 I wish to join me and welcome to the gallery. He is Exli Hamza Teebeb, the ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia. Thank you. We now move to First Minister's questions. Question number one, Kezia Dugdale. To ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day. Siding officer, I speak on behalf of the whole chamber when I say that we stand with the international community in our support for the people of Nepal following the devastating earthquake on Saturday. As I announced earlier this week, the Scottish Government will donate £250,000 to the Disaster's Emergency Committee, the Nepal Earthquake Appeal. I would take the opportunity to urge people across Scotland to donate to the appeal if they are able to do so, so that we can all help people in Nepal to rebuild their homes and their lives. Later today, I will have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Obviously, those benches offer the First Minister the full support for those remarks on that action. Presiding Officer, what normally happens at FMQs is that I ask a question, the First Minister avoids it, and then we go back and forth for 10 minutes. I would like to do things a little differently this week. I had planned to ask the First Minister if she will rule out another referendum, but she will say that it is for the people to decide. Then I had planned to ask her the same question again, but she would just say that there will only be another referendum if there is a material change of circumstances. Can we just cut to the chase and save a lot of time during this busy election period? Can the First Minister simply repeat the exact words that she used on 25 August last year when she said that the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? If the people of Scotland want a referendum to be once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, that is exactly what it will be. This is desperate, last throw of the dice stuff from Scottish Labour. Talk about a party in its death throats. The desperate skirmongering over full fiscal autonomy clearly has not made any impact on the polls. Actually, that is not true. It has made an impact on the polls. The SNP poll rating has gone up, but given that it has not helped Scottish Labour, it is now resorting to desperate skirmongering about a referendum that nobody is proposing. Let me make it very, very clear. For Kezia Dugdale and Scottish Labour's benefit, let me put it in very simple terms. This election, one week today, is not about independence, it is not about a referendum. No matter how many seats the SNP wins and we are working hard to win as many as possible, that is not a mandate for a referendum. What this election is about is making sure that Scotland's voice is heard much more loudly at Westminster than ever before. Having experienced Scottish Labour MPs that go to Westminster and are never heard of again, it is time for Scotland's voice to be heard. I do not know about you, but that was not quite repeating the promise made by the SNP to the people of Scotland. The promise was that the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime event, that no matter how we voted as a nation, we would get back to dealing with the really important issues, like the fact that the reading levels of kids of all ages in Scotland have declined in the last two years, like the fact that next to no progress has been made to close the gap between those from the poorest and wealthiest backgrounds in our schools. The First Minister has all this power at her disposal, but what is it for if it is not to transform the lives of working-class kids? Again, I know that, if I ask the First Minister about her 2016 manifesto, she will say that she has not started writing it yet, but we know that that is not true, because Nicola Sturgeon's conference speech contained 2016 manifesto promises on the small business bonus scheme on childcare on the national health service. Can the First Minister today rule out a referendum in her 2016 manifesto? For just a fleeting second there, I thought that Kezia Dugdale was going to ask a serious question when she started talking about Scottish education. I might say this, but there is much to celebrate in Scottish education, but the results that were published yesterday are not good enough, and I am determined to improve them. This Government is determined to improve them. On the question of a referendum, I have made the position of the SNP very clear. Ultimately, in the 2016 election, indeed in any election, it is for the Scottish people to decide who to vote for and who not to vote for. The Scottish people are in charge at every single step of the way. I was going to ask Kezia Dugdale what the problem is that Scottish Labour seems to have developed with democracy, but then I looked at the opinion polls and I think I know the problem that Scottish Labour has got with democracy. Perhaps I can offer Kezia Dugdale a little bit of friendly advice over the next six days. Perhaps Scottish Labour might want to look at the polls themselves and desist from the negativity and the scaremongering and instead try to muster if they can possibly find one—a single positive reason—for voting Labour. Kezia Dugdale, Ms Dugdale. Presiding Officer, I look at the polls, I see them all the time. We talk about them all the time in the TV studios. If those polls are realised next week, there will be pink champagne for everyone. Rupert Murdoch will be buying it. Rupert Murdoch will be buying it, Alex Salmond will be pouring it and David Cameron will be drinking it. That is the reality of those. Presiding Officer, the First Minister just said a second ago that no one is proposing a second referendum. That is not true. In the last half an hour, Jim Sillers, the former deputy leader of her party, has said that there is no question that another referendum will be in her manifesto next year and that her party members will