 Felly, rydym yn cenderdiwyd. Rydyn ni'n gyd yn dŷnodigol a chwyfnol eisiau gydigol gyda'r sechydigau i ddiddorol o maen nhung yn ddiddorol. Fy enw i ddylch yn ddylch a ddylch yn ddylch i ddiddorol, ac yn ddiddorol wedi gwylliant i'r gallu ar y gallu, wrth gwrs, mae'r maen nhw'n gweldwch yn Ddiddorol i'r cwmfaith Norgwy â'r Cwmiwn Gwynffydd. Gwydig i ddiddorol i ddiddorol, Q1, Kezia Dugdale. I am sure that I speak for the whole chamber when I say that my thoughts are with the workers in the North Sea following the announcement of job losses today by Shell and Taka. I hope that the First Minister will use the full resources of the Government to make sure that any worker who loses their job gets the support that they need. What engagement she has planned for the rest of the day? The thoughts of this Government are always with anybody who faces losing their job and the full resources of the Government are always brought to bear to assist anybody facing redundancy, and they will be in the case of the job losses that have been announced affecting the North Sea this morning. Later today, Presiding Officer, I will have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Kezia Dugdale. Last week, at First Minister's Questions, Nicola Sturgeon twice denied that her central general election demand for full fiscal autonomy within the UK included the money from the Barnett formula. Can the First Minister confirm that that is still her position? My position is that I want this Parliament to have more fiscal and economic powers so that we can grow our economy faster and reduce the deficit that Scotland currently carries. Last week, I gave figures, certainly conceding that the projections for oil revenues over the period to 2019-20 show a £3 billion reduction, but over that same period we see onshore revenues predicted to rise by £15 billion, and that is without having extra powers to grow our economy faster. There is, I think, a straight disagreement between those of us in those benches and the Labour benches. We do not want to sit back and accept continued Tory and Labour cuts. We want to have responsibility in Scotland to have an alternative to that, to grow our economy, to get the benefits of economic growth that we can invest in our public services. It is really interesting, Presiding Officer, because last week, the First Minister twice said in this chamber that modelling does not simulate the continuation of the Barnett formula. She later said that the Barnett formula is not part of the modelling framework, but I am afraid to say that her own Government paper says that it is. The SNP Government paper published an analysis of what it would mean to lose the money that we get from Barnett, but that analysis still includes the benefits of Barnett. The SNP Government's analysis told Scots that although their general election policy for full fiscal autonomy within the UK means that we can spend in Scotland, we raise in Scotland, we can still benefit from the higher public spending that comes from Barnett and the block grant. That is not true. We know it and she knows it. I know that the First Minister would not have intentionally tried to mislead Parliament when she suggested that we can have full fiscal autonomy within the UK and keep Barnett money, so can I ask her again? Can she confirm, beyond all doubt, that the SNP's plans for full fiscal autonomy within the UK means the end of the block grant and the end of billions of pounds for our NHS and our schools? Can I repeat what I said last week in this chamber? The modelling does not simulate the continuation of the Barnett formula. My position, and the position of those of us in these benches, I know that as one Labour disagrees with they prefer to join the Tories and say that Scotland is not capable of standing on our own two feet, but I want us in this Parliament to have the ability to stand on our own two feet, to take our own decisions and to keep the benefits of the good decisions that we take. I want us to be able to grow our economy, reduce our deficit in that way, rather than have a situation where we continue to be at the mercy of Westminster cuts. Labour voted just a few weeks ago with the Tories for an additional £30 billion of cuts. Last week, we had egg balls saying that he would reverse nothing in George Osborne's budget. The SNP takes a different view. We think that there is a better future for Scotland. We put forward an alternative to austerity and, secondly, we put forward the notion that Scotland is no better than any other country, but we are just as capable of standing on our own two feet, taking good decisions, supporting our public services and stopping the attack on the vulnerable that characterises those two parties. Kezia Dugdale, Mr Dugdale. It's right to be, Presiding Officer. If you want a straight answer from the SNP, you need to take Alex Salmond out for lunch. Mr Dugdale. Artur. Presiding Officer, the block grant sounds like the piece of dry political theory, but it could not be more important to the future of Scotland, for the sake of our NHS and for our schools, for the sake of our pensioners in Scotland who have worked hard all their lives and deserve to enjoy their retirement and comfort. The SNP's economic credibility is in tatters. The Impartial Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the SNP's plans for full fiscal autonomy would cost Scotland £7.6 billion. The experts at the Scottish Parliament say that cutting public spending by billions would cost £138,000. Professor Brian Ashcroft said that the SNP Government's analysis is partial at best and dishonest at worst. Does the First Minister think that the IFS, Spice and Professor Ashcroft are all wrong? Interestingly, the IFS at the weekend said that they thought that a future Labour Government could sign up to the SNP's anti-austerity