 The Leader of the adversary Many of us have heard today from ordinary Scots who are deeply alarmed about the Scottish Amendment Council이라는 plans to charge them for taking their own car to work Here, what one young man had to say in an email, I'm a young apprentice from South Lanarkshire I know £2 a day doesn't seem like much, but this is often apprenticeship wage is a lot. While many in a similar age group are paying rent, council tax, road tax and other utility bills and some are also trying to save for their futures, this is a tax that will hit the lowest and least represented of employment groups in the country. Let me make this promise to thousands of others like him across Scotland. Scottish Conservatives, all of us here will oppose a workplace parking levy. Will the Deputy First Minister make him the same pledge? I do not think that it will come as a surprise to anybody that, in a Parliament where the Government does not command an overall majority, we have got to talk to and reach agreement with other parties about specific issues. Of course, what we found in this budget process was that the Conservative Party was spectacularly absent from those discussions, so it has no right to come here today and complain about the agreements that we have to arrive at. It is important that Parliament is clear about what is proposed here. This is an agreement to bring forward an amendment to the Transport Bill that will enable local authorities to exercise a judgment as to whether they wish to apply a workplace parking levy. The decision will be up to local authorities to take that decision. It is an example of localism in practice, and I would have thought that the Conservatives would have welcomed that. So almost unbelievably, the short answer is no. Mr Swinney will not be backing these people or thousands of others of workers like them. What an absolute disgrace. At yesterday's finance committee, Derek Mackay even admitted that he had not done any economic analysis of the cost of a workplace parking levy. However, we have a £400 annual charge that would be equivalent to increasing the basic rate of a tax paid by a worker on the real living wage, from £20 in the pound to £30 in the pound. So can the Deputy First Minister tell us, when he promised not to increase the basic rate of income tax before the last election, did he imagine that he would be voting to thump those same workers with a new levy equivalent to a tax hike of £10 in the pound? It is very important that we remain focused on what is proposed here. What is proposed here is the awarding to local authorities of a power to apply a workplace parking levy if they judge that to be the appropriate thing to do, and once they have made the appropriate assessments of such a commitment. I cited this as an example of localism quite deliberately, because in 2017 Ruth Davidson said that our manifesto for the council elections was published a couple of weeks back. It spells out a thorough and clear vision. At its heart is a case for localism, so the Conservatives have been full-scale behind empowering local authorities. If that was not enough, Graham Simpson, the local government spokesman of the Tories, said that we believe that decisions should be taken as locally as possible and that power should lie with politicians elected as locally as possible. He went on, we need to empower councils and give them a renewed sense of meaning and purpose. If that was not enough for Jackson Carlaw, in 2016 the First Minister received a letter from four Conservatives urging her to re-empower councils to take decisions that they could think about themselves. The first author of the letter was Mordo Fraser. The second author was Liz Smith. The third author was Maurice Golden. Parliament will not be surprised. The final author of the quartet was Jackson Carlaw. Jackson Carlaw? Order, please. Order, please. Order, please. Order, please. This isn't Blue Peter and one pathetic excuse—one pathetic excuse that you made up early and it ain't good to wash it. Listen, for the last 12 years I've marveled at Mr Swinney and the full theatrical performance we get from him when the SNP ran real trouble. oedd yn ddweud, ond mae'r ddweud yn ddweud. Ond mae'r ddweud yn ddweud. Y SNP ymrwyng oedd y Llywodraeth a Edinburgh ymrwyng oedd oedd yn ddweud ond mae'n cael eu cymdeithasol ymlaes yn oeddaf yn cael ei ddweud. A Fyllt Gwyddo Swinney yn gweithio'r cychwyn i'r ddweud yn gweithio'r cyllid yn gweithio'r cyllid yn gweithio'r cychwyn i'r ddweud. Mae'r cychwyn i'r cychwyn i'r ddweud yn gweithio'r cychwyn i'r ddweud, It said, no. I am not for your parking charge, Levy, and I speak on behalf of thousands of motorists who have been taxed enough. Well said Mr Lyle, he is prepared to stand up for hard pressed Scottish workers, why isn't John Swinney. As Jackson Carlaw goes purple-faced, it's a bit rich to accuse me of theatrical performances. The Conservatives have fought the 2016 and 2017 elections on a commitment to empower local authorities. The Scottish Government, when the Conservatives would play absolutely no part in the process of setting a budget for this Parliament, cannot then come along and complain about the fact that this Government, in agreement with the Green Party, has been prepared to re-empower local authorities. That, Mr Carlaw, is rank hypocrisy even from you. However, what the Conservatives have to be reminded about is that if we had listened to them on the budget, if we hadn't reached an agreement with the Greens, we would have had to contemplate if we'd followed the Conservatives, taking £500 million out of the budget of the Scottish Parliament, punishing families, punishing public services, reducing staff numbers—this Government wouldn't count in as that, but that's what the Tories wanted to inflict on Scotland. Mr