 I would be happy if he wanted to write to me with those and I would be able to give him a fuller answer on the specific patient cases. Thank you. We now move to First Minister's questions. Question number one, Kezia Dugdale. To ask the First Minister what engagement she has planned for the rest of the day. Later today I will have discussions to take forward our plans to host at the invitation of the United Nations, an initiative to help prepare Syrian women for peace building. On that note, I am sure that we are all mindful that British service personnel many of them based at Lossymouth are now in action over Syria. Notwithstanding my opposition to this action, my thoughts and my good wishes are very much with them at this time. However, I remain deeply troubled by the decision of the UK Government to take the country into conflict with no strategy, no exit plan and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Scotland's MPs. Kezia Dugdale. Like the First Minister, I did not support extending airstrikes into Syria. However, with British forces now involved, we must come together to support the brave men and women in our armed forces, and I am sure that the First Minister will join with me in extending the support of this Parliament to them. There is no significance in the papers this week. It is climate change, and this week the First Minister announced that she would be attending the climate summit in Paris. I am sure that, like me, she looked at David Cameron's appearance there with a mixture of bemusement and anger. The Prime Minister told delegates that the earth was in peril and that there would be no excuses for this generation of politicians if they do not act. However, that is the Prime Minister who undermined the renewable industry by slashing subsidies, the Prime Minister who has promoted fracking, and just last week the Tory Government broke a manifesto promise by cancelling their £1 billion carbon capture in storage competition. So does the First Minister agree with me that this posturing from the Prime Minister in Paris was sheer hypocrisy? Here is something that we might not hear too often in the chamber, Presiding Officer. Yes, I do agree with that 100 per cent. As world leaders meet in Paris over the course of this week and indeed next week, to hopefully come to an agreement that will help the world to better tackle climate change, I think that it is incumbent on all of us, and that includes the Scottish Government, to make sure that our policies and our practices, what we do ourselves at home, is commensurate with the rhetoric that we use about climate change. I will be very proud to represent Scotland on Monday in Paris, where I will take the message from Scotland about what we are doing and use that, I hope, as a motivation and a spark to others to follow suit. I absolutely deplore some of the decisions that are being taken by the UK Government. Decisions undermine our efforts to increase generation from renewable energy, and the decision that I commented on in this chamber last week to cancel the carbon capture competition, which, as well as being, I think, damaging to our efforts to reduce emissions and tackle climate change, is also deeply damaging to our reputation among the business community. We had two FTSE 100 companies entering this competition in good faith, devoting time, effort and resource to it, and I think that it is nothing short of a disgrace that has been cancelled at the last minute. I am glad that the First Minister agrees with me, but she is going to Paris, in her own words, to show that our world-leading targets set the benchmark that the international community needs to match. This Parliament unanimously set those targets in 2009, so when the First Minister tells the international community that she has the most ambitious targets in the world, will she remember to tell them that she has not hit those targets once? I encourage Kezia Dugdale to study in some detail all the facts and information around that, in particular. I hope that we can continue to come together as one on this important global issue. However, when we set the target for 2013 back in 2010, the reduction in carbon that we anticipated at that time was 31.7 per cent. That was the target that we anticipated that we would have to reduce emissions by. In actual fact, what we have achieved is 38.4 per cent from the 1990 baseline. The only reason why that means that we still have not met the target is because of the increases to that baseline. Fixed annual targets were missed because of improvements to the way the data is calculated, which added 10.6 megatons to the 1990 baseline. That is equivalent to almost all the emissions from waste management, public sector buildings and the residential sector in 2013. We have exceeded the reduction that we anticipated, but because of the increase in the baseline that means that we have not met the target. That is factual information that I am sharing with the chamber. If we are serious about the very welcome rhetoric that Kezia Dugdale has just used, then we should do two things. We should celebrate the progress that we are making in Scotland and use that to encourage others to make similar progress, but we should also not rest on our laurels. We should be determined to continue to make progress. It might be appropriate to end with a quote from Professor Jim Ski, who is the UK Committee on Climate Change, a comment that he made back in the summer of this year. If you divide where Scotland is now versus where it was in 1990, it is among the world leaders. That is unambiguous. There is more spin in that answer than your average winter buy. The fact is that the First Minister's Government has never hit a climate change target, and on Monday we saw one reason why. The report on public sector climate change duties was published, and yet again, the Scottish Government missed its own target to cut emissions from its own activities. No wonder that the report shows that the Government's use of vehicles, taxis and private cars