 Thank you very much. That concludes topical questions. We turn now to First Minister's questions. Question number one from Ruth Davidson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, may I take this opportunity to welcome Richard Leonard to his post despite the differences between our two parties? I believe that leadership is a privilege and it can also be a joy. So I wish him well. And moving to substantive matters, can I ask the First Minister, is her Scottish growth scheme a con? First minister? First let me take the opportunity to congratulate Richard Leonard on his election as leader of Labour in Scotland and welcome him to his place today. I look forward to our exchanges taking place in just a few minutes time. The Scottish growth scheme, as Ruth Davidson is aware, was established on the announcement of the scheme that was made last year in the programme for government work has been done to establish that since. Through the different strands of the Scottish growth scheme, we intend to see companies supported in the very near future. Of course, we want to go further. We have now announced an intention to establish a Scottish national investment bank to provide long-term patient capital for Scottish businesses and support the strategic development of the Scottish economy. Something I would hope members right across the chamber would support. Ruth Davidson. I thank the First Minister for that answer, but the reason I asked it, Presiding Officer, was because in a parliamentary answer a few weeks ago, the Scottish Government confirmed that the first £50 million of that fund will come from the financial transactions budget. That is a method of funding that was yesterday described by the finance secretary, Derek Mackay, as a con. Of course, when the First Minister announced her big Scottish growth scheme last year, she used quite different languages. She said that this is a £0.5 billion vote of confidence in Scottish business, Scottish workers and the Scottish economy. Like everyone else in the chamber, I would welcome £0.5 billion investment in the Scottish economy if any pennies of it were ever to appear quite soon. However, I am just curious as to whether the First Minister can explain why, when the Scottish Government uses this method to invest in Scotland, it is a vote of confidence, but when the UK Government does it, it is a con. First Minister. Let me explain exactly why the Chancellor of the Shackers announcement in the budget yesterday is accurately described as a con, because I was watching. He stood up and he said without qualification that his budget would deliver an extra £2 billion for Scotland. Here is what the Fraser of Allander Institute said yesterday about the £1.1 billion of that that is in the form of financial transactions. It cannot be used to support day-to-day spending on public services, so the Chancellor tried to give the impression that this was somehow a big boost to our health service, our education system, to public services, the length and breadth of the country. However, as Ruth Davidson knows, that is far from the truth. In fact, the reality following the budget yesterday is this again confirmed by the Fraser of Allander Institute. Scotland is facing a real terms cut in our day-to-day budget next year of more than £200 million, more than £500 million over the next two years. If Ruth Davidson is prepared to stand up in this chamber today and somehow argue that that is a good deal for Scotland, then Ruth Davidson is even more of a party stooge for her Westminster masters than I thought she was. Ruth Davidson. We usually hear from the SNP that they are not getting enough money. Today we have a brand new one. It is the wrong kind of money that they are being given. Money that can be spent on housing, no thank you, money to tackle fuel poverty, how dare the UK Government. Only this First Minister could be handed an extra £2 billion in spending power and still sounds like somebody has stolen or scone. Shouldn't the First Minister spend a little less time complaining about where the money is coming from and a bit more time thinking of the positive things that she can do with it? First Minister. Well, if I was a Tory these days, I wouldn't be standing up here talking about scones given the number of Scottish families being forced to food banks because of the policies of this Tory Government. Here's another fact about the so-called large S towards Scotland of the Chancellor. Not only can those financial transactions in the words of the Fraser of Allander Institute not be spent on day-to-day spending on public services, this money also has to be repaid by the Scottish Government to the UK Government. Let's just cut to the chase. I know that Ruth Davidson desperately wants to somehow pretend that yesterday's budget was a great deal for Scotland, but let me go back to the central point here. This is the central point that Ruth Davidson has to address. I would invite her to do so after the budget yesterday. Even if everything that Ruth Davidson is saying about the budget yesterday is true, after all of that is taken into account, the resource day-to-day spending budget of this Government next year will be £200 million less in real terms. I invite Ruth Davidson to stand up here when she