 yn ddiddordeb bod sefydluriau sydd gyrchbyn teud hynny yn gestion gyda gynnig o'r rhaid tryddymym yn tanthog. Gwaith. Kezia Dugdale. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is my first opportunity in this chamber to pay tribute to Tom McCabe, who made such a contribution to this Parliament and to Scotland. I know I speak for the whole chamber when I say that he will be sorely missed by members from all parties. Can I ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day? Cake is a member to be elected to this Parliament in 1999, and he was a distinguished member of this Parliament and a distinguished minister. However, above all else, I think that Tom McCabe was a fantastic human being. I know that he will be missed across the chamber, not least by his colleagues in the Labour Party, but particularly by his family, and our thoughts and condolences are with him at this time. He's the only member to be elected on behalf of the Parliament a gwneud hynny o'w mynd i disfyniadau i ymwneud o gyd... Rwy'n credu, gallwn dweud i gwaelwch o讵r y newid o'r proveoedd y Llyfrgelliaid forgot. Ieid y cychwyn cynyddiant, Edinburgh Evening News, diodell y SNP'siosатиol yng Nghymru Cymru, Niall Hay, fel y clywbeth yw y tro cychwyn cyffredigfaith yng nghyrch am Llyfrgelliaid, fe wneud i gyd yr unrhyw i cynnwys mikr, ac yn fwy oedd Mr Hay bod pawn ni yn gwybod. Will the First Minister sack Neil Haye as the SNP's candidate? First Minister? Firstly, Kezia Dugdale is right. I condemn the language used and I condemn the comments made as I always do when anybody steps out of line on Twitter, on Facebook or in any medium. Neil Haye has rightly apologised. Given that we face an election two weeks today, it's now up to the voters to decide, but I wonder if Kezia Dugdale would agree with me that it is important that all of us condemn intemporate statements on Twitter, regardless of where they come from. On 4 April, a senior Labour activist described the SNP as fascist scum. Will Kezia Dugdale, just for completeness, tell us what action Labour took against that activist? Kezia Dugdale, if the First Minister had told me who that was, I'd be delighted to have responded to that. No, no, hang on a second. She hasn't spelled out exactly who it is. I take it very seriously and I will talk to her after today's First Minister's questions because it would be hypocritical of me not to react to what she's saying and I will do that with due consideration. I hope she'll take that into account. Can I say, Presiding Officer, that the condemnation from the First Minister is welcome but it does not go far enough. This is a man who is categorically challenging the right of pensioners to vote. I'm afraid he is. When you look at the detail of his tweets, I would encourage the SNP backbenchers just to take a minute and look at what he said. He is challenging the right of pensioners to vote in the general election. In recent weeks, the First Minister has had to apologise to victims of online abuse from her supporters. She's had to apologise to James Cook of the BBC to ffaisel Islam of Sky News and to a young TV debate audience member who happened to say that she liked what the Labour Party had to say. Rather than simply empathising with the victims, she needs to show some leadership and take on the perpetrators. That starts with the sacking of Neil Haye. It's clear that the First Minister has a problem with words. Her candidate in Edinburgh calls more than half the population in Scotland's traitors. The last time we did First Minister's questions, Nicola Sturgeon could not even bring herself to utter the words, full fiscal autonomy. I know that the First Minister does not agree with the assessment of the IFS and, earlier this week, described it as academic, so can she confirm when the SNP will publish their own costings of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland? The First Minister bear with me while I try to work my way through this dire tribe of utter nonsense from the Labour Party. I find myself wondering, two weeks out from polling day, if we're ever going to get to a stage in this campaign where Labour tries to give the Scottish public a single positive reason for voting Labour. Is it ever going? Is it ever going to move on from SNP bad? Perhaps Labour should reflect on the fact that it's that kind of conduct and behaviour that is leaving them languishing in the opinion polls right now. As Kezia Dugdale quite well outlined in the first part of her rather complex question there, I lead by example when it comes to calling out behaviour that I consider to be unacceptable. I will always do that, regardless of who that unacceptable behaviour comes from. In the case of Neil Hay, I am doing it today, he is apologised and the voters get the chance to cast their verdict two weeks today. In direct response to Kezia Dugdale, the senior Labour activist that I was referring to is Ian Smart. He appears regularly on the television for Labour, putting across the Labour case. He described us as the heirs of Arthur Donaldson, fascist scum then, fascist scum forever. That was in the fourth of April, it's not the first time he's used remarks like that. Again, I would invite Kezia Dugdale before she comes to me lecturing me on what she expects me to do about SNP members. Can I just politely suggest to her that she puts her own house in order first? In her point about full fiscal autonomy—there you go, I've said it—Scotland's fiscal position when we become fiscally autonomous will depend on a number of things. It will depend on our economic performance between now and then. It will depend on the detail of a fiscal framework that will be agreed to determine Scotland's contributions to continued reserved responsibilities. It will depend on the treatment of taxis that under a devolved settlement can't be devolved, such as that in excise duties. However, as I go round this country right now talking to voters, that's not what they're asking me about. They're asking what's going to happen now, this year and next year and the year after. I'm able to tell them that I want real-term spending increases in every year of the next Parliament. What we have Labour boasting about is that they're going to have cuts. Perhaps Kezia Dugdale will take the opportunity to tell us today how many cuts, how many billions and where is the act going to fall under Labour? Kezia Dugdale? Mr Dugdale? The difference is that Neil Haye passed the SNP's vetting procedure. Neil Haye is on the ballot paper. I take the remarks that the First Minister has said about the conduct and behaviour of SNP activists. On the issue of full fiscal autonomy, it's quite clear that the First Minister didn't like the question, but she owes the people of Scotland an honest answer. We know that the SNP's plans to cut Scotland off from UK-wide taxes would mean an end to the UK state pension for Scotland. Here's the thing. On page 5 of the SNP's manifesto, they claim to back UK-wide taxes, such as the mansion tax, yet on page 11 of the same manifesto they support ending UK-wide taxes. It beggars belief, so we know that the SNP's plans for full fiscal autonomy would mean massive asymmetry, but we know that the plan for UK-wide spending would mean the same. This morning, the impartial experts at the IFS said that the SNP will impose austerity for longer than any other party, and that, under the SNP, the block grant for Scotland will be cut. Can the First Minister tell us why she wants to keep austerity going? It's actually quite difficult, and I mean this genuinely. It's quite difficult to take Labour or Kezia Dugdale seriously. When they come to this chamber and the utter phrases like the SNP want to end the state pension, that's not just insulting the SNP. That is insulting the intelligence of every person across this country. If anybody wants a reason just crystallised in a nutshell of why Scottish Labour is dying before our very eyes, then there is that reason. I will continue to campaign in this election on a clear, consistent position. I don't want to see cuts over the next Parliament. I want to see—and it's quoted in the summary of the IFS report published this morning—increases in real terms in spending in each and every year. That's my position. Since this Parliament last met, we've had Labour trying to pretend they didn't want cuts in Scotland to be slapped down by their bosses from Westminster saying, no, there will be cuts. Does Kezia Dugdale want to take this opportunity to come clean? Tell us how much the cuts will amount to under Labour and where is the act going to fall? Those are the questions that we're still waiting on an answer to. The First Minister very swiftly passed over this morning's news from the IFS, because it's very serious news indeed for the SNP. It says that the SNP is offering to spend less than Labour and that it wants austerity to last longer than any other party. That is what it says. It needs to read the detail of the report. There's a truth, First Minister. You can dismiss some of the experts some of the time. You can't dismiss all of the experts all of the time. The IFS says that the SNP's rhetoric doesn't match the reality of their plans for continued austerity. The truth is that whatever the First Minister is calling it, full fiscal autonomy is a bad deal for Scotland. It isn't autonomous, it isn't responsible, and, after this morning, we know that it simply isn't credible. The SNP can change the name of their policy, but they can't change the facts. Does the First Minister still think that billions of pounds of cuts of Scotland to schools, Scotland to Scotland to schools and hospitals really is just academic? A total and utter ramble that it was. First, I have said repeatedly, and I'll say it again today. I do want to take longer to eliminate the deficit than other parties, because I want to see us have the ability to invest more in our economy, in our public services and in lifting people out of poverty. That is a clear difference between my party and the other parties represented in this chamber. On the IFS report that was published this morning, it's full of assumptions and speculations. Let me give you three points in which it gets the SNP plans wrong. Firstly, it doesn't credit for any increases in revenue from the tax rises that we are proposing. Secondly, it gives no credit for the revenue that we would increase from cracking down in tax avoidance. Ironically, the report credits the SNP for being the only party not