23/02/2017: First Minister's Questions Politics Scotland

Hello. A very warm welcome to the Scottish Parliament here at

Holyrood. Now, how are you coping with Storm Doris? Well, I hope

you're battling through it. At the very least you have the opportunity

to hunker down happily for the next hour as you watch questions to the

First Minister. Let's cross over to the chamber.

Thank you. It is pretty cold in the commentary booth where I can see

John Swinney answering a question on child sex abuse, on the make-up on

the panel conducting that inquiry. We turn to First Minister questions.

Question number one. To ask the First Minister who engagements are

planned? To take forward the Government for Scotland.

Last week, the killer of Glasgow schoolgirl had four years taken off

his sentence. In a case that's prompted grave concern, his lawyers

argued he should have his time in jail reduced, simply on the grounds

as he was not a bad a killer as others? In response the campaign

said this, "There are no words to describe how we feel. It is

heartbreaking and it serves no justice to Paige or her family."

Less than a year after watching their daughter's killer get locked

up, families should go through the ordeal or seeing that sentence

reduced simply because he was not as bad a killer as others? My

heartbreaks for the family. I met Paige's mother last year. And there

literally are no words to express the pain and grief she and the rest

of her family have gone through. And today, I am sure on behalf of

everybody in the chamber, I simply want to put on records my deepest

condolences for her for everything she's suffered. So, I have no

difficulty whatsoever in understanding the sentiments that

were expressed be I the justice for Paige campaign. If I had been a

relative, I would have felt exactly the same, given the events that Ruth

Davidson has outlined. Being frank about this, this is the more

difficult thing for me to say, this was a decision of an independent

judge in a court of law. We have an independent judiciary in this

country. As well as being First Minister, I am a human being. There

are many occasions where I look at decisions of courts and wish that

different decisions has been reached. And it may well be this is

one such case. But I respect the independence of the judiciary. I

don't think anybody in this campaign, I would include Ruth

Davidson in this, would expect me to interfere with those decisions. What

I can do today is say absolutely that I understand and sympathise

with the pain and grief that this family are experiencing.

First Minister for her response. She is absolutely right to point out

that we should all uphold the independence of the judiciary. But

it is also right to say that it is Parliament which makes the law and

it is Government which sets the framework under which our judges

operate. And we on these benches say there

must be change. Because a system which cuts a child murderer's

sentence because he's deemed not as bad as others, is seen by most

members of the public as a disgrace. Right now the Scottish Sentencing

Council is exam pinning -- examining guidelines. We believe it should be

a key element of its work. Does the First Minister? I think the

Sentencing Council thould consider any matter it thinks appropriate. I

would be absolutely happy for it to consider the issue that Ruth

Davidson has just put forward. I accept that while we have an

independent judiciary and courts must be allowed to take their

decisions, the framework and the context for those decisions is very

often set by Parliament. But no matter what context and framework

Parliament sets on any of these issues, we will still have instances

where decisions by courts are decisions that many people feel are

the wrong decisions. That is in the very nature of an independent

judiciary. But I am very clear that where there is evidence that the law

has to be changed or action has to be taken, then that is something

that this Government and this Parliament should reflect on very

seriously. And that includes the experience of the particular tragic

case we are talking today. That is why we have the sentencing Council

and it is right and proper it looks at these matters in-depth. If it

brings forward proposals for change to the Government then I can give an

assurance today that the Government will consider any such proposals and

if we think it appropriate bring forward proposals for reform. I

thank the First Minister for her response, but the problem here is

not just this case, it is that there are too many families who have seen

their loved ones feel who do not feel they are getting the justice

they deserve. They feel the dice is loaded against them in favour of the

cathedrals. We have long campaigned on these benches for whole life

sentences to be introduced in Scotland, so that judges could, if

they wish, sentence the very worst criminals to spent the rest of their

lives in jail. The Scottish Government has said in the past that

it might consider such a move. What is its view now? Well, we will

always consider proposals for change that we think are evidence-based,

that are, dwen this is not always a popular thing to say, that are

consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, which is

an important protection for our justice system generally. We will

continue to consider openly and frankly any changes that are

considered to be appropriate. I think while I generally agree with

the thrust of the question, I don't think it is fair necessarily to go

from one case where I think we are all agreed in the character risation

of it to say that families are routinely let down by the justice

system. We have a well performing justice system. We have one serious

violent crime is one too many. I want to stress that. We nevertheless

have crime rates which have fallen over the last number of years,

thanks in good part to our police across the country. None of that

takes away from the pain and anguish by a family who have experienced

what the family has experienced. It is important, for Government and for

Parliament to consider periodically whether the rules we have in place

are right or whether they require to be changed. I can give an assurance

on the part of the Government today that we will always seek to do that.

I simply inject the caveat, which I don't think anybody is disagreeing

with, that no matter what sentencing rules we have in place, no matter

what frameworks we have in place, because we have rightly and properly

an independent judicial system in this country there'll always be

decisions taken by judges that some of us think are the wrong decisions.

