 Ruth Davidson. Ruth Davidson. Thank you to ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day. First Minister. Engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Ruth Davidson. Thank you. Last week, I asked the First Minister three times whether her Government had contacted the European Commission to seek an extension to the deadline on farm payments. Three times she refused to answer. We now know that her Government had contacted the Commission to do so. We also know that the First Minister was aware of that. Why did she try to hide it when she came before Parliament last Thursday? First Minister. Of course, I said in the chamber last Thursday that we continued to discuss contingencies with the European Commission. That is what a request for an extension is, a contingency that we are seeking to put in place. However, I do not want anyone, particularly those who are working in delivering this system, to think that we are in any way relying on getting an extension so that we take our foot off the pedal in any way in delivering the payments. That is why, last week and again this week, what I will stress is what we are doing to deliver the pillar 1 payments by the deadline, which is midnight tomorrow. Let me give the chamber an update on that work. Rapid progress has been made on a daily basis. To put that into context, two weeks ago, on 16 June, 58 per cent of payments by value had been made. By last Friday, that had risen to 76 per cent. This morning, it was 82 per cent. That means that £347 million of the pillar 1 payments have already been made. The last point that I would make, Presiding Officer, is this, because this is what matters to farmers and to crofters across the country. All farmers eligible were offered alone. The vast majority of farmers took up the offer of a loan payment so that they received 80 per cent of the amount that they were due last November, pending payment of their full payment. That is not a case of farmers not getting the money that they are due. The Government will continue to do just as I said we would do last week, which is to continue to make sure that those payments are made and that farmers get the support that they deserve. Ruth Davidson. I think that we all just heard what the chamber made of that answer. There is a reason why I am raising this again today. It is because there is a principle at stake about the conduct of ministers in this Parliament and about the transparency of this Government. I asked the First Minister a simple question in this chamber last week, and she refused to tell this Parliament what she knew to be the truth. Let me read out what the ministerial code of conduct is to the First Minister. It says, It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Accurate and truthful. Does she think that her conduct and the conduct of her ministers on this matter in the last two weeks has met that standard? Yes, I do. Last week, I said that we were discussing with the European Commission contingencies around this issue. That is exactly what we were doing. It is what we continue to do. Seeking an extension in case we require that extension is exactly that contingency. What I stressed last week is exactly what I will stress this week. With graces to respect to Ruth Davidson, this is what farmers the length and the breadth of the country are interested in. We are working flat out to deliver the payments. I noticed that Ruth Davidson did not comment on the substance of the issue, which is that we are seeing rapid daily progress in getting the payments made. Secondly, we have put in place—we put that in place in November last year—a system of loans for farmers so that those who are eligible for pillar 1 payments got 80 per cent of all the money that they were due. That is something that we did at the specific request of the National Farmers Union. We will continue to deal with the substance of the issue and make sure that farmers get the money that they deserve. We will get on with the job while we leave Ruth Davidson to continue playing politics. Ruth Davidson, I and my party have been pursuing this Government's failures on the substance of the issue for three years, and they are still not making the payments on time. However, here is what the First Minister apparently thinks is accurate and truthful conduct. On Tuesday of last week, Fergus Ewing told the SNP Cabinet in private that he would be applying to the European Commission for an extension to the deadline on farm payments. On Wednesday, he wrote in private to the European Commission to seek it. That afternoon, he was asked in Parliament to confirm whether that was the case and he failed to do so. Then, on Thursday, I stood here and repeatedly asked the First Minister to confirm it. She refused to answer the question. It took journalists to email the European Commission itself for the facts to come out. Last week, the First Minister had to apologise to farmers over messing up their payments again—that was the substance of the issue. However, now she owes the Parliament an apology for not being straight about it. Will she give it? I made clear in the Parliament last week that we were discussing contingencies with the European Commission. That is what we were doing last week. It is what we continue to do this week. That is what seeking an extension is. We hope that we do not require to use it, but it is a contingency in case we do. However, the most important message I wanted to send last week and the same message I want to send this week is this one. We are working flat out to get the payments into the bank accounts of farmers. We are seeing progress being made on a daily basis up to the deadline, which is