviours of members of the Scottish Parliament. Is the Government minded to look at other categories of activities by other people when the lobbying bill is brought forward in relatively early course? I hope that I am identifying correctly what it is that you are getting at here, but if I am not, you will come back at me, I am sure, but the intention of the Government in the lobbying bill, which was set out in the public consultation, is for the register to cover the lobbying of all MSPs, including MSPs, when they are acting in the role as ministers. That is the intention that we intend to carry forward into the legislation. That is helpful, First Minister. Obviously, another source of decision making that is important is civil servants as well. Is the civil service code sufficiently robust to cover what might be required in lobbying terms, or are you looking at that being part of that as well? I think that the civil service code is robust in those senses, but I would not say that that had to be covered here. However, we will listen carefully to the views that Parliament and your own committee in particular choose to put forward as we take that through. I think that we have got to strike a balance here. It is not necessarily a balance that will be easy to strike in absolutely the right place, but that is what we have got to try to do between not compromising the reputation that Parliament has for being open and transparent to people from all walks of Scottish life on the one hand, but on the other hand, making sure that there is absolute transparency and propriety around the decision making process and the people who might seek to influence that decision making process. We will seek to take all those things into account and come into a final position. I refer to the issue of whether ministers should be covered and I am very clear that that should be the case. Finally, and perhaps briefly, the committee has perhaps done something that has not been done before in an enhanced pre-legislative activity that has directly been asked to inform a Government bill. Does the Government have the view that this has been a useful process that we might look at using in future? Yes, I do. I think that it has been useful. I think that it is something that we may come on to when we are talking about some of the changes that have been made to the legislative process, particularly the role of the delegated powers committee. I think that all those innovations have had their uses and I think that we should continue to look at how we enhance the legislative process so that by the time that we come to bringing a bill to Parliament, it is not to say that that bill will not require significant changes through the amendment process, but we have taken account of as many views as possible in the pre-legislative phase, so that the bill is not as good a shape as it can be. Stewart Macphill, the convener of the Education and Culture Committee, and Stewart Macphill, by Murdo Fraser. First Minister, during your programme for government announcement, you made very clear that the Scottish Government's top priorities is closing the attainment gap. As part of that work, we also announced that you intend to introduce a national improvement framework that would establish a new nationalised standard assessment regime for primary 1, 4, 7 and S3. The Government has said that that will not be the sole measurement used for children in school. What other measurements do you intend to be used? The other measurements that would be used are broadly the ones that would be used by a teacher now in assessing the performance and progress of a young person. That will be on-going classwork, written work that children do in their classroom daughters, presentations, homework and teacher observation. All that will still be very important in terms of a teacher forming a judgment, but it will be added to by consistent assessments. Those sources of information are already added to by assessment, but not all local authorities use the same assessments. What we are seeking to do here is to standardise the assessment, because we are also going to do assessments that are bespoke, if you like, to curriculum for excellence, as opposed to what is brought in from external sources. It will be much more aligned to the objectives of curriculum for excellence. All that information that is taken together will enable the teacher to form the judgment about whether a child is meeting the required level at curriculum for excellence. In a sense, that is what distinguishes the assessments that we are proposing to introduce from what people would describe as the national testing of old. The concerns that many teachers have about testing, which I would share, are when it becomes high stakes, be all and end all, pass fail, and that is the only measure of a child's progress. That is not what we are envisaging here with assessments. It will be another source of information to help to inform in an objective and consistent way the judgment that a teacher will arrive at. Thank you very much for that. I am glad that you raised that point, because my second question, Presiding Officer, is on that very fact. There have been concerns raised on two points in particular. One is how do you stop effectively those assessments becoming league tables and how do the Government intend to do that? Clearly, one of the suggestions would be that you do not publish the raw data, for example, so I think that there has been some discussion in education circles about that. I wonder if you could give us your view on how you prevent that from happening, given your previous answer. Secondly, one of the other concerns that has been raised is how you allow the national improvement framework to be assessed itself and its success. Will, effectively, schools and education authorities be able to use the data that has been produced from the previous testing regimes or assessment regimes and compare that with the data that will be produced by the national improvement framework? In other words, will it be a case where we will lose the data from the last lot of