First Minister's Questions Politics Scotland

'S hello there. A very warm welcome to the Scottish parliament here at

Holyrood. They are back for the start of the new term. Will it be

domestic issues set out in the Scottish Government programme

outlined earlier this week? Legs crossed to the chamber and my

colleague. We return to First Minister's

Questions. Questionable one. Thank you,

presiding officer. Can I take this opportunity to congratulate Team GB

on their success at the Olympics and which the Paralympics the same

success. Also to ask the First Minister what she has planned for

the rest of the day. Let me also take the opportunity to

say a warm congratulations to Team GB on their stunning success but

also to wish all of our Paralympians all of the success in Rio. The

chamber will agree they are an inspiration to all of us and they do

us proud. Later today I will have engagements to take forward the

government 's programme for Scotland.

Can I ask liver administered to spell out why the public will be

made safer as a result of the Scottish Government breaking up the

British Transport Police and absorbing it into Police Scotland?

Scotland is being made safer by the decisions of the Scottish Government

and more importantly by the actions of our police officers the length

and breadth of the country. We have a situation in Scotland where crime

is that a 41 year low and I think that is a credit to the police

officers working in every community across Scotland. As Ruth Davidson

knows, responsibility for the British Transport Police is being

devolved to the Scottish Government and given that we have created

Police Scotland and insured and efficient running police service, I

think there is a strong case to also include British Transport Police

within that framework while allowing them to continue to provide their

specialist functions. This will be subject to legislation in this

Parliament as I announced on Tuesday and I'm sure all members will want

to participate in scrutiny of that. Similar to the programme of

government on Tuesday, not a word on either why or how it would improve

safety with the change. I think I know why. Since the Scottish

Government first outlined its plans, I've received a series of e-mails

from some of the 300 serving British Transport Police officers in

Scotland and let me tell the first officer what some of them say -- the

First Minister. If this goes ahead, the effect on policing services

would be horrific. We are a specialist force for a reason.

Cross-border crimes were potentially become unmanageable. Another officer

was 17 years experience said, like many others imposed on us, this is a

ludicrous idea with no consultation on those of us doing the job in

hand. Another was 24 years service, I cannot understand how this

decision can possibly be made without full consultation of the

travelling public or even Police Scotland. The British Transport

Police Federation said this week this change could leave the whole

network unguarded. First Minister, why are the Federation wrong and why

are serving police officers who keep us safe on the railways also wrong?

We will fully consult and listen to all views. Let me quote the British

Transport Police Federation just before this Parliament into summer

recess, "We are fully involved in the consultation process". In a blog

in August last month, the Federation chair and said, and again, I am

quoting, "It is fair to say we are achieving a healthy working

relationship with the Scottish Government". Those are the views of

the Federation and I'm sure there will be a range of views across the

British Transport Police and the wider public about the right course

of action to take and we will consider that carefully. Let me

direct clearly the issue in Ruth Davidson's first question.

Integration will enhance railway policing through giving them direct

access to the National resources of Police Scotland while ensuring they

continue to carry on their specialist railway policing function

and retain the expertise and capacity they already have but

within the broader structure of Police Scotland. I think that is the

right step to take but as we develop the legislation that comes report

this Parliament, all members will have the opportunity to contribute

and I'm sure many members of the public as well as members of the

British Transport Police will take opportunities to contribute as well.

She has only consulted on how to carry out the takeover, not whether

it is right to do so. The First Minister should know that the

British Transport Police themselves have laid out to other more

practical options that are still consistent consistent with the Smith

commission. People might accept the reforms if the British Transport

Police were failing but the opposite is true. APG 3% of passengers say

they are satisfied with the -- 83% of passengers say they are

satisfied. Crime on our Railways has halved. Why is the Scottish

Government imposing a reform that the system doesn't need to be

tampered with? I think I have set out clearly the

reasons I think this is the right thing to do. Why is this decision on

the table now? Because of the devolution of responsibility for the

British Transport Police. As Ruth Davidson rightly said, that the

cross-party consensus within the Smith commission. Specialist railway

policing expertise and capacity will be maintained and protected,

allowing the British Transport Police to continue to deliver the

excellent standard of service that Ruth Davidson has just said they

deliver and crime on our Railways, just like crime generally is falling

and is some of its lowest levels. By integrating the British Transport

Police within the wider Police Scotland structure, we give the

transport police access to the specialist and national resource

that Police Scotland have access to dot

that to me to be a common-sense way of proceeding. Perhaps it is so

common sense that is why it eludes the Conservative Party. As we go

forward, presiding officer, we will continue to engage with the British

transport Federation and I would remind Ruth Davidson they appear to

think they have a good relationship with the government. We continue to

talk and engage with them. I think that is the right way to go forward

and all members of this Parliament will have the right to contribute in

the legislative process as normal. The shortened version of that is the

First Minister thinks she knows better than police officers. But the

fact is... It is hard to escape the conclusion that when it comes to the

Scottish Government, good practice days second fiddle to shoddy

politics. The transport Police Federation doesn't want this. Rank

and file officers on our Railways don't want this and the public sees

absolutely no need to change. Just as with the single police force, the

SNP government wants to grab more control and run this through

regardless. Last week the Scottish Government unveiled a massive

listening exercise but they are turning a deaf ear to the police.

