 We turn now to First Minister's questions. suspicious Q 1. Yesterday, the law enforcement truckäl warned this Parliament that scolds teachers on example of grades. They'll need to have lawyers on speed dial badly. With that in mind, does the First Minister have full confidence in the changes that she is making to the policy namedship Same Truth administration? Yes, I do. As Ruth Davidson is aware indeed, as the whole Parliament is aware, the bill that's currently before the Parliament is to make amendments to the previous llawer o ddigon o ddechrau yn te 아이adau Gaelio, mae ar y cyfrifoldau Gaelio a dywedderyddion i chi i gyfrifoldau o dyweddoryddion, yn cael ei ddweud ar diogelio gaelio'r de gripwyr ymarfer ac iddi dod y gyrnas般o. Mae oedd y b되iag cael ei ddweud ar gyfer o'r ddigon, ac mae'n meddwl. A gyfrifoldau yn teuluirio i gaelio erbyn gyda'i ddechrau yn dechrau, ond mae'n angen i gaelio ddechrau ar gyfer elau ffrifoldau, ac mae roedd ddefnyddio i gaelio mi and I quote, unquestionably benign and legitimate. So we will continue, of course, to listen to all views that are expressed in Parliament as this bill proceeds and where a case is made for amendments at later stages of the process that will be fully considered as Parliament would expect. Ruth Davidson It's clear that some of the people who are going to have to implement this don't share the confidence of the First Minister and we know, as she has rightly said, that the Government has had to change its plan because its first attempt was struck down by the Supreme Court. The trouble is that we are now learning that there are significant problems with the proposed remedy, which is going to put professionals in an impossible position, pushing teachers and health workers into a legal minefield and having to weigh up the complex legal arguments about whether sharing information is proportionate or not. As the Faculty of Advocates made clear yesterday, they could end up damned if they do and damned if they don't. Does the First Minister really think that it's fair to put already overburdened teachers and health workers in this position? The First Minister As every member is aware, in the stage 1 consideration of any bill, a range of different views will be expressed and the Government, as is our responsibility, listens carefully to those views and considers them as the bill proceeds through Parliament. That is the normal way in which legislation is taking forward. It is important to say a number of things. The bill provides clarity and consistency by introducing a new requirement for named person service providers to consider whether sharing information could promote, support or safeguard the wellbeing of the child or young person. The bill also provides for, on this part, is particularly important, a binding code of practice, which will ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the sharing of information. Of course, Parliament will be fully consulted on the code of practice, as it is in terms of the legislation. I appreciate that Ruth Davidson is referring to comments that have been made in the stage 1 consideration. As I say, we listen carefully to all of those comments, but it's worth looking at some of the comments that were made earlier on when the education committee made a call for evidence. The GMC Scotland, for example, we warmly welcome the proposed move away from a mandatory duty-to-share information at Royal College of General Practitioners. We welcome the amended wording of the bill, the nursing and midwivery council. We can currently see no conflict between the draft legislation proposed and our own regulatory approaches. The Law Society of Scotland, the move from a duty-to-share to a power-to-share information, is helpful. Those are just some of the comments that were made. We can all quote backwards and forwards comments about the bill. We have an established legislative process in this Parliament whereby we listen—this is the role of the committee at stage 1—listen to those comments. The committee will then publish a stage 1 report. The Government will fully consider that and we will consider whether any amendments are justified at a later stage of the bill. That is the normal process. It is the one that will be followed here. I would encourage all members to fully take part in it. Ruth Davidson I hear the First Minister's points and, in fact, I have the submissions to the committee here. The problem is that even those in favour of the scheme are warning about how it is going to be done. If you take the Royal College of Nursing, which supports in principle the scheme, it is made clear that it does not support it going ahead without the right resources in place and that it worries that the whole plan could be reduced to, and I quote, a tick box exercise. We have a scheme that has already been barred by the Supreme Court last year and now a replacement plan, which even supporters think is deeply flawed. Again, I have to ask, does the First Minister think that it looks like a success? First, if I can just correct Ruth Davidson and what she said about the Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court judgment was specifically about the information sharing provisions and did not say that the whole scheme was illegal. In fact, I just quoted a moment ago the comments of the Supreme Court in terms of the name person scheme overall. Secondly, Ruth Davidson mentioned