 We turn to First Minister's Questions, question number one, Ruth Davidson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. First Minister. Engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Ruth Davidson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, the transport minister said that ScotRail had learned the lessons from the chaos that passengers have endured, but in yesterday's statement, he left a series of questions unanswered. He says that ScotRail is well under way to implementing 250 action points for improvement, but he won't tell anyone what they are. It's not for the first time. A month ago, he told MSPs on a parliamentary committee that he would come back to them with an answer. Yesterday, when asked again, he had nothing more to say. Can the First Minister give a commitment today? Will her Government publish those 250 action points or not? First Minister. Yes, ScotRail will publish them within the next few days. Ruth Davidson. I thank the First Minister for that answer, and I appreciate the clarity. I think that, of course, it would have been better if the transport minister had been able to give the same clarity yesterday, but as we are making progress, let's keep it going. Let's keep this progress going, First Minister. We are told that there are 250 action points, but we are not going to be told what we want to be told when they are coming. Let's look at another point on timing. I am told that work is well under way to deliver them. How can we judge that when yesterday, when asked, the transport secretary ducked the question on timescale? The public want to know when things will get better. We asked yesterday—no answer from the transport minister. You have given me one answer that he couldn't answer yesterday. Let's go for two out of two. What is the deadline for those improvements? Can you today give us the answer that the transport minister couldn't answer yesterday? First Minister. Those improvements cover a period of time. There is a summary of all those action points that are already on ScotRail's website that any member of the chamber, any member of the public indeed, can read. The full detail of each of the 246 to be precise action points will, as I say, be published over the next few days. What they cover are improvements to infrastructure, improvements to the ScotRail fleet and improvements to operations. Of course, all of that is backed by an investment of £5 billion over the remainder of this decade in improving our rail services. In terms of the timescale, Humza Yousaf made it very clear yesterday that what we are doing, pressing ScotRail to deliver, are on-going improvements to its performance. The contract that is in place right now targets ScotRail with making sure that 91 out of every 100 trains run within the recognised industry standard for punctuality. At the moment, its performance is 89 out of 100. That is not good enough. The various action points that are covered in this plan are about improving that service and beginning to see improvements in that service immediately. I think that we should all get behind the transport minister as he seeks to do that. Ruth Davidson We are doing so well. Now that we have a Government that is only now a month on starting to reveal the improvement plan, a month ago it said that it would get on with doing so. However, this week, it floated an alternative plan and it raised the question of a public sector operator running the rail system. We need to ensure that any of those options are realistic. Can the First Minister tell the chamber what is the earliest that such an operator could take over a rail system? If, as the transport minister says, the rail network is not a poor service, why does she think that it is necessary? The First Minister We had a commitment in our manifesto to make sure that there was an option. We have not had the powers to do this previously. We will now have the powers, so we said that we would make sure that there was an option when the franchise is next up for renewal to ensure that there is a public service bid able to compete for that franchise. I know that the Tories are no friend of the public sector privatisation is and always has been the watchword of the Tories, but we want to make sure that there is a public service bid able to compete the next time the franchise comes up for renewal. The earliest that could be, as the member is aware, is 2022, and we will start making plans now to ensure that that is possible. That is why Humza Yousaf, as he said in this chamber yesterday, has invited all the transport spokespersons from all the parties to a meeting to start talking about how that can be delivered. I would hope that that is something all people across this chamber would welcome, and it is yet more evidence of the action that this Government is taking to improve our railways. Ruth Davidson Presiding Officer, even the First Minister would admit that this week the rail network has been in a shambles. Commuters standing on platforms have watched as the Scottish Government has blamed the train operator for the mess, and the train operator has said that the Scottish Government is responsible for how many seats are available and therefore how much overcrowding exists. The contract has at least six more years to run, and the question that passengers want an answer to is pretty simple. When they have seen the events of the last week over the next six years, how can they have any confidence at all that this deal is going to work? First Minister? Firstly, in terms of capacity in our railways, we are working towards