midnight tomorrow. Of course, the point that Ruth Davidson never wants to recognise is the point that I have now made twice about loan payments to farmers. We took action to make sure that farmers notwithstanding the difficulties that we have encountered with the system are actually getting the vast bulk of the money that they are due. That is the kind of action that I think farmers expect to see and it is the kind of action that people across Scotland expect to see from this Government. Ruth Davidson mentioned apologies. I think that there is an apology due to the people of Scotland this week and it is an apology due from Ruth Davidson for allowing her MPs in Westminster to do two things. Firstly, allowing them to sit back while Scotland was denied the same extra funding that went to Northern Ireland. Secondly, for being the MPs in the House of Commons last night that voted to block a pay rise for public sector workers, perhaps that is the apology that people in Scotland want to see. Ruth Davidson. I think that recess cannot come soon enough for this First Minister. What we have just seen there is a First Minister whose first response to failure is to try and hide it. To stand up here and ask for applause when she tries to fix her own mess. What we have seen this week is a response, a message to voters who are saying, let's just ignore what they said when they took half a million votes off. Let's just ignore them when they took 21 seats and let's just double down on our plans. Let's just ask for applause when we try to fix up a mess that we keep repeatedly mating. It's not good enough. Later this afternoon, we are going to have a debate in this Parliament on the findings of the Commission on Parliamentary Reform. Made up of MSPs and experts, it took evidence on the workings of this place and how we need to improve it. Here is what it said. It said that inaccurate or poor answers damage the reputation of Parliament and the damages that people's trust in Parliament. If that is the case, in this episode, does the First Minister or Cabinet not recognise that they are guilty on both counts? First Minister. No, I don't. I have already set out exactly what the position on that is. If Ruth Davidson really wants to talk about lack of transparency in answers given to a Parliament, perhaps she will go and watch the video of Theresa May in the House of Commons yesterday. I refuse the simple question. Did the Secretary of State lobby for Scotland to get the same money that went to Northern Ireland? Yes or no? Perhaps Ruth Davidson will answer it today, because the fact of the matter is that no amount of camouflage from Ruth Davidson will hide this point. While she rides along in her one-trick pony going on and on and on about a referendum, her MPs are selling Scotland down the river. They sold Scotland down the river when it came to £3 billion of extra funding and they sold Scotland down the river when it came to public sector workers. When it comes to Ruth Davidson, it is all mouth and no trousers, camouflage or otherwise. She should be ashamed of herself. Question 2, Kezia Dugdale. To ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the week. First Minister. Engagement is the State for the Government's programme for Scotland. Kezia Dugdale. After a decade in charge of Scottish education, the SNP last night voted for unwanted school reforms without any promise of additional money. Policies straight from the 1980s that Margaret Thatcher would have been proud of. It should deeply worry this First Minister that she can only get those reforms through with Tory votes. Just before she voted with the Tories last night, the First Minister's education secretary told this Parliament that school funding was going up. Was he correct to do so? First Minister. The outturn figures for local government spending, if I am correct in saying this, will show that spending on education has gone up. Kezia Dugdale talks about the reforms of this Government coming without additional funding. She is just downright wrong about that and even worse, she knows that she is downright wrong about that. The attainment fund is putting £750 million extra across the Parliament into schools. In this very financial year, we see £120 million of extra funding going direct to headteachers to allow them to take action to improve attainment in our schools. Of course, all of this is happening while we see Labour councillors, such as those in North Lanarkshire, vote to get rid of classroom assistance in our schools. Kezia Dugdale. I am delighted that the First Minister has mentioned the outturn figures. I have got them in my hands here. I have looked at them and, crucially, Spice have looked at them too. Let me tell her the actual numbers. Her own Government's figures show that this year's spending on education is going down again in real terms. Under the SNP, spending on pupils is going down again in real terms. I will tell her just how real it is. The SNP has cut spending by hundreds of pounds on every single pupil, and it has cut spending on each secondary school pupil by over £1,000. It is a 7 per cent cut by this SNP Government since 2010. It is not Tory reforms that our schools need. It is cold, hard cash. Why cannot the First Minister see that the real problem in our education system is that our schools are skint? The problem for Kezia Dugdale is that I have got figures in front of me here as well. Data published on 27 June shows that councils are planning to spend £144 million more—that is 3 per cent—in cash, and 1.3 per cent in real terms on education this year than they planned to spend last year. Of course, that includes the planned spend on the pupil equity fund of £120 million that I spoke about. Those are the facts. The Government is taking the tough action to reform our education system to get more powers into the hands of headteachers and teachers, and, crucially, I note that Kezia Dugdale does not want to address the fact that her own council colleagues in parts of Scotland are taking decisions that run directly counter to that. Perhaps Labour should get its own house in order before it comes here to criticise the Scottish Government. Kezia Dugdale's problem for the First Minister is that her numbers are just wrong, and Spice will confirm that today. The independent Spice will confirm that today. The independent Spice will confirm that today. Until the First Minister commits more funding to our schools, using the powers of this Parliament, her promise of education being her top priority is utterly meaningless. Teacher numbers are down, support staff numbers are down, class sizes are going up. I have come to this chamber time and time again to tell the First Minister that her Government has taken £1 billion from our schools. I was wrong. New figures show us today that it is at least £230 million more than that. It is £1.23 billion taken out of schools on the SNP's watch. This week, teachers are going on their summer break. Isn't it the case that what they really need is a break from this Government? The problem for Kezia Dugdale is that the figures that I read out are not my figures, but they come from councils. They are the council-predicted figures, and I read them out as they are. However, there is a bigger problem for Kezia Dugdale in this exchange, which is there not. Everything that she said ignores one important fact. I will point to the council that I have already mentioned twice today, North Lanarkshire Council. North Lanarkshire Council, in case people listening to this do not know, is run by Labour, supported by the Tories, North Lanarkshire, runs schools. North Lanarkshire, in its recent budget, decided two things of relevance to this discussion. Firstly, it decided not to use the powers that it had been given to increase the council tax. It decided to freeze the council tax, and secondly, it decided to cut the number of classroom assistants—in other words, to sack the very support staff that Kezia Dugdale is talking about. This Government will continue to invest in education, reform education and deliver the changes that our education system needs. We will do that in spite of Labour councils across the country, not because of them. We have a couple of constituency questions. The first is from Pauline McNeill. Students at the city of Glasgow College are being charged tuition fees of £420 for a third of a term if a student drops out before the first of December of that academic year. It seems to be due to a student awards body rule that it will not fund that. It is passed on to students who are unaware of this obligation until they are pressed with a bill of which they are pursued vigorously by the college as if it were a debt. I appreciate that the First Minister will probably hear this for the first time, so I apologise for that. Given the apparent unfairness of that, would the First Minister be prepared to look into it to see if it is consistent with a no-fee's policy and if it is fair to students who find that they are being pressed as if they were a debt being pursued by a bank or a financial institution when all they have tried to do is go to college for one reason or another, and we do not know that the reasons have had to drop out and they also lose that year that they are studying. I am grateful to Pauline McNeill for raising the issue with me. I am not aware of the detail or the circumstances if she wants to furnish me with that. In fact, whether or not she wants to furnish me with that, I am happy to give a commitment that we will look into that matter and come back to her as soon as we have had the opportunity to do so. Our commitment to the ability of all young people in Scotland to access education without having to pay fees is, as I think everybody knows, an absolutely solid one. I do not want to see anything in Scotland run counter to that, so I am happy to look into it and come back to the member in due course. Christine Grahame Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am speaking on behalf of a Syrian family, mother, father and four siblings granted asylum earlier this year and now residing in my constituency. However, one son has not come to Scotland and is trapped in Lebanon having moved there to obtain work to provide for that family just before their move. In the process, asylum application lapsed and now not only trapped in Lebanon, he is trapped in reams of red tape and in a war zone where his life is at risk. The family are distraught and have already lost one son in the Syrian conflict. I have written earlier this week to the First Minister, but I ask her if she will do what she can to accelerate his reapplication through what is really a labyrinthine process. The First Minister I am grateful to Christine Grahame for writing to me earlier in the week with details of this case. I am certainly very sorry to hear about the plight of this family. I know from my own meetings with refugees from Syria of the great worry and anxiety that they face for relatives who remain in Syria and indeed in neighbouring countries. Many local authorities are supporting Syrian refugees in their areas to reunite with family members. I commend the support that they give in the process, which can be long and difficult because it involves both the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and Home Office assessment and all the many logistical arrangements that people have to make. I hope that the family will be reunited soon. I understand that the issue might be that the new registration of refugees in Lebanon by UNHCR has been suspended at the request of the Government of Lebanon. Nevertheless, I will be happy to write to the Home Secretary in support of this family's case and to consider what further action we may be able to take to help this family to be reunited as soon as possible. Murdo Fraser Thank you, Presiding Officer. This week, we saw the Royal Navy's largest ever warship, the Queen Elizabeth, leave the dock at Recythe to commence sea trials in the 4th and the North Sea. Will the First Minister join with me in paying tribute to the workforce at Recythe for the completion of this magnificent piece of Scottish engineering and wish them well as they go on to complete the sister ship of the Queen Elizabeth, the Prince of Wales? The First Minister Yes, I do. I commend all those at Recythe and elsewhere in Scotland who have contributed to the construction of the Queen Elizabeth. I thank them for their efforts and, of course, wish them well as they move on to their next assignment, so I have no difficulty for once in agreeing with Murdo Fraser. Question 3 Patrick Harvie Thank you to ask the First Minister when the cabinet will next meet. First Minister The cabinet will next meet over the summer. Since 2008, we have met 44 times across the length and breadth of Scotland in 26 different local authority areas, so we intend to get out and about again over the summer recess. Patrick Harvie After the opening exchanges, it is perhaps difficult to remember that, once upon a time, the last FMQs before summer were a moment when all party leaders struggled to find a little consensus and goodwill. May I offer you and your staff and members on all sides all the best for the summer? I am astonished that they do not even like that at a moment like this. Can I offer, though, the First Minister something constructive to reflect on over the summer months? The child poverty bill is one that should concern us all. The report published today by the Scottish Government indicates that the scale of child poverty in our society is likely to worsen over coming years as a result of tax and welfare changes that we in this Parliament no longer have to put up with, no longer have to tolerate. Last week and this week, my colleague Alison Johnson on the committee scrutinising the bill successfully moved amendments to strengthen that legislation. Amendments that did not gain the support of SNP members but did gain the support of all other parties on the committee. Can I ask the First Minister now that she has a couple of months before that bill reaches its final stage, if she will give a commitment that the Government will not seek to reverse those progressive changes that we made to the bill when it reaches stage 3 after the summer? First, I thank Patrick Harvie for his summer greetings and I wish everybody a happy and relaxing summer recess. I take no ministerial responsibility for the fact that summer appears to have disappeared completely today. Let's hope that it reappears. This is an issue on the child poverty bill and whether the commission that we are going to create will have a statutory underpinning or not that I take a very close interest in and have been discussing this matter at length with Angela Constance. Just to give a little bit of background to this, the concern that the Government has here is something that we will not only be thinking about over the summer but looking to discuss with others over the summer. The concern that we have about the amendment was not the statutory underpinning of the commission. I personally have no difficulty whatsoever with a commission being enshrined in statute. The concern that we had, and I think that it is a concern that has been echoed in some ways by some stakeholders here, is that if that is done in this particular child poverty bill, we restrict potentially the remit of the commission to looking only at child poverty, not at poverty more generally, which is the objective of the commission. That is the issue that we are grappling with just now. I very much hope that we can find a way forward that recognises the desire for statutory underpinning, but in doing that, it does not unduly restrict the remit of the commission, because I do not think that that is something that anybody would particularly want to see. The report that I refer to that the Government has published today shows very clearly how, over the coming years, the income, particularly of families with children, will be hit hardest. We should be bold in ensuring that the legislation that we pass is as strong as it possibly can be. I once again urge the First Minister, with her colleagues and the cabinet, to consider retaining and respecting the amendments that have been passed by the committee rather than seeking to reverse them. In particular, one of them calls on the Government not even to insist that it exercises, but merely to keep the door open to the option of a top-up-to-child benefit. The research is clear that a £5 top-up-to-child benefit would remove 30,000 children from relative poverty, a 14 per cent reduction. Can the First Minister confirm that the option is open, that the door is not being closed to that policy choice of a top-up-to-child benefit using the powers that the Parliament now has for an objective that we should all share, reducing and, hopefully, eliminating child poverty in Scotland? First, the bill is bold. It will, when passed, be passed not long after the summer recess. Leaf Scotland is the only part of the UK with binding targets to reduce