 I ask a third question. I bring back the question. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the approval of the Scottish Police Authority budget, in light of reports that capital funding shortfalls have left Police Scotland using patrol cars that are over a decade-old. The Scottish Police Authority considered and approved its budget for 2019-20 at its meeting on 28 March 2019, the total Scottish Government funding for the SPA in 2020 is increasing by £42.3 million, meaning that the annual policing budget is now over £1.2 billion. That includes significantly a 52 per cent increase to the capital budget. In relation to its investment in fleet, Police Scotland will continue to ensure that it provides a fleet that is fit for purpose, safe, reliable and sufficiently flexible to be responsive to the dynamic nature of policing that is outlined in its fleet strategy. The chief constable, Ian Loviston, has said, and I quote, Our maintenance team is doing an excellent job. We have over 96 per cent of the fleet on the road across a multitude of demands that are prioritising the capital budget. We have been allocated and investing in the right areas to achieve as much as we can as quickly as we can. Liam Kerr. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. It was revealed this week that 250 of Police Scotland's patrol cars are over 10 years old, and some vehicles have up to 200,000 miles on the clock. The chair of the SPF told her conference last week that the fleet is, and I quote, a disgrace. A straight question for the cabinet secretary. Does he think that it is acceptable that officers are having to apprehend criminals in vehicles held together with duct tape? I mean completely and utterly crying crocodile tears from a Tory MSP that, when we brought forward the capital budget increase of 52 per cent, he and his colleagues voted against that budget. 100 million pounds resource protection up until 2021, and Liam Kerr and his party voted against it. 125 million pounds in VAT that Police Scotland had to pay, and no other force in England and Wales had to pay. You have done he-haw about it, so if you forgive me, if he spares me the crocodile tears, I will tell him a little bit more about those figures that he quoted. Vehicles more than 10 years old, actually 268. Only five of them are on the front line. The vast majority of them are non-front line response vehicles. When he talks about vehicles that are over 200,000 miles on the clock, he says that there is one vehicle that is over 200,000 miles, and that is a non-operational vehicle that is used as a training tool for armed policing. A bit of context and maybe a lack of the crocodile tears would be much better if he supported us in the budget that is increasing capital for police as opposed to a Tory Government that is taking away our VAT that no other force in England and Wales has to pay. Liam Kerr. I hear the cabinet secretary's response, but he knows full well that the Scottish Conservatives cleaned up their mess on the police and fire VAT and put 25 million back into the front line each year. Last week, the Scottish Police Authority approved their annual budget. Thanks to the SNP's cuts to the capital budget, it says that repairs and maintenance of buildings will be reduced, worn out inefficient cars will not be replaced and the force will continue to rely on several outdated and disconnected IT systems. The cabinet secretary frequently hides behind the operational matter defence, but he can't do it this time. The SNP has been in charge of the police service for nearly 12 years, so a straight question, cabinet secretary, because you struggled with the last one, surely he will agree with me that our officers deserve better than this. The SNP is a Tory Government that pinches 125 million off them, does not pinch it off police forces. In England and Wales, you have pointed at me, you should be pointing at his colleagues south of the border, who have stolen that money from Police Scotland. Let's just take the Tory's budget plan. They would have taken 575 million out of Scottish budget. The police officers wouldn't be around in police cars, they would be riding around in rickshaws if him and his party were frankly in charge. There is the issue of the VAT, the Tory budget plans, which would take 575 million out of policing and out of budgets in total. Let me give them a little bit of correction, a bit of context, around some of those figures. The average fleet age is five years old. The average unmarked police car has a mileage of 57,000 miles, not 200,000 miles. The overall vehicle availability is 96.4 per cent against a benchmark of 95 per cent in the rest of the UK. Of course, budgets will be constrained, no doubt, in fact, and in significant part, down to the decade of austerity imposed on us by the Conservative Party. Instead of carping from the sidelines, crying those crocodile tears, how about he supports a budget that we have put forward of a 52 per cent capital uplift, and then of course we will continue to invest in the police while his party continues to decimate the police. Liam McArthur, full by Richard Lyle. Thank you very much. As the Liberal Democrats' freedom of information request uncovered, a quarter of the police force's fleet has clocked up between 100,000 and 200,000 miles. Frontline officers say that the fleet is not just a disgrace, but also inadequate. Recently, in Fife, only two of nine police vehicles were road-worthy. The lack of resources was a consistent theme in the 2015 police staff survey. That survey was supposed to be repeated in 2017. Will the cabinet secretary now ask the national force to bring forward the long overdue survey to find out what staff now think about the tools that they are given? I am not there to interfere in operational matters for Police Scotland, but I should say to Liam McArthur that the same context applies to the question that Liam McArthur asked, but I remind him that, although I am having a go at the Conservatives for withholding VAT, it was Sir Danny Alexander, the treasurer at the time, of course, who made the decision to withhold that VAT. It would be helpful to have his support to get that VAT back from the UK Government. As I say, we