 Feidlai. The following is general questions. We turn now to First Minister's Questions. Question 1, Ruth Davidson. Thank you. Presiding Officer, exam result data for every secondary school in Scotland has been published in recent days. Once again, we have learned of the stark gaps in attainment for rich and poor areas. Attend a school where the vast majority of pupils are from the most deprived backgrounds and only 15 per cent achieve five or more hires. But go to a school y gwheilwyr yn argym views ondwn y gweld cyflwy 않faith. Roeddwyr y gallwn cael ffordd yn ystod y gweld cyflwyn fwrdd. O'r ffordd y gweld y gweld cyflwy yn cyd-ranio'r gadael, rwy'n leitio'r ffordd i'w i'w iawn, ond rwy'n leitio'r ffordd hi i'w iawn, mae'r pethau heddiw�frwyng yn sicr hynny? Rwy'n leitio'r gweld cyflwynyn yw'r gweld cyflwynyn yn cyfrwyng i'w iawn. Ieithi'n We know we have an attainment gap in our schools. I think it's fair to say that Scotland is not unique in having an attainment gap between our most well-off and least well-off pupils. However, we have identified it as something that is unacceptable and we are determined to see close. We have seen across a range of data in recent times evidence, as Ruth Davidson has acknowledged, of that attainment gap closing. We see that in our schools. We see that also, for example, in access to universities and higher education. I think that progress is welcome, but it's exactly because we want to not just continue but accelerate that progress that we are investing over the course of this Parliament, £750 million through our attainment fund. Of course, Ruth Davidson will be aware of the recent interim evaluation of the first two years of the attainment Scotland fund, where 78 per cent of headteachers indicate that there has been improvement or they expect to see improvement in attainment as a result of that fund. I think that it's positive progress, but I've made very clear that we will not close the attainment gap overnight, but I am determined that we make the progress that we have committed to making over the course of this Parliament and beyond. Ruth Davidson. The First Minister mentions the report into the Scottish Government's attainment fund that was published last week, but she fails to mention one part, which is that millions of pounds from that fund, which is intended to drive up the performance of poor pupils, is still lying unspent because of difficulties in recruiting. In other words, money that should be spent on cutting the attainment gap now is instead lying in the Government's bank account because they cannot find the teachers to spend it on. Does she agree that if we are going to close the attainment gap in schools that we won't manage that if we can't find the teachers to help do it? First Minister. Ruth Davidson's question is the greatest of respect to her. It displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the funding behind the attainment programme. It's a £750 million commitment across this entire Parliament, so any money not spent in one year rolls forward to the next year and every single penny, of course, will be spent on measures to reduce that attainment gap. In the early years of a programme, while plans are being put in place and, yes, while recruitment of extra staff is taking place, there will obviously be less money spent than there will be in later years of that programme, but let me just give some idea of the scale of the programme in the increase in funding that we're seeing. In the first year of the programme, there was, I think, less than £10 million spent in our schools. In this financial year, there will be £179 million spent through the attainment fund. That's both the money that goes to schools, but also most of that money, £120 million of that money, is through the pupil equity fund, which has been received very positively by head teachers and by teachers generally. Certainly, in the schools that I've visited, I know much more widely, so every penny of that money will be dedicated to raising attainment and also crucially closing that gap that we have identified. I think that all of us across this chamber want to see close. Ruth Davidson will know that there are serious questions over other parts of her attainment challenge scheme. Yes, there are millions of pounds from our attainment fund, which hasn't yet been spent, but there are also serious questions about the way in which the pupil equity fund is being used. That's £120 million that's designed to be targeted at the poorest pupils across Scotland. Claims from across the sector say that that money is instead going on plugging gaps left by budget cuts or to pay for other costs such as campus police, staff bonuses and installing an astroturf pitch. That's all well and good, but it's hardly closing the attainment gap. Can the First Minister give me an assurance today that taxpayers' money intended to help poorer pupils will do just that and stop being siphoned off elsewhere? Ruth Davidson is simply wrong about that. However, if she wants to bring me examples of where attainment fund money is not being spent on measures that head teachers consider will help raise attainment, then I will look at them. We've had one example that has been