That is in the nature of the independence of the judiciary. But

all of that said, we will continue to be open minded to proposals which

come forward for reform and change in area as in any other area of our

system. I thank the First Minister. It is one we have heard several

times before from this Government. As it stands, our judges do not have

the tool of a whole life tariff at their disposal. We say they should.

Presiding Officer, we can sit in this Parliament and express outrage

every time something like this happens, or we can do something

about it. And I want to do something about it. If the Scottish Government

won't act, then I can say today that the Scottish Conservatives will do

so by pushing ahead with a bill pushing ahead for the introduction

of whole life sentencing in Scotland. We need to stand up for

families who see sentences cut less than a year after handed down. We

should change the law so families feel that the law is tipping back in

their favour and that the worst criminals are kept off our streets

forever. We have waited too long, Presiding Officer, isn't it time

that we all acted? I do think it's important that we

consider to look at these issues rationally, I think Ruth Davidson is

right to raise these issues. We have introduced over the course of the

period that we have been in Government a whole range of reforms

to our justice system. I said earlier on that the fall in crime is

partly in large part due to the good work of our police officers. We are

seeing increases in the rates of convictions and increases in the

length of prison sentences for many offences as well. Much of that is

down to reforms introduced to our justice system over the period of

the last decade. We will continue to look with an open mind at proposals

brought forward for further reform. I would say this and I don't want to

comment too much more on the individual case, I think we are all

agreed on the tragic nature of that case, but if the system that Ruth

Davidson is advocating for today had been in place and this is an

important point, there is no guarantee that is the sentence a

particular judge would have opted for. So, I am simply making the

point that even if we had and I'm not saying that it is absolutely the

wrong thing to be considering, but the point I am seeking to make is

this, we will always have cases, no matter the sentencing options that

judges have, where a judge makes a decision that some people do not

think is correct. And therefore whoever happens to be occupying the

opposition benches would be raising these issues with whoever happens to

be the First Minister or the Government at the time. I think

these are serious issues. I would not underestimate or underplay the

importance of them at all. But let's consider these things in the proper

rational way that all Parliaments should. This Parliament has done on

many occasions in terms of past reforms to our justice system. I

give a commitment to Ruth Davidson and to Parliament today that the

Government will continue to reflect and reflect further in light of this

exchange at First Minister's questions about what further changes

we might think appropriate and then Parliament should act in the way

that it thinks best in light of all of the circumstances.

I want to ask the First Minister what engagements she has for the

rest of the week. To take forward the Government's programme for

Scotland. Earlier this week the Greater Glasgow health board voted

to close a children's ward at the hospital in Paisley. This was a

decision opposed by Labour SMPs, Labour councillors and thousands of

families and patients. It was the wrong decision. Last year, during

the live election TV debates, the First Minister was asked if this

ward would close. She promised the voters, there's no proposals to

close that particular ward. But there were proposals to close that

ward. So, why did she offer that false hope to thousands of families

on live TV? This is an important and serious

issue, but I thought Kezia Dugdale should have been able to spot the

contradiction. This was voted on by greater fwlas go and Clyde health

board this week. -- Glasgow and Clyde health board this week. It did

not combis in a form the Scottish Government could consider last year

before the Scottish election. That proposal does now... Labour have

raised this as an important issue, they may want to listen to the

answer that I am about to give. This is an important issue. The health

board has voted to put this proposals and let's remember and I

am not prejudging the Scottish Government's view of this because we

have to go through a formal process of our own. This is a proposal in

the context of there being a new children's hospital in the south of

Glasgow, just a few miles away from the royal Alexandra Hospital. But

the health board has voted. This is something which Labour called for.

So I would think they might welcome it whats been designated major

service change. What that means it is comes to the Scottish Government,

to the Health Secretary for proper consideration and for decision.

That's why it would be wrong for me to be wrong going any further in

prejudging this today. It will be given full and proper consideration.

I would ask Kezia Dugdale to reflect on this pointed, as Health

Secretary, unlike my Labour predecessors as Health Secretary, I

never shied away from overturning decisions of health boards when I

considered that they were not in the interests of patients. Monklands

Accident Emergency is one example. Ayr Accident Emergency is another.

Some of the proposed closures, for example. We will continue to put the

interests of patients first. That is what the people of Scotland and fren

fewshire would expect us to do. -- Renfrewshire would expect us to

do. Where the First Minister was right

in that answer is that the ultimate decision to close this ward at now

rests with her Government. And here's her chance to do the right

thing. But I'm not holding my breath, given the two local SMP

politicians couldn't be bothered to respond to the public consultation.

The supposed post rules we have in place poster girl, Marie Black

couldn't be bothered and neither could George Adam. The SMP, for

Paisley found the time to oppose the closure of a local McDonald's but

not a children's ward in his own constituency. Perhaps the First

Minister will listen to gor Dan Clark. -- Gordan Clark. He is the

man who asked her that question about the REH on live TV and he's

here in the public gallery today. The First Minister promised Gordan

there were no plans to close that children's ward. What does she say

to him now? Will she step in and keep her word and save this ward in

this hospital? I would repeat... I would repeat

again what I said previously. There were no proposals. There are now

proposals because of the decision taken by the Health Secretary, these

proposals have been designated major service change, so they come to the

Health Secretary for decision. I would have thought that was

something that Labour would have welcomed, given it is something they

called for. In respect of the local MP and MSP, they have recognised

that this is a decision for the Health Secretary. So they have got

on with the job of contacting the Health Secretary. They have invited

the Health Secretary to go to Renfrewshire, to meet with patients

before she takes a decision and the Health Secretary will agree to do

that. That is the right and proper way to proceed. The Health Secretary

will listen, not just to the views of the health board, the Health

Secretary will listen to the views of patients and we will come to a

decision that is in the interests of patients and that is in stark

contrast to the way in which previous Labour Governments used to

operate when it came to health service changes because they used to

ignore the voice of patients and simply rubber stamp the health board

proposals to close Accident Emergency unknits and other services

across the -- units and other services across the country. This

Government will act in the best interests of patients whether in

Renfrewshire or anywhere else in Scotland.

First Minister, parents of sick children do not want to hear a

ten-year-old story about keeping A open, they want to know about the

future of this ward. And the cuts in Paisley are not the only cuts

planned to NHS services in Scotland. The maternity units at the Vale of

Lieven and in the Clyde Royal are also under threat and we learned the

MSP plan -- the SNP's plans to remove neonatal units across

Scotland. Because of their failure to fund the NHS, children's health

services are in crisis. Parents want to know, when will the SNP

government fix the mess it has made of the NHS? First Minister, when

will you get on the job of this? There are certainly some people who

do not want to hear about a decision taken almost ten years ago to save

Accident and Emergency services at air and Monklands and they are

sitting on the Labour benches. Those are the ones that want to close

them. And those people who do want to hear about that, they are the

hundreds of thousands of patients who have been treated in those units

in the 10-year is since. In terms of the other issues that Kezia Dugdale

has raised, the maternity, midwife led maternity units at Inverclyde

and the Vale of Lieven, I assume she knows the health board is

reconsidering its proposals in light of the recommendations of the

maternity and neonatal review. That is right and proper. In terms of

what Kezia Dugdale has said about neonatal services, what she has said

is absolutely and utterly disgraceful! Because what we have is

an expert led report setting out what we need to do to enhance a

small number of neonatal units, to make them specialist enough to care

for the sickest babies in our country and yet Kezia Dugdale is

somehow suggesting that as First Minister and as a Health Secretary,

we should ignore the opinions of those experts when it comes to the

care of the sick list babies in our country. That is utterly disgraceful

and Kezia Dugdale and Labour should be deeply ashamed of themselves! And

in terms of the children's Ward at the Royal Alexandra Hospital...

Members, please refrain from interrupting, if members feel

strongly, if you wish to be, stand up and make a point but do not speak

from a sedentary position. It is very clear in this chamber that

Labour is not particularly interested in patients, it is all

about political point scoring for Labour in this chamber. Let me get

back to the RAH and I will say this to the parrot in the gallery and

every other parent in Renfrewshire who is understandably concerned

about this issue, this Government will listen carefully not just the

views of the health board, but to the views of parents and other

patients and we will come to a decision rightly and properly based

on what we think is in the best interests of patients. That is the

right way for a responsible Governor to proceed and that is perhaps one

of the reasons why we are in government and Labour is not even

the opposition any longer, but in a dismal third place. Two

supplementary is, the first is Jamie Green.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Mr Brian J from North Ayrshire set up

and runs his own wedding car company which he invested ?60,000, which we

should applaud this chamber. The company was going well until the

Scottish Government introduced the weapons and licensing act which she

forcing additional licensing costs on private operators across

Scotland, he has now ceased to take bookings and is worried he might

have to close shop indefinitely, I have written to the Cabinet

secretaries for justice and economy, jobs and fair work, asking for

clarification on this matter. Can I ask the First Minister... You can

haggle, but Mr Jay is sitting watching is at home and is

interested in hearing what the First Minister has to say. What guidance

can she offer Mr Jay and many other like him across Scotland and what

action the Government is taking to mitigate the negative affect this

act is having on their industry and when it will undertake the

assessments that they were promised? First Minister. Well, of course, the

Ayre weapons and licensing act was introduced with the interest of

public safety at heart and I think the Conservatives photographed for

the bill before this Parliament. And I think they were right to do so

because of the motivation of this piece of legislation. With any

legislation, it is absolutely vital we strike the right balance between

the legislation doing what it is intended to do, without putting

unnecessary burdens on anybody. The member has rightly written to the

relevant Cabinet secretaries and I will make sure they were to his

correspondence and the Justice Secretary would be happy, I am

telling him now, he would be happy to meet with the business concerns

to discuss his circumstances and whether or not there is anything

that can be done to mitigate the impact on the business. I would hope

everybody across this chamber would support the motivations and

provisions of this piece of legislation because it is about

protecting public safety. Could I just encourage members, I am

not expecting reverential silence, but just as there should not be

chuntering when the Minister and First Minister is trying to answer

questions, they should not be interventions when somebody is

trying to ask a question. First Minister, but the Clydesdale

bank and the TSB have announced the closure of two branches in my

constituency. It will lose two of its three banks as a result and in

one place, the last bank, the TSB. And the Clydesdale branch. What

representations is the Government is banks to encourage them to maintain

a High Street presence and mitigate against any closures?