resources. Obviously, extremely important and additional £1.2 million is being provided to support training and development relating to the changes to information sharing, just as one example of the resource issue. I come back to my central point, and I suppose that I want to make this point to any stakeholders who might be listening, as well as to Ruth Davidson and to the chamber. The reason that we have this legislative process, which involves this in-depth stage 1 consideration by a committee, is to allow stakeholders to put forward the points of view and to argue for any changes that they think are necessary. At the end of that part of the process, the Government will give that due consideration. That is the proper process. Every member in this chamber has now been a member through the legislative process on at least one or more bills. Changes are regularly made to bills, and that is the process that we require to go through. I encourage everybody, as many members will already be doing, to continue to contribute to that. At the end of that, we intend that we will have rectified the issues that are highlighted by the Supreme Court, but we also have in place a system that has as its central purpose. Let none of us ever lose sight of that, the greater protection of vulnerable children, which is one of the most important responsibilities, surely, of all of us. Ruth Davidson. I am not sure how reassured stakeholders will be by that answer. It has been clear to those benches for years that the name person scheme, as designed, simply will not work, but we have a Scottish Government that is still plowing ahead with it. After five years of debating this back and forward, here is where we are at. A second attempt at legislation, that even its supporters say is flawed, that legal experts say is confused and that teachers and health workers warn will be an enormous burden on them. In all good faith, can we not just start again with a blank sheet of paper because all of us in this chamber want to protect vulnerable children, but we need to do it within the law? First Minister. I am glad that, eventually, after all of our questions, Ruth Davidson managed to mention vulnerable children, because they are at the centre of that. What we have here—let me try to deal with this very respectfully—we have a difference of opinion in principle between the benches and the Conservatives. The Conservatives disagree with the name person scheme in principle, and I do not go along with that, but I respect their right to do so. The Supreme Court did not uphold the view of the Scottish Conservatives that the name person scheme in principle was illegal. What it did was point to what it saw as problems in flaws with the information sharing provisions. The bill is about rectifying those flaws. We are at the start of a legislative process and stakeholders make their views known, and we consider their views. That is the process that we should engage in. Of course, we can continue to debate the rights and wrongs of the scheme, but Ruth Davidson should not try to give the impression that the Supreme Court somehow said that the whole scheme was illegal because it did not do that. I think that she knows that. We will continue to proceed here to make sure that all the provisions are, as Ruth Davidson says, clearly within the law. As we do that, we will consider all views that are raised, but we will also continue to go forward with that central purpose firmly in mind. This is about the greater protection of vulnerable children, and that is the most important part of the whole debate. There are 40,000 children in Scotland today more in poverty than there was a year ago. The Scottish Government is introducing legislation to set targets to reduce child poverty, but what actions is it going to take? In other words, what is the First Minister proposing to do to tackle the unacceptable levels of child poverty in Scotland? Riley Fares fairly asked me about actions that we are taking. Let me set out what some of those are. We have the child poverty bill, which, if it is passed by this Parliament, will make us the only administration in the whole of the UK to have statutory binding targets on child poverty. We have just also established the poverty and inequality commission, which will build on the work done by the independent poverty adviser to make sure that the Government is both advised and challenged on the actions that we need to take to tackle child poverty. We have also outlined steps to introduce a new best start grant using one of the new powers of the Parliament to direct additional support to families on low incomes with children to try to give practical help in that regard. Just this week, we were announcing, for example, additional support for young carers, which can often be a particular segment of the population of children living in poverty. Those are just some examples. In addition to extending entitlement to free school meals, our plans to double the provision of free childcare will be of huge assistance to families overall, but particularly to families in poverty. Those are just some of the things that we are doing. We will continue to discuss through the commission and, indeed, with members across the chamber what additional action we can take. Alex Rowley. Presiding Officer, I have welcomed the setting up of the commission. I hope that that will be an independent statutory commission. I have also welcomed the bill coming forward, but the truth is that, without additional resources, we can have all the targets that we like. We are very unlikely to see them as being more than wishful thinking. The plain fact is that the First Minister plans to spend almost 20 times more on a tax cut for frequent flyers than she does on tackling child poverty. The SNP plan to have air departure tax would cost £180 million in each single year, but the First Minister's programme for government only proposes £10 million a year to tackle child poverty. That is simply not good enough. If you are serious about tackling the unacceptable levels of child poverty in our country, will you drop the tax cut to the airlines and use the tax powers of this Parliament to tackle child poverty in Scotland? First Minister. We will, of course, bring forward our budget proposals later this year, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise them. As part of that, I have made very clear—the finance secretary made clear again in Parliament yesterday—that we think that it is time for a grown-up adult debate about how we progressively and fairly use our tax powers to guard against further Tory austerity and to make sure that we are protecting public services and helping lift people, including children, out of poverty. In all seriousness, I think that Alec Rowley's characterisation of our spending plans is a misrepresentation. I announced in the programme for government that we would set up an additional fund to target innovative approaches to tackling child poverty, but what Alec Rowley did not mention there was the hundreds of millions of pounds that we spend on mitigating welfare cuts, for example, on extending childcare, on making sure that the poorest children have access to free school meals, the money that we will make available for the new best start grant, for example, the £3 billion that we are investing in increasing the supply of affordable housing, something hugely important to those living in poverty. Those are the many actions that we are taking, backed by resources, and the role of the Poverty and Inequality Commission, of course, will be to make suggestions and to challenges where we can to go further, and we look forward to taking part in those debates in Parliament and outside of this Parliament. It is a serious issue. It is an unacceptable issue of the levels of child poverty in Scotland. I say in all sincerity that if every child in Scotland is to get a fair and equal chance to succeed, then you are going to have to address the crisis that is engulfing so many of our public services in Scotland, for it is the poorest that is coming off the worst, the lack of suitable housing, the unacceptable levels of class sizes and the lack of resources for teaching and for learning, the many shortfalls in our national health service, and the failure to fund local community services in every community up and down Scotland. Every single time the SNP has a tax decision to make, it sides with the millionaires rather than with the millions. Another party for the few, not the many, will she finally accept that in order to help the poorest in this country, you have to be prepared to look at taxing the richest in this country? I thought that it was really unfair of Alec Rowley to personalise this debate by bringing Anna Sarwar into it. As Anna Sarwar so clearly illustrates, it is that there is a massive gulf, a gulf as wide as the clides between what Labour says and what Labour does. For a leadership candidate, lecturing others about doing the right thing on pay and yet his own family firm won't pay the living wage voluntarily to house in order, back they mentioned a number of policy areas. Let me take them one by one. On housing, this Government is building social housing at a faster rate than any other part of the UK. We are investing £3 billion to deliver 50,000 extra affordable homes. On education, £120 million extra is going into the hands of headteachers to help to close the attainment gap. Free school meals extended childcare on the NHS and an extra £3 billion going to the NHS under this Government. On local services, we put forward a budget last year that increased the resources available to local services. The only councils across this country who decided not to take the opportunity of bringing in more revenue through the council tax were, guess what, Labour councils. So again, Labour really needs to close that gulf between what they say and what they lecture others and what they do themselves. We are trying to refrain from personal attacks in this chamber. I think that it is only fair. We have a number of constituency supplementaries and we are trying to squeeze in a lot of members who want to get in today. Question number one from Alison Johnstone. Thank you. One of Scotland's first major urban community buy-outs for the Sick Kids hospital site in Edinburgh has been gysumped because the NHS last week sold the site to a developer. The community found out that they were unsuccessful having notified ministers of their interest way back in April. Why has the NHS been allowed to sell off the site when ministers knew of the community interest? If the Scottish Government is serious about community empowerment, urban community empowerment, what more will it do to actively support communities in their applications? They are hugely bureaucratic, very complicated and more support is