 Roeddwch chi'n cwestiynau bod gennym I. Rydyn ni'n gwestiynau acum проiectu hynny na felly rwy'n ddwylai, oeddwn iddyn nhw i ddweud eich cwestiynau tychweld o'r ddweud. A o chwarae, rofyn i tynnu hwy Blithrys, rydyn ni'n ôl o'r ddwylai yn meddwlol. Felly, eich ddaf yn gyfod ag i ddiwedd ein crimer? Prif. Rydyn ni'n ddwylai i ddweud, gyda i ddweud eich gwestiynau cyfrydd ar y cyfrifnegol mewn gwirioneddau ddwylai, I thought there was a very good discussion on that. Many members made the point that, for example, if ties were removed for medical reasons then perhaps, no, but the bill of course includes a new offence of being unlawfully at large. Given Ruth Davidson's previous interventions on this issue, I would have thought that that was something she welcomed. What we have seen this week through the bill, through what was approved by Parliament last night on the presumption against short sentences, is this Government introducing reforms to the justice system that will make our country safer because it is about smarter justice and it is exactly the kind of reforms that her colleagues south of the border are pursuing themselves. Perhaps it is Ruth Davidson that is somewhat out of line here. Ruth Davidson Let us just spell out what exactly happens under this Government's new management of offenders act, the one about which she talks. The SNP says that it wants to start emptying the jails and let lots of people who would have been in prison out on the street wearing tags instead. That is what she said. In my view, taking that tag off is therefore equivalent of scaling the walls and making a run for it, because but for that tag you would be in a cell. Yet under the SNP all that will happen under this new system is that you get sent a letter asking if you wouldn't mind turning yourself in, please. Cutting off your tag is not an automatic crime and there is no extra penalty added to your sentence. Does the First Minister think that this sounds like justice to most people? If it was correct, Ruth Davidson might have a point, but it is not correct. It is worth pointing out firstly that there is already, even before the act was passed this week, consequences for people who tamper with electronic tags. If a person on home detention curfew tampers with a tag, that is immediately reported back to prison and the person will be recalled back to custody. The steps that we took in this bill to bolster the law specifically create a new offence of remaining unlawfully at large for those who do not return to custody once recalled. That approach gives the police more powers to apprehend prisoners who are considered to be unlawfully at large, including where they have tampered with their electronic tag. Precisely the changes to the law that people have been asking for and the problems that I hear the justice secretary say that Ruth Davidson called for. The proposals that came from the Tories this week did not have robust provisions around them. For example, somebody who damaged a tag in the course of employment or carrying out sporting activities would have been committing an offence with no appropriate defence in law. What we have done is put in place robust and appropriate provisions, which is why they have been widely welcomed. Lastly, the whole premise of Ruth Davidson's questions around justice and law and order seems to be based on the view that somehow in Scotland we have a soft-on crime approach. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would ask Ruth Davidson to reflect on the fact that, right now, Scotland has the highest prison population in Western Europe. It is not the problem that we do not send enough people to prison. The problem is that we are not smart enough in terms of the justice interventions. The proposals that we have taken forward this week, as I said a moment ago, are proposals that her colleagues in Westminster are looking at and emulating. Perhaps Ruth Davidson should reflect on the fact that it is her that is out of line on those matters. Ruth Davidson What I asked the First Minister was whether it sounded like justice to her. Here is the people who it does not sound like justice to. Scottish Women's Aid says that, to be a credible deterrent, breach of the electronic monitoring condition must, must be an automatic criminal offence. Victim support Scotland says that breaches of a tag must be punished to maintain the trust of victims in the community, because communities have no faith in community sentencing, because it takes too long for someone to be found to be in breach of their order. The SNP could have fixed that by making the breach of a tag a specific offence that was punishable by a sentence. Was it just because it was a Tory suggestion that the First Minister refused to do it? The First Minister No, it was because it was not the right approach. That is why we did not follow that. That is why, instead, we put into the law a workable provision that will make a difference and actually deal with the problem that people have identified. If somebody tampers with an electronic tag, if they are unlawfully at large because of that, then we have created a specific new offence to deal with that. Ruth Davidson's proposals, the ones that her colleagues brought forward, would have meant that if somebody accidentally hampered their tag, that would have been an offence and there would have been no defence in law. We have put in place a workable provision that makes sense and perhaps it is the fact that it makes sense that it left the Tories unable to support it this week in Parliament. Ruth Davidson Our proposal made sense for Scottish women's aid. It made sense for Victim Support Scotland. Let's talk about this unlawfully at large issue that the First Minister has been waving around here as a defence. It is two years since Father of Three Craig McClelland was stabbed to death by James Wright, a criminal