demand that it is in the first line of that manifesto. Last night, her candidate in Glasgow East said that we should wait to see the result of next week's election before the SNP decides about another referendum. Her candidate in West Dunbartonshire, in Glasgow North, in Paisley, in Inverness, in Caesnes and in Livingston all see the general election as another step on the march to another referendum. When the SNP candidate in Midlothian said that it was not a no-vote, it was just a not yet, was that respecting the result of the referendum? This, honestly, desperate does not quite cover it. I know that I am in opposition to Labour, but even I find it quite sad watching the demise of a once-out party. The great heroes of the Labour movement must be turning in their graves right now, not a single positive reason for voting Labour, just the same old negativity, scaremongering that they indulged in, arm in arm with the Tories during the last referendum campaign. Let me make it quite clear. I have the greatest respect for Jim Sillers, but the clue is in his title, former deputy leader of the SNP and the current leader of the SNP. Let me say it clearly once again that this election is not about independence, it is not about a referendum, it is about making Scotland's voice heard. Then it is about using that strong voice at Westminster to stand up for progressive politics, to argue for an end to austerity, to argue for protection for our public services, to argue in the kind of investment in our economy that we need to get people into jobs. That is what a vote for the SNP is about next Thursday, and I hope that people across this country seize that opportunity. Presiding Officer, the First Minister asked for one good reason to vote Labour next year. I will give her it. Let us reintroduce the 50p tax rate and use the money that that generates to close the inequality gap in our schools. Just yesterday, new figures were published that showed that working-class kids are getting left behind by the SNP Government. Even now, in 2015, a child's ability to read and write is directly linked to how much their parents are in or where they live. That is a moral outrage. It is a scandal. Yet all the SNP candidates can talk about is another referendum. For any Government— Order. Mr Frisbartrick, enough. For any Government with the right priorities, the three Rs would mean reading, writing and arithmetic. Is not it the case that under the SNP it simply means referendum, referendum, referendum? That is totally and utterly farcical from Scottish Labour. The only people in Scotland right now talking about a second referendum are Scottish Labour. We are a go, Presiding Officer. A party in Scotland launched a billboard poster about a second referendum. Do you know what? It was not the SNP, it was Scottish Labour. That is who are talking about it. I know that Labour's campaign is in dire straits, but I want to not miss the opportunity today to thank Kezia Dugdale for her email on Tuesday. It came from her direct to the First Minister's official email inbox asking me if I would be part of Labour's volunteer effort on election day. I do not want to pile more misery on to Scottish Labour right now, so let me break this gently to Kezia Dugdale. I think I am busy that day. Ruth Davidson to ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. First Minister, no current plans. Ruth Davidson, we have just seen the First Minister gloting over the numbers going up in the polls and what concerns me more is a serious question, as she identified, and that is a serious question of the numbers showing literacy standards going down in our schools. On the campaign trail, each party is rightly talking about opportunities for our young people, and the best way to increase opportunity is through a good education. Yet we find yesterday that literacy skills in our schools are getting worse, not better. At P4, at P7, at S2, standards in reading and writing have fallen over the last two years, and the people being failed most are the children from the poorest backgrounds. That has happened entirely on the Scottish Government's watch, and it is a scandal. I know that the Scottish Government yesterday hastily put together a press release filled with action plans and improvement frameworks for this, but does the First Minister really think that that is adequate to tackle what is becoming a crisis in school standards? First Minister, I genuinely thank Ruth Davidson for asking a serious question, because I think that that is a very serious matter. I said in response to Kezia Dugdale just a few moments ago that there is much to celebrate in Scottish education, and I will always make sure that we take the opportunity to do that. However, the results that were published yesterday—and let me make this absolutely and totally blunt—are not good enough. I, as First Minister, am determined that we improve them. We are determined that we improve standards in our schools overall, but also that we close the gap in attainment between young people living in our least deprived areas and those living in our most deprived areas. That is one of the, I think, most sacred responsibilities of any Government and, as First Minister, it is one that I am personally passionate about. I think that Ruth Davidson was slightly unfair when she described the announcements yesterday by the education secretary as hastily drawn up, because she will recall that several weeks ago now—in fact, a couple of months ago now—I announced the establishment of the Scottish attainment challenge, backed by extra funding of £100 million. We are determined, and I am personally determined. I know personally, as many of us do, the value of a good education, and I am determined that my Government meets the responsibility that we have to ensure that every single young person in our schools gets the best education. Ruth Davidson, I hear what the First Minister is