programme and still meet the fiscal targets, which begs the question why Labour prefer the ideological austerity of the Tories to joining with the SNP in alternative austerity. I know that Labour's position is that they think the best way to protect Scotland's finances is to continue to allow Westminster Governments, including Tory Governments, to run those finances. Do you know what the experience of that for Scotland over the past few years has not been a particularly good one? Westminster Government has cut the budget of the Scottish Government by 10 per cent in real terms. If that is what Kezia Dugdale and Labour want to defend and defend the additional £12 billion of cuts for Scotland that are coming down the track from Westminster, then let them do that. I suspect that their poll ratings will continue to plummet as a result. For my part, I will continue to argue a clear alternative to austerity and to argue for this Parliament to have the power that we need to grow our economy faster, protect the vulnerable and invest in our public services. I say to Kezia Dugdale that if she wants that to be the dividing line of the election campaign between Labour and the SNP over the next seven weeks, then I say, be my guest. I relish that. Kezia Dugdale, is this First Minister who is arguing for an additional £7.6 billion of cuts to Scottish public services? Is this First Minister that admitted last week that she had got it wrong on oil? Her numbers were out by billions, and today's announcement of job losses in the North Sea shows the impact of the plummeting oil prices on both workers and public spending. Last week, the First Minister said that she would publish a revised oil and gas bulletin as soon as possible, but in the letter to me this week, the First Minister failed to commit to publishing the facts before the general election. There we have it, an economic paper torn apart by the experts, a general election plan based on fiddled figures and oil numbers that she's hiding from the Scottish people. It's clear that when the numbers don't add up, this First Minister makes them up anyway. Is this really the SNP's economic strategy, or should I ask Alex Salmond, since he's clearly the one calling the shots? First Minister, let us hear the First Minister. This is increasingly. I think we're getting just a bit excited. It's a caravan down the road, it's in recess, not this one. I think, Presiding Officer, what we're seeing is that there's an inverse relationship between how low Labour's poll ratings go and how loud their noise in this chamber gets. It's desperate, desperate stuff from a dying Scottish Labour Party. This Government and the party that I lead will continue to argue an alternative to the Tory Labour austerity. We've got a Labour Party here that trumpets an anti-asterity motion that they put forward in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago that actually calls for spending cuts. How can you be anti-asterity when you're calling for additional spending cuts? Here we have it, Presiding Officer. We have the clear choice that confronts people at the election in just a few weeks' time. The Convote for Labour and more Tory spending cuts to come or the Convote SNP for a clear, consistent and principled alternative to austerity. I suspect I know which way it's going to go. Question 2. Ruth Davidson. Ms Davidson, to ask the First Minister when she'll next meet the Prime Minister. First Minister. I am expecting to see the Prime Minister next week in the party leader's debate. I'm very much looking forward to it unless, of course, he takes cold feet again. Ruth Davidson. I can think in all of the debates, including the Scottish ones, the people that will be taking part are probably looking forward to it more than the audience and the voters, but there we go. We've just heard a rather fraught exchange. Well, I'm looking forward to it. We've just heard an interesting exchange and yet the First Minister is still no closer to admitting how much full fiscal autonomy would cost Scotland. We know how much it would have cost last year because the Scottish Government figures published two weeks ago that there would have been a £4 billion black hole, but we're now going into an election with the SNP arguing for fiscal autonomy as its stated aim without any official price tag having been put on their policy. The First Minister recently set up a Scottish Fiscal Commission of Eminent Economists advising the Scottish Government. Will she instruct them to look at the numbers and then tell the voters of Scotland before they cast their ballots in May how much fiscal autonomy would cost the country over the next five years? Of course John Swinney has just published today the consultation to put the Fiscal Commission on a statutory basis, because we want to make sure that as we move forward and hopefully take more responsibility in this Parliament, we've got the best advice available to us. In terms of the choice that people have to make, it is a very clear choice because we know what happens over the next Parliament if we continue to allow Westminster to run our finances. There is an additional £12 billion of cuts coming to Scotland. If we can take more control over our own finances and over our own fiscal decisions, I do not stand here and pretend that that solves all our issues overnight, but it puts into our hands the ability to grow our economy and to grow our revenues faster. As I said to Kezia Dugdale both last week and today, our onshore revenues as a country are projected by 2019-20 to be £15 billion higher than they are today. That is before we have additional powers to grow our economy faster. The dividing line between those of us on those benches and it seems all of the Westminster parties is clear. They want us to be at the mercy of Westminster cuts, unable to do anything about it, unable to defend ourselves. I want us to be able to defend ourselves against Westminster cuts by having more power in our own hands. Ruth Davidson. I just asked the First Minister a serious question. I'm disappointed that she chose to dodge it in the manner in which she did, because this is about how we fund every school, every hospital and every police officer. The people of Scotland have a right to know in fiscal autonomy what it is that they are being asked to vote for. We have the not First Minister, not in the chamber, swarming around the television studios of London, telling anyone who will listen how he will be running the whole of the UK, making statements over tax, statements over welfare, over defence and over spending, and yet the current First Minister standing here is unable even to say how she would fund Scotland's public services. When will the SNP branch office reign in its foreign office? First Minister. It's clear that my predecessor is First Minister is frightening the life out of the Tories and the Labour Party. Long, long may it continue. Order. Scotland's fiscal position was set out in the jazz figures that were published a couple of weeks ago. The UK is deeply indeficit and deeply indebt. The difference between Ruth Davidson, Kezia Dugdale and me is this. I don't think we should simply sit back and accept the inevitability of continued deficits and continued austerity cuts. I think we should take control to do something about that. I don't want to see the vulnerable, the public services, the poorest in our society continue to be affected by the cuts that David Cameron and George Osborne and indeed Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have planned for people in Scotland. I want to take control over more of our own finances in Scotland so that we can do something about that. In the meantime, I also want to argue for and prevail in this argument for an anti-austerity alternative. The SNP is the only party standing in this election on that clear platform. That is the question, Kevin Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The announcement that 100 jobs are to be lost at TACA and 250 at Shell is a great blow to the north-east of Scotland. My heart goes out to the people affected. Can the First Minister assure me that the energy jobs task force and PACE teams will do all that they can to find alternative employment for those affected? Will she and her ministers continue to lobby the UK Government to introduce an exploration credit to boost the oil industry? As I said earlier, all my thoughts are very much with the people affected by these announcements. This will be a difficult and worrying time for them and their families. I know that PACE and the energy jobs task force are working hard to mitigate the impacts of job losses. The energy jobs task force is overseeing significant activity, including a major PACE event that was held yesterday at Petodry and attended by over 850 people that met the jobs task force met for the third time on Monday of this week. While we welcomed the progress announced for the sector in last week's budget, it was disappointing that our proposal for an exploration credit was not taken forward, so we will continue to work with industry and press the UK Government to ensure that the fiscal regime adequately incentivises exploration. Of course, we will continue to work to support all those affected by job losses. Margaret McCulloch. The First Minister will be aware that yesterday NHS Lanarkshire agreed to renew contracts for the delivery of soft FM services, such as cleaning at Hermeyr's and Wishaw hospitals. Despite pressure from unions for a public sector-led bid, she will also be aware that the then Health Secretary Alex Neil initiated a deep-dive review of the Hermeyr's PFI contract last year following a disappointing HEI report, saying that he did not believe the contract represented... Can we get a question, Ms McCulloch? ...value for money? Do the Government now believe that the contract does represent value for money? Is that why an in-house bid has been ruled out and the interest of transparency will the findings of the review be published for all to see? First Minister. I think that that gives a whole new meaning to the term brassnake. I know that Margaret McCulloch was not in this Parliament in previous sessions of it, but the situation she has just outlined in terms of NHS Lanarkshire, because of the constraints of the PFI contracts for Hermeyr's and Wishaw that were signed by the last Labour Administration. For them to stand up now and complain about this is deeply, deeply hypocritical. Absolutely staggering in terms of the hypocrisy. I, as Health Secretary, made it clear that going forward soft facilities were not to be contracted out. The Health Secretary has written to NHS Lanarkshire, making clear that it should take every opportunity to look at bringing these services at these two hospitals back in-house. For Labour, who signed these dreadful contracts to stand up here and criticise the SNP for having to deal with the consequences of them, it is absolutely staggering and one of the many reasons that people have just lost patience with the Labour Party. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. Issues of importance to the people of Scotland. Under her Government's centralisation of the police, Fife's control room closed last week. Calls are now handled at Bilston Glen, but there are problems. Earlier this month more than 1,000 calls were dropped in just one day. A non-emergency calls took 40 minutes to get an answer. I have now been told that a dozen of the hugely pressurised staff have been off sick and it can take 58 minutes to answer a call. Did the First Minister know that this was happening? The change over PDT has been extended, but in terms of the particular issues and concerns that Willie Rennie raises, I will undertake to discuss them both with the justice secretary and with Police Scotland. People have a right to get a high-quality service from the police and where, for any reason, that is falling short, then we will ensure that action is taken to rectify that. In terms of the more general issue, I know that there is an in-principle disagreement between my Government and Willie Rennie over whether amalgamating Scotland's eight police forces was the right or wrong thing to do. We did it and we did it for great reasons because we wanted to see less resource taken up by chief constables and all of the things that go with that and invested instead in the front line. It is one of the reasons why we are maintaining 1,000 extra cops on the streets of Scotland, helping to keep crime low. Willie Rennie. The closure of Dumfries last year was described as shambolic. Stirling was closed but only weeks later had to reopen in an emergency and Aberdeen and Inverness are still to come. I am alarmed that the First Minister seems to be unaware of the problems because earlier this month there was almost a critical incident because staffing levels were so low. Will she today call a halt to further closures while she gets a grip at Bilston Glen? I have already said that the issues that Willie Rennie is raising deserve to be treated seriously. I am not denying that for a second and I will discuss them directly with both the secretary and Police Scotland. As I said earlier on, the changeover period is being extended. The police carry out user satisfaction surveys in order to make sure that, where there are failings in the service that they are providing to people, they can act upon that. Public satisfaction with our police remains very high but it is absolutely essential that we work with our police, support our police to make sure that they are providing the level of service that they are providing to the public right across Scotland. I, as First Minister and the Justice Secretary, will do everything that we can to support Police Scotland in doing just that. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the final report of the Penrose inquiry. As First Minister of Scotland and on behalf of the Government of Scotland and the NHS, I want to take this opportunity to say a very sincere and heartfelt sorry to everyone who has had to deal with the devastating impact of infected NHS blood and blood products. I cannot begin to understand the difficulties and the many hardships that individuals and their families have had to contend with. It is important that we apologise to them openly and without reservation and I do so today on behalf of the Government of Scotland and the NHS. I established the Penrose inquiry because I felt that it was absolutely vital that we understand the series of events that led to such a devastating impact on so many people and I am determined now, as First Minister, that we do everything possible to give all of those affected the support that they deserve. The health secretary will be making a full statement this afternoon setting out this Government's response to the inquiry findings and I am sure that I speak for everyone across this chamber and indeed across Scotland in saying that we must do everything in our power to make sure that terrible events like these never ever happen again. Richard Lyle. I thank the First Minister for her answer and I know that, as she has said, the First Minister was responsible for commissioning her inquiry as the then health secretary. She will be aware that some of those impacted by the report have called it a whitewash. What steps will this Government take to supporting those families, to ensuring time for a debate in this chamber, to discuss those views and the inquiry in general? First Minister. I can obviously understand the feelings, the frustration and even the disappointment of all of those affected by these dreadful events. I was struck particularly by comments that Bill Wright of Hemophilia of Scotland made yesterday and I thought that he was correct in his assessment that, despite his disappointment and I am quoting here, there is a narrative setting out the case that cannot be avoided by the Government and its moral responsibility and I certainly accept on behalf of the Scottish Government that responsibility. Let me make it very clear that we regard the publication of the report as the start of a process of further engagement with those affected rather than an end to the investigations into these tragic events. Taking account of the wider report findings and in consultation with patients and families, we will act to implement the recommendation of the report and take forward the review of financial support as a matter of urgency. We recognise that direct payments are only part of the support package for those affected and will therefore implement pilots of increased psychological and social work support with a view to putting in place a national service and will also provide further funding to Hemophilia of Scotland and the Scottish Infected Blood Forum who provide a valuable peer support mentoring and advice function. I, in opposition, campaign for justice for all of those affected by Infected Blood and Blood products. As health secretary, I set up the Penrose inquiry. Now that I am First Minister, I am absolutely determined that we do everything we can to deliver justice and support to those who have suffered so much. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to end the use of zero hours contracts. We condemn totally the inappropriate use of zero hours contracts, unfair work practices like this are unacceptable, they undermine our ambitions to grow our economy and tackle inequalities in our society. The Scottish Government and its agencies aim to set an example by not directly employing anyone on a zero hours contract. While the issue is reserved to Westminster, we will use all the levers at our disposal to tackle any abuse. Through public contracts Scotland guidelines, our programme for government commitments to establish a fair work convention and introduce a Scottish business pledge we are looking to encourage all employers across Scotland to adopt fair working practices. Neil Findlay. More than 100,000 Scots are trapped on zero hours contracts. They are used in their NHS, their universities, by councils and by companies engaged on public sector contracts across Scotland. These are all areas that are under this Government's controller where it has significant influence and if that influence was used properly it could change people's working lives for the better. The First Minister can take her responsibilities seriously and act on zero hours contracts here or she can shrug her shoulders and blame someone else, anyone else. Which is it to be? First Minister. I don't think anything I said in my opening answer was blaming anybody else. I made the factual point that these are matters reserved to Westminster but I also made it absolutely clear that we would use all of the levers under our control to tackle this practice. As First Minister, I have appointed a Cabinet Secretary in charge of fair work such as the importance that we attach to ensuring that people in work have fair employment conditions. That includes the payment of the living wage not having the inappropriate or abusive use of zero hours contracts. We will continue to use all efforts that we can to crack down on inappropriate use of zero hours contracts. Instead of trying to divide Labour and the SNP on this issue where I think that substantially we agree perhaps we should join forces and back the efforts that this Government is making and call on Westminster Governments, this one and whatever one is elected at the election to take even tougher action at Westminster level. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the political and constitutional reform committees report, constitutional implications of the Government's draft Scotland clauses. The Scottish Government welcomes some of the political and constitutional reform committees' conclusions, especially the need for amendments to strengthen the clause concerning the sole convention. It's notable that this committee of the UK Parliament concludes that some of the draft clauses and I quote address matters of very significant constitutional importance in a less than satisfactory manner. I've previously set out this Government's concern over other clauses in particular the veto in clauses relating to removing the bedroom tax or changing welfare and I very much hope that the next UK Government will pay more attention to those concerns than the current one has. Margaret Campbell. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Smith, of course, is charged with implementing the vow. I'm sure that the First Minister agrees that any UK Government needs to deliver Smith both in law and in spirit. Smith, of course, recommended devolution of the work programme and work choice at the end of the current contracts. Those contracts have now been extended to 2017. Can she advise the chamber on whether the UK Government have agreed with requests to reverse that decision, which goes totally against the spirit of the vow? Well, the Scottish ministers have consistently and repeatedly called in the UK Government to cancel the renewed contracts for the work programme and work choice. Those programmes to support job seekers, including disabled people, into employment were specifically identified by the Smith commission as some of the employability support services that should be devolved to Scotland on expiry of the current contracts. The UK Government wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work yesterday again refusing our request. I think that this willful and persistent continuing refusal calls into question their intention to deliver the vow. So today, in this chamber, I again repeat the call for the immediate transfer of powers and resources that will enable us as a Parliament to better support those unemployed in Scotland into work. Annabelle Golden. Presiding Officer, presumably the First Minister does agree with the committee that the UK Government has shown urgency in producing the draft clauses and the process of bringing more powers. Last week, she apologised for getting her oil figures wrong. Will she now apologise for administration's denigration of the further powers process and the accusations of insincerity made before the referendum last year? First Minister. I certainly accept two things. Firstly, the draft clauses were published on timetable, and I think I said that at the time. Secondly, I have welcomed both the Smith proposals and the draft legislative clauses insofar as they go, and I repeat that readily today. I don't think they go far enough. Indeed, in some respects, I don't believe the legislative clauses actually translate the intention of the Smith commission. What I've just said about the work programme is one way in which the current UK Government is going against the spirit, and I would argue the letter of the Smith commission proposals. Perhaps I could end by quoting again the report of the committee where it says that some of the draft clauses address matters of very significant constitutional importance in a less than satisfactory manner. I agree with that, but I hope that the next UK Government of whatever colour it might be can be persuaded to respond to some of those points in a more constructive and positive manner than the current one has. That ends First Minister's question time. We now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.