next gets her feet and tell us where she thinks we should take that £200 million from, the health service, education or, if not these things, where does Ruth Davidson think that these Tory cuts should be taken from? Ruth Davidson. The First Minister is standing there telling us that she's being shortchanged, but some of us think that an extra £2 billion more than she woke up with yesterday morning is quite a bit of extra change to have. That money is available now for the Scottish Government ahead of its budget next month, and she faces a test. At the election, we promised to raise the minimum wage and to increase the personal allowance so that we didn't take that increase back in tax. Yesterday, that promise was delivered. The SNP promised to protect the basic rate of income tax, and it is now preparing to hike it up. Is that not the difference between us? When it comes to tax, we keep our promises to Scotland workers and she breaks ours. Ruth Davidson does not want to take my word for what the budget yesterday means for public spending in Scotland. I am right now going to read out word for word from the blog that was published yesterday by the Fraser of Allander Institute. I assume that nobody across the chamber will question those findings. The Scottish Government resource block grant remains on track to fall in real terms over the next two years. By 2020, the resource block grant will be around £500 million lower than in 2017-18. Over the next two years, £500 million has been cut from Scotland's budget by the Tories. Ruth Davidson has got the nerve to stand up here and try to tell us that the Tories are doing us some kind of favour. As we conclude our deliberations over our budget over the next few weeks, we will be considering how we protect our public services in the face of those cuts and how we protect vulnerable families, so many of whom are being forced into poverty and to food banks by the Tory Government, and how we continue to make investments in the infrastructure and support that our businesses need to thrive and to grow the economy. We will take decisions that are in the interests of the people of Scotland, while the Tories continue to impose cuts on the people of Scotland. 2. Richard Leonard Presiding Officer, this morning I had the honour of addressing a rally of firefighters from right across Scotland who are lobbying this Parliament today. Those courageous women and men put their lives on the line to keep the rest of us safe. Since Scotland's fire and rescue service was centralised, those heroic firefighters have seen over 700 front-line jobs axed. They have watched their pay being cut in real terms, year upon year. They see a service in decline. Will the First Minister explain why, on her watch, Scotland's fire and rescue service has been cut? First Minister. First Lady, can I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to our firefighters? They do a fantastic job day in and day out. As Richard Leonard rightly says, regularly put their lives on the line in the interests of the safety of all of us. Let me just address the issues that Richard Leonard has raised. They are important issues, but it is because they are important that this Government has increased the operational budget for the fire and rescue service in this financial year by £21.7 million to support investment in equipment and resources. As a result of the budget yesterday and after years of pressure by those of us on this side of the house, £10 million next year will be able to be reclaimed by the fire service in that, and they will benefit from the whole of that additional £10 million. Since reform of the fire service, there have been no compulsory redundancies and no station closures. 100 additional firefighters were recruited in January of this year, and a recruitment campaign for 300 additional firefighters will be launched next week. Our focus has been and will continue to be on protecting front-line services. On the issue of pay negotiations in terms of the fire and rescue services, as Richard Leonard will be aware, we are on-going. In terms of the next financial year, of course, this Government to this day remains the only Government in the whole of the UK. Here, of course, I include the Labour Government in Wales. We are the only Government in the UK that has given an unequivocal commitment to lift the 1 per cent public sector pay cap, and I think that it is deeply regrettable that no other Government, including the Labour Government in Wales, has yet to agree to do likewise. The poster of the Fire Brigades Union in Scotland made it clear—no more cuts. The people of Scotland will have to make up their mind about who they believe. The firefighters on the front line or the First Minister on the sideline. Under my leadership, the Scottish Labour Party will work with the Government and the trade unions to try and claw back the millions of pounds that have been lost, but that in itself will not be enough, so will the First Minister guarantee no more cuts to the fire and rescue service. I have just run through the facts for Richard Leonard. The operational budget of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service this year has increased, and far from further cuts, as Richard Leonard is asking me about, we have