 pagan dweud. Rhyw ddımвол ond i GwRaddinescyrch Chrswetwyr, am allMAng ddiwrnod ar gyfer cym Familybannu?ancies. Rhyw dd lam dd� i Gaelen i himfaf y Government yg Gaw difícili ffrindfa o Slogan. southMiddym sut iswag.Rwyth Davidson. Maent fawr iawn i ddim y gawr d notified失chidd yn dangos gweiteb gyfo wristsóaogi peithgawr o sgrifet, ddimol consultation hefyd hyn mae g Bean72 grant o nanud treo. Cirwyddus E�ilol panelsr yng Ngweithfaol I absolutely agree that the crime of rape should be treated with the utmost seriousness and severity. Indeed, statistics show that the vast majority, the overwhelming majority of rape cases, 93 per cent of rape cases incur a custodial sentence and indeed the average length of custodial sentences for rape and attempted rape are now 17 per cent longer than they were back in the year 2006-07. I think that all of that is right and proper. Sentencing of course in individual cases is a matter for the courts and it would be wrong for me as First Minister to comment on any individual case, but in terms of community payback orders, these of course are a sentencing option available to courts. However, courts will make those judgments based on recommendations that take into account risk assessments, public protection and the background of the individual and where a non-custodial sentence is given, the court will have considered all relevant matters in that case. Individuals on community payback orders are also subject to robust and ongoing risk assessment and where appropriate that will include multi-agency public protection arrangements, but there is no doubt in my mind that the offensive rape or attempted rape should be treated with the utmost severity. Ruth Davidson I would like to thank the First Minister for that response and, while she recognises that 93 per cent of sentences regarding rape incur a custodial sentence, that leaves 7 per cent that do not. Once again this morning, we read of more evidence where that is the case, but those types of crimes are receiving a community payback order, one of this Government's key justice policies. They do include sexual assaults against children, rape and child rape. This morning, Rape Crisis Scotland said that it is difficult to see in what circumstances a CPO could ever be an appropriate sentence for rape or the rape of a young child. Surely everyone here can agree that rape crisis is right. The First Minister I have the utmost respect for the work that rape crisis does, and I absolutely agree that its views on all matters of rape and sexual offences should be listened to very seriously. I agree, and I have made that clear. Rape is one of the most heinous offences that can be committed in our society, and I believe that it is incumbent on all of us and everybody with any influence in the criminal justice system to make sure that the offensive rape is treated seriously. The simple point that I will make, and I genuinely hope that it is a point that Ruth Davidson will accept, is that, as First Minister, I do not decide on the individual sentences passed down by courts, that is rightly and properly a matter for courts. Before a court will make a decision on the appropriate sentence in any case, it will take account of a range of information and circumstances of the risk to the public, and of course the circumstances of the offender, including in many cases the age of the offender. I think that it is right in our society that it is courts the independent judiciary that decides on sentences, but, in setting policy, it is very clear to me that we need to treat rape and, indeed, other sexual offences with the seriousness that they merit. That is why I have pointed to the statistics in terms of rape cases. Custodial sentences are passed down in rape cases in a higher percentage of cases than for almost all other offences. The average length of custodial sentence is now longer. We are seeing through the criminal preceding statistics that the Crown Office is bringing more successful prosecutions for rape and attempted rape 125 convictions in 2014-15, which is up from 1989 in the year before that. Police Scotland has also improved the investigation of rape and other sexual crimes setting up the new national rape task force. I hope that nobody across the chamber would doubt in any sense the seriousness with which we all take those issues, but I equally hope that members across the chamber will accept that fundamental point of principle about criminal justice in our society, that it is not politicians who decide sentences in individual cases, it is rightly courts who do so. I would like to thank the First Minister for the response and for the manner in which we are able to discuss it, because those are sensitive issues. I know that everyone in this chamber is united in our disgust at crimes such as those. The reason that I raise it today is that concerns with CPOs have been well documented for some time. The Scottish Government says that there are sanctions open to the courts when CPOs are breached, but every year we discover that nearly a third of orders are broken with scant evidence that people are punished. We know that one in five of those CPOs are handed out without any work requirement placed on criminals who receive them. I repeat that we on this side of the chamber absolutely accept the need for community sentences, but what is the First Minister doing to address those issues of CPOs? I think