ferasuwr i tuut y math gennymai eich fynd eich raihaeth i saiolfa wedi maes pobl draws diwyd. Mae unrhef Zaordydd y bwrdd ffordd o barddangosurau yn gyffredinol iawn, automatew yn ynnugwm fod yg inclusionnau ei societyi. Ien i fynh, mae oedd sefydlu i ei dweud gyda dda'r hwnsydd i'i wneud buffaiddio ipod trains, bapyddu iawn, hetylemau, cabon gone pixelid, drafu diwyd yn amlï. Gyda fyddfa ddim yn gwahanol atornydd y brantech chi speaki atorlen i taith of measures, including further sanctions against Russia, the suspension of all high-level bilateral engagement between the UK and Russia, new powers to bar entry to our country for people suspected of hostile state activity, and the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats. Will the First Minister join me in welcoming those robust and proportionate measures? The First Minister First, can I agree wholeheartedly that the Sulzbury poisoning is a gravely serious issue? It puts potentially large numbers of people at risk and therefore it demands a very serious response. In a democracy, of course, people are right to ask questions and scrutinise the evidence and, of course, this investigation is on-going and that will continue to be the case, but, based on what I have been told and in my case, of course, that includes briefing directly from the national security adviser, I believe at this stage the conclusion that Russia was responsible is a reasonable conclusion and therefore I think it demands a proportionate but a very firm response and, as I said yesterday, that is why I support the initial steps that the Prime Minister outlined in the House of Commons. Obviously, if and as for the reaction is proposed, we will scrutinise that very carefully, as I hope all parties would scrutinise that very carefully. As the investigation progresses, we will also apply that same scrutiny to any emerging evidence, but I think that the key point is this. It is a point that I and others made yesterday. A tax of this nature simply cannot be allowed to take place on the streets of this country with impunity. Ruth Davidson I thank the First Minister for our answer, and I think that it is important that this chamber is seen to speak with a unity of purpose on this matter. As I said in my question, there is no doubt that this kind of attack could have happened and could still happen anywhere in the United Kingdom. With that in mind, could the First Minister update the chamber on the preparedness of our emergency services and can she make clear that they have the resources that are required to keep people safe? The First Minister Firstly, Scotland's preparedness to successfully respond to attacks of this nature to chemical, biological and radiological attacks has been developed over a number of years in relation to the type of incident encountered in Salisbury. Our excellent emergency services would be in a position to respond to the initial incident. As the investigation progresses and more information comes to light, we will continue to discuss those matters directly with our emergency services involving, of course, our resilience arrangements more generally to make sure that they have the capability and the resources that are required. Obviously, those are matters that I had the opportunity in London yesterday to discuss with the Prime Minister, with the First Minister of Wales and indeed with the National Security Advisor. If it is the case that further action is proposed in future, for example action that may include asset recovery or sanctions, whereas that is the responsibility of the national crime agency, in other parts of the UK and Scotland, that is the responsibility of Police Scotland and the Crown Office and the Civil Recovery Unit in particular. It is important that there is on-going discussion and dialogue on those matters as well. I hope that perhaps if there is any criticism to be made of behaviour in the past in terms of the UK, perhaps there has not been a stronger response in the past in terms of the influence of Russian money, for example. I think that those matters are all required to be looked at very carefully, which is one of the reasons why I hope that there will be support for the so-called Magnitsky private member's bill that Ian Black for the leader of the SNP in the House of Commons is a co-sponsor of. Ruth Davidson. I thank the First Minister for updating the chamber on the emergency and security preparedness. There is also another issue here, and that is the way that the Russian state seeks to interfere in the affairs of this country and of others. That is notably through the state-backed television network RT, which is little more than a propaganda mouthpiece for Vladimir Putin. It is a network whose editor-in-chief is on record as saying its purpose is to fight an information war against the whole western world. It is one that has declared that the hard evidence linking Russia to these attacks in Salisbury was fanciful. This week, RT was placed under review by the broadcast regulator, Ofcom. Does the First Minister agree that this review is long overdue and that we should all unite against propaganda's channels, which spread disinformation and undermine our values? First Minister. I think that matters relating, for example, to licences for Russia today or for any other broadcast that are rightly a matter for Ofcom, and they should be considered independently. In this country, perhaps this is one of the differences with Russia. It is not for politicians to decide who gets to broadcast because freedom of speech is something that matters greatly to us. In terms of Russia today, generally, I have made my view on that known in the past and I have not changed that view. However, it is fair to say that there