recruited—this year—the Fire and Rescue Service has recruited already 100 extra firefighters and are about to, on 30 November, open a recruitment campaign for 300 more firefighters. That is increasing front-line firefighters, not reducing the number of front-line firefighters. As I said, we will ensure that the fire service gets the full benefit of the fact that they are able to reclaim next year. We will continue to stand up for front-line public services. We will continue to stand up for those who work in our public services. We will continue to stand up for those who work in private companies, just as we did last week, getting a deal together to save BiFab and the jobs that depend on that. We will continue to act in the interests of workers, public and private sector workers across Scotland. As we do so, I hope that we will have the support of Richard Leonard and his colleagues. Richard Leonard, it is not just the firefighters that this Government is failing. After seven years of Tory austerity and a decade of mediocrity and indifference from the SNP, we have the result of falling wages, shrinking public services, rising poverty, widening inequality. Local Government budget is decimated. A quarter of a million children in Scotland are living in poverty. Hundreds of thousands of pensioners this winter are facing the choice between eating and heating. More of the same, more of the same just won't do. Scotland needs real change and radical change, so will the First Minister stand up? Stand up for Scotland's firefighters. Stand up for Scotland's public services workers. Stand up for all of Scotland's people. Finally, use the powers of the Parliament to stop the cuts. The First Minister is rather rambling. I heard Richard Leonard mention pensions. I remind Richard Leonard that pensions are a reserved matter. However, if he wants to join us in a campaign to devolve responsibility for pensions to this Parliament, I would be still like that. I have, we have, and we will continue to oppose austerity. I simply remind Richard Leonard that the current period of austerity was actually started by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling under the last Labour Government. Richard Leonard also mentioned wages. I say again that this Government, unlike any other Government in the UK, has committed to lifting the 1 per cent public sector pay cap. That will form part of the budget that we present to this Parliament in just a couple of weeks' time. I suggest to Richard Leonard that it is easy for Labour, out of power, to call on those in government to do things, but that is not credible when the only part of the UK where Labour is in power, they refuse to do the things that Labour in this Parliament call on us to do. Perhaps before the next time Richard Leonard wants to come and ask me to do those things, he should persuade the First Minister of Wales, the Labour First Minister of Wales, to do them as well. We will, when we put forward our budget, it will be a budget to protect public services, it will be a budget to protect the low-income vulnerable people of our country and it will be a budget overall that is about standing up for Scotland. When we publish it, I will challenge all parties across the chamber to back it, because it will be in the interests of the country that we serve. Question 3, Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I add my congratulations to Richard Leonard on his election and welcome him to his place on the Labour front bench? One of the most short-sighted mistakes in the UK budget is the decision to cut stamp duty, which all serious analysis shows will push house prices even higher and entirely fail to benefit first-time buyers. Their methods of investment in new housing is also likely to provide more benefit for developers and landowners than for people truly in need of genuinely affordable housing. The equivalent of stamp duty is devolved in Scotland, and the Scottish Government has previously already given ground to pressure from the Tories by cutting it to compete with George Osborne's policy. Can the First Minister give a clear guarantee that the Scottish Government will not repeat that mistake and will this time refuse to follow a foolish decision by a UK Government? Of course. We have already got a more progressive system of what is stamp duty south of the border and what is land and buildings transaction tax here in Scotland. The Treasury said yesterday that the policy that was announced in the budget was intended to exempt 80 per cent of first-time buyers from stamp duty. Let me run through the current position in Scotland. Already in Scotland, 65 per cent of first-time buyers are completely exempt from LBTT. 80 per cent of first-time buyers already pay either no tax at all or less than £600 in LBTT, and all first-time buyers, 100 per cent, who buy at or below the average Scottish house price, are already exempt from paying LBTT. We already provide much more generous support to first-time buyers. Of course, as we finalise our budget over the next couple of weeks, we will consider whether or not it is appropriate to give any further assistance to first-time buyers. As we do that, two points will be very much in our consideration. Firstly, the fact that house prices are lower in