 That concludes General Questions. We turn now to First Minister's Questions. Question number one, Ruth Davidson. To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. engagement is to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Later today, this Parliament will be asked to vote for an increase in counsell tax. We on these benches accept the need to end the freeze and to increase rates for those in the very largest homes, but we believe that the SNP's plans go too far by hitting thousands of ordinary working households. Today, trade bodies are warning that we should be wary of putting up taxes too much, adding to the pressure on families who are already struggling with higher inflation while consumer confidence is fragile. Can I ask the First Minister why those trade bodies are wrong? First Minister. Everything that we have put forward in terms of tax proposals have sought to be responsible, balanced and progressive. I would at this stage remind Ruth Davidson that we put our proposals on council tax to the Scottish people in the election in May this year, and we won that election. In fact, the SNP scored more votes in that election than the Conservatives and the Labour Party combined, so there is a significant mandate to take forward the proposals that we put forward. They are reasonable, balanced and progressive. They do increase council tax for those living in the highest-bandied housing. They deliver protection for those on low incomes, and for the vast majority of council tax payers, the rebanding will not increase bills by a single penny. I think that this is the crucial point. The proposals that we are putting forward, which will be voted on at 5 o'clock tonight in this chamber, will raise £100 million to help us in our mission to raise attainment in schools. Parties across the chamber frequently and rightly talk about the importance of raising attainment in schools, but they cannot talk about the desirability of the ends of achieving that unless they are also prepared to vote for the means to do it. There will be thousands of ordinary families living in situations that I have just described who will be hit by this and who will be taking very careful notes of exactly what the First Minister has just said and the language that she has used, because it is not just council tax that is on the way up for them. We know that the Scottish Government wants to levy income tax at a rate higher than the rest of the United Kingdom, and it has already pushed through business rates above levels in the rest of the UK too. The Deputy First Minister once said that this administration acknowledges that business rates do play a part in attracting and retaining businesses and is therefore committed to setting the poundage rate no higher than is set in England. He was right when he said it then. Why is he not right now? Sticking just for a second with council tax, three out of four Scottish households will pay no more in council tax as a result of the rebanding that the Parliament will vote on this evening. Yes, people living in higher-bandied houses will pay more, and of course we also propose lifting the freeze, but capping that at 3 per cent. Local authorities will have the ability to decide within that parameter to raise council tax if they so wish. I think that that is right, it is responsible, it is progressive and crucially it gained the support of the Scottish people in an election just a matter of months ago. In terms of the wider issue around taxation, a matter of a few weeks, we will bring forward a budget for the next financial year. All of those matters will be covered in our budget, and Parliament will have the opportunity, as it always does, to scrutinise and to vote in due course on our budget. I am confident in the proposals, the reasonable and balanced proposals that we will bring forward. I know that there are some in this Parliament, and they have every right to argue, and we will continue to argue who says that we should go further. I respect that, and we will have these discussions as we go through the budget process. However, I do think that there is a real hypocrisy at the heart of the Tory's position, because we can and we can out in this chamber. Ruth Davidson stands up and calls for more investment in the health service, more investment in education, more investment in policing, more investment in practically every single responsibility that the Scottish Government has. However, she is not prepared to say where the money is coming from. She is against modest increases in the council tax. She is against the position of this Government in terms of not having a major income tax cut for the highest paid people in our country. She is against modest proposals around business taxes, so she comes here and says where we should spend extra money, but she does not have the gumption to come here and say where that money should come from. That is not an acceptable or reasonable position for somebody who calls themselves the opposition to take. Ruth Davidson. Absolutely zero answer for the one and the eight businesses in Scotland who are now paying higher taxes than they would do south of the border—nothing for them. The bottom line is this. We are moving to a new phase in this Parliament, and it is a phase in which it is going to be economic growth that determines how much money the Scottish Government has to spend. However, if we tax too much, we are only going to deter the growth and the tax receipts that we need. For the benefit of Derek Mackay, that is laffer economics. However, the trouble is this. There are people watching this Parliament and there are seeing parties whose only question on tax is how high can we go? Why cannot the First