saying, but the problem is that I have heard it all before. Last year, the Scottish surveys' numeracy figures were published, and they too showed that numeracy standards were going down. Guess what? The Scottish Government's response was, just like yesterday, to stick out a press release, to promise a new action plan and to hope that the story goes away. They are sticking plaster solutions designed to get through a news cycle, and all the while our classroom standards are declining. Yesterday, the First Minister's press release pledged to study the best international practice. I can tell her what that practice shows. It shows that, if parents and teachers are given more control over their schools, then standards will rise. Casting off the one-size-fits-all, town hall knows best approach and allowing true diversity in the way that we teach our children. I do not doubt the First Minister's intentions, but does she have the resolve to ditch the dogma and the Government by press release and undertake genuine reforms that are needed? A number of things, Ruth Davidson. Firstly, the Government introduced these surveys so that we know what is happening in our schools and we have the information that we need to improve what is happening in our schools. As she knows, we have established the Scottish attainment challenge. We have also established the read-write count campaign. We have also established the raising attainment for all programme, which now covers 23 local authorities and 180 schools across our country. While I agree with the premise of Ruth Davidson's question, I think that she is being unfair to say that this Government has not been taking action to address it. I say this with no defensiveness because the education of our young people is the most important responsibility of a Government. I am determined to make sure that we have the best standards in our schools for all of our children. If there are improvements that are required to be made, we will not seek to make them. As we seek to make those improvements, let me be very clear. No dogma, no ideology, no political considerations will get in the way of us doing what needs to be done on behalf of the children of this country. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer will know that a number of the workforce of Tillis Russell in her constituency reside in my constituency. Could the First Minister update Parliament on what action the Scottish Government is taking to support what was affected by Tillis Russell's move into administration? I know that the Presiding Officer will be particularly interested in the answer to that question. The announcement by Tillis Russell earlier this week that the company had gone into administration is a devastating blow for Fife, particularly for the employees of that company and our thoughts are with them and their families at this very difficult time. That same day, the Scottish Government announced the establishment of a task force, which will be jointly convened by the Deputy First Minister and the leader of Fife Council. The Deputy First Minister visited the site on Tuesday to meet with managers and staff and to underline the commitment of the Scottish Government to assisting all those affected. That task force will look at all options and all possibilities for finding a buyer, but we do not underestimate the challenges that lie ahead. Every effort will be made by the Government to provide all assistance to those affected. That is a cast iron commitment that I give to the chamber. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Matters of importance to people of Scotland. Can I first thank her for the efforts that John Swinney and herself are making on Tillis Russell? My wife was made redundant on Monday from Tillis Russell, and I know the workers at the plant are appreciative of the efforts by the Government. Can I turn to the issue of the second referendum? She may think that she has answered the question, but it is quite clear that she could make a statement right here, right now, that in the next term of this Parliament there will not be another referendum. Why can't she just simply say that? I think that I have made this absolutely crystal clear, unless there is some change to the circumstances that prevailed during the last referendum, when the people of Scotland debated and decided this issue, there will be no proposal for another referendum. That is the first point, but the second point is this. It is a fundamental democratic point that I would have thought that the leader of a party with the word Democrat in its name would be able to grasp. If the SNP ever does propose in a manifesto a second referendum, that in and of itself does not bring about a referendum. People in Scotland first have to vote for that manifesto and give the SNP sufficient numbers in this Parliament to get the legislation through. That is democracy. The decision ultimately lies with the people of Scotland. What is this problem with democracy that the other parties appear to have developed? The problem with that answer is that the biggest democratic experience of our life last September was heard quite clearly. The First Minister said that there would not be another referendum for a lifetime. That is the never-endum that we warned about. We saw the consequences of the whole machinery of government being focused on the referendum for the last three years. The NHS and the police bear witness to that problem. In Quebec, we have seen the long period of political uncertainty in Quebec and the economic consequences of that too. That is why people are concerned about this. They are concerned about it on the doorsteps, so she could make it quite clear. She could make it quite clear today. It is very simple. We are not even asking her to rule it out for a lifetime. Just rule it out for the next Parliament. That is what we are asking for. Why can't she do it? Willie Rennie talks about