 Rwy'n teachach gyda'r respects a defnyddio alech pointingumau mewn fiau. Others permission to follow tomorrow's call again by o'rempuins, every success in Rio over the next two weeks. I'm sure that whole chamber will agree that they are an inspiration to all of us and they do us proud. Later today, I will have engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Ruth Davidson Can I ask the First Minister to spell out why the public will be made safer as a result of the Scottish Government breaking up British transport police and absorbing it into police Scotland? Of course, Scotland is being made safer by the decisions of the Scottish Government and, more importantly, by the actions of our police officers, the length and breadth of the country. We have a situation in Scotland right now where crime is at a 41-year low, and I think that that is a credit to police officers working in every single community across Scotland. As Ruth Davidson knows, the responsibility for the British transport police is being devolved to the Scottish Government. Given that we have created Police Scotland and ensured an efficient running police service, I think that there is a strong case to also include British transport police in that framework, while allowing them to continue to provide their specialist policing functions. Of course, that will be the subject of legislation in this Parliament over the course of the next session, as I announced on Tuesday. I am sure that all members will want to participate in full scrutiny of that legislation. Similar to the programme for government on Tuesday, there is not a word there on either why or how it would improve safety with the change. I think that I know why, because, since the Scottish Government first outlined its plans, I have received a series of emails from some of the 300 serving British transport police officers in Scotland. Let me tell the First Minister what some of them say. From an officer with nine years' experience, if that goes ahead, the effect on policing services would be horrific. We are a specialist force for a reason. Cross-border crimes would potentially become unmanagable. Another police officer with 17 years' experience said, like many others in post on us, that this is a ludicrous idea, with no consultation on those who are actually doing the job in hand. Another, with 24-year service, I cannot understand why this decision can possibly be made without full consultation with the travelling public or even Police Scotland. Added to that, the British Transport Police Federation said this week that this change could leave the whole network unguarded. First Minister, why is the Federation wrong, and why are serving police officers who keep us safe on the railways wrong, too? First Minister, we will fully consult and listen to all views. Let me quote the British Transport Police Federation just before this Parliament went into summer recess. We are fully involved in the consultation process. In a blog in August last month, the Federation chair said, and again I am quoting, that it is fair to say that we are achieving a healthy working relationship with the Scottish Government. Those are the direct views of the British Transport Police Federation. I am sure that there will be a range of views across the British Transport Police and the wider public about the right course of action to take, and we will consider that carefully. Let me direct very clearly the issue in Ruth Davieson's first question. She said, why? Well, integration will enhance railway policing through giving them direct access to the local specialists and the national resources of Police Scotland, while ensuring that they continue to carry out their specialist railway policing function and retain the expertise and the capacity that they already have, but in that broader structure of Police Scotland. I think that that is the right steps to take. As we take that step, as we develop the legislation that comes before this Parliament, all members will have the opportunity to contribute. I am sure that many members of the public, as well as members of the British Transport Police, will also take the opportunity to contribute as well. Ruth Davieson? The First Minister says that she is consulting on this, but, as she well knows, she has only consulted on how to carry out the takeover, not whether it is right to do so. The First Minister should know that the British Transport Police themselves have laid out two other more practical options that are still consistent with the Smith commission. People might accept reforms if the British Transport Police was failing, but the opposite is true. 83 per cent of passengers say that they are satisfied with the levels of safety on Scottish trains, which is above the level seen in England and Wales, and no wonder because crime on railways has halved. Why is the Scottish Government imposing a reform that the police do not want on a system that does not need to be tampered with? I have set out very clearly the reasons why we think that this is the right thing to do. Why is this decision on the table now? It is because of the devolution of responsibility for the British Transport Police. As Ruth Davieson rightly said, that was a cross-party consensus within the Smith commission. Specialist railway policing expertise and capacity will be maintained and protected, allowing the British Transport Police to continue to deliver the excellent levels of service that Ruth Davieson has just said. Of course, crime on railways, just like crime across our country generally, is falling at some of its lowest levels. However, by integrating the British Transport Police within the wider Police Scotland structure, we also