all increased in the past year. If the Government cannot hit its targets, how can it lecture the rest of its world on its duty to do the same? I really think that Labour should raise its game if it wants to raise issues. What I have just narrated to the chamber is factual information about the performance of Scotland. When it is being praised by the UK Committee on Climate Change, when we have people like Desmond Tutu and the head of the UN climate body saying in a letter to the environment minister in August of this year that Scotland's ambition to create a strong and healthy renewable sector and a low-carbon economy is a shining example of the measures that can be taken to diversify energy supplies, attain energy security and attract investments, when people across the world are saying that about Scotland, why is it that Scottish Labour are the only ones still trying to talk down the achievements of our country? As I will go to Paris on behalf of the people of this country, I will encourage others to follow the lead that is recognised as being set by Scotland. Here at home, I will also make sure that we continue to challenge ourselves. The progress that I have outlined to the chamber shows that we have exceeded the reduction in emissions that we set back in 2010, but because we know that the whole world, not just Scotland, needs to go further, we will continue to raise our sights and our ambitions. Raising our sights and raising our ambitions for Scotland is what characterises this Government, and it puts us in stark contrast to the Opposition. Let's see if the First Minister is raising her game on climate change, because she is about to get control over a key environmental tax, air passenger duty, and what is her plan for this green tax? She wants to abolish it, and the Government's own figures show that abolishing APD will increase emissions by 50,000 tonnes a year. To put that in context, the First Minister could fly to Paris and back every day for 200 years and do less damage to the environment. The First Minister heads to Paris next week, head of a Government that has missed its own targets four years in a row, is unable to control their own emissions and plans to abolish environmental taxes. When it comes to the hypocrisy on climate change, isn't the First Minister giving the Prime Minister a run for his money? First Minister? First, I won't be flying to Paris on Sunday, I'll be taking the train to Paris on Sunday. Secondly, Kezia Dugdale's arguments around APD as it relates to the environment might have more force if the revenue from APD was actually hypothecated to spend on reducing emissions. It's not. It's simply a revenue-raising measure for the UK Government. Of course, the reason why and some of us were last night at the annual dinner of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce speaking to a wide range of business people there who are focused on trying to internationalise the Scottish economy, grow the export base of the Scottish economy. I suspect there was fairly considerable consensus that reducing APD is an important measure to create jobs, improve our transport links and help our business community to grow their exports. We will continue to make sure that, as a Government, we are pursuing policies that help to promote equality and social justice, promote our environment and make sure that we have a vibrant growing economy. It's that kind of balanced approach to governing this country that means that the SNP is standing here and Labour is sitting over there. I would like to add my gratitude to the brave service personnel who will be involved in the necessary military action in Syria. As too often before their selfless efforts abroad do all ensure and help to keep us living safely at home. So can I ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland? First Minister, I have no plans in the near future. Thank you. The SNP's policy of free university education is failing poorer students. A new report by universities UK today shows that poorer students in Scotland are only half as likely to go to university than those across the rest of the UK and that the gap is getting wider. Five weeks ago, I raised this issue with the First Minister, suggesting that a graduate contribution could help to restore bursary funding that has been gutted by the SNP Government. Those are bursaries that support poor students who otherwise couldn't get a foot through the door. When the SNP Government came to office, bursary support stood at £104 million per year. Can she tell me what the figure will be next year? We will continue to make sure that we have a funding support package for our students that supports students, particularly those from the poorest backgrounds, to go to college and to university. I cannot believe that Ruth Davidson has come to this chamber today and raised the issue of bursaries with this Government. Does she not remember that George Osborne, of the Conservative Party, which the last time I looked was the same party that Ruth Davidson is a member of, stood up in the House of Commons last week to deliver his autumn spending statement and announced that the UK Government is going to abolish all bursary support for students from April next year, not to reduce it, not to take it back a little bit but abolish it completely, abolish it for student nurses as well as for students in general. I will take no lectures whatsoever when it comes to student support from the Conservative Party or from Ruth Davidson. Let me just give Ruth Davidson, just as I did Kezia Dugdale, a few facts that might get in the way of her rhetoric but should do well to listen to them. The number of people from our most deprived communities achieving a university qualification has increased under this Government by 24 per cent. The number of 18-year-olds from our most deprived areas applying to university is up by 50 per cent. Young people from our most deprived areas are more likely now to participate in higher education by the age of 30 than they were in 2006. Although the UCAS figures have to be treated with caution because they underestimate Scotland's performance, they nevertheless show that Scotland is reducing the attainment gap at university faster than any other part of the UK. Those are the facts. What will certainly not help us to make any further progress, Presiding Officer, is if we were to go down the road of the Tories by taking away bursaries from all students. Ruth Davidson, I asked for a number. It was a number that the First Minister did not want to give. The thing is that she did not want to give the number five weeks ago either. After that session, we put in a freedom of information request to the student award agency of Scotland, who tells us that bursary funding will be around £60 million in 2016, which is a drop of £40 million under this Government. The SNP says that there are no tuition fee policy is designed to help poorer students gain access. This week, a report from experts at Edinburgh University said that, despite political rhetoric surrounding free higher education in Scotland, the system has failed to produce more egalitarian outcomes compared to the rest of the UK. The Scottish Government's policy is the added where, and I will quote exactly again, reproducing existing social inequalities. The SNP has slashed college places. It has cut bursaries and the policy that is supposed to counter all of this does not work. I know that the First Minister will want to dismiss me like she has done before, but those experts are telling her that a contribution after graduation can be used to help poorer students into universities in the first place. Will she dismiss them too? I am not going to dismiss Ruth Davidson, but I am going to criticise, as I believe people across the country will do so, her shame-faced hypocrisy on this particular issue. Whatever the SNP Government is spending on student bursaries is going to be more than the zero that the Conservatives are spending on student bursaries when they scrap them for all students next year. We will continue to make sure that we give our students a decent funding package. Average support for students in Scotland is now the highest that it has ever been—5,610 pounds per student—up nearly 5 per cent since the year before. We remain committed to bursaries for the poorer students, unlike the Conservatives, who are scrapping them from next year. Our minimum income guarantee for undergraduate students from the poorest households living at home is the highest package of support anywhere in the UK. That is the reality. That is part of the reason why we are starting to make the progress that I cited in my earlier answer in increasing the numbers from our deprived communities going to university. We will continue to do that work, and we will continue to do that work, while also protecting a principle that I hold dear, which is free access to education based on your ability to learn, not on your ability to pay. Let me just end by quoting what the NUS had to say about the report that Ruth Davidson cited. The idea that abolishing free education, a clear recognition of the public and social good provided by higher education, would improve fair access seems bizarre. It is bizarre that the NUS are right, and the Tories, not for the first time, are downright wrong. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister will be aware that the structural safety checks on the 4th Road bridge are causing major disruptions to commuters from my constituency. Can I ask the First Minister what discussions have there been with Transport Scotland and Scotland to mitigate those disruptions? The Transport Scotland resilience room has been operational since the defect on the southbound carriageway was identified. Officials are working with our roads operator, Amy, to identify the problem, and traffic management measures are now in place. The decision to close the southbound carriageway was not taken lightly, because we understand the disruption to commuters that that will cause. However, it was taken for the right reasons, for safety reasons. Measures to reopen it or reopen it partially will be taken as soon as it is safe to do so. I hope that that assurance is welcome in the chamber. Finally, I take the opportunity to thank the travelling public for the patients that they are showing at this time. To ask the First Minister what part Scotland can play in the international mitigation of climate change. The First Minister is supporting international efforts to secure an ambitious and legally binding climate treaty at the UN conference. Both I and the Environment Minister will be in Paris over the next few days to promote the action that Scotland is taking, action that has been praised as, and I quote, a shining example by the head of the UN climate body. Indeed, Scotland is now three quarters of the way to achieving our world-leading emissions reduction target. We are producing half of our electricity demand from renewables already. We have delivered our target for community and local renewables five years early, and we have met our energy consumption target seven years early. We are also benefiting from 45,000 low-carbon and environmental services jobs. I think that Scotland does offer both a message and a model for climate action that we will be proud to promote at those vital Paris talks. This week, the Herald described the record of the UK Government's particularly shameful with retrograde measures such as the ending of subsidies for onshore wind. Does the First Minister agree that climate justice must start at home and that climate justice must be a rallying point for all parties in all sections of the public to each act quickly to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions, but vitally in terms of climate justice to give home insulation and onshore wind power development the top priority? Yes, I do agree with that. At home, it is important that we take continued action, and all of us take continued action if we are to achieve our emissions reductions. That is why we have designated improving energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority. Scotland has, as I have already said, made significant progress in renewable electricity, with around half of our gross electricity consumption now coming from renewables. Of course, we share the renewable sector's concerns that the damaging and premature cuts to support for renewable energy being driven through by the UK Government will hamper future progress. When we talk about climate justice, of course, it is important to concentrate on what we do at home, but it is also important to concentrate on the contribution that we can make to climate justice around the world. That is why I am proud that Scotland is showing the way by putting people and human rights at the heart of our action on climate change. We have supported 11 projects through our climate justice fund in Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia, which help some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people, particularly women and children, to adapt to the impact of climate change, both at home and overseas. I think that Scotland should be proud of its record, and it should use that record as a way of encouraging others to do more. Question 4, Nigel Don. I ask the First Minister what the impact on Scotland will be of the recent defence review. Scotland has been disproportionately hit by previous strategic defence reviews, which resulted in the closure of bases and the creation of major capability gaps. I wrote to the Prime Minister this week seeking assurances for Scotland about the latest review. Although we welcome plans to locate nine maritime patrol aircraft at RAF Lossymouth, we are also mindful that some previous commitments have never materialised. Of course, the review creates new uncertainties for shipbuilders on the Clyde, with only eight out of the 13 type 26 frigate orders that were promised having been confirmed. Overall, the review does little to reverse the disproportionate decline in Scotland's defence footprint over more than a decade. Most indefensibly, it proposes wasting anestimated £167 billion on Trident at a time when people are being so hard hit by the Treasury's damaging austerity cuts. Nigel Don. I gather from that response that the First Minister already shares my concerns about the balance of what the UK Government is up to. Does the First Minister feel that there is any prospect at all that the UK Government might rebalance to conventional forces that might actually protect us rather than preserving this sacred cow called Trident? Of course, in this chamber, Trident is now only supported by the Conservatives and Jackie Baillie, an unholy alliance, if ever we saw one. I share the concerns that have been expressed. It is important that we see a balanced defence, the national security strategy, which accompanied the defence review set out a range of threats, all of which we should take very seriously. To not one of those threats is Trident a sensible answer. I agree that instead of investing in Trident, we should be encouraging the UK Government to make sure that we have the right conventional forces in place that are commensurate with the risks that we face as a country. Annabelle Golden. I am glad that the First Minister acknowledges the long-term future of the Lothian Marth airbase as being secured as a consequence of the strategic defence and security review. Given her opening remarks this morning, does she also welcome that the review underlines a UK Government's commitment to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence, meeting our NATO commitments, and ensuring that British forces remain some of the best equipped in the world? We have seen disproportionate cuts to our conventional defences in Scotland. While, of course, I welcome anything that secures the future of Lossy Mouth, it is also important to point out that the only reason that there has been any threat to our question mark over Lossy Mouth is due to decisions taken or proposed by the UK Government. I will continue to argue that we face, and this day, of course, is a very timely reminder of this. We face a range of threats, which is why I think that it is right that we continue to argue for conventional defence forces with the right capabilities and to oppose spending so much money on nuclear weapons that do not provide a defence to any of the threats that we face as a country. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government has requested an extension of the 45-day consultation period for Tata steel plants at DL and Creadbridge. We have discussed the length of the consultation period with both Tata and workforce representatives. The minimum statutory period is due to end tomorrow, but consultation between Tata steel and the trade unions is still on-going, and that, of course, is primarily a matter for the company and the unions. The focus of our activity remains very firmly on securing an alternative commercial operator for DL and Creadbridge. As a member of the task force, Mr Pentland will know that Tata steel has confirmed that there are currently serious parties potentially interested in the plants. That is encouraging, and we continue to do everything that we can to assist that process. I am sure that everybody across the chamber will recognise—I have said this previously—that there are no quick fixes here, and there are certainly no easy fixes. However, together with the workforce, the unions and others, we are working tirelessly, leaving no stone unturned in our efforts to keep those plants open. John Pentland. I thank the First Minister. Clearly, workers are very stressed and worried about their future. Does the First Minister agree that we have the potential to create a centre of excellence for steelmaking in Scotland? Can she reassure me that, in that quest to achieve that, leaving no stone unturned, the Scottish Government is prepared to provide support for any transitional period that is leading to a buyer taking over or public ownership that may be necessary to save the jobs at DL and Creadbridge, which I trust that the Scottish Government values as highly as it does at Creswick? The member knows how highly we value the jobs and the continuation of the steel industry in Scotland. I very much agree with him that there is a real opportunity to create a centre of excellence in the steel industry in Scotland. When I say that we will leave no stone unturned, I mean exactly that. If there is any viable option that will secure the future of those plants, the Government will explore taking that forward. As Mr Pentland will be aware, there have been suggestions made at the task force about support that could be provided in a transitional period, and the Scottish Government is exploring all of those options. I repeat what I said in my initial answer. We right now have serious parties that are expressing potential interests in the plants. It is therefore appropriate and right that we concentrate on doing everything that we can to see one of those expressions of interests turn into something real and viable. That is at the moment where the Scottish Government will continue to expend our energy. The First Minister is able to give an update on the work that is being done to possibly reduce fuel and business rate costs at the Tata plants in Motherwell and Canva slang. We have been working very intensively to create the best business environment for any new operator that might be prepared to take on the sites. As a result of work that was commissioned by the business minister, we know now that energy costs at the sites could be cut significantly and that there is potential for renewable electricity generation and sale of heat from the plants. We also continue to maintain pressure on the European Commission to accelerate state aid clearance for the energy intensive industries compensation package and to do that before Christmas. On business rates, we have also agreed with the Lanarkshire assessor that he will take into account the state of the steel industry for the next business rates revaluation, while we are also open to options for reducing the rates liability as long as those options comply with state aid rules. As well as doing everything that we can to secure a commercial operator for these plants, we will also continue to do everything that we can to reduce the running costs, which make those plants even more attractive to any commercial operator. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to reduce healthcare inequality. There has been a general improvement in many health outcomes in recent years. For example, a reduction in premature mortality for under-75s. We have a range of public health policies on tobacco, alcohol, diet, to improve health and to close the equality gap. One of the ways that the Scottish Government is tackling health inequalities is by reforming the GP contract to reduce bureaucracy and give GPs more time to devote to the complex problems that their patients can face, particularly in areas where patients face the greatest inequalities and health issues. Further changes will be made to the 2017 contract, including reviewing the Scottish allocation formula, which will ensure GP surgeries in the areas of most need receive proportionate funding to the needs in their areas. I thank the First Minister for her response. She mentioned GP funding. She should be aware that earlier this week a report from Professor Graham Watt of Glasgow University highlighted that GPs in the most deprived areas of the country received £10 less per patient than those in wealthier areas. Professor Watt has stated that we have the worst health inequalities of any country in western Europe, and that is one of the reasons behind it. In my own region, every GP practice in Cercodi is operating with a full list and cannot take on any new patients. What can the Scottish Government do more than it is currently doing to combat those inequalities? I welcome Professor Watt's findings and we will take them fully into account in delivering a new GP contract for 2017 and accompanying revised allocation formula. Interestingly, Professor Watt studied and examined data from 2011-12. I have looked at the recent data for GP payments for 2014-15 and what they show is that the most deprived practices received on average £7.65 more per patient than practices in the most affluent areas in 2014-15. I hope that that is a sign of some progress in the direction that I suspect Murdo Fraser wants us to go in. Of course, the allocation formula has been in place since 2004, and it has undergone some revisions and changes since then. However, the new GP contract, which was in the early stages of negotiation, which will take effect in 2017, gives us a good opportunity to revise that allocation formula to make sure that it is reflecting the varying needs of GP practices in different local communities. I look forward to having the support of the chamber as we seek to do that. Does the First Minister agree that over and above fundamental action to create a more equal society is necessary to support targeted action with the most vulnerable individuals and the most disadvantaged communities? Initiatives such as the Royal College of Nursing's innovative nursing at the EDGE initiative, which will be featured in a meeting of the cross-party group on mental health in committee room 2 in five minutes' time. After the advert, First Minister. I better not take too long answering that question, and I will make you late for the meeting. However, I agree with that, and I say my best wishes to the RCN in the meeting that they are having and support the work that Malcolm Trism has referred to. Generally, in terms of his question, I agree with that, and I would also refer him to the support that we show to the deep-end GP practices, which are very much about recognising the particular needs in our most deprived communities. We have to make sure that, as well as raising the health outcomes of our country, we are taking the action that will close the gap as well.