 Rwy'n gl manual rwy'n meddwl, gweithiol y cyfnod fhoblau cyepher o conquered yr am macaronyns hitw, oes umbrae cy nutrition payahol y byd i yn baratori i ddeolifio ar gyfer y dir Behadol a Le пром Stickley. Dydd defnyd concernataeth y cyfnod o'n gyfrannu y mae rhywbeth wedi wneud o gweithasol i gychwyn diemach producing I ychydig habeas y cyerdulaeth. Dyma i chi'n gael archif y slygfyrdog oeselneiddo ar hyn i ddwy gael eu môr yn ygaf sang hyn wedi'i gael ei thwyr i gael gafodau. Dyna i chi'n gael eu gael ei slygu, chi'n gael ei ddwy gael eich teimlo, i gael eu ei ddwy gael eich teimlo i gael ei veith. Mae eich hefyd yn fawr bod ein bod yn weldrwyll ac yn weldrwyll直接aeth i gael eich hefyd ddiwedd y gael ei hefyd i gael ei sefydliadau i chi'n gael ei hefyd i gael eu gael ei sefydliadig. As I would say is that, as we prepare for those winter months, it is encouraging to know that, as of now, out accident and emergency units are the best performing anywhere in the UK. I thank the First Minister for that reply, but she will know that the system is in trouble. If you take the situation with temporary staff, we were told by medics this summer that hospitals were having to turn to locums more and more to cover shifts. Felly, we asked every health board in Scotland to say how much this was costing. The figure is £248 million. That is a quarter of a billion pounds spent last year alone on locum doctors and nurses. That figure is rocketing. It's up by £41 million in just one year. That's all because our hospitals don't have the staff needed to cover the rotas. Does the First Minister think that this is in any way satisfactory? First Minister. Health boards will make use of agency staff where that is required to deliver high-quality care for patients. We are very clear with health boards that they should minimise the use of agency staff. Of course, we have worked in past years to increase the use of bank NHS staff instead of agency staff, but what we are focused on is making sure that we have working in our NHS record numbers of full-time permanent staff. I mentioned to Ruth Davidson in my last answer the increase that we have seen in full-time equivalent staff since the SNP has been in government up by more than 11,000 full-time equivalents in that period. That is one of the reasons why demand is rising but not withstanding that rising demand. We see waiting times today that are much shorter than they were when we took office. As I said previously, we are seeing our accident and emergency departments perform much better than any other part of the UK, and that has been the case consistently for a considerable period of time. There will always be challenges in our national health service. I would be the first to concede that point, but it is because of the resources that we are putting into the national health service, the support that we give to our health boards and the extra numbers of staff that we are seeing patient satisfaction with our health service at record levels. Ruth Davidson The First Minister will admit it, but that is in part due to the failure by the SNP Government to manage the NHS properly. Four years ago, as health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon cut training places for nurses and midwives. At the time, she called it and I quote, a sensible way forward. The nurses warned that the cutting numbers and again I quote, risk there not being enough professionally qualified nurses graduating to meet the demand for health services in the future and this cut will be bad for patient care. The nurses were right and she was wrong. So let me ask her, will the First Minister accept personal responsibility for the problems that her decisions have created? The number of qualified nurses and midwives working in our NHS today is up by more than 5 per cent since this Government took office. Yes, I am happy to accept personal responsibility for that increase in the number of nurses working in our national health service. Just for completeness, we are seeing the number of doctors up 25 per cent, the number of emergency medicine consultants up 184 per cent, geriatric medicine consultants up by 38 per cent, pediatric consultants up by 84 per cent. So there are more people working in our NHS today. Ruth Davidson has mentioned agency nurses. When we took office, there were 728 whole-time equivalent agency nurses working in the NHS. In 2015-16, that was down to 276, a reduction of 61.9 per cent. So yes, there are challenges in our national health service. That is because of the increasing demand coming from an ageing population. That is why we are pledged to record funding for our health service. In the recent Scottish election, it was the SNP that pledged the biggest increase in health funding of any party standing. We will increase the health budget by £500 million more than the rate of inflation, but we will also reform our health service. We are transforming primary care, investing more in social care and in community care, and of course expanding elective treatment capacity as well. So investment and reform will ensure that we continue to deliver good results in our health service and continue to see good patient satisfaction as well. So now it is all the health boards fall that they have to spend a quarter of a billion pounds on locums because they cannot get regular staff. It is always someone else's fault with this First Minister, but here is the charge sheet this week. This week alone, we have had a rural affairs secretary apologising again for the mess that they have made of farm payments. We have had an education secretary desperate to salvage named persons but who will not even speak to the people who dare to criticise him. Now