Minister see that this will only damage Scotland's reputation as a place to do business? First Minister. Business is just flatly wrong. Look at business rates in particular. We have the most generous and the most competitive system for business rates, particularly when it comes to small businesses of any part in the UK. We have put forward proposals to expand our small business bonus scheme so that more small business premises—100,000 once we do the expansion of small business premises across Scotland—will pay no business rates whatsoever. That is how we get growth going in our economy, support those small businesses across the country who employ people and provide vital services in communities the length and breadth of Scotland. I come back to the point that I made earlier on. We know what Ruth Davidson is against when it comes to taxation. She is against modest reform of the council tax and modest increases for the highest-bandied housing on council tax. She is against the Scottish Government's position when it says that we do not think that it is right to give a massive income tax cut to the highest paid in our society, but we do not know what she is for when it comes to raising the extra revenue to invest in the public services. She always says that she needs extra revenue. In fact, the only thing that we know about the Conservatives when it comes to revenue raising, the only people that we know that the Conservatives think should be paying more are the sick in our society. The Conservatives want to put back prescription charges, so they want to protect the highest paid in our society, but they want those sick in the need of prescriptions to pay the price. I think that the Conservatives' position is shameful, and that is why the Scottish Government will continue to put forward the reasonable and progressive positions that we do across the range of tax powers that we have. Ruth Davidson I have the Government's table on business poundage rates here, and there are one in eight businesses that are paying in Scotland 51 pence in the pound. If they were down south, it would be 49, but she says that she knows what I am against. I will tell all of Scotland what I am against. I am against the biggest threat to Scotland's economy at the moment, which is the constitutional certainty that she has put on the table. Absolutely. The thing is that it is not just me. Last week, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveys said that the real problem facing investment in jobs in Scotland is her threat of a second referendum. The latest Scottish property review says that a second referendum, and I quote, could have serious consequences for the market and will be, again I quote, a drag upon investment and development. So here is the SMP plan. Higher council tax, higher business rates, higher income tax and a second referendum, which is damaging confidence. We all want economic growth, but how does that plan deliver it? First minister, when I asked her to wonder if Ruth Davidson is my secret FMQ's agent, that she can get up today of all days and talk about constitutional uncertainty, frankly beggars belief. There is not a lot of competence in Ruth Davidson's preparation for First Minister's questions based on that. This is the day when her party has just been overturned in the courts, where the courts have said that their intention to trigger article 50 without a vote in Parliament is illegal. For her to come and talk about constitutional uncertainty is beyond words. The job of this Government is to make sure that we look after our public services, to make sure that we bring forward proposals for tax that are reasonable, balanced and progressive, allow us to protect those public services and allow us to make sure that we are supporting our economy to grow, particularly through our support for the smallest businesses in our country. Our job also is to make sure that we are standing up for the interests of this country and doing everything that we can to prevent the party that Ruth Davidson is a member of from dragging Scotland out of the European union against our will, because that is the biggest risk to our economy and that is what Ruth Davidson really needs to wake up to. We ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Matters of importance to the people of Scotland. The council tax has to go, not my words but the words of John Swinney eight years ago this very month. The hated council tax is totally unfair and any tinkering with bands would not make the system any fairer, not my words but the words of Nicola Sturgeon in 2007. Later today, this Parliament will debate the future of council tax in Scotland. Why will the First Minister not keep the manifesto promise that she made to voters to scrap the unfair council tax? I am proposing to keep the manifesto promise that I was elected First Minister on the strength of just a few months ago in May. I would repeat the comment that I made to Ruth Davidson. The proposals that Parliament will vote on today are the proposals that were in the SNP manifesto that were put to the Scottish people and which saw the return of this Government with more votes than the Tories and Labour combined. That is the authority and the mandate behind the proposal that we will put to Parliament this afternoon. I say again that those proposals are fair, they are balanced, they are progressive and, crucially, they will raise £100 million of extra revenue to invest in our schools to help us to raise attainment and close the attainment gap. Something that I have repeatedly said is the top priority of this Government. As I said earlier on to Ruth Davidson, I respect the fact that there are voices in this Parliament and I think that the Greens in particular have credibility on this issue, more credibility perhaps than other parties have that want us to go further. As I have said, I am absolutely happy to continue the discussion about progressive reform of local tax, but the vote tonight at 5 o'clock is not some kind of political game. It is a vote with real implications. It is a vote to decide whether or not we implement these responsible changes to council tax and deliver £100 million of extra revenue for our schools or that we do not. I can understand why the Tories will vote against those plans tonight, because the Tories do not believe in progressive taxation. They do not believe, as we have just heard, in raising extra revenue for public services. However, what the public I think will struggle to understand is if the names of Labour MSPs at any point tonight appear in the same voting column as the Conservatives. That will be inexplicable. The First Minister seems to have forgotten that she lost her majority in May. In 2011, she won a majority in this chamber with a promise to scrap the council tax. She only has a mandate when it suits her. The truth is that the First Minister has broken her promise to voters. When the measures are voted on later today, the SNP wants to tinker with the Bants, Nicola Sturgeon's own words. She again admitted that that would not make the system any fader. That is not big enough, First Minister. It is not bold enough. Under the SNP's plans, families living in homes, worth the least, will be as worse off as they are today. However, under Labour's plans, families in band A properties would pay less than they do today. New independent research shows that under the SNP's plans, someone in band A will still pay four times more tax as a proportion of their home than the richest in band H. Labour would scrap the unfair council tax and introduce a fader system so that 80 per cent of households would pay less. Why won't she support that? I know that Kezia Dugdale spent the last few days campaigning in an election on the other side of the pond, and we would be on the same side of that incidentally. Let me remind her that her party lost its position as the official opposition in this chamber in the recent election. The proposals that the party put forward in that election attracted more votes than the Conservative proposals and Labour proposals combined. That is the reality. That is why we will put forward our proposals tonight for fair and progressive changes that will raise £100 million for our schools. It is decision time for Labour, because people will be looking tonight to see whose column Labour MSP's name ends up in. Will they end up in the column of fair and progressive change and more money for our schools, or will they end up in the same column as the Conservatives, who do not believe in progressive taxation and who do not want to protect our public services? That is really decision time for Labour. I look forward to seeing which way it falls. Regularly, the First Minister comes to this chamber and crows about the extra £100 million that she is going to spend on schools. What she fails to tell the chamber is that last year she ripped out £500 million from our schools and local public services. We have yet to hear from this year's budget how many hundreds of millions of pounds more you are going to strip from our local services. Here is the thing, Presiding Officer. I believe in investing in education, and I believe in the redistribution of wealth, that funding for local services should be redistributed locally, and that national government should have the guts to use its own tax powers to close that gap between the richest and the poorest. The bottom line is this—the First Minister does not have to pass on Tory austerity. She can make different choices to protect our local services. Is it not the case that the only way to stop the cuts is to back Labour's tax plans? The simple fact of the matter is to strip all of that away, because we can debate backwards and forwards the truth, or otherwise, of what Kezia has said. The fact is, at 5 o'clock tonight, there is £100 million for schools on the table. It will be available for schools at the press of a button. We have heard from Ruth Davidson that the Tories will be voting against £100 million for our schools. The question is, will Labour be lining up with the Conservatives tonight, or will Labour be voting with the Government for progressive changes to council tax that deliver £100 million for our schools? People will be watching, and we will wait and see what Labour decides to do. We have a couple of constituency questions. First, Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister may be aware of the tragic situation of Sean McKenna in my constituency, whose body was found last week after having been missing for almost three weeks. I would pay tribute to the Sean's family for the bravery during this incredibly difficult time, and to the Coatbridge police and many hundreds of local people who dedicated their time to helping in the search for Sean. Can the First Minister outline what support is available to families of missing persons and what procedures are in place for the police to co-ordinate large-scale civilian searches? I am, of course, aware of the tragic case of Sean McKenna, and I want to take this opportunity to offer my sincere condolences to his family and friends. Police Scotland has standard operating procedures for co-ordination and participation of civilian searches. In such distressing circumstances, it is, of course, happening to see the very many volunteers from local communities who are willing to give up their own time to offer their assistance in searching for a