that Ruth Davidson is right to raise this issue generally, and I think that she is right to raise the particular issues around non-custodial sentences. Of course, we have to monitor, on an on-going basis, the effectiveness of non-custodial sentences such as community payback orders. As I said in an earlier answer, individuals on community payback orders are subject to robust and on-going risk assessment, where a community payback order is breached. It is open to the court to introduce different sanctions, including imprisonment for breach of the payback order. That is also the case. It is, I think, very pertinent to the issue of effectiveness of those disposals, which is one of the issues that Ruth Davidson is raising. Individuals who are released from a custodial sentence of six months or less are reconvicted more than twice as often as those who are given a community payback order instead. What that tells us is that non-custodial sentences such as CPOs, when they are handed down in appropriate circumstances, are more effective than short-term prison sentences in reducing re-offending. I absolutely accept that those are issues of the utmost seriousness, and we have to look at all the evidence. I hope that all of us would agree that, where it is appropriate—and I absolutely stress where it is appropriate—keeping people out of prison—and I am not talking here about particular offences, but in general terms—where it is appropriate, keeping people out of prison and helping to rehabilitate them in the community so that they are less likely to re-offend is, in general terms, a good thing—none of that, absolutely none of that takes away from the seriousness of certain types of offences, which should always be treated with the utmost seriousness by our courts. Ruth Davidson I think that we can all agree that reducing re-offending is important, but people and the public must have confidence that the sentence is appropriate for the crime, and that does include punishment. The trouble is, I am afraid, that too often the response from ministers is simply to declare that the system is working fine and that everyone should just accept it. However, CPOs are not working fine, First Minister. There is an SMP creation and this Government's policy, but we have learned again today that they are being applied to serious crimes like rape when they should not be, up to a third of them are breached, and up to a fifth of them do not contain any punishment element at all. I believe that we now need a calm, considered fresh review by the Scottish Government on the way that CPOs are being handed out. Will the First Minister take that action, because it is so obviously needed? First Minister, again, can I say that the issue in this morning's media that is given rise to Ruth Davidson's questions, I read that and of course share the concern that many people will experience, but I would make a number of points to Ruth Davidson. Firstly, she may or may not be aware—that's not meant as any criticism—that there was an independent evaluation published in 2015 of CPOs that showed that they are viewed with a degree of confidence by most sheriffs and are seen as an improvement on previous community sentences. It is also the case that those given a CPO are less likely to re-offend and be reconvicted. Again, we have statistics that bear that out. It is also important to say that CPOs can include electronic monitoring sanctions if there is non-compliance with them. Anyone who breaches a CPO and fails to take up the opportunity that a non-custodial sentence like that presents for them will find themselves facing sanctions, and those sanctions include imprisonment. In terms of the most recent figures that we have for 2014-15, 17 per cent of CPOs were revoked due to them being breached. Again, trying to find a note of consensus here, I actually agree that, when somebody commits a crime, as well as thinking about how we rehabilitate and reduce the risk of re-offending, of course there has to be a punishment element to the sentence that is passed down. We have to, in our policy framework, get that balance right and then we have to entrust the decisions in individual cases to the independent judges and sheriffs who make those decisions. My responsibility as First Minister, and it is one that I take very seriously, is to make sure that we get the policy framework right. In seeking to do that, we will always listen to views and we will certainly always look at the evidence that tells us whether or not non-custodial sentences are being effective or not. I would hope that all members across the chamber would feed into that, but we must also accept that, having set the policy framework and set the policy objectives, we must trust the independent judiciary to make the decisions that they deem appropriate in individual cases. It would be absolutely wrong. I suspect that, in fairness, Ruth Davidson would probably be one of the first to say that it was wrong if I, as First Minister, started to pass comment on the individual sentences passed down by judges. I think that we have got the right framework in place, but that is not to say that the framework is perfect or that it cannot be improved. I want to say in all sincerity to members across this chamber that we will continue to consider and to evaluate where necessary to make changes in the interests of keeping the public safe and making sure that we are doing what we need to do to reduce re-offending. Question 2, Kezia Dugdale. To ask the First Minister when she will next meet Alzheimer's Scotland. With yesterday being World Alzheimer's Day, I want to pay tribute to the invaluable work that Alzheimer's Scotland and indeed other sector organisations do to support people with dementia and their carers in our local communities. The Minister for Mental Health will this afternoon speak at the annual National Dementia Awards. In addition, Alzheimer's Scotland's national dementia carers action network and the Scottish Dementia working group meet with the Minister for Mental Health at least twice a year. Kezia Dugdale. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Between 2010 and 2015, the Tories cut Scotland's block grant by 5 per cent. That is an economic policy that damages our public services and increases the inequality in our country. It is an economic policy that we should reject. Does the First Minister agree with me that this Parliament should act as a block to Tory cuts? First Minister. Kezia Dugdale knows that I agree with that. Kezia Dugdale also knows, because we have discussed this many times in the past, that before we have a debate in this chamber about who in Scotland bears the burden of Tory austerity, we should first unite to try to stop Tory austerity happening in the first place. Kezia Dugdale is right to point out that, according to the Fraser of Allander report, the Tories have cut Scotland's budget in the years since 2010 by 5 per cent in real terms. She will also know that that report looks to the future and says that there is a likelihood of further Tory cuts to Scotland's budget of up to £1.6 billion by the end of this Parliament. We have a new chancellor of the Exchequer who has said—I am prepared at this stage to take him at his word—that he is going to reset economic policy. I would hope that Kezia Dugdale will join those of us on those benches to say to the Tories, put an end to austerity, put an end to austerity at source and do it now. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am glad that the First Minister can agree with me that Tory cuts of 5 per cent are unacceptable. How can it be that today's Accounts Commission report shows that the SNP has cut local council funding not by 5 per cent but by 11 per cent? The SNP has not just passed on Tory cuts, but it has doubled those Tory cuts. The report tells us who is paying the price. Older people who need help to get washed are not getting it. Elderly folk who, five years ago, would have had help with their meals are not getting it. The number of elderly Scots getting any care at all has fallen by 12 per cent. What is worse is that we know that the SNP is planning more cuts to councils, and cuts to councils are cuts to care. The First Minister has the power to stop those cuts. Why won't she use it? Of course, in terms of the most recent figures that we have available in terms of the out-turn figures, social work spending has increased by 6 per cent in real terms since this Government took office. Social care spending has increased by 5 per cent in real terms since 2008-09. Both of those figures are from 2008-09 until the most recent figures that we have available. Of course, in terms of the report published by the Accounts Commission today, it is an important report, and it has lots of, I think, very important messages for all of us. It says that if we keep doing things the same way as we are doing, then there will be an additional financial burden on social care services by the end of this Parliament. Of course, that is why we have integrated health and social care, the biggest reform of health and social care services since the establishment of the national health service, making sure that we are finding better ways of delivering services, more prevention, more community-based services to reduce admissions to hospitals and care homes. It was in my party's manifesto—I do not think that it was included in Kezia Dugdale's manifesto—that we are going to invest an additional £1.3 billion over this Parliament in health and social care partnerships. The first instalment of that, of course, has been the £250 million transferred into health and social care partnerships in this financial year. We know that we face the challenge of an ageing population, and we are determined on this side of the chamber to face up to and work with local councils to address that challenge. The question that Kezia Dugdale has to answer is this. When she concedes the point, Kezia Dugdale concedes that one of the pressures—the biggest pressure on the Scottish Government budget—is cuts being imposed by a Tory Government. Even though Kezia Dugdale accepts that the Tories, if Jeremy Corbyn is re-elected in Saturday, are going to be in power for many, many, many years, she simply expects us to shrug her shoulders and accept that. I do not think that that is good enough. The First Minister tells the chamber that she has put £250 million extra into health and social care. What she forgot to tell the chamber was that she took £500 million out last year, and that is why we had to go against our budget. The truth is that the Accounts Commission report tells us that overall spending is falling, First Minister. In fact, it says that those cuts are unsustainable. The truth is that they do not have to happen. I am only asking Nicola Sturgeon to do what she has wanted to do her