to simply make up figures on tax avoidance, but then, unfortunately, credits the other parties with the made-up figures. However, the fundamental mis-assumption at the heart of the IFS report this morning is this one. It assumes that the SNP would cut borrowing by 2019-20 to 1.4 per cent of GDP. That is not our plan. Our plan is for borrowing in that year to be 1.6 per cent of GDP. Those are what I would describe as mis-assumptions in the IFS report. However, at the heart of the IFS report, in fact, in its summary on one of the very first pages, is this statement. The SNP would increase total spending in real terms in each year. That is our position. We know from Labour, we know it from Ed Miliband, we know it from Ed Balls, we now even know it from Jim Murphy. Labour would impose additional cuts, so that's the choice that people in Scotland have to make. They can have spending increases with the SNP or cuts with Labour, and the polls are beginning to suggest which one they prefer. Presiding Officer, I would like to add the condolences of myself and my party to the McCabe family. I knew Tom McCabe from the other side of the fence and interviewed him as a journalist. He always struck me as a very strong Labour man but fair in his dealings with everyone, and he was the very best of parliamentarians, and he will be missed. I would also like to ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. On Tuesday, the Scottish Government finally U-turned on its misguided plan to scrap corroboration. It brought to a close one of the most shameful episodes in this Parliament's history. When legitimate concerns were raised last year, the former Justice Secretary dismissed them as being part of a unionist conspiracy and accused opponents of, in his own words, selling out the victims of crime. Today, Lord McCluskey, who is the former Solicitor General, writes that concerns within the SNP's own ranks were silenced for fear that it would upset the independence referendum campaign. Lord McCluskey adds, and I quote, "...the way in which the SNP Government handled this whole matter rings alarm bells for anyone concerned with the democracy in Scotland." I agree. Does the First Minister... First Minister... No, I don't. I would say to Ruth Davidson, I'm not sure if she's ever tried to silence Christine Graham, but I can tell you. In my experience it's simply not possible, but Ruth Davidson raises an issue that I think is very important. I think that it deserves to be treated seriously and substantively. The SNP Government put forward the proposal to abolish the general requirement for corroboration for a very, very good reason, because we and I suspect that this objective is shared across this chamber. We want to see more people who commit crimes that are committed in private, crimes such as sexual assault and rape, brought to trial and then, if guilty, brought to justice. That's the motivation here and it's a good sound motivation that I think everybody would agree with. The former justice secretary then listened to the concerns that were being raised, which was why he asked Lord Bonomy to carry out the work that Lord Bonomy has now carried out. Lord Bonomy produced his report on Tuesday. I want to take the opportunity to thank Lord Bonomy and his team for the work that they have done, but they have recommended a range of changes to the justice system that they think should go ahead if corroboration is to be abolished. The current justice secretary has rightly and properly decided that we need to take a pause and consider those reforms, such as the substantive nature of them and such as the way they would change the justice system in the round and in a holistic way. I take the view that the SNP Government has handled that appropriately and correctly, but we can evidence, because of the position that we are now in, that concerns that have been raised have not been swept aside. On the contrary, they have been listened to and acted upon. Now this Government and indeed this Parliament has the time to look at those issues in the round. I think that that's a good outcome and I think that people across the chamber should welcome it. Those raising concerns had sound motivations too and they were publicly tradduced in this chamber by an SNP Minister. The First Minister's problem is that this isn't an isolated case. There is a pattern here of a majority SNP Government steamrolling through its plans without any heed for rational or reasoned argument. It's not just on corroboration, it's not just on offensive behaviour at football. Worst of all, it is named person legislation imposing upon every single child and young person a state-appointed guardian, stripping resource from those who need it most and interfering in family life for everyone. This First Minister has already delivered a U-turn on her predecessor's plans on corporation tax. She's U-turned on a new woman's super-prison. She's now done the right thing and U-turned on corroboration. Families are asking her on named person, will she do the right thing and U-turn on this too? I think that Ruth Davidson has just demonstrated there why some people out there in the general public become so cynical about politics and politicians. When a Government presses on with