on the way to eliminating child poverty. That is important. We have already made very clear that one of the uses that we will make of new social security powers is to introduce the new early years grant and increase the value of the payments under that, recognising that it is money in the pockets of families that are the most effective way of dealing with child poverty. I hope that we can conclude the bill and come to an outcome where we all agree that we are doing the best things possible. The door is not close to anything that has been suggested, but, in return, I would make a plea to Patrick Harvie and his colleagues and, indeed, to others across the chamber as well as to engage properly in the substance of that, because, as I outlined with the issue on the commission, some of the issues here are not just that the Government is opposing doing something for the sake of opposing doing something, but that there are real issues in terms of trying to get to an outcome that allows the bill to do the job that it is intended to do and to allow the poverty commission that we are going to be establishing to do the job that it is intended to do. I think that, with that proper engagement, based on a joint shared objective and commitment to not just reducing child poverty but eradicating and eliminating child poverty, we will hopefully be able to get to that outcome. Question 4, Willie Rennie. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. First Minister. Issues of importance to the people of Scotland. Willie Rennie. Last week, I asked the First Minister about the latest problems in the police. She told me that she had it under control. This week, we discovered problems with the chief executive of the Scottish Police Authority, a botched recruitment process and a flawed forensic service. Is there anything else that she hasn't got under control? First Minister. I think that, actually, seeking to trivialise those issues in the way that Willie Rennie is doing there, I do not think that it does so many great credit, because that is mischaracterising the answer that I gave her last week. What I actually did last week was go into detail about some of the work that had been done, including the report by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, looking at the improvements that are already being made in the workings of the SPA, the relationship between the SPA and its own executive in Police Scotland and the improvements that we were seeing. This week, he refers, among other things, to the report on forensic services. Much of that report, of course, talks about the high quality of forensic services, but it also sets out areas where the SPA requires to deliver further improvements. Michael Matheson is in the lead of this work. We are taking the action with the SPA, with Police Scotland, all of that overseen by the inspectorate to make sure that improvements that are required to be made are being made. I will give credit to Willie Rennie, because this is an issue, or police issues generally are ones that he has raised consistently in this chamber, and he is right to do so. However, I think that anybody who has the degree of interest that Willie Rennie has in those issues will, yes, still continue to point to the issues that require to be improved and resolved. However, in all fairness, we would probably also give some credit to the police for the significant progress that they have already made. Willie Rennie has to say that that is about as convincing as David Mundell on the Barnett formula. It is not just the police that her fingerprints are all over. The Fraser of Allander Institute is warning that we could be 140 hours from recession. The Royal College of Nursing says that there are more questions than answers on the NHS workforce plan. We have just heard that Scottish farmers are angry that the First Minister did not even bother to tell them that they are not to get their money on time. All of that in just seven days. The First Minister has faced questions on competence on the economy, on education, on policing and on farming. Is that the reason she abandoned her ministerial reshuffle this week? Did she work out that the problem might not be them, but it might be closer to home? Willie Rennie actually lives in a wee world of his own most of the time. Sometimes it sounds like quite a fun world, so maybe I will join it one day and take something of whatever Willie Rennie is on. Anyway, I will turn into the serious issues that he has raised. I will try to go through some of them quickly. Fraser of Allander, an important report this morning, showing challenges for the Scottish economy. What the Fraser of Allander report forecasts is that the Scottish economy will grow this year, next year and the year after. The big shadow hanging over the performance of the Scottish and the UK economy is, of course, the ongoing Brexit negotiations. On the issue of NHS workforce planning, the report on workforce planning that was published this week, focusing on NHS workforce, there will be further parts of that that focus on how we integrate that with social care and primary care. That looked at 1,600 more nursing places, adding to the 1,000 that we are already committed to over this Parliament, as well as other measures to encourage nurses who have perhaps left practice to return to practice. Serious, substantial and comprehensive work is looking at how we build on the record numbers of staff in our national health service and make sure that that is sustainable for the future. On the camp payments issue that I have already talked about at length, again, the fact is that, for the vast majority of farmers, notwithstanding the issues