entire political life, make different choices from the Tories. When she writes her budget in the coming weeks, the First Minister will face a choice. She can double down with even more cuts to care, or she can back Labour's plans to use the powers of this Parliament. What is it to be, First Minister? Kezia Dugdale does not oppose Tory austerity. She wants to shift the burden of Tory austerity on to working people the length and breadth of this country. I would say to her that she put that proposition to the people of Scotland just four months ago, and she is sitting on that side of the chamber because her party came third in the Scottish Parliament election. We will continue to face up to the challenges in our social care services. That is why we have integrated health and social care, something that in all the years that Labour would empower, it has shied away from doing. It is why we are taking the difficult steps of transferring resources from acute health services into health and social care partnerships to build up the capacity of our social care services and help to develop more community services to keep our older people where appropriate out of hospital and care homes and enable them to stay in their own homes. It is why we are taking all of those actions and why we will reflect very carefully on the Accounts Commission report to inform the decisions that we continue to take. Those are the serious decisions that this Government will continue to take. I say again to Kezia Dugdale that I would ask her to reflect on the position that she and her party are in. She stands up regularly and says that the future looks to be a Tory future in terms of the Westminster Government. Yet she has the nerve to come here and lecture me about the implications of Tory cuts that her party are powerless to do anything about. The Labour Party is a complete and utter shambles and perhaps should be taking more responsibility for the Tory's ability to continue to impose cuts on Scotland. 3. Patrick Harvie Thank you to ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. Tuesday. Last week, a newspaper levelled a serious allegation against the Scottish Government. SNP pledged to sabotage cuts to benefits. For once in my life, I do hope that the Daily Mail has it right. The Scottish Greens have published detailed proposals showing how around 13,000 people a year could be protected from the benefit sanctions regime if devolved employment programmes refused to cooperate with that sanctions programme. I welcome the words that we have heard from Angela Constance. While we cannot stop the UK Government putting conditions on work-related benefits, we are not going to be giving them any information or responding to inquiries if we think that that might lead to a sanction. I welcome that, but I would like to understand the scope of it. Can the First Minister confirm if that commitment goes beyond the already announced voluntary schemes in relation to disabled people and people with long-term health conditions, or will that be the universal approach for all people participating in devolved work programmes under the Scottish Government? The First Minister Thank you, Patrick Harvie, for raising an important issue. I think that Patrick Harvie knows, and the tenor of his question suggests that he knows how serious the Scottish Government is in introducing a social security system with the limited social security powers that we will be getting that have dignity and humanity at their heart. The sanctions regime imposed by the Tories in its current form breaches those principles. I know that from the many people I see in my surgeries, and we will all see those people who have sanctions imposed on them for reasons that they should never ever face those circumstances. As we develop the detail of the system that we are putting in place, we want to make sure that we mitigate the effects of that as far as we possibly can. Do not co-operate in a scheme that is about piling human misery on human misery. As Patrick Harvie knows, we have embarked on consultations that will lead to a social security act bill in this chamber over the next year, and the fine detail of that will flow from the consultation work that we are doing. However, the principles that Angela Constance has articulated are very clear. I look forward to having the assistance and co-operation of Patrick Harvie and his colleagues, and people from across the chamber, or at least from most parts of the chamber, in helping us to put in place that system that, in its detail, lives up to the principles that we have articulated. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful for that answer. It does sound as though the First Minister has gone further than in the past. It does sound as though we are going to see employment programmes that are all voluntary and do not impose socially harmful and counterproductive sanctions on people in Scotland. Another aspect of the consultation that the First Minister referred to is around young carers and the need to have an additional allowance that respects and reflects their position in life and the work that they do. Does the First Minister also acknowledge that a great deal of the impact will be alleviated on them if we address the financial aspects and ensure that a young carer's allowance is seen in financial terms, not only in terms of benefits and kind? First Minister. Again, I agree with the