Quebec and never-endums. What he does not tell people is that, in Quebec, there have been, yes, two referendums. They were 15 years apart, and the last one was 20 years ago. That is not really the picture that he paints. If the people of Scotland want a referendum to be ruled out for a generation, a lifetime, 10 lifetimes, that is exactly what will happen because the people of Scotland are in charge. That is the fundamental principle. I do not know how many doors Willie Rennie has knocked in this campaign. I am sure that it is quite a lot. What people are saying to me on the doorsteps in the streets of Scotland is not about another referendum. The concerns that they are raising are about the cuts that his party hand-in-hand with the Tories has imposed over the past five years. What they want in this election is a party that will stand firmly and squarely against austerity. That party is the SNP. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what recent communications there have been between the Scottish Government and the Home Office regarding an independent inspector at Dungeval detention centres. The STUC, the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Scottish Refugee Council have all requested an urgent collective meeting with detainees at Dungeval, which the Home Office has thus far refused. Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice wrote to the Home Secretary about the situation at Dungeval on 26 March and urged her to grant permission for the visit requested, but, as of this morning, we have not yet received a response to the cabinet secretary's letter. I thank the First Minister for her answer. The denial of access by those groups and, indeed, the delayed publication of the report by HM Inspectorate following an inspection February is of great concern, with disturbing reports of hunger strikes, lengthy detentions when no notice of when these will end and transfer at a moment's notice. Those are surely matters of urgency. Does the First Minister consider that denial of access delay has something to do with awkward truth during a general election when convicted criminals in our prisons have the protection of human rights, while people whose only crime is to seek asylum in the UK have next to none? I very much share Christine Grahame's concerns. I think that we can only imagine the desperation of people detained often far from home with no time limit on their detention and no idea of when they might be released. I think that it is important to say that to seek asylum is a right. It is not a crime, and that is why the Scottish Government supports the recommendation of the all-party groups and refugees in migration in their recent report into the use of immigration detention, that there should be a time limit of 28 days on the length of time that anybody can be held in immigration detention, and that the presumption should be in favour of community-based resolutions. It is also why the social justice secretary has urged the home secretary to allow the STUC in the churches that are access to Dengueville to meet detainees and hear their concerns. It is important to say that the fact that we are in the run-up to a general election should not make any difference at all to the exercising of any body's human rights, particularly when we are talking about the human rights of some of the most vulnerable people in the country. To ask the First Minister what level of public expenditure the Scottish Government considers necessary in order to beat austerity. Asterity will end when Westminster stops making cuts, when it stops targeting the most vulnerable in our society, and it stops holding back economic growth for the sake of political dogma. That is exactly what the Scottish National Party proposes in this election. We propose an end to cuts and modest spending increases in each year of the next Parliament that will see the deficit reduce, but also free up at least an additional £148 billion to invest in skills, in infrastructure, in our national health service and in measures to protect the vulnerable and lift people out of poverty. I am sure that the First Minister would like to end austerity although I advise her to dump full fiscal autonomy in that case, but is not her whole strategy based on distorting and misrepresenting Labour's fair plan to end austerity? The Institute of Fiscal Studies has said that we will deliver more spending at the end of the next Parliament than her proposals. Is not she ashamed of the nauseating rubbish that we have heard from her MSPs for months about Labour and Tory spending plans being the same? The slight problem that Malcolm Chisholm has in citing the IFS is that Ed Miliband last week, after the IFS report was published, said that it was wrong. He said that he disagreed with it for three different reasons. He said that it underestimated the scale of the cuts that Labour wanted to make. I have to say that it is not me that has caused the problems, or not just me that has caused the problems, for Scottish Labour's attempts to pretend that they are anti-austerity. It was Ed Miliband and Ed Balls who slapped down Jim Murphy and said that, regardless of what he said, he will not be writing the budget and, yes, there will be cuts under Labour. The choice for people in Scotland is clear. If you want continued austerity, you have a choice of three parties, Labour, the Tories or the Liberals. If you want an end to austerity and spending increases to help the most vulnerable, protect our public services, the only choice is the SNP. The First Minister, aware of the recent study by the Centre of Macroeconomics, which found that two thirds of economists surveyed disagreed that the coalition policies had had a positive effect on the economy. Given that, despite Malcolm Chisholm's protestations, the Labour Party is also wedded to a cuts agenda, the First Minister agreed that what we need is a strong team of