required. Can I first say that I understand the strength of local feeling around issues like this? It is important to stress that at all stages in this process, NHS Lothian complied with the requirements of the law. At all stages in the community right to buy process, the community land team processed the applications in line with the legislation. The community land team and the Scottish Government were not aware that the site had already been sold by NHS Lothian when processing those applications. However, it is also important to say that NHS Lothian will use the proceeds from the sale of the Sick Kids hospital to reinvest in healthcare services. Of course, that will be of benefit to people across Lothian. As I understand it, the health board is likely to use the proceeds to upgrade oncology services at the western general hospital, which will benefit people not just in Lothian but across the wider region. I understand the strength of feeling on those issues. That is why we passed the legislation to support community right to buy. It is important that all applications are taken forward in line with the legal provisions. Jackie Baillie There are 100 people who are complete with placards and a piper in the public gallery today who have come to the Parliament to protest about proposals to cut their GP out-of-hours service at the Vale of Leven hospital. The service has been closed many times, most recently on Sunday, when local patients were turned away and had to travel to Paisley for the nearest service. That is simply unacceptable, and local clinicians have said that removing this basic service from the Vale represents an unacceptable clinical risk for patients. The chair of the health board said, and I quote, "...we need to stick to the agreed lines which confirm that we're committed to a service without saying what that will be or where it will be delivered from." Hardly a ringing endorsement. Will the First Minister reject the weasel words from the chair and give an assurance to my constituents that the full GP-out-of-hours service will remain at the Vale of Leven hospital? Yes or no? First lady, can I take the opportunity to welcome the campaigners to the public gallery? I'm not sure how the Presiding Officer will respond if they start to use the bagpipes in the gallery, but I'm sure they will do so outside and the health secretary is going out to meet with the campaigners later on this afternoon. I understand that there was a meeting between the chair and chief executive of Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board with the hospital watch campaign on 31 August. The chair of hospital watch Jim Moon said, "...after that meeting we discussed a number of issues and found the meeting to be constructive with a spirit and intention to acknowledge the community's fears with the aim that the model for the future secures their trust and confidence going forward." That's how I would expect these discussions to be taken forward. I would say again, though, that it is this Government that took the action that ended the decade of damaging uncertainty under the previous Labour administration when it approved the vision for the Vale document. We have been consistently clear that we back the Vale of Leven hospital. The health board has been consistently clear on that. Just as illustrations of that backing, let me give a few statistics here. The Vale of Leven day cases have increased by 7 per cent in the last year. There are more than 300 outpatient clinics every month across 20 or more specialities. Emergency attendancies have increased at the Vale's minor injuries unit by nearly 10 per cent. Those are the actions that show our commitment to the Vale. Of course, it was the previous administration when Jackie Baillie was a minister in the previous administration, or she was a minister in the previous administration, and the previous administration closed the A&E at the Vale of Leven. There is no point of order during First Minister's Questions. If you still wish to make it, Ms Baillie, you can make it at the end. Ms Baillie may make the point of order at the end of FMQs. Jamie Greene I am currently assisting a number of constituents in North Ayrshire who are on a lengthy waiting list for funding approval for social care packages and residential care placements. Due to budgetary constraints and pressures on the local health and social partnership, a lack of funding is available and provision of care is extremely limited. Can the First Minister confirm whether or not free personal care is still illegal entitlement in Scotland and, to her knowledge, which other councils are failing to deliver it? In terms of the situation in North Ayrshire, as I understand it, Government officials have already met the partnership there, and the health secretary is going to meet them as well. He will be very happy to correspond with the member after that. It is the obligation of all partnerships across the country to deliver the social care services that people have a right to depend on. It is worth pointing out that overall expenditure in adult social care services per heropopulatio has increased by 13 per cent in real terms. That is after inflation. That has been the increase in recent years. We will continue to take the decisions to support social care services. Of course, we announced a couple of weeks ago that we are also going to introduce Frank's law in order that people