Scotland than they are in the rest of the UK—for example, the equivalent of a house at £300,000 in the rest of the UK—would be around £175,000. Secondly, we will be very mindful of the point that Patrick Harvie talks about today. The OBR, the Office for Budget Responsibility, said yesterday that, in its view, the policy announced by the Chancellor will push up house prices and result in first-time buyers paying more for their house than they would without that policy. Even with the voodoo economics that we get from the Tories, I do not think that that would make much sense. Those will be the considerations that we have in mind as we finalise our budget proposals in a couple of weeks' time. Patrick Harvie. Thank you. I agree that it would not make much sense. It did not make much sense last time that the Scottish Government did it either, because throwing tax cuts into a dysfunctional housing market solves nothing. Housing is not the only area where the UK Government is determined to help those who are least in need. Yet another income tax cut for high earners, while people working hard to deliver public services, have still not been given a fair pay rise. If the SNP's Westminster leader meant what he said yesterday in the Westminster chamber that public sector pay should match the cost of living—a phrase that I do not think that we have heard from the First Minister yet—if we are to see that and if we are also to avoid handing on Tory cuts to our local services and other parts of the Scottish budget, is it not time for the First Minister to come off the fence on income tax and accept that we need a radical redesign along the lines that the Green Party has proposed, protecting low earners, cutting inequality and raising revenue from the likes of the First Minister and myself who can afford to pay more to invest in the services that our country needs? In terms of the Green Party's specific proposals that it put forward at the election, when you read the detail of the paper that we published just a couple of weeks ago, what would be raised from those would certainly give you pause for thought about whether that was the right way to go. We have set out options around income tax that will allow us, if we choose to follow any of the options, to see tax revenue make a contribution to meeting the challenges that we face in terms of our budget. In terms of public sector pay, I have been very clear that the 1 per cent pay cap should be lifted and that we have to have pay settlements for those in our public sector. That, of course, is affordable. That is just a statement of fact, but it also reflects the real-life living circumstances of public sector workers. I know that everybody across the chamber—understandably, no doubt those in the press gallery—want me to hear me say today specifically what our proposals in tax and public sector pay will be when we produce our budget. We will go through the perhaps less dramatic but certainly more appropriate process of finalising our budget proposals and presenting them to this Parliament in just a couple of weeks' time, and then everybody will be able to debate them. I hope to support them, because the proposals that we have put forward will be in the overall interests of this country, its people, its public services and its economy. We have a number of supplementaries. The First Minister will no doubt have heard the news today that Dundee's bid to become the European capital of culture in 2023 has been dealt a fatal blow. According to reports, the UK will now no longer be able to host this because of Brexit. Dundee's bid had the potential to have a massive positive impact, not just for Dundee, but for the likes of my constituency in Angus North and Merns and the wider north-east. What conversations has the First Minister had with the UK Government on this matter? I am absolutely dismayed by the news that I heard this morning from the European Commission that Dundee's European capital of culture bid looks as if it is going to be the latest victim of the Tory's obsession with taking this country out of the European Union against our will, and they should hang their heads in shame. The Scottish Government, of course, anticipated the issues. Late last year, Fiona Hyslop wrote to the UK Government to highlight the enormous benefits that international cultural engagement can bring, and to seek reassurances then that the UK would continue to participate in partnerships like the European capital of culture. It is now deeply concerning that the amount of time, effort and expense that Dundee has put into scoping out their bid could be wasted thanks to the Brexit policy of this Tory Government. We are now in urgent contact with the UK Government and Dundee to understand the potential implications of the situation and to establish what action the UK Government is going to take to address it. Let me leave the chamber in no doubt. I call on the UK Government today to make clear not just why this has happened but how it intends to fix it so that Dundee can continue to aspire to be the European capital of culture that it so richly deserves to be. Jeremy Balfour would be the First Minister joining with me in expressing concern that Dad's Work, a charity based here in Lothian and well known to the Scottish Government, for the good work that it does helping dads to develop better relationships with their children, is having to reduce services, including playgroups, counselling, falling recent funding cuts. Would she ask her officials to meet me and Dad's Work to see what help can be given in the short-term and long-term to support this worthy cause? First Minister. I thank Jeremy Balfour for raising the issue of Dad's Work. It is an organisation that I know of and have seen firsthand the excellent work that it does to help fathers to develop better relationships with their children. Something that, for the good of society overall, is a very, very worthwhile cause. I will have my officials look into the particular issue that Jeremy Balfour raises and write to him once we have had the opportunity to do that. The final point that I would make is that it is not intended to have a goat Jeremy Balfour who is raising legitimately an important constituency issue, but here we see one of just many real life implications of what I was saying to Ruth Davidson earlier on. We face next year a £200 million real terms cut in our day-to-day budget, and those are the kind of implications that will have to be faced because of that. I am afraid that that is bringing the Tories face-to-face with the real consequences of the budget decisions that they make. Gail Ross I remind the chamber that I am a board member of Remembrings, Shrebrinates of Scotland and also a PLO to the First Minister. Yesterday, former Bosnian Serb commander Ratko Mladic was jailed for life for atrocities committed in the 1990s Bosnian War, including the 1995 genocide at Shrebrinatesa, in which over 8,000 mainly Muslim men and boys were slaughtered. That result will be of interest to many in Scotland, particularly those in our Bosnian community. Does the First Minister agree that yesterday's verdict is a tribute not just to the importance of the international community working together, but particularly for groups such as the mothers of Shrebrinatesa, who have campaigned tirelessly on behalf of the victims? Will the First Minister commit to helping in any way that Scotland can to delivering a stable and prosperous future for our friends in Bosnia-Herzegovna? I share very much Gail Ross's sentiments. I very much welcome yesterday's verdict and the sentence handed down to Ratko Mladic. I personally, as I know others in this chamber, have visited Shrebrinatesa, the memorial at Potikari and I know from the people I met there how much this verdict and sentence will mean to them and indeed to all who suffered in the 1995 genocide and indeed to everybody across Bosnia-Herzegovna who has suffered as a result of genocide and war. We need to ensure that the victims of violence and perhaps in particular victims of sexual violence are heard and that the crimes against them are not forgotten. Groups such as the mothers of Shrebrinatesa, who I have also had the privilege of meeting, provide an inspiration for all of us, Governments and communities right across the world to act to reduce and ultimately eradicate violence against women. I know today that it would be appropriate for all of us in this Parliament on behalf of the people of Scotland to send a message of commemoration, solidarity and support to the people of Shrebrinatesa. Kate Forbes Yesterday, the independent Fraser of Allander institute passed its verdict on the UK Government budget and it branded UK growth prospects as an, I quote, dire. As the MSP for a rural part of Scotland that will feel the impact first and as PLO to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, does the First Minister agree with me that the case for continued single market membership is growing stronger by the day? The First Minister Yes, I do. I think that the case for remaining within the European Union possibly grows stronger by the day but certainly as a minimum remaining within the single market and the customs union. We are starting to see on an almost daily basis the consequences of Brexit from the confirmation earlier this week that the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Agency are to leave London for other European capitals to the news today about Dundee's capital of culture bid to some very real financial consequences. It was striking yesterday in the budget that the chancellor set aside more money to deal with the consequences of a Tory hard Brexit than he set aside to help the NHS with the pressures that they face. That says everything that you need to know about the work priorities of the Tory Government at Westminster. I think that as every day passes and as these consequences become more stark, that case for making sure that our country is not ripped out of the European single market will get ever more strong. Question 4, Ash Denham. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the autumn budget. First Minister Yesterday's budget provided few measures to grow the economy, tackle inequality or invest in public services. The announcements in relation to the North Sea and ending the VAT obligation of police and fire services are certainly welcome, albeit long overdue. However, our block grant for day-to-day public spending, as I have already said, is being cut by more than £200 million in real terms next year. By 2019-20, our discretionary budget will have been reduced by £2.6 billion in real terms over the decade. Although the budget provides some consequentials, over half of those are financial transactions that the Scottish Government cannot spend on front-line public services and which then have to be repaid to the Treasury. Overall, the budget contains little to help Scottish households, businesses or public services. Ash Denham. I thank the First Minister for that answer, but note that the real terms cut to Scotland's revenue, which is a real disappointment. Yesterday, revised OBR growth figures underlined the fact that Tory austerity is failing. On top of that, average wages are set to fall and taxpayers will pay through the nose for Brexit. When Scotland badly needs growth in our economy, is it not time for real investment, with no strings attached, and more powers for this Parliament to grow our economy? First Minister. Yes, I agree that the more power we have in this Parliament to take our own decisions, the better it will be for people with the length and breadth of our country. The Resolution Foundation is reporting this morning—this is a serious point that I know that the Tories will not want to listen to, but they really should listen to it. The Resolution Foundation this morning said that average pay will not return to its pre-crisis level until 2025. That is 17 years after the pay squeeze began. Of course, in the budget yesterday, there was not one single extra penny confirmed to help to lift public sector pay. That is the priority that we see the Westminster Government attach to the living standards of people across our country. We will use next month's budget to put forward an alternative approach that allows us to invest in our public services, but also allows us to protect those on the lowest incomes in Scotland from the impact of the Tory cuts that are biting so hard. Murdo Fraser. Thank you. The Chancellor announced yesterday that Scottish Police and Fire Services can now reclaim VAT, thanks to pressure from 13 Scottish Conservative MPs and Westminster. Will the First Minister now accept that this was a mess entirely of the SNP's own making, that they went into the Police and Fire Services mergers with their eyes fully open, fully aware of the consequences of their actions, and that she would now like to take the opportunity to thank the Conservative Chancellor for clearing up the SNP's mess for them? I increasingly just love it when Murdo Fraser gets to his feet. It's like Christmas come early every week. Let me remind the chamber what one Murdo Fraser—I'm assuming that it's the same one that we've just heard from there—said about a Police and Fire VAT refund, not eons ago, but just a matter of weeks ago. On 31 October 2017 Murdo Fraser got to his feet in the chamber and said, "...there is no justification for a VAT refund for Police and Fire." I think that it was really, really, really cruel of his Tory colleagues at Westminster to prove him so completely and utterly wrong, but then he is often completely and utterly wrong. Yesterday the Tories were forced to concede that they've been wrong all along on the issue. See this argument? It's all because the SNP pursued a policy of a single police force. You know the flaw in that argument for the Tories? The Tories proposed a single police force as well, so this argument that it's all a mess caused by SNP policy falls apart when the Tories are exactly the same policy all along. The fact is that the Tories knew that they were in the wrong in an indefensible position, but by refusing to do the right thing until they somehow thought they could wring some party political advantage out of it just shows how small-minded and partisan the Tories are, and it reflects really badly on them. My final point is that having conceded that it is wrong to take that out of the pockets of our emergency services, it's not enough just to fix it for the future. Let's have the £140 million that's been nicked from our emergency services back. James Kelly Thank you. The First Minister will be aware of the publication of a report from COSLA last week demonstrating how the SNP Government of systematically penalised local government resulting in £1.5 billion of cuts and 15,000 job losses. It's not just the figures, it's the impact in local communities, the day centres closed and the libraries have disappeared from local areas. The First Minister has fudged taxation all the way through this session. When will she finally show some leadership and produce a budget that will use the powers of the Parliament, deliver progressive taxation and give a fair funding to local government in order that we can protect local jobs and local services? The First Minister James Kelly asked me when we will set out our position on tax and all the other matters. The answer to that question, which I think he knows, is on 14 December, when we publish our budget in this chamber. He talks about local government funding, which is a very important aspect of our budget considerations. We, in the budget for this financial year, took steps to protect the spending power of local government. In fact, we increased the spending power of local government considerably, and we will continue to do everything that we can to protect front-line services. I say again what I have said previously to Labour members who stand up in this chamber and raise the issue of local government budgets. We also last year gave local councils the option of increasing their council tax up to a maximum of 3 per cent to help with those pressures. The only councils across Scotland who thought that they had enough money so that they did not have to do that were Labour councils. We have Labour standing up in here calling for more money, but its own councils ignore them by refusing to use the options that they have to raise more money. It seems that Labour councils listened to James Kelly just as closely as Kezia Dugdale did when he told us that she was not allowed to go to the jungle. 