in the system, they have the money that they are 80 per cent of the money that they are entitled to. In all of those issues, whether it is in the last week or over the recess or after the recess, this is a Government that will get on with delivering for the people of Scotland, get on with doing the job that we are here to do—improving our public services, helping to grow our economy and lift people out of poverty. We will let the others continue with our bad jokes in Willie Rennie's case and the political point-scoring in the others. We will get on with the job. The Prime Minister yesterday repeatedly failed to confirm whether David Mundell made representations over Scotland receiving its fair share in funding following the Tory-DUP deal. Does the First Minister agree with me that it is now obvious that he made no such effort? I think that it is obvious to anybody that David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, did not lift a finger to try to make sure that Scotland got additional funding in the same way that Northern Ireland got additional funding. If the normal rules had been applied here, Scotland would be looking at additional funding of almost £3 billion. However, thanks to David Mundell not lifting a finger, thanks to those 13 Tory MPs that, just a couple of weeks ago, we were getting told that we are going to be ruling the rooster number 10 and in London, instead they have gone AWOL and Scotland has not got a single penny. Shame on the Scottish Conservatives and shame on the Secretary of State for Scotland. I was watching him yesterday trying to wriggle his way out of the fact that, just a few days ago, he was saying that he would never stand for something that gave money by the back door to Northern Ireland. It seems that, when he was asked what he did to stand up for Scotland, the answer was simply this. When the Tories came to shaft and sell out Scotland, all David Mundell did was to try to make sure that he did it transparently. I think that people have the right to expect a lot more from the so-called Secretary of State for Scotland. Jamie Greene Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland is in the height of its LGBT pride season. Would the First Minister agree with me that it is unacceptable for schools to deny young people the right to express their identity or support the LGBTI community? The First Minister Yes, I believe that all young people should be able to express their identity freely without fear of discrimination or bullying in any way. I do not think that schools or any other part of society should prevent them from doing that. I congratulate the TIE campaign, in particular, for reaching its second anniversary this week. We are currently working with TIE in the working group that has been set up to promote an inclusive approach to sex and relationship education in our schools, and we look forward to continuing work to progress that through the working group in the weeks and months to come. Alex Rowley Presiding Officer, I want to return to the issue of the child poverty act. I understand what the First Minister says about the commission, and Labour will work with the Government over the summer to try to find a way forward. However, can I ask the First Minister what work has been done to identify the costs of addressing child poverty? Does she accept that unless we make new monies available to invest to tackle child poverty, targets will not be met? The First Minister First Minister, I welcome Alex Rowley's commitment to work with us. From my conversations with Angela Constance, I think that he understands the issue here in terms of the statutory underpinning of the commission. That is not the problem. The issue is whether we want to restrict the commission to just child poverty, as opposed to poverty more generally. I think that there is a view on the part of some stakeholders that we should not do that, but I am certainly keen that we work with others to find the right way forward on that. Two further points that I would make would be this one. Yes, I agree that we have to invest to lift people out of poverty. That is why, as we take on our new social security powers, this Government is looking to do exactly that. I mentioned the early years grant earlier on and the money that we already spend, the tens of millions of pounds every single year right now that we spend mitigating some of the welfare cuts. If we were not doing that, we would be hitting families and children much harder than they already are. The third and last point that I would make is that, notwithstanding how welcome the additional social security powers are, the vast bulk of the budget around social security will remain in the hands of Westminster. As long as we allow that to be the case, we will be at the mercy of a Tory Government that is intent on ripping up the social security safety net. I think that that is why all of us who care about those things—when I include everybody in the chamber in that—should be arguing for, campaigning for and demanding to have more social security powers in the hands of this Parliament so that we can use them to lift people out of poverty and not drive more people into it. Question 5, John Mason. Thank you. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to close the gender pay gap. We are transforming early learning and childcare to support more women back into work. We are taking measures to challenge pregnancy and maternity discrimination. We are encouraging employers to pay the real living wage, which particularly will benefit women, and we are funding returners programmes to help women to update their skills after a career break. Statistics show that progress is being made in reducing the gender pay gap in Scotland. It is currently 15.6 per cent, which is down from over 20 per cent in 2007, but we know that there is much more still to do, which is why we are taking the action that I have already outlined. John Mason. I thank the First Minister for that reply. She may know that the economy committee this week published its report on the gender pay gap, and there is a lot of interesting information in that. One of the things that we found is that, in professions such as law and accountancy, there are now good numbers of women coming into those professions, but they are not getting into senior positions. Does she think that it is just a matter of time for that to change, or should people be taking positive action to get more women into senior positions? I am a believer in positive action. I do not think that we would have made the progress in politics, for example, that we have made, although there is still a lot of progress yet to be made, but I do not think that we would have made the progress that we have, unless there had been positive action schemes, not by all parties in this chamber, but by some parties in this chamber. If you look around the gender balance across the different groups in this Parliament, you will see the evidence that positive action works. Frankly, you will see some evidence of where positive action might come in very well in improving gender balance. I believe in positive action, but I also think that it is important that we take action across a range of different areas. That is why the partnership for change 50-50 by 2020 campaign is so important. We have already got a lot of big private sector organisations signed up to that. It is also about culture and it is about working practices. It is about all of those things, but we have got to dedicate ourselves to this simple belief and principle that if we had a society in which everybody was just able to get on on the basis of merit, we would have 50-50 between men and women across all areas of our society already. It is because there are systemic barriers to women that we do not. If we are going to overcome those systemic barriers, we have got to take action in the range of ways that I have already spoken about. Gordon Lindhurst The economy committee also heard evidence that in some areas men suffer from a gender pay gap in relation to women. While that may be less of a problem than that affecting women, what steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure a balanced approach that addresses the issue where it does affect men? Ruth Davidson I think that currently Ruth Davidson is slowly sliding under that desk in front of her right now. The whole essence of equality is that men and women are treated equally. In the spirit of consensus, I accept the underlying premise of the question, but anybody who can look at the problem of the gender pay gap right now or the gender inequalities that exist in other parts of our society and conclude that the problem is that we have got to do more to help men rather than women. I think that I miss the whole point here and probably just underlines the fact that the Tories have got an awful lot to do here. I look to the detail of the shadow cabinet reshuffle that happened yesterday. I may not be getting the figures absolutely right here, but around something like 30 appointments there were only five women in that. That is shocking. Rather than come up with convoluted questions like that, the Tories really need to go away and take a long, hard look at themselves when it comes to gender balance. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will meet the 30th of June deadline for the processing of 2016 cap payments. The First Minister As I have outlined already today, we are doing all that we can to make the vast majority of pillar 1 payments by the 30th of June deadline. We are making daily progress in that. As at Friday 16 June, which is less than two weeks ago, we had made 58 per cent of the value of all payments by last Friday that had risen to 76 per cent by last night, indeed this morning. That was at 82 per cent, which is a total of £346 million paid out. So rapid progress is being made on a daily basis and we will continue to make that progress. Finlay Carson I thank for that answer. I was hoping for a yes or no answer, but that might be too much to ask for. Rural Scotland has lost all faith in this Government. It has let down farmers, let down crofters and let down rural businesses the length and breadth of this country. This fiasco must come to an end. It is beginning to resemble a poor movie sequel. Last year, we had payment fiasco 1. This year, we have had payment fiasco 2. Next year, we are going to have Nicola Sturgeon and Fergus Ewing playing the baddies once again in the sequel payment fiasco 3. Right now, right here, will the First Minister give rural communities and this Parliament a guarantee that our Government will learn from the shambles of the last two years and that farmers will be paid in full and on time in next year's round of carp payments? The First Minister Well, let me tell the member what a fiasco is. A fiasco is a Secretary of State for Scotland that forgets to stand up for Scotland. A fiasco is a Government that can even manage competently to deliver the Brexit that they are so recklessly leading the country into. This Government will continue to deliver for farmers and for others across Scotland. But let me say in this week that one thing is beyond any doubt whatsoever. The Scottish Conservatives have let down everyone in Scotland. The next item of business is a debate on the commission on parliamentary reforms report on