a plan, it's described as steam rolling. When we take the chance to listen and reflect and admit that we might not have got everything right, it's described as a U-turn. Actually, what we've done is the responsible and sensible thing. Ruth Davidson's characterisation of the SNP Government's approach to the issue of corroboration is simply not borne out by the facts. If we had been determined to push ahead, regardless of the concerns that had been raised, the abolition of corroboration would have been done by now. It would already have been law. The fact that it's not proves the fact that we have taken the time, firstly under Kenny MacAskill, to set up the Bonimi review and, now under Michael Matheson, to act responsibly on that Bonimi review. On the named person, Ruth Davidson cannot go on describing things that are democratically passed by a majority of this Parliament just because she doesn't agree with them. It's somehow against the democratic wishes of the country. The named person legislation is about making sure that we are doing everything in our power to protect vulnerable children. I stand by that legislation, I will continue to stand by it and I will continue to make sure that I lead a Government that does everything in its power to make sure that the most vulnerable children in our society have the protection that they deserve. The First Minister will be aware that around 90 jobs are threatened at the DBE, Upper El, Pletex factory in Port Glasgow. The company has been based there for many decades and, last week, the workforce was told about its potential future. What action can the Scottish Government take to try to save the jobs and assist the workforce in Port Glasgow? Can the First Minister assure me that representatives of the Scottish Government, his agencies and the PACE team will be in hand to assist those affected? I thank the Stuart McMillan for his question. I am very concerned to learn of potential redundancies at the DBE Upper El factory in Port Glasgow. I know that this will be an incredibly anxious time for the company's employees and for their families, and our thoughts are with them at this difficult time. I give the assurance to the chamber that Scottish Enterprise is already engaging with the company and exploring all possible avenues for support. PACE support has been offered to the company for any employers who might be affected by redundancy, and that support will continue to be available. I assure Stuart McMillan that the Government and its agencies will do everything that we can to provide the support that is needed both to the company and to any employee who might be affected by a redundancy situation. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister for what reason unemployment has increased in Scotland. Unemployment is down by 14,000 over the past year, and it is now 70,000 below its recession peak in 2010. It is up over the last quarter, in part because more people are moving into the labour market, who previously were not looking for work. Labour market participation, those who are in work or actively seeking work, has now reached an all-time high at just under £3 million. That increase comes as last week's GDP figures confirm that the Scottish economy continues to grow. As demand grows and more people understand that there are job opportunities to be had, they then enter the labour market. I am not sure that the answer does fully respond to the question. The UK as a whole saw a significant decrease in both economic inactivity and unemployment, while Scotland saw a decrease in economic inactivity but an increase in unemployment. What is the First Minister's explanation for the difference? First, my answer directly addressed the question. The question was for what reason has unemployment increased in Scotland, and I gave the direct answer to that. Our employment rate of course is higher than the UK's employment rate. Our inactivity rate is lower, so we are performing well when it comes to employment, but what the recent increase in unemployment says is that there are more people coming into the labour market. That means that we have got to continue to work with our partners and with our agencies to make sure that we are helping those people into work. We will continue to do that, but the overall trends in the Scottish economy are positive, and we should not try to suggest otherwise. As more people see that there are opportunities in the economy, more people will come into the labour market looking for work, and we will continue our efforts to support them as best as possible. Of course, as well as the work that the finance secretary does there, we now have the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work absolutely demonstrating the determination of this Government to support people into employment, but also, once they are in employment, making sure that they get paid decent wages and have fair work, we will continue to focus very hard indeed on that. I wonder if the First Minister would agree that the austerity agenda proposed by Mr Brown's party and signed up to you by the Labour Party would have a negative impact on the economy and would hinder efforts to try to get more people into work in Scotland. The First Minister Well, in a sense, we do not have to look to the future to know that. We know that from the experience of the past five years, economic experts—economy, there was one from Oxford University quoted yesterday saying that austerity over the past five years has held back economic growth. That is a fact borne out by the views of economic experts right across the country. So my argument is very simple. If we have fiscally responsible spending increases instead of cuts over the life of the next Parliament, we can invest—not just in protecting our public services and in lifting people out of poverty—we can invest in the kind of things that get our economy growing faster, and that has got to be good for everybody across the country. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to investigate current and historic child sexual exploitation. Child sexual exploitation is an abhorrent crime and has a devastating impact on its victims and their families. All children and young people have the right to be cared for and protected from harm and to grow up in a safe environment. We published the national action plan to tackle child sexual exploitation in November last year. It sets out a range of actions for the Government and its partners, including the establishment of Police Scotland's National Child Abuse Investigation Unit, which was launched this week. The unit is going to provide specialist support to complex and serious child abuse investigations, including cases of child sexual exploitation. That diverse range of work, which we are undertaking in collaboration with partners across the country, will help to ensure that incidences of child sexual exploitation are identified and acted on and that perpetrators are brought to justice. Can I thank the First Minister for that answer? The First Minister will know that for victims to be believed and to have trust in the system is paramount. Can the First Minister reassure the victim groups and the individuals that I have worked with that the police and the support services stand ready to ensure that the victims receive the correct support to secure the justice that they so badly desire? I can give that assurance. The safety and protection of children is essential, enabling them to reach their potential. We are absolutely committed to doing whatever we need to do to ensure that that happens for all of our children. The Government continues to work in partnership with Police Scotland and with the Crown Prosecution Service to do all that we can to give those who have been exploited, abused or harmed trust in the system so that they can come forward to tell what has happened to them, knowing that they are going to be listened to, and with the confidence that, where there has been criminal activity, it will then be investigated and prosecuted appropriately. That is why we have supported the establishment of the National Child Abuse Investigation Unit. I glance at some of the appalling stories that appear in our newspapers of sex offences committed against children that demonstrate the need for that specialist unit, but it also shows that our approach in supporting a national sex crimes unit in the Crown Office is also working, because that makes a difference in successfully prosecuting those heinous crimes and working to keep our children safer. We will continue to do everything that we can to ensure the safety of our children, which must be one of the most important responsibilities, not just of any Government but of any society. Iain Gray Presiding Officer, yesterday evening, the Cabinet Secretary for Education wrote to members to tell us that the announcement of the chair panel and the remit of the public inquiry into historic child abuse will be delayed until next month. We all want to get this right, but the First Minister must understand that this delay will damage the fragile trust survivors have in the process. Can she give us a guaranteed date for the announcement to help allay the concerns of those survivors? The First Minister Can I say this to Iain Gray? I hope that he takes it as a genuine request to him for his co-operation here, because I think that if we all work together across the political boundaries in this chamber, we can make sure that our efforts to get this right do not damage the trust of those who have the biggest interest in this inquiry. Angela Constance, as Iain Gray said, wrote to members last night to say that there will be a slight delay in the announcement of the terms and the chair of the inquiry. The only reason for that is that we are determined to get this right, because it is so important to the victims of abuse that we do get it right, and they get the opportunity to have their experiences recounted and recorded and to have the sense that they have the justice that they are looking for. It is a plea to everybody across the chamber to hold this Government to account by all means, but let us not divide on this issue. Let us make sure that we work together to ensure that this is a process that builds trust and confidence and does not help to undermine it. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to recent reports that police officers are manipulating the recording of crime statistics by using their discretionary powers to prevent reported incidents being recorded as crimes. Recorded crime in Scotland is subject to independent, rigorous and transparent inspection and regulation involving scrutiny by the national crime registrar, the Scottish Police Authority and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland. In November 2014, Her Majesty's Inspectorate published its largest independent audit to date of police incident and crime recording decisions, and that audit found that Police Scotland's own auditing of crime recording is good. Aileen Murray? Her response, but unfortunately the Scottish people do not seem to have confidence in police Scotland's crime statistics. A recent survey by the Scottish Police Authority reports that three quarters do not believe the Scottish Government's assertion that crime in Scotland is falling. In light of the reports in the press at the weekend, will the First Minister ask God at Scotland to undertake an investigation into the accuracy of recorded crime statistics as a matter of urgency, so that victims of crime can be confident that the crimes they report are not being downgraded to meet crime statistics targets? Is this another mcaskall mess that his successor will be forced to try to rectify? I took time in my original answer to set out the inspection and regulation that recorded crime is already subject to in Scotland. I thought that that would have been an assuring answer for the member, but clearly not. Anyway, let me have another go. People contact the police for a variety of reasons, which generally result in an incident being created on the command and control incident management system. Many incidents, such as assisting the public or crime prevention activity, are recorded, but they do not result in a crime report being raised. That long-standing practice is routine, it is legitimate and completely in line with other police forces. Interestingly, the audit that I referred to earlier on, part of that audit, looked at non-crime-related incidents, those incidents that are reported to the police but never result in a crime report. The audit found that the vast majority, 87 per cent to be precise, of the more than 1,200 such incidents that they sampled had been classified correctly, and only a minority, 6 per cent of the incidents that had not been classified correctly related to a crime clearly being committed, but no crime report being traced. I would have thought that the views of Her Majesty's inspectorate, where in that audit they described the recording of crime and incident decisions as good. I would have thought that that should have been sufficient for the member, but we will continue to make sure that those things are robustly scrutinised because the general public—this is where I agree—have a right to know that and have confidence in the system. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the figures from the Trussell Trust, suggesting that a number of people in the UK relying on food banks is expected to pass £1 million. The number of people who experience food poverty is increasing, and that is utterly unacceptable in a country as prosperous as ours is. The Trussell Trust figures continue to show that the most common reasons for people using food banks are benefit changes, delays and low income. The UK Government must take the responsibility for the impact of its welfare reform or welfare cuts, as I prefer to call it, programme. We are investing almost £300 million, including £1 million over the next two years, to combat food poverty to help those most affected by those changes. However, if we want to see a reduction in those being forced to rely on food banks, then we need a party that will seek to reverse the undoing of our social security system, not continue to rip it apart, and that is what my party wants to do. Does the First Minister agree that, with mounting evidence from the third sector and indeed from front-line professionals, that the austerity policies of the UK coalition Government have had a devastating and appalling effect on the most vulnerable in our society, and that the way to achieve a progressive alternative is to vote SNP on the 7th of May? The austerity agenda order. The Labour benches seem to be getting quite excited there at the prospect of voting SNP or May the 7th. Maybe there's more doing it. Maybe there's more going to do it than even we expected. The austerity agenda that the coalition parties have presided over and want to continue and the cuts that Labour clearly want to continue will drive more and more people to food banks, and we know that if the Tories get the worst of welfare cuts, they are still to come. I do want to see an alternative to that. I do not believe that it is right that we continue to see some of the most vulnerable people in our society driven into poverty. That's why I want a reversal to the cuts, modest spending increases, and why this Government will continue also to prioritise getting more and more people on to the living wage. We'll keep doing that, and we'll keep standing up against the cuts that would make this matter worse. Thank you for that answer, First Minister's questions. We are now moved to members' business. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.