we see an NHS that has become so stretched that we are shelling out a quarter of a billion pounds a year on costly locum cover. The First Minister is on the slide because instead of rolling up her sleeves, she is tearing up her promise not to hold a second referendum. So enough of the distractions when she is finally going to get a grip of this failing Government. Well, of course, the reason Ruth Davidson wants to talk about independence is as a small screen for the almighty mess that her party has created over the European Union. But let me go back to the national health service. I see that Ruth Davidson was quite keen to get off the subject of the national health service after my last answer. I am not sure what it is about a 61.9 per cent reduction in the use of agency nurses under this Government that Ruth Davidson did not quite grasp in my last answer. I am not sure what it was about an increase in all staff in the health service, a 5 per cent increase in the number of qualified nurses and mid-wise working in the health service. It is those kinds of investments delivering the results that we are seeing for patients in our health service that is resulting in record patient satisfaction records. I recognise that there is more work to do, but I think that patients would probably prefer this Government to continue to build on the success of our health service than to have the Tory Government in London who, of course, had managed to force junior doctors out on strike. To ask the First Minister when she will next meet Sam H. The Minister for Mental Health met Billy Watson, the chief executive of Sam H yesterday, to discuss our plans for our new mental health strategy and to hear about Sam H's plans and services. Today is where it pink day, and the First Minister and I will leave this chamber and don pink wigs and sunglasses together to highlight the toll that cancer continues to take on families across Scotland. However, today's daily record highlights the reality of cancer treatment under this Government. Anne McLean Chang is a mother of two and a nurse with 20 years service. She has secondary breast cancer and is very, very seriously ill. Anne wrote to the First Minister pleading for help because she has had to raise £90,000 from strangers to pay for her cancer treatment. I will say that again, Presiding Officer. In 2016, a woman with breast cancer has to crowdfund her own cancer care. That cannot be right. Anne finishes her heartbreaking letter by saying, I do not know where to turn next. I am turning to the First Minister now. What specific steps will the First Minister take to help Anne to get the treatment that she needs? I thank Kezia Dugdale for raising the issue. My heart goes out to Mrs McLean Chang. I have indeed received her letter. The drug in question is not generally approved for use on the national health service. I understand that that is also the case in England. We have asked the company that manufactures this drug to bring forward a new application at a fair price so that it can hopefully be generally approved. In the meantime, patients can seek to access drugs not generally approved through the individual patient treatment request system. I understand from Mrs McLean Chang's letter that, in this case, such a request was refused. However, I can advise the chamber that, this morning, following further discussions with her clinician, NHS Grampain has agreed to fund this drug for Mrs McLean Chang. I understand that she has been informed of that this morning. I hope that now we can all wish her well in the future. Presiding Officer, there is no doubt that that is wonderful news, and it will come as great comfort to Miss Anne McLean Chang, her family and our wider friendship network. However, it should not have taken the front page of the daily record for that to have happened. If I can refer the First Minister back to Anne McLean's letter to the First Minister in that letter, she says, I am not the only patient who has had to battle this unfair analogical system. She says, for me and for them, I would like to meet the First Minister to find a way to fix that mess. Labour recently set out five clear proposals for reforming the system of access to medicines and submitted it to the Government's own review. That included a call for greater transparency in decision making, the ability to negotiate on price, an end to the postcode lottery, the introduction of an interim accepted period and closer working with other parts of the United Kingdom. Will the First Minister commit to looking at Labour's proposals and to respond to them in detail? I would assume that Kezia Dugdale knows that the review being undertaken by Dr Brian Montgomery is under way and has not reported yet, and proposals, whether they come from the Labour Party or from any other quarter, will be considered by Dr Montgomery as part of that review. There is a very serious issue here, and I am slightly disappointed that Kezia Dugdale is choosing to politicise what is an extremely difficult issue. We have systems in place to make these decisions, very difficult decisions, as fair and as transparent as possible. In the last few years, we have seen significant improvements to those systems. For example, the changes that we have already introduced have seen a tenfold increase in the numbers of medicines being accessed through that individual patient treatment request system. Dr Brian Montgomery's review will bring forward proposals to improve that system even further. I hope that everybody would agree that it is absolutely vital that we have those systems in place, because that is how we deliver fairness for patients in an age when new drugs are coming on the market all the time. It is also how we deliver fairness for taxpayers. If we do not have robust systems in place, then, effectively, we give drug companies a licence to charge whatever they want for the drugs that they bring to market. Those are very difficult decisions, but we must have the right systems in place to make those decisions. I hope that everybody across the chamber, no matter the sympathy that we all feel for every patient in a situation like this, would agree with me that it would be entirely wrong for politicians to start to substitute their judgment for the judgment of the people that are trusted to make those decisions, having receipt of all of the information. We will continue to work to make sure that we have a fair and transparent system in place so that more and more people can get access to the drugs that they need and want. The only person that politicised this issue was the First Minister right there on then. The truth of the matter is that Ann MacLean Chang had to find the courage and the strength to tell her story on the front page of a national newspaper for your Government to act. Think of all the other people around the country who are waiting for that help, and we know that she is not alone. The system has to be reformed so that in future cancer patients do not have to hold bake sales to find the money that they need for the cancer treatment that they need. So can I ask the First Minister again when the Government's review is published, can she assure the chamber that cases like Ann's will never happen again? No, I cannot and I will not give an assurance that no patient will ever again find that they cannot access a drug, that they think in all sincerity they should, because in any system that has to assess drugs, there will inevitably be hard decisions that are difficult for all of us where drugs are not accessible for a particular patient. This is not a case of me and my Government intervening. This is a case of the system operating to get a patient the drug that I agree she should be accessing. Now, I go back to the point here. This is about making sure that we have robust systems in place. It would be entirely wrong—and I hope that no politician across this chamber is seriously arguing that we should have a system based on whether or not politicians decide to intervene in individual cases. What we have to do is get a system in place that is robust and takes these decisions fairly. We have made improvements, we have vastly increased access to medicines because of the improvements that we have already made and we have got a review under way that will report. If there are recommendations in that review for further improvements, we will not hesitate to make those further improvements. I have a constituency question from Oliver Mundell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the First Minister if the Scottish Government condones Police Scotland's decision to push ahead with plans to close eight police stations in Dumfries and Galloway. More importantly, whether she can give any guarantees that she will intervene to save those stations and protect rural police stations right across Scotland. Of course, this is a consultation that will take place, and it is on-going. I am sure that Police Scotland would be very happy to meet the member to discuss his local concerns. That is absolutely the right and proper way to go about it. We will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. Matters of importance to people of Scotland. When I questioned the First Minister in March last year about problems in Police Scotland control rooms, she said, where, for any reason, service falls short, we will ensure that action is taken to rectify that. Why hasn't she done that? We will take action to rectify any failures where they are brought to our attention. Michael Matheson has made statements in this Parliament reflecting on the changes that we are making in lessons that are being learned from Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary reports. That will continue to be the approach that we have taken. If there are issues, Willie Rennie wants to raise either here in the chamber or directly with me or with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, then he, of course, is perfectly entitled to do that. I am very surprised that she does not know about that. Today, we have seen figures that 78,000 calls to the police were dropped. That is calls to the national 101 police number. That is an appalling figure. Callum Steele knew about it, he said from the police federation that it is simply unforgivable and that there are significant challenges in many parts of the service. Sickness rates are high, morale is low, the I6 IT system has been abandoned. We have just heard about police stations being shut in Dumfries and Galloway. Now we have discovered that 78,000 calls to the police were dropped. Will the First Minister not look again at the damage that she is doing to the people and to the services that we all rely on? I am sure that Willie Rennie now that he has told me what particular issue he wants to raise will also know that Police Scotland has said that it is entirely misleading and inaccurate to suggest that in excess of 77,000 non-emergency calls are unanswered by Police Scotland. He will also be aware that police call handlers respond to over 2.5 million 101 calls in around half a million emergency calls every year. Police Scotland reports that the average waiting time for a non-emergency 101 call is 12 seconds. We will always work with the police to improve service levels, just as we work with our other public services to make sure that the quality of service to the public is high and improving. I remind Willie Rennie of course that this is the Government that has protected 1,000 extra police officers on the street, which is part of the reason—not the whole reason—but part of the reason why crime is at a 41-year low across this country. Yesterday, the Scottish Government announced that it was not accepting in full the recommendations from the local government boundary commission for Scotland for next year's council elections. The reason we have boundary commissions is that they are independent of political parties, so rejecting their recommendations in five council areas, whatever your view of those boundaries leaves a nasty stench in the air. This unprecedented decision was taken by Joe Fitzpatrick, whose constituency is in a council area that he has decided not to alter. Can the First Minister explain the decision? What can she say to convince Parliament that Mr Fitzpatrick should not earn the nickname Jerry Mandarin Joe? I am not sure if the member is aware of what the Tory Government in Westminster is doing around boundaries right at the present time. He should perhaps have checked it out before asking his question. We have listened carefully to the concerns of local communities before taking those decisions. The decisions deliver the commitment that we made to protect local communities by taking forward changes only where communities have been adequately respected. The decision is not to implement some of the changes that have cross-party support, including, I have to say, from every member of Dundee City Council. Opposition Spokespeople, who are too quick to attack our decisions, seem unaware that their own parties lobbied locally for the changes not to go ahead. Not only is the member unaware of what his Westminster colleagues are doing, but he seems blissfully unaware of what his colleagues locally are doing and saying as well. The First Minister may remember that, in February this year, I raised with her the impact of the UK Government's planned reductions to housing benefits for vulnerable people who say in supported and women's age refuge accommodation, highlighting the worry and distress caused by those plans. Therefore, if the First Minister, like me, welcomes the news this morning that the UK Government is abandoning those proposals. Yes, I am extremely relieved at this U-turn from the UK Government. I think that it is ridiculous that there has been so much worry and distress caused to people while the UK Government has dithered over making this decision, and I would want to take this opportunity to commend the work of Scottish women's age and others who have campaigned on the issue. The announcement today offers welcome assurance that funding for the sector will be maintained at current levels and that refugees are no longer at risk of closure as a result of this proposal. I think that we should all welcome that, but I think that we should all regret that this issue was ever raised in the first place. Supplementary from Daniel Johnson. Last week, I held a GP summit for local GPs from Edinburgh Southern and health board officials. It revealed that half of the capital's surgeries could soon be refusing new patients, something that is already true for South Edinburgh. Will the First Minister or her health secretary arrange to meet with me, local GPs and NHS Lothian to look at the steps that could be taken to, in their words, about this deepening crisis? I would be happy to ask the health secretary to meet with the member. As the member will be aware, we are investing to increase primary care capacity. For example, we have increased the numbers of posts for GP trainees that have been advertised. As I said in the chamber last week, already at this stage in this recruitment round, we are ahead of where we were last year at the end of the recruitment round. There is also a range of investments that have been made to improve recruitment and retention of GPs. We are helping GPs to deal with the workload that they face through new community link workers, for example pharmacists in GP practices and new paramedics. There is a strong programme of work that has been taken forward by the health secretary, working with GPs. Of course, we will have a new contract in place from next year to deal with the demands on our GPs who do such a wonderful job for all of us. I am sure that the health secretary will be delighted to meet with the member to discuss that in more detail. Linda Fabiani To ask the First Minister for her reaction to the announcement by the UK Home Office that they plan to close the Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre next year. And whether she, along with many, many other concerned people right across the country, will renew calls upon the UK Government for more humane treatment of asylum seekers based in Scotland? First Minister. I welcome the announcement that Dungavel is to close. I and many members across this chamber have campaigned for the closure of Dungavel for many, many years, so that is a positive development. I have to say that I have significant concerns about the alternatives to Dungavel that the UK Government announced last week, and we want to engage with the UK Government to see if we can satisfy our concerns on that. What I think all of us would want to see is a system that replaces Dungavel that is more humane than it, not one that is less humane than it. I think that the UK Government should think less about building walls to keep vulnerable people out and more about how we collectively support the most vulnerable people in our world and give them the support that they so badly need. Question number four, Angus MacDonald. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will seek to make land ownership transparent. First Minister. We are committed to improving the transparency of land ownership. Work by registers of Scotland to complete the land register is under way, with all public land being registered by 2019 and all land by 2024. In addition, the consultation on our proposals for a register of controlling interest in those who own land was published on 11 September, and we will help to inform the regulations that we bring forward next year. Those regulations will help communities, landowners, tenants and the wider public to know and understand more about decision making and land in Scotland. Angus MacDonald. I thank the First Minister for her reply. Does the First Minister agree that this is a highly technical and complex area and that improving transparency of ownership is no easy task? There is no doubt that there are powerful individuals who would like to see us fail, despite the clearly stated will of this Parliament. In light of that, does the First Minister also welcome, as I do, that the relevant sections of our Land Reform Act received cross-party support in this chamber? First Minister. I do agree that this is a highly complex issue and the consultation that I mentioned a moment ago will inform the detailed work that we need to do to develop robust and workable proposals. Yes, despite Tory opposition to the Land Reform Act, our amendments lodged at stage 3 of the bill were supported by all parties in this chamber, and this is very much an area where I think there is considerable consensus across the chamber. I hope that that will continue as we take the next steps in shaping our regulations, regulations that will help to further improve the transparency of land ownership in Scotland. Edward Mountain. I refer members to my register of interest, where I have openly and honestly declared my land and I have no fear in doing so. I wonder if the First Minister would care to accept an invitation from me to walk with me in the Highlands. We could then look and talk about the real land issues which revolve around effective and sustainable as well as productive management, rather than worrying excessively about who owns what. I would also like to refer people to Edward Mountain's register of interest. I think that it may explain rather a lot. While I would normally take up almost anybody's offer of a walk in the Highlands, I think that if I can use the usual terminology, I think that due to considerable diary pressures I may just have to decline for the moment. David Stewart. Does the First Minister share my view that the holy grail of land reform must be an open and transparent land register? Does the First Minister agree with my analysis that that means no front companies, no shoddy shell PLCs and no multinational tax havens registered in Panama? Yes, I agree with the sentiment behind that question, which is why we are putting so much emphasis on transparency. I refer the member to my initial answer when I talked about the work to complete the land register and also the regulations that will introduce a register of controlling interests. Of course, one of the reasons why we want to do that is to reduce the scope for the kind of revelations that we saw exposed in the Panama paper scandal, for example. We will do as much as we can to ensure that our system of land ownership in Scotland and the details of land ownership in Scotland are as transparent as possible. I would say to the member that some of the changes that he may like to see here are reserved to the Westminster Government, so I hope that he will join with us in seeking the powers that we need to do everything that he would like to see us do. Douglas Ross. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the faculty of advocates reported concerns that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is under resourced. First Minister. The finance secretary will continue to discuss the budget for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service with the Lord Advocate as the spending review process develops. The Scottish Government has provided the service with extra funding of £4.7 million over the last two years to allow it to investigate and prosecute three exceptionally complex cases. In addition, we are also providing just under £3 million over three years for the prosecution of domestic abuse cases as part of the extra £20 million across the justice sector to tackle abuse against women and girls. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service continues to meet all of its operational targets and, of course, the Lord Advocate was previously the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates himself. I know that he is proud to lead the service and will continue the work to make sure that it delivers for all of the people of Scotland in terms of the quality of service that it provides. Douglas Ross. First Minister for that response. Brian McConachy, QC, a former senior prosecutor at the Crown Office, has claimed that the Scottish Government cuts to the justice system, has left the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service under resourced, saying, if you are going to continually do that, then what you end up with is a substandard justice system. The First Minister rightly mentioned the additional funding for domestic abuse and as members prepare to debate the Scottish Government's proposals to introduce a domestic abuse law this afternoon. Can the First Minister provide assurances that the Crown Office is sufficiently resourced to handle the increasing demands placed on it to ensure that the victims really receive the justice that they deserve? The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service budget hasn't been cut. The budget has remained static over the past five years with additional funding provided for the three complex cases that I spoke about and also to improve the time taken to prosecute domestic abuse. We will continue to discuss with the Lord Advocate principally the finance secretary will do that to make sure that the Crown Office does have the resources it needs to prosecute crime and to meet the targets that I said earlier on and will repeat now, it continues to meet. It is an extremely high-performing public service, as the public have a right to expect it to be and we will continue to make sure that it has the resources to continue to provide that high quality of service. Question 6, Claudia Beamish. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's responses to the UK climate committee's reducing emissions in Scotland 2016 progress report. We welcome the new progress report from the Committee on Climate Change. Roseanna Cunningham and I were delighted to meet Lord Debin, the chair of the committee shortly after its launch on Tuesday. In the report, the committee recognises that Scotland continues to lead the UK in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It highlighted the excellent progress that we have made to date, including having exceeded the level of our 2020 target six years early. We are considering the committee's report and will respond in due course. Our new climate change plan, which will be published in draft this winter, will set out our priorities and commitments for delivering emissions reductions under the 2009 act. We will also work with the committee to prepare a new climate change bill with proposals to be outlined in early 2017. Claudia Beamish. I thank the First Minister for that answer. As she will know, many of the technologies needed as we shift towards a low-carbon future are in their infancy or indeed do not yet exist. What assessment has the Scottish Government done of the state of research funding and commercialisation of support for new technologies in the heaviest greenhouse gas emitting sectors—transport, energy, housing and agriculture—and the synergies between those? And what reassurances can she give today to the chamber that essential research funding will be available from her Government? Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, has just met research providers. We undertake assessments across all of these areas. I will ask Roseanna Cunningham to write to the member with more detail about the state of assessment in terms of the new technologies and the research that we require to do. The member makes two points that I think merit underlining. First is the importance of new and emerging technologies. On Monday of this week, I was up in NiG, launching the first phase of the Maidgen tidal stream power project, a project that, when it is fully installed, will have the capacity to power the equivalent of almost 200,000 homes across Scotland. I mention that today because, of course, the UK Government has just given the go-ahead to Hinkley's point—a decision that I think is wrong, but the point that I am making is that, right now, the UK Government continues to dither on a contract for difference that would allow Maidgen to move into its second phase. I hope that they take a decision on that and that it is a positive decision very quickly. The second point that the member makes, which I think should be underlined, is the importance of us now upping our action in areas such as transport, housing and agriculture. I think that everybody, even our critics, would accept that we have seen considerable success—there is still work to do when it comes to electricity generation in terms of reducing emissions—but we must now go into areas that will be much harder—agriculture, transport, the energy sector more generally. However, if we are as serious as we are about not just meeting and continuing to meet our current targets but meeting the more ambitious targets that we intend to set in the new act, that is what we need to do. I hope that, when we do put forward the proposals to achieve that, we will have support from right across the chamber. First Minister, the UK climate change committee this week highlighted once again that emissions from transport are holding us back and that there are zero actions in your Government's climate action plan to address that. Is it not time for some big, bold ideas? Does the First Minister agree with me that, in order to help to cut road casualties, protect the vulnerable and make our communities healthier, low-carbon places to live, we should be saying 20s plenty on all of Scotland's residential roads? We would encourage local authorities to consider that where that is appropriate. I think that it is what I have just said that we have had considerable success. It has not been easy success to achieve, but in the area of climate change and reducing emissions, the further we raise our ambition, the tougher it gets to take the action, and the more controversial some of the actions become. That is where consensus and support around the chamber is going to be so important. There is no doubt that transport, partly because it impacts directly on the lives of many people, falls into that much more controversial area. However, if we are going to continue to meet our ambitious targets and see them stretched even further, then we are going to have to do that. The final comment that I would make is that the member who has real credibility on that issue—I do not argue that for a second—the climate change report this week laudied Scotland as a leader. It laudied us for having met our target ahead of schedule. Yes, it said that we had much more to do, but I do think that we should concentrate on the positive as well as pressure the Government and rightly challenge the Government to go further. I would hope that we would get some positive endorsement from the green members of the chamber for the progress, often with their help that we have managed to make so far. Maurice Golden Thank you, Presiding Officer. The report makes clear that emissions from heavy good vehicles account for 17 per cent of Scotland's transport emissions, but the Scottish Government has achieved no overall change in emissions in that sector between 2009 and 2014. Will the First Minister consider promoting urban consolidation centres, logistical hubs that reduce freight journeys in order to reduce emissions from the transport sector and link that to a transport sector-specific climate change target? I would be very happy, as I am sure she will be, to ask the cabinet secretary for the environment to meet with the member to discuss that and other suggestions. As we continue to make sure that we have the plans in place to meet the current target but also to extend that target, we are going to have to consider proposals in the nature of the one that the member has just put forward to make sure that we are able to do that. The more cross-party consensus that we can build on across the chamber, the more chance we have of being successful. Roseanna Cunningham will be happy to meet to talk about that suggestion in more depth. Question 7, Kate Forbes. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will achieve 100 per cent broadband roll-out across Scotland. As I announced in the programme for government, we intend to provide 100 per cent broadband coverage to domestic and commercial premises across Scotland. To do that, we will launch procurement activity in 2017. As a first step, we have already published a prior information. We did that on the 9 of September, which launches a formal supplier engagement exercise to help inform our delivery plan. That activity builds on the £400 million of investment to deliver broadband coverage to at least 95 per cent of premises by the end of next year. As a result of our investment, approximately 640,000 premises in Scotland had access to fibre broadband at the end of August this year. Kate Forbes. I thank the First Minister for her reply. In my rural constituency of Skylachaber and Badnoch, there are still significant gaps in mobile reception. How does the Scottish Government intend to enhance mobile coverage where the UK Government has failed to do so? That is an important question for everybody living in a rural part of Scotland. Mobile connectivity is largely a reserved matter, but notwithstanding that, we have been determined to take action where we can to improve mobile coverage across the country. Our mobile action plan shows very clearly our commitment to work with the industry to improve mobile coverage across Scotland, particularly in rural areas. The fact that we are the only part of the UK to have such a plan in place demonstrates clearly the approach that we are taking, as does our willingness to work with the industry and providers to address the need to infill mobile coverage in remote areas. That is a key priority for us as we continue to take forward our work on broadband coverage. The cabinet secretary for the rural economy and connectivity would be happy to meet Kate Forbes to discuss our progress in more detail. Jamie Greene Does the First Minister accept that current access to broadband is far from adequate for many across Scotland? Will she heed Audit Scotland's advice that recommends that we should publish more information on the performance of the programme, in particular data on speed and coverage? We have already increased access to next generation broadband. As I said, we are on track to deliver our commitment to 95 per cent coverage by the end of next year. The commitment that we have given to 100 per cent coverage by the end of this Parliament is one that I do not believe has been given yet by other Governments across the UK. We are serious about ensuring that this commitment is there for everybody, not just for some, as I said last week. It is true that these days, broadband coverage and digital connectivity are as fundamental to how you live your life or run a business as electricity or running water is how important it is. Obviously, there is information published about the performance of the project. I am happy to consider whether there is more information that we can publish about the progress of that commitment. However, the commitment that we have already made is being met, and we are on track to meet our commitment for the end of next year, and we are absolutely determined that we will meet our 100 per cent commitment by the end of this Parliament. Can I ask the First Minister why the commitment in the SNP manifesto just five months ago of 100 per cent broadband by 2020 has already slipped to 2021? The commitment is by the end of the Parliament. The commitment is as the commitment has always been, and it is a commitment that I have just reiterated on more than one occasion here today, as I did in the programme for government last week. By the end of this Parliament, we intend that there will be next generation broadband access for 100 per cent of commercial and residential premises across the country. I cannot remember if that was a commitment in the Labour Party manifesto, but I know that it was a commitment in the SNP manifesto, and I am determined that we are going to deliver it. That concludes First Minister's questions. We will now move to members' business in the name of Jeremy Balfour, and I will allow a few moments just to change seats.