rehearsed in this chamber before. I think that if memory serves me correctly in North Lanarkshire, where there was a suggestion that the money wasn't being used in an additional way as it's intended, the Government stepped in to the criticism of those on the Labour benches and made sure that money was additional to other budgets. That is absolutely the approach that we will continue to take. Of course, the key point about the pupil equity fund—I would have thought that it is a point that Ruth Davidson would welcome—is that it's not actually for me or for the education secretary or for local councils to determine how that money is spent. It is for individual head teachers in consultation with their staff and with parents to decide how that money is spent based on their assessment of what will best raise attainment and close the gap. I've been to a number of schools in recent times where I've seen first hand the work that's been done. Perhaps some things that at first glance many people would think is that appropriate in terms of raising attainment but in the assessment of the head teacher. For example, I was at a school recently where one of the things that they did was take some pupils and parents where attendance had been an issue on a weekend trip and attendance has improved because of that among some of the most deprived communities. Those are things that head teachers say help to raise attainment in their schools. My last point to Ruth Davidson would be this. She says that there are widespread concerns across the sector about the pupil equity fund. Frankly, I think that Ruth Davidson needs to get out a bit more and visit a few more schools because when I visit schools what I hear about the pupil equity fund is the single most important thing that is happening right now in raising attainment in our schools. Ruth Davidson. I started the question today saying where or if there has been progress. We welcome it but the fundamental point is that if we're going to properly cut the attainment gap we need the teachers to do it. Over the last six years there have been 1,000 empty places in training colleges, places the funding council said were needed but which were never filled. The targets have been increased but this year alone there are more than 500 vacancies in secondary school trainee places. We all want to see schools improve. We all want the attainment gap closed but if the money's not being released, if it's not going where it should and if the staff aren't being recruited how is that ever going to happen? First Minister. There are more young people generally in teacher training. Yes, we know recruitment is an issue, not just in Scotland. Last week or the week before I heard the education minister in England saying that recruitment was one of the most significant challenges that we're facing in England but in terms of vacancies in our schools that is lower than 1 per cent of the overall teachers. Of course we've got a range of schemes and initiatives in place to boost recruitment into the teaching profession and into our schools but let's get back to the issue of attainment. Ruth Davidson's asked me a number, a stream of questions about the attainment fund in particular that I have to say to her are simply not well founded. If we look at the interim evaluation, remember that this is the interim evaluation of the first two years of the attainment fund so it's before the pupil equity fund kicks in. 78 per cent of head teachers say that there has been improvement or they expect to see improvement as a result. 97 per cent of head teachers expect to see improvements in closing the attainment gap over five years as a consequence of attainment Scotland fund initiatives. Literally every school I visit, of course I hear a range of issues raised but the pupil equity fund is considered by head teachers, teachers and parents that I speak to as the single most important transformational thing that's been done in our schools to help close the attainment gap. I would hope that Ruth Davidson instead of moaning about that would actually get behind that because that's one of the things that's going to help us in this government close that attainment gap for the benefit of pupils right across the country now and for many years to come. 2. Richard Leonard Thank you. Last week I raised the serious issue of umbrella companies charging workers on Scottish Government contracts for the privilege of being paid their wages. Can the First Minister tell us what steps her government has taken in the last seven days to investigate this contract and to crack down on it? The First Minister Yes, I can. Immediately after the issue was raised by Richard Leonard last week, Transport Scotland ordered an urgent investigation into the issue. The pace slip that was just in the last couple of days, I think, sent to my office from Richard Leonard, was found to be from an employee who was employed in the AWPR by one of the subcontractors through an agency. Now, this bit is quite important and not just for those listening in the chamber but for those outside of this chamber. It is, of course, at the discretion of individual employees if they choose to work through an agency. Hold on, no, this bit is