 1. Ruth Davidson Does the First Minister think that a tax policy that brings in £55 million less than forecast is a good one? First Minister I am assuming that Ruth Davidson is referring to LBTT, the property tax that was introduced when powers transferred to this Parliament. Revenues raised in the most recent financial year 2016-17 were actually 14 per cent higher than the revenues raised in the previous year. Revenues raised were lower than forecast, but that is not something that is in any way unique to Scotland. If we look, for example, at the corresponding tax in the rest of the UK, the UK stamp duty, the revenue raised there was some 8 per cent lower than the OBR forecast. Those issues are mainly because it is very difficult to predict transaction taxes, but, of course, the revenues raised also reflect the general economic conditions, the property prices generally, and, as the Fiscal Commission said in relation to LBTT, the situation in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. Ruth Davidson I was indeed talking about LBTT, and let's go through the numbers for Scotland. The Scottish Government expected £538 million to come from LBTT, and in the end only £483 million came in—a shortfall of £55 million. That was, according to property experts, due to a considerable drop in activity because of the tax. Let's see if we can get some clarity here from the First Minister. Early in the summer, her finance secretary said this. He said, and I'll quote directly, that I'm not an ideologue on this issue. We want the tax to function well, and if there's a case that an amendment of the current bans could help stimulate the housing market and the revenue that it raises, then I will consider it. With a £55 million shortfall and a housing market again, and I'll quote, in serious slowdown, hasn't that case now been made? The First Minister First Minister, of course, we will bring forward our tax decisions in our budget to be scrutinised by Parliament for this and for all taxes for which we are responsible. Let's get into the detail of Ruth Davidson's question here, because she talks about a shortfall of £483 million raised in 2016-17. As I said, it was actually 14 per cent higher than the revenues that were raised in the previous year. That's more revenue being brought into use for public spending. Secondly, Ruth Davidson somehow wants to give the impression that a shortfall against a revenue forecast is somehow uniquely to do with the structure of the tax in Scotland. Perhaps she wants to therefore explain why, as I said, on a like-for-like basis there was an 8 per cent shortfall in the rest of the UK compared to the OBR forecast. However, let's get into the heart of the suggestions that Ruth Davidson is making. The claim here is that this is due to the rates of tax at the top end of the property market. Unfortunately for Ruth Davidson, who, as we've seen in recent weeks, doesn't always do her homework around the issues that she raises at First Minister's Questions. The facts tell a different story. Let's look at data to the end of August this year. Sales of properties between £325,000 and £750,000 are up by 14 per cent annually. Sales above £750,000 are up by 10 per cent annually. The monthly revenues for August of this year in both of those property brackets were at the highest levels ever since LBTT was introduced. Transactions—this is an additional bit of information just to inform Ruth Davidson—are maintaining their share of the overall market. Predicting transaction tax revenue is notoriously difficult to do. That show not just in Scotland but south of the border. Revenues in the year that we are talking about are up on the previous year. The claims that Ruth Davidson is making about the top end of the market are simply not borne out by the facts. Why can't she just concede that and perhaps do a bit more research and homework in future? The First Minister does excel in trying to pretend to answer a question that was not asked, but let's talk about homework. If the First Minister had done her homework, she would have listened to Nicola Barclay, who is the chief executive of Scotland. I am going to read out—this is quite a lengthy quote, so I hope that I have got latitude from the first two short questions, Presiding Officer—as we have expressed in submissions to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, if we have, or to have, a healthy and wealth-functioning housing market, we need a tax framework that enables movement up and down all price levels. However, feedback from our members shows that the present system, which varies considerably from that south of the border, is creating significant barriers. The SNP was warned repeatedly that that would happen. Organisations such as the Scottish Property Federation made it clear that those tax rates would come up the market and reduce revenues, and that is exactly what happened. This week, a specific proposal has been put on the table. A specific proposal has been put on the table this week by Homes for Scotland. It wants to make it easier for families to move up the property ladder and proposing to extend the 5 per cent bans to help them. I will back that proposal, will she? If we will bring forward tax proposals in our budget, that is the right and proper way to proceed. Let me pick up on a few things that Ruth Davidson said. First, I am not sure what question she was asking me if it was not the one that I answered. I gave her a very detailed answer to her question. I do not want to repeat everything that I have just said, but what Ruth Davidson is saying here is not borne out by the facts. I have just quoted figures that show that property sales transactions in the brackets at the top of the property market are not declining, as Ruth Davidson says. They are actually increasing by 14 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. That is an increase, not a decrease, so the whole premise of Ruth Davidson's question, it seems to me, has crumbled before her very eyes. I think that we get to a broader issue here, and it is one that has surfaced that discussion in First Minister questions in recent weeks. Yet again we have, day after day after day, week after week after week, Tory members coming to this chamber, sometimes declaring their business interests, sometimes not declaring their business interests, calling for extra spending, and yet here again we have the Tories also calling for a cut in tax for the very wealthiest in our society. The sums for the Tories simply do not add up. First, Ruth Davidson is wrong in her central claims today, and yet again the Tories have been found absolutely wanting. They want us to spend more, but they also want us to cut taxes, and they cannot have the best of both worlds. Ruth Davidson I do not even know how you lot are going to pick through all of the things that weren't said that have been claimed there, but let's go back to the numbers, let's go back to the actual numbers. Order, order, order, order, order, Mr Swinney, please, Mr Swinney. Ms Davidson knows that you refers to the chair, not to the press gallery. Absolutely. Let's get back to the numbers, because the First Minister says that this went up, not down, but the embarrassment for the SNP is that the shortfall would have been much worse if they hadn't adopted wholesale the Tory proposal for the new surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes. She talks about raising revenue. There was £100 million right there. That's not their idea. That was ours. On the very first new tax administered by the Government, the First Minister has got it completely wrong. She gummed up the housing market, she blew a £55 million hole in her own budget, which would have been three times worse if she hadn't picked up the Tory policy on buy-to-let and second homes. More importantly—this is the important bit—she squeezed Scottish families out of their first proper home. Does that sound like competency to her? First Minister. First Lady, you can always tell when Ruth Davidson is floundering at First Minister's questions when she starts hurling abuse across the chamber, although it's nothing on the abuse that was hurled at me and others by the Tory councillor, of course, who was taking off the teaching register because of her behaviour, something that Ruth Davidson probably won't want to comment on. I'm not sure what bit of Ruth Davidson is struggling to understand. I should say that, in terms of people at the bottom of the housing ladder people looking to own their first home, we've reduced the tax burden because we've made LBTT more progressive than stamp duty ever was. Progressive taxes are clearly offensive to people on the Tory benches, but what we've got here is a situation where LBTT revenue is up compared to the year before. That's up, not down. We've got the situation where transactions at the top of the market are up, not down. Again, that's up, not down. The whole premise of Ruth Davidson's question is absolutely flawed. We will continue to put forward proposals that are progressive in nature, help those most in need of help at the bottom and make sure that those with the broadest shoulders pay a fair share. I know that principle of progressive tax, as I say, is something that Tory benches don't like, but it's one that those of us on this bench, those benches, will continue to adhere to. Question 2, Alex Rowley. Order, please. Presiding Officer, I met a few weeks ago with a housing development company. I'm going to talk about a serious issue and I would ask that you give me the courtesy of Ruth Davidson. I met a few weeks ago with a housing development company who raised with me a live application that they have for 900 new houses to be built. The developer had hoped that the application would have been determined by last Christmas, but jet it has not. He did not complain about the planning process holding up the work. Rather, it was the lack of front-loaded capital needed to build the new £8 million school as part of the section 75 agreement. The developer cannot afford to front-load that level investment and neither can the council. They said to me that this is not an uncommon issue and that it is a real barrier to new housing development being built. Does the First Minister recognise that problem and does the Government have any plans to address this and get new housing development happening across Scotland? First Minister. I thank Alex Rowley for raising the issue. I am sure that he appreciates that without further detail of what particular project an application he is talking about, there will be a limit to what I can say in terms of a detailed response. If he wants to share more detail with me today or write to me after First Minister's questions, I will make sure that it is properly looked into. Of course, if it is a live application again, there will be a limit to what I can say because due process has to take its course. On the general issue that Alex Rowley raises, it is one that I recognise and one that the Scottish Government works to try to address. Often the limitations around infrastructure when housing developments are wanted to go ahead. That is, for example, why the Scottish Government introduced the Housing Infrastructure Loan Fund, specifically designed to try to deal with those limitations and see the provision of the infrastructure, whether that is schools, hospitals, health services that are often required to support new housing development. I continue to take action to try to address those concerns. As I said at the outset of my answer, if he wants to provide me with more detail of the particular application that he is talking about, I can make sure that that is fully looked into. We can consider whether there is any more that the Scottish Government can do to assist. Alex Rowley was the general principle because I highlight one case, but I am told that it is not uncommon. It is the larky infrastructure that is holding up development. Private sector new-build is one part of meeting the housing need in Scotland. However, a number of people and the number of people living in private rented sector housing has risen dramatically over the past two decades. With little regulation, rents have also shot up in this sector. The cost of rents often bears no relation to the conditions and values of the properties that the people are renting. Indeed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that the proportionate people being classed as being in poverty who live in the private rented sector has almost tripled. Does the First Minister recognise that issue? Are you willing to look at what can be done to address that, including consideration of some rent controls? First Minister. Of course, I will recall that, in the most recent legislation passed by this Parliament, if memory serves me correctly in the last session of Parliament legislation, it was enacted that allows action to be taken where local authorities consider that there are problems with excessive rent increases. The Parliament has already acted to introduce some form of rent control provision. Of course, we will always consider whether there is a case to go further, because, as Alex Rowley rightly says, and as we saw from the household survey published just this week, the numbers living in private rented accommodation are increasing. It is important that housing remains affordable for people but that we take action to ensure that private rented housing is of a high quality. As somebody who represents an urban constituency, I am very well aware of the importance of both of those things. On housing generally, as I hope people across the chamber would acknowledge, we are investing record sums—we will invest £3 billion over the course of this Parliament—in creating 50,000 more affordable homes. In terms of house-building completion, we are building houses at a rate faster than any other part of the UK. That is the record of this Government, and we will continue to do everything that we can to build upon it. Alex Rowley. Presiding Officer, I have continued to welcome what has been getting done, but, clearly given the scale of the housing issues, we need to do more. Given that we are moving towards winter, it is the poorest people in the poorest housing that face the greatest challenges. Energy Acts in Scotland has said that as many as a third of private rented sector tenants in Scotland are also living in fuel poverty, almost double the same figure as those with a mortgage. I know that the Government has said that it is bringing forward their warm homes bill. I co-chaired a meeting with Jeane Freeman and COSLA earlier this month on benefit take-up. What else can be done to help the poorest people in the poorest properties this winter? First Minister. There are a range of things that can be done and are being done by this Government. They include, for example, continuing to talk to the power companies to make sure that people, particularly on the lowest incomes, are given a fairer deal than has often been the case in the past. Secondly, there is continued action to improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock. Again, this Government, unlike other Governments across the UK, has invested heavily in improving energy efficiency standards. A large number of homes have had energy efficiency measures installed, supported by Government funding. We can also make sure that we have fuel poverty targets in place that are helping to address the issue. That is why the warm homes bill that we committed to in the programme for government is so important. Those are all vitally important issues. However, as I hope that Alex Rowley and others would acknowledge, this Government is doing—I think that it is without fear of contradiction—doing much more here than any other Government across the UK, and we will continue to do so. The number of constituent supplementaries is Mary Gougeon's first. NHS Tayside is currently undertaking a consultation that could lead to the closure of the Mulberry unit, a mental health inpatient facility in my constituency in Angus. However, I have serious concerns, as do my constituents in Angus and Aberdeenshire, although they have not been consulted, that the consultation breaches Scottish health council guidance on major service changes. It offers no alternative to closure, is inaccessible and appears to be a box-ticking exercise. Will the First Minister commit to urgently investigating those concerns to ensure that NHS Tayside meets obligations to provide robust and transparent consultation? The health secretary will certainly relay the concerns that have just been expressed to NHS Tayside. I should say in fairness that concerns were raised with the cabinet when we had one of our summer cabinet meetings in Tayside concerns about the nature of the consultation, so we will make sure that those concerns are raised and that the health board responds to them. Of course, the proposals around the Mulberry ward and Murray Royal hospital are part of a Tayside-wide review of adult mental health and learning disability services, which is being led by Perth and Kinross's integrated joint board on behalf of the partnership of the three IJBs in Tayside and NHS Tayside. It is important that people have opportunities to feed in their views and that people have confidence and assurance that those views are taken seriously. The consultation, of course, is not closed yet. It runs until 3 October, and I would encourage everyone with an interest to feed back their views. I encourage members, including a couple of ministers at the back, to stop having conversations across the chamber. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Staying in Angus and NHS Tayside, Angus Here to Help is a local lifeline service that helps over 600 people in Angus suffering with hearing loss and helps to deliver the vision that is outlined in the Scottish Government's health and social care delivery plan. In March 2017, Angus Health and Social Care partnership rejected a funding application. No other funding sources have been forced coming. Angus Here to Help needs £17,000 to survive. Without it, it will close, probably by this time next week. Will the First Minister urgently step in and ask the NHS Tayside to save local provision by giving the service the £17,000 that it requires? Of course. I should point out here before I address the substance of the question that the Conservatives are part of the administration of Angus Council, and I would hope that those issues have been raised with the local council. Obviously, projects such as the one that the member talks about are really important. I am not aware of all the details of this particular project, but given that that has been raised with me in the chamber, I will make sure that it is looked into and that we have a relevant discussion with the council, with the IGB, and if there is anything further that the Scottish Government can do to help, then we will certainly be happy to do so. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government believes NHS Highland should take to give an insurance to the people of Skye that services for the north of the island, and Petrie hospital in particular will be sustained long into the future. The health secretary met a leader of Highland Council and Councillor MacDonald from Skye, along with the chair and chief executive from NHS Highland, on 31 September to discuss services in Portree. The health secretary was very clear with the board that she expects Skye to receive a high-quality health service that meets the needs of all of the island, and as part of that, commitments have been received from the board that, out of hours, cover and emergency cover at Portree hospital are remaining. The health secretary has also been consistently clear with NHS Highland that they must continue to meaningfully engage with local stakeholders as work proceeds, and she made this clear again when she met all parties last Thursday. May this year, one of my constituents received confirmation that her 10-year-old daughter was on a waiting list to see a paediatric ENT specialist. At the end of this month, concerned that maybe the appointment had gone missing in the post, she called the health board, only to be told that the waiting time for such appointments was now 18 to 20 months and maybe longer. Does the First Minister agree with me that nearly two years is far too long for a 10-year-old to wait to see a specialist? What is the Scottish Government doing to bring down those massive and, frankly, unacceptable waiting times? Yes, I do agree. Again, I do not know all the details of this case. If they can be passed to me, then the health secretary will make sure that she investigates that and discusses that with the health board. On the general part of the member's question, we are investing record sums in the health service. We also see record numbers of people working in our health service. We are undertaking important reforms to our health service so that its demand for the NHS continues to rise, as it will do because of the ageing population. We have the capacity in place to deal with that, so we will continue to take action to support our national health service. Of course, if the details of this particular case can be passed to me, I am happy to have them looked into. Question 3, Patrick Harvie. We already know who would benefit from the Scottish Government's proposal to cut aviation taxes. 70 per cent of flights are taken by just 15 per cent of people. They tend to be the wealthiest. They stand to gain over £800 a year from this tax cut, while a couple taking their children on an annual holiday would only save £13. We also know that people in Scotland understand that they will not benefit. When they were asked in an opinion poll, fewer than one in 10 people said that this tax cut would make a positive difference to their lives. The vast majority chose investment in public transport, fixing potholes and better infrastructure. With Ryanair now being accused of persistently misleading passengers, I think that most people also know that we cannot really trust the airlines even to pass on the tax cut to passengers. Does the First Minister accept that people know what transport policies will meet their needs and that they do not rate the tax cut? I have set out in the chamber on many occasions previously why the particular proposal that the SNP Government has had for many years now is important in terms of wider economic competitiveness, making sure that the connectivity of our country supports business and economic growth. On specific proposals, as I said on another issue to Ruth Davidson earlier on, we will of course bring forward our budget proposals when we publish our draft budget later this year and Parliament will scrutinise all aspects of that draft budget. ADT in particular is another issue that the finance secretary has shared with Parliament previously on the Highlands and Islands exemption, where we have concerns about the state aid compatibility of the exemption that was previously introduced by the UK Government. We are discussing with the UK Government how that can be resolved and we will keep Parliament updated on that. Lastly, I refer to the current situation with Ryanair, which is deeply regrettable. I have serious concerns about the decisions that were taken by Ryanair in the last couple of days. Those will cause disruption to many passengers travelling to and from Scotland to London and indeed to other destinations across Europe. The transport minister is writing to Ryanair to pass on those concerns. There are, of course, alternative flights available, but we also fully support the Civil Aviation Authority launch of enforcement action because it is vital that, at times of disruption, the airlines provide full and accurate information to passengers about the rights that they have. The First Minister talks about the economic basis for her policy, but we have already seen from parliamentary scrutiny that there is no coherent evidence base for it. It has been a bad week for the Scottish Government's transport policies in environmental terms. The Climate Change Committee has said that Scotland needs more action to meet its climate change plans and that it drew particular attention to the inadequate approach to transport emissions. Aviation emissions are now 82 per cent higher than the baseline against which everybody else is trying to cut Scotland's emissions, yet the Scottish Government wants to boost the most polluting transport mode of all. The Fraser of Allander Institute has warned that this policy will just lead to more tax competition, a race to the bottom and ultimately less public revenues for services everywhere throughout these islands. That policy is unwanted, unnecessary and unsupported by any evidence. Is not it time just to dump it once and for all? Patrick Harvie and I have a long-standing difference of opinion on this, but, as I said, we will bring forward our budget proposals in due course. I am glad that Patrick Harvie mentioned the report of the Climate Change Committee, because, while it did, it encourages us to go further and to go faster. It also said that Scotland was leading the UK and the world, indeed, in action to tackle climate change. Of course, the programme for government that I outlined in Parliament just a few weeks ago included proposals to double financial support for active travel. It included proposals to phase out the need for new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2032, eight years ahead of the target in the rest of the UK. We will later this year announce the first low-emission zone, and we outlined plans to have low-emission zones in all our major cities by 2020. Across a range of issues, we are taking action in transport that makes sure that we are reducing emissions and helping to meet our climate change targets as they are now, and the even more ambitious targets that will be set for the future. To ask the First Minister what engagement the Scottish Government undertakes with the Scottish campaign for nuclear disarmament and what position it holds on the Treaty of Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons recently successfully passed at the United Nations? I support that treaty. I want to see a world free of nuclear weapons, and I think that countries like the UK should lead by example instead of spending tens of billions of pounds on a new generation of trident nuclear missiles. We should be getting rid of trident nuclear missiles from the Clyde. We will continue to support action for unilateral nuclear disarmament, because if we see countries leading by example, we will see the world a safer place in the long term as a result of that. We will support action internationally from the UN and elsewhere to support that, because it is the right thing to do modally, financially and for practical reasons. 4. Richard Lochhead Can I ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service regarding it attending medical emergencies in light of reports that trials of the service will end due to dispute over pain conditions? The Scottish Government is not a direct participant in negotiations with the Fire Brigades Union. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is the employer, and it conducts negotiations as part of the UK-wide national joint council for fire and rescue services. The Minister for Community Safety last met the chief fire officer and the chair of the fire service on Tuesday when she shared their disappointment that involvement in the medical emergency trials has been suspended and encouraged continued discussions. The Scottish Ambulance Service prioritises patients with immediately life-threatening conditions and will take all-appropriate measures in those areas where the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest trial has been taking place to ensure that they continue to respond to emergencies without delay. Richard Lochhead Can I thank the First Minister for her answer? I am sure that she will agree that the trials have been a big success given that, in her first year, firefighters have made 41 potentially life-saving interventions. Is the First Minister aware of the campaign being conducted by my constituents, Mrs McCandy, who tragically lost her son, Kieran, last year in a road traffic accident when he was out cycling and who has since been calling for firefighters to attend medical emergencies as they can be closer to incidents than the nearest ambulance, and they wish to see that change of policy as part of Kieran's legacy? Understandably, it is quite rightly shot that a pay dispute could get in the way of saving lives and they want to see the co-responding of the emergency services to all road traffic accidents. Does the First Minister therefore agree that we need a solution that respects the views of the firefighters who want to continue delivering this vital service without delay and for co-responding to become standard throughout Scotland to save even more lives? Yes, I agree with all of that. I am aware of the campaign by Mr and Mrs McCandy, who are to be greatly admired for their efforts to promote improvement to the way services respond to emergency incidents following the tragic loss of their son. I agree wholeheartedly that the emergency medical trials are an excellent example of public services working more closely together to achieve a common aim and improve the service that is provided to the public. As I said in my previous answer, the community safety minister has encouraged continued discussions on pay. We want to see our fire service workers paid appropriately. I am aware that the chief fire officer has written a letter to fire service staff asking that discussions continue on a proposal that is in the best interests of firefighters and communities. I encourage all sides to do everything that they can to ensure that this issue can be resolved without further delay. Rona Mackay Thank you, Presiding Officer. Could the First Minister provide details on the operational budget provided to Scotland's fire and rescue services? There has been an increase, as I said in the chamber at First Minister's questions last week or the week before, in the resource budget for the fire and rescue services. If memory serves me correctly, we will continue to make sure that we support our front-line fire fighters. They do an outstanding job on behalf of all of us. It is right that the service is appropriately supported and that firefighters are given the rewards that they deserve. Donald Cameron To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the Committee on Climate Change's report on reducing emissions in Scotland's 2017 progress report. I welcome the committee's report that recognises that Scotland's ambition on climate change is among the highest in the world. It also recognises our strong progress to date with statutory targets met for the second consecutive year and notes that we continue to lead the UK. We will take time to reflect fully on the committee's report as we finalised the climate change plan for publication early next year. We know that even more needs to be done to continue meeting our challenging targets. That is why the programme for government sets out bold new commitments in areas such as low-carbon transport, infrastructure and energy efficiency. Donald Cameron I thank the First Minister for her answer. It has already been pointed out today that around a third of households in Scotland are in fuel poverty. In light of that, given the fact that a week ago, Parliament marked Scottish housing day, will the First Minister commit to Scottish Conservative proposals to ensure that every home in Scotland achieves an EPC rating of sea or above by 2030? We will continue to take action to improve energy efficiency of our housing stock across all tenures, and we set out further ambition on that in the programme for government. However, going back to what I said to Ruth Davidson, this sounds very much like yet again the Tories coming to this chamber and calling on us to spend more money while at the same time calling for tax cuts for the richest in our society. The Tories increasingly have no credibility whatsoever on any of those issues, and while that contradictory stance continues to be their position, that credibility will continue to sink. The agriculture sector is also a heavy greenhouse gas emitter. The UK CCC's report said that there has been little recent progress in reducing agricultural emissions, and yet again, the Scottish Government should look again at going beyond the voluntary approach. I am a member of the Eclair committee, and we said that the compulsory soil testing is a vital stepping stone in changing behaviours on farms and should be in the final climate change plan. In my view, that should be introduced with support building on good practice in the agriculture sector, so will it be in the final plan, First Minister, and does the First Minister agree that each minister should be answerable to Parliament for changes in their portfolio in the context of this vital issue? Let me respond to just a couple of points in that question. First, in terms of soil testing in the agriculture sector, of course that is hugely important. The agriculture sector will play a big part in helping us to meet our climate change targets. It is important to point out, though, that there is currently a high take-up of soil testing voluntarily from those in the agriculture sector. Obviously, as we go forward, we need to continue to do more to encourage that take-up to increase even further. Secondly, in terms of what I think is a fair point about the responsibility across Government for meeting our climate change targets, the Environment Secretary has principal responsibility around the Cabinet table, but she cannot do that without the support of every other member of the Government. We should be accountable to each and every one of us within our own portfolio areas, which, for me, includes every portfolio area, obviously, in terms of the contribution that they make, and accountable to Parliament and to the wider public. We will only meet those targets if we take the action required across our electricity and wider energy sector, our transport sector, which Patrick Harvie has just raised, and, of course, the agriculture sector as well. The final point that I would make relates to the question about the climate change plan. We will publish the final climate change plan early next year. We have consulted on that and are considering the responses in the consultation. I am not going to say right now what will be in the final climate change plan, because we have to go through due process on that. I can give an assurance to Parliament that climate change plan will be ambitious so that we can meet the current targets that we have set. That is what this climate change plan is about. Of course, we also have the forthcoming climate change bill, which is all about setting even more ambitious targets for us to meet. We continue to lead not just the UK but the world in terms of our ambition here. It is a responsibility for all of us to make sure that the action that we are taking allows us to meet that ambition in the years ahead. Can the First Minister provide detail on how long-term emission reductions in Scotland compare to the rest of the UK? Does she agree that Scotland continues to be considered a leader in tackling climate change? We continue to outperform the rest of the UK in delivering long-term emissions reductions. The most recent statistics show that Scottish emissions are down 37.6 per cent from baseline levels. That compares to 35.4 per cent for the UK as a whole. Amongst the EU 15 countries, only Sweden and Finland have done better than Scotland. We will sustain progress against world-leading targets in a commitment, as I was just saying, to strengthening those further with a new bill in direct response to the Paris agreement. Scotland is at the very forefront of international climate action. Our leadership on this issue has been widely recognised, including by the head of the UN climate body and the chair of the UK's independent committee on climate change. I think that it is something that we should all be proud of while continuing to challenge ourselves to go even further. Question 6, Richard Leonard. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will give a commitment in this week, the week of international day of older persons, that eligibility criteria for the national concessionary travel scheme will not change during the current parliamentary session. We will continue to ensure that our national concessionary travel scheme benefits those who rely on free bus travel. That is indeed why we are asking people across Scotland for their views and how best to ensure that the bus pass is sustainable for the long term. The current consultation is just that. It is a consultation. No decisions will be made until all responses have been fully considered. However, whatever the outcome, let me be clear that nobody's bus pass will be taken away from them. Indeed, some people who do not currently qualify for a bus pass now will do so in the future. Can I thank the First Minister for that answer? In a programme for government, it is true that there is a commitment to continuing the concessionary travel scheme introduced by a Labour-led Scottish Executive. However, that commitment is qualified with the phrase, and I quote, while ensuring that the scheme is sustainable in the longer term. Will the First Minister confirm today that there will be no raising of the qualifying age, no administrative charges implemented, no one-off payment required, no means testing, and no other barrier introduced that will prevent all those aged 60 and over from accessing the scheme? I know that Scottish Labour has somewhat lost touch with reality, but is Richard Leonard really suggesting that we should have a scheme in place that is not sustainable for the long term? It is because we value the bus pass scheme, because we want to see it continue to benefit people right across Scotland that we are having this consultation, to make sure that it is sustainable for the long term and people long into the future can continue to enjoy the benefits of it. That really is the difference between the SNP and Labour. We fight for Scotland. Scottish Labour just fights amongst themselves. It was incredible yesterday, was it not? We had Richard Leonard accused by Jackie Baillie of betraying every value that Labour holds dear. Then we had Richard Leonard saying that this was just the latest Jackie Baillie—I cannot actually say it, Presiding Officer. Let's just say that it's a description that covers much of what Jackie Baillie says in this chamber. The question is about national integrity. The serious issue is this. This Government continues to take the decisions that are in the interests of the people of Scotland. By contrast, Scottish Labour's behaviour is selfish and self-indulgent, and it proves that they are not fit to be an opposition, let alone a Government. James Dornan Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted that the First Minister has confirmed that all those who currently have a bus pass will continue to receive one. Can she also confirm to me that those who obtain one before any changes may be made will continue to receive it? Can she update me, the Parliament, as to what the total number is of older and disabled people benefiting from free travel with the national entitlement card and how that compares to when this Government entered office after a Labour executive in place? The First Minister There are thousands of people across Scotland benefiting from this scheme, and we want to make sure that they continue to benefit from it. As well as giving the guarantee that everybody who has a bus pass and gets a bus pass before the end of this consultation will continue to have their bus pass, we have also set out plans to extend eligibility to apprentices as well, to young people making their way in the world to help them with the cost of travel as well. This Government will continue to protect schemes like this that are about helping people across the country. That is, in stark contrast, to a Tory party that is all about tax cuts for the rich and a Labour party that only wants to fight amongst itself. Mike Rumbles Is the First Minister aware of Rosanna Cunningham's statement just yesterday, when she said that in my quote, encouraging behaviour change to move people out of cars and into efficient and low-emission buses will help to reduce both congestion and emissions at the same time? So this is a win-win situation for everybody. Are the Government's environmental and transport strategies aligned, and are we getting joined up government here with those two? The First Minister Yes, is the short answer to that. Obviously, I am very well aware of Rosanna Cunningham's statement yesterday. I have to say that it was an excellent statement yesterday, setting out the action that we are taking in the transport sector to help to meet our climate change obligations. Indeed, today or very shortly, we will announce additional funding through the Green Bus Fund, which is helping to ensure that we have low emissions buses on our roads as well. It is absolutely right. For once, and it is a rare occasion, I concede that I agree with Mike Rumbles that getting people out of cars and into buses is one of the most important things that we can do to reduce congestion and, of course, to lower emissions. It is why the bus pass scheme is so important, but it is also why all the other actions that I have spoken about around electric vehicles, low-emission zones, doubling the active travel budget, are also so important as well. The First Minister's Questions Thank you, and that concludes First Minister's Questions. We now have members' business in the name of Richard Leonard. We will just take a few moments for our members to change seats.