who was unlawfully at large for six months after tampering with his electronic tag. This week, Mr McClelland's father, Michael, said this. Why was James Wright out on a tag? How did he get it off and why wasn't he lifted? Where was the system when my son was murdered and why won't they answer those questions? First Minister, what are you going to tell Mr McClelland about why cutting off a tag isn't a crime? The First Minister Can I firstly again, as I have done previously, put on record my condolaces to the McClelland family for everything that they have gone through? What I would say to Craig's father is that at the time that dreadful tragedy and crime took place, the specific offence that we have put into law this week, the offence of being unlawfully at large, was not on the statute book. That case is one of the reasons why we considered this and decided to legislate this week to put that specific crime on the statute book. I would say to families such as Craig McClelland's families and others who have suffered in those circumstances that this is a response specifically to that. The justice secretary has also taken another action to respond to what happened in that case and issues and decisions about wider considerations of that case fall to the independent law officers to take. It is precisely because of that that the change in the law was made this week. A change in the law that my party and my Government voted for, a change in the law that Ruth Davidson's party voted against. Richard Leonard To ask the First Minister how many Government debates there have been on education policy in the parliamentary year that ends today. First Minister I do not have the number of Government debates but I do know earlier this week John Swinney, the education secretary made a statement on education reform. I remember that it was last week or the week before he made a statement on attainment and assessment in primary schools. The education secretary and I spend, as you would expect, a considerable amount of our time making sure that we continue the progress of raising attainment in our schools and closing the attainment gap, making more progress than I believe was made under previous Labour administrations. Richard Leonard Yes, we know that the cabinet secretary is happy to read out statements but not take interventions, not take part in a debate and not have a vote. Because the answer to the question that I asked is none, not one, in the last parliamentary year there have been no Government debates on that top priority of education. In fact, there hasn't been one since as far back as the 2 November 2017. We have had ministerial statements such as this week's mercy killing of the education bill but no debates. What is it that the Government is so afraid of debating? Is it the teacher recruitment crisis? Is it the narrowing of the curriculum? Is it the explosion of multilevel teaching? Is it the growing crisis in additional support needs? Or is it, Presiding Officer, because when we do debate and then vote on this Government's record on education, it is defeated in this Parliament? First Minister? Well, I guess that Richard Leonard has a point because we could have come to this chamber and we could have debated the 10 per cent pay rise for teachers in our country. We could have debated the 500 more teachers in our schools this year. The fact that we have got more teachers in primary schools now than at any time since 1980, the education secretary made a statement this week and he made a statement last week. It is really not my fault if Richard Leonard cannot manage to ask questions on those statements, but you know what? Do you know what? I am really Order, please. How many times has Richard Leonard come to this chamber and said that the single biggest thing that we have to do to raise attainment and close the poverty-related attainment gap in our schools is to tackle child poverty? How many times in recent weeks has he come to this chamber and called on me to introduce an income supplement? Today, the day after, we introduced a £10 a week income supplement for the poorest families in our country to tackle child poverty and help us to raise attainment, Richard Leonard has got nothing to say about it, but he suggests that he is not particularly interested in children, he is only interested in the politics. Richard Leonard? Well, that was an astonishing answer, because I will tell you what. The First Minister's claims on education do not bear examination. That is why the Government dare not debate them. Consider this. If education is a Government's top priority, it invests in it. Why is the Government spending £427 less per pupil in our primary schools? It is not just schools. Why does the Auditor General say that our colleges are not achieving financial sustainability? If education really is your top priority, why does research that we are publishing today show that, since it came to office, the Government is spending over £1,000 less per student on teaching in our universities? Is not this the record on education that the Government is so unwilling and unable to debate? It is the record of cuts, cuts to our schools, cuts to colleges and cuts to Scotland's universities? Unfortunately for Richard Leonard, the facts tell a very different story. There have been real terms increases in education by local councils in each of the last two years. There have been increases in the number of teachers in our schools in each of the last three years. We see the pupil equity fund putting more money into the hands of head teachers in our schools, which is probably why we have rising exam passes in our schools. We have a record number of young people going into positive destinations. We have a record number of young people from the poorest parts of our country going into higher education, including universities. That is the record of this