 yng Nghargrifedd yn y 13 diwylo, a dwi ychydig y rŵr y mladyn hefyd yn gweithio. Ieithaf yw eu gostio gynau Gymroedd wyf y Gwylian Gwaith, mae fyddwch yn schwy gainsfiliad i ganddo i'w gallu galeu, ysgrifes aethon sydd gymeth yng ngaredd Hengry. Thank you. Fe nrwnt i wir mae ein prifyngurau i gyda'i ddysgu. Cysylltu yma. 1. Jackie Baillie Minister yma yn gaugau sydd y cyfnail ar hyn yn ddeidol. I'll of man i ddim yn gweithio i'r Cynlluniaeth Bryddoedd. I wish the First Minister a safe journey. I'm sure that the whole chamber will welcome the old party consensus on the Smith commission. I thank Lord Smith and all of the party commissioners for their hard work in reaching agreement. They have delivered a powerhouse parliament. A promise made before the referendum is now a promise delivered and more. Does the First Minister agree with me that this is the most substantial transfer of powers to Scotland since a Labour Government delivered the Scottish Parliament itself in 1999? On a note of consensus, I also begin by paying tribute to Lord Smith. I think that he personally is to be commended. I spoke to him this morning, and on behalf of the Scottish Government, I thanked him for his role in this process. I also take the opportunity to welcome the new powers that are recommended. I want this Parliament to be as powerful as possible, so I welcome any new powers that come to it. Those powers now have to be delivered. I note that some of what is recommended today—air passenger duty, for example—was first recommended in the Kalman commission, and the Westminster parties decided to shelve that. We need to make sure that those powers are delivered. If some of the saber rattling that we are hearing on English votes for English laws is anything to go by, that might not be as smooth as we think. Overall, I think that the package is disappointing. I would quote Labour should perhaps listen to what I am about to say next, because I heard Graham Smith of the STUC on Radio Clyde a little while ago, and what he said is that it is underwhelming and falls short of the vow. Seventy per cent of our taxis continue to be set at Westminster, and 85 per cent of social security spending controlled at Westminster. That Parliament is responsible for less than half of the money that we will spend. It is not so much the home rule that was promised, in so many respects it has continued Westminster rule. Jackie Baillie? That consensus lasted less than a minute. Any politician not electrified by the possibilities that those new powers present for us, because they do, they present for us the opportunity to change the lives of the most vulnerable people in our country, needs to ask themselves if they are in the right job. The Smith proposals will see huge devolution of power to this Parliament, control over £20 billion of taxation, £3 billion of welfare and the power to create new benefits. The Parliament will have substantial control, income tax, borrowing, air passenger transport duty, the Crown Estate, the work programme, work choices, a long list of benefits and much more. It is time to talk about what we would do with those powers, and on that I agree with the First Minister, because one of the key economic powers coming to this Parliament is the power over income tax. Can I ask the First Minister if she will now confirm whether she supports Labour's proposals to raise the top rate of income tax to £50? On that last point, firstly, if I was taking that decision now, yes, I would raise the top rate of income tax to £50. SNP MPs voted against the reduction of the top rate of tax in the House of Commons. Labour MPs did not turn up to vote. That is reality. The real question that Labour should be asking itself this morning is this one. How has it managed to find itself on the same side as the Tories and on the wrong side of the STUC? What has gone wrong with Labour? I prefer to look at the views of those organisations that represent real people. Let's have a look at some of them. One parent families Scotland disappointed the STUC underwhelmed not enough to empower the Scottish Parliament to tackle inequality. In Gender Scotland disappointed the SCVO, the voluntary organisations, disappointed. Let me finally say to Jackie Baillie what would have electrified me and what would have electrified this Parliament. That would have been control over job creating powers, control over the minimum wage, control over the personal allowance of income tax, control over national insurance contributions, control over universal credit, tax credit, the kind of things that create jobs and help us tackle inequality. Those are the kind of powers any self-respecting Labour Party would be arguing for instead of siding with the Tories. One moment, Ms Baillie. There is too much shouting across the chamber. Please allow Ms Baillie to speak and allow the First Minister to answer. Before the ink was dry, the SNP are already unpicking the consensus. I listed in my previous question to you a range of work creation powers that will help to put Scotland back to work. You clearly weren't listening, but the Parliament will also be responsible for £3 billion of welfare. I am excited about the possibility of creating new benefits that will help the most vulnerable in the country. However, you will have power over disability living allowance, personal independence payments, attendance allowance, carers