who rely on those services across the country get them and get them in a timely fashion. When the Paris climate change agreement was reached, the Scottish Government said that its new bill on climate change would reflect the increased scale of ambition that the agreement requires. Yet its proposals for that bill actually represent a slower pace of emission cuts than Scotland has been achieving for the past 10 years. Why is the Government consulting on a slowdown of climate action when an acceleration, an increased ambition is so urgently needed? I do not think that there is anybody—that is undoubtedly not true—there will be many, but nobody who can fairly say that this Government has not been and is not continuing to be a world leader when it comes to tackling climate change. Some of my answers here will be similar to the answers that I was giving Ruth Davidson. We are consulting and we listen to the views that are expressed in that consultation before we make final decisions. I know that a large number of people have taken the opportunity to contact the Scottish Government, asking us to go further in terms of the commitments there, and we will give proper consideration to that. Across a whole range of areas, we are making progress in tackling climate change. The programme of government that I set out two weeks ago sets out where we will make further and even faster progress, which is no doubt why some environmental campaigners described that programme for government as the greenest programme for government in the history of devolution. There has been significant action in the past, but that is only worth celebrating if it is used as an inspiration to go further and faster, not as an excuse to slow down. Other countries in Europe such as Norway and Sweden have already been setting net zero goals for carbon emissions. Our contribution to climate change will be significantly reduced if we do the same. Is not it clear that Scotland, even if we continue to reduce emissions at the rate that we have been doing for the past 10 years, will reach net zero by 2040? Is not that the goal that we should be setting ourselves if the First Minister is serious about making faster progress? First, we are consulting on the specific targets. That is the right and proper thing to do, and we will take final decisions based on the outcome and the views that are expressed in that consultation. I know many people, many environmental campaigners and many people who want to encourage us to go further faster have made their views known, and I very, very much welcome that. Let me reassure not just Patrick Harvie, but everybody. There is no anybody who listened to the programme for government or who has read the programme for government would see that. There is no intention on the part of this government in slowing down when it comes to meeting our climate change obligations. We have a moral responsibility to lead in terms of tackling climate change, and that is what we will continue to do. Whether it is our commitments around renewable energy, whether it is our commitments and our achievements in decarbonising electricity, or whether it is about the new commitments that we have set out around electric vehicles, for example, we are serious about that, and we will continue to make sure that the action that we take is genuinely world-leading. Yesterday, the mask of Ruth Davidson's Conservative party slipped. They said that taxing was pickpocketing, and that is straight from Norman Tebbitt's handbook. Pickpockets do not invest in schools and hospitals to educate children and save people's lives. Responsible Governments do that. That is why this Parliament rejected that right-wing agenda yesterday. Now that the Parliament has endorsed the principle of raising tax, will the First Minister reconsider her opposition to my plan to put a modest penny on income tax for education? I think to be absolutely fair and accurate about it that Ruth Davidson's mask slipped long before yesterday. Yesterday, she just put it beyond any doubt. Will there be any raises and important points? It is one that I have raised previously in the chamber. Each and every day, we hear from the Conservatives calls for additional spending. We heard calls for Frank's law, which the Government is now delighted to be taking forward. We get from the Tories calls for more spending while they want us to cut taxes for the richest in our society. Remember, all at the same time, as the Tory Government is cutting over this decade, Scotland's budget to the tune of £3 billion in real terms. The hypocrisy of the Tories on those issues knows no bounds. On the substantive issue that Willie Rennie raises, and I am glad that he has raised it, we will bring forward, as Governments do, our tax proposals when we publish our draft budget. What we have said that we will do is encourage an open grown-up—which clearly excludes some people in this chamber—to debate on how we properly, progressively and fairly use our tax powers. I have been fairly clear that I think that, given the years of austerity that we have had and the continued austerity that we face, as well as the economic implications of Brexit, it is time now to have that debate. I hope that, certainly from the tenor of his contribution yesterday in the chamber, Willie Rennie and his party will be part of that grown-up debate. Let's have that debate over the next few weeks and then let's