thrust of Patrick Harvie's question. The point of employment programmes should be to genuinely help people into work, not to put in place a system full of tripwires that they fall over and end up being sanctioned as a result. That will be the ethos behind the devolved employment programmes that we put in place. In terms of the young carers allowance, Patrick Harvie will know that that was one of the things from the Green Party's manifesto that we have agreed to consider. We are in the process of considering how that could best work to give effective help to young carers. Indeed, I was just in the last couple of days reading an update on the early discussions that we have had around the development of that policy. We haven't come to conclusions yet on what the best scheme would be, but we will do that shortly. I look forward to another policy from this Government that is about recognising the work that carers do, in particular young carers, and the impact that their caring responsibilities have on their life and the responsibility of all of us to help them to live a full life, notwithstanding those responsibilities. Again, I look forward to the co-operation of Patrick Harvie and his colleagues as we develop that policy. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the cabinet. Matters of importance to the people of Scotland. New figures show that children in Scotland can wait two years for mental health treatment. The Scottish Government promised that it would receive treatment within 18 weeks. That promise has not been kept this year or last year. Why is the First Minister letting those children down? Again, I would say to Willie Rennie that this is a really important issue. I do not agree with that characterisation. Scotland was the first country in the world, I think, to introduce a target for access of children and adolescents to mental health treatment. We recognise that we have more work to do to make sure that all children and young people get the access to mental health services that we think they deserve. We have been increasing investment in mental health services. We have been increasing the number of clinicians working in mental health services. We have had a substantial increase in the number of psychologists working with young people with mental health issues. Of course, as I think we covered in First Minister's questions two weeks ago, we are seeing a significant rise in demand for those services. While that puts pressure on services that we have a responsibility to meet, we should welcome that increase in demand to the extent that it shows that young people are now more able to come forward, because the stigma around mental health is decreasing. Our mental health strategy, which we will publish shortly, backed by £150 million of new resources, shows the seriousness with which we take this issue. We will continue to take the steps to improve services so that all young people get access that they need and deserve. The First Minister says that the problem is that more young people are asking for help. It is not their problem, it is the Government's problem for not being ready. We saw this coming. We have warned about this. We have a plan to invest in primary care, emergency services and for young people. What was the response from the SNP Government? It was to delay spending £70 million available for mental health support because they could not get their strategy agreed on time. Will the First Minister commit to spending that £70 million on services for young people today? I think that Willie Rennie is raising an important issue, but I think that he should try to engage with it in a way that will help all of us to face up to and address that important issue. The first thing is that it is not fair of Willie Rennie. Anybody who has been watching this exchange will know that it was not fair for Willie Rennie to say that I described more young people coming forward for help as a problem. I did not. I said that that was a good thing that we should welcome. I went on to say that it was my responsibility and the responsibility of the Government to make sure that services can meet that increased demand. To be fair, that is what I said. I also set out some of the actions that we are taking. Willie Rennie talks about spending. We have set out plans to invest in additional £150 million in mental health services, £54 million to reduce waiting times, and we are going to spend £10 million to support new ways of improving mental health in primary care settings, something that, to be fair to Willie Rennie, he has repeatedly raised £15 million specifically to support better access to child and adolescent mental health services and a range of other initiatives that are all about positively recognising the increase in demand and making sure that we are taking the steps to meet that demand. I absolutely accept that it is for the Opposition parties to put pressure on the Government to scrutinise the Government to hold the Government to account, but I also would hope that, on this really vital issue, we can try to find a degree of consensus as well. I think that this is one of the most serious issues that we face as a society, not just about treating young people with mental health problems, but also about preventing mental health problems. Of course, there is a much bigger discussion that we could have about that. However, the Government is absolutely committed