will continue to invest in the police. There is £100 million resource protection for the police. There is a 52 per cent uplift in capital. Yes, where Police Scotland can get that feedback, be it from the trade unions such as the Police Federation or, indeed, directly from the members. Of course, he is welcome to encourage Police Scotland to do that, because feedback from police officers is, of course, important. I have to tell you that, when we give them a 6.5 per cent historic pay rise, the feedback has been one to welcome that. I always listen to police officers. We will continue to listen to them and to have engagement with the Scottish Police Federation, but I would be helpful if other political parties—I understand why Liam Kerr will not do it—were to be helpful if other political parties, Liberal Democrats, got on board and demanded that £125 million VAT back from the UK Government. Richard Lyle, to be followed by Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just for the avoidance of doubt, could the cabinet secretary reiterate what percentage capital uplift there will be this year for the police in the Scottish budget? Perhaps, could he again remind the chamber which parties voted against that increase? Of course, all the political parties, with the honourable exception of the Green Party, voted against a budget that would have seen a 52 per cent uplift in capital, a revenue protection for Police Scotland, a funded historic pay rise for police officers, which is described by the Scottish Police Federation as the best uplift to police officer pay in 20 years. Those political parties will have to answer for that. Of course, there is a genuine question here in and around the capital allocation. I am happy to explore that. I have said that very publicly in the record at the sub-committee on policing that I am happy to look at this question of a capital allocation, but let us not talk down the good work that the maintenance and fleet repair team at Police Scotland do that are keeping our vehicles not just on the road, but 96 per cent of our vehicles on the road responding to emergency incidents. They should be congratulated as opposed to belittled by the other parties in this chamber. The paper that was submitted to the SPA board last week exposed issues with the capital budget that go far beyond simply the fleet. It shows a £43.1 million capital allocation against a request of £99 million. It shows a capital budget that is the fifth worst in the UK, despite the fact that we have the second largest police force. Indeed, if you compare it with the Metropolitan Police, their capital budget per officer is almost five times higher than that of Police Scotland. Has the cabinet secretary had discussions with senior officers who submitted those papers about their concerns about the shortfall in capital expenditure from this budget? Can I just make again the point that I have made to other political parties? He voted against a budget that gave a 52 per cent uplift. Not only that, his colleague sitting next to Miles Brown was the only one that came, but budget proposals honourably came, the only one that engaged. In fact, if we had listened to Labour's plans, there would have been a three per cent cut, let alone a 52 per cent uplift in Police Scotland's budget. He must reflect on his position before coming here, demanding more money. When it comes to the capital question, yes, I have engaged with Police Scotland, and the majority of its capital ask a significant part of their ask is for DDICT, an ICT project, which is of course very, very important. We will look at that, we will explore that, but of course he would expect me that for any ICT project to interrogate that, so yes, part of it is fleets, part of it is estate and a significant part of it is for ICT. Something that I have great sympathy for, but rightly we will make sure that we evaluate that and of course we will come forward with future spending reviews. This year's budget provides investment of £711 million in social care and integration, a 29 per cent increase over last year. Additionally, the report on the joint review of progress with integration of health and social care, which was published on 4 February this year, identifies a range of actions, including on integrated finances and financial planning, all of which are to be delivered by March 2020. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The leaders of the Edinburgh board have refused to accept their funding deal, which was due to start yesterday. They have made £11.6 million worth of cuts already, but still face a further funding black hole of £12.6 million. Board member Mike Ash said that we cannot go on pretending that we can deliver the services that people expect with the money that we have. If he is being so honest, why can't the cabinet secretary? Edinburgh does not have enough money to care for its vulnerable, does it? I am going to repeat the answer that I gave last time. I am being completely honest, 29 per cent increase over last year in the budget. That is against, if I can just remind Ms Dugdale, a 6.8 per cent cut in real terms from the UK Government between 2010, 2011 and 2019-20 to this Government's budget. I do not accept that this Government has done anything other than absolutely prioritise the health budget, including health and social care. What I require integration authorities to do is to look at how they reform the delivery of their services in order to get the best value and deliver what patient care needs. That is both the health board and the local authority. Of course, as Ms Dugdale, I am sure, is well aware, the point of integration is to devolve those decisions to integration joint boards who should be best placed to determine what their local population needs with that significant additional funding from this Government. I do not accept the premise of her question. The Government with COSLA will continue to engage with those integration joint boards in order to help them to do the work that we need them to do where they have difficulties that they are facing. Can I say to the cabinet secretary that she needs to lift her head from her spreadsheet and look at exactly what is happening in the real