actually important because in the AWPR there is no requirement to do so because the subcontractor offers to directly employ all employees working on the project. That means that any worker who wishes to be paid directly by the subcontractor can be, which avoids any of those practices that I would condemn by agencies being applied. The contractor has confirmed that more than 90 per cent of workers employed through an agency are paid on a PAYE basis and all direct employees and all employees have the option of being direct employees are paid on a pay-as-you-earn basis. We took that very seriously. I depricate the conduct by agencies that were outlined last week but it is not a requirement that anybody working on the AWPR is employed through an agency because the opportunity for direct employment is there. I hope that Richard Leonard would warmly welcome that. Richard Leonard. Well, evident from that answer and borne out by my understanding is that no one from the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland has contacted the trade union which represents the workforce on the Aberdeen bypass over the last seven days. First Minister, you said that you were outraged by this but your Government has made no attempt to contact the trade union about it. Let me be clear, this exploitation is not confined to just one project. Workers on the Waverly platform extension project just half a mile from this Parliament have also been charged just to get their wages and this is a pay slip from a worker who was on an hourly wage based on the national minimum wage who on top of that had to pay a fee to an umbrella company to get his wage. It's dated 11 January this year. First Minister, isn't it the case that you've got no idea how widespread this practice is on the public projects that you fund? First Minister, let me come on to the Waverly project in a second because I do want to comment directly on that. Before I leave the AWPR, I'm sorry if there wasn't contact the trade union, but we did what Richard Leonard asked us to do. We investigated this issue and I've come up with the explanation that says, I deprecate anybody who's employed by an agency who has to pay to get their wages paid, but on the AWPR there is no requirement for any worker to be employed through an agency because the opportunity of direct employment is there. That's a contract, yes, funded by the Scottish Government and I would have hoped that that would have been welcomed by Richard Leonard. Let me come on directly to the Waverly project. This is a network rail contract and I have to point out to Richard Leonard that the Scottish Government has no involvement in the award of network rail contracts. Despite the fact that we fund them, network rail is a wholly owned subsidiary of the UK Government and remains accountable to the UK Government. In the spirit of consensus, let me say to Richard Leonard that if he wants to join with me right now and ask as we have many times in the past for responsibility for network rail to be devolved to this Parliament and this Government, then we will make common call. Richard Leonard is on that issue. Let's be clear. This is taxpayers' money exploiting workers through unethical business practices half a mile from this Parliament with Scottish Government money. It's not good enough and you can do something about it because Carillion is gone, a new contractor is taking this work over in a matter of days. Meanwhile, the workers in this project have been left in limbo. They deserve some reassurance today and this Parliament and your Government should never underwrite the immoral exploitation of working people. Will you commit today to work with the union, to protect the workforce and will you ensure that no worker on Scottish Government-funded contracts will be charged to simply receive their wages? I think most people listening to me would understand what I'm saying, but Richard Leonard doesn't appear to. I've set out very clearly the issue on AWPR and I couldn't have been clearer that I deprecate the behaviour of agencies that Richard Leonard has outlined. I'm making the point that direct employment, where those practices don't happen, is offered to all employees on the AWPR contract. On the more general issues, we do expect those who deliver public contracts to adopt ethical and fair business practices. That is despite employment law being reserved. Richard Leonard doesn't like that but it is a fact. We use all powers at our disposal to encourage ethical business practice and drive inclusive growth. Let me get back to this issue of Network Rail. Yes, we fund the contracts but we do not have control over the award of Network Rail contracts. In case Richard Leonard didn't hear it the first time, Network Rail is a wholly owned subsidiary of the UK Government. It can fix this but it involves Richard Leonard doing more than willing the ends of something. He has to will the means as well. If he wants this Government to be able to do all these things, which I do too, then he has to equip us with the powers to do it. Will he join me right now in calling for responsibility for Network Rail to be devolved to this Parliament? Yes or no? The First Minister will be aware of the massive fire that occurred at Suckey Hall Street in Glasgow city centre, which is in Gulf. Tiffany's is now in the Pavilion theatre as well. Can I ask the First Minister if she will offer the emergency services, Glasgow City Council, local businesses and the general public that Suckey Hall Street is completely closed down? Is there any help that they require or any further help that they require at this terrible time? Well, this is a deeply concerning incident in the city of Glasgow. As I understand it, at 8.18 this morning, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service was alerted to reports of a well-developed fire that had taken hold in the roof space of a commercial premises. A number of fire engines were mobilised to Suckey Hall Street where firefighters are currently at the scene working to extinguish the fire. I understand that crews have already safely evacuated the occupants of several nearby properties. However, firefighters remain at this extremely challenging scene. I know that our thoughts and our thanks are with them right now. The Scottish Government's resilience unit will remain in contact with the fire service as this incident develops. I will be kept updated over the course of the day, but I am sure that the whole chamber will want to convey our thoughts to everybody who is affected by what appears to be an extremely serious incident. The Scottish Government tops up council funding such that no council gets less than 85 per cent of the Scottish average. A report this morning suggests that Aberdeen City Council's top-up is £1.6 million short of that minimum. In the media, the Scottish Government says that top-up funding has been given but does not say if that meets the 85 per cent minimum. It is a genuine question to clear up the confusion. Does the top-up funding given to Aberdeen meet the expected floor or not? We introduced the 85 per cent floor, which Liam Kerr refers to. That was something that I know had been called for for a long time. I will ask the finance secretary to write to him later this afternoon with the specific amounts in terms of the funding for Aberdeen. That guarantee to councils is an important one and one that we fully intend to see committed to not just this year but in the future as well. The First Minister may be aware that, last Thursday, Highlands and Islands airports Ltd announced their intention to introduce car parking charges at Sombra, Cutchill and Stornoway. She will be aware that Sombra is 25 miles from Lerwick and there are no direct public transport links to most of Shetland. Highlands and Islands airport did that without any consultation whatsoever. Will she look into it and reverse that decision? I will certainly look into it to Tavish Scott. I absolutely understand the point that he is making given the geography of the airport in Shetland. If it is the case that there was no consultation, that is something that I think was remiss of Highlands and Islands airports. I will look into it and come back to Tavish Scott once I have had the opportunity to do so. Mark Griffin. I want to raise with the First Minister the case of my constituent, who was diagnosed with remitting and relapse in MS in 2016. I am raising my constituent's case because they are desperate to know if NHS Scotland will provide new stem cell therapy treatment, which was this week described as effective, safe and game changing. The results of the trial produced results in a quote, stunningly in favour of transplant against the best available drugs. With a higher than average incidence of MS in Scotland, can the First Minister confirm for my constituent what consideration has taken place within the Scottish Government to have the treatment available to Scottish sufferers of MS just as soon as it will be in England? First Minister. I thank the member for raising what is a very important issue. We do know that there is a higher incidence of MS in Scotland than not just other parts of the UK but many other countries as well. We are absolutely determined that those with MS get access to the best possible treatment, as the member will be aware. Decisions around access to medicines are taken by the Scottish Medicines Consortium. There is an independent rigorous process there. I have the health secretary write to him specifically about this particular treatment and what stage it is at in the process. Those decisions are taken independently of ministers but, as he will be aware, a range of reforms to that process have been made in recent times to improve access to treatments, not just for MS patients but for patients with a range of different conditions. It is an important issue, one that we want to make sure that patients are getting the best possible treatment for and the health secretary will update them further in the next few days. Angus MacDonald. The First Minister will be aware of the closure of the A801 in my constituency yesterday at the Avangorge for a period of five weeks due to the appearance of significant cracks in the carriageway, causing disruption to businesses and residents in Falkirk district and West Lorien. The A801 forms a key strategic link between the M8 and M9 corridors and provides a strategic freight route between Grangemouth Docks and various distribution centres in West Lorien but has also been an accident black spot for decades. The project to build a replacement crossing at the Avangorge has been shovel ready for over four years but work is not scheduled to start until 2020-21. Can the First Minister advise what options the Scottish Government has to help Falkirk Council and West Lorien Council to bring that specific project forward, given the current condition of the A801 at Avangorge? Angus MacDonald, for raising an issue that is hugely important to his constituency, the A801 is vitally important to communities and businesses in Falkirk and indeed West Lorien and it also has strategic importance in linking the Docks at Grangemouth with the industrial and distribution facilities along the M8 corridor. The Government has already approved tax-incremental financing business case from Falkirk Council, which envisages a contribution towards the cost of the scheme with the remainder of funding to come from West Lorien Council and the Scottish Government. I understand that Falkirk Council's business case notes that a review will be required to confirm that the upgrade is viable to commence. I will ask officials at Transport Scotland to initiate discussions with the two local authorities to establish a programme for that review and the ultimate delivery of improvements and I will make sure that either myself or the Transport Minister writes to Angus MacDonald with a full update in due course. The First Minister knows that Glasgow, among other places in Scotland, has suffered illegal levels of air pollution for many years with a profound effect on people's health and that transport policy has been making that worse. We are now finally seeing steps toward a low-emission zone in Glasgow but we have a responsibility to make sure that this first zone in the country does not set a precedent for weak action because dozens of other communities around Scotland need to see a sense of urgency. Glasgow City Council's proposals have been widely criticised as painfully slow in the timetable for buses to comply with the zone, no action on private cars and other polluting vehicles, Friends of the Earth Scotland, and I must put on record my register of interest shows as a member, Friends of the Earth Scotland have described this as a no-ambition zone. Greens and other Opposition councillors have worked together to try and improve things but does the First Minister accept that, as it stands, that half-hearted plan would still guarantee that Glasgow fails to achieve clean air by the Government's own target date? To borrow the First Minister's phrase, if we will the end, surely we must will the means. I do not entirely accept Patrick Harvie's characterisation of the low-emission zone plan in Glasgow, although I am sure that the council will continue to discuss with a range of interests changes or improvements that can be made. For example, the Glasgow low-emission zone proposal incorporates all vehicles and therefore represents one of the most challenging, all-encompassing low-emission zones in Europe. It is more akin to the London ultra-low-emission zone and it is in contrast to many other zones in Europe that often target only specific vehicles and set much lower emission-level targets. In terms of the lead-in times, I understand the frustration when you have lead-in times but a very high number of European low-emission zones have utilised a four-year lead-in time. That is based on pragmatism to allow vehicles the time to adapt. Of course, we should not wait until the deadline to act. All road users should start to prepare now, notwithstanding the fact that lead-in times are essential to allow owners to prepare for the new emission standards prior to enforcement starting. I am sure that there will continue to be discussion here, but I think that Glasgow is to be commended for getting ahead of the game. We have wider plans in place for rolling out low-emission zones in other areas. For example, one of the criticisms that I have heard of the Glasgow plan is that it will have no signs to mark entry points. The intention is to the contrary. The intention is that there will be developed and utilised ANPR cameras to help with enforcement. I encourage everybody who has an interest in this, and that should be everybody who lives in or visits the city of Glasgow to engage with this over the next period. In Scotland, we have set more stringent equality targets than the rest of the UK, which I hope is something that Patrick Harvie would welcome. I am very sorry to hear that the First Minister does not accept any of the valid criticisms that we have made. Even using the Government, Environment, Agency, SEPA's own figures, their analysis of the impact of that, it is impossible for the low-emission zone as currently proposed by the City Council to eliminate illegal air pollution levels in Glasgow on the timescale that is being set out. We also know that there seems some lack of clarity. The City Council does not even seem to know if it can access all of the £10.8 million that has been allocated by the Government to the low-emission zone. They do not seem aware that the financial transaction £10 million