 Rwy'n dechrau'n gweld yn rhywbeth eich cyfnod o'r pethau general. Pheuhein 1 maen nhw i'n meddwl. Rwy'n dechrau'n cei'n rwy'n meddwl eich cyfnod lap uncleion. Mae wedi'i meddwl yn ei bryd i'r ddweud. Mae'r turmeric 那, gan gyfnod clwrsgymwynt, ordersch mor gyfrindigion gyfo'r newid o'r paeysiadol. Yr cyfrindigion gyfo'r newid o'r pethau general i'r wyf yn yn oed i'r meddwl. A ddoe'r nhw'n gweld ei greu i ddim yn baratol, ac rwy'n cael ei bod yn cael ei wirio y gallas defnyddio ar deilwyr mennwydol. Mae y cyfeit apertyn ymgyrch yn ei wneud i ddweud i tÙl i ddoe'r listau, mae'r tyfnol sydd wedi eu cyfwysig, am rhaid o ddogfwysfaeth i ddweud. Mae ein llwyddiad yw eisiau esosys, mae'r cyfeitau periysu ymgyrch ar gwybeth, ac mae'r cyfeitau sylwg i dda'r listau, gyda llwyddiad i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud. You expect health boards to work with practices as constructively and as flexibly as is appropriate to help to manage the situation and ensure that all patients have access to GP services but there can be no denying that under this SNP government GP surgeries and our GP's are particularly overworked and overstretched. Statistics published this week, shown in the i'w gwneud i'w ddechrau i ddweud o'r ddaf y tîm rhai ddweud mwy gweithgol yn y gweithgol, sydd ar gyfer 300,000 cael ei ddiwrnod yn ddigon gwyllwll gwaith. Gweithio'r Gweithgol yn y gweithgol, ddweud gweithgol yn ddigon gweithgol? Gweithgol yn y gweithgol yn ddigon gweithgol i'w ddweud sefydliadau, ac yn ddigon gweithgol yn ei ddweud sefydliadau a'r ddweud sefydliadau i'w ddweud sefydliadau, that would make particular challenges for practises. The member will also be aware of the very significant investment that was put into expanding the primary care team, where some 4,700 additional staff were recruited to support general practice across the country through physiotherapists, phlobodomists, pharmacies services, all of which helped to support general practice, alongside that commitment that was made to recruit an extra 800 GPs over the course of this parliamentary term and into the next parliamentary term, ond we'll making good progress so on. I do recognise and acknowledge the challenges that general practice have, which is why we've been expanding the primary care team around them in order to make sure that patients can receive a broad range of services within general practice. Thank you. GPs want to keep their lists open but to do that, they risk becoming overwhelmed and can't offer the same level of service. Un o ddim yn cael ei wneud o'r proffès i ddweud y cydweithio myfyrdd Newbill sydd hwnnw i'ch ddwylliant a i'w maen nhw fel hwnnw i gynnig y ddwylliant oedd yn mycynnod derbyn cydwydol geithagol, cyflawni, cyflawni, ysgrifennu oeddannai, ddylchonu ei gyffredin nhw i ddweud gwahoddau'r bwyd yn hwnnw i'ch gynllenio, logonogol, mewn prifoeddauhoot I recognise that this has been a long-standing issue, which has even been experienced in my constituency with new housing developments and the pressure that can then place on local health infrastructure and in particular primary care services. I am very open to looking at whether there is more we can do in order to ensure that. The potential impact that residential developments have on local health infrastructure is an issue that could be addressed more effectively through the way in which planning arrangements operate within local authorities. I am more than happy to engage with the member on that issue to see whether further action it could be taken. The cabinet secretary seems very laid back about this. He has clearly not read the words of Dr Andrew Buist from the BMA, who says that demand is outstripping capacity, GPs are working beyond safe limits, they are exhausted and they are burnt out, but the cabinet secretary acts if it is not an emergency. What new steps is he going to take to deal with this emergency before patients suffer? I am very acutely aware of the challenges here and the need for action to be taken in a matter. Andrew Buist is someone whom I have met three times within the past two weeks alone, where we have discussed these very issues. I am acutely aware of the pressures that are on general practice. I have outlined measures that we are taking in terms of increasing recruitment. The level of specialist training provision for general practice is increasing as well, so we will get more coming into general practice this year. I believe that we were oversubscribed in those who wanted to go into general practice as a speciality, so we are continuing to look at how we can increase numbers in the years ahead. We want more GPs, and of course we have more GPs in Scotland priori of population in any other part of the UK, but equally the recruitment of that wider primary care team, some 4,731 additional staff have been provided. That is physiotherapists, phlebotanists and pharmacy staff, all of whom are critical in meeting the wider demand that patients have, so that they take some of the demand away directly from general practice and allow others to get the support that they require, whether it be through a physiotherapist or whether it be through a family. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is and whether the current options available to record the relationship status of a deceased person are sufficient for the purpose of that information being accurately represented on a death certificate. The information recorded in an entry in the register of deaths is intended to form an accurate and permanent legal record. The high quality records produced by registrars form important sources of historical information and allow those research in their family past to make clear and accurate links to their ancestors. The information required is set out in a Scottish statutory instrument made by the register's general and approved by the Scottish ministers, and the required relationship information is marital or civil partnership status. I apologise to the cabinet secretary for the complexity of this supplementary, but if you bear with me, only the wife, husband or relative, of a recently deceased person has the legal right to register their death. For partners who are cohabitants, regardless of how many years they don't have this right, they must either own property of what is still loved when it's died or be present at their death, but cohabiting partners are also not allowed to be recognised in the death certificate. Apparently some registry officers can record the deceased as being survived by the former partner who they divorced many years ago, and that is the key point. Does the Scottish Government consider that to be right in such cases or, in fact, accurate if they have been long divorced? Could that happen where there has been an abusive spouse? I just raised this question. If the deceased's status was of divorce and has a surviving partner, perhaps there is no need to record the former relationship. I wonder if the Scottish Government can raise awareness amongst cohabitants. I must know what we need to get to the question to the cabinet secretary, please. And that registers should be sensitive to these cases. Cabinet secretary, I hope you managed to get it. Presiding Officer, this is indeed a somewhat complex matter. It's a matter that the Scottish Government has given some consideration to because we've had a number of correspondences on this matter. Essentially, because we recognise that many couples today live together in enduring relationships and, indeed, this is becoming more confident. However, if we had to allow cohabity or cohabitant to be included in the entry of the death register, there are some complications around us. I'm happy to write to Ms McNeill in detail. One example of complication would be that, if the register may be faced with a situation where the deceased remained legally married or in a civil partnership but was also cohabiting at the time of death, it would not be clear whether the person should be recorded as cohabiting or married. In terms of the issue around different practice, that would not be my understanding. Cabinet secretary, your time will need to write to the relevant correspondences. I call question number four, Willie Coffey. Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its cladding remediation programme. Cabinet secretary, you surely answer of it. The safety of homeowners and residences is our absolute priority. That is why we introduced the housing cladding remediation Scotland bill on 1 November that will give ministers new powers to ensure the remediation of buildings with unsafe cladding. It is why we are seeking the transfer of powers in order to create a building safety levy. We are undertaking a robust programme of pilot single building assessments. Those assessments are being completed and remediation work is under way. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. At our recent local government committee, we heard that of the 105 buildings in the pilot programme, only 27 of those have had assessments commissioned and only one building has had remediation work and only one building has had mitigation measures. Can you ask the cabinet secretary to explain that progress and to give an assurance that that work will proceed at a much faster pace? When the minister for housing gave evidence to committee in May, he did acknowledge that for many homeowners this process has taken too long. The 10-year system in Scotland is of course different to the system in England. That complexity is an additional challenge for the programme, given that we do not have single building owners. Last year, the then cabinet secretary announced a change in approach to the programme, moving from a grant model to a direct procurement model, which has led to a real increase in the pace of the programme. I hope that that gives Mr Coffey some reassurance on this issue. I understand from meetings with the minister and the round table that Cokab Stewart held yesterday how challenging the issue is for the Government, but I also know from my constituents and others that people who