come forward as the Government will, with proposals on tax, that Parliament can then scrutinise and decide on. That's the right way to do things. Willie Rennie. The First Minister says that education is her number one priority, but we have heard that thousands may be leaving teaching. We know that Scottish education has slipped down the international rankings. We have seen 150,000 places cut from colleges. We are committed to expanding nursery education. We know that investing in skills and education is important for economic growth. The First Minister is always complaining that Westminster has cut her budget. The case for investment in education is tremendously strong. If she cannot agree that education is the number one priority for investment, what will her priority be? The First Minister. I think that Willie Rennie should perhaps listen to what I am saying here. First, we have to have a debate as a Parliament about whether we want to use tax powers more extensively than we have in the past. Then, of course, we have a debate as a Parliament about how we want to invest at those resources, but there is no doubt that it is about protecting public services, education and the health service, making sure that our public sector workers are properly and fairly rewarded against the backdrop of austerity that leads us to have that debate. On education, I mean obviously I would take issue with much of what Willie Rennie said in his preamble. We are not just extending, we are doubling child care for our youngest children. We are investing £120 million more this year in our schools. We have maintained full-time equivalent places in our colleges and, of course, we are protecting the right of young people to go to university without paying tuition fees. Those are the things that underline the commitment of this Government to education. However, over the next few weeks, let us try and do something as a Parliament. Let us have that proper grown-up debate. We all have our manifestal commitments, but, as I am frequently told by Willie Rennie and others, this Government needs the support of others to get a budget through Parliament. As I go into those discussions with an open mind and with the interests of our public services, our public sector workers, with businesses and the economy firmly at heart, let us have that debate and let us come to a decision, a grown-up decision, as a Parliament. Ivan McKee The First Minister will have seen the shocking scenes in Catalonia, armed police have raided officers and seized ballot papers in an attempt to stop the Catalan people voting on their own future. What is the Scottish Government's view of those appalling events? I think that most people would agree that the situation in Catalonia is of concern. I hope that there will be dialogue between the Catalan and the Spanish Governments to try to resolve the situation. That has got to be preferable to the sight of police officers seizing ballot papers and entering newspaper offices. It is, of course, entirely legitimate for Spain to oppose independence for Catalonia, but what I think is of concern anywhere is for a state to seek to deny the right of a people to democratically express their will. The right of self-determination is an important international principle, and I hope very much that it will be respected in Catalonia and everywhere else. Finally, of course, the Edinburgh agreement is a shining example of two Governments with diametrically opposed views on independence, nevertheless coming together to agree a process that allowed the people to decide. I think that that offers a template that could be used by others elsewhere in the world. The press report that the UK Government has stripped the Scottish Government of responsibility for the roll-out of broadband due to its failure to deliver. Can I ask the First Minister what implications does this have for the roll-out of the R100 programme? It has no implications because it is completely and utterly nonsense to suggest that that is the case. We are making good progress through the Superfast Broadband programme just now, which, of course, is about getting Superfast Broadband to 95 per cent of premises across Scotland. Our additional commitment—let's be very clear about this—goes way beyond the commitment of the UK Government. Our additional commitment is to get Superfast Broadband, not 10 Mbps, as the UK Government is proposing, but Superfast Broadband to 100 per cent of premises across the country. If the UK Government was a bit clearer about how it intends to deliver its commitment, that would certainly be helpful to us in progressing to deliver ours, but that commitment is there and that is a commitment that we are absolutely determined to deliver and we are making good progress towards it later on this year. We are due to go out to procurement for the next stage of that work. 5. Bruce Crawford To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the reported comments of the Secretary of State for Scotland that the UK Government does not plan to devolve all powers returning from the EU following Brexit. David Mundell's comments confirm what not just the Scottish Government but the Welsh Government as well has been saying for months. Far from a powers bonanza, the Secretary of State has promised that the UK Government seems intent on undermining the founding principles of devolution. The UK Government should not be allowed to