missing person. It is important that Police Scotland continue to operate its own procedures, and as they will always do in a range of different issues, keep those procedures under review. I am sure that all of us want to thank the volunteers who assisted in that, and, once again, offer our condolences to the family of Sean McKenna at this unimaginably difficult time for them. I ask the First Minister if she is aware that the unelected health board in Lanarkshire has removed orthopedic trauma from Monkland's general hospital on Monday of this week, ignoring the vote of this Parliament and the local campaign against this cut. Does she find that acceptable, and can she explain why that has not been called in as a major service change by her Government? I am genuinely not sure whether Aileen Smith was in the chamber yesterday for the health secretary's statement on this and other health matters. The change that has been made thus far is a temporary change, and it has been made in the interests of patient safety. The full change, if it was to go ahead, would require to go through all the processes that are normally the case for changes of this nature. The health secretary said yesterday that, in this case, the final decision will come to her for approval. Aileen Smith used the terminology calling in. The health secretary made that clear yesterday, and I would hope that it is something that the member would welcome. Christine Grahame Thank you, Presiding Officer. I learned just last night, First Minister, that Murray and Burrell, a long-established family building firm in Gallishield and my constituency, was established since 1928, a garnet administration. To date, 35 tradesmen and office staff and two apprentices are redundant. There is also a substantial knock-on effect at least 15 subcontractors and over 25 suppliers, all local. While I understand that this morning the Scottish Building Federation and CITB, with regard to the apprentices, are already involved, can I ask the Government if it has instructed pace, but can I also advise that the role of the Royal Bank of Scotland in the demise of this local company appears to be central and that, once I have had the full details, I will pursue this matter further? The First Minister I share the member's concern regarding developments in respect of Murray and Burrell and the potential impact that this might have on employees, the families and on the surrounding area. The economy secretary, of course, would be happy to discuss this further with the member and, in those discussions, include the issue around RBS that she raises. I can confirm, though, that our agencies will do whatever can be done to minimise any negative impact. I have instructed already our agency, Scottish Enterprise, to make contact immediately to see what assistance can be offered and our pace team is also making contact to offer support for affected employees. Question 3, Patrick Harvie. Thank you to ask the First Minister when the cabinet will next meet. The Cabinet will next meet on Tuesday. Patrick Harvie. There is and has been for a long time a very strong case for real fundamental reform of local taxation. As the cross-party commission agreed, the present system of council tax must end. I regret the fact that the SNP no longer supports that view, but we have been willing to work with the Government on the modest adjustments that we can support, even if we cannot do so without voicing any criticism at all. Tonight's vote on changing the bans is one area where we can agree. So whatever else happens in tonight's vote, the Greens will vote for that measure, and the FFM knows that we will not be alone in doing so. Yet the finance minister has been warning people today what would happen if this change does not pass, and the media is reporting that the SNP may not even back their own policy proposal at the end of the day. A minority Government must sometimes accept modest criticisms. We have been clear at every step that we are expressing our criticisms without putting those reforms in any danger. Does the First Minister remain committed to her party's proposal to change council tax bans? Will she be voting for it as we will tonight? The First Minister made clear in my exchanges with the other leaders my support for the proposition that the Scottish Government has put forward—indeed, the proposition that one support in the election. However, we have gone further than that this evening. The amendment that has been lodged in Derek Mackay's name to the SSI that we will vote on at five o'clock respects the issue of local democracy. It also recognises, as I have recognised previously in the chamber, the desire for further discussions about further reform. I think that I have made it clear to Patrick Harvie in previous exchanges in the chamber that we are open to those further discussions over the course of this Parliament about further reform that is progressive and fair and has enshrined that principle of local democracy. I make that view very clear again today. Effectively, there are two amendments to the SSI on offer for parties this evening. There is one from Andy Wightman, which talks about the principle of local democracy, and there is one from Derek Mackay, which talks about the principle of local democracy, but also crucially does what Andy Wightman's amendment does not do and talks about the progressive and fair principles as well. That is the one that I hope the chamber will vote for. I can understand why the Tories would prefer to vote for the former one, but I hope others in the chamber would see that voting for something that talks about local democracy, fairness and the progressive principle is actually what we should unite