 The Transport Minister was asked to give clarity about what the Government knew about the partial closure of the Queensbury crossing and when they knew it. He failed to do so. Can the First Minister clear this one up for the thousands of people who rely on it? I'm more than happy to do so, as the Transport Minister did on the radio this morning. Before I come on to the issue of ministerial and public knowledge, which I will do in a moment, let me just address the central issue. I think that most people listening to this would understand and accept that it is entirely normal for snagging work to be required on a large infrastructure project. Of course, the Queensbury crossing is one of the largest infrastructure projects ever carried out in Scotland. That particular piece of work will be done over five days starting tonight. The bridge will not be closed during those five days. Instead, southbound traffic will use the existing fourth road bridge, which demonstrates the increased resilience that comes from having two bridges in place. Yes, there will be further snagging works required over the coming months, again entirely normal on an infrastructure project. Let me make this very clear. The work that will start tonight is the only identified snagging work that will require peak time lane closures. Any future lane closures that can't be avoided will be at night, not during the day and not during peak hours. Of course, under the contract, all snagging works are carried out at no additional cost to the Scottish Government. Let me now come to the issue of ministerial and public knowledge of this matter. When the solution to this particular piece of work had been agreed, ministers were told that that happened last week on Tuesday of last week. As soon as there was confirmation from the Met Office about the weather window that is required to carry out this work, that happened on Monday of this week. Parliament and the wider public were informed. In other words, there was no delay. Things happened completely temerously. My last point, Presiding Officer, is this. Some of the opposition MSPs that I heard commenting yesterday appeared to be giving the impression that this concept of snagging works being required had never before been shared with anybody. On 28 June this year, David Climey, who is the project director, appeared before the relevant parliamentary committee. He said this about what would happen after the bridge opened to traffic. I am quoting from the official report. He said that there will be a phased handover of between three and six months. It will happen gradually as the remaining snagging and other work is completed. Some of the MSPs who were commenting yesterday, as if they had no idea about this, were present during that committee session. Finally, all snagging works that are carried out will be done in a way to minimise inconvenience to the travelling public. That is the priority of Transport Scotland, the priority of those responsible for the bridge and the priority of this Government. Ruth Davidson I thank the First Minister for that long and instructively defensive answer. Lost in there was the fact that Transport Scotland knew that the road over the bridge was faulty when the bridge was opened back in August. That is what they said in Parliament yesterday. The Transport Minister said this morning that he knew nothing about the partial closure until last week. Is the First Minister happy that nobody in Government apparently knew anything about a major fault in what she has just called one of the largest infrastructure projects in Scottish history? This really is quite desperate stuff, but it is of importance to the travelling public, which is why I am giving long and detailed answers to correct some of the misinformation that Ruth Davidson and others seem to want to convey. At that point, Transport Scotland and those responsible for the bridge did not know what work they required to do to fix that particular stretch of road that they realised had not been laid with incorrect tolerances. They had to do further investigative work. They had to look in detail at what would be required to fix that particular defect. When they had done that, they informed ministers, as they would have been expected to do. They informed ministers last week, as the Transport Minister has already made clear, as I am making clear today. The further bit of information that they had to get clarity on was when they would get a weather window to allow them to carry out that work. They got that information from the Met Office on Monday of this week, which enabled them to say that the work could start on Thursday at 10 o'clock when it will start. They then advised Parliament and the wider public. That is entirely the correct way for this issue to have been taken forward. Finally, let me just remind Ruth Davidson of this. The bridge will not be closed. Those coming southbound over the bridge will use the existing fourth road bridge. We will continue, in partnership with Transport Scotland, to make sure that the Conservatives want to put misinformation around, but they do not actually want to listen to the answers. Not one of them is listening to the detailed answers that are being given right now, which speaks volumes. We will continue to make sure that any snagging work that is entirely normal on a major infrastructure project is carried out with minimal inconvenience to the travelling public. That is our priority. It is my priority and it is the way that we will continue to work. Ruth Davidson. What jars here is the way that they pushed through the opening of the bridge in the summer and claimed it as a symbol of SNP competence, but now there is a problem. It is don't look at us, we are just the Scottish Government. In September it was jobs done and pats in the back all round, but on Monday we were told that there would be another five days of work needed. Yesterday, those five days became another 10 months of possible disruption. Does the First Minister not see that it is the dripping out of this kind of information, rather than simply levelling with people that is damaging the public's trust? Ruth Davidson says that the Scottish Government is trying to pass the buck. I am standing up here giving detailed answers that she and her colleagues again are not interested in hearing. Secondly, Ruth Davidson accuses us of pushing through the official opening of the bridge. That comes from the same party that, if memory serves me correctly, we are complaining bitterly when we announced a 10-week delay to the opening of the bridge. The bridge opened at a time when it was right for the bridge to open because the travelling public could start to use the bridge. Let's take this back to the personal sphere. Anybody who has ever moved into a new house knows that snagging is required on construction projects. There is snagging work to be done. The project director told Parliament in June that there would be a period of three to six months of snagging work. That has been carried out. I think that people watching this will take a lot from the facts. The people across the chamber are not interested in listening to the facts, but I will carry on with the facts. The last point that I want to make in response to Ruth Davidson is this point about 10. She said that five days has turned into 10 months. That is completely and utterly inaccurate. As I said in my opening answer, if Ruth Davidson had been listening, of course there will be further snagging work that will be required, but this is the only piece of work that will require daytime and peak time lane closures. Further work, if it requires lane closures, will be lane closures during the night time period. It is important to the travelling public, but it is also important for everybody to keep a sense of perspective around it. I think that the First Minister has to learn that if she wants to take the plaudits, she has to accept the failures too. The First Minister is right in saying that motorists have been pretty patient up until now, but over the coming months they deserve some straight talking. Lastly, can the First Minister be clear on what happens now? She has just said, and in her first answer, that there will be no further peak time closures. Can she tell motorists what other partial closures over the coming 10 months they will be facing? How long, what sort of level are we talking about? Finally, will she ensure that her ministers get on top of works that are needed to keep our country moving? If Ruth Davidson had listened to any of my previous answers, she would have got the information that she has just asked me for. If further lane closures are required, as further snagging work is identified, then they will take place not during the day, not during peak hours but during the night time period. The operators of the bridge will inform the public in advance if those lane closures are required. That is the normal way of doing things in a construction project of this nature. The other point to make about the repair that we will start tonight is that it is essential to allow the bridge to move to a 70-mile-per-hour speed limit, and that will happen before the end of December. That is a massive construction project. It was made clear at the outset that there would be snagging required. It was made clear at the outset that the speed limits would be introduced and increased on a phased basis. That is what is happening. That will continue to be taken forward properly, and any further work that requires to be done at no cost to the Scottish Government will be done in a way that minimises any inconvenience to the travelling public. That is the right way to proceed. If, in future, Ruth Davidson wants to listen to the detailed information that she is giving, she might not have to ask the same questions over and over and over again. 2. Richard Leonard Last week, I met representatives from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. They told me that just to stand still, local government needs an additional £545 million in the Scottish budget in two weeks time. Will they get it? I am glad that Richard Leonard met COSLA last week. The finance secretary met him this week to discuss budget issues. Obviously, we will set out our budget on 14 December, and we will set out our spending plans at that time. However, as can be seen from previous budgets, we have, in a very difficult and challenging financial climate, with our budget being cut by Westminster Governments at Westminster. In fact, next year our budget being cut by more than £200 million in real terms in terms of the revenue budget for day-to-day spending. However, in that challenging financial climate, we have treated local government fairly and we will continue to do so. In this financial year, taking account of core funding, health and social care integration funding and council tax reforms, there was an extra just under £400 million available in spending power for local authorities. With the cuts imposed by Westminster, with our need, for example, to ensure significant increases in the health budget so that it can deal with rising demand, I am not pretending that it is going to be easy for local government or for our budget generally, but we will continue to do what we always have done, and that is treat local government fairly. Richard Leonard It is a straightforward question, which demands a straightforward answer. Scotland's councils need more than half a billion pounds to simply maintain current services. That is teaching our children in schools, providing care services to our elderly and keeping public libraries open. The First Minister talks about councils using councils as a way to ensure that they do what they have done. She knows full well that increasing the council tax alone last year would not have closed the austerity gap that she imposed on Scottish local services. She knows full well that we cannot trust the Tories that the money will need to come from her government. Earlier this week, it was revealed that local councils are being forced to draw upon emergency reserves just to keep day-to-day spending going on essential front-line services. Will she deliver the funding that local government needs to provide the services that the people of Scotland need? The Scottish Government will bring forward our budget on 14 December. In that budget—this is the way that Governments the world over decide and present their spending plans—we will put forward the settlement for local government as we put forward our spending decisions for other parts of the public sector. Richard Leonard's question was illuminating, because he was probably trying to get his defences in early, but not particularly effectively. Richard Leonard's core argument is that local government does not have enough money. I agree that this is a very challenging period for local government. That is partly the reason why we made reforms to council tax to allow councils to raise additional revenue. All councils in this financial year opted to take advantage of that, with the exception of eight councils across the country. Each and every one of those councils that chose not to increase council tax revenues were Labour-led councils. Right now, there could be millions of pounds more going towards local services had Labour councils taken advantage of every opportunity that they had to raise more revenue. Until Richard Leonard can answer the question why they did not, there is always going to be a pretty big flaw in him coming and presenting these questions to me. Richard Leonard's answer is simple. Even if every single council—the length and breadth of Scotland—had raised by a full three-pence the council tax, that would have raised £70 million, your Government cuts were £170 million last year. The reality is that the SNP Government has taken Tory austerity and doubled it for local councils across Scotland. How can the First Minister possibly promise to close the educational attainment gap between the richest and poorest children in Scotland if she slashes the budget for education and schools? How does she possibly expect our elderly to live in dignity and retirement when she cuts into the budgets for social care? And how on earth can we stop people sleeping rough in shop doorways in freezing temperatures when housing budgets are being cut to the bone? Presiding Officer, in the end, austerity is a political choice and not an economic one. So what does the First Minister choose? Tory cuts, sharpened and so deepened by her Government, or re-empowered local communities, properly resourced local services? Will she stand up for the communities and for the people of Scotland? Let me just try and work my way through what I have to say was a bit of an incoherent rant and try to answer questions that I could identify. Firstly, within a context where this Government's budget is being cut by the Tories, we have put £120 million direct to headteachers in our schools to tackle the attainment gap. Labour voted against, incidentally. We are investing record sums of money in delivering 50,000 affordable homes across our country. We have a rate of house building in Scotland that outstrips that scene anywhere else in the UK. On homelessness, just this week, we were announcing additional funds directed by an expert group to tackle the problem of rough sleeping, not in the future but this very winter. I come back to the central point here. Richard Leonard's argument appears to be that because he thinks councils should have got more money than it was right for Labour councils to turn their back on the money they could have had. That is a ridiculous, incoherent argument that says that Labour prefers politicking over delivering for the people across our country. Eight Labour councils at the start of this financial year turned their backs on more than £28 million of funding that right now could be getting spent on education, social care and other council services. Labour really does not have a leg to stand on this issue, because its own councils did not take the opportunity to maximise the resources that it had to spend. This Government will continue to make sure that maximum possible resources go to local government and local services as we work hard to protect people against the Tory austerity that is imposed on this Parliament. I will continue the question from John Finnie. First Minister, Monroe's construction in Easter Ross processed recyclables for Highland Council. Two minutes past 10 on Friday 17 November, Highland Council sent a letter by email advising the company that the contract due to expire the following day would not be extended. The contract was awarded to a French multinational company, Suez, who has said that 2P does not apply to the employees. I am now told that, due to that indeterminate employment status, the 31 workers are not being able to claim benefits. Henceforth, recyclable waste from the Highlands will go to Newcastle. First Minister, will you please have your officials urgently look at various aspects of the case and see what assistance the Scottish Government can provide to the workers and their families? I think that John Finnie for raising the issue. I am not aware of the details of the issue that he has raised. Of course I will ask my officials to look into it and see if there is any assistance that the Scottish Government can offer. From what John Finnie has said in the chamber, it sounds as if this is very much a matter for Highland Council, but obviously the issue that he raises is of concern to the workers that he talks about. I will have officials look at the issue and reply to John Finnie in writing when I have had an opportunity to look at the detail and decide whether there is any action that is appropriate for the Scottish Government to take. First Minister, the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is 73 per cent owned by the UK taxpayer, has announced that it will close two branches in my constituency in Kilburni and Solcoats. That follows on from a wave of closures in recent months by the Bank of Scotland, Clydesdale Bank and TSB. The scale of bank closures is now so great that it is making life very difficult for many older and vulnerable people. Banking is, of course, reserved. Are you aware of the UK Government taking any action to ensure that high street banking does not disappear completely from Scotland's small and medium-sized towns? I certainly share Kenny Gibson's concerns. Many people are concerned at the scale of bank branch closures across Scotland. Those concerns will be shared by communities and small businesses that rely on access to local banking services. I recognise that this is a worrying time for branch staff directly affected by closures, but I also appreciate that banks have commercial decisions to make. People are carrying out their banking in a way that is different from times in the past. However, what we all appreciate and what I am acutely aware of is that banking services must consider the needs of everybody across society. There is a continued need for face-to-face provision in banking. The Scottish Government will continue to engage closely with banks as they implement changes. We regularly engage with senior representatives from all major companies in the financial services industry. Of course, the regulation of banking is ultimately a matter for the UK Government. I am not aware of any particular action that the UK Government is taking on this issue, but it would be for them to act in terms of more regulation. However, we will continue to engage in terms of the economic and social impact. People who depend on the bridge over the forth have been commendably patient, but this is now the third Christmas of disruption. People are fed up with ministers boasts, self-congratulation and excuses. Who spends over £1 billion on a new bridge then closes it weeks later? Who blames commuters for queues on the bridge? Who knew it could get windy in Scotland? The First Minister told us that the new crossing was the culmination of a momentous journey, but now we discover that journey involves a bypass over the old bridge. With work predicted to last until September next year, the completion of this crossing will be two years late. People deserve openness at last from this Government. Can the First Minister explain what is this work that will last until September? Can she list the work in detail that needs done? There are so many inaccuracies in Willie Rennie's question that it is hard to know where to start. He talked about the third Christmas of disruption. This is work that will start tonight and be completed by next Wednesday morning. Next Wednesday morning is the first week of December. As I said earlier, that is the only identified snagging work that will require lane closures during daytime or peak time hours. Willie Rennie's characterisation is completely and utterly inaccurate. Secondly, Willie Rennie said that the bridge will be closed. That, again, is simply not true. The bridge will not be closed. Southbound traffic for a period of five days will go over the existing fourth road bridge. I think that it is really important in raising what are important issues that members of this Parliament do not mischaracterise the situation that is happening. Secondly, he talked about wind. The wind protection on this bridge is significantly better than the wind protection on the fourth road bridge, which is why this bridge will be more resilient in future to wind than has been experienced before. Let me again try to bring a sense of perspective. I do not want to see any inconvenience to any person who requires to travel across the Queensferry crossing, but I think that most reasonable minded people know that on a project of this scale and complexity, once the bridge is in operation, there will be snagging work that requires to be carried out. The expectation of the transport authorities and of their Government is to ensure that those works happen in a way that minimises that inconvenience, and that is exactly what this Government will continue to do. People will appreciate the First Minister's pedantry over whether this bridge is closed or not. This is the third small business Saturday that has been hit for three years in a row. Three years in a row, small businesses are paying the price of this Government's incompetence. I think that it is reasonable to ask these questions. The Government's priority has not to being disrupt the ceremony with troublesome facts, and the problem is now piled on the backs of commuters and businesses. The question has got to be pressed. The transport minister did not even know about this closure until last week, but yesterday a committee of this Parliament was told a decision was made back in August to close the bridge. He normally brags about filling a pothole but is absent from decisions about the most important mile-and-a-half in this country. This is a question about the quality of governance and the quality of the decision, making that tries to string it out for three months then closes the bridge on the busiest day for business. Why has the First Minister not been able to explain why the transport minister was absent? First, what Willie Rennie wants to call pedantry, I call accuracy and honesty. Secondly, as the transport minister has set out, as I have set out again today, it was not known in August what would be required to be done in order to fix this particular stretch of road. There had to be investigations and a design for this repair had to be prepared. When that had happened and when it was known that that would require a lane closure and the diversion of southbound traffic to the existing fourth road bridge, ministers were informed of that. We were informed of that last week and when it was known when the weather would allow the repair to be carried out, Parliament and the public were informed of that. That is exactly how things should happen. More generally, what we have is a bridge—as I have said repeatedly today—one of the biggest construction projects in the history of this country, with some snagging work requiring to be done. I know that politics comes into play when we debate these things in this Parliament. We all are guilty of that. However, I think that most people who use the bridge and travel across the bridge will understand that once a bridge like this is in operation, there will require to be pieces of work done to deal with any snagging defects that arise. That is what is happening here. I regret that it is happening, because I do not want to see any inconvenience to the travelling public, but it is important to put those things right, not least so that the 70mph speed limit can be introduced and so that people can continue to use this bridge in the way intended. Let us focus on that. With the greatest of respect to Willie Rennie, let us stop mischaracterising what is happening. I have a couple of further supplementaries. The first is from Mark Ruskell. I declare an interest as a member of the British Veterinary Association. Scotland is a nation of animal lovers, and there is a huge public concern that in the Brexit bonfire we have lost article 13, the principle of animal sentience. Does the minister believe that article 13 represents both the recognition of sentience and the requirement that all policies from government respect the welfare of all animals? If so, will the Government ensure that this principle is written into Scots law before we are dragged out of the EU? I absolutely agree with the thrust of Mark Ruskell's question. I certainly recognise the concept of animal sentience, as I am sure he is aware. That is already written into Scots law, although I share his concerns that this is one of the many implications of Brexit that may involve unintended consequences. We will continue to make appropriate representations to the UK Government, and we will continue to take whatever action is required here in this Parliament to continue to ensure the protections that come from EU law, which are put in jeopardy by the wrong-headed Brexit process. I remind the chamber that I am a PLO to the First Minister. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to mark World AIDS Day tomorrow, with a particular focus on reducing the stigma of HIV. It is incumbent on all of us to play our part in reducing the stigma associated with HIV. Tomorrow, of course, is World AIDS Day. One of the simplest things that many of us are doing is wearing the red ribbon that signifies World AIDS Day. One of the things that a lot of awareness has been built around is the fact that HIV is no longer the death sentence that it once was. People who are diagnosed with HIV and get on to effective treatment go on to live long, happy and healthy lives. That is why it is important to raise the awareness of testing. I took a test yesterday to demonstrate how quick and easy it is to do. I would encourage all members and their constituencies to look at doing likewise. There is still stigma associated with HIV. It is unwarranted stigma, and all of us have a responsibility to help to reduce it and ultimately eliminate it. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on its plans to deliver access to superfast broadband to 100 per cent of premises by 2021. I will, with a great deal of pleasure. We are committed to delivering 100 per cent access to superfast broadband for all Scottish homes and businesses by 2021. That is a commitment that is unmatched anywhere else in the UK. It stands in contrast to the UK Government's lack of ambition, which will see those in most rural areas elsewhere in the UK consign to the slow lane in terms of internet speed. It has become abundantly clear that we cannot wait for the UK Government to deliver for Scotland, which is why the Scottish Government has chosen to act, and procurement for the reaching 100 per cent programme will commence shortly. Fulton MacGregor. I thank the First Minister for that response. Can she advise what difference the Scottish approach to rolling out fibre broadband has made to my constituencies in Coatbridge and Crescent? Can she further advise how the UK Government is supporting that 100 per cent ambition, given that it is a reserved matter? As a result of the £420 million invested through the digital Scotland superfast broadband programme, 97 per cent of homes and businesses in North Lanarkshire, which includes Fulton MacGregor's constituency, now have access to not only fibre broadband but broadband at superfast speeds. We have invested through the Scottish Government, Highlands and Islands, Enterprise and Scottish Councils more money in that digital superfast programme than the UK Government. That is allowing us to meet our commitment of 95 per cent fibre access by the end of this year. Of course, we now move on to the reaching 100 per cent programme. Just to be clear, what that is, is a commitment to deliver superfast broadband with speeds of 30 megabits per second to 100 per cent of residential and commercial premises across Scotland by the end of this Parliament, backed by significant public funding delivered by the Scottish Government. There is no similar commitment anywhere else in the UK. We will set out further details of that in the budget, but that will involve hundreds of millions of pounds of investment by the Scottish Government. So far, the UK Government has said that it will commit £20 million to that. If I were Scottish Tories, I would not be boasting about that. I would be deeply embarrassed about that. The fact of the matter is, on something that technically is a reserved responsibility of the UK Government, it is because they have failed to act that the Scottish Government has got on with doing the job for them. Peter Chapman, I am afraid that the First Minister has completely missed the point that the UK Government was making. The facts are that the Scottish Government was given funding for phase 2 of broadband in 2014. Three years on, it has not even started its procurement. That puts Scotland behind every single English local authority, behind the Northern Ireland executive and behind Wales. My constituents will therefore welcome UK funding for the next generation of broadband going directly to local authorities. Surely the First Minister must welcome that as well. We are getting to the number of the issue here, because that completely misunderstands the approach that the Scottish Government has taken to procurement. In England, the Tories might want to hear that. Because their initial procurements were small-scale local authority procurements, they required additional phases. In Scotland, we put in place the digital Scotland superfast programme. That was on a bigger scale than anything that happened anywhere in England. That now enables us not to go to a phase 2 of the initial programme but to go straight from that to the reaching 100 per cent programme. With the agreement of the UK Government, their measly £20 million is being put towards that. You know what? That is a commitment that will cost hundreds of millions of pounds to deliver. As I said earlier, if I were Scottish Tories, I would not be boasting about a measly £20 million. I would be embarrassed by that. If the UK Government wants to discharge its responsibility to delivering 100 per cent broadband superfast broadband coverage in Scotland, be our guest. Step forward and do it. Be warned that it will cost you an awful lot more than £20 million. If the UK Government does not want to discharge its responsibility, it should stop misleading people and let the Scottish Government get on with doing its job for it. The First Minister agrees with me that it is totally unacceptable that Orkney has connectivity rates of 65 per cent—a lot lower than the 95 per cent that she was talking about—or does she agree with our cabinet secretary's arrogant assertion that Orkney would have zero coverage without the Scottish Government's intervention? Is it not time that both our Governments stopped this destructive war of words, got together with local authorities and delivered 100 per cent coverage for all? The member raises a reasonable point. The fact of the matter is that, in Scotland, we are delivering broadband because of our islands and remote communities in one of the most challenging geographies anywhere in Europe. I think that that has got to be recognised and remembered. The member points to the figures in Orkney, which, yes, 65 per cent have access to fibre broadband. Of course, the reaching 100 is about getting superfast broadband to 100 per cent of premises across Scotland. The key point is that, without the digital Scotland superfast broadband programme backed by investment from this Government, that figure in Orkney, if it had just been left to the commercial market, would not be 65 per cent. In Orkney, it would be 0 per cent. It is the intervention of the Scottish Government and councils and islands and islands enterprise that has taken a figure that would have been 0 in Orkney if it had been left to the market to the 65 per cent that it is today. Of course, it was the independent off-com that published a report saying that Scotland had made faster progress in delivering broadband over the past year than any other part of the UK. We will get on with doing the job, meeting the commitment that we have for the end of this year and then getting on with delivering 100 per cent superfast broadband to every premise across Scotland, which again is a commitment that is completely unmatched by any other Government anywhere else. Question 5, Liz Smith. To ask the First Minister what maintenance procedures are in place for the new Queensferry crossing. First Minister. Maintenance for the Queensferry crossing will be the responsibility of the trunk road operating company, AME. The contractor for the bridge, the fourth crossing bridge, constructors, retains responsibility for construction defects or snagging that may arise following the completion of the project. The works that begin tonight are snagging works and are therefore the responsibility of the construction. Liz Smith. Thank you, First Minister, for that. We know, First Minister, that there are also defects in the wind shear protection on the Queensferry crossing. Could the First Minister confirm to Parliament whether those are faults of workmanship or design and whether the press comment earlier this week reported that there was a safety issue because some parts have fallen into the river forth are accurate? There are no safety concerns over the Queensferry crossing wind barriers and I know that everybody in this chamber would want to be very clear in communicating that message to the public. Site inspections found that three panels were incorrectly fitted. Indeed, those have been repaired by the contractor. Adjustment of the windshield panels is on-going as part of the contractor's finishing works and will be completed by the end of the year. Routine inspections are carried out on all bridge elements and there are no safety concerns about the wind barrier or indeed any other elements of the bridge. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with Amazon regarding the living wage. Amazon has brought many jobs to Scotland but we must ensure that those jobs are of good quality and provide pay rates in keeping with our ambition, which is to see the real living wage replace the national minimum wage. The Scottish Government has held several meetings with senior Amazon officials to discuss the fair work agenda, including the benefits of paying the real living wage and that dialogue will continue. Of course in Scotland we now have proportionately more than five times as many accredited living wage employers as in the rest of the UK, which I think is testament to our commitment to making Scotland a living wage nation. In March 2016, the then Minister for Fair Work, Roseanna Cunningham, urged Amazon to sign up to the real living wage but they did not. In December 2016, the current Minister Keith Brown met with Amazon and called on them to adopt the living wage. Amazon said that they would consider it. One year on, they are still not paying the real living wage and we have also seen reports of unacceptable working conditions. Companies like Amazon receive substantial sums of public money. Will the First Minister consider linking payments of regional selective assistance in future to payment of the living wage? We will continue to give consideration to that. We have said all along that we will continue to encourage companies to pay the living wage to sign up to the business pledge but, of course, we will keep under review whether there should be the linking of support to policies like that. I have heard Labour politicians including Jackie Baillie talk before about the money that Amazon has had in grants for employment. That is indeed true. It is important to point out that no financial assistance has been given to Amazon since 2015. All the amount that Amazon has received was between the years of 2005 and 2015. When I checked those figures, I found that almost half of that total amount was awarded to Amazon in the years 2005 to 2007, when Labour was in charge of those things. We will continue to support employment creation. We will continue to encourage inward investors into Scotland because that is good for our economy and good for jobs. We will also continue to press the case for fair working practices, including the living wage. The First Minister might need to be reminded that the living wage was introduced in 2007 when her Government was in office. I am not sure that that is a question, but it is a point. It was more of a statement than a question. I will allow the First Minister a chance to respond if she may. As I said in my original answer, we proportionately have more than five times as many accredited living wage employers than any other part of the UK. In fact, we have a higher percentage of people in employment paid the real living wage than any other UK nation. There is work still to do, but I think that the Scottish Government and those who pursue those policies on our behalf deserve a lot of credit for the progress made. That concludes First Minister's questions. I think that I saw a point of order from Mr Rumbles. Presiding Officer, I believe that the First Minister has inadvertently misled Parliament over when the problem causing the partial closure of the Queensbury crossing was first known. Yesterday, in evidence given to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, Ms Rennie, a civil servant as head of major transport infrastructure projects, said that she knew about this problem back in August before the bridge was opened. There is a legitimate question as to why the Transport Minister was unaware of this if the head of his major transport infrastructure projects was. Presiding Officer, the First Minister said that it was important to have all the facts about this on the public record. I agree with her entirely. Can you, Presiding Officer, please ensure that the official report of yesterday's committee's proceedings is published immediately so that the First Minister and everyone else can read it for themselves? Thank you, Mr Rumbles. That is not a point of order. The official report will be published in due course. We will move on now to members' business in the name of Jackie Baillie. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats.