 Rwy'n gymryd pan amser yn cydfilio ddaeth eich gynhyrchu amdanoon nhw. 1. Ruth Davidson Be'r gwnaeth iddyn nhw i ddweud i siaradau ar y cydwleddau yng Nghymru? Rwy'n gwneud i ddweud i chi i roi'r gwnaethe uchydig ym Rhobor South Scotland. Be'r gwnaeth i'r gwnaeth i'r cydwleddau llunio niw? Be'r gwnaeth i'r gwnaeth i'r gwnaethe uchydig ymrwyntau trefnutulau' yn gyntor yn 12 rôl. Roedd ni'n bwysig i ddweud ei wneud i ddydd yn 63 per cent yn april. yn April. The morning, she described this as nothing short of daylight robbery. Does the First Minister think that an increase like this for a small local firm is acceptable? First Minister. Of course, 2017 is a business rates revaluation year. All commercial premises have their property value reassessed by the independent assessor in such a year. The Scottish Government has no locus to intervene in that process. Asruth Davidson will be aware that assessors published draft revaluations online before the end of the year. Those are subject to change when revaluation notices are posted out in March. Of course, and this is a crucial point, all rate payers will have until 30 September this year to appeal their revaluation if they think it is wrong. That is the process of revaluation that is under way. All that said, this Government recognises the importance of having a fair and competitive business rates regime. That is why Derek Mackay announced in the budget that our plans to lift 100,000 small businesses across this country out of business rates altogether. Clearly, I do not know if the business that Ruth Davidson has cited will benefit from the small business bonus, but 100,000 businesses across our country will pay no rates at all. That is the importance that we attach to seeing small businesses the engine of growth in our economy. Ruth Davidson absolutely nothing in there for the business that I raised, for Bev's business and for her 12 employees. Bev's firm is not alone, First Minister. We spoke yesterday to another engineering firm called Score Group, which is based in Peterhead. It is a fantastic firm. It runs the largest private apprenticeship programme anywhere in the country. It is now discovered that it will have to pay an extra £120,000 come April and fears that it will have to turn apprentices away as a result. Their MD Conrad Ritchie told us yesterday that we have some of the highest rates here and that this increase will price many businesses out of the markets that they compete in locally, nationally or worldwide. The chamber of commerce says that this will drive firms that have managed to stay afloat into insolvency or, at best, lead to further job losses. That is the reality. What action will the First Minister consider to help them out? I think that if Ruth Davidson had listened to my first answer, she would have already heard what I had to say. I would stress again—this is important—all of the businesses that Ruth Davidson cites today do fantastic work in our country to help us to grow the economy. This Government is on the side of business, the length and breadth of this country. The process that Ruth Davidson cites is a revaluation. It is being carried out by independent assessors. The kind of increases that Ruth Davidson talks about are tied to increases in the rateable value of premises. I have outlined already the process. Draft valuations have been published. Final valuations will be published later this year, but all businesses have until September to submit appeals if they think that their valuation is wrong. Ruth Davidson asks what we are doing to support small businesses that employ people and contribute to the economic success of our country. As I said, the small business bonus, which goes way beyond anything in any other part of the UK, is lifting 100,000 small businesses out of business rates altogether. Ruth Davidson may also be interested in this. In the financial year 2017-18, the financial year that is about to start, more than half of all rateable properties in Scotland will pay nothing at all in rates due to the small business bonus and the range of other business rates reliefs that are in place. Of course, I understand concerns that businesses will have arising out of revaluation. That is why I am stressing the independent nature of that process and the ability of businesses to appeal. However, this Government has ensured that we have a competitive—probably the most competitive—small business rates regime anywhere in the UK, because that is the importance that we attach to small businesses. In a double whammy, both precision oil and score have been hit by the doubling of the business supplement that Her Government instituted overnight. However, those stories come as we learn this week that the growth in Scotland is now a third of what it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Liz Cameron from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce says this today, and I would like to quote her in full. Scottish Government actions must be aimed squarely at increasing this rate of growth and utilising the powers at its disposal to support businesses, giving them the edge over businesses in other parts of the UK and enabling them to grow. The question is simply this. Does the First Minister really believe that setting higher taxes, putting higher burdens on employers like score and precision oil, helps to do that? Just to repeat the facts again for Ruth Davidson, 100,000 small business premises across this country have been taken out of business rates altogether. On the large business supplement, the threshold for that increased so that fewer businesses will be subject to the large business supplement. Of course, as Ruth Davidson presumably is aware, the wider review of business rates that is being led by Ken Barkley and is under way to make sure that we continue to have a competitive and fair business rates regime, that is the kind of action that Liz Cameron is right to call for from the Scottish Government making sure that we support our businesses. Earlier on in her questions, Ruth Davidson mentioned apprenticeships. Let me just remind Ruth Davidson that it is a Conservative Government that is imposing the apprenticeship levy on businesses above a certain size, the length and breadth of this country. That is not the Scottish Government. Perhaps Ruth Davidson would want—well, Ruth Davidson is shouting at me from a sedentary position—how are we spending that? Let me remind Ruth Davidson that that is not new money, because what we get from that is that the UK Government has taken away in other ways, but all of that money has been spent on supporting training skills and apprenticeships across this country. We will continue to support our businesses, but let me also say this, Presiding Officer. The last thing that our businesses need right now, whether they are in Scotland or in other parts of the UK, is to be ripped out of the world's biggest single market. That is the future that they face because of a Conservative Government's obsession with immigration, rather than putting the interests of this economy first. We will continue to provide fair support through the business rates scheme to our businesses, but we will also continue to argue that our businesses should continue to be free to trade within the European single market. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Whenever she is under pressure, she runs to Brexit, but the truth of the fact is this. Precision oil did not raise Brexit today. It is raising the increase right now of its rates bill. Scoregroup did not write to me about Europe. They wanted to talk about this Government's failure to support them. The Chamber of Commerce has said specifically that, if we are drawn into tunnel vision on Europe, we will miss the chance to transform Scotland's attractiveness as a place to do business. That is what the First Minister should be focusing on. The facts are these. Unemployment in Scotland is up, employment is down. While confidence for small firms in other parts of the UK is going up, it is falling through the floor. We have a finance secretary who is hidden from companies who say that rates are pushing them to the wall. We have a Government that taxes people and firms more here than anywhere else in the UK. Again this week, they have threatening further instability with their own referendum. This time another one on independence. This Government is about to present the most important budget since devolution, deciding on the taxes that Scots pay. The question is this. Does the First Minister stick to her current plan of making Scotland the most highly taxed part of the UK, driving out businesses and jobs? Or will she change courts? Will she give the score group? Will she give thousands of people like them the backing that they need to succeed? Those are the questions to focus on. How is she going to act? Let me just point out a few facts to Ruth Davidson. Firstly, the Lloydsbank report business in Britain 3 January showing business confidence increasing markedly in Scotland and more so than in the rest of the UK. Let's look at employment in the tourist sector up by 11 per cent in Scotland compared to just 4 per cent in the rest of the UK. This morning the Scottish Retail Consortium showing retail sales increasing. The latest Bank of Scotland PMI signalling that Scotland's private sector output and employment returned to growth in December. Unemployment down over the year. GDP per head up 2.2 per cent in Scotland since before the recession, much lower than that. I think that 1.5 per cent in the rest of the UK. I will continue to do everything that this Government can to support our business community. Let's also just remind Ruth Davidson of some other facts that I know are not very welcome for her. Let's look at this ridiculous claim about Scotland being the highest tax part of the UK. If you are a taxpayer in Scotland, you do not pay tuition fees for your younger children to go to university. If your elderly parent is in care, you do not pay personal care. You have a healthcare system free at the point of use. Taxpayers in Scotland get a far better deal than taxpayers in the rest of the UK. Finally, on Brexit. I am determined to save Scotland from Brexit. It is not just the case that the Tories are running towards Brexit. They want to drag Scotland kicking and screaming over Brexit cliff edge. I am determined that they are not going to get away with it. 2. Kezia Dugdale Can I ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the week? Still engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. Presiding Officer, our NHS is on the verge of a system breakdown, the stark words of the chairman of the British Medical Association in Scotland. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Glasgow, where new figures show that more than one in four patients are waiting longer than four hours in A and E at the Queen Elizabeth. Last week, pregnant women were turned away. This week, the daily record told the harrowing tale of Karen Meickle, who had to travel 300 miles a day to see her sick child, Alex, because there were no beds in Glasgow. Does the First Minister agree with Dr Peter Benney that Scotland's NHS is facing a system breakdown? As I have readily said in the past, of course our NHS is working under pressure. The pressures that come from the changing demographics, the ageing population, mean that we need to do even more to support our national health service. That is why we are investing more in our NHS over this Parliament, £500 million more than the rate of inflation. I would remind Kezia Dugdale, as I frequently do, that the commitment from Labour was simply to increase it by inflation. The commitment from this Government is greater. That is helping to support record numbers of staff, but as I have also said before, it is not just enough to invest more and to have more members of staff working in our health service. We have also got to reform how our health service operates. That is why this Government, unlike any other Government across the UK, took the action to integrate health in social care. That is why we are transferring investment from the health service into social care services. That is why we have the best performing accident emergency departments in the whole of the UK and why we are starting to see delayed discharges going down. There is much work to do, and of course our hardworking NHS staff work under considerable pressure, but we will continue to support them in doing the fantastic job that they do. Kezia Dugdale. The First Minister can come to this chamber and attack Labour's health spending plans every week, but it does not make them true. No wonder the BMA says that it is sick of SNP spin. The problems in our NHS are not just confined to the central belt. Elaine Hanby from Nairn is a 40-year-old mother of two. She is the chairwoman of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Widows Association, and is diagnosed with a cataract two years ago. Her condition now impacts on her quality of life, and her optician referred her to Regmore hospital in Inverness for surgery. The Scottish Government target is that patients should wait no longer than 12 weeks for their first consultation. That Mrs Hanby was told not to expect a wait of 12 weeks, but a minimum wait of 12 months. What explanation can the First Minister give Mrs Hanby and other cataract patients for the shocking waiting times in NHS Highland? I will comment on an individual case. As I repeatedly say, if there are individual cases that any member wants to raise with the health secretary, they should do so. This is a serious issue. The issue of our NHS is perhaps the most serious issue that we discuss in this chamber. We want to see waiting times go even lower, but waiting times today—whether inpatient waiting times or outpatient waiting times or waiting times for accident and emergency services—are lower than they were when the Government first took office. Our responsibility is to continue to work with healthcare professionals to get those waiting times even lower than they are right now. Kezia Dugdale says, what are we doing to bring this about? I know that it is uncomfortable for Kezia Dugdale, but what I said about her spending commitment is true. Anybody who doubts it does not have to take my word for it. They only have to go and read Kezia Dugdale's manifesto from the election last year. Our commitment is to greater investment in the NHS than any other party promised in that election. The commitment that was in our manifesto, which we are already in the process of implementation, is to create new elective treatment centres around the country, expanding capacity at the Golden Jubilee for operations like cataracts and to create more elective treatment centres across the country so that we build capacity for those kinds of operations and, in the process, take pressure off our emergency services. That is all part of the reform that is going with our record investment in the NHS. As I always do, I recognise each and every day the pressure that NHS staff work under, but this Government is committed to working with them to make sure that they continue to deliver excellent services all over the country. There was little comfort in that for Mrs Hanby. Labour MSPs are dealing with cases just like this, from Caithness to Paisley, from Dumbarton to Aberdeen. Do we have to bring each and every individual case to Parliament for something to happen? Right at the start of the First Minister's answer, she said that if people have individual complaints, take them to the health secretary. That is exactly what Mrs Hanby wrote to Shona Robison. I have got a copy of the response that she received last week. In it, the Government admits that a 12-month wait is totally unacceptable, but her response is to give her a guide on how to travel to Europe for treatment. If a 300-mile round-trip can be described as system breakdown and a 12-month wait is totally unacceptable, how would the First Minister describe a 3,000-mile round-trip to Europe for treatment? Our commitment—not just for the patient that Kezia Dugdale cites, but our commitment to every patient across the country is to provide treatment—the best quality treatment—as quickly as possible in every part of the country. That is what we are focused on and dedicated to delivering in partnership with our NHS staff each and every day. I know that there is much work to be done. The nature of the NHS means that there will always be more work to be done, but I say again that waiting times—outpatient and inpatient emergency waiting times—are lower today than they were when the Government took office. That is because of our increased investment, our increased numbers of staff. We are committed to further increasing investment, but we are also crucially carrying out the reforms in our NHS to make sure that the NHS can cope with the pressures on it. That is our commitment, and we will continue to take forward that commitment day in and day out. Last week, the decision was taken by NHS Tayside to temporarily close the Mulberry unit, which is a mental health inpatient facility at Stracathro hospital in my constituency. That decision was taken on safety grounds because of a lack of junior psychiatric doctors to cover the three sites that are within Tayside. The closure will, of course, have a big impact on patients, their families, carers and staff living in Angus. I would like to ask the First Minister what will be done to mitigate the impact of the closure. What steps are being taken to encourage doctors into psychiatry? Will the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport meet me and service users in my constituency to discuss their serious concerns? Patient safety is the absolute priority. It is right that the board listens to the advice of its clinicians to ensure that all patients across Tayside continue to receive a safe service. The board has assured the Scottish Government that this is a temporary measure, and we will provide every support to the board and the local health and social care partnerships as they continue to work with their partners to develop a sustainable model for the longer term. Through our national workforce plan, we are working with boards to identify further steps that can be taken to fill training in disciplines that have been harder to recruit to in recent years. NHS Tayside has already approved an attraction and recruitment strategy designed to support their workforce plan, including for psychiatry. The health secretary will be happy to keep the member and any member interested in this issue fully up-to-date. I bring the First Minister's attention to the announcement made yesterday about the closure of the Airdrie Savings Bank after 182 years of trading. The closure has been forced by the level of regulation that makes it very difficult, indeed, impossible for a small community bank like the Airdrie Savings Bank to survive in today's world. As a result of that, 70 people will lose their jobs. I have an assurance from the First Minister that the Scottish Government and all its agencies will do everything that it possibly can. First of all, to ensure that those 70 people who are facing forced redundancy will get maximum help in finding alternative employment. Secondly, the Airdrie Savings Bank will be assisted as appropriate by Scottish Enterprise and other agencies to ensure an orderly run-down, including making productive use of the very fine premises that it has in Airdrie and in other parts of Lanarkshire. Yes, I am happy to give Alex Neil those assurances. We were all sad, I am sure, to hear the news from Airdrie Savings Bank yesterday. The reality is that it is no longer able to compete in a very, very changed banking world. It does not have the scale to accommodate that change. Therefore, the board has made the difficult but, I think, responsible decision to wind down now in a controlled and orderly manner, while customer deposits are absolutely safe and protected and, of course, without the need for any public sector bail-out. I think that this does reflect the bank's prudent, careful approach to banking, the approach that has served the local community well over many years and will be so sadly missed. I know that this will be an extremely difficult time for those affected, obviously, for customers of the bank but perhaps more particularly for those employees of the bank and their families as well. I can absolutely confirm that, through our PACE initiative, we will provide support for any employees who are facing redundancy through providing skills development and employability support. I understand that the TSB will also share local vacancies with staff. I think that it is important to stress here that public intervention, had it even been possible, would not have changed the decision that was made by the board. That is a sad decision but I think that it is one that most people understand and our focus now must be in supporting the community that is served by the bank and those who work for it. As the First Minister may be aware, there has been an on-going discussion about the future of 30 long-term care beds at St Margaret of Scotland hospice in Clydebank in my constituency. Yesterday, at a special full meeting of the Westin Bartshire Council, a motion was passed in the name of the former provost, Dennis Agnew, regarding the hospice. The hospice is concerned that proposals from the integration joint board to use beds as social care