are a number of issues. If Ruth Davidson wants to take the debate to these matters, there are a number of issues that I think also require to be looked at—the influence of Russian money in our society, and indeed Russian donations to political parties. I know that Ruth Davidson might reflect on issues such as that herself, but I think that there are bigger issues that have been raised by what happened in Salisbury. I hope that we can all continue to unite to say that attacks like this are simply not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Perhaps all of us should resist the temptation that all of us have come to, from time to time, to reduce this to party political points scoring. Ruth Davidson I think that it is the duty of elected representatives to make their positions clear. I hope that I have done so in this chamber. However, the fact of the matter is that Russia today exists for the sole purpose of promoting the agenda of Putin's regime. It serves him well in that purpose. It acts as an apologist for a Government, which all the evidence shows has directly or indirectly been culpable in a chemical attack on Britain's soil. We have a proud tradition in this country of a free press that acts without fear or favour, a media that seeks to meet the highest standards of objectivity so that people get the truth. Does the First Minister not agree with me that that objectivity is poisoned when state agents pump propaganda into the households of this country? The First Minister I do not support state propaganda. I have made my views clear on Russia today in the past. As I said earlier on, I have not, and I will not change those views. What I said to Ruth Davidson, if we want to look at it from that perspective, I think that there are other issues that require to be addressed. Perhaps the difference between me and Ruth Davidson is that I have made my views on Russia today known. I am not aware that she has made her views known on matters such as Russian donations to political parties. Perhaps she would take the opportunity to do so today. All those issues require to be looked at if one of them is going to be raised. Let me repeat the point that I made. In doing so, I would agree with the first statement that Ruth Davidson made in this chamber. What happened in Silisbury is a matter of serious national security. It has very grave implications. Those were the issues that I was discussing with the national security adviser on Tuesday, again yesterday in London with the Prime Minister. Those are the issues that we should be focused on. That is why I gave support to the Prime Minister for the initial actions that she has taken. We will continue to scrutinise further actions. That is the basis on which we should respond and address all those other issues as they arise. We should not be one-sided in seeking to do so. That is the simple point that I make. 2. Richard Leonard Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Government's big idea to deliver fair work standards is the Scottish business pledge, a voluntary scheme that companies sign up to if they are willing to commit to fair work practices. Following the collapse of Carillion, can the First Minister tell Parliament how many of the major outsourcing firms have signed up to the pledge? The precise information is information that I am happy to provide in writing to Richard Leonard. I do not have it to hand here. There are a large number of companies that have signed up to the Scottish business pledge. It is, of course, a voluntary pledge. We encourage companies to do that. We have had debates in this chamber. Patrick Harvie has led some of those calls for the Scottish business pledge not to be so voluntary in future, and those are things that we keep under review. Of course, the Scottish business pledge is just one aspect of our approach to fair work. The fair work convention has taken forward other aspects of that. Indeed, in my regular meeting with the Scottish Tribunia's Congress, the most recent one was last week, we discussed how we raised the profile of fair work generally and have agreed to further work around that. One of the things that I committed to in that meeting was that the cabinet would have a discussion in this in the near future to look at how we further mainstream this approach to fair work throughout everything that we do across Government. Again, I hope that that is something that we will have support right across this chamber. Richard Leonard My question was how many of those companies have signed up to the Scottish business pledge. The answer is not one, not one, not G4S, not mighty, not capital, inter-serve, circle, but that is maybe no surprise when you look at how those companies operate. In Scotland, Carillion had a system where workers on the Shots rail electrification project were charged up to £100 a week simply to be paid their wages. We know that construction companies do that across Scotland through a system of umbrella companies that are set up by employment agencies that allow them to dodge tax, to cut costs and to exploit workers. Does the First Minister think that it is acceptable for workers to be charged up to £100 a week simply for being paid their wages? The First Minister No, I do not. I think that that is absolutely outrageous. I would condemn any company pursuing any practice of that nature. I would also take the opportunity today, and I hope again that I would be echoed in this by voices across the chamber to encourage the kinds of companies that Richard Leonard has cited here to sign up to the Scottish business pledge and to take action around their own practices that enable them to sign up to the Scottish business pledge. Perhaps the most important and pertinent