plans that will deliver 200 new services, 20,000 more seats per day and better journey times. That is what we are purchasing with the £5 billion of investment that we are putting into our railways. I should say that about 60 per cent of the cost of running a railways in Scotland comes from Government funding. That compares to about 20 per cent south of the border. While performance on our railways is not as good as we want it to be and we are determined to see it improve, the performance of the trains in Scotland is slightly better than the GB average. We take our responsibilities seriously. I think that it is better for all members across the chamber to back the transport minister as he works to make sure that ScotRail is delivering the standard of service that the travelling public has a right to expect. Question 2, Kezia Dugdale. Do you ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the week? Among other things, I will be in Cardiff tomorrow for a meeting of the British Irish Council. Today, there was more delay and disruption on Scotland's rail network. At one stage this morning, one-third of trains were running late. Yet again, thousands of people were delayed getting to work. Earlier this week, the transport minister, Hamza Yousaf, said that it is not a poor service. In her answers to Ruth Davidson, the First Minister did what her Government always does—she blames Labour and then talked about England. Does she really think that the thousands of people who are delayed at Glasgow Central today care what happened in 2002 or what is going on in Cornwall this morning? I am not particularly interested in what is going on in Cornwall this morning. I am very interested in what is going on in Scotland. What has happened this morning, as members are aware, is that there has been a points failure affecting services to and from Glasgow Central. That failure has now been rectified. I regret any delay and any disruption. As I said last week, we apologise to anybody whose train was delayed because of that points failure. Unfortunately, those kinds of things do happen on our railways. What is important is that ScotRail communicates properly with the travelling public and that we make sure that there are the investments in our rail infrastructure to reduce the chances of those things happening in future. That is why the investment plan in operations, infrastructure and fleet are so important. We will continue to take our responsibilities seriously. When I talk about performance under Labour, I am not suggesting that that should in any way excuse poorer performance right now, but we simply do that to put today's performance into context. For the most recent period, the performance of ScotRail was 89.8 per cent. It should be higher than that, but that is higher than in any one of the years under the last Labour administration. I say that simply to put it into context. We will continue to make the investments and do the work necessary to improve our rail services. I think that that is what the travelling public has a right to expect from us. Kezia Dugdale. I am sure that that was of great comfort to the people stranded on platforms this morning. I am glad that the First Minister agrees with me that the service Scotland's commuters are receiving just isn't good enough and that the First Minister thinks that passengers deserve better, because, in January, the price of regulated rail fares is due to rise. A passenger using an annual season ticket to travel between Edinburgh and Glasgow will have to pay £71 more next year, and that makes people even angrier. I think that passengers deserve a break. That is why today Labour is publishing a plan to freeze all regulated rail fares next year. Surely the First Minister agrees with us that people deserve a break. She has the power to give them one, so will she back Labour's call for a 2017 rail fare freeze? Of course, we will consider any proposal that is put forward. We will particularly look to see how that proposal is being paid for, because we have an investment package that I have spoken about that it is important that we are able to implement and deliver. Of course we do not want to see rail fares increase any more than is absolutely necessary. That is why we, at the moment, have increases in rail fares that are at their lowest level since powers over railway were devolved to this Parliament since 2005. We see peak time rail fare increases limited to inflation, off peak rail fare increases are actually limited to inflation minus 1 per cent. That is the discipline that we exert on rail fares. We will consider any proposals, but above all else we will make sure that we have fairness around the funding of our railways so that we can carry out the investments that are required to make sure that standards do improve on our railways. That is a serious proposal, with means to pay for it contained within. We asked the Scottish Parliament's independent experts to cost it for us, and they have estimated that it would cost as little as £2 million. That is the equivalent of two months of a bellio profit. People are fed up with the expensive, overcrowded and unreliable trains, and the SNP is desperate to talk tough about what action it might take in 2022 so that passengers less stranded on freezing platforms this morning need a break now. Does not the First Minister agree with me that, after weeks of misery, passengers in Scotland deserve to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel with a fair freeze in 2017? First Minister. First Lady, I have said that we will look at any proposal that is put forward, and I will stick to that commitment. We have also been bearing down on rail fare increases already. As I said to Ruth Davidson, a much bigger proportion of the funding of our railways in Scotland comes from Government funding as opposed to rail fares than is the case south of the border, and I think that that is right and proper. We will also make sure that we plan the investment that is required to improve the infrastructure, to improve the trains and to improve the operation of our trains, so that the kind of delays that we are talking about just now are not seen in the future. That is the responsible action that we will continue to take, and I think that that is the action that the travelling public have a right to expect. Yes, we will look at the option of a public service bid in future, but right now we will continue to focus on making the improvements that people want to see. We have a number of constituency supplementaries today. The first one from Richard Lyle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the response is of the Scottish Government on the news of the proposed closure of the Quick Fit Insurance Services contact centre in my constituency. First Minister. I am, of course, aware of the proposed closure of the Quick Fit Insurance site in Udingston, with the possible loss of more than 500 jobs, and my thoughts are with all of the workers affected at this time. The business minister, Paul Healhouse, has already spoken with senior management and is looking at options. He has underlined our full support for the Udingston site and its workforce and said that we are committed to working with North Lanarkshire Council and others to do all that we can to retain jobs. Scottish Enterprise is working closely with the company to consider all possible avenues for support, and we will continue to engage throughout the consultation process. It is important that we give the site and its workforce the full support that they need and deserve at this difficult time, and we are absolutely committed to doing that. Edward Mountain. Presiding Officer, as a result of some very unsatisfactory clinical outcomes at the maternity unit at Cathness general, and indeed one mum, Ellie McIntosh, having to endure her labour in an ambulance on the road between Wick and Raigmore. It appears that NHS Highland are proposing next week, without public consultation, to downgrade the Cathness general maternity unit to a midwife-led unit, with Raigmore becoming the hub. Knowing that childbirth can quickly become life-threatening, not only to mother but also to child, is the government happy that Cathness and Sutherland mums, with difficult deliveries, might have to face a two and a half hour blue light drive to Inverness, which could be considerably more in winter? Would they not join me and hopefully the First Minister and the Cathness residents and local councillors in asking for a full public consultation before those changes are automatically imposed? The First Minister. That is a very important issue that has been raised. Edward Mountain first raised the case of an unsatisfactory ambulance journey, and I want to make it very clear that the standard of care received in that case fell way below what we would rightly expect for women in Scotland, and I expect both NHS Highland and the Scottish Ambulance Service to act on the findings of the investigation and make improvements to local services to ensure that mothers and babies can be transferred safely and comfortably whenever they need to be. On the more general issue, as the member is aware, NHS Highland published a report into the safety of maternity and neonatal services at Cathness hospital, and they will further consider that later this month. The report was triggered by the death of a baby in Cathness maternity unit in September 2015, and on the basis of that report, the medical director will recommend that Cathness maternity services are reconfigured and should operate as a midwife-led community maternity unit. The recommendation is being made on the grounds of safety. It is supported by external review. That is the reason that NHS Highland is not proposing to consult on the decision, and it will not come to ministers. However, it is proposing to consult widely on the proposals to strengthen services in Rhaigmoor and provide facilities for parents to ensure that they meet local concerns. I hope that all members would recognise that. Where a report makes a recommendation on the basis of patient safety and it is clearly on the basis of patient safety, then it is incumbent upon the local NHS board to act accordingly. Marie Todd The First Minister will be aware of this week's announcement that a buyer has been found for the smelter, the hydroelectric plants and surrounding land in Fort William, currently owned by Rio Tinto. Can the First Minister provide an update? Well, Rio Tinto informed its workforce and the Stock Exchange yesterday morning that it had reached agreement to sell its shareholding in Alcan Aluminium UK to the GFG Alliance in a deal that is being supported by the Scottish Government. The sale is great news for the local community and especially for the 150-plus people working at the Fort William Aluminium smelter. The uncertainty hanging over the workforce since the strategic review was announced in January has been lifted, ending an anxious wait for the workforce and all those whose livelihoods depend on the business. The deal not only safeguards the existing jobs in Lochaber, but it also has the potential to create hundreds more through planned investment in new facilities. I hope that everybody across the chamber would warmly welcome it. Jackie Baillie Is the First Minister aware that cuts are being made to mental health services by West Dunbartonshire Health and Social Care partnership as a result of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's budget cuts for next year? Is she further aware that the SNP group leader voted with the unelected health board appointees in favour of those cuts, whilst Labour councillors voted against it? Does she agree with the SNP group leader's actions in voting for cuts to mental health services in my area? The First Minister Firstly, Greater Glasgow and Clyde's budget is not being cut next year. It is increasing in line with the budgets of other territorial health boards. The reason for that is that this Government is committed to continuing to increase the NHS budget overall and over this Parliament by £500 million more than inflation, which is a bigger commitment that Labour made in its own manifesto. That is the reality of the situation. In terms of the particular issue that Jackie Baillie raises, I am not aware of the particular local issue. If she wants to write to me about it, I will make sure that that is looked into. As I have said before, the health service, because of rising demand, faces real pressures, but we are determined to work with the health service to give it extra resources so that it can meet those pressures. Within the overall NHS budget, we have made clear our commitment to increase funding for mental health services. Alex Cole-Hamilton At this very moment, the City of Edinburgh Council is meeting to approve its local development plan, a document that will see thousands upon thousands of new homes built in my constituency, putting in tolerable pressure on health services in Kirklesson, South Queensferry, Crestorfin, further choking arterial routes that are already ranked as the most polluted and congested in Scotland, and in addition tearing up much-loved green belts and natural heritage in areas such as the Cammo estate. I accept that there is a housing crisis in this country, but there is a housing crisis of a different kind in my constituency. The citizens of West Edinburgh are on their knees, groaning under the weight of new houses that we are forced to endure. Will the Scottish Government bring forward a new planning bill that seeks to rule out development in areas that are not sustainable, which compels developers under section 75 orders to, in the first phase of development, build things such as new health centres and roads and infrastructures? Will she define once and for all what is meant by green belt, light Cammo and protect it forevermore? I am more than happy to look into the detail of the issue that the member raises, but, as I sit listening to the question, I am struck by two things. First, that this is a question that appears to be criticising the Scottish Government for a council wanting to build more houses. Given that many members in the Opposition across this Parliament frequently criticises for according to them not building enough houses, it seems to be a rather contradictory way of attacking the Government. Secondly, from a party that is usually standing up in this chamber accusing the Scottish Government of centralising decision making to now stand up and ask us to pass legislation to restrict the local decision making of a local council, seems to me, to be entirely on its head. We will continue to make sure that the planning system operates effectively and that concerns of local communities are taken into account, but that we can see expansion in house building, which is much needed across the country. I ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. The Cabinet has not left much time now between yesterday's Westminster budget statement and the need to introduce a draft budget for next year for Scotland. The statement yesterday at Westminster was accompanied by a great deal of rhetoric about protecting people who are just about managing, but it contained a great deal more good news for the wealthiest. Some 85 per cent of the income tax cuts over the course of the rest of the Parliament will go to the richest households. The people who have been given some light relief in changes to universal credit only restore a tiny fraction of what is already being taken away from them. The uprating of the so-called national living wage, the upper band on the minimum wage, will not get anywhere close to the real living wage and will not protect younger workers who at the moment are the most exploited in our economy. The Scottish Government can take action on all of those. Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish budget must not only avoid reproducing the same unjust policies that are being pursued south of the border but must result in a cumulative benefit to Scotland that closes the inequality gap and leaves far fewer people in Scotland genuinely struggling? Yes, I agree with that. Our budget will be published, of course, on 15 December. I think that it is important to talk about the context for this Parliament and this Government of what the chancellor announced yesterday. It does not surprise me that Ruth Davidson did not want to mention the autumn budget statement in First Minister's questions today, because even after the additional capital funding that was announced yesterday that we will benefit from through consequentials, our budget by the end of this decade will be 9.2 per cent in real terms lower than it was when the Tories took office. The effect of the £800 million yesterday meant that, instead of our budget by the end of this decade being £3.3 billion lower than when the Tories took office, it will be £2.9 billion lower. The Tories wanted us to be thankful for that. In addition to that, of course, we saw that the universal credit situation remained largely unchanged, which meant that the autumn budget statement yesterday was a case of taking money away from the poorest to give it to the richest in our society. I think that it was us seeing the Tories showing their true colours. We will set out our budget plans in full on 15 December, but we have already said that we will not pass on a massive tax cut to the 10 per cent top income earners in the country. At a time when our budget has been hammered by the Tories, when public services are being hammered, when we are seeing £100 billion of additional borrowing because of their Brexit recklessness, this is a time to protect our public services and to protect the vulnerable, and that is what this Government will do. That goal is one that I share, but I hope that we can move away from the language of passing on tax cuts south of the border. The Chancellor down south does not set tax rates and bans for Scotland. It is the Scottish Government that will set them, so there is no question about passing on. It is about deciding what is right for Scotland in the first principles. It seems pretty clear that there are specific actions that must be taken if we want the Scottish budget to have the effect that the First Minister is saying that she wants to achieve. We should be saying, for example, that all workers, not just workers over 25, will get the genuine living wage and have the kind of conditionality on that for Government support that the Scottish Government has shied away from. We should be using the capital spending to cut people's living costs on areas such as energy efficiency. We should be using devolved powers to top up benefits. A top up to child benefit could lift tens of thousands of children out of poverty in Scotland, and we absolutely must avoid protecting wealthy people like ourselves in this Parliament and have progressive tax policies that save money for people on lower incomes and raise it from those who can afford to pay more. Does the First Minister agree with me that it is dispiriting to see the Labour Party, for example, say that it is middle earners who would be cost more money if we raised the higher rate? Higher rate taxpayers are on high incomes, shouldn't we expect that people on high incomes pay a bit more? I agree with that last point. Higher rate income earners earn more than £43,000 a year. My judgment is that it is not right to give a large tax cut to the top 10 per cent of income earners at a time when those at the bottom end are suffering so much and when there is so much pressure on our public services. That is the judgment that we make. It is dispiriting, especially after some of the rhetoric that we have heard from the Labour Party in this Parliament that John MacDonald said that he agreed with that tax cut for top earners. On some of the other points that Patrick Harvie raises, he will appreciate that I will not go into all of the detail today because the finance secretary will set out the budget in due course. If we look at, for example, energy efficiency that this Government has and will continue to invest heavily in energy efficiency, we will continue to do everything that we can to mitigate the effect of welfare cuts. I would hope that everybody across the chamber, perhaps with the exception of the Tories, would welcome the fact that we have managed to confirm that our work programme will not have sanctions attached to it, something that I think will be warmly welcomed. In terms of the minimum and living wage, although we do not have the power to set the minimum wage, we have made very clear that we want to see the extension of the real living wage and have already extended it to 40,000 social care workers. Those are the kind of actions that we will continue to take to help those most in need and to protect our public services. When we publish the budget, I hope that the whole chamber will back it. The First Minister is aware that NHS Ayrshire and Arran have a less than good track record going back many years regarding not disseminating and acting on information gained and lessons learned following critical incidents and significant adverse events. Pattern of failure for too many bereaved families is well established, and, while I welcome the latest review into baby deaths at Crosshouse, we have been here before, and the questions remain. Given that lessons have not been learned and acted on in the past, does the First Minister really believe, and can she guarantee that the outcome of this inquiry into baby deaths at Crosshouse will deliver improvements for the people of Ayrshire and my constituents? I think that it is fair to say that changes have been made to the review that John Scott referred to. The earlier review was one that I instigated when I was health secretary in 2012. That was a review of Ayrshire and Arran's adverse event management. Some of what we have heard this week, of course, is deeply concerning. That is why the health secretary has asked Healthcare Improvement Scotland to review the cases that have been highlighted in Ayrshire and Arran and, indeed, any others that they believe are necessary and report on whether the correct processes and procedures were properly followed. Healthcare Improvement Scotland will report back at the earliest possible opportunity after which the health secretary has offered to discuss those findings directly with the families concerned. I can give an absolute assurance to the member and to Parliament today that, if there are lessons to be learned or improvements to be made, we will not hesitate to act. Neil Findlay The Justice Minister has instructed Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to review undercover policing in Scotland. This week, it has emerged that one of the key officers working on the review is Stephen Whitelock, who was previously deputy director of the specialist force that was responsible for carrying out the undercover policing activity that he is now reviewing. Will the First Minister step in and remove Mr Whitelock from the inquiry, otherwise its credibility will be in tatters before its work has barely begun? The First Minister I will fully consider the issue that Neil Findlay is raising, but more generally, as he said, the justice secretary has directed Her Majesty's Inspectorate to undertake a review of undercover policing in Scotland. It is important that we allow that review to proceed and then act on any of the findings of it. However, we all want to make sure that there is confidence in that review. Of course, we will consider any issues that are raised that might damage that confidence. Without saying any more about that today, I will look at the issue and come back to the member in due course. Stuart Stevenson With the brexiture chimera of £350 million a week for the NHS, replaced by the Chancellor yesterday by £225 million a week of new borrowing, does that not make it much more difficult for Governments north and south of the border to deliver social justice when our economy is being burdened by debt of this magnitude due to the incompetence of the Tories? The First Minister Yes, I think that that is absolutely correct. Yesterday, we started to see, perhaps for the first time, laid bare the true cost of Brexit. Rather than the promise of £350 million extra a week for the NHS, yesterday we saw that the additional borrowing caused by Brexit will amount to £225 million a week. That is the Brexit con that so many people in the Conservative Party have presided over. That is why I am so determined that we continue to explore every option to protect Scotland's interests and, in particular, to protect our place in the single market. That is how we minimise the costs of Brexit that are being imposed on us by the Conservative Party. Mark Ruskell Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last month, the First Minister voted for a green amendment in this chamber, setting out clear red lines to protect Scotland's public services and environment from the CETA and TTIP trade deals. Yesterday's vote in the European Parliament confirmed that there will be no scrutiny of those deals by the European Court of Justice, while the Government's written answers confirmed that CETA poses a potential threat to our NHS and our protected foods. Will the First Minister release the legal advice that points to damaging impacts and what action will she take to make sure that Scotland's voice and Scotland's values are heard in Europe at this critical time? The First Minister The member is aware of the position that is laid out in the ministerial code around legal advice. Secondly, and this is a matter of regret to me, we do not have direct power over trade agreements such as CETA and TTIP. However, where I absolutely agree with him, the Government is incumbent on the whole Parliament to make sure that Scotland's voice is heard. As I have said previously, we have concerns around some of the contents of both CETA and TTIP, particularly around the threat to public services, including the NHS. We have argued that there should be an explicit exclusion for the NHS and public services in agreements like this. We also have concerns over the investor-state dispute resolution process. We will continue to argue the case that Scotland's concerns should be taken into account, and we will absolutely make sure that Scotland's voice is heard on those matters. Bruce Crawford Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the autumn statement. The autumn statement starkly set out the cost of Brexit to the UK economy and public finances, with economic growth and tax revenue revised downwards, and borrowing and inflation sharply up. In responding, the UK Government had the opportunity to end its failed austerity policy. Instead, the Chancellor has continued with the cuts that are reducing budgets for public services and cutting the income of families across Scotland. While the small increase in capital investment and anxiousity is welcome, this is simply reducing the cuts that were put in place by the Chancellor's predecessor. By the end of the decade, our capital budget alone will still be around 8 per cent lower in real terms than it was when the Conservatives came to power in 2010. We will publish the Scottish draft budget next month, and that will set out the measures that we are taking to support our economy, tackle inequality and invest in public services, underlining the very different approaches our two Governments take. Bruce Crawford I thank the First Minister for her answer. Would the First Minister agree with me that the full extent of the Tory's reckless gamble with the nation's future is now laid bare for all to see in the autumn statement, as she says, with slower growth, higher inflation and tax revenue down? Does she also agree with me, First Minister, that the bombshell projection that the UK debt will now increase by a staggering £220 billion by 2020 if there is a hard Brexit makes it an absolute imperative that Scotland is able to remain in the single market by whatever means? The Tories do not like to hear this, because what we are hearing now is the reality of their recklessness on Brexit. 100 billion pounds of additional borrowing, debt increasing by around £200 billion, debt to GDP ratio hitting 90 per cent, lower growth and lower real wages, a real squeeze on living standards. That is the price of the Tory Brexit that Ruth Davidson and her colleague seem now to be so enthusiastic about. The Tories in Scotland might be the born-again Brexiteers, but this Government will continue to stand up for Scotland's interests. We will continue to seek to protect our place in Europe and, yes, we will continue to find ways to protect our place in the single market, because that is what we need to do to protect jobs, to protect public finances and to protect the living standards of people across this country, because none of those things are safe in the hands of the Tories. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I suggest that the First Minister wants to find Brexiteers? All she has to do is look at the benches behind her. The Chancellor's autumn statement delivers for Scotland £800 million extra capital spending, £74 million extra resource spending, £3.3 million extra for Scottish charities, a freeze in fuel duty, an increase in the personal allowance to help the lowest earners, an increase in R&D spending and the city deal for Stirling and Clackmannanshire. The constituency member seemed to have forgotten about that in his question, as all that as part of the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Why can't the First Minister for once stop being so miserable and just welcome this good news? I think that most of the misery yesterday was coming from the Chancellor, not from anybody on this side. I remember the days when Murdo Fraser used to aspire to be a serious politician. Now he is simply delusional. The facts speak for themselves. Let's take a count of the £800 million extra in capital, of the £74 million extra in revenue. Let's factor all that in and see where we end up. We end up in a position where, by the end of this decade, our budget will not be £3.3 billion lower than it was when the Tories took office, as we were expecting. It will just be £2.9 billion lower than it was when the Tories took office. Yet the Tories expect us all to thank them for that. That is the price of allowing the Tories to run our economy. The difference between Murdo Fraser and the Conservatives, and those of us in this House, is that we think that we would do a better job of running our economy ourselves. That is the choice that faces the Tories. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister where action the Scottish Government is taking in light of recent reports that Scotland's children are some of the least active in the world. Some of the findings of the Active Healthy Kids report car 2016 are disappointing, and we want to do much more to challenge sedentary behaviour and increase the physical activity levels of children. However, as the report recognises, we have a strong legislative and infrastructure in place that underpin our plans. Through the Active Scotland outcomes framework, we are committed to providing even more opportunities for children to be active, building on our massive investment in school, sport and in sports facilities since 2007. I am sure that the member will share my disappointment that the UK Government watered down its recent childhood obesity strategy, and I hope that he will lend his party's support to our call for further restrictions on junk food advertising before 9 pm to significantly reduce children's exposure to the marketing of unhealthy foods. I thank the First Minister for her response, and I welcome the Government's efforts to encourage physical activity. However, according to the Scottish Health Survey, the Scottish National Party has only managed to increase the number of children meeting physical activity guidelines by a few per cent since they came to power. Does the First Minister admit that not enough progress has been made on that? I certainly readily acknowledge that we have got to do much more, but let's look at children doing two hours or more periods of PE. In 2005, that was less than 10 per cent. This year, that has gone up to 98 per cent. That is just one example of the progress that has been made, and we are investing heavily in local sports facilities. The report that the member's question referred to, the Healthy Kids Scotland report card, found that we score very well in terms of policies and facilities, but in terms of actual physical activity of children, there is much more that we need to do. That is, for example, one of the reasons why we are supporting the daily mile in our schools, which is an absolutely fantastic initiative. We will continue to make sure that the facilities and the investment that we are ensuring are translating into actual improvements. I hope that on this issue, because it is so important, not just now, but for the future. I hope that people across the chamber will get behind us on this. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle the problem of nuisance calls. I know the significant harm that nuisance calls can have, particularly on the most vulnerable in our society. Much of the power to tackle the issue lies with Westminster, and indeed this weekend we did see some positive action, but I believe that there is more that can be done to tackle this issue. The Scottish Government held a summit in June with representatives from UK regulators, telecoms companies and consumer groups on what practical steps can be taken, and it is why, on the back of the ideas generated by the summit, we outlined plans in the programme for government for a nuisance calls commission, which meets for the first time next week. There are no easy solutions to this, however, the response from our commission members—again, that is regulators, business consumer groups and the UK Government—shows that there is a willingness to make a difference to protect consumers and tackle unscrupulous business practice. I thank the First Minister for that answer. I am sure that the First Minister will agree with me that nuisance calls are unacceptable, particularly as they are often used to target the old and the vulnerable. The scale of the problem in Scotland was highlighted by UK statistics, published by which earlier this week, which showed that Scottish cities occupied three of the top four places in the proportion of nuisance calls. In Glasgow alone, over half of all incoming calls to true-call customers were regarded as nuisance calls. Therefore, I ask the First Minister if the Scottish Government will make use of the new consumer powers and publish a bold action plan that will put pressure on businesses to protect consumers and help vulnerable people by supporting the provision of call-blocking technology. I broadly agree with everything that the member has said. I absolutely agree that nuisance calls are unacceptable, particularly when, as they tend to do, they target older and more vulnerable people. Much of the action that can be taken here is reserved to Westminster, but that does not mean that we will not explore whatever action we are able to take. There is also evidence that he is right to point out, although there is no clear explanation as to why this is the case, that nuisance calls are higher and more of a problem in Scotland than they are in other parts of the UK. He is also right to point out that we will have further powers over consumer policies, and we are actively looking at how we use those policies in a way that can make a contribution to tackling the problem. Call-blocking technology is one of the areas that not just the Scottish Government but other Governments are looking at. I am very happy to continue a dialogue on this with any member across the chamber who is interested in this as we seek to work out how we can best tackle what is an unacceptable problem, and I think that most people would agree that there is a growing problem, particularly for older people in our communities. To ask the First Minister, following the recent call by Save the Children what action the Scottish Government will take to increase the number of teachers and other staff working in nurseries with specialist training in speech and language development. First Minister. Our national practice guidance published in 2014 focuses on the communication needs of babies, toddlers and young children in a variety of settings and it makes recommendations for breast practice. Of course, we are already committed to expanding free early learning and child care, including to the most vulnerable two-year-olds, and by 2018 providing nurseries in the most deprived areas of Scotland with an additional graduate or teacher with early learning expertise. In addition, the investment provided for delivering early learning and child care entitlement will support the delivery of different models of provision. For example, holistic delivery models such as the Woodburn family learning centre in Midlothian co-locates early learning and child care, alongside other services for children and families, including speech and language therapists. Daniel Johnson I thank the First Minister for that answer. She restated her commitment to expanding child care and we share that aim. Is it not the case that, over the last five years, Scotland's nurseries have lost over 900 teachers under her Government? How does she square that fact with the promises that she has just made? The First Minister We are not just committed to expanding early learning and child care in the future. We have expanded early learning and child care. Of course, we published not too long ago the financial review of the expansion of that policy today that showed that, if anything, the Scottish Government has overfunded that commitment with local councils. Of course, we are working with local councils now to plan the further expansion. The commitment around extra teachers or graduates in nurseries and deprived areas is an important one, so, too, is the flexibility that will be encompassed in the expanded provision, because that gives us the opportunity to look at different models of provision such as the one that I cited in my earlier answer. There is no doubt at all that the key to solving this issue is early education, and that is why it is important that we look at expanding not just the quantity of it, but the quality of it as well. The early years minister, Mark McDonald, is absolutely focused on doing both. Mark McDonald Thank you. That concludes First Minister's questions. We are going to move on to members' business in the name of Miles Briggs. This is about disability access to Waverly station. Could I urge members in the gallery where we are trying to get new members into the public into the gallery? Could I ask those who are leaving to do so as quickly and as quietly as possible? There will be a short delay while we wait for the gallery to be cleared.