behind. Then, yes, unite behind getting £100 million into our schools, which, let's remember, is the key benefit of what we are voting for this evening. The Green amendment deletes nothing from the Government's proposals. It changes nothing in what will happen if the bans are changed and the revenue is raised. It only adds modest criticisms, which are widely shared. The First Minister is keen to remind all of us that people will be watching and that people will struggle to understand some consequences if this vote falls. However, the only way in which the SNP's proposal on council tax bans can fall is if the SNP themselves decide to let it fall. I think that it would be astonishing and, to paraphrase the First Minister, I think that people would struggle to understand if the First Minister and her own colleagues line up with the only other party that supports the discredited council tax and fails to back her own policy. Is wounded pride really worth £100 million? I will take responsibility for how MSPs on these banshees vote this evening. The point that I am making is that there is a choice of two amendments. One talks about the principle of local democracy, and that is fair enough—that is the position that Andy Wightman has put forward. The other accepts that position on local democracy but also goes on to talk about fairness and progressive taxation. In terms of the amendments tonight, that is the choice that the chamber has. I know that the words progressive and fair are not in Andy Wightman's motion, which would make it easier for the Tories to back it. I understand that, but there is an opportunity for there to be a genuine progressive alliance behind the Government's amendment tonight that genuinely talks about local democracy and talks about fairness and progressive taxation. I say again that we are absolutely confident in the proposals that we are putting forward, but we are also signalling a willingness to talk to other parties across the chamber to further the discussion about progressive taxation. So I hope that we can get to that position tonight, and I hope that we get to a position where we vote for sensible changes that deliver £100 million for our schools. There is a number of further supplementaries. If members are brief and First Minister too, we will get through them all. Rona Mackay. Does the First Minister agree that it is an outrage that disabled people who phone a DWP hotline to appeal against benefits sanctions are charged more than millionaires querying tax bills? Will she back calls to end this Tory telephone tax? Yes, I think that there has been a good case made for that. Clearly, people who are on benefits, particularly those in receipt of disability benefits and indeed those in receipt of working tax credits and universal credit, are seeing reductions and cuts to their benefit from decisions made by the UK Government. I think that it is compounding that injustice that people are charged money for having to phone up if they need help or advice. So I think that that case has been made. It is clearly an issue for the UK Government, and I hope that they take the right decision. Jamie Greene. To ask the First Minister, in light of recent revelations around Gartnavel General Hospital's operating theatres, is she satisfied with the Scottish Government's handling of her NHS? First Minister. Yes, I am satisfied with that. Although, as I said in the chamber last week, our NHS, although it is performing well, faces challenges and the job of this Government is to support it in meeting those challenges. In terms of the issue around Gartnavel, we have in place in Scotland a robust inspection system, which is designed to ensure that if there are deficiencies in any aspect of how a hospital is run, it is cleanliness in particular, then those deficiencies are identified, highlighted and rectified. That is what will happen in this case, and that is what happens generally with the inspection regime that we have in place. Thank you very much. Following this morning's very welcome high court decision that there should be a parliamentary vote on Brexit, will the Scottish Government actively oppose the UK Government's intended appeal when it reaches the UK Supreme Court? First Minister. We will be looking at the judgment very carefully and, yes, we will actively consider whether or not there is a case for the Scottish Government to become participants in that case. The judgment this morning, I do not think, is a huge surprise to anybody who followed the case, but it is hugely significant. It underlines the total chaos and confusion at the heart of the UK Government. We should remember that their refusal to allow a vote in the House of Commons is not some matter of high constitutional principle. It is because they do not have a coherent position and they know that if they take their case to the House of Commons, that will be exposed. The job of this Government is to protect Scotland's interests. Scotland voted to remain in the EU, and my job is therefore to protect her place in Europe and in the single market, as far as I possibly can. SNP MPs in the House of Commons will certainly not vote for anything that undermines the will or the interests of the Scottish people. John Finnie. First Minister, Highlands and Islands Enterprise gave £3.5 million to the arms industry in the last decade, £2.5 million of that in the last three years, and Scottish Enterprise gave £15 million in the last decade. That is a response to a parliamentary question. Would you agree that such expenditure is not some people's idea of a progressive Scotland? Will you agree to have those enterprise agencies revisit the recipients of this money to provide advice and diversification