Government in education, and we will get on with the job of continuing to make that progress. That is progress, Presiding Officer, that we are proud of. A few constituency supplementaries, the first from Jamie Halcro Johnston, followed by Bob Dorris. Murray Council has already endured millions of pounds' worth of cuts to its budget, as local government funding has been squeezed by the Scottish Government. We have now heard from the SNP leader of Murray Council that they have faced another 19.3 million pounds' worth of cuts by 2021, with future budgets very challenging. Local people in Murray now face seeing more of their basic public services under threat, and their council tax bills rising. For how many more years will Murray have to endure local budget cuts at the hands of an SNP administration in Elgin, content to take another bad deal from their SNP colleagues here in Edinburgh? First Minister? I said to remember recently that the Conservatives resigned the administration of Murray Council because they wanted to implement cuts. This government has increased funding for local government. We will continue to protect and be fair to local government in all the budgetary decisions that we make. The last point that I would make to the member is a point that I have made many, many times over this session before, but I think that it is worth making again. If we had followed in our budget the Tory proposals to give tax cuts to the richest in our country, our budget would be £550 million smaller than it is, and it would be local authorities that would pay the price of that. The Tories have got a cheek to come here and talk about budgets. Bob Dorris, to be filled by John Finnie. Presiding Officer, schools in Mary Helen Springburn and right across Scotland break up for the summer holidays. Holiday hunger will become a reality for too many children in Scotland. Glasgow City Council will run a £2 million annual holiday hunger strategy for children who get involved in various free youth activities right across the city and, importantly, will be provided with food free and without stigma. Will the First Minister urge families in Glasgow to check on the council website and on local libraries for more information activities available for children in the area? Does she agree with me that we must do all we can to tackle child poverty, not just outwith term time but all year round? Yes, I agree with that. I very much welcome Glasgow City Council's efforts, food insecurity during the school holidays is driven by family incomes being too low to meet their needs. That is why we continue to challenge the UK Government's punitive welfare cuts. It is why we have focused £2 million out of our £3.5 million fair food fund specifically on school holidays. Of course, it is why we announced in this chamber yesterday bold action to tackle child poverty in Scotland. Over the past year alone we have introduced the new best start grant, a financial health check service and we have also increased school clothing grants. Of course, by the end of 2022, our new Scottish child payment, worth £10 a week, will be available to all eligible children under 16 and will deliver early payments for under-60s before the end of this Parliament. First Minister, in order for young people to realise their potential and must provide them with a good quality learning environment, this week we have been told that the budget to upgrade crumbling school buildings in the Highlands has been cut by a third. The Highland Council says that this is because it received £25 million less than expected from the Scottish Government. First Minister, this is clearly a matter of huge concern to parents, teachers and pupils, not least those associated with the substandards in Clements school for those with additional needs, which was not even on the list for replacement. Can the First Minister tell me why this has happened and will the First Minister please ask the education secretary to meet with me so that we can seek resolution to this concerning matter? I am sure that the education secretary would be more than happy to discuss the issues with John Finnie in terms of the capital budget for local authorities. We have increased capital funding for local authorities. We have also funded additional school projects over and above that. Of course, as I have said a moment ago, we continue to treat local government fairly within a very tight financial situation and we will continue to do so. I think that it is partly because it is recognised that we have treated local government as fairly as we possibly can and that we had the green support for our budget earlier this year. Earlier this month, some 40 members of the teaching staff at Glasgow Kelvin College were told that their contracts would be terminated tomorrow. None of the staff or union representatives knew that this was coming. One of the lecturers who was affected has written to me to say that my confidence in the college has been completely eroded. Those redundancies will taint the learning and teaching experience for the new cohort of students that we are due to receive in August. The overall impact of those changes is a blow to the working class communities that we serve in our college. Come August, there will be over 3,000 students who have already enrolled in courses that now may not have the staff in place to teach them. Does the First Minister think that this is an acceptable way to treat our college lecturers and their students? First, as Patrick Harvie knows, colleges operate independently of government. They have responsibility for their own staffing provision and these are operational matters for individual colleges. However, I would expect colleges, like I would expect all employers to engage meaningfully with trade unions and to treat staff fairly. It is, of course, incumbent on colleges to make sure that they can staff courses properly. We invest heavily in our colleges. We have met and in fact exceeded the commitment that we made in terms of student numbers at our colleges. Of course, there has just been an agreement around a pay rise for college lecturers as well, which I hope is a sign of how much the contribution that they make in our society is valued. I am glad that the First Minister says that we should expect better treatment from all employers, but those are not some part of the private sector that we cannot regulate. Those are public services and the Scottish Government funds and regulates the sector. Under the terms of the national agreement, many of those lecturers should have been moving on to permanent contracts. That is a cynical move by the college management and it will prevent those lecturers from achieving their two years' service, putting courses at risk and, ultimately, it will be students who pay the price. The Scottish Government has a fair work agenda, but the use of casual contracts in the college sector means that they can be terminated at a moment's notice. It is far from unique to Glasgow Kelvin College. The Union's EIS, the Further Education Lectures Association and UCU, consider the use of those casual contracts to be endemic across the higher and further education sectors. Worker's rights are being eroded and students will pay the price. Does the Scottish Government accept that it has a responsibility to review the use of those contracts across the further education sector as a matter of urgency? To Patrick Harvie, in general terms, I agree with and have a great deal of sympathy for his comments about casual contracts more generally across the economy. I also strongly endorse the comments made about fair work. I am very happy to undertake that the Deputy First Minister will raise those concerns with the colleges sector. However, as I said a moment ago, those are operational matters for individual colleges. The Government's responsibility is to ensure that we fund our colleges. As Audit Scotland has said, the Scottish Government has been providing colleges with real-terms increases in revenue funding since 2016-17. Colleges are expected to plan and manage their activities within the budgets that we give to them. However, I am very happy to ask the education secretary to raise the concerns that Patrick Harvie has raised about the use of casual contracts with the colleges sector. I am sure that he would be happy to report back when he has done so. The number of suicides was steadily going down, but last year it was its highest for five years. For young people, deaths from suicide are up 50 per cent. Mental health services cannot cope. 3,000 people waited over a year for treatment. The police cannot cope. The chief constable says that police are picking up when other services fail. Prisons cannot cope. The parents of Katie Allen blame the culture. What we are currently doing is just not enough. What more will the First Minister do to stop suicides from rising again next year? The statistics that were published this week on suicides are of course of concern not just to me and to the Government but to everybody across our society. There is still a longer downward trend in suicide, but that is of no comfort to anybody whose life has been touched by suicide. I am sure that everybody would agree that one suicide is one too many. That is something that the Government takes very seriously. We have recently established the national suicide prevention leadership group, which is chaired by the former deputy chief constable Rose Fitzpatrick. The suicide prevention action plan was published last year and sets out a range of actions that we are taking. On the broader mental health question, of course we have a situation in which more people are presenting for help with mental health. That is something that we encourage as the stigma reduces, but we need to do two things. We are working through additional investment and a range of other initiatives to do those things, first to make sure that the services are there in specialist mental health provision for people who need it, but also to make sure that we are shifting the balance of care much more towards prevention. That is particularly important with young people, which is why we have made and are currently implementing the commitments around more school councillors and the plans for a new mental wellbeing service for those in the 5 to 24 age group. That is an important area and one where the Government is and will continue to take a range of actions. I have been warning her for years about this important subject. I am not going to rehearse the arguments on delayed strategies because it breaks my heart to hear the families talk about their loss and how it affects communities like my own in Kelty, where there has been a spate of suicides just in the last month. In this Parliament, we all have a responsibility to care. We need to reach out to those struggling to ask about their health, but the First Minister has a special responsibility. Today, Sam H report that 5,000 children have been rejected from mental health services. No one should be turned away. The mental health charity has called for the Government to immediately implement all 29 recommendations that it has promised to deliver. Will she do that? First Minister, I agree with Willie Rennie's point about all of us having a responsibility, but, as First Minister, I have a particular responsibility. Let me say in all sincerity to Willie Rennie that nobody feels that responsibility more than I do. It is one that I take very seriously indeed. I have set out the actions that we are taking around suicide and mental health, in particular the question that has been raised about the Sam H report today about rejected referrals. Of course, we will take forward the recommendations that are made in that report. We, of