 Felly, y ryiwch ar gyfer gyffredig niw, ac i'n cael ei chושb ller noiw chysylltu chi'n ideadu. Dwi fyddngas i'n ddiogledig chieth iechyd ar gyfer hwysbô accum i ddydd? EfallaiSawn wirill Lywodraeth has iawn clywed bicataeol yn b recorderau ddiogledig com chef ond yn yn compte! Rhyw beth formatsio tunio chi ddesunciadau ryg seizure benderfynolaeth gynnwysiaid, a Polisiwn rydw i drafodaeth gyd-ihwl iawn, can fyddw mine i ddal gyrfa, syniadau'n cepas a'r ei sydd oedd夢id y behem 헤ليngu rydw i. Fy o'r gwleitwch gyda'n cael ei wneud oes bod ei ddydd angen i'r sérw taeth i sérw taeth i'r NHS, mae'n unrhyw ddechrau'r sérw taeth i'r Government. A yna, mae'n rhaid i'n teimlo i naddolhysu gyda'r sérw taeth, ond ei ddaeth i'n dddensu ei ddweud i'n meddwl i'r sérw taeth i'r sérw taeth. Mae'r drobl darmi, maen nhw i'n rhaid i ddiddordebau a'r eraill o'r poln cael eu sérw taeth, the front-line staff on our NHS to make sure that we help them address those challenges. That is why we are committing extra resources to our national health service. John Swinney had already announced £80 million more than planned for next year. Yesterday he announced £125 million of extra funding and I have given a commitment that if this Government is re-elected then for each and every year of the next Parliament we will commit to yw'r bobl cynnigau'n eu chweithio i gael gyd. Rhywbeth hwnna hefyd yn ddim yn mynd i gyd. Mae'n ddiwylliant. Rhaid i'n mynd i ddod, Jacki Baili. Rhywbeth hwnna hefyd i ddod. Jacki Baili? Rhaid i'n ddydig i ddwylo chi'n ddysgu i Gweithreidogu felly mae'r llwodraeth rymuddiau sydd yn gyfgored a gŵithaeth chi gydag o'i bobl. Rymdraithu'r llwyddiol, bobl yn crediwch ar hyn o'r gwyflawnau gafodol yn fawr, yn crediwch ar gyfer y bwysig, ac wedyn budgiadau i gyda'r gweithginkaeth nifer, unrhyw dweud i gyd. Ond rydyn ni wedi bod i ddau iddo ar gyfer y Comenys ym ni'n gweith. Mae'n amgylch yn dda'r llwyddiol o'r gweithi'r gweithgrinogi. Llywodraeth Alex Neil wedi cael ei wneud o'r crisis ar NHS Grampion, ond yn y rhan o'r lŵn, rydyn ni'n gweithio'r crisis yw Laid-Beir. Llywodraeth yw'r cysylltiadau sy'n sefyr. Llywodraethau sy'n sefyrdd o'r ddechrau a Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth. Accident in emergency treatment times missed, cancer treatment waiting times missed, fewer nurses to beds than in other hospitals in Scotland. Bed blocking targets missed, a failing care of the elderly service and most damming of all patient safety at risk, saved only by the dedication of staff working under extreme pressure. The RCN told us that they had been raising serious concerns about the NHS for quite some time, NHS Grampion in particular. In fact, they raised these concerns directly with the SNP Government. In any case, surely the Scottish Government should have noticed there was a problem. Is there anyone in government who has a clue about what was going on? First Minister. Jackie Baillie strikes entirely the wrong tone when it comes to our national health service. I think that we should try across this chamber to find common ground and all of us accept that our NHS does great work, whether it needs our support, the support of all of us to do even better work. Now, Grampion NHS Board, as Jackie Baillie is well aware, has in place a new chief executive who has accepted all of the recommendations of the reports that were published earlier this week. The health secretary will oversee the implementation plan very, very closely. All of us are now absolutely focused on making sure that the failings that were identified in NHS Grampion, failings identified by the regime of inspection that this Government put in place, can now be fixed in the interests of all of the patients that rely on NHS Grampion. I would hope that Jackie Baillie and Labour could find it within themselves also to get behind the efforts of the new management and the staff in NHS Grampion as they decide how to move forward. I can also pick up on just a couple of the points that Jackie Baillie made. We still have work to do in waiting times. I do not, for a second, deny that, but waiting times are now considerably shorter than they were when Labour left office. Jackie Baillie mentioned consultants. NHS consultants working in our NHS are now at a record high number, up 36.8 per cent, since this Government took office. Overall, staff in the health service up, as we saw in figures earlier this week since this Government took office. This Government is acting. We look at one of the most significant challenges in our NHS today, the challenge of delayed discharge, which is the problem that creates problems in other parts of the system. Delayed discharges are too high right now. I want to see them come down, but they are significantly lower than they were in 2006 when the last Government left office. We are making progress, Presiding Officer, and we will continue to seek to make progress forward. I think that it would fit Labour better if it stopped criticising those working so hard in our NHS and got behind them. We support the efforts of all at NHS Grampian. We actually thank them for doing the work that they shouldn't have had to do because the Government let them down. They were under extreme pressure. The only reason that patient safety is, as it is, is because of the efforts of those staff. So I will take no lessons from Nicola Sturgeon about praising the NHS staff. The differences we on this side of the Chamber would support them. Patient care should be at the centre of all our considerations, and yet patient safety was put at risk in Aberdeen. Health Improvement Scotland issued a start warning. They said, we found a number of issues relating to leadership and culture which reduced the quality and safety of care. The General Medical Council said, evidence that patient safety and care could have been compromised was overwhelming. The RCN said that, without a patient assurance