from destructive activities to endeavour with a more positive benefit for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, Scotland itself and indeed humanity? First Minister. John Finnie and I would agree on much of this general issue in terms of ethics in the arms trade and the need for weapons not to be misused, as many feel that they are right now in Saudi Arabia for attacks on the Yemeni people. John Finnie's particular point is at risk of misrepresenting the position—not deliberately misrepresenting but misrepresenting the position of our enterprise agencies. The funding that Scottish Enterprise has provided supports companies in diversifying and developing non-military applications for technology, as well as supporting employment opportunities in Scotland. That is the role of our enterprise agencies to support employment, economic growth and to support economic opportunities. We will always make sure that that is done in line with our wider principles and values, and that is the case in this particular area, as it is in the case of many other areas, too. Monday, a family came to my constituency surgery. Their father, George Ballantyne, an 83-year-old resident from Crestorfinn, had a fall in March and was taken to Liberton hospital. After exemplary care and some adaptations to his home, he was declared fit to go home in early June. On three occasions, he was advised to get ready to go the next morning, but the care package fell through. Last night, George spent his 150th night in Liberton hospital after being declared fit to go home. Given that the Cabinet Secretary for Health two years ago said that this Government was committed to eradicating delayed discharge, will the First Minister take this opportunity to explain to George and his family why he is still in hospital? The member raises an important issue. The Government is, of course, committed to eradicating delayed discharges, and we are making progress towards that aim. The reason we have integrated health and social care services is to try to ensure that individuals do not fall through the gaps in the system, as from what Alex Cole-Hamilton has said appears to be happening in this case. What Alex Cole-Hamilton has outlined there certainly sounds to me like an unacceptable situation for an individual. The health secretary has indicated to me that she is aware of this case, is looking into it and will be writing to Alex Cole-Hamilton about it. We want to make sure that we have a system in place where people get the right care in the right place at the right time. We are making progress towards that, but it is reforms like integrating health and social care that will allow us to make further progress in the months and years to come. Question 4, Ruth Maguire. To ask the First Minister what analysis the Scottish Government has conducted into the contribution that migrants make to Scotland. Last week, the Government published two analytical reports on the contributions that migrants make to Scotland. We now have robust evidence about the contribution to our economy and our society. We know that the majority of those who come to Scotland are highly qualified young people who are economically active and that European migrants in particular make a positive contribution to the public purse. I welcome those findings as we know that many sectors of our economy are reliant on migrant labour. Let me take this opportunity to again say that we truly value the contribution of all migrants to Scotland and welcome all of those who choose to make their lives here. Ruth Maguire. I thank the First Minister for that response. I welcome those findings that should help challenge head on some of the prejudices that sadly still prevail about migrants living and working in our society. How will the First Minister work to ensure that Scotland remains a welcoming place for those who wish to live and work here following the UK's vote to leave the EU? We have already made it crystal clear on many occasions that the 180,000 or so EU nationals who have chosen to make their home in Scotland continue to be welcome here. I think that that is a sentiment shared right across this chamber. The contribution to this country is valued. I think that the position that has been taken not just by this Government but across the political spectrum in Scotland stands in contrast to the unwelcoming and unpleasant rhetoric about migrants that we increasingly hear from the UK Government. The Government continues to explore all options open to us to protect Scotland's interests in Europe. Mike Russell will chair a focus group later this month to listen to and gather information on the impact that the EU referendum result is having on EU nationals living here and will continue to press the UK Government to guarantee, without further delay, the residency status of fellow EU nationals who have made Scotland their home. Frankly, I continue to be appalled on a daily basis that this guarantee has not yet been given and that we have a UK Government that still seems content to use EU nationals as bargaining chips in a wider negotiation. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the University of Strathclyde paper Brexit and the Scottish financial services sector. The University of Strathclyde paper draws attention to the serious impact that Brexit will have on the financial sector in Scotland. It says that if the UK does make it much more difficult to bring in skilled people from other countries, it will undermine one of the UK and Scotland's main attractions for internationally mobile businesses and activities. Of course, since that paper was published, there have been further new evidence of the damage that a hard Brexit will cause. A leading think tank yesterday warned of a 60 per cent reduction in UK trade and services with EEA countries if a hard Brexit is pursued. The Scottish Government will continue to work with the financial services sector and we will continue to consider all possible steps to ensure our continuing relationship with the EU and the single market. Part of what we will do in that regard refers to the previous question, which distanced itself completely from the damaging anti-immigration rhetoric of the UK Government. Dean Lockhart I thank the First Minister for that response. The financial services sector in Scotland is indeed vital to the economy, accounting for approximately 10 per cent of our on-shore GDP. That is precisely why I am asking the First Minister to follow the guidance of this report, which concludes that Brexit does not take us to a case for Scottish independence—not my words, but the conclusion of this report. The argument against independence is also clearly highlighted by another report by Scottish financial enterprise, which reports that 90 per cent of Scotland's financial trade is with the rest of the UK. The SNP has issued its consultation paper for a second independence referendum, but it has failed to explain yet again what currency it would propose to use. Would it look to keep the pound? Would it adopt the euro? Would it create a new Scottish pound? That fundamental confusion is creating significantly more uncertainty than to the financial sector than Brexit is. First Minister, if you will not listen to us, will you listen to the guidance of this report and the financial community and scrap your plans for a second independence referendum? In the real world, the question of independence does not transcend everything else. First Minister. I think that for a Tory to lead with a chin on currency right now is almost as inept as Ruth Davidson is standing up and talking about constitutional uncertainty on the day her own government gets overturned in the courts on the issue of the triggering of article 50. My objective is clear, and it is objective, I hope, that whatever our disagreements on the constitution all people in this chamber could get behind. I want to keep Scotland's economy, including our financial services sector, in the single market. That is what I am seeking to try to find a way of doing. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Conservatives, who before the referendum expressed support for the single market, find it so hard to support us in doing now. We will continue to act in the best interests of Scotland and in the best interests of the Scottish economy, because being no doubt the alternative to that is for Scotland, including our financial services sector, to be taken off the hard Brexit cliff edge by the UK Government. That would be disastrous for our economy generally and for financial services in particular. Boris Johnson last night eventually said something that I could almost agree with when he said that Brexit is likely to be a titanic success. Probably that is the truest thing that he said in a long time. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the new living wage rate. I welcome the new living wage rate, which I announced on Monday £8.45 an hour, which will benefit thousands of Scottish workers, helping to ensure that people's basic wage meets the real cost of living. Over 630 employers in Scotland are now accredited living wage employers, and we have the highest proportion of employees paid the living wage or more across all of the countries of the UK. I encourage all employers to recognise the benefits of paying the real living wage and to consider signing up as accredited employers. While there is much progress, we still have work to do, and we are determined that we will do it. Can I thank the First Minister for her response? I very much welcome the increase in the real living wage in Scotland and across the UK. Although there has been significant progress in the public sector, one in five workers principally in the private sector are earning less than the living wage, so I share her ambition that we must do more. One of the levers that the First Minister has is the Scottish business pledge, but the take-up of that pledge is low. It is disappointing that only 0.2 per cent of Scotland's firms are taking part, and the take-up is worse in accommodation and food services, where pay is often lower than other sectors. I ask the First Minister what action she will take to improve the take-up of the business pledge, particularly in those low-paid sectors, and to increase the living wage for more workers across Scotland? There are significant companies, both in number and in type of company, that are already signed up to the business pledge, but we continue to encourage more companies across Scotland to do so. Again, whatever our disagreements in this chamber, I hope that all MSPs across the chamber will join us in encouraging companies to do the right thing to sign up to the business pledge and the progressive business practices that are encapsulated in that pledge. The most significant lever that we use in terms of specifically the living wage is the living wage accreditation campaign. We now have more than 600 employers signed up to that. Of course, there will be many employers across the country who pay the living wage, but are not yet accredited, and I would encourage them to get accredited. We have set a target of having 1,000 employers signed up to the accreditation campaign by this time next year. Again, all MSPs can help us in trying to make sure that we reach that target. I want to take the opportunity today to thank the Poverty Alliance for the great work that they do in leading