 Mae ydw ychwangedeithio sophisticatednadu p overcoco sylwio nhw rydym ni placesfer o'i swydd fields o ran ffrindio uwch i'i welinnog niwr lleolaeth, a l anchorёu möchtei Cad dreos ac yn y fnar communist PHs o'r glen dudiau higwr. Dwi'n anodd, newoohol i ddiweddar Horse phrasując�, Pwydman Yr Praesol rwy'n rwy'n gwrtheg ymwneidddion Landlorddi Ryetimae Nwell? Mwneid 그래요 wrth ddydd, Mae y First Minister rydwg ein bod yn gweinodd ar gyfer cyfosbarth tw�. Rydw i'n gweithio i'r pryddog i'r ffordd. A gweithio i'r pryddog i unrhyw, rydw i'w pryddu teulu'r ddwylliannol, ac rydw i'n gweithio'r ddwylliannol, ac rydw i'n gweithio'r ddwylliannol, ac rydw i'n gweithio i'r ddwylliannol, ddwylliannol, ddwylliannol, gweithwch i'r ddwylliannol? Y Deputy Minister for Health and Sport? Every health secretary has the right, when taking office, to review a whole range of decisions. John Lamont is quite right. This is about health provision and Lanarkshire—that affects 500,000 people. The health secretary is well with his rights to look at health provision and Lanarkshire, the particular proposals that are coming forward, and to make his views known. When he made his views known, he made his view that there should be provision mewn cyffredinol i Gwyliannwyr, Iermyliau, ond oedd yn ei wneud o'r ddechrau'r ddyliau. Mae'n ddigonwys i'n ddaf i ddweud o'r cyffredinol i ddweud o'r 26 ym mwyaf, a mae'n ddigonwys i'n dweud o'r ddyliau i ddweud o'r ddylch, yn ddigonwys i ddweud o'r ddydd, ac yn ddigonwys i ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddylch o'r ddylchio'r ddweud o'r ddylchio o'r ddylchio o'r ddylchio. Felly, we have the unusual situation, where both Alex Neil and Alex Salmond agree that Nicholas Sturgeon got this wrong. Who else does the First Minister think got this wrong? Ian Ross, chief executive of NHS Lanarkshire, on the very morning he was instructed by Alex Neil's office to reverse his plan, was still insisting that the original proposals would mean, quote, improved quality of service to patients. He said, there is no alternative option which can deliver the same benefits. Katrina Borland, a senior official in the Government's own health team, said that retaining beds at Monkland would result in a less than optimal service. Can the First Minister explain why health professionals wasted two years trying to redesign a service if it was not in the interests of patients? I am not sure if Johann Lamont is aware that the proposals of 2006, which were approved by her health team, when she was a member of the Government, proposed having an acute ward in Monkland's hospital. I could equally ask why it was that the Government, of which she was a member, approved that formulation and now she criticises the health secretary for agreeing with her. I think that it is quite extraordinary that that lapse of memory has crept in Johann Lamont's articulation. However, there are other considerations that have to be borne in mind. Order, Mr McNeill. She is quite right. There is a letter that I know is known to Johann Lamont since it was released under FOI. Obviously, it is, for understandable reasons, a confidential letter, but the letter was actually written to me. That was a letter from a patient. I found it then and I found it now a very moving account of why that patient did not agree that this ward should be closed. That patient said, the nurses in the wards know us personally over many years, as long as 20, and that is a long time. We, as patients, are bonded with these nurses in such a way as we trust them with our lives. Many mentally ill patients cannot read or write, but we know that these wards should stay open. Families are much concerned at the best of times. They visit us when they finish work and work long hours to. Ask yourself this. If one of your own family was ill after working 12 hours shift and then had to travel at least 15 miles and all hours without public transport being available, could you do it? You should keep it open for the mentally ill. That was a letter—well, I think that that is a moving letter—that should be listened to with respect by this chamber. That was a letter written in September 2012 by one of the patients who was particularly concerned about rumours about the ward. I think that it is entirely reasonable for the Government to take these opinions into account and entirely reasonable for a health secretary to discharge his responsibility in the way that Alex Neil did. John Lennon? For the absence of doubt, the First Minister believes that Nicola Sturgeon got it wrong. He believes that Scotland's most senior health officials got it wrong. Of course, we should listen to patients and users. What does the First Minister say about Francis Fallon? Mr Fallon is the chair of Lanarkshire Lynx, which advocates on behalf of 800 mental health service users and carers. Mr Fallon has said and I quote, that the members of Lanarkshire Lynx were totally shocked, bewildered and very upset about this decision, taken in a spur of the moment, knee-jerk reaction by Mr Neil, without any discussion or consideration of those hundreds of service users and their carers. Mr Fallon was a mental health nurse for 30 years. He was given an MBE for his work on mental health. He spent two years with his colleagues working on his proposal only to be ignored. What does the First Minister have to say to him and his members, let down by Alex Neil? I have read out a moving letter from a patient who was frightened by being affected by the proposals as well. That was one of the interests that were taken into account quite rightly by the health secretary. What the health secretary sent back to Frewies officials to the board was to look at the provision