world? In order to balance its books, Edinburgh is considering cutting mental health services and slashing its drug and alcohol partnership funding. On top of that, the FOI request from my office shows that there are 160 people in the city right now getting incomplete care packages, over 600 people waiting for a package to start and a whopping 1,200 people waiting to be assessed. If Edinburgh cannot afford to stand still, how on earth will 2,000 of my constituents get the help that they desperately and urgently need? Can I say to Ms Dugdale that it is a bit ironic to have someone from the Labour Party suggest that I live in the real world? Trust me, I live in the real world. It would be helpful to move away from the rhetoric and focus on what the jointly agreed plan with COSLA, including all those authorities that includes Labour-led and other authorities, has agreed with this Government in order to help to increase the pace and delivery of integrated health and social care. To the significant success in many parts of our country, every single one of our IJBs needs to improve what they are doing, but COSLA and I have committed to direct action to intervene and support where that is necessary. Once again, the chamber has to remember that, if you want to devolve decision making to local bodies such as IJBs, you have to allow those decisions to be made and not constantly want the Government to jump in and fix things because you do not like what the local decisions are. We have to allow that local flexibility, but where that does not meet the overarching priorities of this Government, then, of course, we will not act to assist them to do so. Miles Briggs, by Emma Harper. That is not about fixing things, it is about stopping them being smashed in the first place, because across Scotland we are seeing proposals to close care homes for alcohol and drug partnerships and primary care transformation funds, which the cabinet secretary says that she is passionate about to drive forward GP reforms, all being raided. The integration of health and social care is something that we all agree with across the chamber, but that is putting that at risk. That is not how it was meant to be. How will SNP ministers look now to what is the growing financial crisis across our IJBs? She wrote off £150 million of debt for health boards. It is clear that our IJBs will be in a similar position. What is she doing to monitor that and potentially work with IJBs to help them to address that record debt? Can I redirect Mr Briggs towards two things? First of all, a 26 per cent increase for the funding of health and social care integration. If you want more money for that area, you have to say where it is going to come from. I do not want to repeat where Mr Eustach has got to, but there is a bit of brass net going on here in terms of asking for more money and more resources into an area when the overall budget is not one that you and your colleagues supported at all. I redirect you to the joint review on integration and where it got to, and to the actions that were taken as a consequence of that. To the evidence that Councillor Corry and I gave to the committee on which you sit, the work that is going on with the IJB finance officers and the finance director in Scottish Government, the joint work that we are doing with COSLA, with those IJBs, to assist their financial planning, to work their way through where they have financial difficulties. However, I do not accept that there is a financial crisis—I never accept, Mr Briggs—the hyperbole that you choose to use in order to get to Morrill's newspaper headline. It is not true, and you need to deal with this matter seriously. I encourage all members—it is not just the Cabinet Secretary—all members to not use the term you. Do not refer to each other. Refer to all remarks through the chair and talk about the person who is talking to you and the third person who does not see you. Otherwise, the debate becomes very personal. Emma Harper. I am aware that Dumfries and Galloway health board manages its health budget without using a set-aside model. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the implementation of a set-aside budget has aided integration and can she confirm whether health boards and IJBs have discretion over its use? Emma Harper points to a really important part of the overall financial package for health and social care integration, which includes what is called set-aside funding, but it also includes the significant reserves that some of our IJBs have, which are not allocated to any specific purpose. Part of the overall work that we have agreed with COSLA is to put all that into the mix in order to ensure parity of funding across all our IJBs and to get the best use out of those funds. What is referred to as set-aside is a budget of money or allocation of money that is for the IJB to determine the best use of it, given its responsibility for planning and commissioning of local services. Some of that may then be used by a health board with the IJBs agreement to deliver particular services, particularly around unscheduled care, which is what the set-aside money is specifically targeted to cover, but it does not necessarily cover only that. However, the IJB is the decision maker in this area, and we have issued clear additional guidance to both our health boards and our IJBs to make sure that they understand that, and that will be part of the discussions that we continue to have with IJB finance officers, but also with our health boards going forward. Lewis MacDonald, to be followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you very much. The cabinet secretary wrote to the Health and Sport Committee last month to say that her expectation was that budgets for all integrated joint boards would be in place in advance of the start of the new financial year. Can she confirm that budgets for Scotland's other IJBs for 2019-20 have now been agreed, and when does she expect those budgets to be made public? My understanding is that the majority of budgets—I think that there were two outstanding budgets—has now been confirmed and agreed. That is my understanding that the majority of budgets for IJBs have now been agreed. There are some