 fought? Shared questions. Question number one in the name of Claudia Beamish, has not been lodged but the member has provided an explanation. Question number two, Kenneth Gibson. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the commitment of Royal Mail to maintaining the universal service obligation given its economic impact. Cabinet Secretary, John Swinney. Postheal services are a vital lifeline for many of Scotland's communities, particularly more remote rural areas. Those communities depend on the delivery service guaranteed by their all-mails universal service obligation, which is why it is so deeply worrying to see all-mails concerns about its ability to fulfil the universal service obligation. The Minister for Energy, Energy, Enterprise and Tourism has written to the UK Government requesting reassurances that the universal service obligation still stands. With independence, the regulation of mail will be in the hands of the Scottish Parliament providing an opportunity to ensure that universal postal service that is in the best interests of communities and postal service users is achieved. An independent Scotland would also ensure that we have the ability to restore their all-mails in Scotland to public ownership. Kenneth Gibson. I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. He will no doubt be aware how important this issue is for Scotland's rural and island communities, including Arning Cymru, and my own constituency and indeed he touched on morality in his first response. On page 289 of the white paper, the Scottish Government raised concerns about the future of the universal service obligation in relation to all-mails privatisation. Does the cabinet secretary agree that keeping Scotland's rural and island communities well connected being post and other means is absolutely vital, and indeed can he explain how we would be more able to address a challenge and effectively serve Scotland's rural and island communities with the full powers of an independent country? There are three points that I would make to Mr Gibson in my response. The first is that he is absolutely correct, and I highlighted this in my initial answer, that postal services are fundamental to the connectivity of rural and island communities. The Government accepts that point, and that is why we attach such importance to the universal service obligation. Secondly, there is the issue of digital connectivity, which we recognise to be of equal significance in enabling businesses and individuals to be properly connected in the modern world. Thirdly, the opportunity of Scottish independence opens up the ability of the Government to ensure that all of those aspirations are properly and effectively fulfilled by the way in which we take forward the universal service obligation as part of the exercise of responsibilities of an independent Government. Thirdly, Annabelle Goldie. To ask the Scottish Government what the principal challenges for the economy would be in an independent Scotland. Scotland has a strong and prosperous economy. GDP per head was the 14th highest in the OECD in 2012, ahead of the United Kingdom, Japan, Italy and France. In common with most other advanced economies, Scotland will face a number of challenges in the years to come, including tackling inequalities and building greater economic resilience. Independence would equip future Scottish Governments with the policy levers that are required to provide greater flexibility in decision making, offer an opportunity to rebalance the economy and fully tackle the economic issues of population productivity and participation. Annabelle Goldie. Presiding Officer, I must apologise to the cabinet secretary because I realise that even this entire question time slot is inadequate to describe the economic challenges confronting an independent Scotland. Now that we know that financial illustration on page 75 of the white paper is wrong, having ambitiously overestimated oil revenues and grossly understated expenditure, thereby producing a budget deficit dramatically lower than the Institute of Fiscal Studies' recent projection of £8.6 billion. Will the cabinet secretary scrap page 75 and produce a corrected verse? Cabinet Secretary? I do not know if Barnes Goldie was unavailable last week. Perhaps she was in the House of Lords and did not catch up with the projections that I set out last week, which were full and comprehensive, and set out the Government's estimates based on the most recently available information on the financial health of Scotland in 2016-17. Of course, there are differences of opinion on those questions. The IFS, as Ms Goldie has just cited, takes forward the Office for Budget Responsibility figures on oil and gas revenues, for example, which ignore the fact that the oil price for a two-year period has been $11 higher than the OBR estimate, and on a variety of projections, at least of which the debt projection is likely to go even higher, although we have not used that assumption. Secondly, it ignores the fact that when oil and gas companies are investing £14 billion in oil and gas activity in the North Sea, the OBR believes, and is endorsed by the IFS, that there will be no increase in production in later years as a consequence, despite the fact that the industry analysts contradict that information. I encourage Ms Goldie to go and look at the financial projections that we set out last week, which addressed directly the question that she has raised. The final point that I would make is this. Ms Goldie cites the analysis of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which essentially is an indictment of the management of the public finances of this country by Westminster Governments. It is time that we acquired the powers to deliver a better economic future for the people of our country. Of course, the cabinet secretary is right to say that there are different opinions on these matters, but is it not the case that the vast majority of economists point out that the fiscal situation for an independent Scotland will be more difficult than for the rest of the UK? Also, as I reminded him last week, that interest rates will certainly be higher for a considerable period of time. The first point that Mr Chisholm raised is that he talks about the variety of voices. If he looks at the IFS, the CPPR and all of the analysis that is undertaken on those questions is driven by the OBR analysis, no other separate analysis, no other detailed research process, it is all driven by the OBR statistics. I have set out in some considerable detail last week the issues that we take with the OBR analysis of oil and gas revenues. Of course, what the analysis last week showed is that Scotland's public finances in 2016 on all key fiscal measures would be similar to or stronger than both the UK and the G7 industrialised countries. It is high time that people in the Opposition parties in Parliament recognise that we have opportunities to create a better economic future in Scotland. The question is whether we have the determination and the confidence to acquire those economic powers and start to tackle the issues of inequality and poverty that exist in our society and which the Labour Party, the Liberals and the Conservatives are prepared to tolerate for a good deal longer. We are not. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of the models for GP practices in rural areas. The Scottish Government continues to promote a range of initiatives to recruit and support GPs working in remote and rural areas, including what is led by NHS Highland to develop and test innovative ways of delivering healthcare in rural areas of Scotland. Progress has been slower than planned due to the on-going difficulties in recruiting GPs to vacant posts. To address those difficulties, a bespoke recruitment exercise is under development, which it is anticipated will be in place by the summer. I can assure the chamber that the Scottish Government recognises the current challenges in remote and rural healthcare delivery and is committed to ensuring that all communities in Scotland have access to high-quality and sustainable healthcare services. The cabinet secretary will be aware, and he has mentioned the West Lechabar area. My constituents are very concerned about that, because although the model being driven by NHS Highland and supported by the cabinet secretary is a good model, the difficulty in attracting GPs to those posts is what we have to overcome. Of course, in the meantime, we are spending an awful lot of money on locum GPs, which is costing the health board a fortune. Can the cabinet secretary elaborate a wee bit more on the bespoke model that he mentioned just now? I am pleased that one new GP has been appointed and a major recruitment campaign will be launched in the next few weeks with the support of a marketing expert to recruit the additional GPs that are needed to staff the model. Of course, the original proposal for this model came from the local GPs. In the meantime, we have been fortunate in having some consistent locums that have been able to provide continuity of care, and Dr Gatshaw is providing clinical leadership for the locums. However, we are happy, along with Highland Health Board, to look at any additional work that we can do, for example, more extensive use of telehealth to try to overcome the problems both in West Lechabar and, indeed, in other remote rural areas across Scotland. Richard Simpson I thank the cabinet secretary for his answers. He has, of course, just tabled the new pharmacy regulations, which may remove some of the uncertainty, although it is disappointing that there is not a proposal to have joint pharmacy GP dispensing established. I wonder if he would recognise, along with me, that a marketing programme, while it is welcome, is going to have a problem recruiting until the uncertainty around current applications for pharmacy, for some areas, is dealt with. Will he recognise the problems that have been created in Cullen and Drumann, and possibly in Abba Ffail, if the appeal against the pharmacy is not successful, by existing pharmacy applications? Richard Simpson I recognise the problems that I have taken action to deal with them. That is why the regulations are now before Parliament and, assuming that they are approved by Parliament, will be implemented at the earliest possible opportunity. It is highly regrettable that, for example, in the Cumbria, we have lost a GP dispensary because a pharmacy came in and it costs so far to the health board in recruiting locums for that particular area has been £0.5 million. That money would be far, far better spent in other parts of the health service investment. I absolutely agree with the analysis and I put in place action to deal with the problem. Chris Crawford I wonder if the cabinet secretary would agree with me in relation to Drumann in particular that it is disappointing that some political parties were putting out a message that would be possible in law to bring a moratorium in before the new regulations came in, because that is what has been happening and it has been misleading local people. Would he also welcome the fact that the health board turned up to a meeting this week with over 200 people to explain how that would be taken forward? I was the only MSP who was in attendance. Bruce Crawford makes a number of very relevant and absolutely true points with which I agree. One of the great tragedies of recent developments has been the spreading of disinformation. We saw it with the policy on continuing healthcare, where deliberate disinformation has been spread by certain political elements that, quite frankly, should know better. David Scott I reinforce Richard Simpson's point and agree with the cabinet secretary's remarks on how important pharmacies are to GP practices. I have the regulations here. Would he be able to tell Parliament and more importantly GP practices what practical difference these new regulations will make so as to ensure that some of the circumstances that other members have described and certainly I have had in my constituency are not repeated in the future? The two core impacts that these new regulations will have are number one, there will be a community voice in the application process, which to date has been missing, and that is going to be extremely important. Secondly, the board now has the power in looking at any particular application to look at the potential consequences of an application on the wider health service, in particular at the impact on primary care services in their area. The moment that the board would not be legally covered by the existing regulations if they took that consideration into account when deciding an application, they now will be able to do that so that in a Cumbria-type situation, for example, if the consequence of approving an entry for a new pharmacy is that you are going to lose your local GP service, that would be justification for the board refusing the application for the pharmacy. Number five, Paul Martin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being last met NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what matters were discussed. Presiding Officer, ministers and Government officials regularly meet with representatives of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to discuss matters of importance to local people. I wonder when the minister, when he met with the health board, if he discussed the fact that the proportion of Scots aged between 16 and 64 who were overweight or obese increased to 60.1 per