across Lanarkshire, across three of the hospitals. Many of us believe that those matters about local provision are really important, important in mental health services and across the range of health services. The configuration that Lanarkshire has now, they are confident as a board, is going to offer excellent provision for the people of Lanarkshire. That involves acute facilities at Airmires, at Whishaw and at Mountains. It also involves an expansion of services in the community. That seems to me a good position for the people of Lanarkshire. Those are the things that quite properly are taken into account, as indeed they were taken into account in other hospital situations in Lanarkshire. That is the thing that health secretaries are elected to do. The health secretary discharges his responsibilities to all the patients of Lanarkshire. There is a great deal of opinion that the formulation and circumstance that we have come out with is an excellent provision as far as mental services are concerned. It is really important that those patients, as is made in the letter, who are not always the patients with the strongest voices, when they make their opinions heard, those voices are listened to with respect. That is what the health secretary did, and I think that he should be proud of his actions in that respect. I do not know what is more depressing, that the First Minister makes that case. He makes that case, or that he actually thinks that it is a credible case to make in a situation that he is in. This is desperate stuff, because for two years his Cabinet Secretary Nicola Sturgeon, the board, the patients, the staff, people who cared for folk with mental health issues, people who used, serviced themselves, came to one conclusion and Alec Neill came to a different one. One week into this, we have still to hear a credible explanation for Alec Neill's behaviour. Let's look at what I believe is his charge sheet, putting his political interests before patients guilty, undermining the integrity of health professionals guilty and misleading this Parliament and the people of Scotland in my view, in my view, as I said. Ms Lamont, misleading is not acceptable within First Minister's questions. I will ask other people to judge an email that directs the health board to do one thing in the morning and, for the afternoon, the minister to claim that he has stepped back. Is the First Minister really prepared to debase his own office and this Parliament even further to save the skin of his health sector? It is, of course, perfectly reasonable for Johann Lamont to disagree with the decision that the health secretary had a valuation that he made. That is perfectly reasonable. It is perfectly reasonable for her to point out that different people have different opinions, although I have nothing as to why the Government of which she was a member in 2006 considered that there should be acute facilities in Monkland's hospital. Presumably, all of that expertise and advice was available in 2006, when a different proposal and conclusion were coming forward. I will be reading it extensively from a document when we get to the debates in a few minutes' time, which demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever that this fact and all of those facts were volunteered by the Government as a document that the First December 2012 released to John Pentland MSP on 5 March last year. Every iota of this information was available to Johann Lamont's MSPs last March. While I hear no, it was not. I hope that Richard Simpson stays here for the debate because, yes, indeed it was. I say this to the Labour leader. At a time when people are rightfully concerned that the Labour Party may be planning to remove free prescriptions from the national health service, at a time when people are concerned with the open questioning of free personal care by the Labour Party, at a time when people are concerned they are going to reintroduce tuition fees to have this purest motion of no confidence when people are debating and looking at the great interface of the country. It would not be a judgment on this pathetic opposition. Ruth Davidson, to ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. The SNP's case for independence, as contained in its white paper, relies heavily on oil income, but the figures quoted within it are now massively out of date and need refreshed. 14 months ago, in the Government's oil analysis, John Swinney promised regular updates on oil projections that he has not delivered. Eight weeks ago today, he promised my colleague Gavin Brown in this chamber a fresh analysis of Scotland's oil production income within weeks. Nearly two months on, there is still silence from this Government. Last year, the difference between the SNP's projected income from oil and what was actually collected was nearly £3 billion. The SNP had a duty to tell people how they would balance the books in an independent Scotland. Instead, all that we have had is promises of updates month after month and week after week. If they have not done a fresh analysis, why not? If they have, why won't they publish? The analysis will be released as Mr Swinney committed himself to. I think that Ruth Davidson should be very careful what she wishes for in these matters. That analysis will examine the UK Government's track record in forecasting oil revenues, not just over the past few years but over the past 30 to 40 years. If we had believed the Conservative Party on the subject of Scotland's oil, it would all have been finished more than 10 years ago, was the forecast of the Conservative spokesperson. When that forecast comes out, it will look at the credibility of an OBR that suggests that oil prices will be less than $100 a barrel when they are currently $110 a barrel. It will look at the credibility of an oil price forecast from the OBR that says that under $100 a barrel when the Department of Energy and Climate Change is pushing towards $130 a barrel, it will look at the huge surge of investment of £13 billion sterling in the North Sea, which of course is taking off current oil revenues because of the allowance against capital investment, but is there to increase future oil production and therefore revenues. It will recognise that over the next 40 to 50 years there are massive quantities of oil and gas to come from the Scottish sector of the North Sea, but there is a fundamental question. Will it go as the last 40 years and disappear into the maw of the London treasury, or will it used to be invest in the economy and future life chances of the people of Scotland? Ruth Davidson Morblydd assurances after eight weeks of similar, and it's not just me that's asking because the Scottish Parliament's own information service asked the Government for answers two weeks ago and we're told soon. Then they ask last week and we're told soon. In better times, when the SNP was keen to shine a light on oil figures, they pulled civil servants in over the weekend to publish a report. Now that the news isn't so good, they seem to be dragging their feet. The OBR has changed its figures, the oil and gas industry has also revised down its production, its estimates downwards, but the Scottish Government continues to deny reality. People want clarity, but the First Minister has stalled in giving it because if he did, it would blow yet another hole in his independence white paper. So isn't the reason that John Swinney is refusing to honour his months-long commitment of promises of updates on these oil figures because it wrecks the SNP's key case for independence? First Minister No, it's not. Of course it would be extremely difficult to keep up with the changes in OBR figures, since they change more often than the weather changes as far as oil forecasts are concerned. I pointed out in my first answer some of the substantial difficulties with the OBR figures and how they are incompatible with other figures produced by the UK Government in terms of forecasts and oil prices, but I think that the most important underlying point to get across here is the massive investment that is taking place currently in the waters around Scotland. Of course, it could be that all those huge international and domestic oil companies are investing because they don't believe that there's any more oil and gas left in the North Sea. They believe that OBR, who says that production will be absolutely flat and won't increase at all thanks to that investment. They could be investing all of these funds for no return whatsoever. Or we could make the conclusion that if oil companies are investing £13 billion in the waters around Scotland, then it's probably in the expectation that oil production is going to rise. As oil production rises, guess what? The revenues rise. Then, of course, we come back to the question. Where are those revenues going to go? Are they going to disappear into George Osborne's coffers for election campaigns, or are they going to be used to benefit the people of Scotland? I say that the people of Scotland should have our turn after 40 years of the London Treasury having theirs. Thank you very much. The First Minister will be aware of today's announcement that all energy, the biggest renewable energy conference in these islands, is set to leave Aberdeen after 13 years of success and 13 years of year and year growth, bringing this year £4 million to the local economy. Can the First Minister tell us when he first became aware of the plan and what he did to prevent it? Our officials have discussions all the time. I mean, I've had the great honour of participating in that conference on many occasions. I think that it's really important that we do everything possible to foster renewable conferences wherever and whenever. However, of course, that means carrying through on the commitments that this Government has made with high hope support from Lewis MacDonald on the importance of offshore investment in renewables. Interestingly enough, as this Government's commitment to renewables has been declared and applauded time and time again, we haven't always had the same consistency of approach from his party and even less from the Conservative party. We will work to retain conferences in Aberdeen, which I believe should be seen as not just the oil capital of Europe, but the energy capital of Europe. Of course, as Lewis MacDonald well knows, in an independent Scotland, the administration and regulation of the energy industry would be committed from Aberdeen. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Issues of importance to the people of Scotland. There has been much concern that, since this Government came to power, the use of police stop and search has increased fourfold. The response from Kenny MacAskill is, do not look at me, I am only the justice secretary. Now there is a big increase in police permanently carrying guns. The justice secretary says, who cares, ask someone else. Tearing apart the long cherished character of Scottish policing is being met by casual indifference. Does the First Minister care? I do not accept the depiction of the response of the justice secretary, which I read in the record this very morning. I mean the record of Parliament, not the daily record. I am sure that the daily record is reported more accurately than the depiction by the Liberal Democrats. I was very struck by another article that appeared, and I would ask Willie Rennie to consider it, because it was from Hugh Riley, who obviously is a journalist, but speaks for some authority as a former officer. What he said in the Scotsman of 19 May, quote, A minority of Scottish officers bear firearms while in routine business, but this is hardly the scare story that some are making out to be. Instead of sniping politicians and others who put things into perspective, there are more than 17,000 police officers of whom less than 3 per cent are armed, hardly the stuff of a police state. Unfortunately, the operational decision made by the head of Police Scotland, Sir Stephen House, to prevent any unnecessary hold-up in armed officers arriving at firearms instance, has been turned into a political football. Not my words, but the words of a respected Scotsman journalist, but I do think that Willie Rennie and others would do well to bear them in mind as they are addressing this important issue. He needs to recognise that the policies changed. Police Scotland has admitted that more armed police officers are ready and armed at all times, even on normal duties, so we now have more police carrying guns at road traffic accidents, more police carrying guns controlling crowds outside nightclubs and carrying guns when stopping and searching children. On his watch, they do not know what is happening on their watch. They need to take this much more seriously than they are. The relationship between the police and the public is at risk, but he says that it has nothing to do with him. It was supposed to be that having guns was exceptional. Now it is being normalised. If he would not act, will he at least appoint an independent reviewer to look at the use of guns by the police? Willie Rennie should pay attention to the response around the chamber for his question. There are 275 officers who have standing authority to carry firearms at the present moment on patrol. That is out of a total number of police officers in Scotland, next to the Government, of more than 17,000. I think that that sense of perspective should be placed into the realm of Willie Rennie. The alternative, of course, to having the efficient operation that the chief constable has put forward, would be delay in those officers being properly equipped to respond to serious incidents. That would not be desirable. The alternative to not being available for other duties, if any of those 275, and let's remember that that is the total, in any one shift it will be a fraction of 275, would be to have a situation where officers had to drive past incidents that they happened to be first responders to because they were armed officers. That would clearly be both impractical and undesirable. However, this question of the operational response, every single police board in England, bar 1, has exactly the same operational response as the chief constable. Every single police board in England, bar 1, and I can see Willie Rennie saying, oh well that's not our responsibility, but it is an interesting fact because I would like to know, given that his party is in government in England at the present moment, is he expressed this concern or these fears or these difficulties to his colleagues in Government of Westminster or does he just reserve his hyperbole for coming along to this Parliament, expressing unnecessary fears and putting things in a way that's not at all reasonable. It's a serious subject. We should be proud of the way our police service defends the interests of our community. We should have confidence in their operational decisions and we should regard as a triumph, not just the huge decline in recorded crime but the massive decline in both violent crime and indeed in the carrying of firearms. Just for once, Willie Rennie will come to this chamber and give us the place the due regard that he should have for their success in keeping us safe from harm. To ask the First Minister how many houses have been built in the private public sectors in each of the last three years? Latest available figures for the completion of private sector homes are 2011, 10,150, 2012, 9,990, 2013, 9,938. The affordable homes figures include all homes counted towards the Government target of 30,000 affordable homes by March 2016. The latest figures are 2011, 6,296, 2012, 6,385, 2013, 7,189, and those figures show that we are well on our way to meeting the 30,000 target. Something will be welcomed across this chamber, although I should point out that the figure for 2013 is higher than anything achieved in any year by the Labour Liberal Administration. I thank the First Minister for that answer. The Government of the Bank of England, Mark Kearney, said at the weekend that not enough houses were being built in the UK. Can the First Minister indicate that her record on house building in Scotland compares with the rest of the UK and what action is being taken to boost house building in the private sector? The Government of the Bank of England was absolutely right to focus attention on supply in the housing market. A direct answer to the question, the rate of home completions per 100,000 population for the year to end of September 2013 was much higher in Scotland at 268 than in England 202 or Wales 180. That has been the case throughout the 2007-08 to 2012-13 period. It is particularly marked in terms of social housing, where the new bill completion rate in Scotland was 80.9 per 100,000, compared to 41 in England, 25 in Wales and 70 in Northern Ireland. One of the reasons that we are experiencing less of the pressure on housing as a housing bubble in North Cross Scotland in generality is that our supply of housing statistics are better, but they are not good enough. Therefore, given the Bank of England and the Governor's initiative, we are particularly instructive to have a joint look at what we can do with the finances of housing associations in particular in terms of allowing them to increase the excellent work that they are already doing. To ask the First Minister if any further reviews will be carried out on housing association grants to increase the number of new registered social landlord developments. Yes, we are on-going in our discussions with the housing associations and, as Mary Fee has just heard, it is one of the keys to avoiding some of the great difficulties that we are seeing in some parts of England at the present moment. She would acknowledge, as a fair-minded colleague in this chamber, that those figures for affordable homes are impressive under the circumstances that we have experienced over the past few years. Given those circumstances of straightening the economic times and cutbacks from Westminster are much more severe than anything that is experienced by the Labour Liberal Administration, it seems particularly impressive that those figures are higher than anything that was achieved by the Labour Party when in office. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to tackle racial intolerance and hate crime. Well, racist incidents are decreasing. There were 4,628 recorded in 2012-13. That is 30 per cent fewer than in 2006-07. The clear-up rate, which is also crucial, is also improving up 3 per cent. However, there is much, much more to be done. In February, we launched to aware this campaign to speak up against hate crime, to help victims and witnesses of hate crime to report all incidents to Police Scotland. We have provided £60 million of funding for a range of equality projects between 2012 and 2015. That is more than double the £28 million that the Labour Liberal Democrat coalition provided between 2014 and 2017. That funding includes more than £8 million that we are using to support 40 local and national organisations in their work to break down barriers to racial equality. I am grateful to the First Minister for that reply. In that context, can he explain why the Scottish Government is cutting the funding to the only national charity that is focused on anti-racism by more than two thirds? The show of the red-carb charity received funding of £70,000 in 2012-13. It fell to £40,000 last year, and it is intended to be £20,000 this year. First Minister? I am not sure that the Green person, perhaps it was not what he meant to say, but I have a list here of 40 local organisations and national organisations across Scotland that benefit from the budgets that I have just outlined, which are substantially more than the budgets that were allocated when his party was in office. I will start reading them if you want. Access, AppnessGar, Amina, article 12, famous Bridges programme, Bridging the Gap, the Red Cross, the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights. I could go on right through the alphabet. Well, Graham Pearson suggested, and I think that it may have been a mistake that there was only one national organisation active in this field. There are many, many organisations that are being supported by the Scottish Government. In terms of the particular organisation that he raised, the funding package was agreed with them, was signed up to and agreed. In terms of these other 40, they all do valuable work across Scotland, and nothing should be said that diminishes the work that is being done by these vital organisations, even if it was a mistake or a misapprehension. It is absolutely vital that we acknowledge that work, because although we have made progress on those issues in Scotland, there is a huge amount still to be done. As he and I both know, there are people in society who would seek to take advantage of racial divisions, and they must be combated in every possible sense in this chamber and at the ballot box. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to promote the value of modern apprenticeships to employers and young people. Well, I was delighted to announce on Sunday that we have again surpassed and reached the target of delivering 25,000 new modern apprenticeships in the last year. We intend to build on the success of the programme by guaranteeing 30,000 opportunities every year by 2020. If we make young people your business, we will continue to encourage employers, particularly small businesses, to realise the benefits that a modern apprenticeship can bring. Thank you, First Minister, for that answer. In setting out the Scottish Government's vision for apprenticeships in Scotland, does the First Minister agree that all young people deserve the best possible start in life and that a modern apprenticeship is an ideal opportunity for a young person to gain valuable skills, hands-on work experience and, most crucially, a job upon completion? Yes, I do, and there are some key figures to get across with regard to that. We now know that 92 per cent of modern apprenticeships are in employment after six months after completion of their apprenticeship. That is a highly important figure to get across in terms of recruiting young people into the modern apprenticeship programme. We know and should articulate the fact that modern apprenticeships are for both genders. There are now 10,445 women started a modern apprenticeship in 2013-14. That is 41 per cent of all modern apprenticeship starts. It compares with 2,857 back a few years ago, which was only 27 per cent of starts. Therefore, that message that modern apprenticeships are for both men and women is vitally important, as is the message that, if you get a modern apprenticeship, it is a passport to a lifetime's employment.