allowance, severe disability allowance, shore start grants, cold weather payments, winter fuel payments and many more besides. Those are serious and substantial powers. The First Minister has been in the job for a week. She has been handed the biggest transfer of powers since the Parliament was established in 1999. Frankly, Presiding Officer, I would be excited by that. Yet today, John Swinney, her Deputy First Minister, has criticised this. Stuart Hosey, her Deputy Leader, has done likewise. All she can talk about is what she hasn't got and what she can't do. Surely she should be focused on what she can do with these new powers to change the lives of people across Scotland. The First Minister needs to understand the mood of the country. She has the opportunity to transform lives. What particular powers in the Smith commission report will she use to transform the country? I said at the outset of my first answer to Jackie Baillie that I welcome all new powers that come to this Parliament. Every power that is recommended for devolution to this Parliament in the Smith commission report, I warmly welcome them. When we get our hands on those powers, we will use all of them to better serve the people of Scotland. Jackie Baillie might find it easy to dismiss my view. Fair enough, that is politics, but I would caution her against dismissing the view of the STUC, of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, for organisations such as Engender. Those are organisations that speak for real people across this country, and they are saying that this package of powers falls short of what is needed to create jobs, to create more equality in our country. On welfare, £2.5 billion of welfare spend, if those proposals are implemented, we will get control over. That is £2.5 billion out of £17.5 billion. I do not want just to have the power to top up Tory cuts to welfare, to put a sticking plaster on a broken system. I want to have the power in our hands to create a better system, to lift people out of poverty, to get our economy growing. That is the kind of powerhouse Parliament I want. Sadly, it is not the one that is going to be delivered. Presiding Officer, if that was a warm welcome from the First Minister, I would hate to get on her wrong side. You cannot face two ways. Just two weeks ago, the First Minister told her conference that the promise of more powers will evaporate, the vow will be broken. Let us be clear. It might not be comfortable for them to hear this, but the vow made to the people of Scotland has been delivered before St Andrew's Day ahead of schedule. Genuinely thank the SNP for their help in delivering the vow. Working together, we have delivered the biggest transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament since its inception. Promise made, promise delivered, £20 billion of taxation, £3 billion of welfare, and I encourage her to read the small print, because you now have the power to create your own benefits. I look forward to hearing what they will be. The First Minister promised that the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We have kept our promise to the people of Scotland. Will the First Minister now keep hers? If Jackie Baillie says it often enough that it is the biggest transfer of power ever, she might manage to convince herself. Unfortunately, she is not going to convince anybody else. Let me quote Graham Smith of the Scottish Trade Union Congress. Those proposals fall short of the vow. I thought Labour was on the side of the trade unions. It turns out that Labour is just now on the side of the Tories. It is not me that Labour has to worry about being on the wrong side of. Labour increasingly has to worry about being on the wrong side of the people of Scotland. When it comes to the general election in May, I think that they are going to find out just how much on the wrong side of the people of Scotland they have become. To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. No plans in the near future. Well, Nicola Sturgeon's consensus politics only seems to go so far, because this morning she was already tweeting lines that she did not like from the Smith report before the commissioners had even sat down. Personally, I think that this is a great day for Scotland. This pocket money Parliament is finally going to have to look taxpayers in the eye. The First Minister needs to check the figures that she just gave today, because I asked Spice this morning to do just that, and she confirmed that nearly 60 per cent of all money that is spent by the Scottish Government will now have to be raised by the Scottish Government. We all know that anything short of independence would not satisfy the First Minister, but she should remember that that was the one option that the people of Scotland roundly rejected. This is a big, bold package of measures, so why can't the First Minister give it the warmer welcome that it clearly deserves? I am happy to trade figures with Ruth Davidson, but, even taking account of the assignation of that revenues, which I welcome, I would rather be in control of tax than having tax revenues assigned, but, even taking account of that, we will be responsible for raising less than half of the money that we spend, which is 48 per cent. However, even if Ruth Davidson is correct, is that the limit of her ambition that we control is 60 per cent of all the spending of this Government? For good mistake, how on earth can anybody describe that as a responsible powerhouse Scottish Parliament? I have already welcomed the powers that are being transferred. Nobody on this side of the chamber will ever do anything other than welcome powers coming to this Parliament, because the difference between us and some other parties in this chamber is that we want to have maximum powers so that we can do the maximum amount of good for the people of Scotland. However, let me just read her. Paragraphs 80 through to 85 of this report. All aspects of national insurance will remain reserved, all aspects of inheritance tax and capital gains tax will remain reserved, all aspects of corporation tax will remain reserved, all aspects of the taxation of oil and gas receipts will remain reserved, all aspects of that will remain reserved. There are sections of this report where it talks more about what has been kept in the hands of Westminster than it does about what is coming to this Parliament. At the end of the day, we can argue in this Parliament about what we think is good and what we think is bad about this report, but the ultimate verdict will be for the Scottish people. I think that in the general election in May, the Scottish people have an opportunity to say to the Westminster parties and to say it quite clearly, thanks very much for your opening offer. Now we want to up it. Drowning, not waving, I think. The First Minister is hurphous fully missing the scope of what is proposed today, so let me put her grievance in a bit of context for her. Professor David Bell and David Iser at Stirling University looked at how much devolution exists in OECD countries. They even plotted it on a handy graph. Today's announcement means that Scotland will have more devolution over tax and spend than nearly every other country in the developed world, arguably behind only Canada. We are now set to overtake Belgium, Norway, Italy, Finland, Iceland, France and Sweden and even the fully federal countries of America and Germany. Holyrood will become one of the most powerful devolved parliaments on this planet. With that in mind and in the spirit of the new consensus, will the First Minister agree with me that these new powers can deliver for everyone in Scotland no matter which way they voted at the referendum? In the spirit of consensus that has been offered, let me repeat again that I, we will use all of the new powers that come to this Parliament in the best way possible to improve lives for the people of Scotland. That is what we do with the existing powers. It will be what we do with any additional powers that we get. Ruth Davidson I guess that we are just going to have an honest disagreement here. If Ruth Davidson believes, and she is entitled to believe this, that a situation that leaves 70 per cent of our tax being set at Westminster and 85 per cent of our social security spending being controlled at Westminster represents what was described in the referendum campaign as genuine home rule, then I am afraid that I take a different view. I think that the people of Scotland will take a very different view of that as well. I appreciate the very respected organisations that I quoted in response to Jackie Baillie, such as the SCVO and the STUC, who might not cut much ice with the Tories. Let me try an organisation that might cut more, the Institute for Economic Affairs. The Smith proposals are a dangerous halfway house, failing to bring about the benefits that much fuller devolution would have brought to Scotland. Let me say again, and I cannot say this any clearer. I welcome what is being recommended. I hope that the Westminster parties, unlike the situation with Calman, now deliver all of those proposals. I think that the verdict of the Scottish people will be that it is not enough. It does not live up to the vow, it does not deliver the modern form of home rule, the near-federas solution and, in the general election, they will choose to make that verdict very clear. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. A range of issues to carry forward the Government's programme for Scotland. So much for the new beginning from the new First Minister. For the first time ever, all Scotland's political parties have reached a powerful constitutional agreement. Three hours later, she is sitting there, rubbishing the agreement that she has just signed. This agreement means that we will have a £3 billion new Scottish welfare system, and the Scottish Parliament will get the financial muscle that it needs with taxes worth £20 billion. Can the First Minister not be a little bit more positive? Try again for the benefit of Willie Rennie to say what I said to both Jackie Baillie and Ruth Davidson. I welcome all of the powers that have been recommended for devolution to the Scottish Parliament. I think that it represents a degree of progress. I am not going to stand here and pretend, because my idea of consensus, as I say this seriously to Willie Rennie, is not somehow refusing to stand up for what I think is right on behalf of the Scottish people. I do not think that those proposals go far enough, because I do not think—on this, I am in agreement with the STUC—that I do not think that the powers that are recommended give me and my Government the ability that we need to get our economy growing faster, to tackle the inequality that is a scar on the face of our nation. Yes, we will take the new powers and we will use them in the best way that we can, but we will keep arguing for the real powers that this Parliament needs to do the best possible job for the people of Scotland. Willie Rennie cannot keep on rerunning the referendum. She has got to accept our income tax, the VAT, new welfare system, with disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carers allowance, powers create new benefits, the work programme, power on housing benefit, control over tribunals, railways, payday lenders, votes at 16. The list keeps going on. Can the First Minister just give an unqualified support for this massive transfer of power, or always will she just going to say that this was never going to be enough? First Minister, firstly, if the Westminster parties carry on the way they are going, it will not be me that is forcing the rerunning of the referendum. It will be them that start to force the rerunning of the referendum, but on a genuine attempt to find some consensus, and I would hope that Willie Rennie would agree with me on this. I welcome the fact that disability living allowance and personal independence payments are being recommended for devolution to this Parliament, so I welcome that. Will he join with me in asking for those powers to be transferred before the Tory Liberal Coalition imposes a 20 per cent cut on the budget? Yes or no? Willie Rennie The luxury of three questions. The First Minister seeks consensus across this chamber. What she needs to recognise is that this is a big package. Of course we will work together across this chamber, but she needs to start off by recognising what we have achieved today. So far, she has done absolutely none of it. First Minister I am going to take that as a no. There is a serious point here. I do welcome the transfer of disability benefits. I warmly welcome that, but as things stand, by the time we get those powers, the budget will have been cut by 20 per cent. If we want genuine consensus across this Parliament where we can find it, then can I genuinely say to all parties, let us as a Parliament say to the Westminster Government to transfer those powers as soon as possible and to do it before that cut is imposed so that we can decide the right level of budget to protect our disabled people? The First Minister Mark McDonald Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the RCN report on mental health services. The First Minister I very much welcome the report that highlights the importance of mental health services and acknowledges that in Scotland caring treatment has improved over the past 15 years. Of course we can always do more and earlier this month we announced additional investment of £15 million over the next three years to improve mental health services. That new funding is going to be targeted on two main areas, a mental health innovation fund and to boost staff numbers to address the mental health needs of children and adolescents and the rising demand for children and adolescent mental health services. Mark McDonald I thank the First Minister for her answer and welcome the innovation fund and the additional funding that was put forward by the Scottish Government. RCN has stated that pursuing some services from a nurse-led basis using advanced nursing practitioners to deliver services previously led by doctors could assist in delivering even stronger outcomes for mental health patients. I am aware of nurse practitioner-led services in my own constituency via the middle-field healthy who switch. While it does not deal directly with mental health services, it does operate across services more traditionally delivered by GPs. Would the First Minister agree with me that health boards should examine using the funding that has been provided by the Scottish Government to invest in the appropriate recruitment and training to look at whether nurse-led services and mental health services could be provided in communities? The First Minister Yes, I do agree that that is something that should be examined. I am a big supporter from my time as health secretary of the work that advanced nurse practitioners across a range of specialties do in our national health service. We have seen a substantial increase in the number of mental health nursing staff under this Government, but we should always be looking for ways that we can improve services further. Mark McDonald makes a very constructive suggestion and one that I am sure the health secretary would be happy to discuss with him further. Annette Milne I ask what the First Minister's view is on the fact that there is only currently one child psychiatric bed in the north and northeast of Scotland available to treat young people, creating a situation where young people are having to be admitted to adult psychiatric wars. Can she also tell Parliament whether any young people with mental health problems have ever been admitted into a young offender's institution for treatment and will she agree to undertake a review of the provision of child psychiatric beds in Scotland? The First Minister I am happy to ask the health secretary to write to or to meet with the member in more detail on the very serious issue that Annette Milne has raised. There are occasions where young people under 18 have been admitted to adult wards. Most of those are among young people aged 16 and 17, where an adult facility might, in certain circumstances, be judged to be clinically appropriate. Obviously, that is not something that we want to happen. We have been seeing increases in capacity for young people under 18 working in a new 12-bed inpatient unit to replace the current six-bed unit in Dundee. For example, it has already commenced on-site, and it is expected that the new unit will be commissioned in late 2015. That will increase the national bed base from 42 to 48 beds. That is a serious issue. The Government is doing serious work to address it, but I recognise that there is more that we need to do. As I said at the outset of my answer, the health secretary would be happy to discuss it further with Annette Milne. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will respond to safety children's read-on get-on report on child literacy. The Government welcomes the very timely launch of the read-on get-on campaign. The campaign complements the work that we are already doing through our literacy action plan, curriculum for excellence and getting it right for every child, plus specific programmes such as play, talk, read and book bug, to raise literacy levels for all and close the gap between the most and least-advantaged young people. We will now give all this existing good work an even sharper focus by introducing a read, write, count literacy and numeracy campaign aimed at primary 1 to 3 children. There will be a particular focus on improving outcomes for our most deprived communities. The First Minister maps the literacy levels of 11-year-olds. Every single day of their school life has been spent under this Government, and the report tells us that 20 per cent of kids from the poorest background still can't read well enough. It tells us that progress has been too slow. The call is for the Scottish Government to ensure that every child can leave school being able to read. After seven years in power, is it really too much to ask? I genuinely believe that Kezia Dugdale has an understanding of the complex issues that are lying behind the very important matter that she raises today. I hope that it is an issue where we could find some consensus. I also know that she will have listened carefully to my statement yesterday announcing the Government's programme for the next year, where I specifically mentioned the need to raise attainment in our most disadvantaged areas and focused on literacy and numeracy. I refer to the new campaign that we are about to launch in my answer again today. Let's not get into political point-scoring exercise over this, if we can avoid it. Labour wants consensus until it does not suit them to have consensus. I think that on an issue as important as the educational attainment of our young people, we should strive to work together. I will happily reach out to Kezia Dugdale and whatever capacities she might find herself in in coming weeks and see if we can find ways to work together on what is an important issue. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the Trussell Trust report indicating that the number of people in Scotland visiting food banks has doubled. The numbers in food poverty in Scotland are completely unacceptable and an indictment of the United Kingdom Government's programme of welfare cuts. It is quite frankly shocking that over 51,000 people visited Trussell Trust food banks between April and September this year and even more shocking that over 15,000 of those were children. The Trussell Trust points out that welfare problems account for the highest proportion of those numbers. We are funding 26 projects with over half a million pounds through our emergency food fund. We will continue to do all that we can to tackle that problem, but it really does underline the need for this Parliament not just to have limited powers over welfare but to have all powers over welfare. Stuart McMillan. I thank the First Minister for her reply. I am sure that the First Minister will agree with me that the report should be a wake-up call for all of society bearing in mind that Scotland and the UK are both wealthy countries. Does the First Minister consider that the failings of welfare reform and their delays, but more specifically the delays, could have been prevented, ensuring that many of our citizens need the maximum force to go to food banks? Does she welcome the support of many of the 42 SPFL football clubs, to whom I have written, who are supporting the local food banks, which also aims to remove the stigma that some supporters have that food banks are not for them even in times of need? It is appalling that anybody in our country, as wealthy as Scotland is, has to rely on food banks. I know that some football clubs are already providing valuable assistance within their local communities, helping those organisations that are seeking to help others. I am aware of Stuart McMillan's campaign to encourage SPFL clubs to support their local food banks through collections and awareness raising. I agree wholeheartedly that football can play a much wider role in our society. Our football clubs are a vital part of our communities, and it is very welcome that so many of them are playing their part to support those who are forced to use food banks by the UK Government's devastating welfare cuts. First Minister's question time. We now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.