give the Transport Police access to that specialist and national resource that Police Scotland has access to. That appears to me to be a common sense way of proceeding. Perhaps it is so common sense that that is why it eludes the Conservative Party. However, as we go forward, we will continue to engage with the British Transport Police Federation. I remind Ruth Davieson that they appear to think that they have a good working relationship with the Scottish Government. I am not suggesting that that means that they agree with everything that we are suggesting that we want to do, but we continue to talk and engage with them. I think that that is the right way to go forward. All Members of this Parliament will have the chance to contribute in the legislative process as normal. Ruth Davieson, the shortened version of that is that the First Minister thinks that she knows better than police officers. However, the fact is that it is very hard to escape the conclusion that, when it comes to the Scottish Government, good practice always plays second fiddle to pretty shoddy politics. The Scottish Transport Police Federation does not want this. Rank and file officers on our railways do not want this, and the public sees absolutely no need to change. However, just as with the single police force, the SNP Government wants to grab more control and wants to ram this through regardless. Last week, the First Minister unveiled a massive listening exercise, but today she is turning a deaf ear to our police. Her Government has made enough mistakes with police reform. Why won't she listen to those who are trying to stop her making another? The First Minister? First, this is the Government that has protected 1,000 extra police officers on the streets of Scotland, while the Conservatives south of the border have decimated police numbers on the streets of England. Point 1, point 2, because of the dedication of our police officers, crime in this country is at a 41-year low, and I think that it is important to remember that and to give credit to our police officers. We are always told by Ruth Davidson that the Tories are going to be a strong opposition. I have to say that we have not seen any evidence of it yet, but then she comes to this Parliament and suggests that this Government can just ram through to use her quotes legislation. She is always telling us where a minority Government—if we want to get it through this Parliament—will have to persuade people of that case. That is what we will seek to do, and instead of coming to this chamber today and indulging in shoddy politics, perhaps Ruth Davidson can do her day job and contribute constructively to the process when it gets under way. Question 2, Kezia Dugdale. Thank you to ask the First Minister when she will next meet the new Prime Minister. I have no immediate plans, but I do expect to be speaking to the Prime Minister regularly as we continue to discuss the implications of Brexit for Scotland and the UK. Today, we woke up to the news that 900 Scottish children had phoned in the last year, contemplating suicide. That follows official figures released this week, showing yet more missed waiting time targets for child and adolescent mental health services. Can the First Minister tell the chamber how many children and young people have waited more than 52 weeks for treatment since the start of last year? There have been several hundred young people waiting more than 52 weeks, and that is far too many. One waiting more than 52 weeks is far too many. I think that that is one of the most important issues and challenges that we have to deal with, not just as a Government, although it is our responsibility, but as a society over the years ahead. Demand for child and adolescent mental health services has increased by more than 30 per cent in the past two years. I take the view that that is a positive development—it does not sound like it—but it means that the stigma associated with mental health is decreasing and more young people are feeling able to come forward for help. Indeed, the figures that Kezia Dugdale quoted today from Childline are deeply shocking figures, but they mean that more young people are coming forward for help. The challenge that poses for us and the responsibility on my shoulders and the Government's shoulders is to ensure that, in the face of that rising demand, we are building up services to cope with that demand. That is what we are doing. We have increased funding and resourcing for mental health services, and we have plans to further increase that funding and resources over the life of this Parliament. I thank the First Minister for that answer. In the summer, Labour revealed that 460 young Scots had waited over a year for the treatment that they desperately need. This week's figures see that rise to 608. That is utterly shameful and nothing short of a national scandal. However, it is also just the tip of the iceberg. Since January last year, more than 9,000 Scottish children have been referred to mental health treatment, only to have that referral rejected or denied. We do not know why, and I am sorry, First Minister, but I do not consider that a positive development. So, we cannot use the children's seeking help that has been turned away, and if she cannot explain it, will she ask her health secretary to commence a review? I will ask the health secretary to look into that. Of course, there will be a number of clinical reasons why people who are referred are not given, but that does not mean that there will not be underlying system reasons as well. I absolutely agree that the numbers of young people waiting too long to access services is not good enough, which is why I am absolutely committed, as