 We turn now to First Minister's questions, question number one, Ruth Davidson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'm sure the whole chamber will join me in wishing Paisley well in their bid to become the UK city of culture 2021. The bid team has run an incredible campaign, and we all wish them well for this evening. To ask the First Minister after yesterday's events, why is the Scottish Government continuing to persist with its named persons scheme? First Minister. First Minister, let me also take the opportunity to wish Paisley 2021 the very best of luck this evening. All of Scotland is behind the bid. The bid team has done an absolutely fantastic job, and I'm sure the whole country is proud of them and will rejoice if Paisley indeed does win the bid this evening, as all of us hope that it will. The Scottish Government will proceed with its named persons plans for the simple reason that they are in the best interests of children, particularly vulnerable children across the country. Often, when Ruth Davidson raises the issue, she does so from a political perspective. That is her right, the Tory's opposed named person in principle, but when we talk about it, we talk about it from the perspective of the protection of children. I would submit, Presiding Officer, that is the most important, indeed the only consideration that should drive us. In terms of the committee decision, there have been concerns expressed at and by the committee about the draft code of guidance. The draft code of guidance is exactly that. It was always intended to be illustrative. Of course, the Deputy First Minister has committed to working with practitioners to develop the final code of practice. He has also established a practice development board panel that will be led by Ian Welsh. Crucially, he has committed to giving this Parliament the final say on the draft code of practice. We are disappointed with the committee decision. We think that it is unnecessary to delay stage 1, although we recognise that. We will now work with the committee and the bureau in terms of the timing. In the meantime, we will get on with the important work of developing that code of practice. I will end this answer where I started it. It is about the protection of children. This bill is not about the principle of named person, it is about the information sharing that is necessary to ensure that vulnerable children do not fall through the gaps in services. Ruth Davidson Presiding Officer, we all want to protect vulnerable children, but after yesterday's events it is clear that this is not the way to do it. Let's run through the timeline here. The original legislation was passed in 2014. It was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court in 2016. The education committee of this Parliament has said that it cannot provide a report because of the lack of clarity on how changes would work. Now we are told that it won't be until late 2018 before the Scottish Government can even provide a satisfactory code of practice. So far, the only people who have benefited from this mess are the lawyers who have coined in over £800,000 in legal fees. Given that record, does the First Minister honestly think that this policy can be salvaged? Ruth Davidson should be very careful not to inadvertently mislead, because she said that the Supreme Court said that the named person policy was unlawful. As anybody who reads the judgment, the principle of named person was said by the Supreme Court to be benign and legitimate. The Supreme Court made a number of pronouncements about the information sharing provisions, and it is those information sharing provisions that this bill is intended to address. Information sharing is vital as part of efforts of those working in the front line to protect children, particularly vulnerable children. In the words of Social Work Scotland, information sharing is vital to getting it right for every child. Ruth Davidson has asked me about the timeline. It is a bit rich for a party that has sought to politically undermine and delay named person at every juncture and is now supporting a committee decision that would further delay the introduction of named person to somehow criticise this Government for it taking too long to be introduced. We will continue to do what we said we would do, which is work with practitioners through the new panel that has been established on the final code of conduct and give Parliament the final decision on that. I would lastly say that Ruth Davidson says that all of us are concerned with the protection of children. I certainly hope that that is the case, but if that is the case, then I would hope that all of us would pay attention to what those on the front line working with vulnerable children say. A whole range of organisations, notwithstanding the concerns that I conceded they had about the draft code of guidance, called on the committee to pass the bill at stage 1 so that that continued work on the code of guidance could be continued. I think that that is a sensible way forward, but we will continue notwithstanding the developments of yesterday to develop that final code so that we can get on with putting in place measures that are fundamentally about protecting children. Ruth Davidson Presiding Officer, the weaknesses of this policy have been exposed by the lens that the Government has gone to to try and prop it up. The Deputy First Minister has already been forced to apologise over the failings in the new bill, and we have now discovered that witnesses to the parliamentary committee have been lobbied by the Scottish Government in advance of their appearance. The Government says that this is entirely innocent, which is okay. If there is nothing to hide, will the First Minister publish the minutes and the attendees list of these private meetings with the committee witnesses so that we can all see what has been going on? If Ruth Davidson is seriously standing up in this chamber today, suggesting that a Government taking through legislation on an important issue like this one should not seek to engage with and talk to about their concerns with organisations like Aberlour, like Children's Health Scotland, like One Parent Family Scotland, like Enable Scotland, like Social Work Scotland, I think that Ruth Davidson is demonstrating why she should never be anywhere near Government in Scotland. It is our duty as a Government to listen to the concerns that organisations like that have and seek to address those concerns. It is on the basis of those discussions that the organisations, such as those that I have read out, have said that they think that the committee should pass the bill at stage 1 to allow the Scottish Government to continue to work with them to address their concerns and finalise the code. I think that that is the sensible way to proceed. If that is about the protection of children, rather than political point-scoring, I think that that is the way that all of us should be determined to proceed. Let us put children at the centre of this debate. Ruth Davidson Presiding Officer, it is usual that organisations lobby Government, not Government that lobbies organisations. What the First Minister is not understanding is that the policy is a mess and it is only her and the Deputy First Minister that cannot seem to see it. Everybody wants protection for vulnerable children, but it is now clear that Parliament has joined the public in no longer having confidence in those plans. We should focus resource on those who actually need it rather than having blanket interference for every family in Scotland. We are willing to get round the table to find a fresh solution for this, but first the First Minister needs to ditch the broken plan because her named person policy is in tatters. Can she simply concede that so that we can all move on? The First Minister Let me explain the difference between the Tories and this Government when it comes to engaging with stakeholders. Yes, stakeholders lobby the Tories when they are in Government and the Tories ignore them. Organisations lobby this Government and we respond and seek to address the concerns that they have. That is how responsible Government operates. Ruth Davidson says that this should be about reflecting the opinion not just of Parliament but about people outside of Parliament. I think that we should pay particular attention to those who do work on the front line with children and particularly vulnerable children. I am about to read out the second paragraph of a letter signed by Children in Scotland, Aberlour, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, Action for Children, the Institute for Inspiring Children's Futures, Crossreach, Social Work Scotland, Children's Health Scotland, COSLA, Includum, One Parent Family Scotland and Enable Scotland. That is what this letter from all those organisations said. It is a letter to the Education and Skills Committee. We are writing to ask you to approve the bill at stage 1 in order to allow time for the Scottish Government to demonstrate its commitment to making improvements to it and to the proposed code of practice. That is what those working on the front line with children want us to do. I think that, as a Parliament, we should listen to them and respond. Question 2, Richard Leonard. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Investment in the arts and culture can be a pathway to economic regeneration and employment, but it can also lift the horizons of the people. I take this opportunity to extend the support of the Scottish Labour Party to the people of Paisley in their bid to be the city of culture for the United Kingdom. Of course, the bid has been initiated and led by the local council. Last week, I asked the First Minister if Scotland's 32 councils will get the over half a billion pounds of funding that they need just to stand still to maintain local services, but I received no answer. Presiding Officer, austerity is not an abstract concept. It means real cuts to real local services. It means the closure of breakfast clubs. It means the acts falling on holiday activity programmes for children with disabilities. In the real world, it means cutting teachers for children who have additional support needs. How can the First Minister possibly justify those kinds of cuts to local services? Richard Leonard asked me last week what the budget would have in store for local government. I said to him last week that he would find out in two weeks' time when Derek Mackay presented the budget to this Parliament. I can update that answer today. He will now find out in one week's time when Derek Mackay presents the budget to Parliament one week today. What I can tell Richard Leonard is that, just as we have done in previous years, this Government will do everything that we possibly can to protect front-line services from the impact of Tory-imposed austerity. We face in the coming financial year a cut to our day-to-day spending in real terms of more than £200 million imposed by the Tory Government that Richard Leonard still prefers to have control over those issues than he would prefer it to be a Government in this Parliament. I, in response to Richard Leonard last week, pointed out that the only councils for this financial year that had not taken the opportunity to maximise their revenues through the council tax were Labour-led councils. If Richard Leonard is concerned about the kind of services that he has talked about, then perhaps he can address that point now. Why is it only Labour councils that this year are not using every penny at their disposal to protect front-line services? Richard Leonard, I have to report to Parliament that the cuts to children's services that I listed are not just being planned by any council, they are being planned by the SNP on Falkirk Council. They were discussing it just yesterday, and new figures published just last week show that 39 per cent of children in Falkirk live in material deprivation. Meanwhile, this SNP council is planning to cut to the bone childcare, is planning to close down breakfast clubs, is planning to act teachers for children with additional support needs. Does the First Minister believe that, if she fails next week to properly resource councils, to properly invest in local services, we will see this material deprivation, faced by Scotland's children, go down or will it go up? Not just protecting the health service, but protecting as far as we possibly can local services. We are investing further amounts of money directly in our schools through the pupil attainment fund, and we will continue to do that. When the budget is published next week, all councils, whoever leads them, will be able to finalise their own budget plans. When Richard Leonard and others see the budget next week, they will see evidence of a Government continuing to protect front-line services where it matters most. Richard Leonard still has not addressed the point. If it is at his position that he thinks that local government is short of cash, then why are Labour councils not maximising the money that they have to spend? The final point that I would make is that, if Labour wants to have a proper constructive discussion, it is about time that it has brought forward some concrete proposals. Richard Leonard wrote to Derek Mackay late last week about the budget. There was not a single figure in the letter, not a single concrete proposal about what should be spent and how that money should be raised. If Richard Leonard wants to be taken seriously, he will engage in a proper constructive discussion, and then we might start to take him seriously as well. One of the things that too many children living in material deprivation miss out on is a new winter coat to keep warm. Yesterday, I visited the cottage in Cucody and had the privilege of meeting with volunteers, including a selfless group of pupil volunteers from Balwary High School. They were sorting out parcels for needy families for Christmas, winter coats, scarves and gloves to be delivered to families who are living in abject poverty. This is the reality of Tory Britain, and it is the reality of SNP Scotland. Order, please. It is the Dickensian Scotland, where too many families are forced to turn to food banks. A Dickensian Scotland, where school children are dispatching emergency parcels to help their classmates at Christmas. First Minister, if cuts to children's services are imposed by you, you are not standing up for Scotland, you are failing the children of Scotland. So will you use the powers? Will you show the political will? Will you stop Tory austerity in its tracks and protect the funding of these vital services? Yes or no? When Derek Mackay sets out the budget a week today, what he will show are the actions of this Government that will show standing stark contrast to the empty rhetoric of the Labour Party opposite. Poverty and child poverty in particular is an issue of the utmost seriousness. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report in the last couple of weeks that showed that poverty is lower in Scotland than it is elsewhere in the UK and that child poverty has fallen faster and more sustainably in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. My view is a very simple view. As long as one child is living in poverty, that is one child too many and we have more work to do. That is why this Government has recently legislated for statutory targets on child poverty, making us the only administration in the UK now to have statutory targets. That is why we have established our poverty and inequality commission to advise and to challenge the Government to go further. It is why, in the programme for government, we outlined our intention to set up a new tackling child poverty fund. I could list a whole range of other areas, from council tax reduction to free school meals and a whole host of other policies from this Government. Many of them happening in Scotland do not happen anywhere else in the UK about tackling child poverty. We will continue to show the priority that we attach to that through not just our budget but every single policy that we pursue. We have a number of constituency questions, the first from Jenny Gilruth. The First Minister may be aware that yesterday the Fife, Rape and Sexual Assault Centre took the difficult decision to close their waiting lists. The service that the organisation provides is a vital lifeline to women and to men across Fife who have been the victims of sexual violence. Does the First Minister agree that Fife Council must ensure that the funding provided to the Fife, Rape and Sexual Assault Centre is maintained? Yes, I would certainly hope that that is the case. I am happy to also ask the Justice Secretary to look into this and to see whether there is more the Scottish Government is able to do. Services like this are absolutely vital in protecting the most vulnerable women and children in our country. I hope that all of us, whatever political disagreements we might have across the chamber, could come together and support the work that organisations such as Fife, Rape and Sexual Assault Centre do for the benefit of all of us. The First Minister will be aware that the Western Isles integration joint board is carrying out a review of dental services on the US, which could leave some patients facing a 60-mile round trip to visit the dentist. Currently, if a health board implements a service change, the Scottish Health Council can determine that it is a major service change and can refer it to Scottish ministers. However, I understand that it has come to light that the Scottish Health Council has no formal jurisdiction to rule on Igib matters and therefore cannot make a determination