The decision to close these branches while a commercial decision, it is

obviously very disappointing for the customers, local communities and the

staff affected by these decisions. While we recognise that branch

activity and football may be declining due to be increasing

number of bank transactions can -- conducted online, the Scottish

Government in the concept we have with banks would urge them to

consider branch closes as a last result and consult staff and

communities before making a final decision. Bank branches and the same

can be said of post offices, they are important in terms of the

business they do and the football they bring to other businesses. Many

customers continue to have a strong preference or a need for

face-to-face provision of banking services and I would expect banks to

explore -- to explore all practices to boost footfall and boost services

in local communities wherever it is viable.

Question number three, Willie Rennie. What issues to be discussed

at the next meeting of the Cabinet? Matters of importance for Scotland.

For years, the SNP government has instructed the Chief Constables of

Scotland to employ 1,000 extra officers. Is that policy still in

force? We have a thousand extra officers at the moment and in terms

of our budget for the year, I expect that to continue. Willie Rennie will

be aware from discussions in this chamber and I think from the SNP's

manifesto at the last election, it is important going forward that we

not only maintain an appropriate level of front line police officers,

but we recognise the changing pattern of crime, the increase

inside the crime and ensure the police have the right mix of

specialist staff, the right crime fighting force on the front line in

our communities. Police officers will always be the most important

part of that. We have 1,000 more police officers than we inherited, I

would always expect to have way more police officers than we inherited.

And we will continue to work with Police Scotland to ensure that

balance and that mix is the right one. As the member will be aware,

Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority will shortly

publish a consultation on their strategy for the next period, and

that is one I hope Parliament and every member Parliament will

positively engage. For years, the First Minister has

spoken about little else but the 1,000 extra officers. She has done

it again just now. Order! At Mr Rennie answer the

question. So I would have thought a change of

policy like seems to be happening now would have merited some kind of

formal announcement from the Government before now. Civilians are

important. Not least for cyber crime and call centres. Yet 2,000 valuable

civilian posts have been lost in recent years. This is very sensitive

and important, as we will soon find out what with the contributory

factors to the events following the crash? So this policy really does

matter. Communities deserve a clear explanation of government policy.

Next week, the Chief Constable will publish the policing plan for the

next ten years. What limits on officers has he been given by the

First Minister? Can I thank Willie Rennie for the

confirmation that I talk about little else other than matters like

justice and health and education, because it gives lie to the

accusation that I am always talking about other matters. But this is...

In terms of major policy changes, if and when there are major policy

changes on this or any other matter, of course the Government will make

that clear to Parliament. But I set out early on for Willie Rennie our

manifesto for the election, what it said last year, and that was very

open about what we consider to be the challenges of policing, given

the changing patterns of crime and how we had to work with the police

service to make sure they are equipped to deal with that. And

maintaining appropriate numbers of police officers, as we have done in

each and every one of the ten years we have been in office, continues to

be extremely important. What the Chief Constable and the Scottish

Police Authority will do next week is set out their draft strategy for

consultation and it is important they consult widely on that in terms

of the challenges and the opportunities they face in the

period ahead. I will not pre-empt what they said. But they will

continue to work with and be guided by government in terms of the

decisions they take as a result of that. Finally, perhaps unlike Lee's

forces in other parts of the UK, we have increased funding for front

line services for the coming year. There was an increase in funding in

terms of the revenue for Police Scotland, which we have pledged to

protect in real terms over this Parliament, but also, additional

reform funding and stage one of the draft budget to Derek Mackay

announced, with even more funding. We are putting resources into our

police services and we are required to work with the Chief Constable and

his colleagues and the Scottish Police Authority to make sure those

resources support a police force equipped to deal with crime not just

now, but in the years to come. One of the supplementary from Rory

Grant. This Parliament voted in December

the 7th that seafarers and buoyed by Marine Scotland should receive a

fair pay settlement rather than the pay cut they now face. Despite this,

really -- Marine Scotland has refused to increase pay offer,

putting them on and on equal footing. Will the First Minister

make sure Marine Scotland respects the decision of this Parliament now?