point that I can make to Richard Leonard is this one. Many of the practices that he cites at him and I are in agreement about how unacceptable and outrageous they are, of course, are matters relating to employment law. Employment law remains reserved to Westminster, so I would put the issue back to Richard Leonard. Of course, the Scottish Labour Party has long opposed employment law being devolved to this Parliament, so if the Scottish Labour Party wants to enable this Government to take tougher action on practices like that, will he join me today now in calling for employment law to be devolved to this Parliament in order that we can do exactly that? Richard Leonard. This is not about employment law. This is about public procurement. Your Government is handing over millions of pounds of public money to these companies, and they are treating workers shamefully. Here is what this means in the real world. Labour will release today redacted payslips from workers on the flagship Aberdeen peripheral route. Those payslips will show that workers have been charged for the privilege of being paid. On a contract funded by your Government, workers have been blatantly exploited. With the collapse of Carillion, what is your Government doing to ensure that no worker will be charged to simply receive their wages? First Minister. Let me make a number of points. I hope to try to be helpful. First, we will look at any information that Richard Leonard wants to make available. Secondly, this Government has gone further than any other Government in the UK in terms of embedding fair approaches to things such as the living wage zero-hours contract and blacklisting into the public procurement process. We will continue to look at how we can take further action to do that, but in terms of companies and how they operate and the legal context in which they operate, very often I am sorry to say to Richard Leonard that it is a matter of employment law. If he wants to join us in asking for this to be devolved, then I would welcome that. There is another issue here, because with employment law it is about arguing for additional powers to be devolved. It cannot have escaped Richard Leonard's notice that one of the powers in the context of the Brexit withdrawal bill that the UK Government wants to effectively re-reserve is power over public procurement, which would restrict this Government even further. It is not enough for Richard Leonard simply to come to this chamber and raise problems. He has also got to join us in equipping this Government with the solutions to those problems. When he starts to do that, perhaps he will be taken a bit more seriously. We have some constituency questions. The first is from Richard Lochhead. The First Minister will be aware that, despite the best efforts of local management and staff, overnight admissions to the children's ward, Dr Grayson Elgin has once again been suspended, hopefully only temporarily, due to a shortage of pediatricians compounded by on-going issues and attracting trainee doctors to the hospital. That means that families face their children potentially being transferred all the way to Aberdeen for treatment, and that places more pressure on local ambulance crews who are waiting on a decision on an additional emergency ambulance and crew for Elgin. Indeed, I am told that, on Monday evening, a crew had to hang about for four hours waiting for a vehicle to return to Murray so that they could take over and answer local calls. Will the First Minister please urgently investigate what more solutions can be put in place to help attract pediatricians to work in more northerly-based hospitals and doctors also to places like Dr Grayson, who are urgently required, and seek a quick decision at the same time on the hope for increase in local ambulance provision? I thank Richard Lochhead for raising the issue. As he knows and has alluded to, NHS Grampain has been working and continues to work to fill posts within its pediatric services at Dr Grayson hospital in Elgin. While it seeks to build on the three pediatric consultants who currently work in the hospital, the board has reluctantly introduced a temporary model on safety grounds. I stress that the grounds for that are to do with the safety of children. The board has set out that its decision has been taken in the best interests of children and their families, and I am sure that everyone would agree that clinical safety is the primary consideration. The board is doing everything that it can to fill vacancies and is continuing to review its staffing model. I think that Richard Lochhead also raises important issues about the ambulance service, which I will ask the health secretary to consider in more detail and discuss with him. However, we hope to see the situation restored to where people want it to be at Dr Grayson as quickly as possible. Mark Ruskell The news of 150 job losses at Babcock in Rossife is a further blow for West Fife communities, already reeling from the 250 job losses that were announced last November. The yard doesn't just support the jobs of today, it supports young people to fill the jobs of tomorrow with apprenticeships and a partnership with Fife College delivering courses in engineering and renewables at the dockyard campus. Will the First Minister confirm that the downscaling will not impact on the training opportunities on site? Will the Scottish Government commit to supporting an action plan for the dockyard's future, which does not rely entirely on MOD contracts? I am very concerned to learn of the redundancies at Babcock international in Rossife. I know that this will be a very difficult time for those employees and their families. The Scottish Government will continue to do everything that we can to support those affected through our partnership action for continuing employment team. They have already been in contact with Babcock, who has confirmed that the company will accept a full package of tailored pace support. Although it is very disappointing that the company is making job losses as a result of its internal restructuring, we hope that the decision will help to secure a sustainable future for the company for years to come. Scottish Enterprise is working with the company to support that. The member is right to point to making sure that we continue to support training opportunities but also support the company to diversify as well. Those will be issues that Scottish Enterprise is very much focused on. The First Minister will recall that she told her own party conference that childcare is the best investment that we can make in Scotland's future. Can she explain why her council colleagues in Glasgow have decided, without any consultation, to increase childcare fees with some families such as my constituent, paying an extra £190 a month and other families paying up to £300 a month increase? Does she agree with my constituent that if a family's mortgage, rent, gas or electricity were suddenly to rise by £190, there would be an outcry? Can the First Minister confirm whether her Glasgow colleagues have sought extra resources for her city to avoid this unfair increase? Will she use her influence to encourage her colleagues to rethink a decision that is shortsighted, unjust and utterly unacceptable to the families of Glasgow? Firstly, Glasgow City Council, in common with all councils across the country, has had a real-time increase in its revenue budgets for next year to enable it to continue to support services. Glasgow City Council is also receiving, in common with all councils across the country, additional funding to extend its childcare provision on route to the doubling of free childcare. It is that expansion that will do more than anything else to reduce the cost that parents bear for childcare. I hope that Johann Lamont and others across the whole chamber would support that wholeheartedly. My constituency, Dumfries and Galloway, health board are not prescribing the continuous glucose monitoring system for which the First Minister announced £10 million of funding back in 2016. It is totally unacceptable that we are still expecting some children, depending on where they live, to pin prick and test at all hours of the day and night when a more affordable solution is available that would massively increase the quality of life and health outcomes, not only for the patient but for the patient's family. When we already have NHS Lothian prescribing the latest FGM system, a step ahead of the CGM system, what action will the First Minister take to end this postcode lottery, particularly for the young people in my constituency, facing a lifetime of diabetes? I agree very much with the sentiment behind the question. As was rightly said, the other Scottish Government has funded health boards to increase the prescribing of diabetes monitoring equipment. I would expect all health boards to do so, because we know that that can often transform the lives of young people living with diabetes. I will personally look into the situation in Dumfries and Galloway and write to the member once I have had the chance to do so. However, I would reiterate the point that I have just made that I would expect all health boards to be doing the right thing to support young people with diabetes. 3. Willie Rennie Last year, the mental health minister said that performance on children's mental health waiting times was encouraging, but only a year later the performance is at an all-time low. Children have never waited longer since the targets began. For the first time in years, the number of people committing suicide in Scotland has increased. Two people every day are ending their life. It is one of the biggest killers of young men. Every time I raise mental health in this Parliament, the First Minister tells me that she is determined to tackle this, but the performance continues to decline. So how has she really got this under control? First Minister. First, in terms of suicides, I take the view that one suicide is one too many. We will see fluctuations year on year, but I think that it is important to stress that the long-term trend in suicide is downwards, and we want to see that long-term trend not just continue but accelerate as well. In terms of waiting times for mental health treatment for young people and adolescents, we absolutely recognise that there is more work to do. We are working closely with health boards to deliver improvements. The Minister for Mental Health is meeting with a number of boards where current delivery against the standards continues to fall short of what we expect. However, it is also important to point out that average waits are at 10 weeks. 11 out of 14 NHS boards have an average wait time of between five and 12 weeks, which is within the 18-week target. Seven boards record an average wait time of under nine weeks, which is half the 18-week waiting time target. Our mental health strategy, which, of course, is backed by additional investment of £150 million over the five years of this Parliament, sets out very clearly how we can also improve early intervention and ensure better access to services. I do not doubt the First Minister's sincerity in this, but it is just not backed up by the result. She does talk about the long-term decline in suicides, but Samaritans have been very clear this week that this is a clear warning sign for the Government. The First Minister has previously talked about more people coming forward. I am surprised that she is surprised about that, because it is no comfort to the people who need treatment now that her Government has not been ready for them. The First Minister has also highlighted that the suicide prevention plan was out this week, but we have been waiting a year for that and all we have got is a draft. The Samaritans again have said that that draft is very disappointing. The mental health strategy was delayed by the Government for a year or two. As a result, important mental health spending was delayed. We were promised that CAMHS was getting better, but only one in three people in Grampain get seen on time. All of this is truly terrible. Why is it that people have to wait whilst this Government gets its act together? I simply do not accept some of the characterisation. There is a great deal of very hard and good work being done to improve services for those who need mental health treatment. I think that it is important to be quite accurate about matters as serious as trends in suicides. Over the past 10 years, for example, we have seen an overall decrease of 17 per cent in the rate of suicide in Scotland. In my view, that is not far enough. We want to see that go down even further. I know that there is a question later on in the order paper specifically on the draft strategy, so I will not say too much about that at the moment. However, it is a draft strategy, and the reason why we publish strategies in draft is to allow organisations, such as the Samaritans, to feed into that process. As I have said to Willie Rennie in this chamber in the past, when he talks about the so-called delay to the mental health strategy, one of the reasons for that, as I recall, is that the health committee of this Parliament asked for further time to properly scrutinise that. When we are dealing with matters as serious and as complex as that, it is right that we take the time to listen to, understand and reflect the views that expert organisations put forward. I make no apology whatsoever for that. Some further supplementary is the first from Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what her response is to the Chancellor's spring statement. First Minister. Unfortunately, the spring statement demonstrated the on-going commitment of the UK Government to austerity, which I deeply regret. We will see more social security cuts coming into effect next month, and there was nothing in the spring statement to alleviate those cuts on the most vulnerable in society. The resolution foundation estimates that the UK Government's policies will leave the poorest third of households more than £700 a year worse off on average by 2022, and the average pay will not return to its pre-crisis level until 2025. That will be 17 years after the pay squeeze began. It is fair to say that the Chancellor missed an opportunity to follow the Scottish Government's lead on public sector pay, and indeed he missed an opportunity to end austerity once and for all, which is well overdue. First Minister will be aware that a proposed agreement regarding the changes to certain university sector pensions was rejected overwhelmingly by university staff, and industrial action by staff is therefore continuing. Will she support the determined efforts of UCU members to protect their pensions? Will she speak with the principles of affected universities in Scotland to urge them to ensure that an acceptable solution is now found and quickly? Shirley-Anne Somerville has been having an on-going engagement with both sides in this dispute, and that will continue. I have great sympathy with the position that university lecturers are in. Obviously, the current industrial action is an issue of considerable, and I have to say increasing concern, particularly as there is now a concern that it will start to impact on students' assessments. Strikes, I think that everybody would agree with this, are not in anyone's interests, at least of all the interests of students. We have repeatedly said that a resolution will only be found around the negotiating table. Obviously, earlier this week it looked as if a resolution might be close, but that did not come to fruition. I would certainly urge both parties to continue working together to find a solution, but I would go further than that. As a first step, I would hope that that and indeed call on the employers in this dispute to make further movement and to make enough movement to allow the union to suspend the strike while talks continue, because I think that that would allow assessments to be protected and avoid unnecessary damage to the learning of students. John Scott Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister may be aware that the pain relief services have been failing in NHS Ayrshire and Arran with only 6 per cent of new patients being seen in the waiting times, and that those figures are the worst in Scotland. Does the First Minister share my view that this is unacceptable with too many Ayrshire people enduring pain for too long before receiving treatment? What could she do to help? The First Minister First, in terms of the general position across the country, I think that it is positive to see that waiting times for chronic pain services has actually reduced in the last quarter, according to the most recent statistics. We would welcome that and encourage health boards to continue that progress. I know that there is a particular issue in Ayrshire and Arran where the progress has not been what we would want to see when the health secretary is engaging with that health board to make sure that they understand what they need to do to see that continuing. I am sure that the health secretary would be happy to have further discussions about John Scott once she has had the opportunity to have that engagement. Kezia Dugdale Presiding Officer, the Crown has produced a new procedure for dealing with what it calls reluctant complainers in rape cases. Their goal is to increase prosecutions, but campaigners believe that the new rules that would compel victims to give evidence in court are more likely to put women off coming forward in the first place. Can I ask the First Minister to respond directly to Sandy Brinley from Rape Crisis Scotland, who described the move as a step backwards and one that could have significant lasting negative implications? The First Minister I absolutely understand the concerns that have been raised in the sensitivity of the issue. The first thing that is important to say—I know that members will understand this—is a matter of prosecution policy. Prosecution policy is a matter for the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office acting independently, and that is an important principle. As I have already said, that is a sensitive issue. As I understand the policy, the views of complainers in rape cases will still be taken extremely seriously, as we would all want and expect them to be. It is incumbent on all of us, and that is certainly a responsibility for government, to continue to do more working with organisations such as Rape Crisis and Women's Aid to support women who come forward to feel that they have the support and have the confidence where necessary to give evidence that will see perpetrators brought to justice. I understand that, as I said earlier, this is a matter for the Lord Advocate acting independently. I have discussed this with the Lord Advocate simply to make sure that I understand the reasoning behind it. As I understand it, the Crown Office considers that it needs discretion. For example, and this is simply one example that I am putting forward in the chamber, that if an accused person was thought to perhaps pose a risk to other women and a complainer's evidence was needed to prosecute that person, that would be perhaps one of the factors that would be taken into account. Of course, weight must continue to be given to the views of complainers. Overall, I think that the responsibility of government working with everybody in the criminal justice system is to continue to do more, as we have been doing, to support people in that system as they bring forward complaints. John Mason Thank you. We understand that Scotland's food and drink exports have now hit £6 billion last year. Clearly, a large part of that, such as salmon and whisky, is linked to their protected status, which is guaranteed by the European Union. Does the First Minister consider that there is any risk of imitation products entering the market after Brexit? The First Minister Firstly, we should take the opportunity to celebrate the outstanding success of our food and drink industry. The figures that John Mason has just cited are further evidence of that success. I want to convey my congratulations to everybody in that sector for the work that they do. Brexit poses a real risk to that sector, as it does to many sectors across our economy. One of those risks may well be about imitation produce, but getting our produce to markets is vitally important. Anything that puts barriers in the way of that will be potentially hugely detrimental to the industry, which is why I argue so strongly—those of us in this side of the chamber argue so strongly—that we should remain within the single market and the customs union, because that is right for our food and drink industry, and I believe that it is right for our economy as a whole. Question 4, Joan McAlpine. To ask the First Minister what the outcome was of her meeting with the Prime Minister. First Minister. Yesterday, I attended a meeting of the GMC plenary, which was chaired by the Prime Minister. I also had a short bilateral meeting with her. At both meetings, of course, we discussed the Russian security situation, as well as matters relating to Brexit. We all agreed on the need for the GMC to undertake further urgent work now on the role of the devolved Administrations in the next phase of negotiations with the EU, and specifically on the EU withdrawal bill. I reiterated the changes that the Scottish Government feels are required to that bill. There was no agreement reached in Clause 11 yesterday, however, the issues that remain between us and the clause are not insignificant, but with political will and respect for devolution, neither, in my view, are they insurmountable. We will continue to engage constructively with the UK Government on those issues, but, as I have said many times before, we will not recommend approval of the withdrawal bill to this Parliament if that bill allows the powers of this Parliament to be restricted without the consent of this Parliament. I thank the First Minister for that answer, and I am encouraged by the positive nature of yesterday's discussion. Will the First Minister guarantee, however, that the Scottish Government will not recommend approval of any bill that might diminish or restrict powers without the consent of this Parliament? Yes, I will guarantee that, obviously, it is for the Parliament to decide, but I, as First Minister, will not recommend that this Parliament approves the withdrawal bill if that principle of consent is not very clearly enshrined and protected. That is not a principle that we are trying to introduce as of new right now. If an order was introduced to change the powers of this Parliament, it would require the consent of this Parliament, and we have precedent for that. If the powers of this Parliament are to be restricted even on a temporary basis, that must have the consent of members within this Parliament. We have been very clear that there will be matters where UK-wide frameworks make sense. We have never shied away from that, but those UK frameworks should come about by agreement, not by imposition, and the principle of consent is absolutely vital and one that we will always stand up and protect. I am aware that, in the name of Annie Wells, Ms Wells has lost her voice. With the chamber's permission, there is a lot of public interest in the question. In fact, it was already raised by Mr Rennie. If the chamber does not mind, I am going to ask Miles Briggs if he can ask Ms Wells questions on her behalf. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is not all Prime Ministers just to lose their voice sometimes, even MSPs. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to comments by Samaritan Scotland that the draft suicide prevention plan is very disappointing. First, let me say that I am sorry, sincerely, that Annie Wells has lost her voice and hope that she gets it back very quickly. On the serious issue that has been asked, as I said in response to Willie Rennie, the purpose of publishing a draft plan is to get views of stakeholders and allow those views to shape and, where necessary, improve the final version. Suicide, as we all know, is a significant public health issue. In February, the Samaritans, working with the Scottish Government and other key partners, produced a report setting out the views of those affected by suicide. Over 100 people took part in engagement events to inform the report, and we are grateful for their important contributions on what I know can be a very difficult issue to discuss. The final suicide action plan will fully reflect those contributions. The Minister for Mental Health will work closely with the Samaritans to seek to address their concerns, and we will carefully consider further feedback from the engagement events that are taking place in the coming weeks. Our goal, I think, is one that is shared across this chamber to deliver a plan that has the ambition of substantially building on the downward trend in suicides that we have seen in the past decade. I thank the First Minister for that answer. That, as she has said, is an extremely sensitive topic. Last year, as we have already heard, suicide rates increased in Scotland for the first time in six years. Although currently just a draft plan has been outlined, it is clear that organisations believe that the Scottish Government needs to be more ambitious in taking forward the suicide prevention plan. The current plan, for example, does not say anything about targets, timeframes and what resources will be allocated. I recognise the activity that the First Minister has referenced in her first answer in that to Willie Rennie, but does she agree that a lot more work needs to be done before we have a comprehensive strategy that is fit for purpose? Yes, I agree with that. There is always work that requires to be done between a draft strategy being published and the final strategy. I say that the purpose of publishing a draft strategy first is exactly so that we can take account of those views. The draft action plan is open for public comment, as well as for comment by stakeholders up until the 30th of April, and, hopefully, we will all encourage people to take part in that. Some of the issues that Miles Briggs has raised will be reflected in that final plan. If we look at funding, just as one example, the final action plan is likely to include funding to support a number of suicide prevention initiatives. For example, NHS Health Scotland's national suicide prevention programme, NHS24's breathing space, telephone and web of vice service, and funding to the Samaritans to help them to manage the additional costs that they are now incurring since introducing their own free call helpline. Those are important issues. I think that it is important to continue to stress that suicides are on a downward trend in Scotland, but we should not be complacent about that. Indeed, as the most recent figures would underline, the action plan is important in getting the next stage of our work right. I encourage members across the chamber to contribute their views, thoughts and opinions to that in order that the action plan is as good and as strong as all of us want it to be. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Milder in my constituents has had several tragic suicides in recent years. The area around its high flats in particular may require to a designated location of interest, a technical definition acknowledgement of the increased risk. Meeting short with the relevant health and social work officials to discuss a possible local suicide prevention strategy. Can I ask the First Minister an act of interest in this and also ask how can the Scottish Government draft suicide prevention plan help those at risk in the communities that I represent? First Minister, we strongly encourage people from communities across Scotland, including and perhaps particularly those with lived experience, to consider and respond to the engagement paper. There is an online consultation that is running from 8 March to 30 April. That is being supplemented by a series of public engagement events, and I will make sure that Bob Doris gets details of them in order that he can make his constituents aware. I think that Bob Doris raises an important issue for his constituency, including the issue around the technical definition, and I ask the mental health minister to get in touch with him directly to discuss that particular aspect further. Question 6, Claudia Beamish. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking regarding the transparency of land ownership in Scotland in light of the recent investigation by The Sunday Post. A committee to increasing the transparency of land ownership in Scotland, as a member will know, information about land ownership is published in the land register, which we have asked the keeper of the registers of Scotland to complete by 2024. We will also introduce regulations later this year, establishing a new public register of controlling interests, which will further improve the information on land ownership. The Sunday Post article highlighted the extent of land ownership in Scotland by overseas companies and raised concerns about tax avoidance. We take tax avoidance very seriously, and the finance secretary has previously written to the chancellor seeking assurances that the UK Government will take concrete action to combat it, given its responsibility, particularly for capital gains and inheritance tax. I thank the First Minister for that answer. As she knows, the Parliament made important improvements to the 2016 Land Reform Act during stage 3 as a result of representations. Those improvements require the tabling of the regulations that the First Minister has just referred to. There is indeed international interest in the road that Scotland is travelling towards greater transparency around land and property ownership, and the prospect that Scotland could become an international exemplar of good practice. Can the First Minister assure me, and those of us in the chamber, with a serious concern across the parties, that the regulations to be brought forward will deliver the promises made to the Parliament during the passage of that bill, which is now an act, as we know, and that we, by our own actions in this Parliament, using the powers that we have, can move to secure our own system of readily accessible transparent arrangements, shown to be required by the article in the Sunday Post? First Minister, I am glad for the recognition that Scotland, in this respect, is in many ways leading the way, and indeed is seen globally to be leading the way. We want that to continue to be the case. The regulations will be introduced in spring of this year and are about creating a new public register of controlling interests in owners and tenants of land. Those proposals are exactly about delivering increased transparency about the individuals who are taking decisions about Scotland's land, including land owned by overseas companies. We are also lazing closely with UK counterparts on their related proposals around a register of overseas entities' beneficial ownership, so we will take account of their position as more details emerge. However, I am determined that Scotland and this Parliament will lead the way in making sure that we have maximum transparency about the ownership of land. Our land is one of the greatest assets that we have as a country, and it is absolutely vital that we make sure that it is used for the benefit of all across our country. If the Scottish Government is leading the way, why does the overseas report that has formed the basis of the Sunday Post story cost over £1,500 to obtain when data is free in England and Wales? Why does the Scottish Land Information Service launch in November 2017 to abysmly fail to deliver the comprehensive information promised by John Swinney in 2015? Why does Historic Scotland reflect redact ownership information on tredling documents? Does she agree with the Conservative 2017 manifesto that it committed them to provide land information in England and Wales as open data? I am delighted to hear of the new alliance between Andy Wightman and the Conservative Party. I think that Andy Wightman should be more positive about the work that has been done, not least because he has been at the leading edge of much of the progress that we are seeing. If you look at the issue particularly about the openness of the register, Registers of Scotland operates as a trading fund and relies on income from fees, that is true. However, as an open register, information and individual properties are available to all for between £3 and £24 per transaction. In October last year, the Registers of Scotland launched the Scottish Land Information Service, which is a new map-based online land information service, which means that anybody is able to access information about land or property in Scotland. Initial searches are free of charge and, as it is called, Scotland will continue to be developed and improved based on customer feedback. Those are important issues, and I hope that this Parliament on those issues, as well as wider issues around land reform, will continue to make the progress that we have seen in recent years. Kate Forbes. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that fiscal incentives relating to land ownership, such as capital gains, tax exemption, does not make land ownership and management practices in Scotland more unfair and unproductive, and I am the PLO for finance? Kate Forbes raises a really important point, because some of the issues here, particularly around taxation, are not within the powers of this Government. That relates specifically to the context of the capital gains tax and inheritance tax. At the moment, we need to try to persuade the UK Government to close loopholes and to take action that deals with the issues that are raised around incentives around tax land ownership. Ultimately, it would be better if we had the ability in this Parliament in the context of our wider land reform programme to take action over those matters. I hope that we will see people across the chamber get behind us as we make that argument. Thank you very much. That concludes First Minister's Questions. We will move now to Members Business, the name of Ivan McKee, on driverless cars, and we will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.