we have been over the past few years, in building up services. Since this Government took office, investment in mental health services by the NHS has increased by almost 40 per cent. The number of CAMHS's Child and Adolescent mental health services psychology posts has more than doubled in the period that we have been in office. We were the first country in the whole of the world that set a target for access for children and adolescents to mental health services, so I am readily acknowledging that there is more work to do. That is why we set out in our manifesto—and, of course, the spending commitments that we set out in our manifesto for the health service—we outstripped those set out by Labour in their manifesto. As part of that commitment, we have committed, as I said on Tuesday, to bringing forward a new mental health strategy and to backing that strategy with an additional £150 million of resources over this Parliament. I do not deny and I do not take issue with Kezia Dugdale about the importance of this issue, but I hope that she will acknowledge the significant extra investment and the significant planned extra investment. I say to the First Minister that the ISD's report says that it is clinicians who are making those referrals, so to suggest that it is a clinical decision to reject those referrals. I am afraid that there is a weak argument and I would ask her to look at it again. I welcome that £150 million investment. Labour's manifesto in May proposed guaranteed access to a qualified councillor for every high school in Scotland. It would cost £8 million—a fraction of what she is committed to spending—and it is exactly the type of early intervention that the First Minister tells us that she supports. Given that we are the only country in the UK without a national strategy for school-based counselling, can I ask her today to seriously examine Labour's proposals that we are publishing? If those figures today do not move the First Minister to act, can I ask her what will? That last part of Kezia Dugdale's question was unfair because there is not a single person in this chamber that is not moved by any young person coming forward seeking help from mental health issues. To suggest that the Government is not serious in its intent about tackling this, I do not think that that is a fair comment. I will consider all and any suggestions that anybody wants to make. If Kezia Dugdale wants to send me her proposals, I will ensure that the health secretary considers them. However, one of the things that is already being considered as part of our plans for a new mental health strategy is the provision of link workers in GP surgeries, for example, as well as in schools. That is something that I can say to Kezia Dugdale is already under active consideration. It is under active consideration, of course, by Maureen Watt, who is the dedicated mental health minister that I appointed after the election in May. There is an absolute commitment on the part of this Government to building up services to deal with the increased demand. I would simply say to people across the chamber to recognise the context in which we are talking about this. This is not about resources having been reduced, but resources have increased substantially. The number of people working in this area has increased substantially. I mentioned psychology posts. We are also seeing an increase, although this is a local authority responsibility and the number of mental health officers working in Scotland. So resources are increasing, but because demand is increasing so significantly we have to do more. That is exactly why we have the plans that we have in place to do more in terms of the strategy and in terms of the resources that back it. I have a local supplementary from Oliver Mundell. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to help to avoid 140 potential job losses at Penman engineering in Madam FreeShare constituency, which last week entered into administration, and if she will guarantee that Scottish Enterprise will pull out all of the stops and give future financial support in order to help to assist the administrator in finding a suitable buyer? Will the Scottish Enterprise already do just that? I was obviously disappointed to hear that Penman engineering had entered administration putting 140 jobs at risk. I know that this will be a really difficult time for those who are affected and for their families, as well as for the local area. The Scottish Enterprise is already working closely with the administrators to help them to find a buyer for the business and retain as many jobs as possible. Of course, our PACE organisation is actively engaged as well, providing support to those who may be faced with a redundancy situation. They have already contacted the company to offer support in the event that redundancies proceed, but let me stress and underline the fact that Scottish Enterprise is working with the administrators to try to avoid redundancies taking place. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government proposes to take in light of recent revelations regarding the investigation into the Clutha tragedy. I was very concerned to read the revelations that Sandra White talks about. I am sure that the thoughts of everybody in the chamber continue to be with the family and friends of all of those who were killed and injured in the Clutha tragedy. Following the publication of the AIB report into the tragedy, the Crown Office is conducting further investigations into some of the issues raised by that report. It is also the case that a fatal accident inquiry will be held as soon as possible. It is absolutely right that all of the evidence can be vigorously tested in a public setting and then be the subject of judicial determination. The Crown Office will continue to keep the family's advice of progress with their investigation. Given the scale of the tragedy and the impact that it has had on so many lives—indeed, the city of Glasgow—it is absolutely vital that the family's affected get the answers that they so much deserve. Question 3, Patrick Harvie. To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. I was disappointed earlier this week that the First Minister's colleagues at Westminster were unsuccessful in persuading the UK Government to take action on the scandal surrounding Scottish limited partnerships, legal entities that are openly marketed as tax avoidance vehicles, which have been associated also with corruption and money laundering. That is a scandal that the Greens first raised last year in the chamber and since then there has been growing attention to it, including investigative journalism by the Herald and now a campaign from Oxfam in Scotland, which is calling on all politicians to back their statement against tax avoidance in general and calling for action on Scottish limited partnerships in particular. The Scottish Greens support that statement. Will the First Minister give her backing to it as well? Yes, I certainly support those sentiments. I was also very disappointed that the debate sparked by SNP MPs in the House of Commons did not result in the action that I think Patrick Harvie and I would have wanted to see. I was very disappointed that the Conservatives voted against that particular amendment. It does not sit well, I think, with the new prime minister's stated commitment to taking on the unethical practices of some big businesses. I think that we need to be firm in saying that companies should pay the tax that they are due, because those taxes are what fund the public services that we all rely on. That is a reserved issue and Patrick Harvie is aware of that, but SNP MPs in the House of Commons and the Scottish Government, to the extent that we are able to, will continue to press for action in that area. Patrick Harvie? I am glad to hear that answer and I hope that the Scottish Government will be vociferous in rattling the cage of the UK Government in this matter. I know that my colleague Andy Wightman is in correspondence with ministers about that as well and I hope that every opportunity will be taken to use devolved responsibilities where they connect with the issue of tax avoidance. I have also called for the Scottish Government to restrict the availability of taxpayer-funded support to businesses that indulge in tax avoidance, for example, by using tax havens. Given that the First Minister has announced a new £1.5 billion fund to provide loans and guarantees to companies, surely we have a right to expect that such taxpayer-funded or taxpayer-guaranteed schemes are not available to the corporate dominiacs who indulge in tax avoidance. Can the First Minister give us a guarantee that such taxpayer-funded and government-provided support schemes will not be available to tax dodgers? I was in the chamber the other day when Keith Brown answered a question on that very point. From Patrick Harvie, although I may have got that part of it wrong, where he said, of course, this will be an issue that we take account of in any schemes that we are responsible for. Of course, the growth scheme is principally designed to help small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly ones that are emerging newly into some of the emerging markets that we have today. We will continue to press the UK Government to do and to take action on the issue that Patrick Harvie raises, as well as the actions that I have already spoken about on the part of SNP MPs. He might be interested to know that the finance secretary wrote to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy last month, to ask the SLPs to be included in the central register of people with significant control as part of the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. We will continue to press the UK Government to take action where they have responsibility and where we have responsibility. We will continue to act accordingly. The last point that I would make is a point that has been made in the chamber many times before. Where we have tax responsibility, we have put in place some of the toughest anti-tax avoidance measures of anywhere in the world. Last week, Ruth Davidson's office issued a comment on Christian Allard, the former MSP, who is questioning his right to comment on issues in his home constituency due to the fact that he was an EU citizen. Rather than immediately apologising with fraud and deeply offensive and xenophobic remark issued from her office, Ruth Davidson first asked her spin doctor to apologise. When pushed, she last night issued a contemptuous, sarcastic response that in no way acknowledges the seriousness of the issue. Does the First Minister agree with me that, in the tense political climate caused by the EU referendum, all politicians have a duty to lead by example and set their right tone for political debate and that Ruth Davidson should issue a personal public apology without further delay? I saw Ruth Davidson laugh when James Ronan was asking that question, but I think that that is a serious issue. The remarks that were made about Christian Allard from Ruth Davidson's office, suggesting that an EU citizen, even though they live here and contribute here, does not deserve a say about the community that they live in, are unacceptable. In the current climate, political leaders have a responsibility to help set the tone. We heard this week that the Home Secretary has had to assure the