course, had a review of the audit of rejected referrals, which reported some months ago. One of the outcomes of that, of course, was the establishment of the children and young people's task force. I understand that the task force itself will publish a set of recommendations next week, and we look forward to receiving that. Among other things, those recommendations will help to inform the development of the community mental health wellbeing service that I spoke about in my earlier answer. We work closely with organisations such as Sam H. We always take seriously what they say and we always take seriously the recommendations that they make, and that will be the case for the report that they have published today. We have got some further supplementaries. The first is from Graham Simpson, to be followed by Sandra White. Graham Simpson. The annual Government statistics on homelessness came out this week, and they make for pretty grim reading. Homelessness has gone up across almost every indicator in the last year. There has been a 3 per cent rise in homeless applications. The number of homeless children has risen for the fifth year in a row. Every 17.5 minutes, a household was made homeless in Scotland. Shelter Scotland says that thousands of men, women and children are being denied their most basic right to a safe home on an industrial scale. My question for the First Minister is, how much longer is she prepared to tolerate this? The First Minister. Well, any rise in homelessness is unacceptable. Again, I am very concerned by the statistics that are published this week. Again, the long-term trend in homelessness applications is down, but the recent increase is one that we take seriously. The figures that were published this week, of course, largely predate the publication of our ending homelessness action plan in November. The statistics cover the year 2018-19, so the range of actions that we have set out there are about making sure that we tackle homelessness and rough sleeping back to the £50 million investment. Everybody who knows anything about this knows why homelessness applications are increasing. The member may not want to take my word for it, so I will quote the UN special rapporteur on poverty. The Tories might do well to listen to this, because what he said was in his statement specifically on Wales, but it has wider applicability. There is wide consensus among stakeholders that benefit changes are one of the structural causes behind the increase in poverty, rough sleeping and homelessness. We have also seen local authorities say that, in their view, it is welfare cuts. Again, I am quoting from the crisis homelessness monitor report. It is welfare cuts that has exacerbated homelessness and almost all also acknowledge that the impacts have been mitigated by the Scottish Government. We will do everything within our power to tackle homelessness. I say to the member and to every Tory in this chamber that, rather than coming here and asking the Scottish Government to take more action to mitigate the actions of its own Government at Westminster, it would fit it better if it made a case to its Tory Government in Westminster to stop those cuts altogether. Sandra White, to be followed by Maurice Corry. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First Minister, today money starts arriving in Clements Bank accounts in Glasgow, particularly principally women who work for Labour-controlled run at Glasgow City Council, which discriminated against them by paying them less because of their gender. Will the First Minister join me in welcoming this huge step towards writing this historic role, and will she extend her thanks to those who have fought hard for this very fair deal? I am absolutely delighted that, as of today, women in Glasgow, including many of my own constituents, will start to get the money that they were denied for years and years and years. This is a historic wrong that past Administrations of Glasgow City Council failed to put right. I am extremely proud that the SNP administration in Glasgow has righted that wrong. As of today, it is delivering justice to the women who have been denied it for so long. Let me put on record my pride, particularly in Susan Aitken, who, from the minute that she was elected leader of Glasgow City Council, has made this a priority. I think that women take principal credit for the campaigns that they have waged, but I think that Susan Aitken, as leader of Glasgow City Council, deserves a lot of credit for this as well. Maurice Corry, to be called by Eileen Smith. Presiding Officer, this week has been Armed Forces week. In Parliament this week, we have seen Glasgow's Helping Heroes here, one of many organisations that do so much to help our armed forces personnel and veterans. Will the First Minister join me and many others in appreciating the work that our armed forces personnel do for our country and also the work of many organisations that do so much to support those who protect us and our veterans as well? Yes, I absolutely am happy to join with the member in saying a heartfelt thank you to all of our armed forces to those who worked so hard and often sacrificed so much to keep the rest of us safe. I would also put on record again, as I have many times before, my thanks to our veterans. We owe a great debt of gratitude and also a great responsibility to our veterans. As the member says, there are many organisations that do great work to support our veterans. Let me just name one in particular, a company, Scotland's bravest manufacturing company that I visited just a couple of weeks ago that employs veterans to make signs. It is like many other organisations like them that are doing fantastic work and we should support them as they do so. I supported Nicola Sturgeon's decision as health secretary in 2007 to stop the downgrading of Monklands A&E, but now today