figure is available to them to invest either. The money is being allocated, but it is not being spent. That is at a time when the Government is happy to issue press releases about the last 10 years of climate challenge funding, but it is still failing to back a net zero target for the next climate change act. Does the First Minister understand the genuine concern that it is her Government's agency, Transport Scotland, that seems once again to be the biggest barrier to change, accepting the self-interested arguments of profit-driven bus companies? Will she take on the cautious business as usual attitude at Transport Scotland and turn it into a catalyst for change, pushing the agenda forward, getting the resources spent and challenging councils to do more instead of holding them back? What I said in my initial answer was that I did not accept Patrick Harvie's characterisation of the Glasgow proposals, and I certainly do not accept the characterisation that we have had in the second question. What I also said was that I expected discussion and debate to continue around the detail of that, and I would expect a range of different issues to put forward ideas about how Glasgow can go further and faster. I would hope that the City Council would engage positively with that. Patrick Harvie mentioned a number of things there—the climate challenge fund, a huge success. I was delighted last Friday to award the £1,000 award under the climate challenge fund. It has helped a range of community projects to deal with the impact of climate change. The new bill will be published in due course, and we will set out our thinking on renew targets there. I can say with real confidence that that new bill will further establish Scotland as one of, if not the leading country in the world in tackling climate change. Air quality is a hugely important issue, not just for the environmental reasons that we often talk about in relation to climate change, but for the health of people living in areas such as Glasgow. First, we should say that we meet both domestic and European air quality targets across much of Scotland, but there are still hotspots of poorer air quality. That is why I welcome the Glasgow proposals. I would say again that they incorporate all vehicles, and that actually puts them ahead of many European comparators. However, this discussion will continue, and I welcome that. Let's make sure that not just Glasgow but the other areas that need to take action are doing the right things to improve air quality for all. 4. Willie Rennie Next month, the First Minister is off to China for her first visit since the so-called Scottish Shambles. That was when the First Minister was so easily juked into signing up with two Chinese companies, offering £10 billion when all they owned was a pub in Buckinghamshire and a suspect human rights record. When the economy minister apologised last year, he promised a new human rights assessment process. Where is it and how many times has it been used? I was reading an update on that just a couple of days ago, so the economy secretary will come forward to Parliament with an update on that in due course. On my visit to China, I'll be delighted to visit China and the Easter recess, a trip that's been endorsed and welcomed by the Scottish Chamber of Commerce and the Scottish Whiskey Association and no doubt by others. I'll be in China promoting Scotland and the Scottish economy. I tell you one of the things that I won't be doing when I'm in China. I won't be mentioning Willie Rennie, because if it was up to Willie Rennie or if people listened to Willie Rennie, nobody would want to invest in Scotland because all he does is talk Scotland and the Scottish economy down. The Scottish Enterprise will have set up a number of signings with companies for the first visitors to China. Can she confirm that all those companies have had a human rights check? Human rights watch are highlighting current human rights abuses in China. So when she visits China, will the First Minister raise the case of Tibetan language rights advocates? Tashi Onechuck. Just last month, six United Nations human rights experts called for his release from prison. Will she speak up for lawyer Zhiyang Tangyong, jailed for defending government critics just in November? Or human rights lawyer Wang Kuang-Shang, detained by police in August 2015 but not heard from since? Will she do the right thing? Will she speak up for those people when she visits China? The First Minister I'll speak up for human rights in China. As I did on my last visit to China, I will do the same on this visit to China. I bow to nobody in my determination to play my part internationally in promoting human rights across the world. I would hope that you would unite everybody across the chamber. I will speak up for Scottish companies, Scottish jobs, Scottish tourism, Scottish food and drink when I am in China, as I will do in any other part of the world. My job is to promote Scotland, Scottish economy and Scottish jobs. That is probably one of the differences between me and Willie Rennie. Some further supplementaries to the first from Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, 367 children and 541 adults in Scotland