Her government has made enough mistakes when it comes to police

reform. Why not listen to those trying to stop you make another?

Firstly, this is a government that has protected 1000 extra police

officers on the streets while across the border, they have decimated the

numbers on the street in England. Because of the dedication of our

police officers, crime in this country is at a 41 year low and I

think we need to give credit to our police officers. We are always told

by Ruth Davidson that the Tories are going to be a strong opposition and

we haven't seen evidence of it yet. Then she comes to this Parliament

and suggests this government can just run through registration. She

is always telling us we are a minority government so if we want to

get it through we have to persuade people of the case. That is what we

will seek to do and instead of coming to this chamber today and

indulging in shoddy politics, perhaps Ruth Davidson can contribute

constructively to the process when it gets underway!

Question number two. Kezia Dugdale. To ask the First Minister when she

will next meet the Prime Minister. I will be speaking to the

pro-Minister regularly as we continue to discuss the allegations

of Brexit for Scotland and the UK. Today we woke up to the news that

900 Scottish children had found child lying in the last year

contemplating suicide. That follows official figures showing waiting

time targets for adolescent and mental health services were being

missed. How many children and young people have waited more 52 weeks for

treatment since the start of last year?

There have been several hundred young people waiting more than 52

weeks and that is far too many. One waiting that long is far too many.

This is one of the important issues we have to deal with, not just as a

government but also as a society in the years ahead. Demand for child

and adolescent mental health services has increased by more than

30% in the last two years. Actually I take the view that is a positive

development. It doesn't sound like it but it does mean the stigma

associated with mental health is decreasing and more people, in

particular more young people are feeling able to come forward for

help. Indies, the figure that Kezia Dugdale has quoted today from child

lying are shocking figures -- two. That does mean that responsibility

is on as to make sure that in the face of that rising demand we are

building services to cope with that demand. We have increased funding

and resources and we plan to further increase that funding and resources

over the life of this Parliament. Kezia Dugdale. Thank the First

Minister dot in the summer Labour revealed that 460 young Scots had

waited over the year for the treatment they desperately needed.

This weeks figure has seen that rise to 608. That is utterly shameful and

nothing short of a national scandal. But it is also just the tip of the

iceberg. Because since January last year, more than 9000 Scottish

children have been referred to mental health treatment only to have

that referral rejected or denied. And we don't know why. I'm sorry,

First Minister, I don't consider that a positive development.

Thousands of children seeking help have been turned away and if she

can't explain it, will she task Health Secretary to commence a

review? I will ask the Health Secretary to

look into that. Of course they will be a number of clinical reasons why

those referred are not given but that doesn't mean there will not be

underlying reasons as well. I absolutely agree that the numbers of

young people waiting too long to access services is not good enough,

which is why I am absolutely committed, as we have been over the

last few years, building up services. Since this government took

office, investment in mental health services by the NHS has increased by

almost 40%. The number of psychology posts has almost doubled in the

period we have been in office for children and adolescents and we are

one of the first countries in the whole world that set a target for

access for children and adolescents to mental health services. I am

readily acknowledging there is more work to do. That is why we set out

in the manifesto and the spending commitments we set out for the

health service in the manifesto, we outstripped those set out by Labour

in their manifesto. As part of that we have committed to bringing

forward a new mental health strategy and backing that by an additional

?150 million of resources over this Parliament. So I do not deny and I

do not take issue with Kezia Dugdale over the importance of this issue

but I hope she will acknowledge the significant extra investment and the

significant planned extra investment as well.

Can I say to the First Minister the IST report says it exactly

clinicians making these referrals, just to suggest it is a clinical

decision to reject these referrals is a weak argument and I would ask

her to look at it again. I would welcome that ?150 million

investment. The Labour manifesto in May propose guaranteed access to a

qualified counsellor for every high school in Scotland. It would cost ?8

million. A fraction of what she has committed to spending and it is

exactly the type of early intervention the First Minister

tells us she supports. Given we are the only country in the UK without a

national strategy for school-based counselling, can I ask today to

seriously examine Labour's proposals we are publishing? If these figures

today don't move the First Minister to ask, can I ask her what will?

I think the last part of the question from Kezia Dugdale was

unfair. I think there is not a single person in this chamber who is

not moved by any young person coming forward, seeking help for mental

health issues and to suggest the government is not serious in its

attempt about tackling this, I don't think it's a fair comments. I would

consider all and any suggestions anyone wants to make. If Kezia

Dugdale wants to send the proposal, I will ensure the Health Secretary

considers them. One of the things being considered as part of our plan

for a new mental health strategy is a link worker in GP 's surgeries as

well as schools. That is already under active consideration. It is

under active consideration by Maureen Watt, who is the dedicated

mental health officer that I elected after the election. We are building

up to cope with increased demand but I would say to people across the

chamber to recognise the context in which we are talking about this.

This is not about resources having been reduced. Resources have

increased substantially. The number of people working in this area has

increased substantially. I mentioned psychology posts. The number of

mental health officers working in Scotland is a local authority issue.

Because demand is increasing significantly as well, we have to do

more and that is why we have the plans we have in place to do more in

terms of the strategy and the resources that back it.

A local supplementary from Oliver Mondale.

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is

taking to help avoid 140 potential job losses in engineering in my

constituency which last week entered into Administration? An issue that

would guarantee Scottish enterprise would pull out all of the stops and

give future financial support in order to help assist the

administrator in finding a suitable buyer?

Scottish enterprise is already doing that. I was disappointed to hear

that the company had entered administration, putting jobs at

risk. This will be a difficult time for those affected and their

families as well as for the local area. Scottish enterprise is working

with the administrators to help them find a buyer for the business and

retain as many jobs as possible. Of course, our organisation is engaged

as well, providing support to those who may be faced with redundancy.

They have contacted the company to offer support in the event that

redundancies do proceed. But Scottish enterprise is working with

the administrators to avoid redundancies taking place. Another

local supplementary from Sandra White. Can I ask the First Minister

what action the Scottish Government proposes to take in light of recent

revelations regarding the investigation into the tragedy? I

was concerned to read the revelations that Sandra White talks

about. My thoughts and the thoughts of everybody in the chamber continue

to be with the family and friends of all those who were killed and

injured in that tragedy. Following the publication of the AAIB report

into the tragedy, the Crown Office is conducting further investigations

into some of the issues raised by that report. A fatal accident

inquiry will also be held as soon as possible. It is right that all of

the evidence can be tested in a public setting and then be the

subject of a judicial determination. The Crown will keep families

informed on their progress. Given the scale of this tragedy and the

impact it has had, it is vital that the families get the answers they

deserve. Question number three, Patrick Harvie. When will the

Cabinet next meet? Tuesday. I was disappointed that the First

Minister's colleagues at Westminster were unsuccessful in persuading the

UK Government to take action on the scandal surrounding Scottish limited

partnerships. Legal entities, which are openly marketed as tax avoidance

vehicles, and which have been associated also with corruption and

money-laundering. This is a scandal which the Greens first raised last

year in the chamber and since then, there has been growing attention to

it, including investigative journalism by the Herald and now a

campaign from Oxfam in Scotland, who are calling on all politicians to

back their statement against tax avoidance in general and calling for

action on Scottish limited partnerships in particular. The

Scottish Greens support that statement. Will the First Minister

give her back into it as well? Yes, I certainly support those

sentiments. I was also disappointed that the debate sparked by SNP MPs

in the House of Commons did not result in the action that Patrick

Harvie and I would have wanted. I was disappointed that the

Conservatives voted against that amendment. It doesn't sit well with

the new Prime Minister's stated commitment to taking on the

unethical practices of some big businesses. So we need to be firm in

saying that companies should pay the tax they are due, because those

taxes are what fund the public services we all rely on. This is a

reserved issue, but SNP MPs in the House of Commons and the Scottish

Government, to the extent that we are able to, will continue to press

for action in this area. I am glad to hear that, and I hope the

Scottish Government will be vociferous in rattling the cages the

UK Government on this matter. I know my colleague is in correspondence

with ministers about this, and I hope every opportunity will be taken

to use devolved responsibilities where they connect with the issue of

tax avoidance. I have also called for the Scottish Government to

restrict the availability of taxpayer funded support to

businesses which indulge in tax avoidance, for example by using tax

havens. Given that the First Minister has this week announced a

new half billion pound fund to provide loans and guarantees to

companies, surely we have a right to expect that such taxpayer funded or

taxpayer guaranteed schemes are not available to the corporate

kleptomaniacs who indulge in tax avoidance. Can the First Minister

give us a guarantee that such taxpayer funded and government

provided support schemes will not be available to tax dodgers? I was in

the chamber the other day when Keith Brown answered a question on this

point, I think from Patrick Harvie, although I could be wrong, where he

said of course this is an issue we take account of in any schemes we

are responsible for. The growth scheme is designed to help small and

medium-sized enterprises, particularly those emerging newly

into the emerging markets. We will continue to press the UK Government

to take action on the issue that Patrick Harvie races, as well as the

actions I have spoken about on the part of SNP MPs. The finance

secretary Richard to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for business,

last month to ask that the SLP be included in the register of people

with control as part of the small enterprise employment act of 2015.

We will continue to press the UK Government to take action where they

have responsibility, and where we have responsibility, we will act

accordingly. The last point, which has been made in the chamber many

times before, is that where we do have tax responsibility, we have put

in place of the toughest anti-tax avoidance measures of anywhere the

world. STUDIO: Something new next, topical questions which the First

Minister has not seen. Last week, Ruth Davidson's office issued a

comment on the former MP, questioning his right to comment due

to the fact that he was an EU citizen. But rather than apologise

over this offensive remark, Ruth Davidson first asked her spin doctor

to apologise and when pushed, she lost that issued a contemptuous,

sarcastic response which in no way acknowledges the seriousness of the

issue. Does the First Minister agree with me that in the intense

political climate caused by the EU referendum, all politicians have a

duty to lead by example and set the right tone for political debate, and

that Ruth Davidson should issue a personal apology without further

delay? Actually, I saw Ruth Davidson laughed when that question was being

asked, but this is a serious issue. The remarks made about Christian

from Ruth Davidson's office suggesting that an EU citizen, even

though they live here, does not deserve a say about the community

they live in, I think are unacceptable. In the current

climate, political leaders do have a responsibility to help set the tone.

We heard this week that the Home Secretary has had to assure the

Polish government that they were taking seriously the concerns about

hate crimes committed towards Polish citizens in the UK. How much are

these efforts undermined when the leader of the Conservatives in

Scotland so casually dismisses what are completely unacceptable remarks

about EU citizens? I think it's another day passes when Ruth

Davidson fails to offer a full retraction and an unreserved apology

for the remarks made from her office, the people of Scotland will

be rightly entitled to question the character of the Conservative Party.

Murdo Fraser. During the parliamentary recess, we saw the

publication of the figures, which demonstrated that there is a union

dividend worth ?1600 for every man, woman and child in Scotland,

equating to more than ?7,000 for a family of four in one year. The

First Minister claims to be concerned about the impact of

austerity. Why would she impose this super austerity on Scottish families

by taking this money away from them? I know the Conservatives are

desperate to talk about anything right now except the uncertainty

that they have visited on the Scottish economy in the form of

Brexit. It is the Conservatives' reckless gamble over the EU

referendum that has taken us to the exit door of the EU against our

will, and it is the Conservatives' inability to answer questions about

what Brexit might look like that is causing so much uncertainty for the

Scottish economy. So I think it's about time, instead of

scaremongering about other things, that we got some answers from the

Conservative Party. Maybe the Scottish Conservative Party can

answer the question Theresa May couldn't answer yesterday. Should we

be in the single market, yes or no? Earlier this week, the First

Minister am in her legislative programme, referred to the

development of a strategic action plan reflecting the significant

possibilities in terms of oil and gas decommissioning that would

require facilities around the country. She may be aware that in my

own constituency, it is under consideration for the development of

such proposals. Drawing on the deep water harbour and the proximity to

the North Sea, which WWF have said makes environmental sense, can she

give an assurance to me and my constituents that developing the

strategic action plan, Scottish enterprise will fully reflect the

skills, resources and opportunities for development of those facilities

in that action plan? Yes, I am delighted to give that assurance. I

will ask the chief executive of Scottish enterprise to arrange a

meeting between relevant officials there and Liam McArthur in order

that the valid points he has raised are incorporated in that action

plan. I wanted to ask the First Minister whether the Scottish

Government will provide an update following the first meeting of the

International Council of Education Advisers. The first meeting of the

International Council of Education Advisers was very successful and

also helpful. The advisers were able to share their experience of working

in education systems around the world. The discussion was

wide-ranging, but it had a focus on excellence and equity for all

children. Going forward, the council will look at capacity building,

collaboration and closing the equity gap, and it will meet again in

plenary session in February. Teachers in the 21st century need to

be critically informed, with professional values, knowledge and

actions that ensure a positive impact on learners and learning. Not

my words, but those of the General teaching body for Scotland. Does the

First Minister agree with me that head teachers and local authorities

must work collaboratively in planning appropriate professional

learning opportunities for all staff, thereby ensuring that

teachers can engage with educational research to develop teaching

practice and thus contribute to closing the attainment gap? Yes, I

agree. Injury that our teachers have opportunities for professional

development is central to giving children the best quality education

possible. That is why this year, we are investing ?1 million in Masters

level training for teachers. I agree that learning opportunities are

important and leadership will feature strongly in the national

improvement framework. It already does feature strongly in the

framework published by the Deputy First Minister in June. This was one

of the key themes of the discussions at the council last week, the

importance of supporting teachers to develop professionally as much as

possible. Could the First Minister confirm whether her international

panel of experts has provided the evidence that shows that there is a

strong link between educational attainment rising and greater school

autonomy? The council met for the first time last week. We are asking

it to advise us and give the benefit of its opinion on a range of issues.

But there is evidence about the link between school attainment and the

amount of autonomy that individual headteachers have. That is why in

the governance review that John Sweeney will published next week,

one of the key themes which we will then consult upon is how we empower

head teachers and give them more responsibility so that they are able

to drive the improvement we need to seek. Our Council of education

advisers will advise us on the best ways of doing that as we go forward.

But that link is one we have already accepted in formulating a plan so

far. It emerged this week that the only educational advice underpinning

the Scottish Government's national standardised assessments amounted to

four e-mails from two educationalists, and that most of

their advice was not in fact taken. So even at this late stage, will the

First Minister undertake to ask the International Council to examine and

advise on this central policy? The Council advise us on all of these

issues and it will do so on an ongoing basis. The last time I

looked, although the way things change in labour, I could have

missed something, the last time I looked, Labour were supporting the

approach we were taking on standardised assessments.

Standardised assessments are not tests, they are assessments to

inform the judgments that teachers make about the performance of young

people. It is important that they exist, I think, to make sure that

that judgment has been informed in an objective way and that we are

then given from that information that allows us to assess the

attainment gap and set targets to close it so that we can be

accountable to this chamber and to the wider public for the commitment

we have given around closing the attainment gap. I am determined that

we will do that. We will take advice from our Council and others, but we

will be unwavering in our commitment to deliver the best education for

all young people across this country.

Question number five. Gordon Lindhurst.

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government is

taking to reverse the reported decline in inward investment as a

share of UK total? We are looking in detail at the

recently published Department Frinton on trade figures which show

a small decrease in inward investment into Scotland in the last

year. They have a different methodology to the specific figures

published by Ernst and Young in May. They placed Scotland in the top two

locations for foreign investment outside London in the last six years

and showed 2015 in same record year, with a 51% increase over 2014. That

reflects the important role SDI plays in attracting investment.

Scotland is a great location but one of the key reasons that investors

campaign is to have access to the single market, which is why it is so

essential to retain that. I thank the First Minister for that

answer and I am aware of the figures and the studies she refers to. VDI T

figures are the latest ones and they show the reality is that investment

in Scotland is down 9% on last year, new jobs are down 23% and Scotland's

share of new UK project is down from six to 4.9%. Rather it is her threat

that hangs like a dark cloud over Scotland of a further independence

referendum that is to blame for that. Now... The question is, the

people of Scotland have spoken in plain English, no Means no. When

will the First Minister except that? First Minister. The Ernst Young --

the Ernst and Young figures have a difference of a few months. Let me

just wonder, what was the uncertainty hanging over the

Scottish economy in the latter part of the financial year 2015-2016? The

only uncertainty hanging over the Scottish economy at that point was

the looming referendum on EU membership. I remember 2014 when the

Tories went all over this country telling people that voting no was

the only way to secure European union membership and now they have

put that in jeopardy. The uncertainty facing our economy now

is the reckless gamble of the Tories in taking us to the EU exit door and

for those who have caused the problem, to try to blame those of us

trying to find solutions is a bit like an arsonist trying to blame the

fire brigade. The Tories should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

Jackie Baillie. I'm sure that the First Minister

does indeed share the disappointment because after a very positive inward

investment figures, we are seeing a subsequent decline. We can argue

over whose figures are right that it is the case that inward investment

projects are down, jobs generated are down and when compared to the

rest of the UK we appear to be doing less well. I absolutely disagree

with Gordon Lindhurst. It is not a question that Brexit has no impact

but it is the impact of both Brexit and continuing uncertainty over a

potential referendum that has an impact on inward investment. What

will the Prez Minister do to address this?

It is not that long that Jackie Baillie did agree Gordon Lindhurst

because she also travelled to Scotland in 2014, saying we had to

vote no to protect our European union membership. She should reflect

on that. Let me address directly the issue of membership because Scotland

is a success story in inward investment. In the new climate we

are in, we are going to have to work even harder to attract inward

investment. That is why I announced the new investment and innovation

hubs we are establishing in London, Dublin and Brussels and supporting

Scottish enterprise and SDI and why we are announcing the initiative is

to support the economy. Jackie Baillie can talk about uncertainty

but the problem for Labour is there is one certainty right now if Labour

doesn't get its act together. Owen Smith has said it, Kezia Dugdale has

said it and that is the certainty of Scotland being governed by the

Tories for 20 years. Jackie Baillie and Labour have nothing to say about

that so we get on with the job of supporting the Scottish economy and

we will leave Labour to steer you in the juice of their own making. -- to

bubble in the juice of their own making.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will convene

a working group of ScotRail representatives, passenger

disability groups and trade unions to review and report on safer train

services? We welcome information on how to

improve. Elaine Smith will be aware of forums such as the stakeholder

equality group and advisory groups which include attendees from

passenger and mobility groups. We will be ensuring disabled people are

involved in all aspects of improvement. We must respect the

remit of the independent safety regulator in overseeing safe

operation of our railway, which is one of the safest in Europe. The

transport minister will be happy to meet with Elaine Smith to discuss

this issue if she is interested. Thank you, presiding officer. I

think rail passengers in Scotland and particularly those with

disabilities and RMT members in the gallery today will be a bit

disappointed by that response, that there will be a working group

convened. Is she aware that thousands of claims are operated by

ScotRail without a second member of staff on board? The guard role is

not just about operating doors but it involves numerous

responsibilities around passenger safety, comfort and security and

given the current suspension of strike action I would be very

pleased to accept the offer to meet with the transport minister to

discuss how we can guarantee the safest possible operating procedures

on our trains. Elaine Smith raises important

issues. The transport minister will engage fully with her and other

members and the RMT and other unions. I think it is important to

point out that in terms of driver controlled operation, the rail

safety regulator and the standards board has publicly confirmed in

their view it is a safe method of working. They did that because they

were asked to reaffirm their view in the context of the recent dispute.

Positively, and Elaine Smith has indicated, industrial action has now

been suspended where both parties are looking to work through an

agreement. I hope that process ends in a positive agreement and we can

look forward to a situation in the months ahead when passengers don't

have any further disruptions to the services they rely on.

To ask the First Minister for what reason more than a quarter of

training places in GPs surgeries are not taken up by the end of the 2016

recruitment round? Firstly, I'm kind of surprised Alex

Cole-Hamilton intern doesn't know we are not at the end of the

recruitment round yet. For the first round of advertising, three quarters

of cases have been filled so far and even at this interim age, we have

recruited 4% more year one GP trainees than when the full process

was completed last year. This summer a second round has started which

advertises a further 100 places and this takes the total number of

places being advertised to recruitment to 439, which exceeds

our target of 400 places. This year we are also offering ?20,000

bursaries for harder to fill places. As we take all GPs in training into

account, not just the one entrance. The current rate is 92%.

I think the First Minister for and so. Nevertheless it is clear from

these statistics that making places available does not necessarily mean

trainees will emerge to fill them. In the euro since the Liberal

Democrats repeatedly raised the GP crisis at First Minister's

Questions, we have lost a further 90. One in four patients present to

Scottish surgeries with underlying mental health conditions. Does the

First Minister agree that we can relieve practices like those in my

own constituency in Edinburgh West by appointing full time mental

health practitioners, not just link workers, in every surgery in

Scotland? Firstly, I do agree very much with

Alex Cole-Hamilton. It is not just advertising position that counts, it

is filling them with doctors. That is why I hoped he would have

welcomed the fact that at this interim stage in 2016 we are already

ahead of where we were at the end of last year 's process. There is still

work to be done but clear process being made and we are taking a

number of steps including the bursary I spoke about to make sure

we bursaries in harder to fill areas are more attractive for doctors to

take them up. Entrance of relieving pressure on GPs, that is why we are

working with GPs to transform primary care. We are going to

introduce link workers into GP surgeries, which addresses the point

Alex Cole-Hamilton has made about mental health support. We have made

sure that all GPs have access to an advanced from of this and bolstering

the skills of the professional with advanced nurses and looking to

recruit 1000 new paramedics to work in community settings which takes

the pressure off not just GPs but emergency services. I want to thank

GPs for the incredible work they do and we are determined to work with

them to make sure we have a primary care system and the health system

that is fit for the challenges of the future.

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is ensuring

accelerated funding and additional business on Brexit uncertainty?

Earlier this week I announced we intended to use the strength of the

balance sheet to establish a growth fund. Over three years this will

provide SMEs with ?500,000 of investment and up to ?5 million of

eligible business. We also announced a capital investment package.

Including ?20 million investment in energy saving for homes. ?10 million

that will go towards local economic development projects across the

country. All of that spending is accelerated into this financial

year. Responding to the Federation of Small Businesses we have also

created a point of contact, enabling individual companies to submit any

questions they have about the impact of Brexit.

And I think the First Minister for that answer? Does she agree it is

high time the British government followed her lead and announce their

own economic stimulus package, rather than continue to repeat their

meaningless mantra of Brexit means Brexit?

On the 10th of August when I announced the package, I called on

the UK to urgently develop its own plans. We haven't alleviated

uncertainty. We don't know what the date of the Autumn Statement is yet,

for goodness sake, that is the state of the uncertainty in golfing the

government -- engulfing the government. There are concerns that

the damage to the economy and jobs from the Brexit decision and

confusion of the UK Government will be severe and long-lasting. This

Parliament has given the Scottish Government a mandate to protect

Scottish interests and that is what we will do.

The First Minister and reassure our farming ministers across Scotland

that the shambles of this year 's direct farm payments won't be

repeated in the coming to you because never mind accelerated

payments, I had from us at my door at the weekend telling me they

haven't received payments from nine months ago.

Well, as we have said previously we acknowledge our shortcomings when it

comes to making payments to farmers this year and we have apologised for

that. I will do that again today. In terms of where we are in terms of

the 5th of September 18,300 eligible farmers over 17,000, I've got

payment. We have paid loans to those who are still awaiting the payment.

Fergus will make a full update on the 13th of September and as well as

giving an update on payments for this year he will also set out the

intentions in terms of the 2016 payments.

Thank you, First Minister. That concludes First Minister's

Questions. There we have it. 45 minutes is

about to be the norm. It is an experiment by presiding officer Ken

Mackintosh, but it seems likely to be the norm to have that extension.

He also brought in some new questions, supplement is from

backbenchers on general points, not just constituency points, in an

effort to get the backbenchers more involved. But of course, it was the

frontbenchers who were dominant. I am joined by two journalistic

colleagues, Severin Carrell and Lindsay McIntosh. Let's go through

what Ruth Davidson majored on, British Transport Police being

integrated as part of the Smith commission proposals into transport

proposals. Does she have a point? She does and she doesn't. There is a

separate UK-wide force in Scotland, which controls railwa policing,

which was agreed by the Smith commission, the Tory government at

the time. The problem now is that we are now getting some classic

political divides. The Scottish National Party naturally want to

defend the process of devolution. The problem is that the British

Transport Police obviously feels that it has been caught in the

middle of a different form of political dispute. Ruth Davidson is

probably accurate in saying that the police themselves are unhappy with

that. Ruth Davidson read out e-mails from serving officers, which is

always a potent thing to do because they are literally the guys on the

front line of this. It seemed that the First Minister didn't try to

flatten that. She will have to listen to these concerns. Yes. I

think Davidson will score points on that. She will score points on the

nature of the consultation the Scottish Government has put out. The

Scottish Government are saying, how do we do this, not why are we doing

this? The white question was actually answered by the Smith

commission in 2015. So we have moved beyond that. But it is not going to

go away and I think as the legislation comes forward, it will

become another potent argument and the old binary divisions, Unionism

versus devolution. The Conservatives raised concerns about the operation

of a single force, which perhaps adds to anxieties that are already

there. Yes, it is a potent ground because we know the amalgamation of

the regional police forces into Scotland was not a smooth procedure.

And we know the SNP are quite weak on that. So for Ruth Davidson to

throw in, you were not good at that, how can we trust you to do the

British Transport Police properly, is quite good politically for her.

The Smith commission agreed to devolve powers to the SNP

government, so what is the SNP government going to do with it?

Let's turn to the question raised by Kezia Dugdale for Labour, the hugely

sensitive topic of mental health care for children. The First

Minister was arguing that the fact that people were coming forward was,

and she admitted herself that it was a perverse argument, that could be

seen as positive. Kezia Dugdale didn't see it that way. No. That is

clearly a point that everybody would acknowledge, that stigmatisation is

to an extent reduced around mental ill-health, but more people will

come forward with problems and seek help. That is a good thing, but the

issue is whether they are getting the help they need. There were two

clear points from Kezia Dugdale. One was that the 18 week waiting time is

not being met. Indeed, it is being absolutely missed by a year in some

cases. The other was that hundreds of teenagers are coming forward,

recommended for treatment by their clinicians, and they are being

rejected. The issue with this is that its decisions are being made by

an SNP government which has been in power for nine years. They are now

having to deal with problems which they have perhaps either created or

certainly not solved. They can't blame it on the last guys any more.

This is an important issue which the public are rightly very interested

in, and it is difficult for Nicola Sturgeon to deal with. We can see

all the members flooding down the stairs now. They may be talking

about the police issue or the mental health question, or the one in the

foreground all the time, Brexit. It came up again. You have a competing

narrative now. Tories, it is your fault for doing the Brexit

referendum in the first place. The Tories say yes, but hang on, Nicola

Sturgeon, you are about to make it worse if you contemplate an

independence referendum. It is the same dichotomy from before. You have

two binary forces, both with big cudgels to hit each other over the

head with. A lot of this takes place inside the distinct, rarefied

atmosphere of First Minister's Questions. Outside here, there are

still an underlying uncertainty about the future and about the

present. The question about the Scottish economy's vulnerabilities

are being exposed and debated by Scottish economists, Scottish

business leaders and so forth. There are specific issues in Scotland,

which undoubtedly Brexit could amplify. But then on Brexit, there

are so many uncertainties. Lots of data suggests that actually, the UK

economy is more resilient than some of the doomsayers expected. That

could be good for the Scottish national party when it comes to the

second independence referendum, ironically. But we don't know how

badly damaged the UK economy will be. If it is badly damaged, Nicola

Sturgeon's Cudjo will become even larger. I will come back to you both

in the second. As I mentioned at the outset, it was a reformed First

Minister's Questions today, the presiding officer determined to get

more backbenchers involved in an effort to put more scrutiny upon the

First Minister. That is the objective of parliament, after all.

We have been speaking to a senior academic, Paul Kenny, who believes

that Parliament needs to go further in terms of reform. He is looking at

the scrutiny, and he is suggesting, goodness me, that there might have

to be more MSPs. Here is what he said. You say we need more MSPs.

That is a tough sell to the public. Almost impossible, because people

think of the cost and wonder what they are going for the money. But

the way things are going, the committees seem too stretched to

deal with the things they are doing already. If you add things on, you

are pretty much guaranteeing reduced accountability and scrutiny. The

original idea of the committee was that it would be a career in itself,

that MSPs would forge real expertise on these committees and bring that

to bear in scrutiny. Are you saying they are too thinly stretched to do

that? Yeah. It is ironic, because you get that in Westminster. You get

these backbench MPs who make a career out of chairing a committee.

But it seems to me, particularly if you are in the governing party, you

don't have the opportunity to do that. The party has too much

control. And yet Nicola Sturgeon has given up control in the sense that

the parliamentary aides will no longer sit on the committees,

scrutinising their own minister. But that seems to be the most visible

worst excess of the party. However it works in public, they have still

got control over who chairs the committee and therefore who sets the

agenda and who gets to speak. Of course, if you remove these

parliamentary aides from the committee, there are still all that

work to be done, but it is a smaller pool of backbench MPs able to do

that. Yeah, or they will move to a different committee. It is

unrealistic to think that suddenly, the SNP will not coordinate their

activities. What is wrong with that? It is understandable, isn't it? It

is OK if we are honest about the results, particularly during a

majority government. You simply accept that the governing party will

control the business of Parliament, it will produce the most policy and

parliament will scrutinise at the edges. But it will not be the idea

of a power-sharing relationship. Does this have a real impact? Other

public losing as a consequence of what you believe is scrutiny that

falls short of what is desirable? I think so, because the whole idea of

our unicameral system is that you get it right in the beginning. There

is no revising chamber. Instead, you have a Scottish Government that

knows it can present a draft acts to Parliament, and nine times out of

ten, it will not change much. They will not face too much opposition. I

don't see the high stakes for the government to get it right. So you

are saying we need more MSPs to do the work and you need committees

with more clout? I think so. Probably the best value is in

beefing up the administrative side of that so that if you don't have

many MSPs who have the ability or willingness to pay attention for

long, you have great staff that say exactly what is going on in here are

the key issues for stop staff novel parties, but for the committees

themselves. Yes, so they have a nonpartisan role, but they are

interested in the details. They can develop expertise themselves, know

what works for MSPs. That would be the business like I expect. How

about the idea of a revising chamber? It sounds good. The ones I

have seen are expensive. So you are sceptical about that? I think they

would just whip two chambers instead of one. When you look at the

prospects, are you optimistic? Well, I suppose I am saying we should keep

our expectations low. We were talking about a new politics, better

than Westminster. I don't think we can claim that any more. Paul

Cairney, giving his views. Let's chat about that briefly. Lindsay

McIntosh, he is talking about more MSPs. That is a hard sell. It is.

One of the key issues is that this parliament was set up in 1999, when

there were limited devolved powers given to this government. It was

known as a pocket money Parliament. It is now certainly not that. It has

got tax-raising powers and it is getting a lot more power to the

Scotland act over tax, social security and issues like abortion

and gambling. That is a powerful Parliament and it needs to be able

to consider these issues seriously and to have them scrutinised. So

perhaps it is time for reform. However, as you say, firstly, it is

not a very sexy area, as important as it is. Secondly, what is the

solution? More MSPs? How do you sell that to the public? I don't agree

that more MSPs are needed. I think the committees need to change. The

Parliamentary committee around committees... The Westminster

tradition is that the chairperson of an important committee regards

themselves first and foremost as being there on behalf of Parliament.

They are tough and aggressive with every party, no matter whether they

are part of that party or not. That tradition is not upheld in this

place. Committees here are often weak and hamstrung by party

loyalties, and frequently produce poor reports as a result. Thanks

very much. That is the end of our coverage of First Minister's

Questions. From me, Brian Taylor, bye-bye.

In an unforgiving time, Scotland had its heroes.