beds may raise questions on the charitable status and, more importantly, the ethos of the hospice. I believe that an amicable solution is entirely possible. To this end, I request a meeting with the health secretary to explore if the Scottish Government can play a role in supporting a resolution between the IJIB and the hospice in this very important issue. First Minister, I know how valuable and valuable the services that St Margaret's hospice provides are to those who benefit from them. When I was health secretary, I had a very close interaction with St Margaret's hospice and indeed helped to allay some of the concerns that they had back in those times. The Westin Bartshire health and social care partnership has said, as I understand it, that there is nothing in the arrangements that would undermine the charitable status of the hospice. However, it is clear from what I have already heard and clear from what Gil Paterson has said in the chamber that there are still concerns felt by the hospice. It is important that we try to address those concerns. Gil Paterson has asked specifically for a meeting with the health secretary. The health secretary will be happy to meet with Gil Paterson to discuss how the integrated joint board and the hospice can find an amicable solution, but most importantly, they can find a solution that will allow St Margaret's hospice to continue to provide the excellent care that it does for people in its surrounding communities. Can I ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet? This week, we heard a statement from the Prime Minister, which was confused, contradictory and dangerous. The Scottish Conservatives may now be merrily trotting along behind the Brexit cheerleaders, but it seems only five minutes ago that they were all for protecting our place in the single market. We have heard from the Prime Minister empty words about considering Scotland's position, but from everything else she says, it seems that she has already ruled out doing anything about it. I want to hear reassurances from the First Minister that there will be no delay to the legislation to keep open the option for the people of Scotland to decide for themselves whether they want to stay on the Brexit bus as it heads over that cliff. We also know that there will be deeply damaging economic impacts from ripping Scotland and the UK, not just out of Europe, but out of the single market. I have never believed that economic growth should come at the expense of social justice or sustainability, but it now seems that the UK Government wants to ignore all three because of its relentless hostility to immigration and immigrants. What assessment has the Scottish Government carried out not only of the direct economic impact on Scotland on jobs, incomes and inflation, but since the Scottish budget is now partly based on economic performance, what assessment has been made of the impact on public finances if we lose our place in the single market? The Scottish Government continues to make those assessments, but we have also seen some independent assessments of the impact of a hard Brexit of 80,000 jobs and £2,000 in terms of real wages. Those are real impacts for people the length and breadth of the country. Patrick Harvie is absolutely right. The Scottish Government, the Scottish people, did not choose to be in this position. Scotland did not vote for the path that was set out by the Prime Minister on Tuesday, and even more importantly it is against our interests as a country. It puts jobs, it puts wages, it puts living standards, it puts investment on the line and I think that it threatens to fundamentally change the kind of country that we are and not for the better. The Scottish Government has put forward proposals to protect Scotland's interests. Those proposals were described just last night by Lord John Kerr, a former very senior UK diplomat as impressive, serious and substantive. The UK Government thus far has not considered those proposals with the seriousness that they merit, and I think that that is exposing top of a partnership of equals within the UK as nothing more than empty rhetoric. The joint ministerial committee in sub-committee form is meeting today. There will be a plenary session at the end of the month. The Scottish Government will continue to engage and continue to seek to further compromise, but, being no doubt, the time is fast running out for the UK Government to convince us that they care one jot about Scotland's interests. If they do not, Scotland does face a choice. Do we go down the damaging path that is set out by Theresa May with all the impacts that we know that will have and in the knowledge that our voice does not matter within the UK, or do we decide to take our future into our own hands and take control of the future of our country into our own hands? The difference between me and, I believe, Patrick Harvie and others in this chamber is that I believe that that should be a decision for the Scottish people. Patrick Harvie. The First Minister is clearly right about the profound change that is threatened, but I do not yet hear an assessment of the impact on Scottish public finances for which the Scottish Government is responsible. That impact will happen before Brexit. It is already happening. Eight months ago, we all stood for election to this Parliament. Each with our manifesto commitments, the Greens promised to be bold and use the Scottish Parliament's new powers to protect services and the investment that the country needs. The SNP said that it wanted to offer an alternative to Tory austerity. It is a rare year in which circumstances change so dramatically. The Brexit vote itself, a change of UK Government and now the threat to cut us off from the single market. Given those impacts, is it not now abundantly clear that the Government's economic policies written nearly a year ago and based largely around a status quo position on income tax cannot be treated as if written in stone? Surely the case is now stronger than ever to use our tax powers fairly, protecting people on low and middle incomes, but ensuring that words like progressive come to mean something and that services that every community in the country depends on are protected? We have put forward budget proposals, including tax proposals, that are fair, reasonable and progressive. We are in a budget process, and as Patrick Harvie knows, the finance secretary continues to discuss with him and with other parties across the chamber the content of those budget proposals, and those discussions will continue over the next few weeks. I agree with Patrick Harvie about the impact of the decisions being taken by the Tory Government at Westminster on our economy, on jobs and also on our public finances. Of course, we need to respond and we will continue to respond just as we have responded to welfare changes by setting up the welfare fund by making sure that we mitigate the bedroom tax, taking action here to mitigate the worst impacts of wrong-headed decisions being taken at Westminster. We will continue to do that, but sooner or later, there also comes a more fundamental choice. Do we want to continue as a Parliament and as a country to be in the position of always having to mitigate the impact of decisions that are out of our hands and taken by a Tory Government at Westminster that a majority in this country do not vote for, or do we want to take control of the future of our own country into our own hands? That is the choice that is looming for the people of Scotland. A couple of further supplementaries. Clare Baker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister will be aware of the landmark decision this week by the Court of Session to award damages in a rape case, the first in a civil court. This week has also seen the publication of Criminal Proceeding Scotland confirming that only 12 per cent of police-reported rapes and attempted rape proceed to court, where the conviction rate is then very low. Rape crisis Scotland are advising that we will see more and more rape complainers turn to the civil justice system, but rape is a heinous crime and should always result in a criminal charge. What are the implications for the justice system if victims now feel that the only justice they can get for these criminal acts is through the civil court system? That absolutely should not be the message. Many of the decisions that Clare Baker is talking about—I know that she understands this—are decisions for the independent prosecution services and, of course, for courts. However, I do not think that anybody can be in any doubt about the determination of this Government to ensure that there is a really tough approach for anybody who commits sexual crimes or domestic violence. In terms of the statistics published this week, we see convictions for sexual crimes and domestic abuse remaining high, with the number of convictions for sexual crimes at an all-time high. Of course, all of us take sexual crimes very seriously, and that is why it is good to see more people convicted of sexual offences and average sentences for rape and attempted rape increasing 8 per cent since last year. However, we all know that there is much more work to be done here. I think that it is one of those issues in which I hope that there is a lot of consensus. We will shortly, and it is not on the particular point of rape that Clare Baker raises, but on domestic violence we will shortly introduce new legislation around domestic violence. All of us have a duty to make sure that there is a system in place where victims feel they can come forward, and then when they come forward, those guilty can be brought to account and given appropriate sentences. Tavish Scott Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last night, Parliament voted to keep the Board of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Will the First Minister confirm to Parliament right now that that is indeed now of what will happen? The First Minister Of course, we will reflect very carefully on the vote that Parliament took last night, as we always do. Whatever the disagreements around the particular proposals here, I hope that there will be a lot of agreement around our objectives. We are talking about the economy earlier on. What we recognise is that all of our individual economic development agencies do a fantastic job, but we want to make sure that they are greater than the sum of their parts and that we are all working towards that goal of supporting Scotland's economy. That is the genesis of the proposals in the first phase of the review that we are talking about here. In terms of HIE, let us be very clear that, even in terms of the proposals as they are at this stage, they would see HIE retaining its chief executive base in Inverness, retaining control over all staffing levels, continuing to operate from its headquarters in Inverness, so that is the commitment to the Highlands. The review, of course, is now in its second phase, and as part of the on-going consideration, the debate and the vote in Parliament yesterday, of course, will be fully taken into account. Murdo Fraser This week, the widely respected economic think tank, the Fraser of Allander Institute, confirmed that, contrary to all the SNP claims about Tory cuts and Westminster austerity, the total Scottish Government budget is up in real terms 0.4 per cent over 2010. They go on to say that the way in which the Scottish Government presents its budget is flawed, and I quote, the selective data it presents often appears designed to support their arguments rather than help inform debate. Will the First Minister therefore take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of herself and her finance secretary for all the disgraceful spin that they have put on their budget figures, and will she undertake to deliver a budget process that is fit for purpose? The First Minister I was really hoping that Murdo Fraser would get up and ask about this today, because it is a spectacular own goal on his behalf. Let me quote the Fraser of Allander institute from the very blog that he cites here. It says, in terms of discretionary spending and the amount that the Government has to spend on day-to-day public services, such as schools and hospitals—they do not like to hear this—I am going to repeat it, Presiding Officer. In terms of discretionary spending and the amount that the Government has to spend on day-to-day public services such as schools and hospitals, the budget has declined by around 5 per cent in real terms since 2010-11. It also makes clear that if we were to include all the things in the calculation that Murdo Fraser says should be included to get to his measly 0.4 per cent, it would have to include money that, quote, is not real money that can be spent on goods and services. I know that the Tories frequently live in fantasy land, but I am not sure how they think that we can fund the health service or the education system with money that is not real and cannot be spent on goods and services. In terms of the money that the Government has to spend on services across our country, to quote the Fraser of Allander, it has declined by 5 per cent in real terms as a result of decisions taken by the Conservative Government in Westminster. To ask the First Minister what procedures are in place to ensure that the necessary treatment and care in maternity wards is provided at peak times. The arrival of a baby for any family is not only a time of joy but also clearly a time of stress and worry. Our aim is that our NHS provides the services that expectant mothers need to ensure that both they and their babies get the best care possible. That is why we will soon publish our national review of maternity and neonatal care. However, on the rare occasions—and there are rare occasions—that maternity units have to divert care, we are very clear that boards have contingencies in place to ensure that the safety of mothers and babies will maintain equality of care at all times. Stuart McMillan I thank the First Minister for that reply. Does the First Minister agree with me that the larger hospitals and community maternity services are working together in a collaborative way to ensure that safe services are of real benefit and are far preferable to the marketised health system? The First Minister I think that there is an important point to be made here. One of the benefits of having an integrated healthcare system is that hospitals and different health boards in certain circumstances can support each other. This question, I am sure, has arisen because of the circumstances in Glasgow at the end of last week at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital, where admissions were diverted for a short period of time due to an unusual combination of a high number of admissions and a number of women developing complications. Three women were diverted to other units and a further two had planned procedures deferred for a few hours. However, it is because of our integrated healthcare system that contingency plans were then activated and care could be provided safely for these women at other hospitals. Those are very rare occasions, but it is vital that those arrangements are in place and that they work well. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that appropriate resources are in place to support teachers of children with additional support in each. We are very clear that all children and young people must get the support that they need to reach their full learning potential. The additional support for learning act places duties on education authorities to identify and provide for the additional support needs of their pupils. While the Scottish Government has published statutory guidance to support education authorities in fulfilling those duties, it is for education authorities themselves to ensure that they have the appropriate resources in place to fulfil those duties. Additional needs workers are essential to the Scottish Government's policy of getting it right for every child. However, a survey published this week by Unison Scotland shows that staff working in this sort of needs are under enormous pressure, are exhausted, feel undervalued and stressed and lacking in training and support. Would the First Minister accept that, after a decade of SNP management, this report is clear evidence that this Government is simply failing front-line staff? No, I do not think that that is a fair characterisation of the position. I recognise the pressure and the stress associated by definition with the job of teachers who support children with additional needs. As the member knows, he takes a very close interest in these matters. As he knows, there has been a fundamental change in how children with additional support needs are catered for in the education system since 2004, when the vast majority of pupils are now in mainstream education. The other point to stress is that while teachers, specifically for pupils with additional support needs, are vitally important in our system, it is the job of all teachers to make sure that all pupils get the care and support that they need. That is why the Government is putting such an emphasis on supporting schools with the additional resources going through the attainment fund directly to schools. We will continue to work with local authorities and teachers to make sure that the support is there when and where it is needed. Since 2010, almost 500 additional support needs teachers have been cut. The First Minister knows that to really close the attainment gap, we must support young people with additional support needs. Will the Government use the tax powers that it now has and amend its budget proposals to prevent local authorities from being forced to make cuts, many of which will fall on education and result in yet fewer additional support needs teachers in our schools? Of course, as a key part of the budget, £120 million will go direct to headteachers in schools for headteachers to determine how to invest that money to raise attainment and close the attainment gap. If headteachers want to use that money for additional support, that will be one of the options available to them. That is part of our determination to get resources, not just into the education system generally, but to direct to schools and headteachers so that they can have the biggest impact. I would hope that people across the chamber would support that. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on the comment by the chair of BMA Scotland that the NHS is stretched pretty much to breaking point. Our NHS and care staff do a fantastic job in the face of increased demand, and they have my thanks for the work that they do. For our NHS to provide the services our people need long into the future, we must deliver the twin approach of investment and reform. That is why our health and care delivery plan sets out a range of actions to ensure that we have sustainable services, including bringing forward a national health and social care workforce plan in the spring of this year to ensure that our NHS continues to have the right number and the right skills mix for the future. That, of course, is backed up by our commitment to increase NHS investment by £500 million more than inflation by the end of this Parliament. I just want to quote what the chair of the BMA Scotland said, Dr Peter Benny. We are just fed up with a mantra that says from the Government that we have more doctors than ever before. The question is, do we have enough doctors? Do we have enough nurses? Do we have enough staff outside the health service to provide the care that people need, and at present we don't? The majority of staff in the health service are working way beyond what they are actually supposed to be doing just to keep things running. Eventually that leads to personal breakdown, and eventually it leads to system breakdown. The impression that the Government tries to give is that things are okay just now, but they are not. Who is telling the truth? Nicola Sturgeon or Dr Peter Benny? We work closely with the BMA, with the RCN, with all staff organisations and with staff the length and breadth of the country. That is why we have set out a very clear direction of travel, building on the progress that has already been made in our national health service over the past 10 years. We are continuing to increase staff numbers, but we are also making sure that we have the right mix of skills. If, for example, you consider many of the concerns about the pressure on GPs in primary care, much of that will be addressed by building up the multidisciplinary teams in primary care. That is why the health and social care workforce plan that will be published in the spring is so important. However, it is also why it is so fundamentally important that we continue to back all of those plans with investment. I say again, and I know that Labour does not like it, that our commitment to investment is much stronger than the commitment that it made. It is simply a fact that, if Labour had won the election last May—unlikely though that might seem—the NHS today would have less funding than it does, and that would be the case for the duration of this Parliament. So investment and reform, working with the health service, will continue to be how we take those improvements forward. That concludes First Minister's questions. We are now going to move on to members' business in the name of Bob Doris. We will take a few seconds to change seats.