will register as active cystic fibrosis patients in 2016. Two living in my constituency have been in touch regarding the availability of Orkambie, a combination drug available as a single pill for treating cystic fibrosis. Vertex Pharmaceuticals has engaged in fresh discussions with the NHS national services division regarding the pricing of Orkambie. Although ultimately a decision for approval lies with independent Scottish medicines consortium, the Scottish Government expressed hope that Vertex will make Orkambie more affordable so it can be used in Scotland. Can the First Minister please update the chamber on progress regarding these discussions? Kenneth Gibson is right to point out, as I did in response to an earlier question, that these approval decisions are taken by the Scottish Medicines Consortium and that act independently of ministers and Parliament. However, last year the health secretary strongly encouraged Vertex Pharmaceuticals to enter into discussions with NHS national procurement. Those discussions are on-going and, although they are commercially confidential at this stage, I would strongly echo the health secretary's calls for Vertex to offer a fair price and resubmit an application for Orkambie to the SMC as soon as is possible in order that those who would benefit from the medicine get access to it. Neil Findlay. Scotland is the highest level of drug deaths in Europe. If this was from knife crime or flu, there would rightly be a national outrage. Doing the same in policy terms and expecting a different result just won't work. Will the First Minister take a bold step and consider looking very serious at working across Parliament on a major change of drugs policy to stop people dying and end this public health crisis? The First Minister. Well, I think that it is a national outrage that so many people die of drugs. We've had debates in this chamber before about one of the issues being the ageing of the cohort that used drugs when they were younger. Drug use, and I think that this is something we should all remember and welcome. Drug use amongst the younger population is actually falling and that is a good thing. However, there is still a major challenge around drugs. That's why I think that we should be bold and innovative. The recent proposal from health professionals in Glasgow, for example, which we do not have the power to do in this chamber, is one that I am very sympathetic to. That would be one area where I would hope that there would be some cross-party consensus asking the UK Government to give us the power to give authority to proposals like that one. Although I accept that proposal, it would require widespread consultation within Glasgow. Perhaps unusually I agree with Neil Findlay that on this issue there is always a need for new and bold thinking and we should try to come together and do that and be prepared to sometimes do things that may be controversial and may in some areas be unpopular. However, where there is an evidence base for them, we should have the courage to do them. I certainly want this Government to be fully part of that and indeed to lead on those issues. Stuart Stevenson is the First Minister aware of the very real anger that there is in fishermen, fishing communities and right across Scotland after being promised last week by Ruth Davidson. That the common fisheries policy would not apply once we left the EU. We find that we have surrendered at UK level and in 2020 the CFP will apply without the UK, without our fishermen, without our authorities having any say in the rules that were applied to fishing. Does she share my anger? Yes, I do. I was thinking earlier on in First Minister's questions that Ruth Davidson's choice of question today, important though it was, was possibly partly designed to keep her as far away from fishing as she could possibly get. That is a really serious issue. What we have seen this week is a broken promise and complete betrayal by the Scottish Tories of the Scottish fishing industry. It is disgraceful. It is only a week or so ago that Ruth Davidson was issuing pressure leases co-authored with Michael Gove of all people saying that the fishing community would be free of the common fisheries policy by March next year. Now we find out that they will still be governed by the common fisheries policy, but to add insult to injury, there will be no votes around the table for the Scottish fishing community. It is utterly disgraceful. The only question for Ruth Davidson and the Tories is that when she issued that press release a couple of weeks ago, did she know the promise was going to be broken or is she just completely out of the loop with her UK colleagues? Question 5 Stuart McMillan To ask the First Minister what discussions she has had with the Prime Minister regarding Scottish limited partnerships and concerns regarding the reported involvement in facilitating organised crime. The issue of Scottish limited partnerships is a serious concern. The finance secretary has previously written on a number of occasions urging action by the UK Government on this matter. Scotland is a strong international reputation for financial services and it is important to prevent SLPs being misused for criminal