have affected buildings really appreciate communication from the Government. Can the cabinet secretary advise whether the Scottish Government will consider proactive communications on a regular basis with affected building owners to increase awareness of the process of remediation and time skills for this? I thank Mr McPherson for his question. The minister for housing has had conversations with a number of members, as well as, importantly, our residents directly in recent weeks and indeed months since taking up his post. He is very keen to ensure that we improve communication to the homeowners of the buildings within the programme. Further to this, I understand that he has asked officials to scope several options, including regular communications on the overall programme flight path, as well as building specific communications. I would expect that to be implemented in the new year, and I am sure that the minister will keep Mr McPherson updated on progress. I have been stated in Scotland that only one such programme of works has been progressed. There is a huge amount of detail not on the face of the cladding bill with regard to the single building assessment, cladding assurance register and the responsible developer scheme. Does the cabinet secretary not acknowledge that the continued absence of this detail in the bill creates risks for those affected, both residents and home builders? Has the potential to prolong uncertainty to residents impacted? I am sure that the minister would be more than happy to go into the details of this with the member. I give but one example of the reasons behind our approach. The approach for responsible developers scheme aligns with the approach taken by the UK Government when establishing their responsible actor scheme. The UK Government also put the details of that scheme in secondary legislation. The level of detail required for the scheme is more suited to secondary legislation, but I am sure that that is a discussion that the committee will have in evidence and which the minister would be happy to respond to. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that rural populations have convenient and appropriate access to care homes. Although we have overall responsibility for health and social care policy in Scotland, the statutory responsibility for delivering, commissioning and charging for services lies with local authorities and health and social care partnerships. We have set clear standards for the quality of care that is provided in Scotland, which includes convenient and appropriate access to care homes. I and my officials regularly engage with local partners to assure ourselves that those standards are met nationally. We are also committed to building a national care service to improve the quality and consistency of social care across Scotland, recognising the different approach that is needed often for people living in rural communities. I thank the minister for that answer. My climate house care home in Lanark is currently consulting on proposals to close the care home to fill a 20.8 million shortfall in their social care budget, compounded by Circus 18 million Government clawback from the health and social care partnership earlier this year. The next nearest council run facilities are reclated in the central belt towns of Hamilton, Rutherglen and East Kilbride. Can I ask the minister what the Scottish Government is doing to prevent the closure of care homes in rural areas that provide vital services to the community, such as my climate house care home in my constituency? As I said in my earlier answer, we set the standards for social care and we set the policy direction, but it is the local authorities who have responsibility for commissioning and delivering and charging for those services. As I said nationally, we are working towards the national care service, which I think will improve the situation both rurally and urban, but I have no locus to become involved in care home closures in local areas. Is vital a high quality of adult social care? Mr Dornan, please stop. I had actually moved to question number six, which you have. So, could we now move to question six, please? I did have a supplementary for question five. Yes, but I haven't taken it, Mr Dornan, so could you move to your own question number six? I am now going on to question six, Speaker. To ask the Scottish Government how the proposals outlined in its latest building in New Scotland paper, Social Security in Independent Scotland, which supports Scotland's social security system. Our latest building in New Scotland paper sets out how, with independence, we could build on the progress that we have already made in creating a fairer system with limited powers and demonstrates how independent Scotland could go even further. That includes introducing early reforms to universal credit, scrapping the two-child limit and rape clause, scrapping the young parent penalty and stopping the roll-out of changes to reserved ill health and disability benefits. In time, we could build a