Swinney says that we have no credibility demanding tax cuts on higher spending. He says that the Tories have no credibility in the economy. It's a Tory chancellor, Philip Hammond, who wrote the cheques that you're spending, Mr Swinney. The additional £148 million that Derek Mackay concealed from Parliament the week before he announced his budget. When you've spent it to settle the mess you're making of teachers pay, I hope you'll send him a thank-you note for bailing you out of your own problem. It's sad to see Mr Swinney defend things in which he clearly does not believe. It's sad to see him defend a rise in the basic rate of income tax when he once said, and I quote, a tax rise would be a punishment for low-income workers. It's sad to see him defend an inflation-busting rise in the council tax when he and the First Minister stood in a manifesto promise in 2016 not to do so. It's sad to see him now demand that ordinary people be challenged, charged for driving to work when, once as the champion of middle Scotland, the nat you could trust, he claimed to be the voice of enterprise. Isn't it time he admitted he got this wrong? Come on, man, simply drop this unwanted and unworkable plan. If you don't, won't it be clear to everyone, despite trying to spin it today, that tens of thousands of Scottish workers are to be fleeced for hundreds of pounds a year just because Derek Mackay, John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon can't say no to six dismal green MSPs? If that wasn't an addition for the next pantomime in Glasgow, I have no idea of what it was. After all these weeks of rehearsing, while his boss is away, I would have thought that Jackson Carlaw could have come up with something slightly more consider than that. I take it from that rant that Jackson Carlaw is not in any way supportive of resolving the teacher's pay claim that I'm trying very hard to try to resolve. I take it from that that Jackson Carlaw wants to continue to inflict on the people of this country by applying the tax cuts that he wants to apply in the budget, a cut in public spending of £500 million that would reduce the number of nurses in our hospitals by nearly £20,000. Is that what Jackson Carlaw is seriously trying to argue for? Jackson Carlaw has been found out today. He goes around the country arguing for more powers for local government, and when we deliver them, he comes here in an act of rank hypocrisy and criticises them. The people of Scotland can see through the hypocrisy of the Tories. They can see what the Tories are about, their spots have never changed, they want to cut public spending and they'll take the hypocritical way of doing it. Richard Leonard Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the Deputy First Minister tell this chamber when the Government last met its A&E waiting times target? As Richard Leonard will know, the performance on any waiting times has been a significant challenge within the health service. Within those waiting times, the performance within the A&E units in Scotland has been at the leading edge of the United Kingdom for four years. There are challenges to be wrestled with. That is what the health secretary is focused on making sure is the case, but for four years, any units of Scotland have delivered the best performance in the United Kingdom. Richard Leonard That was a response but not an answer to the question that I asked. In fact, the Government's waiting times target of 95 per cent has not been met since last August. A principal reason for that lamentable record is its failure to tackle the delayed discharge of patients. Do not just take my word for it. Tim Davison, the chief executive of NHS Lothian, wrote this just last week. For a hospital the size of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, the number of patients remaining in hospital when they do not need to be there is equivalent to three whole wards and is significantly impacting on our ability to manage the flow of patients through the hospital. It can impact on our ability to see and assess patients promptly. It delays access to a bed quickly within the agreed four-hour target. It is contributing to short notice cancellation of planned elective surgery. The previous health secretary promised to eradicate delayed discharge within a year. That was back in February 2015. So four years on, can the Deputy First Minister tell us when he believes that his Government will keep that promise and finally ensure that no one is left stuck in our hospitals when they do not need to be there? I agree with the last point that Richard Leonard made. It is important that people are only in hospital for the length of time that they should properly be in hospital. The Government is focused on ensuring that individuals are able to make that journey through hospital and out into the community as efficiently and as smoothly as they possibly can do. Those are our objectives. In the process, we are reducing the extent of delayed discharges in Scottish hospitals. One of the things that is helping that process is the increased investment that Mr Mackay made available in the budget process to invest in health and social care integration at community level within Scotland. Following the draft budget for 2019-20, we are increasing our package of direct investment in social care integration to more than £700 million. That was central to the announcements that Mr Mackay made in the stage 1 debate last Thursday. There is an intense focus within the Government and the health service to ensure that we build up health and social care capacity within our communities. That is exactly what the budget is designed to do. It will assist us in reducing delayed discharges and making sure that individuals are able to make the smoothest journey possible through our health service, get the acute care when they require it but the community care when it is necessary and appropriate for them to receive that. John Swinney talks about health and social care integration. We also learned this week that in Edinburgh the health and social care partnership is facing over £19 million of cost pressures. How does that help? The scale of the problem is such that the number of people stuck in hospitals last year who did not need to be there would have filled the equivalent of every bed in Scotland's biggest hospital, the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, every day for 326 days. No wonder that this is having a significant impact on A and E waiting times and cancelled operations right across the country. There is a human cost as well. Tim Davison went on to say that delayed discharge means, and I quote, disruption and distress to patients and families, a burden on patients and their carers or families and reduces the quality of their experience. Remember, those are the words of the chief executive of the second largest health board in Scotland. My question to the Deputy First Minister is this. When will this Government start to listen? When will he take his responsibilities seriously? When will he snap out of his complacency and start to address the continuing problem of delayed discharge in Scotland? The manner in which I have responded to Richard Leonard's question demonstrates that the Government takes this deadly seriously. What are we doing to tackle delayed discharge? We are increasing the resources available to social care integration within the community. We are seeing in Edinburgh—the health board that Richard Leonard quoted there. In Edinburgh, we are seeing delayed discharges falling within the city of Edinburgh. We have put £160 million more into health and social care integration. Those are the judgments that the Government is making within a very challenging financial environment. Why do we do that? We recognise—this is where I completely accept the premise of Richard Leonard's question and also the comments from Mr Davidson—that it is better for individuals to be supported within the home or within a community setting than it is to be in a hospital when they do not need to be in that hospital. It is entirely appropriate for them to be in hospitals at particular stages, but we must support individuals through that journey, which is why. Mr Mackay's budget, which is currently going through Parliament just now, will see an increase in the resources available for health and social care integration to over £700 million. It is why we continue to support the increase in resources and why we are confident that the effect of that investment and the joint working that is being provided for in health and social care integration will deliver the reduction in delayed discharges that we all want to see taking its course. The number of constituency supplementaries is the first from Sandra White. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Deputy First Minister, you will be aware of the application to Gladier City Council by the owners of the O2 ABC building in my constituency for complete—and I emphasise complete—demolition of this iconic building. I have many concerns regarding this. One of the concerns is the closeness and vicinity to the School of Art, and what effect that might have on the investigation that I have written to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Services regarding that. Another concern is that the O2 building, which has been iconic, was built in 1875, older than the Macintosh School of Art, and has not received the same publicity or the same importance placed upon it. If the O2 cannot be saved in its entirety, we must do all that we can to ensure that the sad of the historic building is absolutely saved. I realise the significance of the point that Sandra White raised about the O2 venue in her constituency. A building warrant application for the demolition of the venue was lodged with the City Council in Glasgow on 31 January. Obviously, each council must exercise their responsibilities individually, and, in doing so, they must ensure that they comply with any legal requirement. I am not familiar with the listing arrangements of the facade of the venue that Sandra White has raised, but, quite clearly, there will be a perspective from Historic Environment Scotland that will need to be applied in those circumstances. I will certainly make sure that Historic Environment Scotland is actively engaged in the consideration of the matter, as appropriately, with the City Council in Glasgow. Gillian Martin Can I ask the Deputy First Minister how the Government will hold Aberdeen Roads accountable for the delays that are incurred in the opening of the final section of the AWPR? When the Scottish Government has given contractors every opportunity to get a grip over this £750 million project and get it fully open to traffic? Aberdeen Roads Ltd will only be paid when sections of the road are open to traffic. In this way, they are incentivised to open the road at the earliest opportunity that is safe to do so. Aberdeen Roads Ltd still has work to do in providing fundamental assurances around the future maintenance of the River Don crossing that sufficiently protects the public purse. Once that commitment is received, there is no further barrier to opening the remainder of the road without delay. For recent months, Transport Scotland and the Transport Secretary have worked tirelessly with Aberdeen Roads Ltd, and I am pleased to say that not only is more than 85 per cent of the road open, but the feedback from members of the public in the north-east of Scotland has been overwhelmingly positive about the long overdue enhancement of the road's infrastructure of the north-east of Scotland. Stuart McMillan The Deputy First Minister will be delighted with outstanding news that the Texas Instruments Plant in Greenock has been purchased by Diles Incorporated in a deal with a report of £65 million, saving £300 high-value and high-skilled jobs. Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that this investment and news has been hard-won? I congratulate everyone involved in making this deal happen and commend all the staff at the plant who have continued to deliver despite the threat that has been done to hang over their heads since 2016, and once again proves that Inverclyde is open for business. The Deputy First Minister I welcome the good news that has come from the former Texas Instruments Plant and the acquisition by Diles. It is an important investment in the safeguarding of 300 jobs at the plant. It has been a accumulation of tremendous joint working between our enterprise agencies, the Government, Inverclyde Council and, of course, the workforce, who have given extraordinary commitment to ensuring continuity. We look forward to working with the company and to taking forward the commitments that have been made to the workforce that are involved. It has been another bad day on Scotland's railway, with power and signal failures causing disruption in Glasgow, but this is a sadly typical experience. Over the weekend, passengers took to social media to share their experience of delays, cancellation and overcrowding, showing pictures of people with disabilities going without a seat, and children sitting on the floor outside the train toilet, passenger reported as having a panic attack. That is not acceptable, it is not safe and it is not what people in Scotland deserve from their railway. For action, the Government took following last weekend's appalling performance by ScotRail. How long it will be before we have a rail service running the public interest that meets the needs of the public? First of all, the Transport Secretary has made clear to Parliament already that the Government considers the current performance of ScotRail to be not acceptable. For that reason, Transport Scotland issued formal notification on 24 December to ScotRail, requiring it to submit a remedial plan by 18 February. The Government will, of course, hold ScotRail to that. We expect it to set out in that plan how it will address those performance issues to ensure that we can realise the benefits of the investment that has been made in new rolling stock and new infrastructure, which has been formidable in recent periods. The Government is familiar with some of the operational challenges that have existed about the late delay of new rolling stock, which has affected the ability of the service to operate as we would have expected. Also, because of that, the implications that have been for the training of staff to operate the railway safely. Mr Harvey raises the specific examples of the weekend. ScotRail took a number of decisions to expand capacity on a number of routes because of the expectations of higher travelling numbers, particularly because of the rugby international match in Edinburgh. Quite clearly, there were a range of other issues that were of concern in the performance of ScotRail at the weekend. Those are the very issues that the Government expects ScotRail to address. That is why the Transport Secretary is in active dialogue with ScotRail at all times to improve that performance and to require them to comply with the remedial order that the Government has applied to ScotRail. I am quite sure that Parliament will hold both ScotRail and the Government to account when the plan for remediation of those persistent failures is presented to us all. There is clearly a need for wider structural change. Many of us would agree, for example, that Network Rail needs to be in the control of Scotland so that we can have a truly joined-up approach to those issues, but we cannot wait for that. That is no excuse for not taking action now. Three months ago, when many of those failures were already being regularly reported, the Government voted against using the breakpoint in the ScotRail franchise next year. If the Government were not convinced then, I think that it should be convinced now that that option must remain on the table. Surely, the Deputy First Minister will not rule that option out, because doing so would give Ibello a free pass to continue failing. Surely, the Government must work on the assumption that a public sector better may be needed from next year. Will the Deputy First Minister tell the chamber what progress is being made on the urgently needed preparation for a public rail operator that will operate the railways in the public interest? There are elements of Patrick Harvie's question that are more straightforward than others. On the point about devolution of responsibilities that are in Network Rail, I am an entire agreement with him. I think that it makes eminent common sense for that to be the case, because it would allow us to take forward the co-operation that exists within the ScotRail alliance to a much deeper level of actual integration. To me, there is politics aside, a common sense approach to that to be taken forward. On the issue of the application of a break clause in 2020, if there was to be a situation that arose where an operator of last resort was to replace ScotRail in 2020, that cannot only be a temporary measure. Under the current United Kingdom legislation, the requirement to tender the franchise would still remain, which then opens up the possibility, which we have now secured as a Government, to bring forward a competitive public sector bid in that context. Development work is under way about how to advance the concept of a competitive public sector bid. That work has been taken forward by the transport