that would enable this service change to be called in. That means that any such proposals from an Igib board can go ahead with no scrutiny from Scottish ministers. Will the First Minister impose a moratorium on such issues until this loophole can be closed? No, it would not be right to impose a moratorium on the work of local integration boards. They have a duty to get on with the work of designing and improving services for the local populations. However, I will ask the health secretary to write to the member. It is my understanding that the health council can decide to involve itself in advising integration boards about matters such as that. Of course, any integration joint board would be expected to fully consult with its local population on any proposed service change. I will ask Shona Robison to look at the detail of that and respond to the member as soon as possible. Will the First Minister join me in congratulating Paisley 2021 bid director, June Cameron, and her team in all their endeavours to get Paisley to this stage of the City of Culture 2021 competition? As everyone will be aware, the winner will be announced tonight. Will the First Minister wish the bid team and the great town of Paisley all the very best of luck, and we look forward to them bringing the title back to Scotland? Today would not have been complete without George Adam getting to his feet to do what he does best and stand up for Paisley. I said earlier on, of course, that I and I am sure all of us across the chamber wish Paisley 2021 every success this evening. June Cameron, the bid director, has done an outstanding job, but everybody associated with the bid, formally and informally, those who have backed it, have been awesome. Paisley deserves to win this bid, so let us all root for Paisley for the remainder of the day and hope that it has the success that it deserves when the results are announced later this evening. The First Minister will be delighted to hear that performance on the Waverly line has recently improved. However, I have received complaints from constituents in the Scottish Borders regarding overcrowding when no additional carriages were put on despite a predicted increase in demand. Would the First Minister agree with me that every passenger on the Waverly line deserves a seat, no matter what time of year? Yes, I do. Of course, I am glad to see the improvements that have been made. However, if there are still improvements that are required to be made, they have to be taken seriously. If the member wants to write to me or perhaps more appropriate to the transport secretary with any concerns that have been raised by constituents, I will make sure that that is responded to properly. 3. Pante Carvie Thank you, Presiding Officer. I add the support of the Scottish Green MSPs for Paisley in their bid for the city of culture and congratulate everyone who is involved in the bid. This week, it was confirmed that rail fares are going to see their biggest increase in five years. Those who commute for work at busy periods will see a 3.6 per cent increase from next month. That is alongside the overcrowding, the delays and the daily problems that rail users experience across Scotland. Does the First Minister accept that this is simply an unacceptable situation? Does she agree with the findings of research by Common Wheel and the TSA that, under a public operator, if the money currently being extracted from the system for private operators' profit was reinvested, we would instead be seeing an average cut in fares of 6.5 per cent? First, I absolutely understand that people do not want to see any increase to rail fares. We can all understand that. It is important to point out, though, that regulated fares in Scotland will increase by under the rate of inflation and, of course, increases in Scotland will be below the average rise reported for England and Wales, meaning that Scotland will have the lowest level of fare increase in the UK. It is also important to point out that fares fund a lower percentage of the total funding for railways in Scotland than is the case elsewhere in the UK. The Scottish Government funds 55.5 per cent of the cost of the Scottish rail industry. That compares with the UK Government, which funds only 34 per cent of the cost in England. It is also fair to point out that ScotRail's performance has continually improved over the last year, resulting in it becoming the best-performing large train operator in the UK. In terms of a public sector rail, Patrick Harvie is aware that we secured the right for a public sector operator to bid for the next franchise. We did that after that was repeatedly denied but successive Labour and Conservative Governments. We certainly welcome the TSA report because we too recognise the social and economic benefits to be derived from a publicly run railway. That is why we committed in our programme for government to enable a public sector body to bid for future rail franchises and, of course, work to ensure that that is under way. The final point that I would make is that rail franchising and competition policy are still reserved matters to the UK Government. Neither a direct award of the contract nor full renationalisation is currently possible due to the legislative constraints of the Railways Act 1993, which is reserved to the UK Parliament. I know that Patrick Harvie will agree with me that all of those powers should be devolved to the Scottish Government, but I hope that he can help us to persuade other parties in this chamber that that should be the case. I am very glad that the First Minister welcomes the report. I think that it is unacceptable that people should be seeing an increase in their fares when we know that a cut in fares would be possible under a public operator. I welcome the fact that there is some appetite for that. If that was brought to the chamber, the First Minister would find that there