the accreditation campaign for us. We have made progress here in the public sector but also in the private sector, but 20 per cent of people across the country still are not paid the living wage, which is why all of us have to work hard to encourage companies to do the right thing. I will end on this point, which is the crucial point for any business listening to this. Perhaps, understandably worrying about whether they can afford to pay the living wage, the living wage is not only good for workers. All of the evidence says that paying the living wage helps companies as well. It helps to increase their productivity, reduce their absenteeism and improve their bottom line. It is a win-win situation, and we should all get behind the campaign to make sure that everybody gets paid it. Liam Kerr Thank you, Presiding Officer. Would the First Minister agree with me that the way to ensure true financial security and lift people out of poverty is to have a strong and stable economy, which provides good, secure and reliable jobs, and that such an economy is undermined both by making Scotland the highest tax part of the UK and by the on-going threat of another separation referendum? Briefly, First Minister. The Tory is obsessed with independence for goodness sake. Yes, I agree about the importance of a strong and stable economy, which is why I so deprecate the Brexit vandalism of the Tory United Kingdom Government. It is really important, as we have just been doing in a sensible discussion about the living wage, that we focus on the financial security of individuals and of families across this country. The Scottish Government is focused on doing that principally through our support for the living wage, but one of the things running counter to all of our efforts, of course, are the policies of the UK Government, which are about working tax credits being cut, benefits being cut, support through universal credit, and the work allowance being cut. Before the Tory members come here and lecture this Government, perhaps they should pick up the phone to their own colleagues in London and tell them to get behind the efforts to improve economic stability and the living standards of families across this country. Question 7, Mike Rumbles. To ask the First Minister further to ScotRail being fined £483,000 for failing to meet performance standards when services will improve. First Minister. The ScotRail franchise contains the toughest quality regime within the UK to drive up passenger standards. Our service quality regime checks more than 30 customer facilities and services across trains and stations in Scotland every four weeks. Inspectors patrol the network daily, pushing up ScotRail's quality, meaning that our passenger satisfaction figures sit some 7 per cent ahead of the British average. The recent fine shows that further improvements need to be made in service delivery, and Transport Scotland has requested remedial action plans from ScotRail to focus on improving performance in the necessary areas. Mike Rumbles. Now MSPs have seen this flimsy document entitled the ScotRail improvement plan with more pictures in it than detail. How can the First Minister expect the public to know what ScotRail's improvement plans actually are if the whole plan needs to be published? It hasn't been published. Ministers are hiding behind commercial confidentiality and that is simply not good enough. The Transport Minister needs to publish the full plan with any really commercially sensitive information redacted. First Minister, we need some openness and transparency here. It strikes me that the member can't have it both ways. He can't come and ask a question about hefty fines for ScotRail not meeting its performance and then say that the Scottish Government is not taking the issue seriously. There is no hiding behind any commercial confidentiality. The performance requirements for ScotRail are contained in the franchise. They are not meeting at this stage the requirement to have 91 out of 100 trains arriving at destinations within the industry-recognised punctuality measures. They are sitting at around 89 trains per 100. That is why the Transport Minister has insisted on an improvement plan. While we continue to monitor its performance against that plan on a weekly basis, we will continue to do that because the travelling public deserve to know that their trains will run effectively, efficiently and on time. We are determined to work through the contract to make sure that that is the case. Ultimately, if ScotRail does not meet its performance requirements, we have the option of terminating the contract early. That is very much an option that we keep on the table. That concludes First Minister's questions. We now move to a point of order from Clare Haughey. Alex Cole-Hamilton raised a point of order where he stated and I quote, we have had five sycophantic questions from members of the Government party. This related to questions following a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport. Rule 7.3 of standing orders of the Scottish Parliament states that members shall at all times conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner. Not only was he wrong, three questions, not five, came from the SNP-backed benches, but I believe that Alex Cole-Hamilton fell short of the standards that I referred to by using this language in relation to fellow members of this Parliament. I thank the member for a point of order. I think that the Presiding Officer and the Chair dealt with the point of order at the time, but I would take this opportunity to urge all members to treat each other with respect. Thank you. We'll move to members' business now. If the Minister should change chairs.