I think the member knows and indeed shares the commitment of this

Government to fair pay and I will certainly after this session of

questions today look into this matter and respond to her in

writing. I believe it is important the public sector leads by example

on issues of fair pay, there will always be issues involved in

negotiations that it would not be appropriate for gunmen to get

involved and while negotiations are under way, but I will undertake to

look into this matter and return to this as quickly as possible --

appropriate for government. What is the Scottish Cup mud's response to

the report by Macmillan Cancer that highlights the disparity in survival

rates between people from more and less deprived areas. The last

tenuous have seen an overall reduction in the cancer mortality

rate of 11%. 100 million strategy set out a range of actions to

improve survival for people affected by cancer, including targeted

efforts to increase screening uptake in deprived areas. Our detect cancer

early programme is aimed at reducing in qualities and we expect to see

continued improvements in survival. The most recent staging daters shows

the largest increase in early diagnosis, state-run diagnosis of

16.3% in the three tumour groups I have mentioned, has been in the most

deprived areas of the country so there is still more work to do, but

that data would suggest we are starting to see signs of a narrowing

of that inequality gap. I have to confess I am one of them,

have been reluctant to engage with the screening and early diagnosis

with the health services. Does she feel it is just a question of money

here? Or are we needing to change underlying attitudes? Well, firstly,

we have to make sure we resource screening programmes and prevention

strategies, so they detect cancer early programme which was introduced

when I was Health Secretary is backed by ?41 million of resource.

But I do think John Mason is right to say it is not just about

resources, it is about changing attitudes, changing cultures.

Encouraging people not to be frightened to come forward for early

examination if they are worried about any symptoms. The earlier

cancer is diagnosed, then the better the chance of survival. That is why

we put such emphasis on early detection on our screening

programmes, on encouraging people to come forward that is the whole ethos

and motivation of the detect cancer early initiative. That is

particularly important when it comes to men, who suspect that they may

have early symptoms of cancer. We know that men generally, I am

generalising here, are often less likely to come forward and to see a

doctor. So it is really important that we stress the messages of

taking advice if you've got any concerns because that will help

ensure that we detect cancer early. If we do that then we will safe more

lives in the process. And I think we've all got a part to play in

getting these messages across. The research found you are up to 98%

more likely to die from cancer if you are from the most deprived,

compared to the least deprived area. Inequalities have widened in terms

of health, attainment and wealth. Will the First Minister agree that

the greatest fight against cancer deprivation has been led by Glasgow

City Council and McMillan. Would she agree to work closely with the

council and McMillan to replicate the programme and roll it out across

Scotland? We work closely with organisations like McMillan and

partner with them in areas. We work with Glasgow City Council and others

to support our work in these areas. It is right that we continue to do

so. I don't think any of us should underestimate the challenges here.

Nor should any of us, whatever party, somehow pretend these are

issues which have just arisen under one more party. The issues of

inequalities and including health inequalities are long standing and

deep rooted in Scotland. We have seen some statistics around heart

disease and stroke, for example. In our most deprived areas mortality

rates for heart disease have decreased by 31% and by stroke for

24% over the last period. We are making progress in some of these

areas. We need to do more. Going back to cancer we know that

prevention first and foremost is important. That is why this

Government has picked up on the work of the last Labour Government around

reducing smoking rates, trying to deal with the problems of alcohol

misuse. We know these are drivers of some kind of cancer, but also early

detection. Our screening programmes are important. Encouraging people to

come forward and the cancer t tumour types that programme focuses on are

responsible for half of all cancers in Scotland. I hope people around

the chamber would agree there is a great deal of work being done here.

Much is about proper resources, much is about changing long-held

attitudes and patterns of behaviour. That is something where all of us

should come together and make sure we do play our part in achieving.

Question number five. To ask the First Minister in light

of the verdict whether the Scottish Government considers that it was

worthwhile for it to spend ?136,000 on legal fees in the recent Brexit

case at the Supreme Court? Well, I not only think it was worthwhile for

the Scottish Government to be represented in that case, I think it

was essential for the Scottish Government to be represented in that

case. And interestingly, just as an aside,

he might want to say to his Tory colleagues in Westminster that it is

about time they told us how much time they spent defending a case

that they always knew they would lose. The Supreme Court case was

necessary to force the UK Government to enact the legislation currently

going through the Westminster Parliament before the triggering of

Article 50. It raises funt mental issues about the rights of people in

Scot #4r57bd and the role of this Parliament. So -- Scotland and the

role of this Parliament. So, yes it is right like the Government in

Wales defended our interests in what was the most constitutional law case

for many, many years. This is like a game of jeopardy. The

answer is Brexit. Westminster and the Tories.

What is the question? It's any question that you ask us First

Minister. My point was about the use of taxpayers' cash, because this SNP

Government will literally say and do anything that they think furthers

their goal of tearing our union apart.

And they don't care how much Scottish taxpayers' money they

squander in the process. This ?136,000 is one example of the tens

of millions of pounds that this SNP Government spends on policy

decisions that they believe will promote separation, such as the

unpopular plans to dismantal the British Transport Police. No-one

should be under any illusions, this SNP Government puts its own

interests first, not Scotland. With this SNP Government taking ever more

money out of the pockets of hard-working Scots, will the First

Minister cut out the needless spend on furthering their unwanted

campaign for independence and instead focus on growing our

economy? You always know when it happens regularly when David

Davidson is completely embarrassed by one of her backbenchers because

she starts to is a separate conversation on the front bench as

though she's somewhere else and what is happening behind her is nothing

actually dodo with you. Ruth I sympathy because -- sympathise

because I would have been embarrassed had he been one of my

backbenchers. Don't you worry, I am going to answer his question.

Firstly, in the spirit of finding some consensus, because as members

know that is always what I like to do. I agree with Morris, Brexit is

like a game of jeopardy. Unfortunately the Tories are playing

it at the expense of the rest of us and it is completely unacceptable.

Secondly, and this may be a point, it seems to be a point that has

completely escaped him, but there would have been no case at the

Supreme Court for the Scottish Government to have to intervene in

if the Tories hadn't invested on -- on appealing this case every step of

the way to the Supreme Court. Even though everybody knew they were

going to lose. I think it might be more appropriate for him to ask his

colleagues, Tory colleagues at Westminster, how much they spent on

this case. Because so far they are refusing to say what the legal costs

of this case have been for the Westminster Government. My final

point is this, you know, another reason, it a east not the main

reason, but it is another reason why I think it was worthwhile to take

that case, because it ex-exposed something, did it not? It exposed

the fact that when the Tories told us that they were going to embed the

convention in statute and this was going to make so much of a difrnsz,

they were misleading people -- difference, they were misleading

people, because that promise was exposed in this case as being

utterly meaningless. Maybe just another benefit of this case is that

we exposed the fact that the promises the Tories make to Scotland

can never, ever be trusted. Order! Order! That's quite enough!

Question number six, Mark Griffin. Thank you, Presiding Officer, we got

here eventually to ask the First Minister why the wealth gap between

rich and poor in Scotland is widening? The Scottish Government is

committed to creating a fairer and more equal Scotland. We are taking a

range of actions to tackle inequalitied, including a child

poverty bill and encourage employers to pay the real living wage. While

all categories of household wealth have increased, the main reason the

gap in rich and poor has increased is the private pension wealth. It is

not distributed equally. As it increased by 39% between 2012-2014,

the wealth gap has also increased. However, we remain committed to

doing everything we can within our powers and our resources to tackle

poverty and to close the inequality gap.

First Minister, Wealth is more concentrated under this Government

and the wealthiest 1% alone own more than the wealth of the bottom 50%.