SNP MPs who will end the austerity obsession at Westminster. Yes, I do. I agree with that. However respected there might be—we all heard Paul Krugman, a very respected economist yesterday, criticise Labour for being so weak when it comes to austerity. However respected the economists might be, we know from the experience of speaking to our own constituents how damaging the austerity agenda has been. It has pushed children into poverty, undermining our public services and holding back the growth in our economy. We need an end to cuts, we need an alternative to austerity. If people of Scotland want to make sure that they have MPs in the House of Commons arguing for that, they need to vote SNP and send a massive team of SNP MPs to Westminster. Approximately how much additional public expenditure is the Scottish Government calling for in 2015-16? Our own budget, as Gavin Brown will be aware, has gone up, I think, £600 million in this financial year. Over the lifetime of the next Parliament, we have said very clear that our alternative to austerity will free up £140 billion to invest in the NHS to lift people out of poverty and to get growth in our economy. That is the choice people have. If they want continued austerity, they can choose between Labour, their pals in the Tories and their pals in the Liberal Democrats. If they want an end to austerity, they need to vote SNP. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on reports of issues relating to the new single application of the IT system. This is the first year of the new payment system for the more complex common agricultural policy. While the core of the new system is working well with 17,000 farm businesses having registered successfully on it, we are aware that some users have experienced issues in the application process, and indeed other EU countries have experienced similar problems. IT staff are monitoring the system constantly and working hard to fix issues to ensure that the new system works well. The Government's processing team is also happy to support applicants who encounter difficulties, and we have extended the deadline for the submission of single application forms by one month to 15 June to allow for more time to get used to the system and rules of the new CAP programme. In addition, we recognise that online applications do not suit everyone and paper applications are still welcome. I appreciate the First Minister's response, but I genuinely worry about the information that she is being given, because the fact is that this online system has already been cost over £130 million, more than twice its original estimate, and it just isn't working. The Cabinet Secretary has frankly admitted defeat by extending the application deadline by a month. Agents have given up on the system and are now having to photocopy paper application forms because the Government has run out of new ones. Then, just last weekend, we learned that some 200 Government employees working on the new system have been sacked and replaced by inexperienced agency staff, many of whom are on tier 2 visas. This shambles because that is what it is, happening on her cabinet secretary's watch, but it is Scotland's farmers who are going to pay the price. Quite simply, what is she going to do to get a grip on the situation? I do not accept the characterisation of the issues involved there, although I do accept that there are issues, and we are working to address those issues. In terms of the issues around visas, the member should be aware that there has been extensive engagement with the Home Office on that issue. Its investigations have found no evidence of the allegations that have been made. In terms of the wider issues that Alec Ferguson raises, 17,000 farm businesses have registered successfully on the system, but we understand that some users are experiencing issues in the application process. That is not unique to Scotland. Other EU countries, including England and Wales, are experiencing similar problems. We are working to address those issues, and we will continue to do so. I know that the Cabinet Secretary would be very happy to meet Alec Ferguson if he wants to take me up on that offer to sit down and discuss those issues, and to discuss the feedback that he is getting from constituents of his who are determined to resolve those issues. Richard Lochhead is working hard to do so. Can I also welcome the fact that farmers and crofters have been given both extra time to fill in those incredibly complex forms, but to date there is a commitment that the payments will be made on time? I think that everybody in the industry welcomes that, but will the First Minister commit to personally investigate and to ask for a high-level inquiry into why repeated warnings that this was a botch process and was going to fail were not acted upon and that this has led to huge stress and uncertainty amongst our farming and crofting communities and that the costs have more than doubled? That is just for the administration behind the system. Never mind the extra resource that is going to have to go in to make sure that the payment money is going to come out on time. I thank Sarah Boyack for her question and for the way in which she has asked the question. I think that she is right to point to the sensible move that has been made to extend the timescale. She is also absolutely right to point to the fact that the commitment is given that payments will be made on time. If there are particular issues that Sarah Boyack or any member across the chamber wants me and the Cabinet Secretary to look into in more detail, we are very happy to do that. We are determined to resolve and address the issues that are being raised and we will continue to make sure that we take all appropriate action to do so. That ends First Minister's questions. Those who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly because we are about to move on to members' business.