to the action that we have set out, and I genuinely hope that we will have the support of Willie Rennie as we implement those actions. To ask the First Minister if she agrees with me that depicting women who serve in public life as sexual predators, or, as I quote, as poor excuses for women, or refers to them with homophobic slurs, can never be excused as amusing satire but is in fact crass and deeply offensive. Yes, I do. I do not know specifically what comments Annie Wells is referring to there. If it is the incident at the weekend, then of course. Again, this is serious. I, as I hope that everybody would know, even my sternest critics would accept that I would never ever condone homophobia, and I genuinely hope that there is nobody across this chamber who would argue with that. Some of the terminology that we have heard used in satire over recent days is terminology that I would never use. It is terminology that I do not condone, and it is terminology that I can well understand that people would be offended by. I also, though, would say that it is not appropriate—I do not think that it is not reasonable to describe, for example, a lesbian woman who has been out as a lesbian for 30 years, because she personally is not offended by some of that as homophobic. Let us all unite in condemning homophobia, because that is what we are just talking about mental health, and some of the reasons for mental health problems with LGBT young people come from homophobia and homophobic bullying. Let us bring a bit of seriousness to this issue, not use it all the time. I take responsibility here, and those comments are targeted at me and my party as much as anybody else's. However, let us not use those things as often to throw things at each other as politicians. Let us instead unite as a Parliament to say that homophobia has no place in our society, and we should all challenge it at all occasions. The First Minister will be aware of the significant support for the community maternity unit at the Vale of Leven hospital, which I was pleased to visit with her in the past. Will she ensure that the health board's proposal to close the unit is designated as a major service change and therefore must be subject to sign off by Scottish ministers? As Jackie Baillie knows, the decision about whether a particular service change is deemed a major service change is one that is taken in consultation with the Scottish Health Council. Those discussions are on-going in terms of the changes that Greater Glasgow and Clyde have put forward. Of course, the health secretary will ultimately make that determination once that recommendation has come to her. The proposal that Jackie Baillie talks about, as well as some of the other service change proposals that were put forward by Greater Glasgow and Clyde, are proposals that they must be consulted upon and properly considered, with the interests of patients absolutely at their heart. Of course, where they are major service change, the ultimate decision will lie with the health secretary. Jackie Baillie talked about her visit some years ago to the community midwifery service at the Vale of Leven hospital. That was at the time, of course, when, as health secretary, I was working hard to secure and safeguard the Vale of Leven, which, at the time that I took office and this Government took office, was under serious threat from the Labour Administration that preceded us. The Vale of Leven hospital got a future because of the decisions that this Government will take, and we will always act in the interests of local health services. To ask the First Minister for her reaction to the death of a young boy outside his school in my constituency last week, and whether she thinks that traffic exclusion zones around schools should be more widely considered. First, can I say that any loss of life in Scotland's road is a terrible tragedy, but the death of a young child is especially poignant, and our thoughts are with this young boy's family and friends at this unimaginably awful time for them. It is, of course, for local authorities to decide on road safety measures around schools, and they do so in consultation with parents and local residents, and according to the specific circumstances in which schools are situated. Innovative measures such as the traffic exclusion zone recently trialled in Haddington, as I understand it, could certainly be part of those considerations. I would encourage local authorities, where it is appropriate, to consider proposals like that. I think that we would all agree that the safety of children must be paramount. To ask the First Minister what plans the Scottish Government has to honour Scotland's Paralympians. First, I am sure that everyone in the chamber and across Scotland is proud of the achievements of the 33 Scottish Paralympians, who were part of Team GB and the 17 medals that they have brought home to Scotland with them. I am certainly looking forward to welcoming home our Paralympians and Olympians reception next week at Oriam, our new national sports performance centre at Herriot-Watt University. That event will be followed by a public event at Festival Square here in Edinburgh. We are all proud of all of our Paralympic athletes, but I can perhaps make a special mention of Libby Clegg and Joe Butterfield. As well as winning their gold medals, they also set new world records, something to be doubly proud of. I thank the First Minister for that answer. I am sure that she will concur that the success of Team GB shows just how much hard work has been put in by coaches and athletes supported by their families. For Scotland to increase its medal tally from 11 in 2012 to 17 this year is truly heartening. As a strong supporter of this Ayrshire girl can, does the First Minister agree that a silver medal won by Abbey Cain of Largs, swimming the 100m backstroke, is particularly inspirational? To what extent will the new £12 million Parasports facility now being built in Largs aid Scotland's future Paralympians? I agree entirely with Kenny Gibson's comments about Abbey Cain. Abbey Cain made Team GB at the age of 13. That is an inspiration in itself. She then, of course, went on to win a silver medal in Rio, which is absolutely fantastic. I think that she has single-handedly demonstrated to a whole generation of young people and young girls in particular what they can achieve by hard work and dedication. I absolutely salute her prowess and her bravery and the sheer delight that she has given us all in the competition over the past couple of weeks. In terms of investment, we have made a direct investment of £6 million into the overall investment in Sport Scotland's national centre, Inverclyde, which will open in spring 2017. This fully inclusive facility has been designed to enable athletes to train and stay to specifically aid preparations for future games. I am sure that that is something that Kenny Gibson will welcome. Importantly, the centre will also be available to members of the local community, and therefore it will provide a valuable asset to the area to people who may never be Olympic or Paralympic athletes, but nevertheless enjoy and should be encouraged to enjoy sport. Dean Lockhart To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to reduce waiting times for young people referred to mental health services in Forth Valley and across Scotland. The continued increase in demand for mental health services for young people shows, as I have just been saying, that in the past there were far too many children who were unseen and whose need was unmet. To respond to that, we have doubled the number of psychologists working in CAMHS services. We are also investing again, as I have just said, an additional £150 million over this Parliament, and we will be publishing our new mental health strategy at the end of this year. The Minister for Mental Health has been clear with all NHS boards that any falls in performance towards our target of 90 per cent of young people being seen within 18 weeks is not good enough and that we need to improve that performance. Our £150 million investment includes almost £5 million for a mental health access improvement team, and it has already started work with NHS Forth Valley. Dean Lockhart I thank the First Minister for that response. Clearly any additional support to urgently address this concerning situation is to be welcomed. However, as has been mentioned, since the 18-week referral time target was introduced in December 2014, the number of young people in NHS Forth Valley who started treatment within this timeframe has fallen from 56 per cent to only 28 per cent, making this region one of the worst-performing in Scotland. My concern, First Minister, is that this 28 per cent is not just a number. It highlights that there are many young people who are in desperate need of support. That is the case not just in Forth Valley but across many areas of Scotland, and evidence shows that over half of all diagnosable mental health problems start before the age of 14. It is vital that young people in my region and in other areas get the help that they urgently need when they need it. Will the First Minister therefore listen to the calls from the Scottish Children's Coalition services to develop an urgent action plan for boards that need urgent support such as NHS Forth Valley? It is not just a question of more money, it is a question of more expertise being made available. Will she encourage the Minister for Mental Health to join me and meet the representatives from the health board to see how we can best address this urgent and concerning situation? The Minister for Mental Health would be, of course, happy to meet the member, and we will discuss those issues with health boards on an on-going basis. Dean Lockhart is absolutely right. It is something that I and all of us have to constantly remind ourselves of. I regularly quote statistics in this chamber that we all do, but behind every one of those statistics is a human being. That is a very timely reminder for all of us. That is why it is so important. First, not to see the increase in demand as a problem, but to see it as a sign that more young people are coming forward for help that previously they did not get, and then to recognise our responsibility to meet that demand. In terms of Forth Valley, the performance is unacceptable and that has been made clear to them. Dean Lockhart is also right to make the point that it is not just about extra investment, although it is receiving help through extra investment, but it is also about expertise, which is why I will draw his attention to the last part of my first answer to him, that we have established a mental health access improvement team, and that team has already started working with Forth Valley so that that expertise, as well as the additional investment, can be