is a very strong majority across the chamber for a public sector operator. Our railways have been run for profit for over 20 years now, and in that time we have seen public transport fares relentlessly go up while high-carbon modes of transport have become cheaper, even though the Scottish Government wants to make them even cheaper with their tax plans. However, investment is needed, too. Our analysis shows that the Scottish Government's capital spending is far too dominated by high-carbon projects. Reopening rail lines in stations would be a hugely positive way of redressing that balance. There are examples around the country that could be taken forward quickly and easily, such as the Levenmouth line. Will the First Minister commit the Scottish Government to backing our proposals for low-carbon infrastructure, including those obvious, quick and easy opportunities to improve Scotland's railways? First Minister? We will always look favourably at good ideas, but we have our own plans for low-carbon infrastructure. When I set out a programme for government back in September, it was described by environmental campaigners then as the greenest programme for government in the lifetime of this Parliament. That commitment to the low-carbon transition in transport across other sectors of our society will be reflected not just in that programme but in the budget that we present next week. We will continue to take the steps to support what needs to be done to secure that transition, whether that is in our energy sector or across a range of different sectors. I look forward to continuing to have environmental campaigners consider us to be the greenest government in the lifetime of this Parliament. It was supposed to be buccaneering Brexiteers riding the globe, but this week we witnessed the pitiful reality. Halfway through her soup, Teresa shuffles out of a Brussels lunch, red-faced because Arlene has told her no. The Conservatives are weak, split from top to bottom, in hawk to the DUP. However, the good news is that the survey poll that the weekend showed, a majority of people in Britain want the power to reject a bad Brexit deal. They don't trust the Conservatives and the DUP to decide what is good enough. Will the First Minister join me and support a public vote on the Brexit deal? The Prime Minister fell into her soup rather than being halfway through her soup. This week, the Tory UK Government has been shown to be dissembling, mendacious and totally and utterly incompetent. It is not just leading this country over a Brexit cliff edge, but it seems determined to do so blindfolded. I do not think that we have seen a more incompetent UK Government in my lifetime and really that is saying quite something. The priority now, in my view, has to be to unite those who think that the most common-sense compromise option now is for the UK as a whole to remain within the single market and the customs union. I believe that if Labour was to get its act together, if Jeremy Corbyn was to get his act together, I believe that that position could command a majority in the House of Commons. Let us try to unite all those of that opinion to stop those incompetent, reckless, ideological Tories taking the UK and Scotland with it off a Brexit cliff edge. Surely the best way out of this is to give the British people the final say. In last week, the Conservatives agreed to pay billions when the NHS were expecting £350 million a week. On Monday, the shambles of the Irish border yesterday, the chaos of David Davis, and next week the deadline of the European Council. The cabinet haven't even discussed what kind of trade deal it wants with Europe. If the Conservatives can't trust themselves to decide, why should we let them, surely the British people, decide what is best? That's why now is the time. The First Minister can help to build the momentum for a new vote across the UK. She can persuade others. Labour's the deep can is on side. Businesses are outraged. The public mood, I think, is changing. Will she help us to build that campaign? It's interesting, isn't it, how selective Willie Rennie is in his support for second referendums? In all seriousness, that is a decision for later. I've said publicly before, and I will say again that it may well be that the case for giving people across the UK another opportunity to have their say on the issue of Brexit becomes difficult to resist, but I think that there's a more immediate necessity. That necessity is to stop this reckless UK Government driving the entire UK over this cliff edge. I think that the majority exists in the House of Commons if Labour gets its act together, and I think that the majority exists across the whole of the UK to stop that happening. The sensible compromise option and the best option or at least the least damaging option for our economy is to stay within the single market and the customs union, so everybody who is of that view should come together and now make that happen. I think that the real lesson, though, for those of us in Scotland around this whole debacle is this lesson. As long as we continue to allow our future to be in the hands of Tory Governments at Westminster rather than having our future in our own hands, we will also always be at the mercy of reckless decisions taken by Tory Governments at Westminster. The sooner we are in control of our own future here in Scotland, the better, and this week has proved it. Yesterday, President Donald Trump made a frankly dangerous decision to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It is now clear that, under his leadership, the US cannot be seen as an honest broker for peace, and in actual fact that he is a threat to a just settlement to a viable independent Palestinian state and to a wider Middle East peace. Will the First Minister add the voice of the Scottish Government and urge the UK Government to add its voice to the growing consensus in the international community of the Pope, the UN Secretary General, the EU and our NATO allies, including Germany, France and Turkey, in condemnation of President Trump's decision? Will she resolve to work right across the UK for us to urge the international community and our world of chaos to make the case for Middle East peace? Yes, I will. I have already condemned Donald Trump's decision on behalf of the Scottish Government, and I am glad to see that, for once, the UK Government has also already condemned that decision. The decision that Donald Trump took on Jerusalem, let's remember that Jerusalem includes occupied Palestinian territory. That decision would reckless, wrong and a real threat to peace in the Middle East, and that is why the decision has rightly been condemned across the international community. The status of Jerusalem should be determined in a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. Ultimately, Jerusalem should be the shared capital of the Israeli and Palestinian states, and that is an important principle. Yesterday's decision, as I said, was reckless and wrong, but it does threaten peace in the Middle East. It is incumbent on all of us to condemn that decision, to work even harder to secure peace in the Middle East, and even at this late stage to call on Donald Trump to think again. Ivan McKee reports this morning that fewer patients in Scotland are waiting more than four hours in A&E than they did five years ago. In Tory run England, the number waiting has doubled. What investment is our Government making in our health service to ensure that it continues to improve? That gives me the opportunity to do what I hope all of us across this chamber will want to do, which is to thank everybody who works in our NHS. The figures that Ivan McKee has recited in this chamber are to the credit of those who work so hard in our emergency departments and others across our NHS. Those figures show that long waits in accident emergency departments in Scotland have reduced over the past few years by 9 per cent. In England, they have gone up by 155 per cent. That is a tribute to the hard work of those in accident emergency departments. This Government will continue to support them through record investment in our national health service. We have increased the budget of our health service during our time in office by around £3 billion, and next week's budget will underline continued investment in our national health service. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is tackling knife crime. There has been a sustained long-term reduction in violent crime in Scotland over the past decade. That includes a 59 per cent fall in the number of people admitted to hospital due to assault with a sharp object. That is the equivalent of almost 800 fewer admissions in a year. Alongside enforcement of legislation, we have invested more than £14 million in violence prevention since 2006-07, including almost £9 million for Scotland's national violence reduction unit and funding of more than £3.4 million for the No Knives Better Lives programme. Much of our effort has been focused on young people in schools, and local authorities are supporting us in the implementation of wider strategies to prevent knife crime. I thank the First Minister for that answer. A decade ago, knife crime in Scotland had doubled underlabour in the Lib Dems. However, since 2007, under this Government, the number of people carrying knives is plummeted by 69 per cent from 10,110 to 3,111, while in North Ayrshire, the fall is happening 77 per cent. Between 2006 and 2011, 40 young people died in homicides involving a knife, falling to eight in the following five years, with thankfully none so far this year. In England Wales, 2017 looks set to become the worst year for knife deaths in a decade, according to The Guardians Beyond the Blade report, with 35 deaths so far. Does the First Minister agree that with 1,000 more police on our streets compared to a fall of 20,000 down south, Scotland's communities are safer than for 43 years? And commend Police Scotland, Medic Against Violence, the Violence Reduction Unit and No Knives Better Lives Campaign for the enormous contribution that they have made to this historic success, and will she encourage authorities elsewhere in the UK to follow Scotland's approach? I certainly agree that those figures are extremely encouraging. There is still a way to go before we can finally put a stop to the culture of violence, but the decline in knife crime in Scotland over the last decade has been dramatic. I am sure that, across the chamber, members will join me in paying tribute to the work of Scotland's National Violence Reduction Unit and also to front-line police schools and NHS workers who are driving that positive trend and who are challenging the behaviours that have held us back in the past. That success is due to a range of policy interventions, and it is fair to say that other Administrations across the UK perhaps could learn something from our experience. Liam Kerr In October, we revealed that almost half of councils do not collect data on the number of knives found in schools. In response, the First Minister promised to take action to make sure that they do. What progress has the Government made? We are making sure that there is progress on this. I will ask the justice secretary to write to the member to update him precisely on what is being done. However, making sure that we have the data around issues such as this is part of the work that we require to do to continue to see progress in reducing knife crime and knife incidents. However, it can safely be concluded from the figures that we have just been talking about here that the policy interventions that are being undertaken in Scotland are working, so we must continue to make sure that we pursue them vigorously. Question 6, Jamie Greene. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to improve the availability of organs viable for donation and transplant. We are continuing to work with NHS staff to increase numbers of donors and transplants available in Scotland. We will also be introducing legislation in this parliamentary year to bring forward a soft opt-out system of organ and tissueed donation. Over time, as part of our wider package of measures to promote a culture change in favour of donation, that should help to increase the number of deceased organ donors further. I thank the First Minister for that response. It is an issue for me, like many, which holds great personal resonance. I was blessed with the gift of a grandmother, a grandmother thanks to a kidney donor in the 1980s, and also family members who passed it at an early age, but through donation gave the gift of life and health to others. However, a report this week released by the Welsh Government found that, despite the implementation of an opt-out system for organ donation, the number of donors has not increased in the two years since it came into force. Can I ask what steps the First Minister will take to ensure that any such scheme in Scotland takes into account any potential issues around availability, eligibility and family overrides, although addressing any other concerns that the public might have with plans for opt-out in Scotland? I think that those are important questions—actually, very legitimate questions. The early indications from the Welsh system are mixed. There are very complex factors involved in donation. Donor numbers fluctuate, and the evaluation report in Wales suggests that a longer period of time is needed to draw firmer conclusions about the impact of the change in the law. We will continue to learn from the experience in Wales and, indeed, from other countries that have already adopted an opt-out system in order to deliver a workable safe system here in Scotland. It is important that we take the time to get it right. There are two quick points that I would make. First, we have seen an increase in donations in recent years between 2007-08 and 2016-17. Deceased donor numbers in Scotland increased by 146 per cent, and that is something that all of us should welcome. I came at this issue from having a long-standing, instinctive position in favour of moving to a soft-out opt-out system. In my various discussions with transplants surgeons and others, they persuaded me that we should not rush to make that change, that it was more important to do what they described to me at the time as the hard miles of this pouring place, the infrastructure that would support an increase. That is what we have spent a lot of time doing. That is what is behind the increase that I have just cited here. However, having done that, I think that it is now time to consider that move and that is what the legislation will allow Parliament openly and responsibly to do. In doing that, of course, we should pay attention to what is happening in Wales and, indeed, to other countries as well. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the EIS's opposition to plans to disband the independent general teaching council for Scotland. We are currently consulting on the establishment of the Education Workforce Council for Scotland, which would take on the functions of the general teaching council for Scotland. The workforce council would create a national system that ensures the full range of practitioners, not just teachers, have the skills and expertise that are required to do their job effectively. The consultation makes clear that we intend for this body to operate independently from Scottish ministers. A strategic working group has been established with representation from the general teaching council for Scotland to consider the full implications of establishing the Education Workforce Council, and we will consider all responses to the consultation when it closes on 30 January 2018. Does that mean that the body that is being proposed would be independent of the Scottish Government and all its educational agencies? Why has the Government not carried out any legal, financial or risk assessment of those proposals, and will yet another discussion over educational structures help narrowing the attainment gap, gap the professional learning and development of Scotland's teaching profession from Stranraer to Shetland? Let me just make a number of points. First, we are consulting on this at the moment. As I said earlier on, the consultation does not close until the end of January next year, and we will look at the consultation responses, reach a final decision and then do whatever work is required after we have taken that final decision. I said in my original answer and I would repeat here that the intention would be for this new body to operate completely independently from Scottish ministers. I appreciate that there will be a range of different views on this, and I think that it is important that we debate them openly and frankly. However, let us be mindful of what underlies this. The education workforce has changed significantly in recent years. There are now a number of professionals working within education that are currently not required to register with the GTC. That includes classroom assistants, additional support reed auxiliaries, teaching and support staff in the higher education sector, school library staff, for example. That is about making sure that for everybody who works in our schools with children, we have the appropriate arrangements in place. Let us take it forward in that way and, of course, we will reflect on all the points that are made in the consultation and, of course, from members in this Parliament. Thank you very much. That concludes First Minister's questions. We will move on to members' business in the name of Alexander Stewart on brain tumour awareness in Scotland. We will take a few moments for members to change seats.