her health secretary has taken a decision to close the whole hospital on its current site. The people of Airdrie and Coatbridge need our hospital in the heart of our community, so will the First Minister order a rethink of that shocking decision, taken just as we are going into recess? I am not sure if the member listened to what the health secretary said just before First Minister's questions started. The member did support my decision to save Monklands accident and emergency from closure. I have to say also, though, if it had been down to her party, there would be no A&E in Monklands. Who knows? There might have been no Monklands hospital by now. The member is just wrong in what she is saying. There is an absolute commitment on the part of this Government to see a replacement hospital for Monklands hospital built, which will include A&E services incidentally. An independent review panel has put forward recommendations around the site. The issues with the current site are that there is not enough room on the current site to build a new hospital. It would require demolition of the existing hospital and raise lots of issues around patient safety. She cited Queen Elizabeth in the Southern General. The Southern General was able to continue operating while the Queen Elizabeth was being built. That would not be possible on the Monklands site. The health secretary has said to NHS Lanarkshire that she must continue consultation on a range of options, including options that have come forward more recently. Not only has this Government saved A&E services in Monklands hospital, it is this Government that will make sure that there is a replacement from Monklands hospital, serving those communities well into the future. I am not sure that any of that would have happened had Labour still been on those benches. Keith Brown In light of the reports today that the couple who did their civic duty and reported the domestic disturbance in the Boris Johnson flat have now had to move out and require security assistance, and in light of the fact that the latest victim of Ruth Davidson's endorsement, Jeremy Hunt, has admitted that the Tory Government has gone far too far in cutting police numbers in contrast to the Scottish National Party Government. Does she agree with me that the Tories in this chamber are guilty of almost criminal hypocrisy? First Minister, I do not think that any of that is a matter for the First Minister's responsibilities. We can tell us the last day of term. We move on to a real question from Stuart McMillan, Stuart McMillan, question number five. To ask the First Minister in light of the Heriot-Watt University report, Hard Edges Scotland, what the Scottish Government is doing to improve the general wellbeing of adults. We welcome the publication of the Hard Edges Scotland study, which is an important contribution to understanding how we can better support those with complex needs facing severe and multiple disadvantage. The study adds further support for the Scottish Government's preventative approach, which aims to ensure that services reach people earlier to better address mental ill health, substance use, homelessness or issues in life after prison. Our recent mental health, alcohol and drug and homelessness strategies, as well as our focus on adverse childhood experiences and child poverty, show how we are putting both adults and children's general wellbeing at the centre of our work. The voice of lived experience is a key part of the study, and public services need to put that experience at the centre of their collective response. Stuart McMillan, I thank the First Minister for that reply. The First Minister will be aware of the challenges of my constituency regarding poverty and drug use. The report notes that, for many people who face multiple problems, services are often set up to address single issues. Does the First Minister agree that we should be looking to strengthen more services like ideas in my constituency, who have a person-centred and cross-agency approach to help adults with the support that they require, which will become even more important if a no-deal Brexit hits the economy and the cost of loving increases? Yes, I agree very much with that. Treatment and support services must address the wider needs that people have, such as poor mental health, poverty isolation, employability and homelessness, and the hard-edged study confirms that. We are absolutely committed to tackling poverty in Scotland. In 2019-20, we will continue to invest more than £125 million to mitigate the worst impacts of welfare cuts and to support those on low incomes. Yesterday, in the chamber, we laid our first annual progress report, setting out the steps that we have taken and the further steps that we will take. However, there is no doubt that, as Stuart McMillan is absolutely right to raise this, that the prospect of Brexit, in particular the potential for a no-deal Brexit, exacerbates all those issues. That is why it is beyond my comprehension that the contenders for the Tory leadership are prepared to contemplate that catastrophic outcome. It shows just how out of touch on this and on so much else the Tories are with opinion in Scotland. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that parents have access to clear and accurate information about childhood vaccination programmes. It is very important that clear and accurate information is made available to those consenting to vaccinations, either for themselves or on behalf of a child. NHS Scotland provides a wide range of information on vaccinations on its websites. Parents and carers are provided with an information pack ahead of scheduled vaccination sessions to ensure that they have access to the information that they need. In Scotland, uptake of the first dose of the MMR vaccine in children up to age 5 has remained above the 95 per cent target since 2009. However, we are not complacent, and we will continue to make every effort to promote and encourage childhood vaccinations. Research suggests that levels of vaccination tend to be lower among people from less affluent or rural areas. NHS Scotland's vaccination transformation programme identifies a number of possible interventions to address that, including providing greater access to vaccinations in a non-clinical setting. Can the First Minister confirm whether the Scottish Government supports this and how it will support that implementation? Yes, we support making sure that access is as easy as possible, particularly for those in deprived communities. In fact, our whole health service strategy is about making sure that there is good access to health services for those living in our poorer communities and those living in rural communities. That is certainly the case in relation to vaccinations. It is important to stress—as I said a moment ago—that childhood immunisation rates across Scotland remain very high. We want it to stay that way, so we will continue to look at the information that we give and the practical arrangements that we can put in place to ensure that those rates remain as high as they are and indeed get higher in the future. 7. James Kelly Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister for what reason the 2018-19 Scottish budget was underspent by £449 million. The finance secretary provided a full statement and a detailed briefing paper to members on 20 June explaining the 2018-19 provisional outturn position. Under the current devolution settlement, of course, the Scottish Parliament is not permitted to overspend its budget. I do not think that it takes too much consideration to understand why we need to plan carefully to make sure that we do not do that. The underspent, which is part of careful management, represents a tiny fraction of our overall budget. It is carried forward and full through the Scottish reserve, with most of it supporting the 2019-20 Scottish budget. The position also enables us to increase our reserves to ensure that we can respond to future challenges, such as Brexit, for example. Of course, every single penny of any underspend is used to support public services in Scotland. I have to point out that that is in stark contrast to the Labour-led Scottish Executive, which between 1999 and 2007 returned a total of £1.5 billion to the UK Treasury, because it could not work out how to spend it. James Kelly? I thank the First Minister for that answer. Last week, the First Minister told Parliament that every penny in the Scottish budget was accounted for. What she did not tell us and what we know now is that nearly half a billion pounds have been kept back in a Scottish Government slush fund. I agreed with Nicola Sturgeon previously when she said that the Tory two-child benefit cap was hub-orrent. I asked the First Minister therefore why the Government did not allocate £69 million in the 2019-20 budget from the £449 million underspend to cancel this horrendous Tory policy. I am really sorry to say this, but I feel quite embarrassed for James Kelly right now. After so many years in this Parliament, he does not even have a basic grasp of the basic principles of Government and budgeting. It is really quite staggering. Let me explain it simply to James Kelly. Every penny of the underspend, as he describes it, that can be allocated, is already allocated in the Scottish budget for this year. Not a penny of it goes back to the Treasury. Yes, we put some of it into reserves. I think that that is common sense. What if we have a major flooding incident? What if we have to respond to Brexit, as we undoubtedly will? It is common sense budgeting. Let me leave James Kelly with two final things to ponder over the summer recess. The first I have already mentioned, the £1.5 billion that the last Labour Government gave back to the Treasury. Secondly, the total cash underspend that was reported this week is 0.9 per cent of our budget. That compares in the last year to 1.1 per cent, so it is down, but take the 1.1 per cent. That compares to the Labour Party in Wales in the same year, where the underspend here was 1.1 per cent in Wales. It was 2.1 per cent. I have to say that all that James Kelly has done today is to demonstrate why fewer and fewer and fewer people in Scotland ever want to see the Labour Party sitting in government on the benches. Murdo Fraser So, as well as a £449 million underspend, the Scottish Government has got a looming £1 billion black hole in its budget, according to the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Yesterday, the Fraser of Allander Institute told us that the Scottish Government's £500 million tax rate on hard-working Scottish families will not deliver one extra penny for the Scottish public services because all that money disappears into the black hole. The finance secretary doesn't have a clue what to do about this problem. Does the First Minister— The First Minister Well, Presiding Officer, I know that we are about to break for the summer recess, but I have to say that when I get James Kelly followed by Murdo Fraser, it feels more like Christmas than summer to me. What a tremendous way to end the session. There is no black hole in the Scottish budget, as anybody who understands the figures and what the Scottish Fiscal Commission actually says would know. Let me tell you what would put a black hole in the Scottish budget. Tory tax cuts for the richest in our society are costing £550 million. That is what would put a black hole in the Scottish budget, which is why fewer and fewer people in Scotland want to see the Tories on those benches in government as well. Concludes, First Minister's questions. There are no questions to be put as a result of today's business, so I close this meeting and I will see you all on Saturday. Enjoy the recess.