secretary in dialogue with David McBrain Ltd, who we have invited to take forward some of that work. I am sure that the transport secretary in due course, if he has not been already answering questions on the subject, will update Parliament on all of those questions. However, the Government believes fundamentally that we have to have an efficient public rail network that meets the needs of individuals within Scotland, that acts in the public interest, that delivers services that members of the public are looking for. That is what our immediate short-term action is focused on achieving, and that is why we are open to developing a competitive public sector bid in the context of the existing United Kingdom legislation in which we have to operate. We have some further supplementaries. The First Minister, Mike Rumbles. Will the Scottish Government's civil servants be giving badly needed assistance to John Finnie in drafting his workplace parking level amendment to the transport bill? It is obvious from his public comments earlier this week that he has not a clue as to how he wants it to operate. I understand that Mr Finnie has asked and the Rural Economy, Committee has agreed to take further evidence on the issue, and the Government will contribute to that process. As we look at the drafting of amendments, of course, the Government will be actively engaged in that process, because we agreed to that with the Green Party. I am a little bit surprised at Mr Rumbles' line of argument, because when the provisions for a workplace parking levy were introduced by the Labour Party in the UK Transport Act in 2000, which gave enabling powers to English councils to introduce workplace parking levies, those measures were supported surprise, surprise by Liberal Democrat MPs. It is just another example of saying one thing in one place and another thing in another place. I wish to raise the case of the young son of a constituent. This week, Lads medical condition has been deemed appropriate for cannabis-based treatment and he has been offered Epidiolex by his medical team. That was some four weeks ago, but no treatment has yet commenced, and no prospect given to the family of a stark date. Meanwhile, the child's condition continues to deteriorate. Can the Deputy First Minister advise, as to the clinical procedure, once Epidiolex is agreed as appropriate and investigate this delay? I will ask the health secretary this afternoon to contact NHS Lanarkshire and establish all of the detail in this case. If there is a way in which we can address the legitimate and real issues that Linda Fabiani raised in Parliament today, we will immediately do so, and I will ask the health secretary to update Linda Fabiani by the close of business this afternoon. 51 of Scotland's most precious places for wildlife are protected as rams are sites. Recent guidance from the Scottish Government appears to downgrade the protection given to many of those sites, including cool links in the highlands and Loch Lomond in my region. That contradicts the environment secretary's very welcome commitment that was made to Parliament last year. Will the Deputy First Minister confirm whether the recent guidance will be withdrawn and corrected, and that all rams are sites in Scotland will continue to be given the same level of protection as designated natura sites, as is the case in the rest of the UK? The rams are sites that are protected in Scotland by either the natura regulations or by the designation of sites of special scientific interest. It is very clear that that affords to those sites the highest level of environmental protection, but if there are specific issues that Mr Greer is concerned about in that respect, I will ask the environment secretary to correspond with him to address any particular issues that are raised in relation to the approach to designation, because it is important and the Government is absolutely committed to fulfilling the commitments and obligations that are incumbent on us in relation to the commitments around rams are sites, and to ensure that those are fulfilled in all the actions that we take. To ask the Deputy First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on whether learning to play a musical instrument should be a core subject in schools. Music as one of the expressive arts is an essential part of the broad general education under curriculum for excellence. That includes class music lessons, including when an instrument is taught on a whole class basis. An education authority may charge fees for the provision of instrumental tuition, which is discretionary over and above that. It is for local authorities to decide how to provide instrumental music tuition, depending on local circumstances, priorities and traditions. In taking those decisions, local authorities should consider the undoubted benefits that learning a musical instrument can have on wellbeing and on attainment. I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer. That said, it does he share my concern that Labour-led Midlodian Council is the only council in Scotland proposing to act all music tuition for pupils below S4, at the same time paying out £10 million a year in interest payments from the education budget because of Labour's punitive PFI projects, with the result that, if you want to play, you will have to pay privately. Music for the few, not the many. Does the DfFM agree with me that it is no wonder my constituents and I will be demonstrating against these cuts outside Midlodian Council HQ this Tuesday, when one song we won't be singing certainly is to keep the red flag flying there? In my earlier answer, I stressed the importance that is attached to music as one of the expressive arts within the broad general education. It is an important part of the educational experience of young people that they are able to participate in appropriate music tuition. The Government has taken a number of decisions in this respect in relation to our own budgets. The Government, under the direction of my colleague Fiona Hyslop, has reinforced funding for a number of key elements of the financial support that we make available for music tuition and appreciation within Scotland, with support for the music budgets that relate to the youth music initiative, the national orchestras to Expo and Creative Scotland, all of which the culture secretary Fiona Hyslop has maintained as budget commitments because of the importance that we attach to music tuition within Scotland. There are some local authorities in the country who do not charge at all for music tuition. I am absolutely certain that, after the budget process is completed in local authorities, there will still be many local authorities in Scotland that do not charge for music tuition whatsoever. I would encourage Midlothian Council to reflect on that position. I also think that the Midlothian Council could reflect constructively on the conclusion of the education committee of this Parliament, which said that the committee respects the democratic right of local authorities to take decisions about local expenditure and acknowledge the financial choices that they face. However, the committee believes, in principle, that music tuition should be provided free of charge in every local authority. I would encourage Midlothian Council to reflect on that conclusion, which was agreed across the political spectrum in this Parliament. I ask the Deputy First Minister whether he agrees with another of the findings of the education committees. There is a complete lack of clarity over whether instrumental music tuition undertaken for SQA exams can be legitimately subject to charging. Can he explain what the Scottish Government is going to do about the situation? I do not think that there is any dubiety in the guidance that is available. I do not think that there is any whatsoever. However, the committee has raised a concern that there might be in which circumstances I will look very carefully at it. There is one scheme again in Midlothian, which troubles me greatly, where the local authority essentially puts the obligation on—exercises an administrative charge on the school. Obviously, for a school to be able to exercise free choice there, it has to have sufficient budgetary control to exercise that. That stretches the spirit of the guidance, which is crystal clear on the question. The committee has raised that issue, and I will explore it. However, as I stand here today, I think that there is no dubiety about that point. Alex Rowley In the current financial year, 17.5 secondary schools are having to cut £2 million directly from their budgets. Parent councils have written to myself and to the Deputy First Minister on that. The reality is that Fife and many other local authorities are clear that they will have to cut further through their education budgets next year. Is it not time that we had a degree of honesty around the cuts taking place to local councils and actually have to have a discussion on how we are going to solve those cuts, rather than blaming councils when we vote through those cuts? I know that Alex Rowley is in quite a difficult position on that, because his party did not exactly engage on any aspect of the budget process, at least of all some of the ideas that Alex Rowley himself put forward. Fife's councils' spending power has increased at this budget settlement by more than 5.8 per cent. Fife council has got to take certain decisions, but I come back to one of my answers to Christine Grahame. Local authorities today in Scotland, a number of them, do not exercise any charge or apply any charge for music tuition. There are choices that are made at local level by individual local authorities, and when the spending power of Fife council is increased by 5.8 per cent, I think that it is up to Fife council to look in that enhanced resource environment how they deploy the resources that are available to them. To ask the Deputy First Minister what categories of public sector workers will be exempt from the proposed workplace parking levy. The Government has expressed support for a willingness to develop an agreed amendment with the Green Party to the Transport Scotland Bill to create a discretionary power for local authorities to introduce such a levy. That is contingent on the exclusion of hospitals and NHS properties. Further discussion on the content of that amendment is under way at the present moment, and there will of course be further dialogue with the committee and further dialogue with individual local authorities should they choose to take such an approach. I thank the Deputy First Minister for that response. In exchanges earlier, he claimed that this was a policy about localism. The Scottish Government has already decreed from the centre that NHS workers will be exempt quite rightly in my view, but not teachers, police officers, local government workers or other public or even private sector workers who might be lower paid. How can teachers who are currently considering the pay offer from the Scottish Government take a proper view on that offer and what it means for their take home pay when they do not presently know if they might be facing a £400 a year additional tax charge for parking at their places of work? From somebody who voted against the budget and against the provision of any public funding to local authorities whatsoever, it is a bit rich—a bit rich—for Murdo Fraser to come here and make a claim about teachers' pay. If Murdo Fraser has had his way, there would be no money available on 1 April for our public services, and that is a dereliction of duty by the Conservative Party in this Parliament. We will take forward the agreements that we have reached with the Green Party, they will be subject to dialogue and consultation within this Parliament, and of course, if accepted, it will be up to individual councils to determine whether they wish to take forward such a provision. However, for Murdo Fraser to come here with crocodile tears about teachers' pay when he is an advocate of localism demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party. Andy Wightman The Deputy First Minister will know that powers to enable workplace parking levies exist in England. They were introduced by a Labour Government and the Nottingham scheme was implemented by a Labour council. The Liberal Democrats supported such powers in the Transport Act in the Scottish Parliament in 2000. Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that both parties appear to be more interested in partisan political point-scoring than in working together to tackle pollution, reduce congestion and empower local government? I think that members of the public will be rightly horrified by the way in which the Conservative, Liberal and Labour parties have abdicated their public responsibility to engage constructively on a budget process upon which public services depend. Mr Wightman and I disagree on quite a number of different issues, but I respect Mr Wightman for the fact that he understands that, on 1 April, public services need to be funded, we need to collect taxes, we need to make sure that the revenues are available to support our nurses, our hospitals, our schools, our public transport networks, our police services, the whole lot and the Green Party were the only people prepared to engage constructively in that process. My message to Mr Wightman is that he is right. The Labour Party, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats should be thoroughly ashamed of their appalling applications of responsibility. Neil Bibby. If the workplace parking levy is about encouraging people to use public transport, can the Deputy First Minister confirm why the SNP and the Greens budget will cut support for bus services from £64.2 million to £57.2 million in the coming year, a cut of 10.9 per cent and £7 million? The particular change that Mr Bibby refers to is about a loan scheme that was not used within the bus service operators grant. The bus service operators grant remains there as an essential part of the support for local bus services. Of course, the transport minister is currently taking through a bill in Parliament that is aimed to strengthen local bus services, and that is exactly what the Government is committed to doing. To ask the Deputy First Minister, in light of it being children's mental health week, what action the Scottish Government is taking to increase the provision of mental health support for young people? The programme for government set out a package of measures to support positive mental health and prevent ill health, backed by £1.25 billion of additional investment. That includes over £60 million in additional school counselling services supporting 350 counsellors, around £20 million for 250 additional school nurses and 80 additional counsellors in further and higher education. As part of children's mental health week, we have today announced that we will be producing new guidance on the healthy use of social media in screen time. The guidance will be designed in collaboration with young people and will seek to address some of the issues that they face around social media and mental wellbeing. Can I thank the Deputy First Minister for that response? In a report in December, the Mental Welfare Commission raised concerns about the lack of intensive psychiatric provision for young people, noting that work to explore the issues had stalled. Last year, the number of young people admitted to non-specialist wards rose to 90, and 14 young people were admitted to adult psychiatric care units. Does the Deputy First Minister think that that is acceptable, and what plans does the Government have to increase the nationwide provision of specialist mental health beds for young people, including adolescent IPC use? I think that Mary Feary raises an intensive serious issue, and I believe that we have got to make sure that young people receive the support when they have mental health and wellbeing challenges at the earliest possible opportunity of the manifestation of those conditions. For that reason, I think that we have to undertake the investment that the Government is currently making to strengthen what we might all agree are preventative interventions. If we do that, we will then minimise—this is where I come to the specific point that Mary Feary raises with me—the need for acute psychiatric interventions. The earlier we can support young people, the greater will be our chance of reducing the necessity of young people to be admitted to in-patient psychiatric units. We cannot see those in different compartments, but we have to see them as part of the whole strategy, which is exactly what the Minister for Mental Health is focused on delivering. We will take into account the issues that are raised about acute psychiatric demand, but I would want to stress to Parliament the importance that we attach to handling and resolving those issues in an overall preventative approach, which I think will be in the best interests of young people in Scotland. I thank you very much, and that concludes First Minister's questions. We are going to move on shortly to members' business in the name of Willie Coffey on congratulations to Kilmarnock FC on its 150th anniversary. We will just take a few moments for, in fact, we will have a short suspension while members change seats and the gallery also has a chance to move and change. A short suspension.