use Brexit as cover to take powers in areas that are clearly devolved such as agriculture, fisheries, justice and the environment. We have made it clear that we are not opposed in principle to UK-wide arrangements where they are necessary and appropriate, but those arrangements must be by agreement and not by imposition. Bruce Crawford I thank the First Minister for her answer. Will the First Minister agree with the comments from stakeholders such as Friends of the Earth Scotland, who have said that any plan to move control to Westminster after Brexit is alarming? Can she outline what clarification the UK Government has provided over the 111 devolved policy areas that could be controlled by the UK Government if the EU withdrawal bill is not amended? I can say, First Minister, that there was some gobsmacked to see at number 78 on the list, onshore hydrocarbons licensing, in other words, fracking, which was one of the core powers for further devolution as recommended by the Smith commission. Is that really acceptable? The First Minister No, it is not acceptable. Firstly, in terms of Friends of the Earth, I share their concern. Devolution has allowed for distinctive and ambitious Scottish approaches to environmental standards, to climate change, which we have just been discussing, to food quality, fisheries, farming support and many other areas. Any threat to that is completely unacceptable. The list of 111 areas that are brought into play by the withdrawal bill, of course, was a list drawn up not by the Scottish Government but by the UK Government, and there are many areas in that that I think would illustrate to people why the Scottish Government is so exercised by that. However, although it might suit the Conservatives to suggest that this is somehow just the SNP expressing concern over this, we have the Welsh Labour Government saying exactly the same. We have a range of constitutional and legal experts saying that this represents the power grab that we have described. The Scottish and Welsh Governments said on Tuesday of this week that we put forward a set of amendments that would prevent the power grab. I hope that the UK Government responds positively to those amendments so that we can get the bill into a state where the Government can recommend legislative consent, but let me repeat that if it stays in the state that it is in just now, there is no way that I or this Government will recommend to this Parliament that it approves this bill. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to reports that the electrification of Glasgow to Edinburgh via Falkirk rail service is subject to further delay. The delay is regrettable. It is a result of two issues. The first is that Network Rail is behind schedule on the energisation of the route. That commenced on 2 September and is scheduled to conclude in October, and that will allow the introduction of electric trains using existing rolling stock from 27 December this year. The second issue, of course, is a slippage in the manufacturing programme of the rolling stock by Hitachi. The Transport Minister has written to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee updating them on those issues. I am also due to meet with Hitachi on 4 October to discuss the matter further. Annie Wells Thank you for that answer. That project is at least a year delayed and we still do not have a final completion date. Last year, Phil Vester of ScotRail admitted management failure in the planning of the delivery of the new line. We are told that the new delay is because ScotRail could not test the new trains. Commuter patients are wearing thin, so can the First Minister give a personal guarantee that there will be no further delays after December? The First Minister Of course, Network Rail is not accountable directly to this Parliament. That, frankly, is one of the problems, and perhaps we could find some consensus across this Parliament that would say that we should make the change to make Network Rail directly accountable to this Government and this Parliament in the future. However, if we can focus on the issues that affect passengers, because I, as I think you can probably tell, am deeply unhappy about this further delay. I have talked about the issues with Network Rail's delay around the energisation of the line. As I am sure everybody would agree, it is vital that the line is dealt with properly and the trains are properly tested. However, a large part of the latest delay is down to the slippage in the manufacturing programme on the part of Hitachi. I want to discuss this fully with Hitachi when I meet them earlier next month and I would be happy to report back to Parliament after that meeting. We will do everything in our power as the Scottish Government to make sure that there are no further delays and that passengers get the full benefits of this improved service as quickly as possible. Linda Fabiani The First Minister may be aware that another effect of this delay is that, due to the shortage of diesel carriages, other lines that are not, for example, Edinburgh to Glasgow, get affected. Like in East Kilbride, where consistently there are too few carriages, people are overcrowded on a main commuter line. I am told that one selectrification of Glasgow Edinburgh rail line is complete and that problem will be solved. Will the First Minister please bear in mind any discussions about the effect that this has on other commuter