5. Alexander Stewart To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the recently published internal staff survey from the Scottish Ambulance Service, which suggests that work pressure had affected the health of more than half of the respondents. The Scottish Ambulance Service staff, who responded to more than 740,000 incidents last year, provided an exceptional service across Scotland, often in the most difficult of circumstances. Yesterday, the health secretary met the chief executive of the Scottish Ambulance Service to set out our expectations for the support for the health and wellbeing of staff. Pauline Howey, who is the chief executive of the Ambulance Service and her senior team, is considering the findings of the survey in detail. They are clear that they will be taking additional steps to address the issues that have been raised. I thank the First Minister for that response, but back in June 2008, when you were the health secretary, you gave the Scottish Ambulance Service one month to bring forward plans to end single staffing of its emergency ambulances and said at that time that, I quote, "...take action to eliminate rostered single manning." A freedom of information request shows that last year it occurred over 2,200 times. What reassurances can the First Minister give to staff on the front line that it will continue and that it will not be put in this intolerable position? The First Minister Of course, single crewing of ambulances should happen only in exceptional circumstances, and we will continue to monitor that closely with the Scottish Ambulance Service. If you look at the figures for the most recent quarter of April to June 2017, the number of single crewed shifts increased slightly by 28 shifts from the previous quarter, but it remained 1.3 per cent of the total shifts carried out over that period, and we will continue to work closely with the Ambulance Service to ensure that that only happens genuinely in exceptional circumstances. We are currently, of course, committed to supporting the service to train 1,000 additional paramedics over this Parliament to further help to reduce pressure on A and E and to support primary care transformation, and that work is under way. Those who work in our Ambulance Service, as I said, do an exceptional job. We all recognise that it is one of the most challenging jobs that anybody could do. The Scottish Ambulance Service has an employee assistance programme, which includes counselling for staff who witness traumatic events, therapeutic services and fast-track access to physiotherapy, for example, but as part of their consideration of the survey, the Scottish Ambulance Service will be considering what further steps they need to take to give the appropriate support to those who work for them. Iain Gray To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government plans to take to support students in light of the call in the report a new social contract for students for them to be given a minimum income entitlement of £8,100 per year. The Government is committed to ensuring that all students, especially those in our most deprived communities, are provided with the financial support that they need to succeed. That indeed is why we commissioned the independent review of student support, and I want to take this opportunity to thank Jane Angaria and the members of the review board for all their hard work on this over the past year. The report sets out a number of recommendations that would fundamentally change the way students are supported, so it is only right that we now take some time to consider those recommendations in detail and, of course, as part of current and future budget processes. We will set out our next steps in due course. Iain Gray The key question for the Government's response is, of course, the balance that they strike between grants and loans. The review's central recommendation is disappointing, and it would embed the cuts to grants for university students, which this Government made in 2013, and would yet again increase student indebtedness. Those debt levels have already doubled under this Government, in spite of their promise to dump the debt, with poorer students coming out with the highest debt. Will the First Minister now listen to NUS Scotland and shift the balance of student support back towards higher grants, rather than just more debt? The First Minister Let me start by saying on a point of consensus that I think that Iain Gray is right that that is perhaps not the only key point, but one of the key points relevant to the Government's response to this report. As I said, we will respond in due course after carefully considering the recommendations. I should say, though, that while I do not negate the point that Iain Gray is making about the importance of that point, we see a situation now where total student support is up. We see average student support per student now up, more full-time, higher education students than ever are receiving support. Almost 3,000 additional students qualified for a non-repayable bursary or saw their funding increase last year, and that is a result of the decision that we have already taken to raise the income threshold for bursaries. We paid out more in grants and bursaries last year than in the previous year. That is the record that we have. We want now to look at how we build on that. The final point that I would make is that, while understanding absolutely the issues raised by student debt—indeed, that is one of the issues why we are so determined to keep tuition fees out of Scotland—we have a situation where average student loan debt in Scotland is significantly lower than it is in any other part of the UK. In England, average student loan debt is £32,220. In Scotland, it is £11,740. We have work to do, and that report provides us with the basis to do that work. It is also important to recognise that, in many respects, students in Scotland get much greater support than they do elsewhere in the UK. Julian Martin Can the First Minister outline how the Scottish Government will take forward its commitment to raise the student loan repayment threshold and reduce the payment term? The First Minister We are actively considering how to take that forward. Now that was a manifesto commitment that we made at the last election, which is something that we had already committed to even before the report that was published this week. We will shortly set out the detail of how we take forward that particular commitment. Neil Findlay I declare an interest in my wife and daughter's work at St John's hospital. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to concerns that any waiting times at St John's hospital have been misrepresented. The First Minister I think that the concern of the Government is reflected in the action that the health secretary has taken. Last week, she ordered an independent review into concerns around waiting times practices and staff pressure at St John's hospital emergency department. That followed instructions that the health secretary gave to NHS Lothian to examine the claims that had been raised with her by a whistleblower. That confirmed certain areas of concern and, as a result, she asked the Scottish Academy of Medical Royal Colleges to undertake an external review to investigate. That review will report back to the health secretary early in the new year. Neil Findlay This week, the Health and Sport Committee heard from representatives of A&E staff, from doctors, allied health professionals and nurses, about how staff shortages and cuts are impacting on staff morale, the culture across the NHS and, ultimately, patient care. At St John's, I hear repeatedly from staff who desperately want to do their job well but who are unable to do so because there are not enough of them. The latest revelations about the misreporting of waiting times appear to be yet more evidence of that. In the forthcoming budget, will the First Minister ensure that the NHS is fully funded, staffed appropriately and safely, and that those who care for us are paid a fair wage for their efforts? The First Minister I agree with Neil Findlay's comments about the importance of the work that those working in our NHS generally but, perhaps particularly, those working in our emergency departments do. I recognise—I readily recognise both as a former health secretary and as a First Minister now—that, just as a citizen of this country, the pressure that those working in our health service are under has always been a job that has meant people working under pressure but, with the ageing population, we know that those pressures are increasing. That is why we have increased the budget of the front-line health service, an additional £3 billion over the life of this Government so far. It is why we had the most extensive commitment at the election last year to additional funding in the NHS of any party over the lifetime of this Parliament. We see additional people working within our health service, as well as additional funding. We need to see continued reform of how health services work and how they work in conjunction with social care services. We will continue in the budget that will come forward in a couple of weeks' time and beyond to take the best possible decisions to make sure that our health service has the support that it needs. Jeremy Balfour That concludes First Minister's questions. Jeremy Balfour It leads the chamber of the public, but can I just clarify that Dad Schwarz's funding cut came from third-party organisations, not from national government, either here or at Westminster? That concludes First Minister's questions. We now move to members' business in the name of Ivan McKee. On the day of the imprisoned writer, we will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.