purposes. While I welcome the Prime Minister's correspondence to my Westminster colleagues yesterday, indicating that she will now engage on these issues, it is over a year since the UK Government's call for evidence on this matter closed. Despite that, the UK Government has yet to outline specific proposals on how it plans to tighten the regulatory framework around SLPs. To reinforce how seriously we take this issue, I have today written to the Prime Minister pressing her to take immediate steps to reform the law in this area. Stuart McMillan I thank the First Minister for that reply. I am sure that the whole chamber would welcome the new regulations that have come into force on 26 June 2017, bringing around 30,000 Scottish limited partnerships into line with the new EU-wide anti-money laundering rules. However, reports still appear on the media. All those SLPs have allegedly been used for organised crime, but today's report in the Herald is very much welcome. Will the First Minister commit to continually raising the matter with the Prime Minister to help to protect Scotland's excellent business reputation, which is more important than ever, with Brexit living? The First Minister I absolutely agree with that. I very much welcome the introduction of the people with significant control regulations, which came into force in June last year. These are aimed at identifying individuals and companies behind SLPs. That is an important first step in preventing their misuse. However, as many have highlighted, there continues to be revelations of criminality being facilitated through SLPs. More needs to be done by the UK Government. That is a reserved area, so we will continue to press them to take concrete action to prevent their misuse. I think that it is also appropriate to take the opportunity to acknowledge the persistence of colleagues at Westminster on this issue. Indeed, David Lees at the Herald newspaper and the efforts of them and others to keep this issue in the public eye. However, I can assure the member that, just as with my letter to the Prime Minister today, the Scottish Government will continue to put pressure on the UK Government to take action to make sure that people cannot act criminally using these Scottish limited partnerships as a shield for their criminal behaviour. 6. Liz Smith I ask the First Minister for what reasons £15 million of the attainment Scotland fund out of £52 million provided to local authorities and schools had reportedly not been spent. I am tempted to say for the same reasons that I gave to Ruth Davidson just a few minutes ago, but our commitment is to invest £750 million over this Parliament and let me repeat that is exactly what we will do. In 2015-16, spending through the attainment Scotland fund stood at less than £6 million. I think that I said £10 million to Ruth Davidson earlier on, less than £6 million in the coming year. However, £179 million of spending is planned. That is a 30-fold increase. That includes £59 million in the nine councils that formed the challenge authorities and the challenge schools across Scotland and £120 million in pupil equity funding, which is spent at the discretion of head teachers in almost every school in the country. As this programme has accelerated, some elements of the programme rolled over their budgets into the following year, largely where time was needed to recruit staff. However, the value of making a pledge for the whole of the Parliament is the fact that the money did roll over and not a single penny of the £750 million was or will be lost. As well as the problems that were highlighted by Ruth Davidson earlier, many local authorities are also highlighting the fact that the timescales for the financial year that govern national and local government budgets do not coincide with the timescales for the school year. They are reporting that that is detrimental to the effective spending of the attainment fund, since the bulk of the activity has had to be put into the period between October and April. Does the First Minister agree that that is a very genuine concern among schools and will she agree to address that with considerable urgency? Of course we will talk to local authorities and schools about how we ease that. I think that as the programme goes into later years that becomes less of an issue because there is more certainty about funding over between different years. I should say to the member—I am sure that she will appreciate this—that, to some extent, the timescale of our budgets are dependent on the timescale of Westminster budgets because so much of our funding is still determined by the block grant. We are, to some extent, restricted. The finance committee has been looking at the issue in detail recently, but within that we will do everything that we can to make sure that there is as much certainty about funding available to schools in a way that allows them to use that money to maximum effect. It is a reasonable issue for Liz Smith to raise and we will certainly continue to seek to address it. The next item of business is a member's business debate in the name of Joanne Lamont on Down syndrome awareness week. We will take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.