 Ac yn ddam yn ôl i fy ddweud am rhai o gyda ni ddweud i'r ddweud yw y gallu ddweud ar gyfer? Cymraeg cymaint yng nghymru. Felly mae'r ddechrau cerddog yn ddim yn eiolaeth mewn, gyda'r First Minister, fydd y drafodaeth yma yna peir iawn arddangos diwrnod. Yn gweithio, mae'n falch i hynny'n yn開始 y mae fyddechrau maes fasgr ond mae'n roi'n credu arfer yn digwydd ac yn credu o'r greu a'r ymddiol a'r awdurdodau a'r cymuned ddweud mor hwn i ymdoe'i cyd-dooffy o'r amser. Ie i nhw i wneud i gael eich rhai o ac yn cymdeithas, mae'n sgolthod o'r ysgolthod i chi gael eich rhai o'n sylfaen ei gallu ei gwirio i gael eich hynny ac i gael o'r cymfor droswn ni, ond mae'n gael ymddai i gaelio mewn sgolthod, gallANFWME eswysau sy'n glimbrail? Felly yn cyffffffoeddírellioncat survivors Mae gynghoriadau dwyr fin ddweud i ddweud yn maorum i'ch preso和ryn hef재 o Gaston yng ngry distinctive hyn i ddweud greemeid y Llywodraeth i gyrtebni'r ymarfiad yw'r Talks wiol. Felly, mae gen i ddefnyddiadau gall Ym atención yn y catwchain fel y newid ar Wy Stitch Erthwaethe yn gwneud hynny, Solis cassetteoir hef$e'r cwrdd ynghy femalef salnwyr rydych chi fydd Majesty based, fel hyn yn gwneud hynny rwy'r dyleu yn talAngelio'r Felly, I think Scotland will see the benefits from that over the franchise periods. Of course, it is not just members of the government assessing the bids that have been impressed by Abelia's bid. Jenny Marra, the North-East of Scotland MSP, says that I was impressed that they had taken the trouble to meet me. They had done their research, they recognised we were running the campaign. They were the only franchisee who got in touch about our campaign. That gives me encouragement. I think both in terms of the proper assessment of the bids and in terms of the widespread support and encouragement that Abelia seemed to have managed to generate. I think we can look forward to improved terms for Scotland's railways and in particular improved terms and conditions for the staff working in Scotland's railways. John Lamon. That was a yard-long answer, but it did not answer the question asked him. I asked him. Is it the deal costing the people of Scotland more? We got a lot of words, we didn't get an answer. We know price is extremely important. We live in extremely straight-in times in terms of the public finances, and it's our responsibility to make sure we get value for the money. Not my words, but Keith Brown, Transport Minister speaking on 20 March 2012, he doesn't seem to have applied the same rules. When the government says that the deal will involve new rolling stock, can I ask the First Minister this? Other than the new trains that are already promised for Glasgow to Edinburgh route, when Abelia will talk about new trains, do they really mean new rolling stock, or do they mean refurbished trains, some of which may be decades old? The new trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow and completion of the GIP are rather important for the commuters going between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The refurbishment of the trains and the rolling stock is of vital importance for commuters across Scotland. Can we just point out the terms of the value for money, what we can expect from this new contract? Faster services bring all the cities up to 12-minute journey time saving between Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth and Inverness. Poplar high-speed diesel trains between the central belt in Inverness and Aberdeen linking all of our seven cities with free Wi-Fi, increased comforts, galley and all-seat catering and more luggage space. The new electric chains between Edinburgh and Glasgow, which Johann Lamont does not seem to think are very important, but I think are absolutely vitally important. New trains in the central belt, new stations across Scotland, more capacity in our trains, 20 to 24 per cent increase in seats at peak time services, which I think is a particularly vital aspect. Those were the characteristics that decided the bid and the franchise in Abelia's favour. I must say that I am impressed by the fact of the offer and the commitment to ensure that the living wage is paid to all rail staff. Johann Lamont knows that this Government introduced the living wage in the public sector in Scotland, and therefore, to have a commitment to extend the living wage, not just through the direct railway staff but through the subcontractors, the cleaners and catering staff, is a substantial enhancement of delivery in Scotland, because both in terms of customer satisfaction and usage, and in terms of treating the staff and our railways with respect, that to me is a considerable advance. Johann Lamont? Maybe he can get back to me later about the question that I asked him. I would also say that on the living wage, of course, the Government had in its own hands to make sure that every worker benefiting from a public sector procurement offer would have had the living wage if they only had the courage of their convictions. Cheap words, but not action. Of course, that great company that they were being told about, the First Minister may not be aware, came 18 out of 18 in a survey by which they expressed concerns about cleanliness and value for money. Mick Whelan, the general secretary of the train drivers union Aslef, said of this deal, and I quote, it's a particularly perverse decision by the SNP government in Scotland, which was ardent for independence, and is getting more devolved powers to embrace privatisation, and all that means, and is getting many more devolved powers to embrace privatisation. Order. He just listened. Order. It's Miss Lamont that's asking the questions, and I'm quoting Mick Whelan, the general secretary of the train drivers union Aslef, and all that means, rather than wait a few months, take a fresh look at the opportunities for rail services in Scotland, and then instead of acting in such a precipitate fashion, make a considered decision next year. Can the First Minister tell me which part of that statement is wrong? First Minister. Just a little bit of history. Labour Party had the opportunity when in government, when looking at the railway legislation to give this Parliament the power to introduce public sector bids from this country into the railways, but refused to do so. Throughout the term of office of this government, the Scottish Government have consistently requested that power to be transferred to this Parliament so that we could affect it. We currently have the situation that that is now supported by the Labour Party, who did nothing about it in government, opposed by their friends and colleagues in the Better Together Alliance and the Conservative Party, and if it was now to be transferred, if we are to believe the vow that requires the guarantee of a mass petition of the people of Scotland to deliver it, if we are to believe the vow, it would take at least five or six years to bring it into operation. Over that period of time, it is the ScotRail franchise that would have to be extended, and the profits to that franchise that the Labour Party or some of their members have been complaining about over recent times. John Lamont's position seems to be that we should hope that the powers will be transferred despite the fact that our friends and colleagues in the Conservative Party do not agree with it. In the meantime, for the next five or six years, we have to extend the current franchise with all of its inadequacies, as opposed to getting better terms and conditions for the railway staff of Scotland and getting better services for the people of Scotland. If this is the relaunch of the Labour Party, then I think it's going to reach the end of the tracks very soon indeed. John Lamont or Ms Lamont? I saw what the First Minister did there. That was really, really funny. On the question of asking for these powers, the First Minister also, of course, should reflect. He made six key demands to the Scotland Bill as the Kalman process went through the UK Government. Not one of those demands talked about the railways, not one of them, so don't pretend it was something he was concerned about. It seems that the First Minister's answer is simply that there is nothing he can do. As power seeps from him, the First Minister still wants more powers. As power seeps from him, the First Minister still wants more powers, but still spends his life telling us what he cannot do. Why could he not wait for a few months and look at how we and look at how we, with a successor, could improve Scotland's railways? Why choose a deal that is more expensive for Scotland? Why settle for decades-old trains? Wasn't the RMT general secretary, Mick Cash, right, when he said, all you are seeing in private ownership is that money is being sucked out of the industry and given to private sector shareholders, or in this case is going to go to subsidise the Dutch railways? Why is the First Minister spending his last days in office selling out Scotland rather than standing up for Scotland? The First Minister said to Johann Lamont that it is not a few months, it would be five years to bring these powers from Westminster to Scotland to put them into operation to conduct a new franchise, not a few months, and then you would have to persuade your friends and colleagues and the allies in the Better Together campaign to support you. I do not know if Johann Lamont ever said during the Better Together campaign, can we not unite Conservatives and Labour in transferring the power over the railways to Scotland? We want that power. We want that power to transfer. Keith Brown has written three times to the present UK Government asking that power to be transferred in the long years. Okay, just let it settle down please. The power didn't get transferred. Johann Lamont did not even mention it in her relaunch speech last night, so dramatically important. What we have got from this contract, in addition to the increased terms and conditions for the staff of our railways, which I think is so important in terms of the solidarity of this country, we have improved terms and conditions for the railway passengers of Scotland, as I have laid out in very considerable terms, and that improved and enhanced railway service in Scotland seems to me a good and better deal than waiting and hoping that the friends and allies of Johann Lamont in the Conservative Party are suddenly going to have a transformation and agree with us that that power should come to Scotland so that we can have not-for-profit or public sector bids from Scotland, as well as public sector bids from the Netherlands. In the meantime, we will get on with the job of running Scotland's railways, expanding passenger numbers, enhancing services, reducing fares, and making sure that the staff of our railways have a better future in this new contract. Question 2, Ms Davidson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. May I add the condolences of myself and my party to the family of Angus Macleod, who wrote with a clarity and a humanity that added hugely to the political life of Scotland? May I ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland? That's right. No plans, no future. Last week, the First Minister got caught out pretending that the Commonwealth Games was the reason why his Government had cut health spending in Scotland. Despite this being exposed as aren't nonsense, the First Minister continued to claim that over the last five years, and I quote, national health service spending in Scotland has increased in real terms. Does he still hold that view? Our commitment has always been to resource spending. That was the commitment in our manifesto, and every single penny of consequentials have been devoted to the national health service in Scotland. That is why, in spite of the 7.2 per cent real terms Westminster cut, we have ensured that national health service Scotland revenue will increase by 4.2 per cent in real terms over the period 2009-10 to 2015-16, a very considerable achievement in the face of the draconian cutbacks from Westminster. After last week, I thought I'd double check whether, as the First Minister has just said a moment ago, every single penny of consequentials has indeed been passed on. This time, we double checked with the Parliament's own independent and impartial information service, and guess what? Looking at health spending over the last five years, it concluded that the figures show a drop in spending, and I will quote again, equivalent to a 1.2 per cent fall in the health budget in real terms. That is hundreds of millions of pounds. The analysis also notes, these figures do not include sport. The First Minister's Commonwealth Games excuse is rubbish, and it's been shown to be rubbish twice. The Independent Institute of Fiscal Studies says he's cut health spending in real terms. The Independent Parliamentary Information Service says that he's cut health spending in real terms. The First Minister has got it wrong, his health secretary has got it wrong, everyone can see that they have got it wrong, and hundreds of millions of pounds that they promised to Scotland's NHS has never been delivered. Will the First Minister finally set the record straight and just admit it? The First Minister is just Ruth Davidson who has got it wrong. This is the SNP manifesto 2011, page 14. We recognise that we want to have a first-class health service in Scotland. The resources need to be there. That is why we have guaranteed that the revenue budget of the Scottish National Health Service will be protected in real terms. We have never expressed it in anything other than the resource budget. The mistake that the IFS has made was to increase resource and capital. That is not the commitment that we gave. A very simple reason for that is that the capital budget has been slashed from Westminster, and therefore we have devised a new mechanism, the non-profit distribution mechanism, in order to make sure that we can continue to invest in the infrastructure of the National Health Service in Scotland. We now find out that the Institute of Fiscal Studies forgot to include NPD spending in their analysis, which is actually quite important, given that it is going to amount through the hub and NPD of £380 million in the next financial year alone. Now it has been explained to Ruth Davidson that the mistake that the IFS has made was not to include NPD spending. I am sure that she has reassured that, unlike south of the border, the National Health Service in Scotland is in safe hands. Why do we know that it is not in safe hands south of the border? The bomb shell letter across the National Health Service, the National Health Service time bomb letter, the National Health Service, the social care service are at breaking point. It cannot go on. Every area of the National Health Service in England is writing to the Prime Minister, pointing out the consequences of Tory policies, not just the extraordinary pressure on health service budgets, which we have as well in Scotland, but as they put it, the top-down reorganisation, which has dismayed staff and fragmented the health service in England. That is why the National Health Service is safe in public hands in Scotland, a commitment to expenditure and a commitment above all to a national health service safe in public hands in Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister for an update on the reported fire aboard the MV Parida in the Murray Firth, which was carrying nuclear waste from Scrabster to Antwerp, which led to it drifting dangerously and subsequently required toige to sheltered waters for repair yesterday, and what lessons must be learned. First Minister, first we should say that there was no release of radioactivity. The radioactive waste was in cement, high quality containers, and therefore there was no significant or no release of radioactivity as far as we can determine from this instance, so people should be reassured about that. However, the member is right to attribute and to focus concern. The MV Parida had a funnel fire in the Murray Firth around 8pm on Tuesday evening and was subsequently drifting for some hours. The Beatrice oil platform had to be evacuated as a precaution, although the vessel's anchor slowed its drift. The Parida was carrying a load of radioactive waste being returned from Dunray to Belgium, until it took the Parida to safe anchorage in the Cromarty Firth on Wednesday morning. The concerns at this instance raised are obvious. It was Scottish Government authorities who had to coordinate to make sure that this incident was safely ensured, but unfortunately the Office of Nuclear Regulation had not had sufficient consultation with these authorities before this incident took place. It is significantly unsatisfactory to find that boats carrying consignments of nuclear waste have to wait for a weather window in October in the North Sea in order to carry forward their trip. It is also of significant concern that what is apparently a minor incident in a boat of this kind can result in it being totally without power, with the consequences, obviously, of the evacuation of an oil platform as a result. I think therefore this whole chamber should unite in looking for the devolution of the relevant authority to make sure that Scotland has the power not just to handle these incidents but to make sure, as far as possible, that they do not occur in the first place. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on Police Scotland's National Child Abuse Investigation Unit. We welcome this positive move by Police Scotland. The new national child abuse unit will provide special investigative resources to lead or assist complex or high-profile child abuse investigations. It will allow Police Scotland to work in a more structured way in relation to child abuse, which is not confined by geographical boundaries. It also demonstrates a clear commitment to child protection in Scotland. I thank the First Minister for his answer. Grooming is often a precursor to abuse and sexual abuse, but it is often only detected once that subsequent sexual crime is committed. Is he aware that currently, if a child is groomed in Scotland and the resultant sexual offence or abuse takes place out with the UK, for example in France, that crime and the grooming can be prosecuted here, but if the abuse takes place anywhere else in the UK, only the grooming can be prosecuted here. Given that the Lord Advocate has raised concerns about this and the Cabinet Secretary has advised that the Government is considering legislation to end this lacuna, can the First Minister provide any further detail on when legislation might be brought forward so that both kinds could be prosecuted here? Yes, I can, because the member raises an important issue about how her justice system can deal with child sexual offences. It is important to remember that this does not mean that sexual offences against children cannot be prosecuted. However, at present, she is correct. It can only be prosecuted in part of the UK where the offence was committed. For example, offences committed in England can only be prosecuted in England, and they cannot be prosecuted by law currently in Scotland. The Scottish Government Ministry of Working Group and Child Sexual Exploitation, which was reported earlier this year, considered that there is a case for extending the extra-territorial effect of sexual offences against children to include offences committed elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so that they can be prosecuted in Scotland if that is the best place to conduct the prosecution. The Scottish Government agrees with this recommendation. We intend to bring forward legislative change when there is a suitable legislative opportunity. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I too welcome the introduction of the new unit, particularly in terms of its prevention responsibility along with the Crown Office. In that light, would the First Minister reconsider a decision not to have a public inquiry into historic child abuse as such an inquiry would gather evidence that would help in the preventative efforts that this unit will make? First Minister? I think we should concentrate on the unit and the investigation. I think the important thing about the investigation unit, of course, is that it is not there just to investigate and prevent future child abuse, but it is also there to investigate historic child abuse. Therefore, we have within Police Scotland being formed a unit with the appropriate expertise to take forward any legitimate inquiry. There was, I thought, very good evidence from Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham when he appeared before the Justice Committee on 7 October. He clarified and laid out in substantial terms in recent days how the unit will perform. It will draw on existing resources across the country and have that continuity. The unit will be fully up and running by the end of this year. The new unit will take a similar approach to the national rape task force, which has seen specialist officers brought in and rape investigations put in a par with murder. It will allow Police Scotland to work in a fundamentally more structured way in relation to child abuse. I think that is going to be helpful. I know this unit and the seriousness with which Police Scotland will take this matter will be supported across the chamber. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle the stigma surrounding mental health issues. First Minister? This is a priority for the Scottish Government. It has been so for many years. It continues to be so. It is one of the seven key themes of our mental health strategy, extending anti-stigma agenda forward to include further work and discrimination. CME was founded in 2002 and was internationally recognised as a groundbreaking campaign. In November 2013, we built on that good work and launched a refunded programme jointly with Comet Relief for the investment of £1 million from the Scottish Government and £500,000 from Comet Relief. This is three times the original funding in 2002. That refunded programme will focus on these areas where people say that they are experiencing the most stigma and discrimination, including work in the health and the social care settings, to indirectly involve people who have lived through experience of mental health problems and become a true movement thus for change. I thank the First Minister for that answer. In my own constituency, I came across a considerable reaction from a minority of the community when it was proposed to open a care home for people with mental health issues, which showed me that stigma was still alive. Will the First Minister commit his Government to making mental health and education about it a real priority area until we overcome it? Yes. I have just given the answer. I hope that it ensures John Mason that that is the case and will continue to be the case. We acknowledge that there is much work yet to be done, but I think that the refunded or refunded programme gives us encouragement that that is the intention and that will be carried forward. Jim Hew. The First Minister and his Government not just matched the extra £400 million invested in NHS south of the border to tackle mental health, but also the extra £120 million per capita, of course, announced this week to tackle mental health. I will check the exact figures for the benefit of the member, but there is record amounts being spent on mental health and the approach to mental health in the Scottish National Health Service. I have just pointed out that, in particular, the programme that John Mason asked about is now funded to a level of three times the original funding from 2002. I think that rather than us having an argument about exact figures on the matter, let us just unite to say that this has to be a key priority in the national health service in Scotland that will go forward on that basis. James Kelly. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reports that ScotRail has recorded nearly £100 million in profit since 2008, with £95 million of that being paid to shareholders. I have to confess to James Kelly that the Scottish Government has followed to the letter the legally binding franchise agreement that should be inherited in 2007 from the Labour Party, under which we are required to make franchise payments to First ScotRail. The Abelio model is one that Scotland should aspire to, a public-run transport body able to bid for business all over Europe. Now that the Scottish Government has committed to a £6 billion 10-year contract for profits generated by ScotRail passengers will be invested in Dutch public transport. How does the First Minister intend to progress an agenda that will promote public railways in Scotland, which would allow a public bid in the future and export Scottish services abroad? First Minister. By doing what we have consistently done over the years by demanding these powers to be transferred to this Parliament to allow us to do so. I have to say, I do not quite understand James Kelly's tactics on this matter. I have already laid out to John Lamont that it would take five years to bring into being a new contract. There is, of course, a break clause in the contract that we have just negotiated at five years, so we can hope in the future to make absolutely sure that this contract fulfills what we believe it can do. However, in order to bring about James Kelly's wish to change things substantially, he called in our parliamentary motion, I think, for us to suspend the contract negotiations in the last week or two. If we had done so, that would have cost perhaps £30 million in the basis of the West Code contract suspension that would have cost £55 million in compensation to the contract bidders. I am not sure if that is what James Kelly wanted to happen, but what is even more interesting is his tactic of what was to happen in the meantime while we waited for the contract to be given and the powers to be given for Scotland. The argument was to extend the contract forward. James Kelly's strategy, as he gets furious about the profits being made by First ScotRail, is to extend the contract to these disgraceful capitalists over a number of years, and in the meantime, have he less service for the people of Scotland? I wonder if there were going to be changes on the front bench of the Labour Party in the imminent future last week. I think that with such talent in the back benches, it is certainly a matter of time before we have a wholesale change of timetable. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to tackle overcrowding and understaffing in accident and emergency departments. The Scottish Government supported the creation of local unscheduled care action plans for each health board to determine steps that each accident and emergency should take to improve performance. That includes examining issues such as patient flow through hospitals, which goes beyond the accident emergency itself, and in August we targeted an additional £5 million to help address patient flow in a number of hospitals. The most recent figures we have for June 14, that is performance of major accident emergency departments was 93.2% in Scotland, 92.8% in England, 85.3% in Wales, and 75.1% in Northern Ireland. That compares, and it is not what we want to see because we want to get to the 95% target, but relatively we are doing well in comparison with what is happening elsewhere in these islands. Of course, another pertinent comparison is with the 87.5% that the then Health Minister Andy Kerr hailed in 2006 as a magnificent achievement. It does seem that under huge funding pressure the accident and emergency departments across Scotland are performing better than their colleagues elsewhere in these islands, but also significantly better than they were back in the dark days of 2006, when the Labour Party was in charge in Scotland. Can I thank the First Minister for his response? Can I reassure him that Mr Andy Kerr has nothing to do with me? Can I ask him to follow on from the comments of Dr Martin McEchnie, who is the new chair of the College of Emergency Medicine, who said on Monday that A&E departments were dangerously overcrowded and struggling with fewer doctors, and the medical director of NHS Grampian, who said last week in Parliament that Scotland had fallen behind the rest of the world in terms of incentives to keep medical practitioners. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that doctors are retained working in A&E, and what are they doing now to ensure that these A&E departments are adequately staffed? I am glad that the member has cited Dr Martin McEchnie because he has been foremost in praising the action that has been taken by the Scottish Government—let me quote him exactly. There is a feeling within the specialty that there is a turnaround in how things are in terms of care of patients within the emergency department environment. We have had a lot of support and investment in the last 18 months from the Government, and we are beginning, I hope, to feel and see the effects of some of those changes. Dr Martin McEchnie, while acknowledging the huge pressure on our national health service, acknowledges also the efforts of this Government to cope and to deal with that vast increase in the number of patients and to treat people successfully and safely. It then brings me to the comparison of what is happening south of the border. There is a national health service and social care services at breaking point. The range of the specialties across south of the border—not just in accident and emergency but in every area of medicine—wrote to the UK Government and to the Opposition leaders at Westminster pointing out those things and pointing out that the very last thing that the health service needs is a further top-down reorganisation that is causing chaos and dismay among health service staff. They certainly will not get that in Scotland. They will get encouragement and support so that we can continue to build our national health service in public hands. Lewis Macdonald Thank you very much. Does the First Minister agree with Dr Rolff Dorkhouse on the outgoing medical director of NHS Grampian when he said this week that consultants in emergency medicine want to practice their skills in trauma and resuscitation, not to spend their time dealing with minor illnesses and injuries? Does he accept the point that Dr Dike Housen was making, that the recruitment crisis in A and E will not be resolved until primary care and GP services are adequately resourced in Grampian and everywhere else? The First Minister I certainly agree with the outgoing medical director that there has been a historic imbalance in funding for Grampian compared with Scotland as a whole. That is why when we came to office the funding and front-line services in Grampian was 9.1 per cent, if my memory serves me correctly, of the Scottish total. It is now heading towards 9.6 per cent. In other words, the historical imbalance from the above net formula, which we inherited from the Labour Party, has now, year by year, been closed. At last, Grampian and the people of the north-east of Scotland can look forward to a health service that is funded fairly and properly. Of course, the legacy of his colleagues have left the Labour Party, the Grampian health service, underfunded in the past. Thank goodness under this health secretary, that disparity is being sorted out and we can look forward with confidence for the future. That ends First Minister's question time. We are now moving to members' business. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.