brought to bear in bringing those waiting times down in the way that we expect to see. Bruce Crawford I wonder whether the First Minister agree with me that it is probably high time that some members recognise that a huge effort has been put in on the ground to improve mental health services, particularly in Forth Valley. For instance, in Forth Valley, there has been a complete redesign of service with significant additional investment in CAMHS, leading to a big increase in activity over the past year. Can the First Minister confirm what extra investment and support has been made to help our dedicated professionals who deserve our praise to improve their service? I think that Bruce Crawford is also right that we have to remember the dedication of the people working in the front line here. They are facing increased demand, but the fact that waiting times in some areas are not as good as we would want them to be is not down to any lack of dedication or hard work on their part. That is why I come back to the point that our responsibility is to increase capacity to meet that extra demand. In terms of Forth Valley, as I have already said, it is receiving support from our new team and from Healthcare Improvement Scotland to help them to deliver on their redesign, and Bruce Crawford is right to mention that redesign. We are also investing an additional £1.3 million in Forth Valley over the next four years to support reductions in waiting times specifically and a further £725,000 over three years to support innovation in the delivery of CAMHS. That is in addition to the £1.5 million provided this year to the board to support further development in specialist CAMHS services, workforce and delivery. There are intensive efforts being made to support those at the front line to deliver those services. That will be replicated across Scotland in different ways so that we can see services that are capable of meeting the increased demand that young people are creating by coming forward because the stigma of mental health is thankfully beginning to reduce. I agree with the First Minister that progress has been made to reduce the stigma around mental health, but we have heard about the increasing waiting times and there is no escaping that. This week, the Scottish Health Survey revealed a postcode lottery with children and young people in the most deprived communities, more likely to have lower levels of good mental health. Last week, 10,000 members of the 38-degrees campaign group took the time to reply to the Government's consultation, which closed on Friday, to say that more investment is required. Does the First Minister, although an additional funding, be welcomed? Does the First Minister share concerns that I do that £150 million, which is over five years, might not be enough and what steps will be taken by the mental health minister to keep that under review? The First Minister is right in many of the points that she has made there, particularly to draw attention to the link between deprivation and mental health. That is very much in our minds as we develop the mental health strategy. She referred to a number of people who have submitted views to the strategy consultation, and those views will be taken into account. The £150 million investment is for a range of targeted improvements to increase capacity and improve waiting times. That is not just about throwing a particular sum of money, it is about dedicated targeted money to deliver specific improvements. Of course, we will keep that under review as we implement the new mental health strategy, but there is an absolute determination on the part of the mental health minister and on the part of the Government as a whole to make sure that we have services in Scotland that can meet the increased demand for mental health services. I will go back to what I said earlier, which Monica Lennon was right to hint at. It is as much about prevention as it is about treatment. We have a bigger debate—we are not alone here—a bigger debate as a society about how we improve the mental wellbeing of young people and not just treat the mental health problems of young people. I hope that that is something that this Parliament, over the life of it, can really get its teeth into. Mike Rumbles Does the First Minister agree with me that the biggest single thing that she could do to treat this issue is to have a specialist in every surgery across Scotland? That is the biggest spend-to-save initiative that she could ever make. We do agree that there needs to be more services in primary care. I indicated that in a previous answer. We are committed to more link workers working in primary care settings to improve the experience that patients have there. In principle, I agree with the sentiment of the question. I caution against anybody in an issue that is as complex as this one, in suggesting that there is one magic bullet solution. There are a whole range of things that we need to do here to improve prevention and to improve treatment and access to services. That is why the comprehensive holistic strategy that we have produced by the end of this year is so important. The point that was raised by Mike Rumbles will certainly have a part to play in that, but there are a whole range of other things that we need to do as well. That concludes First Minister's questions. We now move to members' business. I would ask members to leave the chamber quite quietly.