assessments, or will there be a way of comparing across the previous assessments with the new standardised assessments? I will take both parts of the questions in reverse order. There will be some limited comparison possible using the evidence that is already available in local authorities from existing assessments, teacher judgment and the information that has been gathered through the SSLN, the Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy. We are designing new assessments, which, as I said in the programme for government, will be piloted in the challenge authorities next year and rolled out nationally from 2017. There will not be a direct comparison available, but what that will enable over time is those comparisons to be made. Although that will be in time, the new assessments will replace the SSLN surveys. The publication is an issue where we will continue to consult carefully before reaching final decisions on the nature and form of data publication. I have no interest in producing information that just becomes crude league tables that do not actually tell parents or teachers or politicians or anybody anything meaningful about the performance of schools. We have to make sure that any information that we provide is in the right context and is able to be used in a meaningful way. We should take some heart from the fact that we have already done that in terms of the information that is published through parents' zone, for example, in the upper parts of secondary school, where, yes, people in the media will seek to turn that into league tables, but to the best of my knowledge, most teachers and parents are quite comfortable with the context in which that is published. We are not yet at a conclusion in terms of exactly how that will happen, but we will do it in a way that guards against as far as we can the putting together and publishing of league tables that tell us nothing about the school's performance. On behalf of teachers, and I will be sure to answer one more question, which is, will it generate more work for teachers? No, because 30 of the 32 local authorities already do those assessments. That is about streamlining. Sorry, convener, there are actually some local authorities that Education Scotland might think over-assess just now, so that is about streamlining and making sure that the assessments are aligned with curriculum for excellence. Murdo Fraser, convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, and Murdo Befall by Jim Eadie. Thank you. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee is conducting an inquiry into work, wages and wellbeing. My questions follow on from Duncan McNeill's first question around the fair work convention and the business pledge. The committee would take the view that the business pledge is worthwhile and its objectives are sound. I think that so far 100 businesses have signed up to it. That is out of 200,000 businesses in Scotland, so the take-up has been quite minimal thus far. One of the issues that we try to explore in evidence is the question of conditionality. We took evidence from the Government's various agencies, Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland, and they have told us that they do not treat businesses who signed the pledge any different to those who have not, which perhaps explains why the take-up rate has not been so significant. Did the Scottish Government consider the question of conditionality and, if it decided not to go down that route, what was the reason for that? That is an important area of deliberation. We considered the issue of conditionality when we were putting the business pledge together. I am optimistic about the uptake. I think that those things often take time to percolate through the business community, but I have been quite encouraged by the degree of interest and not just the number, but the types of businesses that are signing up so far. I would predict that we will see a lot more of that in the months to come. We consider carefully the issue of conditionality. I am not close-minded. We will monitor carefully how the business pledge works and the impact that it has on business practice. However, the reason why we decided not to go down the road of conditionality—I suppose that it gets to the whole philosophy of what we are trying to do through the fair work agenda—is that what we are trying to say to businesses—and I think many businesses—absolutely embrace is that fair work, whether that is the living wage or good practices or all the things that are covered by the business pledge, should not be something that businesses are seen as burdens on them that they have to be forced to do. They are things that, by doing, businesses make themselves more productive, more competitive and more successful. It is that virtuous approach that we are seeking to take. There were people who would have argued for an approach of conditionality. I took the view that, if we are trying to get businesses to see this as something that is actually good for them to do, that would have been the wrong way to start on that. However, we will continue to consider those things as the business pledge continues to develop. That is a very helpful response. I will follow up on one aspect of the business pledge, which is that the companies that are signed up undertake not to use exploitative zero-hours contracts. When Scottish Enterprise came to the committee two weeks ago, I asked them if they could tell us what an exploitative zero-hours contract was, and they could not give me a definition. We are asking businesses to sign up to something that is not defined. Can you tell me what, in your view, is an exploitative zero-hours contract? That term comes from a recognition that there will be some businesses in some sectors where the use of zero-hours contracts is necessary given the nature of the business, but also there will be sectors where employees are happy to sign up on that basis. That is the minority, not the majority. I am happy to write to the committee with the full explanation of what I am about to see here. In summary, employees would prefer to be on contracts that were not zero-hours, where the use is haphazard, where people have genuinely no full understanding, where it is not required in terms of the nature of the business. We have had bad practices such as that in the past, where employees who are on zero-hours contracts are not allowed to work for other companies while they are signed up to zero-hours contracts, so they are effectively trapped with that situation. Those are the aspects of exploitative, but I am happy to write in more detail about them. You are now asking people to sign up to this now without being clear about that meeting. In my experience—I am absolutely sure that you would be able to give me exceptions to that—in my experience, companies have a fairly good idea of what crosses the line between an appropriate use of a zero-hours contract and exploitative use of a zero-hours contract. If that is an area where further discussion and dialogue with your committee would help, it is in our interest for companies to be clear about what we are asking them to sign up to. If there is work that it would be helpful to do through your committee, I would be happy to do that. Mary, the Committee for Infrastructure and Capital Investment and Jim O'Bhug by Christine Grahame. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Good afternoon, First Minister. You have announced the Scottish Government's intention to introduce a private tenancies bill, which I believe will be published shortly. The purpose of which will be, as I understand it, to provide security of tenure, predictability on rent increases and a stable tenancy for tenants in the private rented sector. Can I ask you specifically about the protection of tenants against excessive rent increases, including the ability to introduce local rent controls for rent pressure areas? In terms of that specific proposal, can you explain how you would envisage it working in practice? How will you determine what a rent pressure area will be and who will take that decision? What we have announced—the bill will be introduced shortly and we will go through the full scrutiny process—is a rent control framework that is proportionate and measured, so that it can mitigate the detrimental effect of excessively rising rents in particular areas. We know from our own statistics that rents in many parts of Scotland are not rising excessively right now, but there are some areas—I would particularly point to Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire in the Lothians, where rents have been increasing significantly in real terms. What we are envisaging in the bill is something that is not a blanket one-size-fits-all approach, but an arrangement that gives local authorities the means to apply to ministers for the ability to cap rents in rent pressure zones. That would be for a time-limited period, and the objective of it would be to allow the local authority to ameliorate the effects of excessively high rent rises and protect tenants and the broader housing system from rent rises that are excessively rising. In terms of how we will reach those decisions, there will be an application process for local authorities to set out in the bill, and we have already cited the statistics that we published that would provide the evidence of how rents were performing in particular local areas. What that is intended to do is to provide protection for tenants where it is needed, but to make sure that we continue to have a system that is proportionate. Thank you. I think that you have set out a clear direction of travel in relation to that specific issue. I can ask you about another issue. I understand that, during the Scottish Government's consultation process, landlords and letting agents expressed concerns about the proposed ending of the no-fault ground for repossessing a property. Can you give us an early indication of how the bill intends to address those concerns? Again, that is all about proportionality and balance. The private rented sector is becoming increasingly important in Scotland and it is changing. It is now home to somewhere in the region of 700,000 tenants across Scotland. More families are becoming dependent on the private rented sector, so we need to make sure that the regulations that govern that sector are fit for purpose and reflect the nature of it just now. We thought carefully about the no-fault ground for repossession of tenancies. As you said, we consulted and it was the case that many landlords expressed concern about that. We think that we are striking the right balance. By taking away the no-fault ground, we give added protection for tenants against the knowledge that their property—what is actually their home—can be taken away simply because the tenancy agreement reaches its end date. However, what we have ensured on the other side is that there will be a range of different grounds where landlords can regain possession of their property. They will cover areas where they want to sell it or use it for the purposes of their own family. We think that we are striking the right balance there. We very much look forward to the input of your committee when it goes through the stage 1 process. The Justice Committee in Christine will be pulled by Paul Martin. First Minister is probably about a prease of last time. The Justice Committee in this session has dealt with 17 bills and 13 of them are government bills. We usually have another one on the way, and we usually have at least two. This time, it is three currently before us. Criminal Justice is a substantial bill at stage 2. Community Justice is coming to stage 1 and FAI is moving into stage 2. If I look at the criminal justice bill, 275 amendments have been lodged at stage 2 of those, and 160 are government amendments. Some are consequentials, but there are quite substantial amendments in there, particularly relating to stop and search and custody. Can I therefore ask on behalf of the committee that we are provided with explanatory notes on substantial amendments in the early course? It is very important what is done at stage 2 of a bill. Quite often at stage 3, most of the Parliament has not got much idea what has been going on, but stage 2 of the committee certainly has. Secondly, and this is perhaps not going to be more controversial, I think, in that can your Government, or indeed I hope subsequent Governments, consider a cap on bills in the Parliament to be considering all those bills, to be a unicameral Parliament, it is extremely difficult for the committee and indeed the Parliament at large perhaps to get it right. Let me take those two things in turn. On this issue of explanatory notes for stage 2 amendments, I am sympathetic to the argument behind that. I know that the Standards Committee looked at that previously and decided not to recommend that as a standard part of the process, but it has been the case that government has been prepared to share its purpose and effect notes with committee members on an informal basis. My understanding is that that has been done in relation to the criminal justice bill for members. I understand that the committee has found that to be helpful, so I am certainly happy to give a commitment that we will carry on with that practice for future bills if conveners and committees think that that would be helpful. I have no difficulty in agreeing with you on that, which takes me on to the second part, where I might not be as much in agreement with you. I am not in favour of a cap on bills. It should be for a Parliament to legislate as it is deemed necessary. In my experience so far in government and on the other side in opposition, I was probably somebody who said this about government often enough. Governments will get criticised either for legislating too little, legislating too much, bringing forward the wrong kinds of legislation. That is just in the nature of it. Governments have to have the flexibility to bring forward legislation in the areas and in the quantity that it thinks appropriate from year to year. However, when I am perhaps moving back into agreement with you, it is also incumbent on the Government to make sure that that workload is managed with an understanding of the pressures on committees. The Minister for Parliamentary Business, believe me, does a very stern job with me and my ministers to make sure that we have an understanding of the pressures on committees. There will always be a willingness on the part of government—in fact, a duty on the part of government—to work with committees and committee conveners to manage that. However, it is in the nature of things that, in some parliamentary sessions, one committee will have what will appear like a disproportionate workload in other sessions. It will be other committees that do that. That is, I think, to some extent in the nature of the beast that we are dealing with. I think that it is getting out of hand again. It is very much welcome the FAI bill and domestic abuses that are coming on human trafficking. Those are excellent, but the balance has shifted for the Justice Committee. It is a marriage of the Select and Standing Committee. We are trying to do an inquiry into surveillance of journalists and MSPs. We would like to look. We cannot do human rights. It is said to be passed to the European Committee. We have had to set up a sub-committee in policing, in which the whole committee denies the opportunity to scrutinise Police Scotland. There is absolutely no space for post-legislative scrutiny. I, with respect—I mean that genuinely, and I am not using it in the lawyer's way, when you do not respect people at all—is that I feel that the balance has shifted and that your Government should not just be measured on the quantity of the legislation, but on the quality. That is my concern. We are not able to do that and do inquiries as we used to be able to do. I will just leave it at that. Before you answer, First Minister, can I just say that I hope that the submission that Christine Grahame is making now will be similar to a submission that she will make to the Standards Committee, which is looking at the moment about committee reform, First Minister? I am going to start by saying that I have known and loved you long enough to know exactly what you mean when you say with respect. There was no need to clarify it for me there. I am not unsympathetic to the case that you are making. I think that you are making a compelling case. I was going to make the same point that the Presiding Officer has just made about the work that the Standards Committee is doing. We have already of course seen changes. I am aware that we have not come on to Nigel Don's committee yet, but in terms of what now happens with uncontroversial law commission proposed legislation, what we might be looking at in the future in terms of consolidation bills, all of that intended to take the pressure of subject committees to some extent. However, I appreciate that. I guess that the difficulty that you get into is when it comes to—you read out some of the bills that your committee is dealing with—when it comes to saying, well, which of those ones do we need to do? That is when it becomes much more of a hard-edged discussion. We will continue as a Government to make sure that we work with committees to recognise your points about both quality of legislation but also the space for committees to do non-legislative work. That is very important. I cannot promise you a magic solution to that, because I do not think that a cap on bills would be appropriate, but I can promise you that we will continue to listen and to work very closely with committees to try to manage the pressures that you are identifying. First Minister, you will be aware of the various reports that the committee is considering in connection with the governance of the seven arrangements in connection with the college mergers. You advised the chamber recently, in exchange for the First Minister's question time, that there would be in place stronger national controls to ensure that there would be no recurrence or hopefully make it more difficult for the recurrence of the seven arrangements that were agreed by the colleges. Could you advise me what those specific controls are? I said a couple of things in the chamber that I was not at all happy with the seven arrangements that were being discussed around Cotebridge College. What I pointed to was not changes that were going to be made, but changes that have already been made in terms of, for example, the changes that took effect in April last year when colleges were reclassified by the Office of National Statistics. As a result of that, stronger financial controls came into effect. That is one of the key changes that has been made that would change the rules and regulations in place where a college should be looking to do what Cotebridge College did previously. We will also look, and I have said this openly, whether there are other things that we could put in place. However, I think that the most important change is the one that I have already spoken about, and that has already happened. I cannot take you back to the Audit Scotland report. Specifically, it refers to an exchange with the Scottish Funding Council in October 2013, when the Scottish Funding Council asked or requested that there is clarity in whether there was best fall way for money in respect to the agreements that were reached. Given what you have advised us, and the current state of play today, could there be a rare occurrence of a situation where there could be an exchange with the Scottish Funding Council requesting that information and the college could still go ahead with the severance arrangements? There is no doubt that the guidance that was given by the SFC was not acted upon with Cotebridge College, and there were concerns about the fact that it was not even brought to the attention of some of the people, the remuneration committee, for example. Those are serious issues, and I know that your committee intends—well, I believe that your committee intends to look further into that, and I think that that is entirely appropriate. The changes that took place in April 2014 as a result of the ONS reclassification is that colleges must now seek prior approval from SFC of both severance and settlement arrangements. The college reforms that have been undertaken also now give ministers explicit powers to intervene in such circumstances. Previously, it was a case of the SFC stating a view that was not acted on. The change now is that colleges must seek the approval of the SFC for severance and settlement arrangements. That is a substantive difference, which I certainly hope would mean that what we saw at Cotebridge in the particular circumstances of that would not happen again. Can I just ask finally, then, that your understanding that the SFC could not intervene on this occasion, on the previous occasion, that it was legally not in the position to do that? We are looking carefully—again, this is something that I would be happy to explore with your committee. We are looking with a critical eye at whether there is any more that the SFC could have done back then. My understanding is that there were limitations back then that are now not the same because of the changes to the classification and what grew from that. I do not want to sit here and give a definitive nothing further could be done, because the situations that we are looking at in particular right now are not acceptable. They are not acceptable at any time, but when public money is under as much pressure as it is under just now, they are just flatly unacceptable. We need to make sure that we have the right arrangements in place to protect against that. Nidol Dawn, the convener of the Delegated Person Law Reform Committee, and followed by Kevin Stewart. First Minister, you have already referred to the change in the standing orders that has enabled my committee to take on some legislation. We enjoyed the legal writings bill. I think that we are currently enjoying explorations of the law of succession. I think that we are probably fairly saying that we were expecting to deal with bankruptcy in a consolidation bill. I wonder whether you can give me your thoughts, First Minister, on how we might in the future take forward both the law of form and the maintenance of the snatchy book. I think that the changes that have been made opened the way to that. I visited the law commission just a few weeks ago to help them to celebrate their 50th anniversary, and they were very complementary about how the changes have enabled and will enable in future perhaps a more effective and efficient way of keeping the statute book up today and fit for purpose. The Government's view of how the changes worked with the legal writings bill is very positive. I know that the Standards Committee will be looking at that and our feedback from the experience so far into that committee will be entirely positive. The succession bill is obviously the second bill to go through those new procedures, and you have already referred, as I have, to different procedures around consolidation. It goes back to the points that Christine Grahame was making. When a committee, such as the Justice Committee, is so under pressure with new legislation, the scope for doing consolidation or tidying up the law becomes much less. With the change that puts that on us on your committee, we open the door to doing much more of that, and I think that that is in the interests of good maintenance of the statute book. Kevin Stewart, the convener of the local government and regeneration committee, Margaret McCulloch. The programme for government says that the Scottish Government will review the operation of the planning system, with a view to introducing changes that deliver a quicker, more accessible and efficient system, with a particular focus on increasing the delivery of housing developments. Can I ask you, First Minister, how can we ensure that people in communities across Scotland have confidence in the planning system? Part of the reason for undertaking what we described as a Root and Branch review is to make sure that that is the case, that the planning system, as far as any planning system can ever do this, is striking the right balance between economic and infrastructure development and making sure that the views and the tensions that sometimes come out of the views that communities have are properly taken account of. The review, as you will know, because your committee is looking carefully at that, will focus on six key strategic priorities, development planning, housing delivery, planning for infrastructure, further improvement to development management, leadership resourcing and skills and, lastly, community engagement. That community engagement part is a very important aspect of it. Sometimes communities do not feel particularly engaged, and one example of my own patch is the Marshall Square development. How can we ensure that other council aims and policies do not colour local authority planning decisions? I guess that the two things are completely different, but in some ways that takes me back to the discussion that I had with Duncan McNeill about the Scottish Medicines Consortium, you can have it in place the best system that is possible to have in place. It will not stop decisions being taken that some people disagree with or some people, for very good and understandable reasons, feel very strongly is the wrong decision. It does not matter what we do with the planning system, we will not avoid some communities on some decisions being seriously aggrieved at outcomes. However, that makes it all the more important that the system is transparent, that there is an understanding of it, that there are meaningful ways in which community voices can be heard and that councils are planning authorities. If that is the case of ministers taking decisions, as we sometimes do in those things, there is an accountability and an openness in terms of explaining why decisions have been reached. Again, there is no magic wand that can be waved to make those things easy and controversy free, but there are things that we can do to improve the system so that it better makes those various objectives. One of the things that could maybe improve the situation is better communication between planning authorities and communities. Is that going to be looked at as part of the Root and Branch review? Obviously, I do not want to start doing the job of the panel that has been appointed to do that, but community engagement, in my view, would encompass the issue of communication. I have plenty constituency experience, as every member around this table will have, of planning decisions that are incredibly controversial. As I say, it does not always take away the controversy in those decisions, but the more engagement and communication there can be as early as possible in the process, the better it is and the more chance there is of getting a way through issues that are very contentious for communities. Any meaningful look at community engagement will look at that important issue of communication as well. Mark Olock, the convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, to be followed by Rob Gibson. Like the finance committee, the Equal Opportunities Committee has highlighted the importance of early intervention and reducing social risks as a way of preventing social problems and inequalities. In our inquiry on age and isolation, we heard about the public health risk of loneliness. It could be as bad for your health as smoking. We have even heard about a woman living alone so isolated that she was living without power. I can see from the programme for government that you understand we have to move away from a preventable spending to preventative spending. The Christie commission estimated that 40 per cent of public spending is accounted for by interventions that could have been prevented. Where would you put that figure now? I am happy to provide that figure. I do not have what that figure would be now to hand, but I will write to you and to your committee what our estimate of that would be. In terms of the substance of your question, you know from the focus of our work that we absolutely very strongly agree that the more we can prevent problems occurring, the more effectively and efficiently public money will be used and the better people's quality of life will be. I welcome the work that your committee is doing around age and loneliness, because, although it is not the case that older people are the only group where the prevention agenda is important, there is no doubt that in terms of preventing ill health, preventing hospital admissions and dealing with some of the pressures that we see occurring in our acute health service, caring for older people better in their own homes and own communities is a key part of that. That goes beyond just aids and adaptations or digital health technology. It does come down to people's sense of community and not having people isolated in their own communities. You will be aware, for example, of the 247 helpline and the work that we are doing on digital participation. The internet is not the whole answer to that, but it is one way in which we help to keep older people connected and stop them being isolated. It is a massive area of work, but, for the best of reasons, particularly given tight public finances, we absolutely have to keep focused on. You may not have the answer for this, but I will ask anyway. Do you think that there has been a decisive shift towards preventive spending? Yes, I do. I can look at our early in years intervention fund, our change fund, which was established when I was health secretary, looking now at what we are doing around the integration of health and social care, which is not a single big bang exercise, but it is about moving health spend from the acute sector into communities, into preventative spend. Yes, we have seen that shift start to happen. Are we at the end of that journey? Absolutely not. There is still a considerable way to go. Rob Gibson, the convener of rural affairs, climate change and the environment committee, and Rob will be followed by Mike McMahon. First Minister, land ownership patterns have a profound impact on the best uses of our most basic natural resource. What makes the approach of this session's land reform bill different from previous interventions in land ownership and use by previous Scottish parliaments? The land reform bill that is currently before Parliament is, in one sense, part of a journey of land reform. I think that there was too big a gap from the previous one to this one, but it is part of a journey. There are many aspects of the detail of that bill that obviously make it different from previous legislative initiatives, but I guess if I was to sum up what makes it different, it is how we are seeking to develop a framework for how we continue to reform land use and access and ownership around the land register, the land rights and responsibilities statement, for example. It is that framework that means that the bill is not necessarily the end of the road but paves the way to making sure that we keep land use and ownership under constant review. Indeed, thank you for that. Stakeholders have strongly highlighted the need for transparency of land ownership. Can Scotland's sub-state government find watertight ways to identify the beneficial owners of Scottish land to encourage responsible land ownership and to ensure that those holdings can be suitably taxed? I think that in the bill, yes, we are seeking to do that, although we will consider carefully any points that are made in the progress of this about how we can strengthen it. We have looked very carefully, as you would have expected us to do, given the transparency of ownership and greater information about who owns and controls land was one of the key issues that was identified by the land reform review group. As you will be aware of from the detail of the bill, section 35 is the key section that deals with that. That section allows regulations to be made that will then provide people who are affected by land to request information about individuals with control of that land. Section 36 also allows regulations to be made that provide the keeper of the registers of Scotland to request additional information about the category of the proprietor and individuals who have a controlling interest, because the issue of who lies behind ownership is one of the key ones. Obviously, the review group made recommendations around EU-incorporated legal entities. We have looked carefully at that. One of the complications with that is that the rules around corporate transparency aren't consistent across different European countries, so we could find that notwithstanding what we tried to do in that act, you would still have complex structures in certain countries that would obscure ownership. We are trying to bring as much transparency to this as possible in as meaningful a way as possible, and we look forward to continued engagement on it. Finally, Mike McMahon, the convener of the Public Petitions Committee. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, you will be aware that, like no other committee in the Parliament, our agenda is set by the public. We have looked at issues that have come up to try and identify areas where there might have been some pressing concerns raised disproportionately to others. That area that we discovered was in transport. In your programme for government, you discussed taking forward investment in a variety of transport services under the heading of creating a strong, sustainable economy. Given the wide array of petitions that have come to us on transport from individuals, from organisations, from communities, do you believe that, in terms of transport policy, the Government is getting it right, given that there is a disproportionate amount of petitioning of the Parliament in relation to transport issues? I think that we are making substantial investment in transport, in roads, in the rail network, in improving air routes, in the whole gamut of cycling and greener, cleaner modes of transport. We are making huge investment in all that. I think that our record speaks for itself in terms of some of the significant projects and improvements that we have made or are making from the new Queensferry crossing to the border railway that I had the privilege of opening just a few weeks ago. We have started work as you know on dualling the E9. Across all that, I think that the Government has got a very, very strong record of delivery. That is not though, and this is where, if I was just to sit here and say, we are getting it right and there is no more that we could do, I would be horrendously complacent. That is not my way of looking at things. There will be communities all over Scotland who have particular transport issues that they want to see more urgent action on. We have to balance all of that in coming up with an affordable and deliverable programme of investment. I was looking at some of the petitions that you have been dealing with on the junction at Lawrence Kirk, for example, the A83, Rest and Be Thankful, the school bus safety. Those are all examples of where particular communities have particular transport challenges. We have got to work with those communities to assess the priority and then to factor that into an overall strategic approach to the on-going continuous improvement of our transport network. Thank you very much for that. I agree with you that sometimes the creation of transport projects actually brings some of the petitions about themselves when people are either not happy with them or they do not think that they are achieving the aims intended for them. One community that there may have been an unintended consequence that has impacted on them, you mentioned the promotion of cycling. There have been petitions that have brought to our attention in relation to the adverse impact on the ScotRail franchise, because in encouraging people to access cycling and go into the trains in order to do that, the disabled community feels that they are being pushed off. Accessibility of transportation is actually a problem for the community that are disabled. I wonder if you could do any comments on how we can address those issues. I would be happy to look in more detail at those specific petitions, because I feel very, very strongly that enabling people to access trains with bikes and enabling people with disabilities to access trains are not either or they are not mutually exclusive. They are both in their own way and for their own reasons are very, very important. Yes, I would be concerned if one or other was hindering access to one or other. I am happy—I have not looked in detail at those particular petitions, but I am happy to do so and see if there is anything. I will also raise it with Derek Mackay, the transport minister, and ask him to have a look at that particular issue as well. Thank you very much. I thank all of the conveners for keeping the time. We do have a wee bit of time in hand. Before the First Minister thinks that she can escape, I remind some people that they have questions at 2 o'clock, so I know that some members will have to go. However, what I thought was maybe about five or six minutes. If anybody wants a follow-up to the First Minister on something that they have asked, I am quite happy to allow them to do so. Bruce Crawford. I did not ask a supplementary question, so it is my chance now. Obviously, the report stage of the Scotland Bill will soon be reached in the House of Commons. You will be aware, First Minister, that my committee has to say the least reservations about whether or not the bill that is currently shaped meets the recommendations of Smith. I wonder what progress is being made with the UK Government in discussing what amendments are likely to come forward. Are we likely to see any substantial progress? I know that we have seen one in one area around permanency and there are some doubts about it. How effective it will be, but that is all that we have seen to date. I wonder what discussions you have had and what progress has been made. Those discussions are on-going. John Swinney has met the Secretary of State relatively recently, but the short answer is that we do not yet know what further amendments the Secretary of State intends to bring forward at the report stage, with the exception of the one amendment on permanency, which we have a number of technical doubts about, but we will go into them at the moment. I think that it is now incumbent on the Secretary of State to bring forward the amendments that he says he wants to bring forward. I hope to see substantial amendments that meet the issues that your committee identified, issues that the Government has been pushing since the bill was published. I very much hope that we will see amendments on the Sule convention that I spoke about earlier on, further amendments on social security, on employment services, on the Crown Estate. I hope that we will see the removal of all the vetoes that currently litter the bill in terms of giving the UK Government the power, in certain circumstances, to veto decisions of the Scottish Government, but we await further information on what those might be, so hopefully we will see them sooner rather than later. There is always two, First Minister. I was going to be short one for another one. Thanks. First Minister, last year at this time was it? Last year at this time? Or another time? The last time we were here. Anyway, we were talking about some of the stuff that Murdoch McAuliffe was talking about, whether we have sufficiently funded that vision for transformation to move to a more preventive system and take account of the demographic challenges that we do have and deliver our healthcare closer, at home, closer to home. We had that discussion and you are saying that at that time you are absolutely committed to the 2020 vision. Are you still confident that you will meet the 2020 vision target of 2020 and that you believe that it is sufficiently funded to reach that target and deliver by that time? I am confident that 2020 will come around in 2020, yes. Will you deliver on by 2020? We have set out the 2020 vision. Shona Robison, as you know, is now consulting through the national conversation on how we extend that vision to make sure that we have a health service that is adapting to the changing demographics, adapting to new discoveries, to the changing use of technology. In a sense, with the health service, given the nature of it, that will be an on-going exercise. Are we funding it sufficiently? Are we giving it the priority within the finite resources that we have? Yes, I believe that we are. You can always argue that any issue should have more money. If you had more money, you would give it more money, but are we giving the health service? We protected the resource budget of the health service and within that I talked in the programme for government about the primary care transformation work that we are doing and the test sites that we will develop over the next year. Yes, I believe that we are giving it the priority that it deserves within the resources that we have as a Government. Will we deliver by 2020? Yes, we will deliver where we want to be by, but when we get to 2020, the health service is always changing, so we will need to look at where we want it to be in 2030. The point that I am making is—you know this, everybody knows this—the health service by the nature of it never gets to a point where it can stand still. The work to support the 2020 vision that has been done just now around the clinical strategy, for example, has to look at where we will be in 2020, but it also has to move forward to where we will be 10 years, 20 years, 30 years from that. As long as the world does not stand still, the national health service will never stand still. Can I thank all of the conveners? First Minister, can I thank you once again for coming and putting yourself forward through it? Thank you for putting yourself forward to do this. This is likely to be the final session of the conveners and the First Minister before the end of the session. Last time, I am likely to be in the chair for this, but I hope that, in the future, the conveners group and the First Minister can also come to an arrangement to have a meeting such as that. I thank you once again for giving up your time, for coming to this group meeting. I thank all the conveners, and I thank particularly young people sitting in the school. I hope that you found that interesting. Thanks a lot everybody.