system, managers were not able to assure themselves or the board about the quality and safety of patient care. So we should again thank the staff for ensuring that, despite the challenges that they faced, they put patients first. The Scottish Government was warned about all of this, Presiding Officer. It dates back to the First Minister's time as health secretary. Does the First Minister agree that those concerns about patient safety are not just a failure at NHS Grampian, but also the Scottish Government's health department, which she led? I am not going to stand here. Despite the provocation, I am not going to stand here and engage in a party political bun fight because I believe the NHS is actually too important for that. I think that Jackie Baillie should reflect on some of what she said there. In her desperation to throw as much dirt at the SNP Government as she can, she was in danger there, I think, of misquoting the report that was published into Aberdeen Royal Infirmary earlier this week. While I am not defending anything in that report, that report was very careful to say that patient safety had not been compromised. Of course, when there are failings like the failings that were identified, patient safety could have been compromised and that is inexcusable. Jackie Baillie should be very careful not to suggest that something happened that the inspectors themselves said did not happen. I repeat again that I am proud of the NHS and proud of the progress that this Government is making in the NHS. Waiting times are lower, our hospitals are cleaner, although, as we see in the report on Glasgow Royal Infirmary today, there is still work to be done there. Infection rates are at an all-time low. Rates of sea difficile are down by over 80 per cent in the over 65 population. The Government is making significant progress. Unlike Labour, we do not have to be dragged, kicking and screaming into making financial commitments to our NHS. I watched a couple of weeks ago that each and every single one of the Labour leadership candidates refused to give that financial commitment to the NHS. I heard Richard Simpson ask about it in this chamber yesterday. His answer to will you give increases to the NHS budget was we will see and then Jackie Baillie in desperation tomorrow comes up with that. We give that commitment freely to the NHS because we put our money where our mouth is and we will always defend our national health service. I think it's the First Minister that does a bit too much kicking and screaming. There was nothing desperate about our commitments and I hope she would welcome them. Perhaps I could remind her that from 2007 to 2010, when Labour was in charge at UK level, they gave the Scottish Government more in health consequentials than she actually passed on to the health service, so I will take no lessons from her on that. Presiding Officer, I fear that the First Minister, like Alex Neil before her, seems to be in denial about the scale of the problem facing Scotland's health service. NHS Grampian is not alone. Even today, we see a damning report about the cleanliness of basic equipment at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Blood and body fluids contaminating beds and equipment highlighted not once but twice and problems remaining. Does she take any responsibility for this or for consultant vacancies having more than doubled, leading to a record £82 million spent on hiring temporary doctors? Does she take any responsibility for bed numbers being slashed? Does she take any responsibility for accident and emergency departments in crisis and delayed discharge increasing? Presiding Officer, the SNP Government has not just failed patients in Aberdeen but has failed them across Scotland. The First Minister cannot duck responsibility for this. She was the health secretary for five years. It was, of course, Nicola Sturgeon who said, a party that is now in its second term of office cannot afford taking responsibility for its own failings. Can the First Minister tell us when she is going to take responsibility? It might be a good idea. I used to ask the questions on the Opposition benches. I would just say to Jackie Baillie that I know that she has only got one left before she hands over to the new leader. It might be a good idea to listen to the answers. I started out by saying, and I will say it again, not for the benefit of Jackie Baillie but for the benefit of people watching, as First Minister of this country takes responsibility for the NHS. I will never shy away from that, and I will be judged as will my Government on the progress we are making and will continue to make in the national health service. Let me just come back in a couple of the things that Jackie Baillie mentioned. She talked about the fact that there are more staff vacancies in the health service. That is true, and that is a challenge that we need to confront. There are more staff vacancies because there are more staff working in the NHS. Significantly increased numbers of people working across our national health service. She also mentioned the number of beds. There has actually been a small increase in the number of beds in the NHS over the past year. Can I point Jackie Baillie to the fact that I think that she can correct me if I am wrong in this? That bed numbers in the NHS, acute bed numbers fell in each and every year of the last Labour administration. That was the reality. In terms of the Glasgow royal infirmary, that is also where she may have benefitted from listening to what I said. I mentioned the GRI report in answer to her second question. That report is unacceptable, and the health secretary has spoken already this morning to the chair of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Let me just put that into context. Since this Government took office, rates of seed, if I have already mentioned, have fallen by over 80 per cent across Scotland. They have fallen by 84.7 per cent in Glasgow. So yes, I will never shy away from addressing the problems that need to be confronted in our NHS, but I am also not going to stand by and allow Labour to trash the record of our NHS because they do not deserve it. Ruth Davidson. Thank you to ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. First Minister. I will have the pleasure of meeting the Secretary of State this afternoon. Ruth Davidson. I wish you a good meeting. Yesterday the Chancellor unveiled a tax cut for 98 per cent of all home buyers. From midnight, people looking to get on in life will save thousands of pounds. But come April, when the Scottish Government takes over, that relief will go. Under this Government's swinni tax, we now know that if you want to move up the property ladder, it's going to cost thousands of pounds more. It is a left-wing nationalist tax on aspiration. The First Minister doubtless has some pre-prepared lines rehashing claims that the Chancellor has copied her plans and that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but people aren't fooled when they're hit in their own pockets. This isn't a debating point. This is yet another ideological attack on the aspirations of middle Scotland. If you want to buy a £300,000 flat in Edinburgh or Aberdeen today, that will cost you £5,000. From April, that will rise to £7,300. If she leaves those lines to one side for a moment, can the First Minister explain why she thinks that's fair? First Minister? First Minister, to Ruth Davidson, I love the Deputy First Minister dearly, but I've always thought he was an unlikely candidate for class warrior. Anyway, we'll leave that to one side. First of all, I congratulate the UK Government on emulating Mr Swinney's plans to get rid of an unfair system and replace it with a fairer system, as the Deputy First Minister said yesterday. Imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery. The Scottish rates that John Swinney has proposed reflect the nature of the Scottish housing market, as they should do. The whole point of devolving responsibility for the tax to the Scottish Government. Average house prices in Scotland are lower than they are across the rest of the UK, some £100,000 lower. Therefore, the higher tipping point reflects higher house prices across the rest of the UK. First, more than 80 per cent of all transactions in Scotland every year will attract tax of either zero or less than the amount under the UK system announced yesterday. There are 5,000 more transactions a year that will be completely exempt from tax under our system, compared with the UK system announced yesterday. Why is that important? That helps to support more first-time buyers on to the property ladder. That is good for first-time buyers, but getting more first-time buyers into the property system is also good for people to further up the ladder. The way that John Swinney has proposed is a fair, progressive system and one that is right for conditions in Scotland. I would have thought that. Ruth Davidson would have welcomed that. Ruth Davidson? The First Minister wants to trade figures, then let's trade figures. 98 per cent of people under the Chancellor's plans are better off this morning. She's now going to claw those gains back off of thousands of Scots for no good reason. The new First Minister quite realises how isolated she is on this. Even Labour has backed the Chancellor's proposals. In other words, the new First Minister has achieved the staggering feat in just a fortnight of becoming even more left-wing than Ed Miliband. I can tell her today that the Conservatives will be placing an amendment to the Scottish budget to ensure that middle-income families who want to buy a home will pay less tax. We will campaign night and day for this amendment to be carried and we will look for support for this amendment from right across this chamber because we know that we have plenty of support from outside of it. The new First Minister has a choice. She can either show some humility, accept that there is a need for a rethink here or she can dig in her heels, drive her ideological agenda through and punish thousands of families. Which one is it? First Minister, to Ruth Davidson, even John Swinney is more left-wing than Ed Miliband, so that is not much of a competition. You should maybe set the bar a little bit higher than that. Ruth Davidson wants to trade figures, so before I genuinely try to find some common ground with her, let's try to trade figures accurately. She said that, as a result of the UK Government's proposals announced yesterday, 98 per cent of people will be better off. Can I just point out to her that that is compared to the old UK Government scheme, not compared to the new Scottish scheme that we propose for introduction? Comparing the new UK Government scheme to the Scottish scheme that will come in next April, as I said, 80 per cent of transactions will either pay the same or less tax than under the new UK system. 80 per cent of people are either paying nothing at all or less than will be the situation under the new UK system. That is the reality, and Ruth Davidson might want to grapple with that. In the interests of the consensus for which I am becoming so known, let me say to her that if she wants to bring forward proposals, we are in the midst of a budget scrutiny process. If she wants to bring forward proposals, it says that 20 per cent at the very top of the housing market should pay less than she is free to do so. As we do with all proposals that come forward, we will consider them. As she does so, let me tell her that she should also bring forward her proposals for who should pay more or where the extra money should come from. If she does that, she might want to persuade her UK Government colleagues to settle the issue of the block grant adjustment so that we can genuinely know the extent to which our proposals are, as they are intended to be, revenue neutral. If she wants to answer all those questions, not just the ones that suit her to answer, I will be happy to listen. What assessment the Scottish Government has made of the Chancellor's autumn statement and its impact on the Scottish budget? We welcome the additional Barnett consequentials of around £200 million that result from Ysysys autumn statement. As John Swinney said yesterday, we have committed to providing all the health consequentials of around £125 million to our national health service. We will make announcements on the remaining consequentials in due course. It is important to point out that those consequentials make up just 8 per cent of the £2.7 billion worth of real-term cuts that have been made to the Scottish budget since 2010. The consequentials are welcome, but let's not pretend that there is anything more than a small fraction of the austerity cuts that Scotland has suffered. I thank the First Minister for her answer. This week's economist points out that the UK's deficit as a percentage of national income is higher than France, Italy or even Greece, while the Office for Budget Responsibilities, Economic and Fiscal Outlook, published yesterday, warns that 60 per cent of UK Government cuts will come in the next Parliament. Does the First Minister therefore agree that the biggest threat to Scotland's economy is continuous austerity, which all Westminster parties are signed up to, and that next year's UK election presents an opportunity for the people of Scotland to make clear that there is an alternative? Kenny Gibson is absolutely correct to point to the OBR's economic and fiscal outlook that was published yesterday, because it shows that, over the next few years, spending on public services is, and I quote, projected to fall from 21.2 per cent to 12.6 per cent of GDP and from £5,650 to £3,880 per head. That is a direct quote from page 6. Put it another way under the Tories and under Labour, because they have signed up to the Tories' austerity plan. Spending on public services as a share of the economy is set to fall to levels not seen since the 1930s. That is the price of Westminster austerity. I think that Kenny Gibson is right, and I also believe that we need a strong Scottish voice at Westminster and SNP voice to protect Scotland from the 60 per cent cuts that Westminster parties are still planning. Iain Gray Those OBR forecasts, the First Minister was quoting, also saw oil and gas revenue forecast to 2019 cut by a further £4.5 billion. Will the First Minister agree with me that the Smith commission was wise not to devolve volatile oil and gas taxes? The Scottish people were wiser still to reject an independence prospectus based on our predecessor's predictions of a second oil boom, now laid bare as fantasy. The First Minister No, I won't agree with that, because I think that I will leave it to Labour to argue the absurd position that Scotland alone in the world is somehow uniquely incapable of managing our own vast natural resources. I'll leave that posity of ambition to those on the Labour benches. We all know that oil prices right now are the feature of temporary factors in supply and demand in the world. I simply point to OPEC, a world oil outlook published just a few weeks ago, assuming a nominal price of $110 per barrel for the rest of the decade. The key lesson we should all take from the mismanagement of our oil resources over decades now is that we should, as I astonished to hear the Chancellor yesterday talk about a sovereign wealth fund for shale gas in the north of England when we've had the failure of Labour and Tory Governments to set up an oil fund in Scotland, like other countries have done. That's the lesson we should learn and we should resolve not to repeat that mistake in future. The First Minister will be aware of yesterday's announcement of an increased retail discount to £1,500 for shops, cafes and restaurants with a rateable value of under £50,000. What is her response to that specific announcement? As Gavin Brown will be aware, we've got the most competitive business tax environment in the entire UK. The finance secretary will make announcements around the remainder of the consequentials in due course, but we will continue to take the right decisions for businesses across Scotland. The decisions that we have taken have been given our businesses, particularly our small businesses, including many retail or pub premises, the most competitive environment in these islands. That's what we will continue to strive to do. Clare Adamson, I ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to tackle in-work poverty. The Government is taking steps now to tackle in-work poverty and help individuals to realise their full potential. We recognise the importance of appropriate, flexible and sustainable employment, as well as appropriate levels of pay as a means to tackle poverty, and we have been strong and consistent in our efforts to stimulate growth and jobs within the context of economic recovery. We are also determined to progress payment of the living wage. We are already paying that to everybody who works for the Government or for our national health service. While we cannot mandate it in law, each and every relevant Government contract that is let from now on will have payment of the living wage as a central priority. I thank the First Minister for her answer. I am sure that she would want to join me in congratulating the Scottish Parliament in becoming a living wage employer, but does she also share my disappointment that, of many organisations and academics across Scotland, the lack of welfare opportunities being offered by the Smith commission proposals and agree that it looks like a missed opportunity for Scotland to be able to tackle in-work poverty effectively? If I may join with Clare Adamson in congratulating you and the Parliament on becoming a living wage employer, I think that that is fantastic. Clare Adamson is absolutely right, and it stands to reason, does it not, that in any area of policy, the more powers we have in this Parliament, the more able we are going to be to live up to the expectations of those we serve. We will do everything that we can within the powers that we have and using any new powers that we get to lift people out of poverty, but I believe that power over the minimum wage, power over the personal allowance of income tax, power over the entirety of our welfare system, if this Parliament was equipped in that way, we could do so, so much more. That is why I will continue to have the highest ambitions for this Parliament and for this country. What response has the Scottish Government received to its representations to the UK Government regarding the implications of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership for health services in Scotland? The Scottish Government has, as Neil Findlay referred to, made several representations to the UK Government and to the European Commission on this matter and made very clear in particular our concerns about the NHS and public services. Although the UK Government and the European Commission have told us that the transatlantic trade and investment partnership does not pose any threat to the NHS, it is fair to say that both the Scottish Government and the public need to see the final legal text of any agreement before we can be fully assured that the NHS and our other public services will be unaffected, as we certainly want to make sure is the case. Neil Findlay? I welcome the fact that the Government has joined the Scottish Labour MSPs and MPs, community groups, individuals and trade unions by writing to David Cameron demanding he uses his position to prevent the NHS being exposed to market competition via T-Tip. Will the First Minister join me in urging the Tories and Liberal Democrats in this chamber to acquire a backbone and do the same so that we can speak with one voice to protect the national health service and other essential services from privatisation? Labour is closer to the Tories these days than I am, so he is probably better advised just to have that conversation directly. I am sure that the mechanisms of the Better Together campaign are still in operation in some form, but in all seriousness, Neil Findlay raises an important point. I do believe that the concerns about the NHS and the inclusion of the NHS or public services in T-Tip are, whether they are well-founded remains to be seen, but I understand why people are raising those concerns. We will continue to call for the exclusion of our NHS and to ensure that any agreement that is concluded does not put our public services under any threat. I agree very strongly with the privatisation of the health service in England, but that is not a matter for me, but I will fight tooth and nail against any moves to privatise the NHS in Scotland by the back door. If it ever put that threat there, it would be opposed strongly by this Government. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the accuracy of the reporting of crime statistics. I agree with Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary in Scotland, Derek Penman, who was recently quoted as saying that Police Scotland's own auditing of crime recording is good. The First Minister for that response on recording. Last week, however, the Scottish Government announced that recorded crime is at a 40-year low, but at present, those figures do not take into account assault, stalking, online or by any other means, abusive behaviour and drink driving, all of which are classed as offences rather than crimes. Will the First Minister acknowledge that the Government's failure to include over half a million offences like those does a huge disservice to victims and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system? Will she now carry out a review to ensure that the Government includes those offences when reporting on crime statistics? The First Minister is a serious question. The public deserve to know that the statistics that are published can be relied on, and I think that applies across every aspect of Government policy. Recorded crime is at a 40-year low, and I think that we should all welcome that. Margaret Mitchell draws attention to a distinction in the statistics between crimes and offences, and she used a phrase in her question to me that said, at present, that distinction is being made. I think that Margaret Mitchell should maybe have done some historical research before asking me her question today, because the separation of crime and offences statistics has been in place since the 1920s. We report on recorded crime in exactly the same way as previous Administrations with the bulletin that is published in the same format that it has been in since 1983. There has been no change to the approach that we are taking. At times, new legislation can enhance the definition of a particular crime or offence. For example, prior to the introduction of the offences of threatening or abusive behaviour and stalking, these incidents would have been classified as breach of the peace. Breach of the peace has consistently been classed as an offence. Therefore, to ensure consistency of reporting of breach of the peace type offences over time, those offences are also being classified as offences. It is all about making sure that the consistency in the figures is there. I will always look at those things to see if national statistics are obviously prepared independently of Government to see if we can improve them. Do not come to this chamber and suggest that there has been some change to a system that has been in place since the 1920s. Thank you. That ends First Minister's Questions. We move to members' business. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.