 Maen nhw fel gwrthwyatod y債an? Dwi'n gwybod nhw'n gof프... ... Mor yw'r gwaith. Rwy'n gymmu ddigon nhw'n gwybod nhw pan ddim ynws. Gweithio'n gweithio ysburied datblygu ystyried Cymru i'r Sgalwydau. Y maen nhw'n gwybod nhw'n gweithio ystyried cyfra grants. Rwy'n gwybod nhw'n gweithio yn y maen nhw'n gwybod nhw? Mae'n gweithio'n gweithio ystyried cyfraffon nhw. Menon ffawrty wedi credu bwysig. Efallai i gilydd ffawrty yng Nghymru yn gwneud gael gweithio, mae'r gw dal yn bwysig yn ei ffawrty oedl. Rydym nhw'n ddigwydd i ddigwydd gweithio'r ffawrty neu yn credu bwysig fod ffawrty oedl yn ei gweithio yw ffawrty oedd efallai hwn yn ddigwydd o ein But it would have been only 11 per cent, so fuel prices are behind the increase. I think that demonstrates a fundamental failure of the UK-regulated energy market. Jackie Baillie will also be aware of the fact that the report is very clear that energy efficiency measures, where that Government does have a responsibility, have operated to mitigate the increase in fuel poverty. The increase in the energy market is unacceptable rollom ar ôl fwy o'r canfio arinciru adamach a dar Userial confident metre. Rydym yn fawr rhe Hausbethedd na oedden nhw i receis ar gyfer gan oedd yn gweithio amsgapaniaeth Mainans upper a dda Дgol Three Llywック, fe fyddai'r greadisiad hi mae hyn gyntigiad stylu iaith i에요 i chi allan nhaw yng ngyrtaid o'r ffymwr a chynrytu'r Mae Margaret Burgess yn gweithio'r methodologi i gael y rhai. Mae'n ddau 100,000 oes o'r ddau sy'n gwneud, ac yn gwneud o'r ddau sy'n gwneud o'r ddau, mae'r ddau o ddau o'r ddau sy'n gwneud o'r ddau sy'n gwneud o'r ddau, mae'n ddau o'r ddau 300,000 oes o'r ddau. Mae'n ddau o'r ddau o'r ddau, Hamilton, Cumbernauld, Dunfermlyn, Cacoddy, ac Aire, yn ddau. Deg ddynt ten cyfle o ddau sy'n 1 oun windfdoes panfaithau. Drydym masraf cael deall y siaradau SNP sydd yn ychydig gennym gwybodaeth o esfawr ar y cynnig.ARA hwn, dech Zach Green, derbyn g피llו, cair, hay bias, bloไม y gall Un快s aethan yn tebwaywyd idau ddau ar rhai. Nicholas Sturgeon wedi losing o'r newydd. Gweithio m strength Od ganleir iawn. the fact that the Government has done to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland? First Minister. Can I begin on a note of agreement with Jackie Baillie that we are talking about real people, and I think that is important to say, because that puts more of a burden on all of us to deal in accurate statistics and not in politically motivated distortion? Let me take one point that Jackie Baillie made. She said, and I think that this is a direct quote, that the change in methodology has masked the increase. Actually, the reverse is true. The change in methodology has increased the scale of the increase in fuel poverty. But, as the report shows—I trust that Jackie Baillie has read the report in as much detail as I have—that when you compare like with like, there has been a 4 per cent increase in fuel poverty. That takes the figure to over 900,000—she's absolutely right—that there are many people who think that if that survey was done today that figure would be closer to or perhaps over one million. But let's not try to distort the figures. In an energy-rich country, these figures are appalling and we should all unite in making that clear. But the report is also absolutely, abundantly and explicitly clear that the responsibility for the increase is in increases in fuel prices—7 per cent increases in fuel prices driving that increase in fuel poverty. It also makes clear that that increase would have been higher, but for the energy efficiency measures that this Government has partly been responsible for taking. Now, she asked me what the Government has been doing, so let me give her some very specific information. We've already invested over £300 million since 2009 on a raft of fuel poverty in energy efficiency programmes. We will spend a further £94 million this year and a further £94 million next year. Nearly one in three of all households—that's around 700 households in Scotland—have now received energy efficiency support. Those who are experts in this field acknowledge the fact that this Government is doing more in terms of publicly funded support for energy efficiency than any of our counterparts anywhere else in those islands. I am in no way complacent about this. I think that it is shameful for all of us that we live in an energy-rich country where nearly a million people are living in fuel poverty, but perhaps we can all therefore unite in calling on the UK Government to do more around fuel prices. I know that Jackie Baillie has previously called for a freeze in energy prices. Will she join with me today in calling on the UK Government to go further than that and restructure energy bills so that we take the burden of energy efficiency off energy bills and actually deliver a cut? Will she join with me in calling on the UK Government to do that? I listened very carefully to what the First Minister said. She claimed that independent experts think that she is doing a tremendous job, but let me tell you those independent experts tell a very different story. Energy Action Scotland says that the Scottish Government can and should do more. They say that the levels of funding provided mean the promise to abolish fuel poverty by 2016 will not be met. The existing Homes Alliance says that the current budget is well below what is needed to tackle fuel poverty. Yet, last year, the SNP's own budget for fuel poverty was underspent by £10 million at a time when the need is self-evident. I see the First Minister shaking her head, but that is the truth. I suggest that she goes away and checks what her budget was. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations says that fuel poverty is at crisis levels. Ysgrifennidog Al Un Hauzing Minister called the situation and, I quote, scandalous. I couldn't begin to agree more with her. Presiding Officer, why is the First Minister letting down poor people in Scotland? I do question whether Jackie Baillie really was listening to my answer as she claims to have done. Firstly, again in an attempt to try to find some consensus here, I don't dispute the analysis of the problem that comes from experts. I don't want to live in an energy-rich country that has so many people living in fuel poverty and I hope we could all agree on that. Nor do I take issue with those who say and put pressure on the Scottish Government to do more. I actually think that that is exactly what they should be doing and I accept the responsibility that we have to do as much as we possibly can. I give an undertaking to the chamber and to the public out there that we will strive to do as much as we can within our resources and within our powers to do just that. Jackie Baillie mentioned energy action Scotland and I readily concede that energy action Scotland would be amongst the organisations pushing the Scottish Government to do more. Let me quote from Norman Kerr of energy action Scotland on BBC Radio Scotland on 6 November. There is a marked difference between Scotland and England. Scotland still retains energy efficiency and fuel poverty programmes paid for out of the public purse. We are certainly streets ahead of what is happening in England. I accept the responsibility to constantly be challenging this Government to do more, but surely Jackie Baillie can accept two things. Unlike the UK Government, we continue to fund energy efficiency measures out of the public purse, and that is why we can say that one in three of all households have now received energy efficiency support. Secondly, surely Jackie Baillie can accept that much as I wish it were different, I do not have powers over the regulation of the energy market and I do not have powers over fuel prices. Let us come together to ask the UK Government to do more to deal with this issue. I know that she did not join with me in calling on them to take the cost of eco out of energy bills so that we can deliver a cut in people's energy bills, so I will give her an opportunity again. Will she join with me in making that call? Do you know what I cannot get over is that the First Minister is content in her ambition to simply compare fuel poverty in Scotland with fuel poverty in England and just say it so much better here when we are heading for fuel poverty in Scotland being a million households, two million people. What a lack of ambition that represents. Can I honestly say it is wonderful to hear the First Minister call for consensus, but over the past seven years she and her Government have rejected all the suggestions made by this side of the chamber on fuel poverty. I know that she does not like to hear the truth, but the First Minister was responsible for tackling fuel poverty for the past two years. On each of those years on her watch fuel poverty went up. That is happening in Scotland today and it is because of decisions made by her Government. The buck stops with the First Minister for the second week running. Can I remind her it was she who said a party that is now in its second term of office cannot avoid taking responsibility for its own failings? Politics has always been about difficult choices. Labour will freeze gas and electricity bills, reform the energy market and improve housing stock to tackle fuel poverty. The First Minister and her party want to give the energy companies a massive tax cut. That is the difference. The truth is that, as winter begins to bite, fuel poverty is up and millions of people across Scotland will be freezing. When the fuel poverty forum meets this afternoon, will the First Minister be there to apologise for abandoning the poor people in Scotland this winter? First Minister. Right, okay. Let me try and take this step by step. First, I welcome Labour's commitment to reform the energy market. I simply point out that it was Labour that established the current energy market. Secondly, I welcome the commitment to an energy freeze, but I do not think that a freeze goes far enough. I think that we should be coming up with action to reduce people's energy bills, not to freeze them. Secondly, I think that it is a bit rich on the day that Ed Miliband is plastered over the front of the independent newspaper saying that he is about to wield the axe on public spending for Jackie Baillie to come to this chamber and lecture me about public spending. Just a few more facts that might be uncomfortable for Jackie Baillie. Just a few more facts that might be uncomfortable for Jackie Baillie, but, you know, hopefully she'll bear with me. Between 2002 and 2007, under a Lib Dem Labour administration, the fuel poverty rate more than doubled in Scotland. Now, I expect that Jackie Baillie then would have said much of what I'm saying right now, that we had to concentrate on energy efficiency but we needed action on fuel prices. Secondly, Jackie Baillie is coming here and calling for more money on the day that Miliband is wielding the axe on public spending. Not once has Labour come to John Swinney in a budget negotiation and asked for more money for fuel poverty, so it's fine for Jackie Baillie to come here. Jackie Baillie is apparently defending herself by saying to somebody in another party that, well, Labour, I want to make, is this, Presiding Officer. I've now been in this job for almost a month and already I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't actually matter what the SNP does or says. Labour will oppose it because Labour stopped being the Labour Party. Labour has become the anti-SNP party and that's probably why one of the candidates for its deputy leadership emailed all of us last week looking for our votes and said that nobody trusted Labour any more. I tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to leave Labour to the job of opposition and I'm going to continue with the job of governing in the interests of this country and doing everything we can to tackle the scandal of fuel poverty. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the First Minister when she'll next meet the Prime Minister. I will meet the Prime Minister on Monday. Five weeks ago, the then First Minister was asked about a fall in the number of teachers in our schools. His excuse then was that the number didn't matter because the pupil teacher ratio was the same and anyway it was all Westminster's fault. Yesterday, the Scottish Government's own figures showed that the teacher numbers have now fallen by more than 4,000 since they came to office and that the pupil teacher ratio is going up. Can I ask this First Minister what's the Government's excuse this time? First Minister? I'm not here to make excuses. I'm disappointed. The opposition want serious questions to be given serious answers. Ruth Davidson has asked me a serious question. I'm going to seek to give her a serious answer. I am disappointed in the drop in teacher numbers. It was a relatively small drop but nevertheless it takes place against the background of a rising number of pupils in our schools and I want that to continue to be, as it is right now, a matter of ongoing dialogue between us and local authorities who are the employers of teachers. Let me make it very clear, although it's not the only measure of success in our schools, I believe that it is important to maintain teacher numbers in line with pupil numbers. The headline figure, which itself, of course, has to be seen in the context of a 10 per cent cut in the Scottish Government's budget, doesn't tell the whole story. I know that Ruth Davidson will have studied the report in as much detail as I do, but if you look at primary education, for example, where there has been a slight deterioration in the pupil teacher ratio, teacher numbers in primary education have actually increased. They've simply not increased fast enough to take account of the rise in pupil numbers, but Ruth Davidson is shouting secondary at me. In secondary, teacher numbers have fallen, but the pupil teacher ratio in secondary schools has actually improved because pupil numbers have fallen faster than the drop in the number of teachers. I simply make the point that, yes, the headline figure is disappointing, but if you do what I hope all of us would do and delve into the detail of the statistics, there is a more complex picture. There is work to be done. I readily accept that. There are, of course, challenges. How could it be otherwise when our budget is being cut by 10 per cent since 2010? The record on education, where there is no room for complacency under this Government, is good. It is strong. I want it to improve even further. It stands very strong comparison to the record of our predecessors. Ruth Davidson The First Minister has said that it is just a small drop this year for me to look at the figures in more detail. Let's do that. In their first year in government in 2008, the numbers went down. In their second year in 2009, the numbers went down. In their third year in 2010, the numbers went down. In their fourth year in 2011, the numbers went down. In their fifth year, the numbers went down. In the sixth year, the numbers went down. This year, for the seventh consecutive year, the numbers have gone down. She responded there again with the stock response about Westminster budget cuts. She put it at 10 per cent. This is about political choices. Here is the thing that neither the First Minister nor the Education Secretary will admit. Budgets have been restrained right across the UK, and yet elsewhere on these islands, teacher numbers are going up. Figures that I have here from the Department for Education show that teacher numbers down south have gone up by 12,000 since 2007 and are now at their highest ever level. There is a reason for that. When head teachers are given the power to run their own schools and are freed from the dead hand of central control, they make better decisions for their schools, they make better decisions about staffing and they make better decisions for their pupils. This SNP Government is failing our children even by its own measures because teacher numbers are down, class sizes are up and we are struggling in the international league tables. If the First Minister looks around the world, school reform is the answer, so why is her Government so against it? I do not think that, in all seriousness, Ruth Davidson can stand and say that the Government that has just introduced the biggest reform in school education—certainly that I can remember in the form of curriculum for excellence—is somehow against reform. It might not be precisely the kind of reform that Ruth Davidson is arguing for and will continue to have those debates across his chamber and elsewhere. I will give this undertaking to Ruth Davidson. The education of our children is so fundamentally important to every aspect of our society that I and the education secretary will continue to have an open mind and a focus on what works best to improve attainment in our schools. I will listen to ideas from wherever they come in the interests of making sure that we discharge our responsibility to improve or continue to improve our education system. I will go back to some of the detail that Ruth Davidson put to me. She talked about the year since we have been in office. She started in our first question posing the question around pupil-teacher ratio. In the first number of years that she cited there, pupil numbers were declining. That is part of the reason why teacher numbers were declining. I said that I was concerned about the latest statistics because we are not now in a time of declining pupil numbers, pupil numbers are rising. That is why the discussions that I refer to with COSLA and local authorities are so important. We need to make sure that we have the right number of teachers in our schools for the number of pupils that are being taught in our schools. Can I draw attention to that? I do not, for a second, move away from saying that work needs to be done. If I look at 2006, the number of primary 1 pupils in classes of more than 26 was 16,845. Today that is 451, a 97% reduction. More to do, yes, but considerable progress. I also look at the school estate where we have invested significantly. 2007, only 61% of school buildings were classed as good or satisfactory. Today that is 83%. In the interests of consensus, I accept that we have work to do. We will always have work to do in a service as important as education, but surely Ruth Davidson can acknowledge that against the background, which I say as context not as an excuse, against the background of 10% cuts in our budget, that progress is to be celebrated. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Matches of importance to the people of Scotland. John Swinney's pressure lease this morning on Revenue Scotland said that the Scottish Government was doing excellent work that had been widely praised, but the Audit Scotland report on Revenue Scotland jars with that and paints a completely different picture. It talks about contingency plans being made. A decision on whether to implement them is to be made in December. Can the First Minister tell the chamber what those contingency plans are? I can do better than that. I hope that I can give the chamber a full update on that. I spoke this morning with the head of Revenue Scotland, and I am glad that Willie Rennie has raised that issue, because it gives me the opportunity, Presiding Officer, to assure not just Parliament but the public that Revenue Scotland is on track to manage the collection of the new devolved taxes from April 1. It is also important for context just to note that Audit Scotland said that the Scottish Government had established clear structures for managing set-up of Revenue Scotland and that there are now well-developed project plans for implementing the devolved taxes. In terms of the criticisms that the Audit Scotland report made—I will be as brief as possible, Presiding Officer, but I think that that is important—on staffing, the Audit Scotland criticism is that they were not in place early enough and said that, as of the end of October, 10 out of the 40 had been offered posts. As of this morning, 16 of those 40 have accepted posts. Another five have had offers of employment made and the HR processes are under way. Five are currently going through normal SG recruitment processes, and the remaining 14 will be advertised as planned in January. The most critical specialist posts are accountancy legal tax and statistics. Amongst the 16 have already filled and the five have offered to people from other Government departments. Finally, on IT, there was a delay earlier this year because a decision was taken for the right reasons to move from developing an in-house IT system to going to an external supplier, but internal testing of the IT system is under way now and external testing will happen in January. I hope that Willie Rennie appreciates that update. Finally, on contingency plans, of course there are contingency plans in place, but there is no intention to activate any of the contingency plans. Willie Rennie. I am sure in the discussion this morning that she would have discussed those contingency plans in detail. I know that she wants it to go well. Everybody wants it to go well, but I am sure that the chamber would welcome some description about what those contingency plans are. Does it involve HMRC having a continued role? Are the taxes going to be delayed? Are we moving to a paper-based system in the contingency plans? I know that she wants it to go well, but we have a right to know what those contingency plans are. We have £441 million at stake. I think that we have answers that deserve to come from the First Minister. I have been trying to give Willie Rennie some fairly detailed answers. I am more than happy to correspond with Willie Rennie and provide as much detail on this as possible. Any exercise like this would have contingency plans in place. What he said there about HMRC continuing to do that, or that taxes being delayed, is not the case. Some paper processes will continue to be used, because some users will want to use paper processes. The key point that I would have thought that the chamber wanted to hear was the assurance that the taxes will begin to be collected on April 1, and Revenue Scotland is on track. The other assurance that I will give to the chamber, and the chamber would expect this, is that I and the finance secretary will closely monitor progress between now and the go live day on 1 April. However, I am satisfied that all the steps that should be taken at the moment are being taken. I hope that that gives not just Willie Rennie but the entire chamber the assurance that they are seeking. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will respond to the findings of the all-party UK parliamentary inquiry into hunger in the UK. The report of the findings of this inquiry highlights the scale of food poverty across the UK. As I said about the latest Scottish statistics, two weeks ago the numbers are completely unacceptable. It highlights the need for future action to improve the welfare system and cut delays in benefit payments, tackle the cost of living and raise household incomes. I support the call that was made in the report in that regard and indeed confirmed in the programme for government that we will continue to take action in these areas through our commitments on the social wage and on the living wage. This report makes horrendous reading. I visited the Trussell Trust food bank in Seaton and Aberdeen on Friday. Trussell Trust alone have had a 400% increase in the use of their food banks in Scotland between 31 March last year and 1 April this year. That includes 22,387 children having to access three-day emergency supplies of food. Tory Baroness Jenkins believes that the growth in food bank use is down to people being unable to cook. Does the First Minister think that Baroness Jenkins is right, or does she agree with me that this situation is down to the condemned Government's ill-thought-out austerity-driven welfare reforms? I certainly have not seen any evidence from my constituency experience or my wider experience in dealing with food banks that people are visiting food banks on the basis of their cooking ability, so yes, I agree with the member and think that Baroness Jenkins is wrong in that regard. The Trussell Trust itself pointed out last month that welfare problems account for the highest proportion of those using their food banks. Contrary to what others might want to say on this, I think that this latest report is very sadly a further indictment of the UK Government's programme of welfare cuts. Minister, what the Scottish Government is doing to meet its national waiting time guarantees for gastroenterology? NHS Scotland continues to deliver the overarching standard of 90 per cent of patients being seen and treated within 18 weeks from initial referral. It has been made clear to all boards that all parts of the patient pathway should be as swift as possible. The Scottish Government is working with NHS boards whose performance on gastroenterology has fallen short of our expectations. On referral, my constituent was told by NHS Tayside that they aimed to see her within 12 weeks. Only when the 12 weeks were up did NHS Tayside then tell her that their waiting time for routine referral was actually 28 weeks—that is seven months. Does the First Minister not think that patients should be told the real waiting time when they are first referred? Does she think that a seven-month waiting time is acceptable and what is she doing to reduce that? Yes, I do, and I do not think that that is acceptable. I am. I will not go into the details for patient confidentiality reasons, but I am familiar with the case that Jenny Marra is raising. My understanding is that her constituent has now been offered an appointment. NHS Tayside has experienced a high turnover of staff in this specialty. They are currently in the process of recruiting an additional consultant and an endoscopy nurse to improve their capacity. The board continues, as it should do, to look at other areas to reduce unacceptable long waits for an appointment to this specialty. The Government's access support team is monitoring performance in this area, and we are working with boards to put plans in place to reduce long waits. We are taking this seriously. If the member wants to, on behalf of our constituent, I know that the health secretary would be more than happy to discuss the issue in more detail. Question 6. To ask the First Minister what impact the Scottish Government anticipates a lower drink driving limit will have on driver behaviour this festive season. First Minister, we believe that the lower drink drive limit will make Scotland's roads safer and save lives. The central message of the festive campaign publicising the new limit has been that the best advice is none when it comes to drinking and driving. We hope that the lower limit will reduce drink drive arrests and prosecutions by encouraging drivers to not consume alcohol before driving. I am certainly encouraged by the results seen in the Republic of Ireland, where drivers did adjust their behaviour to take account of the lower limit when it was introduced in October 2011. Kenneth Gibson. I thank the First Minister for her response. Although Scotland is some of the safest roads in the industrialised world, according to the World Health Organization, drink driving at this time of year has been a problem for decades. That is a commend to the Scottish Government for taking action and for the on-going advertising campaign. Further to that campaign's core message, will the First Minister join in calling on drivers not only to abstain from drink altogether on each day that they will be driving during the festive season but for the months and the years beyond? Certainly anybody intending to drive should always refrain from drinking as alcohol at any level impairs driving. Our central message always has been and it always will be at the festive season and at any other time of year do not drink and drive. Thank you that ends First Minister's questions. We are moving on to members' business. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.