But this week the Government choose not to use their power to tax that

wealthiest 1% at 50 p, top rate. The Government's newest adviser, a

20% top-up on Universal Credit. When will the Government make the choice

to use the powers over tax and social security to reverse these

appealing trends? Firstly, on social security, the

minister for social security made a statement in this very chamber just

yesterday, updating Parliament on the work we are doing to create a

new social security agency, to update on a response to the

consultation around social security. We have set out a range of ways in

which we are going to use these new powers to try to tackle poverty and

disadvantage amongst those who depend on the social security

system. One thing we will do is abolish the bedroom tax. We mitigate

the bedroom tax but we about to abolish it at source. Right now we

have a situation where the UK Government introduce their benefit

cap. What we would give with one hand, they will talk away with

other. I hope everyone gets behind us when we say that is completely

unacceptable. In terms of tax, we will debate this

afternoon the final stage of the Budget, a Budget that strikes the

right balance between raising extra rev threw tax, not giving higher

rate payers a tax cut. Investing ?900 million more in our front line

public services and those who might vote against that Budget this

afternoon will be voting against that ?900 million additional

spending on our public services. My final point is this, Mark Griffin

talks about raising taxes on the wealthiest. I would encourage

everybody interested in this to read Labour's amendment to the Budget

this afternoon. That is not what it talks about. It talks about raising

tax by 1% for everybody earning over ?11,500 a year. That's Labour's tax

policy. Not tagling austerity, but transferring austerity to the

shoulders of the lowest paid. The difference between Mark Gri if, fin

and I is I don't think somebody earning ?11,500 qualities as

wealthy. Thank you, to ask the First Minister

who discussions have been held over the future of broadcasting in

Scotland? The Scottish Government has had several discussions

regarding the future of broadcasting in Scotland through the active

involvement in the recent renewal of the BBC charter. The Culture

Secretary met with the Director-General this morning to

discuss yesterday's announcements for the plans for Scotland,

including the welcome announcement of a new channel for Scotland from

autumn next year. Pro-irto this she met with him on 29th February, 18th

August and 17th October, 2016, to reiterate the Scottish Government's

position on how there could be better outcomes for audiences and

for Scotland's creative sector. Thank you, First Minister for that

answer. I welcome the announcement yesterday as a step in the right

direction and heard a bit more detail from the BBC at committee

this morning. Does the First Minister agree while it is a good

start it must be properly resourced and that the BBC should be working

towards a fairer share of the license fee raised in Scotland being

invested here as these plans would leave us lagging behind Wales and

Northern Ireland in that respect? I hope this is something we can

unite behind. I unequivocally welcomed the announcement yesterday

of a BBC Scotland channel. The SNP first called for a separate channel

in April 2006 when we made a contribution to the last charter

renewal process. So this is something we welcome. I think

everybody would agree it is vital it is properly resourced. I welcome the

commitments made yesterday to resource in, I particularly welcome

the commitments made yesterday to an additional 80 journalist jobs in

Scotland. A difficult time for journalists and for the media

generally. That is announcement we should all welcome. But we have got

to be very firm and said the BBC that this channel has to be properly

resourced, on an ongoing basis. When the Scottish broadcasting Commission

reported in 2009, it estimated a similar channel would cost around

?75 million a year which is double the ?30 million announced yesterday.

And of course yesterday's announcement increased the

percentage of the licence fee raised in Scotland that is spent in

Scotland and again, I absolutely welcome that. But that still does

leave that percentage lower than the corresponding percentages in Wales

and Northern Ireland. I absolutely think the announcement yesterday by

the BBC were a welcome progress and I thank Lord Hall from making those

announcement yesterday, but I think we all now have an interest in

making sure the announcement is turned into a successful reality and

for the Channel to be successful, with high-quality content, as we

have the talent here to produce, it does necessitate good, solid funding

for the long-term. So we should unite in making sure the BBC deliver

on that commitment. Can I join the First Minister in

that? We heard from Lord Hall this morning 60% of the programming on

the new channel will be new commissioning and together with the

initiative of BBC studios, the question for the Scottish Government

is whether we are structured in Scotland to ensure we can take

advantage of that opportunity. There is a wide drone that widespread

belief that devolved administration in Northern Ireland is working in

partnership with the development agency to take the advantage created

by the sector, whereas Scottish Enterprise and creative Scotland

here is not facilitating that. At the same time, there are real

concerns over studio capacity in Scotland, with major studios being

built and commissioned elsewhere in the UK. Will the First Minister

ensure ministers as well take advantage of the opportunity this

now creates to ensure that our creative sector in Scotland is able

to take advantage of the opportunity that has now been presented?

Well, I agree with much of that question. I genuinely glad to hear

the Tories welcome what was announced just a day because when I

called for a separate Scottish channel back in 2015, at the admit

television Festival, Liz Smith said I was just showing how out of touch

I was and she did not want to see millions of pounds of licence fee

funds diverted to pay for it, so I am really glad to hear the

conversion of the Scottish Tories. On to the wider issue rightly

raised, the Minister will be aware of the changes we are making and the

funding available in Scotland has bought the screening of the film

sector and it is absolutely vital that we make sure the sector is

equipped and the relationships of Creative Scotland and with the wider

sector and Scottish Enterprise, they are the right ones to continue

growth. We are seeing success in the film sector right now, I understand,

I have got many constituency interests who talk to me about this

regulator. The view within the film sector is that we need additional

studio space. I do not want to say much more about that now because

some of the proposals are subject to planning decisions. I certainly

would agree I would want to see the provision of studio space in the

future. We have state aid issues in terms of our ability to directly

fund that. But we have a success story for the Scottish economy, we

now have the opportunity to turn this into an even bigger success

story and that is why we should be and using a stick and welcome it

with both hands. Thank you very much, that concludes

First Minister's Questions. There we have it, First Minister's

Questions. Running over a bit, but they were discussing broadcasting so

I forgive them! Joined by two colleagues now, ill ever met an and

Kieran Andrews, we will raise up broadcasting issue in a moment --

Lynsey Bews. A tragic case raised by Ruth Davidson, can you reminders of

the basics of that case? Yes, this is the shocking murder of the

teenager Ruth Davidson, who was killed by John Leathem, who was

originally sentenced and served a minimum term in prison of 27 years

and had that reduced on appeal to a minimum of 23 years, that does not

mean he will be out in 23 years but that is the minimum tariff. It

sounded as if the First Minister was not delighted with that judicial

decision. Unusual comment from Nicola Sturgeon saying there will be

times when people including herself as a human being as well as a

politician might not agree with what judges hands down in appeals or in

original sentences, and she said for her, this was probably one of those

times. It is always difficult, you have

this independence of the Judiciary Committee First Minister stressing

that again and again, and stressing the frustration there can be.

Indeed, politicians will always express that frustration. A key

point in this is the fact that what Ruth Davidson was talking about, it

would not have made a difference necessarily. This was about one

individual judge's decision, changing the law. Yes, it might

strengthen things, it might discourage the attitudes that result

in more lenient sentencing, but it would not change necessarily the

decision made in this case. Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister,

treading a cautious line between those two positions, willing to look

at whole life sentences and stressing that had to be scepticism

about whether they would be applied by judges. Yes, and that would seem

to be a reasonable position to take. I think the frustration for read

Davidson is this has been raised by the Conservatives many times and

that is what has brought about this idea about a member's bill to try

and force the issue and bring the issue into the Parliament more

often. On the question of judging, we had the issue of the health

service raised, the Royal Hospital, raised by the Labour leader, and the

First Minister stressing it would be the Health Secretary who judged that

because big decisions about hospitals came to central

government. Yes, this case in particular... It was really Kezia

Dugdale's comfort zone. Nicola Sturgeon is correct to say that it

will be their decision. There is an out for her. It is under

consideration, so the Scottish Government cannot comment on it

fully. But there are serious questions and Kezia Dugdale raise

them about how much the First Minister knew before the election

and how we will make the decision as we approach another election. As an

opposition, as Kezia Dugdale tries to establish Labour as the official

opposition, to keep chipping away at questions. Macro and on the subject

of treating sick children, stressing that they had to take expert advice.

Even when perhaps popular sentiment was against that.

Kezia Dugdale also brought up the issue of the intensive care unit for

babies being closed. As part of that maternity review. On that, Nicola

Sturgeon has got the experts on her side. She got quite angry about

that. The Royal College of Midwives said the content of the review could

revolutionise care, so she has the backing of midwives. Hang on, as I

mentioned the subject of the BBC's plans announced yesterday was raised

in committee this morning. Lord Hall, Tony Hall, the Director of the

BBC, giving evidence, this is a taste of the exchanges with the

committee -- committee convener, John McAlpine.

You will be aware one of the criticisms, perhaps criticisms, but

queries, is that the Scottish digital channel proposed ten years

ago was costed at 75 million and this new channel will have 30

million of money, which is all new. I wondered whether you could tell

us, is that a starting point, do you expect that to increase and to think

you will be able to deliver the services for that amount? Yes, I

cannot compare with the proposal that was put forward a decade ago

because I do not quite know how that was, the numbers were put together.

But I can confirm that no hidden overheads in this. The 30 million we

are talking about is money to spend on the Channel. If you look at the

BBC -- if you look at BBC Four, there are other things we will lay

into it, this is absolutely money we can spend on content. We have looked

at an outline, we have done an outline for what the Channel will

look like. 60% of the output will be new commissions, which I think is

really a very good start. To go back to the funding, 30 million commit

spend 60 million for example commissioning Match of the Day

writes, so 30 million, it does not go that far. In terms of you

referring to the committee's interests in the proportion of the

licence fee that is spent in Scotland, in your good year, it is

currently not a great year at 55%, but in your good year, I think it

was 2014, you are spending about 63%. I understand with this new

money, it is up to 67%. That is still a long way behind both

Northern Ireland at 75 and Wales at 95. Are we are going to get to a

position where Scotland has parity with those other nations in the UK?

You are right to say we have taken not a good year, if you take the

previous year, that was boosted by money we put in both for the Olympic

Games and the referendum. Again, it is an artificial year. I want to

take a base we can take the 20 million from and you can see that

and we hold ourselves to account for that. Which gets to 68% from a

figure of 55%, which I know you have focused on a lot. We have started.

If you add to the 68% another sum which is for distribution, in other

words, I think we should be including in these figures the

amount we pay, over 30 million, to distribute programmes around

Scotland. So you get to another 11% on that which gets to a figure of

79%. But you are right, compare to 68% on content against Northern

Ireland which is 74%, I think we are moving and shifting and I think the

challenge now the BBC Scotland and the BBC is to see whether in terms

of the net spending, we can do more than we are committing to do, and

that depends on good ideas and winning commissions. We are open to

making sure, that is why we have the Commission which is based here, to

make sure we get good stuff on the network, as we can.

Lord Hall giving evidence this morning to a Holyrood committee.

Still joined by my colleagues. Nicola Sturgeon in questions was

saying it has to be backed up by resources. That is a theme made by

many MSPs. Yes, perhaps the announcement of this new channel and

new programme was a bit of a surprise for some people. I did not

get the Scottish six they were looking for, the SNP, but they got

this new channel, and they are looking at whether there is enough

to fund it. Any investment in journalism is to be welcomed and I

am sure the First Minister and the Scottish Cup mat will welcome the

extra scrutiny from having more journalists in Scotland. That is a

good point, as well. The announcement has generally been

welcomed? Yes, broadly, it is good news for broadcasting. This is one

of the biggest investments in Scotland for 20 years, which is

great news. Lynsey and Kieran, thank you very

much indeed. We are closing our coverage of First Minister's

Questions and my attention shifting to Perth, I have just seen the

Labour leader walking by, with the Labour conference beginning

tomorrow, I am going to Perth later to cover that for you. From me,

Brian Taylor, have a good afternoon. see how the life of the Scottish

child has changed Children don't get to play outside

in the way that they used to. I can remember being afraid to

go to school. How we were raised shaped not just

us but also our nation. Educating the mass of a population -

that is a wonderful ideal. I've searched the world to find

these extraordinary people.