rail lines and make sure that those concerns are always brought to the attention of those who make the decision in relation to the number of carriages on lines? The First Minister Linda Fabiani is absolutely right and she is absolutely correct in her understanding and I can assure her that the impact on other lines will be a feature in all of the discussions that we have on this issue. The provision of additional coaches on other services in East Kilbride included, depending on the introduction of new rolling stock elsewhere within the ScotRail business. ScotRail is working to understand and manage the impact of phased introduction of the new electric trains on the Edinburgh to Glasgow route in the coming months. It is important to stress that £475 million is being invested in the ScotRail fleet during the franchise, delivering 180 more carriages in the next two years, which has a 50 per cent increase since 2007. Mark Griffin To ask the First Minister what financial support the Scottish Government offers to parents of premature babies whose child is in hospital. The First Minister I expect to speak for the whole chamber when I say that I am delighted that Mark Griffin and his wife have now been able to take their baby daughter home from hospital and I am sure that we all wish him, his wife and little baby the very best. Health boards offer a range of support for parents who need additional support while their babies are in care, but the support that is available does vary from board to board. Following a review of maternity and neonatal services, we are working with the neonatal managed clinical networks to take forward a review of the support that is available to ensure consistent support is in place. I can assure Mark Griffin that we will fully consider his proposal for a low-income family fund as part of that work. Mark Griffin I thank the First Minister for that answer and the support that my wife and I have had from across the chamber. In March, my wife and I were told that our unborn daughter would die due to very premature labour. Six months on, baby Rosa, who was not given a chance, is now doing well at home, but those months spent with Rosa in hospital have been the most stressful time that we have ever gone through and we are not alone in that. Other families do not have an MSP salary to cover the costs associated with that hospital stay. The transport, accommodation, food and childcare that on average costs £200 a week. Mothers we spoke to already struggled to cope with the stress of having a very premature sick baby. Having to leave that baby in hospital every night, we are also worrying about how they were going to pay for the taxi to get to hospital the next day. Sometimes they just couldn't. Those mothers had to be there because they had to be there to provide that life-saving breast milk that the premature babies needed because their stomachs just wouldn't tolerate formula. First Minister, you, as a matter of urgency, look at how we can give financial support to low-income parents of premature babies in hospital so that the costs of visiting doesn't stop one more mum from being with their baby. The short but perhaps most helpful answer to Mark Griffin's question there is yes. We will do that work and I am happy to work with him. I am hugely sympathetic to the case, the very powerful case that Mark Griffin has just set out. The review of maternity and neonatal services that I mentioned recognised that point and it recommended a review to be carried out of, and I am quoting from it now, the approach to the expenses for families of babies in neonatal care to develop a nationally agreed policy. That is one of the key parts. There is a range of support that is available to families but it is not as consistent or necessarily as reliable as it needs to be. There needs to be a situation where it does not matter what part of the country a family is in, if they are in the position that Mark Griffin has outlined, there is the basic support necessary to allow them to care for their child. We will be taking forward that work. Given his personal experience, for obvious reasons it would be very useful to have Mark Griffin's input into that and I will ask the health secretary to make contact with him to further that discussion. Thank you very much and that concludes persons of questions, but I point of order from Ms Bailey. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm afraid the First Minister isn't very good at history. She credits me with being a minister at the time of the cuts to the veil. That is simply not true. Can I advise the Presiding Officer, I actually wrote to Shona Robison on 29 June about exactly this point. She has failed to reply, so I invite the First Minister to retract a statement that she knows is deliberately promoting a falsehood, and rather than using information as a smokescreen, the First Minister would better do respect to my constituents by answering the question about the future of out-of-hours at the Vale of Leven hospital, which she patiently failed to do. I thank Ms Bailey for waiting until the end of FMQ's point of order. She has made a helpful clarification of her ministerial status or lack of it at the time, which I am sure the Government will reflect on. Thank you very much. We move on now to members' business in the name of Stuart McMillan on National iHealth Week. We'll just take a few moments to change seats.