instances where we do not believe that the local authority has passed on the full amount of that additional £160 million that went from the health portfolio to local authorities for integrated health and social care for additional provision in integrated health and social care. There are one or two areas where we do not believe that the local authority has passed on that full amount. I am meeting Councillor Corry this afternoon. We will go through a number of areas, including the overall budget and individual IJB situations. That is my understanding in terms of the publishing of those. They should be publishing those within the coming weeks, but I will endeavour to get a final cut-off time and make sure that Mr MacDonald is aware of that. Alex Rowley I worry that the cabinet secretary's discussions with COSLA are failing to focus on some of the key issues. The former cabinet secretary for health argued in here just a month or so ago that there needs to be bridging funding put in place in order that, through time, the transfer fee acute into primary could actually take place. That is clearly not happening today. Embed blocking is further up. Does she agree with that? Does she agree that the former health secretary also talked about the Alaskan model? There is a crisis there, and it is not about who blames who. The fact is that people who are trying to access community care in Scotland are feeling that crisis when they do so. That is largely what the set-aside money was designed for, was to act in some way as that bridging fund. For example, the IJB in Dundee used set-aside money and some of their reserves to engage in a bit of a service redesign and transformation in order to ensure that, sustainably in the longer term, the services that they were planning and commissioning could be delivered. We have some IJBs who have sought to use their reserves and, in part, set-aside money to do precisely that, which is the point that I have made before when we have discussed integration of health and social care. Across the 31 partnership areas, we have some areas that are doing well in some aspects of their work, others doing less well in those aspects and so on. It is a mixed picture, which is precisely why the work with COSLA is very targeted. It is targeted to look at those IJBs where there are areas of improvement that are required, either in financial planning or in the work on delayed discharge, which, as it happens, the statistics published today, show a reduction in the numbers of delayed discharge over the previous month—not good enough yet, but going in the right direction. That is the kind of focus that we have between ourselves and COSLA, in addition to the regular work that my officials engage in directly with the chief officers and the finance officers, as well as with the health boards themselves. I think that we are aware of the challenge. We are trying in that integration review and the actions from that to take specific targeted action. In addition, as Mr Rowley knows on the specific issue in Fife, that work continues to try to resolve the particular legacy deficit that the IJBs started with. I think that we are moving in the right direction and are very focused. That is not to say that there is not more that we can do, and we are very open to any additional measures that members may think that we should take. Thank you very much, and that concludes topical questions. We will return now to a point of order from Patrick Harvie. Apologies, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased that we are going to have the opportunity to debate the climate change bill at stage 1 this afternoon. As you will be aware, that is an issue about which many, many people across society are deeply concerned. As we have seen from the rally outside Parliament, where many, many people have been calling for changes to strengthen the bill, they knew that they had to organise a rally outside Parliament because the rules on events inside Parliament state that events and exhibitions must respect the wide range of existing channels for influencing parliamentary business by not lobbying on parliamentary business under current consideration. I was surprised therefore that members are walking up towards the chamber past a large corporate exhibition for the fossil fuel industry, an industry whose very existence is directly relevant to the climate crisis that the bill exists to address. And indeed, aside from the existence of that industry being relevant to climate change, the material that they are promoting today does include explicit discussion, a document like this one about energy transition in low-carbon. Mr Harvie, how do you get to the point of order, please? Of low-carbon targets of government, climate policy and targets. Mr Harvie, this is a political point now. Can you get to the point of order? I would like to ask why the apparent double standards exist that mean that pro-climate action campaigners need to organise events outside Parliament, but the fossil fuel industry, which is implicated in causing this crisis, is lobbying inside Parliament on a day when debating the bill? Thank you very much, Mr Harvie. It is open to any member in the chamber to organise an event in an exhibition. Those events are planned well in advance. They are covered by the events in the exhibition rules, not by the lobbying, which is a different matter altogether, and that is not a point of order for this chamber. I hope that it is a further point of order, not another argument about the point. I am, of course, happy to accept your ruling that you think that it is not a point of order. I would be grateful for some clarity as to how members can see that this rule will be consistently applied in the future, as it has not been today. That is not a point of order. There are plenty of procedures to deal with these matters outside the chamber. We are going to turn to our next item of business, which is a debate on motion 1, 697, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on stage 1, debate on climate change emissions reduction targets Scotland bill. I could invite all members who wish to speak or to contribute to the debate to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible.