 13.00. John Sw зем, IV. 14.00. 24.00. 15.00. 26.00. 27.00. 28.00. 29.00. 29.00. 29.00. 29.00. 25.00. 29.00. mewn cyfaciliadau, Peyton, Gwladys, Llywodraeth a Llywodraethau, Cwladys, Llywodraeth, Llywodraeth a Llywodraeth, Llywodraeth y Gwladys iiscu dalol. Felly ddym ni'n fwyaf i gyd, Ac yn cael ei ysgolodau sydd yn rhan am yr SDIF, yma, am digon ni gyd i'u sgolodau. ac mae ddmyineisio wrth eu hwn i'r hyn o'r newid diwrnodau eu genedlaeth. Rwellach mgrindais, dystod na'r newid cyffreinol oedd y gynhyrch yn ei gynhyrch. Felly, fel Deryct mcaid yn y quen oesbarth yn y parlymedd i gyd. Mae m hanguc oesbarth gwyff곡io esg torri o'r cyfnodau mae 304 miliwn pwn. Mae genedlaeth 1.3% numerol ar yr ymgynghwyl yma. Over the decade, Tory austerity has taken £2 billion out of this Government's budget. That is 7 per cent in real terms. When you consider that, I think that the fact that Derek Mackay yesterday managed a three-quarters of a billion increase for the national health service, real terms protection for local government, real terms protection for the education portfolio, more spending on the limited areas of welfare that we are responsible for than we inherited from the UK Government. I think that Derek Mackay has done a very, very good job indeed. Jackson Carlaw Well, once again, nice excerpts from our big book of Voldemort's excuses, but not actually an answer to the question I put, because the Fraser of Allander Institute says the block grant is going up. The Scottish Fiscal Commission says it's going up. The Scottish Parliament's information service says it's going up. It's just a pity that, typically, the First Minister refuses to acknowledge that. Even her own budget document shows that it's going up by over half a billion pounds. Let's give her another chance. In a further boast yesterday, Mr Mackay claimed that 99 per cent of Scotland's taxpayers will pay less tax next year than this. Can the First Minister tell us who is most responsible for the welcome tax cut? Is it Derek Mackay or is it Philip Hammond? The First Minister I'm sorry to disappoint Jackson Carlaw. I didn't even have to get to page one of my big book, because his questions weren't that testing for me. Even now, I'm not going to have to open. The fact of the matter is that it's not just the fact that, yes, 99 per cent of taxpayers in Scotland will pay less tax next year than they do this year. Due to the decisions of Derek Mackay, 55 per cent of taxpayers in Scotland will pay less tax than their counterparts in the rest of the UK, making Scotland, of course, the fairest tax part of the UK. What is really irritating Jackson Carlaw today is that we have chosen not to give a tax cut to higher-rate taxpayers like him. We haven't increased tax for higher-rate taxpayers. We've just chosen not to reduce it. I know that Jackson Carlaw wants us to match the tax cut for higher-rate taxpayers in the rest of the UK. I'll give him this invitation again, which he didn't take up last week. Maybe he will do so now. If we were to do that, it would cost £500 million. When he replied to Derek Mackay yesterday, I can't immediately see Murdo Fraser probably hiding up the back. Not only did he call for us to spend an extra half a billion pounds cutting tax for higher-rate taxpayers, he also seemed to call for us to spend an extra billion pounds on local government. Can Jackson Carlaw explain to me right now where in the budget does he want us to take the money? Is it from health, education or local government? I am waiting with bated breath for the answer to that question. I am actually here to ask questions, but what I will do is go. Let's turn to it because in the Scottish Scotland's economic and fiscal forecast, December 2018, it says that we expect Derek Mackay's decisions yesterday to start to have an effect on tax residency decisions in Scotland. You can't tax people who are coming to Scotland to tax, First Minister. If you start to ensure that residency decisions are taken by those people who we need in our hospitals to fill consultancy vacancies, if you start to take decisions that affect the number of employers we have, then you won't have higher-tax rate payers here that you can continue to tax the way that you currently do. Let's return. I asked two questions and I failed to get two answers. The answer of course was that it is Mr Hammond who has reduced taxation. According to the Scottish Government's own figures, from April next year, a household with an income of £15,000 a year will get a tax cut of £130.49. £130 of that much-deserved tax break is because of the decision by the UK Government to increase the tax-free personal allowance. So how much of that tax break will be down to the Scottish Government's budget announced yesterday, all of £49? That's the real difference between these ventures. A £130 tax cut for low-paid workers delivered by the Conservatives while the SNP gives them the price of a packet of crisps. So let me give the First Minister one last chance to see if she can be straight with people today. Again yesterday, Mr Mackay boasted that, in 2018, the economy was predicted to grow in Scotland at a faster rate than the UK as a whole. So, First Minister, great news of its true. However, according to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, in how many of the following years is this also predicted to be the case? The First Minister is already growing faster this year than the economy in the rest of the UK. That wasn't predicted a year or so ago, so I'm not entirely sure that Jackson Carlaw's question in that regard takes some very far. Let me return to some of his other questions. He talks a lot about the personal allowance. Can I gently remind Jackson Carlaw the personal allowance is reserved to the UK Government and they oppose the devolution of that? He also talks about behavioural impacts. If he read the Scottish Fiscal Commission reports a bit more closely, he would see that the numbers fully take account of any predicted behavioural impact. Even taking account of that, Derek Mackay's decision to freeze the higher-rate threshold rather than increase it with inflation raises £68 million in the next financial year. If Jackson Carlaw doesn't want us to do that, he has to tell us where that £68 million should come from. If he wants us to go further and match the tax cut of Philip Hammond, he has to tell us where the £500 million is going to come from. Since he likes comparisons, let me give him a few—murdo Fraser again yesterday was talking about public sector workers—a few illustrations of the differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Those illustrations take account of the Scottish Government's tax plans and the Scottish Government's pay policy. An NHS porter at the top of a gender for change band 2 will be £800 better off in Scotland than if it worked in NHS England. A radiographer will be £380 better off in Scotland. A new start police officer will be £4,500 better off in Scotland. A police constable at the top of their scale will be £1,200 better off in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. Lastly, in terms of the illustrations, let's take a paramedic working hard in our ambulance service— £400 better off in Scotland than if it worked in the rest of the UK. I think that the budget is a good deal. Of course, all that does not even take account of the fact that, if you live and work in Scotland, your children do not have to pay £9,000 a year to go to university. Your elderly relative does not have to pay for personal care. Taxpayers in Scotland, at whatever amount they earn, get a far better deal under this Government, and long may it continue. Jackson Carlaw It is so long ago that I asked my question—I might just remind the chamber of what it was. I asked the First Minister in how many of the following years the Scottish Fiscal Commission predicted that economic growth would be greater in Scotland. The First Minister did not answer that because the answer is none. In every year from 2019 until 2023 Scotland's growth rate is predicted by the Scottish Fiscal Commission to be lower than the UK as a whole, Scotland in the slow lane with the SNP. It is no surprise that we do not get answers from this First Minister. She simply prefers to shout abuse from the sidelines. Stoking up her indignation this week to berate the Prime Minister. That is from the same First Minister who, for the last year and a half, has dangled Scotland on a thread as she has danced and dodged around her deeply divisive second independence referendum. Double standards and hypocrisy, are they not the hallmarks of the SNP Government? The First Minister Jackson Carlaw, embarrassingly for him, talks about people shouting abuse. Tory MPs have spent the week shouting abuse at each other while they plunge this entire country into chaos and crisis, but let's go back to the GDP figures and the performance of Scotland's economy. The point that I was making about Jackson Carlaw's questions about forecast GDP growth is that, if he wind the clock back, the figures would not have predicted that our economy was growing faster than the UK's in this year and yet our economy is growing faster than the UK's in this year. Scotland's GDP outperforming the UK in the first six months of this year. Scotland's unemployment rate at the lowest rate on record and lower than any of the other UK nations. Scotland's exports are increasing faster than in any other UK nation and, of course, we continue to be the best part of the UK outside of London when it comes to attracting foreign direct investment. So an economy that is doing better, a budget that is fairer and gives a better deal to people hardworking in our public sector and across our private sector, that's what you get when you get real strong and stable government in Scotland with the SNP. What a welcome contrast to the utter shambles that the Tories are presiding over at Westminster. Thank you for turning to question 2. Can you just say that that was 12 and a half minutes for that opening exchange? That is too long. That is too long and I would expect succinct questions, succinct answers from now on. Question 2, Richard Leonard. Presiding Officer, yesterday Derek Mackay said that the Scottish Government will continue to mitigate the worst impacts of the Tory Government's social security cuts. Is the two-child cap on tax credits and universal credit not one of the worst impacts? As Richard Leonard knows, this Government does everything it can to mitigate UK welfare cuts. We are spending in the region of £100 million every year to do that. The fact that we cannot mitigate every cut is not a lack of political will, it's a fact of basic arithmetic. We don't hold the budget for reserved areas of welfare, so every penny of mitigation has to come from another area of our responsibilities. As the UN special rapporteur in poverty said just a few weeks ago, and I'm quoting, devolved administrations have tried to mitigate the worst impacts of austerity, but mitigation comes at a price and is not sustainable. I would say to Richard Leonard again if he wants us not simply to mitigate UK Government Tory welfare cuts but to stop them at source. Will he join with me today and ask for all those powers over welfare to be devolved to this Parliament? That's the real answer. Why won't Richard Leonard back it? Richard Leonard. Presiding Officer, here are the facts. This Parliament has the power to mitigate the two child cap, and that would immediately benefit 3,780 families across Scotland, some by over £2,500 per child per year. The urgent issue for these families is not which Parliament sets social security policy, it's whether their kids go to bed hungry tonight and whether they can clothe them tomorrow morning. It would just cost 0.2 per cent of the Scottish budget to deliver, so why won't you act? I'm going to make a genuine offer to Richard Leonard right now, and I hope it's one that he takes seriously. Denis McIwen set out the budget yesterday that he fully allocated all the resources that the Scottish Government has at our disposal. I know that Labour thought that we had kept £300 million in a reserve, but they misread the budget. We'd actually taken £300 million out of reserve to spend on public services. We've used our tax powers and we've allocated all the resources at our disposal. We've chosen to invest in the health service and education local government in welfare. My offer to Richard Leonard is, of course, as many other things I would love to have the money to do. If Richard Leonard wants us to spend money on other things, he has to come to us. We'll help him to cost those things, because we know from comments from his colleagues this week that they have difficulty in Labour costing their proposals. We'll help him to cost them, but once they're costed, if he wants to have any credibility and to be taken seriously, he has to tell us where, in the draft budget, he wants that money to come from. Is it the health investment? Is it local government? Is it other areas of welfare? That's an offer to Richard Leonard. If he tells us that, we will listen seriously. Let's see if Labour is prepared to step up to the plate. Richard Leonard Well, Derek Mackay said yesterday that the choice is either reducing public services or taxing more of the lowest earners. What about taxing more of the highest earners? Presiding Officer, this comes down in the end to what this Parliament was created for in the first place. It should be a platform to lift people out of poverty, and there is a precedent for that. In 2014, this Parliament came together to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax in Scotland, and the SNP said then that it couldn't be done. They said then that they didn't want to let Westminster off the hook. First Minister, this is about lifting children out of poverty, not letting the Tories off the hook, so why don't you do it? First Minister? As we have just heard in the exchange, I have just had with Jackson Carlaw, we are asking already higher-rate taxpayers in Scotland to pay a bit more than they would if they lived elsewhere in the UK. That is fair and reasonable. Richard Leonard, while I hear top earners, all of the assessment, all of the modelling suggests that, because of behavioural changes, if we were to raise top rate—and we have raised the top rate—but if we were to do it more, that could lose us revenue. This is a serious budgetary point. Even if Richard Leonard does not agree with that, even if I do not agree with that, if that is what the Scottish Fiscal Commission says, then we do not have that money to spend. Anybody who knows anything about budgeting must know that. Of course, as a source from Labour said this week, they do not even have a plan. At least when we had a plan, ridiculous as it was, we had a plan, now we have nothing, it is a shambles. That comes from Labour's own benches, but I will make the offer again. We have got some weeks now, before Parliament has to decide on this budget, if Richard Leonard—and I would love to do this what he is suggesting around the two-child cap—but we do not have the money. I am making a serious offer here. If Labour, Richard Leonard and his finance spokesperson, come to me and Derek Mackay and say that we think that you should take the money from this area of the budget or that area of the budget, I will listen, so the offer is there for Richard Leonard. We have allocated all the money in the budget if he wants to spend more. He has to tell us how much his tax proposals will spend. We heard this week that they do not have a tax plan in Labour, so the offer is there. I say again, let's see if Labour is going to step up to the plate over the next few weeks. We have got a number of requests for supplementaries. The first is from Willie Coffey to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have recently been contacted by my constituent Laura Nanny, an EU citizen who has lived in Scotland for over 30 years. Although Laura has lived in Scotland all of her work and life, the Department for Work and Pensions has determined that she has no right to reside in the UK. What can the First Minister and the Scottish Government do to help European Union citizens residing in Scotland who have wrongfully been denied universal credit through the habitual residency test? First Minister. That is a shameful circumstance. The right to reside test is applied to low-income benefits reserved to the UK Government. It is a complex barrier for EU nationals that the UK deems quotes economically inactive. The European Commission has described the test as, and I'm quoting, direct discrimination based on nationality. I can advise the chamber that we are taking a more humane approach for our new best start grant because the Scottish system is defined by dignity, fairness and respect. We value EU nationals and we will not subject them to needless stress, anxiety and financial hardship. EU nationals in Laura's position, of course, may also be eligible for the Scottish welfare fund. The UK system increasingly is known for two things, in humanity and incorrect decisions. I would advise Laura to seek independent advice on whether there might be a case for appeal. I would encourage members across the chamber to continue to press the UK Government to scrap universal credit and to start having a welfare policy overall that is based on dignity, respect and above all else humanity, because the current system is definitely not. With a written answer that was published yesterday, the Government has made no mention of any new vessels for the Gwrach to Dunedin ferry service, or indeed has any attempt been made to give any assurance to long-suffering passengers that they might actually have any prospect of receiving an adequate service as they have had to put up with a record level of cancellations and repeated delays on this route. First Minister, when is the Scottish Government going to provide a decent service on this route? The Scottish Government is committed to providing not just decent but good services on all of our ferry routes, including Dunedin Gwrach in my previous ministerial roles. The Dunedin Gwrach ferry service was something that I was very closely involved in. I will ask the transport minister to write to the member specifically on the current situation, and I am sure that he will be happy to meet him and constituents to discuss any concerns that they have fully. First Minister, news broke yesterday that the GMI rail services plan to close its spring-burn site with the loss of up to 200 jobs in my constituency. A devastating blow for the workforce, our communities and our proud locomotive industry with the St Rollock site itself dating back to 1856, I have spoken to Unite and to the company that leased the site to GMI rail. Although there is anger and concern, there is also a determination, First Minister, to save jobs and continue to see a future for the site. Will the First Minister commit to bringing together all relevant parties, including GMI rail, trade unions and Scottish Enterprise, to do all that we can to secure the future of as many jobs as possible at this historic site? The Scottish Government has shown a strong willingness to act in such circumstances previously. Will it act now, not just for the workers themselves and for my constituents, but also for the strategic interests of the Scottish economy? I thank Bob Doris for raising the issue. I will ask the transport minister to bring all the interesting parties together in the way that he describes. The Scottish Government learned of this development only through the media. I am extremely disappointed that that is the case. Officials met with the new owners last week, but no reference was made on any immediate plans to make such an announcement. The Scottish Government will continue to engage constructively with the owners in the interests of the staff that are affected and the overall Scottish economy. We are committed to supporting rail services and have made record investment in rail in recent years. The market for refurbishment of older rolling stock is challenging, but there remain opportunities to bid for future work. I will ask the transport secretary to convene interesting parties and, of course, ask Bob Doris to be part of those discussions. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Andy Wightman. It has emerged the £218 million from the Aberdeen city region deal to slash train times to the central belt by 20 minutes. It will only deliver two minutes. Certainly, it will not track the Usan junction, which was first promised by the SNP to the north-east in 2008 and reheated in 2016. What reassurances can the First Minister give that the 20-minute claims were sufficiently evidenced in advance and that the city region deal funding will generate real improvements for rail customers in Aberdeen? Again, at risk of keeping them very busy, I will ask the transport minister to write in terms of the specifics of the evidence behind the 20-minute issue. In terms of the question overall, we are absolutely committed to ensuring continuing improvement for rail passengers in every part of the country. As Derek Mackay made clear in the budget yesterday, we are also committed to city region deals, not just the existing city region deals, but to seeing such deals rolled out across other parts of the country. They offer huge potential for improvements, not just in transport but in other areas of the economy. Andy Wightman, to be followed by Christine Grahame. Yesterday's budget states that investment in social care and integration will increase to over £700 million next year. However, last Thursday, the Pylton community health project in North Edinburgh was told that its funding would be cut when the Edinburgh IGB meets tomorrow. That is Scotland's oldest community health project, where folk have worked tirelessly to tackle social isolation and reduce health inequalities in one of the country's most deprived areas, with 40 staff at risk of losing their job. Can I ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government can provide in light of yesterday's budget to ensure that its funding decision is reconsidered? I thank Andy Wightman for raising the issue. Those are local decisions, although I understand the concern that has been expressed about the Pylton community health project. As I understand it, the Edinburgh integration joint board will consider the recommendations from its health and social care grants programme steering group on the 14th of this month and make a decision on future funding for all the projects that are applied. In those circumstances, I hope that Andy Wightman would accept that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on an individual application until this meeting has taken place. However, I will ask the health secretary to update him once things have progressed further. Christine Grahame, to be followed by Gail Ross. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The First Minister will be aware of the tragic death of my constituent, Amanda Cox, who, having given birth to a premature son, after visiting him in the special baby unit at the Royal Edinburgh and Firmire Monday, became disorientated. Missing for seven hours, it was not until after 10 pm that she was found in the disused part of the hospital, seriously ill. She died shortly after. It is a dreadful tragedy for the family and there is a small child now without a mother. There is an internal inquiry and the PF has issued a report. However, just this morning, I have heard from Michael, her husband, that the hospital administration has requested a meeting with him to discuss a review of processes. This man is grieving and traumatised, and to me this is highly inappropriate and looks like face-saving. Can I therefore ask the First Minister if the Cabinet Secretary for Health will keep a very close-watching brief on this matter and, in the meantime, confirm to the chamber that none of our hospitals have processes that would let people down in such a tragic manner? First, I say that my thoughts and sympathies are very much with Amanda Cox's family at this extremely sad time for them. This is an absolutely tragic situation and, of course, our thoughts are with all of her family, but in particular with her husband and her little boy, who, of course, remains in hospital. NHS Lothian is assisting the police with their investigation into the circumstances of this tragic case. In addition to the police investigation, the board wants to urgently review the care that Amanda received to ensure that all appropriate lessons are learned. I know that they are in close contact with Amanda's family to ensure that they are kept informed while the review is carried out, but Christine Grahame is absolutely right to say that that must be done appropriately and sensitively, given the fact that Amanda's husband, in particular, is deeply grieving at this time. I will communicate the concerns that Christine Grahame has raised back to NHS Lothian, who, as I am sure everybody would understand, is very distressed by the tragic circumstances that have unfolded. The health secretary, of course, will keep a very close watch on developments here, and I am sure that we will be happy to discuss the matter with Christine Grahame, as more information and facts and understanding of what happened here comes to light. In the meantime, I am sure that all of us across the chamber will want Amanda's family to know that our thoughts are with them at this impossibly difficult time. First Minister is aware that last week we received the news that yet another business in Rossshire, carbon dynamic, has sadly gone into administration. Can the First Minister outline what help and support the Scottish Government can give the 40 staff that have been made redundant and any help to find a buyer for the business, which still has a healthy order sheet? Thank you to Gail Ross for raising this situation. I am aware of the position at Carbon Dynamic CLDB, which is limited as the overall name of the company. I know that it will be an extremely anxious time for the staff working at the company, their families and the whole community. Obviously, the individuals affected by the announcement are our immediate priority, and we recognise the important role that they play in the economy, so we will do everything within our power to help those affected. The PACE team has already been in contact with KPMG to offer support to affected employees. KPMG issued redundancy guides and information of support to all employees on Friday of last week, and they will continue to provide skills development and employability support. The economy secretary will be very happy to talk to and meet with Gail Ross to see if there is further assistance that the Scottish Government can bring to bear. Thank you. Yesterday, the Scottish Government's finance secretary claimed that he was providing a real-terms increase of more than £200 million to local services around the country, such as that that was mentioned by my colleague Andy Wightman. Once again, that claim ignores the fact that the Scottish Government is forcing councils to use their resources to fund Scottish Government policies. Within hours of the budget being published, COSLA shared its analysis, showing that the reality was more than £175 million cut, which it revised a few hours later again when it had seen through some of the Scottish Government's sleight-of-hand saying a £200 million cut. Later, Parliament's independent research unit, whose impartial work sometimes shows the truth being somewhere between what the Scottish Government and local government say, produced more detailed work saying that the truth is more than a £300 million cut to local services. Councils around the country are now being forced to look at cuts to schools, social care, parks and libraries. Where does the First Minister think that those cuts should fall? I thank Patrick Harvie for raising the issue. The settlement that was outlined by Derek Mackay yesterday delivers a real-terms increase in both revenue and in-capital funding to local councils. Of course, that is before we take account of councils' own ability to raise revenue through the council tax. Yes, that includes funding that the Scottish Government has made available to increase childcare £210 million in revenue for childcare. Yes, that includes a transfer from health to help fund social care. Those are all important priorities, and it is absolutely right that the Scottish Government and local councils work together to ensure the delivery of those priorities. I am going to make the same offer to Patrick Harvie as I made to Richard Leonard. On past form, Patrick Harvie will be more likely to step up to the plate on this than Richard Leonard is likely to be. However, we have allocated all of the resources at our disposal in this budget. I would like to do more for local government, for health in a whole range of different areas, but if Opposition parties want extra spending in some areas of the budget, then there is a duty to say what areas of the budget they think that money should come from. We are happy to have those constructive discussions. As I say, I think that we are probably more likely to have them with Patrick Harvie and his colleagues than with other parties in the chamber, but they have to be hard-headed discussions because we cannot create money out of nowhere, so I look forward to having those discussions in the weeks to come. Patrick Harvie? I have not for a moment suggested that the new national policies are bad policies or inappropriate. They are important, but if they are national policies, they should be funded from national resources, not from a raid on council budgets. Nor was there a word yesterday in the statement about fairer local taxation, nothing about genuine steps to order replacement for the broken unfair council tax, which the Scottish Government claims that it wants to end, and nothing about new ideas to help councils to raise money in new ways to fund the services that are needed. The Scottish Government keeps saying that they are open to dialogue on these issues, but we have been trying to have that dialogue on the basis of detailed proposals since the end of the last budget process at the start of this year. The question is not who is going to step up and have dialogue. The question is when are we going to hear some kind of response from the Scottish Government? When will they show any hint of urgency and leadership, even in making their own policy on council tax a reality? First Minister, let me answer this question in two parts. In terms of the spending decisions that we have made in the budget, in terms of national priorities, we have given extra money to local government to meet the costs of those priorities. On spending, and this is simply a statement of fact, if any opposition party wants us to spend more in a particular area, they have to also tell us where they think that we should spend less. That is a simple statement of arithmetic. On the issue of local tax reform, yesterday we set out our tax and spending decisions. That is the appropriate thing to do when we publish the draft budget. There have already been discussions between Patrick Harvie and his colleagues and the finance secretary about tax reform. Derek Mackay is keeping me updated on those. We would expect those discussions to continue. I very much hope that we can come to an agreement on that. That does see a commitment to local tax reform and a greater commitment to devolution of tax power to local authorities. There is a willingness to do that. In the normal way, between now and the final votes in this budget, I am sure that we will have lots of very productive, or at least I hope that there will be productive, discussions. A couple of further supplementaries to first from Neil Findlay. The Scottish Charity Regulator, Oscar, states that an organisation cannot continue to be a charity if it is set up to be or advance a political party or its governing document allows it to use its assets for non-charitable purposes. Does the First Minister believe that the Institute of Statecraft, based on Fife, should continue to be registered as a charity with Oscar, given the revelations this week that it has been engaged in partisan political activity? I was concerned about the revelations that were published in The Sunday Mail on Sunday. Clearly, those revelations involved alleged actions of the foreign office, and therefore it is not for me to investigate the veracity or otherwise, but certainly on the face of it, it was a concerning report. I hope that we do see full investigation and full answers to questions that people will rightly and understandably have. On the question about whether or not an organisation is a charity, I absolutely understand the sentiment behind Neil Findlay's question and why he is asking me that, but I know that he will also appreciate that Oscar takes his decisions independently and it is right that it does so. I am sure that Oscar keeps the charitable status of a whole range of organisations under review if concerns are raised about them, and I would encourage him if he does, as he clearly and understandably does have concerns about that, perhaps to raise those concerns directly with Oscar. Maurice Corry Thank you, Presiding Officer. Road traffic accidents in Scotland have increased by 7 per cent as reported this morning in the Lancet, since the introduction of the Scottish Government's lower alcohol level limits for drivers in 2014. First Minister, is this a direct result of yet another failed SNP Government policy? First Minister, do you think that during the festive season that's irresponsible? As I recall, when this Parliament decided to lower the drink driving limit, it did so unanimously, which obviously must mean that the Conservatives supported that, and credit to the Conservatives for supporting that. I do not think that it can reasonably be said that road traffic accidents are increasing because we have cut the drink driving limit. That makes no sense, but in all seriousness right now, we are in the festive season at this time of year—we should do this at every time of year, but particularly at this time of year—the message that should come unanimously from all of us to everybody across Scotland is do not drink and drive. I find it deeply regrettable that today, as we go into the Christmas period, we have a Conservative MSP standing up, somehow seeming to suggest that lowering the drink driving limit was a bad thing to do. I hope that he will reflect very seriously on the question that he has just asked. To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government is making in delivering the best start grant. I am pleased to say that we are now delivering the best start grant pregnancy and baby payment. By the end of the first day on Monday, more than 4,000 claims had been submitted, which is an exceptional response and an important moment for social security Scotland. The payment will provide £600 on the birth of a first child, which is £100 more than the UK system that it is replacing. The first payments will be made before Christmas, as promised, and we will begin to reach bank accounts next week. We have also extended eligibility and the application window. Unlike the current DWP system, we will not put a cap on children, so we have introduced our £300 payment for second and subsequent children. As a very significant number of claims submitted in the first day's shows, our work to encourage take-up of this benefit for low-income families is paying off. I am delighted that we are using our new social security powers to provide improved financial support for all of the children of low-income families. I am delighted to hear that so many people have applied for the new Scottish Government benefit. It will greatly help many of my constituents in Motherwell and Wishaw. Does the First Minister agree that the grant is another example of clearly demonstrating that the SNP Government believes that social security is there as a safety net, supporting people on low incomes and encouraging benefit take-up in sharp contrast to the shameful othering of those in benefits that are perpetrated by the Conservative Government? Yes, I agree with that. I think that the fantastic response to the best start grant is a clear sign that people know that Scottish social security will be different from the current UK system. We see social security as an investment in our people. We are doing all we can to make sure that people get the financial support that they are entitled to, which of course includes encouraging them to apply for this new benefit. Our communication alongside that of stakeholders is focused on new parents and, importantly, families who would not have received a UK sure start maternity grant for the child because they were not the first born. Those are families who know that they can be supported by our best start grant, so we expect that a significant proportion of applications will be for second children. That is important because this Government is determined to give all children the very best start in life. 5. Annie Wells To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to a recent survey that suggests that 51 per cent of teachers believe that their job has a detrimental impact on their mental health. First Minister. We recognise the pressures and challenges that teachers face, such as those highlighted by the Mental Health Foundation Scotland. That is why we have taken action to reduce teacher workloads, clarify and simplify the curriculum framework and remove unnecessary bureaucracy. We also continue to take forward a range of actions to support the mental health of both teachers and children and young people. Those include delivering specific resources for mental health education to teachers across Scotland and providing mental health first aid training for schools. Annie Wells I thank the First Minister for that answer. From the survey carried out by the Mental Health Foundation, it is clear that teachers are under immense pressure, with more than seven out of ten saying that they lack the skills to support pupils with mental health problems. On top of that, total teacher numbers are down by more than 3,000 since the SNP came to power, keeping additional workload and pressures with serious implications for their wellbeing. I welcome the commitment to see councillors and mental health nurses in school. However, when will we see a delivery plan for counselling and mental health training in schools, as I have repeatedly called for, and what action will be taken to drastically improve current vacancy numbers? First Minister. Well, first, in terms of teacher numbers, of course, we had the recent statistics about teacher numbers published on Tuesday of this week. They showed that teacher numbers this year were up 447 on the previous year. There are now more teachers working in our schools than at any time since 2010, and primary teacher numbers are now at their highest level since 1980. That is when I was still at primary school, so teacher numbers are rising. Since I became First Minister, teacher numbers have increased by more than 1,200 in Scotland. Of course, teachers still work under significant pressure, and one of those pressures is dealing with young people with mental health issues. That is why we have announced the plans to put more counsellors into schools and to improve training for teachers. All of us need to become more mental health aware. The Minister for Mental Health will set out the further details of that, including the timeline in due course and, indeed, soon. I hope that those are measures that all of Parliament will get behind. To ask the First Minister how many people will be taken out of fuel poverty in 2018-19. First Minister. The national measurement of fuel poverty is based on the annual Scottish house conditions survey, so the 2018 rate will not be published until December 2019. The most up-to-date statistics that we have for 2017 show that, since 2013, fuel poverty has reduced by 11 per cent from 36 per cent to 25 per cent, which is a reduction of almost 250,000 households. However, despite fuel poverty levels being at their lowest since 2005, it is unacceptable that around 25 per cent of households are still in fuel poverty, which is why we are taking action on energy efficiency and fuel poverty. By the end of 2021, we will have committed more than £1 billion since 2009, making homes warmer and fuel bills lower, and more than 120,000 homes have benefited through our home energy efficiency programmes since 2013. Jackie Baillie. There are more than one in four people in Scotland living in fuel poverty, and for an energy-rich country, that is a national scandal. In that context, the First Minister's target of ending fuel poverty by 2040 is deeply unambitious. More than a decade ago, Energy Action Scotland told the Scottish Government that it needed to spend £200 million a year if it was serious about wanting to end fuel poverty, yet the latest budget only provides about half that amount and 30 million of that is financial transaction funding that requires to be repaid. As we face the prospect of a very cold winter, will the First Minister adopt a greater degree of urgency, bring forward the date by which fuel poverty will end in Scotland, and stop the scandal of older people having to choose between eating and heating? The First Minister. First, there is urgency on the part of the Scottish Government. I repeat again, we have seen a number of households, almost 250,000 households, moved out of fuel poverty and the rate reduced between 2014 and 2017, which is not enough. I do not want to live in a country where 25 per cent of households live in fuel poverty. That is why we have set ambitious but what we consider to be deliverable targets, as well as the 2040 targets, are route map outlines minimum standards for the private rented sector from April 2020, which will be the first time that the private rented sector has been regulated. Next year, we will introduce regulations for all PRS properties to reach energy efficient band D by April 2025. We have consulted on increasing that standard to require band C by 2030, and we will confirm next steps on that measure next year. We are determined to take the action that is necessary. Lastly, on the funding point, I will make the same point that I have made repeatedly already today. If any member of this Parliament, as we move into the next stages of this budget, wants us to spend more on particular areas, we will listen. We will be constructive and we will listen to all ideas, but they must come with also the suggestions of where in our fully allocated draft budget that money comes from. I look forward to hearing those proposals in due course. Thank you very much. That concludes First Minister's questions. I may not appeal last week for members for short questions that succinct answers. I appeal again this week. I have to say that I do not think that members are listening. I have spoken to business managers, I have written to ministers, I have written to members. Can I please ask you—I am not going to become overly interventionist overnight—but unless those questions and answers are short and succinct, I will cut members off and make sure that we get through more members' more questions. Please listen to my advice. We are going to move on to members' business. In the name of Willie Rennie on St Andrew's GP out-of-hours facility, before we do that, we will have a short suspension to allow the gallery to clear and to allow members and the ministers to change seats.