fairer system such as a minimum income guarantee, ensuring that everyone has an income to live a dignified life. James Dornan? The building in New Scotland paper outlines how future Governments in Independent Scotland might implement and build in a minimum income guarantee in a way that cannot be fully achieved within the limits of devolution. Can the cabinet secretary elaborate on this proposal and the necessity of independence to achieve through financial security and wellbeing for Scottish households? Given the fact that both the Conservatives and Labour at UK level seem to still be refusing to make changes to our welfare system, it is disappointing to see that we will have to do what we can within the settlement that we have. We have made progress on this, but, as the interim report from the MIG expert group showed, there are limitations perhaps that what can be done about minimum income guarantee under devolution. The group is producing its final report next year, and I am really looking forward to the recommendations on the next steps about what we can do under devolution, but how, importantly, it may require the powers of independence to truly allow our citizens to have a dignified social security system. Not to state the obvious, Presiding Officer, but this paper is the latest iteration of what the SNP might do in a hypothetical future and does nothing to support Scotland's social security system right now. That is the social security system that has overspent massively on IT, waits for processing claims on adult disability payment and other benefits that are through the roof and has delayed the transfer of key benefits, leaving them in the hands of the DWP. Shouldn't the Government be focused on running a properly functioning system now in Scotland rather than dealing in hypotheticals? I will give one example of how we have used our powers already, of course, through the Scottish child payment. The reason why we are doing that is because of the inadequate level of universal credit, so what a shame that whether it is the Tories or whether it is Labour, we will have to continue to mitigate against the worst excesses of any UK Government because of the absolute refusal of either of the parties to actually take seriously the impact that welfare reform has had on our citizens. Isn't it a shame that Mr O'Cain's party seems quite happy to back the Tories in keeping people in poverty rather than lifting them out as we do through our own social security system? To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to reduce waiting times for ambulances in north-east Scotland. The Scottish Government continues to work closely with the Scottish Ambulance Service and NHS Grampian to improve hospital handover times for ambulance crews in Aberdeen-Wilham Firmary and Dr Gray's Hospital in Elgin, which is having a significant impact on response times. NHS Grampian have identified that they require additional acute capacity to meet demand in the process of opening 14 new acute beds to ease capacity pressures. 18 of those are currently operational and a further 14 are expected to open by mid-January. It is anticipated that that will improve patient flow through ARI and reduce ambulance stacking. It seems that long wait times for ambulances is being caused by ambulances queued up at Aberdeen-Wilham Firmary for hours on end. Earlier this year, my father had a six-hour wait in the back of an ambulance in severe pain, but those waits now seem to be commonplace. The ambulance drivers and paramedics are doing a brilliant job, but are being failed by this devolved Government. Will the cabinet secretary work with NHS Grampian to improve the situation and stop those excessive waits? I am sorry to hear about the difficulty that his father had with his own wait in an ambulance. Of course, it is important that we take action to address those measures. The biggest challenge that we have in terms of flow through ARI and need departments is delayed discharges in our hospitals, which prevent patients from moving from A to E into the hospital setting. That is why we are taking concerted action with our health and social care partnership to try to address those issues. There have been issues in Aberdeenshire, in particular over recent months, which we are trying to address with them to see further action. I can also assure the member that additional support services have been provided to Aberdeenshire. For example, the Scottish Armour Service has put in place additional ambulance resources in Grampian, with two new double-crewed ambulances in Aberdeen alone. One new night shift ambulance-based at Aberdeen Central Fire Station is a fully funded paramedic response unit in Elgin. A new back shift in Elgin and a new back shift in Banff. At Keith and Huntley, ambulance stations are now both operating on a 24-7 basis. However, we need to address the issue of delayed discharges within the hospital to allow flow into it. That is an issue that we are continuing to focus on with the health and social care partnerships.