Polish Government that they were taking seriously the concerns about hate crimes committed towards Polish citizens in the UK. How much are those efforts undermined when the leader of the Conservatives in Scotland so casually dismisses what are completely unacceptable remarks about EU citizens? I think that if another day passes when Ruth Davidson fails to offer a full retraction and an unreserved apology for the remarks made from her own office, then the people of Scotland will be rightly entitled to question the character of the Conservative party. During the parliamentary recess, we saw the publication of the Gerr's figures, which demonstrated that there is a union dividend worth £1,600 for every man, woman and child in Scotland, equating to more than £7,000 for a family of four in one year. The First Minister claims to be concerned about the impact of austerity. Why would she impose this super austerity on Scottish families by taking this money away from them? I know that the Conservatives are desperate to talk about anything right now except the uncertainty that they have visited on the Scottish economy in the form of Brexit. It is the Conservatives' reckless gamble over the EU referendum that is taken to the exit door of the EU against our will. It is the Conservatives' complete inability to answer any questions about what Brexit might look like that is causing so much uncertainty for the Scottish economy. I think that it is about time. Instead of scaremongering about other things, we have got some answers from the Conservative party. Maybe the Scottish Conservative party can answer the question that Theresa May couldn't answer yesterday. Should we be in the single market? Yes or no? Liam McArthur Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Earlier this week, the First Minister in her legislative programme referred to the development of a strategic action plan reflecting the significant possibilities in terms of oil and gas decommissioning that will require facilities around the country. She may be aware that Linus, in my constituency, is under consideration for the development of such proposals. Can she, drawing on the deep water at Harbour at Scapa Flow and, indeed, the proximity to the North Sea, which WWF has said makes environmental sense? Can she give an assurance to me and to my constituents that, in developing the strategic action plan, Scottish Enterprise will fully reflect the skills, the resources and the opportunities for development of those facilities in that action plan? Yes, I am delighted to give that assurance. In fact, I will ask the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to arrange a meeting between relevant officials there and Liam McArthur in order that the very legitimate and valid points that he has raised today are fully incorporated in that action plan. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide an update following the first meeting of the International Council of Education Advisers. The first meeting of the International Council of Education Advisers was very successful and also extremely helpful. The advisers were able to share their wide experience of working in education systems around the world. The discussion was wide-ranging, but it had a focus on Scotland's 20 aims of excellence and equity for all children. Going forward, the council will look in more detail at capacity building, collaboration and closing the equity gap, and it will meet again in plenary session in February. I thank the First Minister for her response. Teachers in the 21st century need to be critically informed with professional values, knowledge and actions that ensure a positive impact on learners and learning. Not my words, but those of the general teaching council for Scotland, the body that sets the professional standards for teachers in Scotland. Does the First Minister agree with me that head teachers and local authorities must work collaboratively in planning appropriate professional learning opportunities for all staff, thereby ensuring that teachers can engage with educational research to develop teaching practice and thus contribute to closing the attainment gap? The First Minister Yes. I agree with that. Ensuring that our teachers are supported to have opportunities for professional development is absolutely central to giving children the best quality education possible. Indeed, that is why this year we are investing £1 million in master's level training for teachers. I agree with the general teaching council that collaboration and high-quality professional learning opportunities are important and teacher professionalism and school leadership will feature strongly in the national improvement framework. It already does feature strongly in the national improvement framework and delivery plan that was published by the Deputy First Minister in June. That, in fact, was one of the key themes of the discussions at the council last week, was the importance of supporting teachers to develop professionally as much as possible. Liz Smith Could the First Minister confirm whether her international panel of experts has provided the evidence that shows that there is a very strong link between educational attainment rising and greater school autonomy? The council met for the first time last week and we are asking it to advise us and give us the benefit of its expert opinion on a whole range of issues. However, there is evidence about the link between school attainment and the amount of autonomy that individual head teachers have. Indeed, that is why, in the governance review that John Swinney will publish next week, one of the key themes of that that we will then consult upon is how we empower head teachers and have much more responsibility on the part of head teachers in our schools, so that they are able to drive the improvement that we need to see. Our council of education advisers will, of course, advise us on the best ways of doing that as we go forward and scrutinise our plans, but that link is one that we have already accepted previously in formulating our plans so far. Iain Gray It emerged this week that the only educational advice underpinning the Scottish Government's national standardised assessments amounted to four emails from two educationalists, and that most of their advice was not, in fact, taken. Even at this late stage, will the First Minister undertake to ask the international council to examine and advise on this central policy? The First Minister The council will advise us on all of those issues, and it will do so on an on-going basis. I have to say that the last time I looked, although the way things change in labour, I could be forgiven for missing something, the last time I looked, Labour supported the approach that we were taking on standardised assessments. Standardised assessments, as I have said repeatedly in this chamber, are not tests. They are assessments to inform the judgments that teachers make about the performance of young people, and it is important that they exist, I think, to make sure that that judgment is being informed in an objective way and that we are given from that information that allows us to assess what the attainment gap is and set targets to close it so that we can be accountable to this chamber and to the wider public for the commitment that we have given around closing the attainment gap. I am absolutely determined that we will do that. We will take advice from our council and, indeed, from others, but we will be unwavering in our commitment to deliver the best education for all young people across this country. Gordon Lindhurst Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government is taking to reverse the reported decline in inward investment, including as a share of the UK total. We are looking in detail at the recently published Department for International Trade figures, which showed a small decrease in inward investment to Scotland over the past year. Those figures have a very different methodology from the more specific foreign direct investment figures published by Ernst and Young in May. The EY survey has placed Scotland in the top two locations for foreign direct investment outside London for the last six years. It also showed that 2015 was a record year with 119 foreign direct investment projects secured, a 51 per cent increase over 2014, and that reflects the important role that SDI plays in attracting inward investment to Scotland. Scotland remains a highly competitive business location, but one of the key reasons inward investors come to Scotland is to get access to the single market, and that is why it is so essential that we retain that. Gordon Lindhurst I thank the First Minister for that answer, and I am aware of the figures and the different studies that she refers to. However, the DIT figures are the latest figures and they show that the reality is that investment in Scotland is down 9 per cent on last year, new jobs are down 23 per cent and Scotland's share of new UK projects is down from six to four point nine per cent. It is not the EU referendum that can be blamed for this, but rather it is her threat that hangs like a dark cloud over Scotland of a further independence referendum. The question is, the people of Scotland have spoken in plain English. No means no. When will the First Minister accept that? The First Minister The EU figures are for the calendar year 2015 and the DIT figures are for the financial year 2015-16, so there is a difference of a few months in that. What was the uncertainty hanging over the Scottish economy in the latter part of financial year 2015-16? The only uncertainty that was hanging over the Scottish economy at that point was the looming referendum on EU membership. I still remember 2014, when the Tories went all around this country telling people that voting no was the only way to secure European Union membership and now they are trying to wriggle off the hook because they have put that membership in such jeopardy. The uncertainty facing our economy now is the reckless gamble of the Tories in taking us to the EU exit door. For those who have caused the problem, to try to blame those of us trying to find solutions is a bit like an arsonist trying to blame the fire brigade. The Tories should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Jackie Baillie I am sure that the First Minister does indeed share the disappointment, because after very positive inward investment figures we are now seeing a subsequent decline. We can argue over whose figures are right, but it is the case that inward investment projects are down, jobs generated are down and when compared to the rest of the UK, we appear to be doing less well. I absolutely disagree with Gordon Lindhurst. It is not a question that Brexit has no impact, but it is the impact of both Brexit and continuing uncertainty over a potential referendum that has an impact on inward investment. What will the First Minister do to address that? It is not that long that Jackie Baillie agreed with Gordon Lindhurst, because she also travelled Scotland in 2014, telling us that we had to vote no to protect our European Union membership, and she really should reflect on that. Let me address directly the issue of inward investment, because Scotland is a success story in inward investment. The EY reports going back six years show that. In the new climate that we are in, we are going to have to work even harder to attract inward investment. That is why I announced in the programme for government the new investment in innovation hubs that we are establishing in London, in Dublin and in Brussels. That is why we are supporting Scottish Enterprise and SDI. That is why we are announcing all the initiatives that we are announcing to support the economy. Jackie Baillie can stand there and talk about uncertainty. The problem for labourers is that there is one certainty right now if Labour does not get its act together. Owen Smith said it the other day, and Kezia Dugdale said it. That is the certainty of Scotland being governed by the Tories for 20 years. Jackie Baillie and Labour have nothing to say about that, so we will get on with the job of supporting the Scottish economy and we will leave Labour to stew in the juice of their own making. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will convene a working group of ScotRail representatives, passenger and disability groups and trade unions to review and report on the delivery of safer train services. We welcome the views of all parties on how we can further improve our railways. Elaine Smith will be aware of forums already established through the ScotRail franchise, such as the stakeholder equality group and advisory groups, which include attendees from passenger and mobility groups. It will also shortly be publishing the accessible travel framework for Scotland, ensuring that disabled people are involved in improving all aspects of transport from policy to delivery. The safe operation of our railways remains our first priority, and we must respect the remit of the independent safety regulator in overseeing the safe operation of our railways, which continues to be one of the safest in Europe. The transport minister will be very happy to host a meeting with Elaine Smith to discuss the issue further if she is interested in taking up that offer. Real passengers in Scotland, in particular those with disabilities and the RMT members in the gallery today, will be a bit disappointed by that response that there will not be a working group convened. Is she aware that thousands of driver control trains are operated by ScotRail without a second member of staff on board? Does she appreciate that the guard's safety critical role is not just about operating doors, vitally important though that is for safety, but it involves numerous responsibilities around passenger safety, assistance comfort and security? Given the current suspension of strike action, I would be very pleased to accept the offer to meet with the transport minister to discuss how we can guarantee the safest possible operating procedures on our trains. Elaine Smith raises very important issues, and the transport minister will engage fully in them, both with her and with other members and with the RMT and other unions. It is important to point out that, in terms of driver controlled operation, the rail safety regulator and the rail safety and standards board have publicly confirmed that, in their view, it is a safe method of working. They did that because Humza Yousaf asked them to reaffirm their view in the context of the recent dispute. Now, positively, as Elaine Smith has indicated, industrial action has now been suspended while both parties are looking to work through an agreement. I hope that that process ends in a positive agreement, and we can look forward to a situation in the months ahead where passengers do not have any further disruption to the services that they rely on. To ask the First Minister for what reason more than a quarter of training places in GP surgeries were not taken up by the end of the 2016 recruitment round. First, I am surprised that Alec Cole-Hamilton does not know that we are not at the end of the 2016 recruitment round yet. It is still on-going. From the first round of advertising this year, three quarters of places have been filled so far, and even at this interim stage, we have recruited 4 per cent more year 1 GP trainees than when the full recruitment process was completed last year. This summer, a second round has started, which advertised a further 100 places. That takes the total number of places that have been advertised for recruitment this year to 439, which exceeds our target of advertising 400 places. Of course, this year, we are also offering £20,000 bursaries for harder to fill places. When we take all GP's in training into account, not just year 1 entrance, the current fill rate for GP training is 92 per cent. Alex Cole-Hamilton, I thank the First Minister for her answer. Nevertheless, it is clear from the statistics that making places available does not necessarily mean that trainees will emerge to fill them. Indeed, in the year since Liberal Democrats repeatedly raised the GP crisis at FMQs, we have lost a further 90 to the profession. One in four patients present to Scottish surgeries with underlying mental health conditions. Does the First Minister agree with me that we can relieve pressure on GP practices, particularly like those in my constituency of Edinburgh Weston, by stationing qualified full-time mental health practitioners, not just link workers, in every surgery in Scotland? I agree very much with Alex Cole-Hamilton. It is a statement of the obvious that it is not just advertising places that counts, it is filling those places with doctors, which is why I hope that he would have welcomed the fact that at this interim stage in 2016 we were already ahead of where we were at the end of last year's process. There is still work to be done, but clear progress is being made. We are taking a number of steps, including the bursary that I spoke about, to make sure that places in harder-to-fill areas are more attractive to doctors to take them up. On the wider point about relieving pressure on GPs, that is why we are working with GPs to transform primary care. We have plans in place to put 250 community link workers into GP practices, which addresses directly the point that Alex Cole-Hamilton has made about mental health support. We also have plans to ensure that all GP practices get access to an enhanced pharmacist. We are investing in an additional 500 advanced nurse practitioners to bolster the skills of the profession and also looking to recruit 1,000 new paramedics to working community settings, which help to take the pressure off not just GPs, but also our accident emergency services. I recognise the pressure on GPs. I also want to thank them for the incredible work that they do, and we are determined to work with them to make sure that we have a primary care system and a health service generally that is fit for the challenges of the future. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is ensuring accelerated funding and additional business report in light of Brexit uncertainty. Earlier this week, I announced that we intend to use the strength of our balance sheet to establish a new Scottish growth fund. Over three years, that will provide SMEs with up to £500 million of investment guarantees and some loans up to a maximum of £5 million per eligible business. I also announced 16 projects that will support and create employment as part of our £100 million capital investment package. They include a £20 million investment in energy saving measures for homes and public sector buildings, £23 million to upgrade the higher education estate and £10 million that will go towards local economic development projects across the country. All that spending, of course, is accelerated into this financial year. Responding to the Federation of Small Businesses, we have also created a new single point of contact for businesses in Scotland enabling individual companies to submit any questions or concerns that they have about the impact of Brexit. Does she agree that it is high time that the UK Government followed our lead and announced its own economic stimulus package rather than continuing to brush off all concerns over the future of our economy by repeating its meaningless mantra of Brexit means Brexit? Yes, I do. On 10 August, when I announced the £100 million package, I called on the UK Government to urgently develop its own economic stimulus plans. One month on, we have not seen any meaningful action to alleviate uncertainty. We are going to say that we do not even yet know what the date of the autumn statement is. That is the extent of the uncertainty that engulfs the UK Government currently. I have great confidence in the resilience of Scottish business, but there are real concerns that the damage to the economy and to jobs from the Brexit decision and from the confusion of the UK Government since then will be severe and long-lasting. This Parliament has given the Scottish Government a mandate to seek to protect Scotland's interests, and that is exactly what we will continue to do. Could the First Minister reassure our farming businesses across Scotland that the shambles of this year's direct farm payments will not be repeated in the coming year because never mind accelerated payments, I had farmers at my door at the weekend telling me that they still have not received the payments that were due from the Scottish Government nine months ago? As we have said previously, we acknowledge our shortcomings when it comes to making payments to farmers this year. We have apologised for that, and I do that again today. In terms of where we are as of 5 September of 18,300 eligible farmers, over 17,700 have got payment, over 17,400 have been paid in full, and we have paid loans to those who are still awaiting the payment. Of course, Fergus Ewing will make a full update to Parliament next week on 13 September, and as well as giving an update on payments for this year, he will also set out our intentions in terms of the 2016 payments. Thank you, First Minister. That concludes First Minister's questions. Yes, point of order, Elaine Smith. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am sure that all members, at least backbench members anyway, will appreciate the new arrangements for First Minister's questions, which give backbench members more opportunities. Could I clarify with you that supplementary questions on question 3 and question 4 do not have to be sent in advance to your office and are more spontaneous? Could I also clarify that you wrote to us about the subject matter, so could you confirm that, although a subject might have been raised at general questions, that that would not preclude it from being raised at First Minister's questions? I gave the example that I had hoped to ask about the downgrading of Munklands hospital and issue a request to the health minister to attend. That was a subject matter at general, but it was not at First Minister's, so is that the kind of question that would be in order at question 3 or 4? I thank Elaine Smith for the question, and, yes, she is correct on both points. You do not have to submit the supplementaries that come after the final leader's questions to me. It might help if you do in the sense that it is likely to increase your chances of being selected, but it might decrease your chances. Yes, if it is the same question that is on the order paper for First Minister's questions, you cannot ask it, but if it has been raised in general, questions feel free to ask again. I hope that that is helpful. We now move on to Members' Business, and there it adds Members to leave quietly if possible.