cent in 2012. Has he considered the new guidelines from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, particularly the recommendation that state-funded slimming classes should be considered as a cost-effective means of dealing with obesity problems? Presiding Officer, I have made it absolutely clear both to the public health function in the National Health Service in Scotland and the NHS and the health boards that we should be looking at every single way that we can improve exercise and diet, particularly in areas of deprivation and poverty. As we know, whether the condition is cancer, stroke, heart disease or a range of other problems, obesity and overweight is a major contributing factor through lack of exercise and lack of a proper diet. We are engaged in a whole range of initiatives across the country, and we are proposing to engage in many more to encourage people to take much more exercise and to improve their diet as a prerequisite to improving their health. Having met the board, does the cabinet secretary satisfy that each of the obstacles to which he has recently referred, acting as impediments to the introduction and access of all new medicines, has now been overcome? We are in constant touch with the board and, indeed, with others, such as the Beats and on Colleges, who have expressed concern about the particular process in Glasgow. I have made it absolutely clear that I expect the Glasgow process to be as robust as every other process in every other part of the country, and that there should be no denial of access to medicines in Glasgow, which is available to patients elsewhere in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee about the use of the special reserve fund. The game continues to be delivered on time and on budget. The Scottish Government meets the Glasgow 2014 Organising Committee frequently to discuss a wide range of issues relevant to the delivery of successful games. Those meetings cover financial matters, including how to manage all the elements of the budget, including the special reserve. John Lomant, I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Last week it was reported that the Commonwealth Games Organisers were preparing to access the special reserve fund finance alterations to the opening and closing ceremonies. While we are all anticipating an exciting and successful games, the special reserve fund was only intended to be called upon in the words of one Government official if a really unexpected left field event occurred. Access to the fund has to come through the First Minister, so could the cabinet secretary confirm whether the reports are accurate and if so, how much money will be taken from the special reserve? The operational contingency and the special reserve form part of the games budget of £575.6 million. The funds in the operational contingency and the special reserve are both available to be drawn upon to ensure that the games can be delivered successfully and that the experience of the spectators is optimised. The Organising Committee has notified games partners of potential pressures on the special reserve. At this time, £800,000 from the special reserve of £23.8 million has been notionally committed to meet those potential pressures associated with venue fit-out should they materialise. Access to the special reserve requires the approval of the Scottish ministers. That has been approved and any further request for use of the special reserve would similarly have to be approved by the Scottish ministers. To ask the Scottish Government when it will publish a report on the future of Shambili House. The Scottish Government has recently received the final report on the options for future use of Shambili House. We intend to hold a public meeting in New Abbey in July, which will last the Princess Regeneration Trust to present that report and, of course, all those members to be involved in that meeting. We intend to publish the report itself on the Scottish Government website imminently. I am very grateful to the minister for that response, but the fact remains that the report that was supposed to be published in November was postponed until March. As far as I know, it has been ready for publication since then. Nonetheless, that is good news. However, what makes matters worse is that the grounds of Shambili House have been completely neglected by the Scottish Government since it took over responsibility for them. The whole place now has an air of dereliction and declay. Can I plead with the minister to at least ensure that some basic upkeep of the house and grounds is undertaken as a matter of urgency until the further options for the property have been determined? The reason for the slight delay in the report was, of course, because we had to go through those options thoroughly, which I know that the member will understand absolutely given undertaking to the member that will put arrangements in immediately to ensure that the grounds are to the standard that we would expect them to be in. I will ensure that I report back to the member on those arrangements as soon as they are done. I can just squeeze in question number eight of the question and answers are brief, Gordon MacDonald. To ask the Scottish Government how many households there are in Scotland compared with the number of dwellings. Minister, Margaret Burgess. The latest national records of Scotland statistical publication on households and dwellings in Scotland estimates that, as of June 2012, there were a total of 2.39 million households in Scotland where a household is defined as the people living together in a dwelling. This compares to a total of 2.5 million dwellings as of September of the same year. The number of households is fewer than the number of dwellings because some of the dwellings are vacant or second homes. Briefly, minister MacDonald. I thank the minister for that answer. The report highlights the 130,000 more homes than households across Scotland. In the largest proportion of this difference was made up of vacant homes. Given that the housing problems in Edinburgh and there are 4,300 vacant homes in Edinburgh, what steps is the Government taking to encourage long-term empty properties back into use? Briefly minister. In 2012, we brought forward legislation to allow councils to increase council tax charges in certain long-term empty homes. We have also supported the work of the empty homes partnership and provided 4.5 million empty homes loans fund and also made interest to know that a number of councils now employ a dedicated empty homes officers working directly with owners of empty homes to bring their properties back into use, particularly for affordable homes. Thank you minister. We now move to First Minister's Questions. Question number one, Johann Lamont.