What's up everybody I'm the man goes you are awesome and it is time for the weekly Updates and oh what a week it has been a lot of big news big news coming out of predecessor of course with their closed alpha But also big news coming out of overprime some smaller updates for fault Some even smaller updates for project stamina, and then I just want to talk about a theory a little bit No real updates for them. I just want to talk about them a little bit But let's get into these updates starting with of course predecessor and their closed alpha this weekend I'm not sure if that closed alpha is going to extend to next weekend. They do plan to open it up again But it will be closed after It should be closed now if you're watching this video because I'm gonna release it one Monday, but um Overwhelmingly successful everybody had positive impressions of the alpha. There were a few problems here and there I'll have my own video out on that later this week But for the most part the people that played had a great time playing I got to play with a lot of you Which was really fun. Some of you probably think that I'm way better than I actually am while others probably unsubscribed after the game Especially this one game I had with Narbash. It looked like I was intentionally feeding. I promise.  It's ups and downs, but Overall, I think that way better than their original alpha release, which was March of what is that fucking 2018 2019 I don't even know it was a long-ass time ago when they had their original closed alpha It was uh, not great, but this one much much better There were I do want to put this out here This was an announcement that Smokey made in their discord Somebody's been going around giving giving out fake keys and just kind of trolling people Just watch out for that if you see like an email from a meta studios Then you know take that seriously, but if it's from just anybody else just some random person It's it's not a real key. I don't know what they get out of that I guess they just want to watch the world burn But if you do want to register for a predecessor key I don't I don't know if they're gonna be rolling out more keys But um, if you do want to register for one hit up their website linked in the video description below and Amidst all of this kind of sliding under the radar predecessor also released a new Murdoch skin This is their own creation. It is absolutely amazing. It is really good-looking. It's not just a recolor It's not just a weapon skin. This is a full one.  He's always gotten all the skin love Let's get some skins for some other people, but you know, that's that's a side that beside the point It's still it's great to see that they know how to create their own at unique assets instead of just manipulating the epic assets Let's move on to over prime. They had their patch of point six update I'll also do a video on that that also that kind of explains how to manually patch because it's a lot faster than using their patcher But um, yes, this introduced monolith so now they not only have a legacy map, but they also have a monolith map and I found that I Really enjoyed legacy Paragon, but as far as over prime goes I like the monolith version of over prime a little bit better The map is very very similar to monolith and Paragon However, there are some differences because they have prime dunking in it So the prime duck mechanic has been carried over to the monolith map. They did take out travel mode Which is a big reason why I do like the monolith version of over prime a little bit better Having a lot more experience experience under my belt with MOBAs now than when Paragon first released I really really realize the problems that are inherent with travel mode and why why epic took travel mode out But yeah, give that one a try a huge roster and The gameplay gameplay was pretty good. Just like I said, I'll have my own video out on the over prime monolith update And then fault they had like a little bit of a new UI for of their own and a tease for what their new core is going to look like and They also were due And they also released their own skin. This is a skin for Kwong is a cyber skin It's kind of cool-looking. We don't really get as much detail, but it they've been producing a lot of different skins I know they did a Bora skin. I know they've done a few skins But this one is the latest one looks really good check that out And then they introduced their fault community page and it has Highlights various content creators. They'll do like one Like, you know specific highlight a week But then then you can check out the different fault partners out there including myself but um Yeah, and it's not just like Twitch and YouTube content creators It's anybody that creates content like their first the first highlight is Jay Offlane who does art for fault And it's like he does really amazing stuff really cool-looking stuff I kind of feel bad during the meeting like when they said Jay Offlane I was like, huh, there's a lane just for Jay and off and then like I giggled like a The man child that I am for the rest of the meeting. But anyway, check that out really good stuff And then projects stamina now the updates for project stamina are mainly through their patreon and I'm not gonna just show that stuff off because that defeats the purpose of them having a patreon But patrons will know that cake the what is it called the community architected kit experiment? It's where they Take surveys and input from the community to create a character. It is coming along really well. It looks amazing I wish I could show it to you, but I cannot show you cake And I'm not gonna not even gonna say what the gender of cake is and you're you'll have to find out on your own Later on when the gate when when cake is released into the game or if you want to become a patron You can go to patreon.com that'll that'll be linked in the video description below as well And then you can find out all about cake and vote on Oh I leaked it. I leaked it. You vote on its Various abilities and looks and all that so good stuff And now for ethereal like I said, I don't have any updates for ethereal But I've been seeing a lot of comments in my videos lately saying like hey, you should check out this game ethereal You should check there's this undying company that's making ethereal. I really appreciate it I really appreciate you guys letting me know about other cool game games and projects that are out there But I am very very deeply involved with with ethereal. I know all about ethereal If that's probably if unless the game is just absolutely terrible, which I don't think it will be That's going to become the main focus of my channel. So if you think that I'm just ignoring ethereal I'm not I'm definitely not ignoring ethereal. It's just that they are Deliberately trying to downplay the hype for that game right now until they have Something to just really just blow the doors off the barn so to speak But I yes, I I know about ethereal. I appreciate the heads up. I mean I I actually I proofread and edit a lot of the lore for ethereal So I kind of worked for undying in a roundabout sort of way, but yeah, I did appreciate it But yes, I know I know about ethereal So that is all we have for this week Next week should be another big huge one because fault should be out Coming out on the 17th their early access So then we'll have predecessor fault and overprime all three to play If you got lucky enough to get a key for predecessor or if you purchased fault or if you Just downloaded overprime anybody can play overprime But that is going to be it for this week.  Have a good one Mango


You may kindly take a seat. By the name of the President of the Republic of Zangia, honorable Madam Ma Horace, Vice President of the United States of America, Cabinet Ministers President of both countries, members of the press distinguished by the guests of the gentleman. Welcome to the press conference being held here at State House this afternoon. And to begin the process, I'll now have the Senior Honour, the President of the Republic of Zangia, to deliver his remarks. Mr. President, sir. Thank you very much. My duty really is simple this afternoon. To warmly welcome Vice President Harris to State House, of course, a delegation to State House, to Zangia. And for many of us Zambians, it's receiving somewhat a daughter of our own country, someone who spent time here. And yes, so welcome, truly welcome Vice President Harris and your team. We have covered a couple of things inside there and I will not take too much time, but simply to indicate how strong and how proud we feel about our relationship, the U.S.-Zangia relationship. Anchored on a number of common values, beliefs, constitutionalism, rule of law, protection of human base, our own citizens, global citizens. So they can feel safe as they go about doing their normal business in their homes, in their workplaces and elsewhere. We value that. We also value the bilateral relationship that we had. The first part I indicated is more global democratic family, global democratic family, but our bilateral relations, going very well, long history of friendship, sees our independence. And obviously, by return to the democratic values, Vice President Harris, on behalf of the people of Zambia, I want to express how delighted we are to have been chosen to co-chair the Second Summit for Democracy. It closed yesterday and we want to say thank you to President Biden, yourself, the American government, and these people. I know that South Korea feels the same. The Netherlands feels the same. Costa Rica feels the same. So thank you for that opportunity. And I believe we utilize that opportunity well during the Summit. Zambia has a clear focus on what we want to do. We're elected on the platform of delivering a functioning economy. Reconstructing the economy is our critical agenda because we know when we do that we'll be able to take care of the needs of our people. Education for the young, health service delivery for our people, looking after the old, looking after those that live with disabilities, their list goes on. So priority for us, Vice President Harris, as a country now, is to rebuild our economy. In their state's macro stability, the environment that will allow us to support increased investment, trade, and the like. What is keeping us down for now, Vice President, is the debt overhand. We carry a debt burden that really is making it difficult for us to continue with our restructuring process of the economy. And it's actually beginning to negate on the gains we've already made, such as in the foreign exchange market. And the earlier we resolve this matter, the better. And we ask for your support, as always, and the support of others to deal with it. And we know when we unlock the debt, more investments will come. We know that when more investments come, we'll create jobs for our young people. As an African country, a number of our people population is young, and we have to take care of them. Not just jobs, but business opportunities as well. So we are keen to invest in our people's skills, keen to invest in technology. To share with you your advances in technology is something that will place a premium because it will help, as you said inside, equalize things. The technology platform that delivers for our economies, for our people, take us where we want to go, together with other companies. But we want to assure you that we will continue to upholding the principles of good governance, fighting corruption, equipped as treatment of all our people. It's very important. And we're happy to fly the flag on our continent of being a democratic country, by choice, not by persuasion, by America or by anyone. Our own choice, because we came from a background that did not deliver for us, a system that did not deliver for us. So you can be sure that we will, of course, encourage cooperation. But before you persuade us, we'll be running the road of democracy, because we believe in that. We're very pleased to know that your own priorities, your own support, historical support to us as a people, American people to Zambian people, is well appreciated. You've made announcements in a number of areas. You will do that in other areas. I think that's your forte. I will simply say, we appreciate that historical support and ongoing support in many areas, commercial development, investment in areas of accountability, stability, which are essential ingredients to the economic growth agenda. I wish to say once more, welcome home. And please, take some rest after today's session. You've been on a marathon tour of Africa. Who is the last leg? So it means a lot of your energy was sucked in in Ghana, in Tanzania, but we want your time. But we still care for your health. Thank you very much. Thank you. It was my honor to host you at the White House in 2021. And then to see you again at the US Africa Leader Summit in Washington, DC, last December. And it is wonderful to be in Zambia and to be back in Zambia. And I thank all here for the very valuable significance for me, as many of you know, and for my family. As you know, I'm visiting as a young girl when my grandfather worked here. My grandfather was a civil servant in India. And in 1966, shortly after Zambia's independence, he came to the Saffa to serve as a director of relief measures and refugees. That was his title. He served as an advisor to Zambia's first president, Kenneth Gowanda. And he was an expert on refugee resettlement. I remember my time here fondly. I was a child, so it is the memory of a child. But I remember being here and just how it felt. And the warmth and the excitement that was present. And in fact, I was talking with my aunt recently. And she was reminding me of the relationships that she made when she was working at, then it was called the Saffa Central Hospital. When she was working there with the physicians there. So from my family and from all of us, we extend our greetings and hello to everyone here. There are strong people-to-people ties as well between the United States, the people of the United States, and the people of Zambia. One may recall that Kenneth Gowanda visited the United States in 1960 and met with Martin Luther King, Jr. to discuss peaceful forms of protest. He again visited the United States in 1961 to meet with President John Kennedy in the Oval Office. The late great congressman, John Lewis, visited Lusaka to attend the Independence Celebration in 1964. And all that to say there is a long and enduring history of the relationship with Zambia. And it reinforces what you and I have continued to discuss during our time together, which is our collective commitment to principles of freedom, justice, and democracy. And our shared history then is an underpinning of the relationship that we have today. Today, the President and I had a discussion on a number of important issues. We discussed, for example, as the President have mentioned, our shared commitment to democracy. I want to thank the President publicly for co-hosting the summit for democracy yesterday. You too must be exhausted. Hosting that summit and then hosting our delegation. And I thank you. But the summit was extraordinary in the work that you, as a leader of it, did to convene leaders to advance our collective efforts, to strengthen democratic institutions, to protect human rights, to support free and fair elections, and to accelerate the fight against corruption. Zambia has indeed embarked on an ambitious democratic reform agenda under your leadership, Mr. President. And as I have said previously on this trip, democracy and good governance around the world is a priority for the United States. And we will always stand with those who are fighting for those principles. To that end, I am pleased to announce more than $16 million for new programs in Zambia, including a focus on anti-corruption and other reform efforts. Mr. President, thank you. You and I have had extensive conversations about the economy. And the work that you have done, and I congratulate on behalf of being a partner with you and just observing what you have done as a leader and as president, to put real measures in place to strengthen the economy in Zambia. And the work that you have done is about also implementing an economic reform agenda. We will remain a strong partner to build long-term economic growth and boost investment in Zambia. And we will continue to advocate for a speedy finalization of Zambia's debt treatment and the restructuring. And we have talked extensively about that. Our administration believes the international community needs to help countries such as Zambia regain their footing. So I will reiterate a call that we have made now many times for all bilateral official creditors to provide a meaningful debt reduction for Zambia. At the same time, we must focus forward and on long-term growth. As I've said throughout my trip, I believe that the innovation that is taking place across this continent will opportunities for the entire world. I am working during this trip to drive more private sector investment to Zambia and to the continent to accelerate the innovation and entrepreneurship that is already underway. To strengthen business ties, I am pleased to announce that the United States and Zambia will sign a commercial development MOU, a Memorandum of Understanding, which will help to develop and implement commercial projects and increase the flow of goods and services between our nations. The President and I also discussed extensively the issue of the climate crisis. And I thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership there as well. You have begun innovative public-private partnerships to focus on protecting forests and to protect and rewild landscapes, which will, of course, increase biodiversity and sequester carbon. The United States is committed to these types of innovative solutions to support climate adaptation, mitigation, and resilience. In fact, tomorrow I will visit a farm outside of Lusata to announce $7 billion in public-private sector investments for this continent. And I will then end my comments where I began. My family's time in Lusata in the 1960s. When I talk to my family about their memories, it is clear about the excitement that existed here in Lusata. At best, beginning of that era. And I remain optimistic, inspired by your leadership and the work of your administration. Because what is happening here on the ground, Mr. President, is truly about understanding the potential and seeing what is possible and working to achieve that. So again, I thank you for the warm welcome. It was good to be with you again. Thank you. Mr. President, we'll now take a few questions from members of the press who are in attendance. I would ask those who ask questions to step to this microphone. We'll first start with Annie Linsky of the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Vice President, you've spoken about democracy and the rule of law at every stop in Africa. Given that, what is your comment on former President Donald Trump's indictment and are you worried that his calls for protest could lead to a recurrence of the violence similar to that of January 6th? And the Wall Street Journal reporter has been detained in Russia. Do you have any update on his status and what is your reaction to Vladimir Putin's decision to detain him? And for President Kisholima, what does Trump's indictment tell you about the example that the United States sets in terms of rule of law? I'm going to comment on an ongoing permanent, but I will say as it relates to the American citizen that has been detained by the government of Russia, we are deeply concerned. And I will state in unequivocal terms that we will not tolerate and condemn, in fact, repression of dark journalists and that we are absolutely concerned about any attempt to in any way stifle freedom of the press. The indictment of President Trump, that means the rule of law are adding. Let's remove names from your question. Let's put what we decided we would do to govern ourselves in an orderly manner. First, our constitution, better of law. Then, secondary laws, other regulations create a platform or framework around which we agreed, either as Americans or as Ambians, to govern ourselves and so to live within those confines. And when there's transgression against law, it does not matter who is involved. I think that is what the rule of law means. So I take out the name, I put in place of the name what we citizens of our countries, citizens of the global community, must do as we exercise our rights and freedoms, where our rights and freedoms end, other people's rights and freedoms. This is universal, certainly for Zangir. This is the way it is. And here, Vice President, we have a scenario now when we fight against corruption, which has taken away resources from children and the Sikh. Sometimes names are thrown into it and perceptions are created that are totally inappropriate because transgressions against the law, if you take what belongs to the public, do you ever find it at all? And the name doesn't matter. That is my answer. Thank you. I will now take a question from the Zambian media. Can I have that gentleman there please come forward? My name is Masaozo Mukwaiyaya from the Zambian National Broadcasting Corporation. And Vice President, I want to find out, I know you've touched on the issue of debt, but I want to find out what immediate interventions are valid for the United States of America to help Zambian major out of this situation, which is troubling the economy. Is probably the main focus of my trip to the continent, including culminating the trip here in Lusaka and Zambia, which is to work with leaders such as the President here as a partner to work together on the goal of strengthening democracies, understanding that undergirding, a lot of that has to be to meet the everyday needs of the people, much less the needs of their aspiration and ambitions. When I look at what's happening on the continent of Africa as a general matter, I'm very excited. By 2050, one in four people occupying Mother Earth will be right here on this continent. There's incredible opportunity, just on those demographics alone, much less, what we are seeing in terms of the innovation and ingenuity that is coming from this continent to the benefit of the entire world. So having worked with the President on a number of issues, the President of Zambia, including our mutual goal to strengthen democracies and democratic principles, understanding that when democracies are intact, the people benefit. I am here to then do the work that we can through, for example, public-private partnerships to bring the kind of U.S. dollars and resources that I have mentioned, such as the $7 billion, to bear for the continent on what we can do to spur innovation, to invest in talent, and again, to the benefit not only of the people. What is the United States doing specifically to push China? And what is the United States' responsibility here given that some of that is hold by companies like BlackRock in the United States? And for President Hichelma, China's influence in Africa is very controversial in Washington. Do you consider China's role in the continent a constructive one? And what would the United States do to play a more constructive role here as well? So on your first point, I'll reiterate the point I made earlier. We are continuing to reiterate our call for all bilateral official predators to provide meaningful debt reduction to Zambia. And that includes the calls that we are making in the context of the IMF, that that be done. But let me be clear, our presidency is not about China. It's about an independent understanding of the intertwined histories of our nations and our mutual commitment to democratic principles and a recognition and understanding of what it means to engage in smart investments and the potential for the future of the entire globe. I will reiterate, when we look at the talent, the innovation, the ingenuity that is taking place in countries like Zambia, when we look at the partnerships that we've already embarked on, many of which are public-private partnerships, private investment, spurred or brought together by what we can do as the United States government. We're seeing incredible return on the investment, both in terms of the investment in human capacity as well as the investment of resources. So the work we are doing here is the work that we believe and is designed to benefit the people, to strengthen communities, to uplift communities. And we are going to continue to do that work, understanding that the relationships that we have between the United States and Zambia is a relationship again based on shared ideals and principles that are always going to be designed to strengthen prosperity and security. Thank you, Vice President. Let me just tag on to what she's already said. China's influence on Africa, you would, in certain ways, in the context of the U.S., what could the U.S. do to help Africa with Zambia this way? Let me just step aside a little bit and say things must not be seen that way. Things must not be seen that way. I totally agree with the Vice President that we're here to foster the U.S.-Zambia relationship. But there's a context in the sense that that relationship exists in the operating environment where other countries also exist. So the contextualization that if the U.S. and Zambia share lots in common, strong bilateral relationship, historical relationship, then they are doing things against China. It's actually wrong, completely wrong. So I have said before, when I'm in Washington, I'm not against Beijing. Equally, when I'm in Beijing, I'm not against Washington. We have a globe we share. We have a planet we share. Earth. For us in Africa, we have our continent. It is easy to say when the President of Zambia is visiting Pretoria in South Africa, he's against Abuja in Nigeria. That's the logic, not quite. What we expect of American China as the two leading economists, number one, USA, number two, China, is to help us keep our world safe for everybody. Keep peace stability, which would allow us to focus, for example, like us on our economic reconstruction agenda. And by the way, as Zambia, to a logic that we are responsible for the downgrade of our economy, the way we transacted, the way we related with people. That's why we since taking office, we preset our relationship with the global community, the League of Nations. I'm talking about the civilized League of Nations. So essentially, from now, we're expecting the U.S. as we've done in our conversations to support us on resolving this debt over hand for which, as a country, we're responsible, we didn't manage our affairs properly. We must accept it. Equally, we are asking, when we meet China, we are asking them to assist us resolve our debt, and free resources to where they should go, apply the free resources where they should go. So I am saying that the U.S. and us about relationship, they have their relationship with China. We have our relationship with the U.S. We have our relationship with China. But none of these relationships were about working against someone or a group of countries. I think that's what will give our world safer, peaceful, secure. But let me be direct. I do believe that the U.S. and China are engaging almost daily because of who they are, these two big countries. And our request to them is to keep our world safe, peaceful, order. For us, we would like to advance our democratic relationship with the Americans. And with others. I must say, and I said it yesterday in public domain, we believe that the democratic framework will allow us to advance our gender economic position. We came from a one-part state dictatorship. We didn't like it. Didn't wait for us. So we want to stay this course. But we must not always see each other when we meet with the vice president. Then we are plotting again in summer. We are not. Thank you. We are going to have the last person coming from the Zambian media. And I say, okay, let's have a lady for a change. You must be careful if the vice president who is a lady. My sincere apology. They have the time. My name is Stephanie Konda from Moewanju Media. My question is for the vice president. Madam vice president, what mechanisms are in place for the Zambian goods to be exported into the U.S. market? We have been, that is a lot of the work that we are doing with the collaboration and the MOU that we are announcing today around the ability to have these kinds, to create a framework around the commercial relationships that we have. And so that is the work that we will continue to do. But I will say that in addition to the commercial development MOU, which is about the increase of the flow of goods and services between our nations, there is additional work that we are attending to do, which is about, for example, the work that I'm going to do tomorrow when I visit the farm and highlight the mutual concern that we have in addressing the climate crisis and thinking about how we can bring new technologies and innovative approaches to industries such as the agricultural industry. We intend to do the work of not only investing in the innovation that is taking there, we refer to it as smart agriculture, some refer to it as agritech, the application of technology to thinking about satellite technology, for example, and how that gives us data and information that we can give to farmers to give them a better idea of what the seasons might bring so they can make smart decisions about what type of crops to plant. This is the work that we are doing together as well, understanding that we can share and exchange ideas that will be to our mutual benefit. So we are doing that work, and we are also doing the work, and I will always do the work of uplifting the importance of gender equality, and making sure that, for example, that we are paying attention to the needs of women and economic empowerment of women. I do strongly believe, I think most of us would agree, that when you lift up the economic status of women, you lift up the economic status of families and all of society's benefits, and so paying attention to those issues is part of an economic agenda, as well as anything else. Mr. President, wonderful Vice President of the United States of America, we have now come to the end of the press conference. I now kindly ask our friends to remove the podium so we have the last photo and they can allow the President and the Vice President to exit. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you. Now rise as we allow the President and the Vice President.


And welcome as we get started here at 2pm on the TFNN update with me David White. We've got all the indexes down a little bit including some of the other things like crude and gold. The crude down a little over eight tenths of a percent. Gold down almost seven tenths of a percent. You had fairly light volume so far in the day as we're bouncing around in what looks like a trading range. We haven't yet moved far enough to break the lows out although we are down about 40 points on the NASDAQ at the moment. Probably the big news or news stories of the day as we follow through with a little bit of stuff that happened yesterday. After the bell last night Disney came out with their earnings. They were down about eight or nine bucks in a shot I think were the worst tick. Then we had very much like Apple when they came out with bad earnings. Everybody took to CNBC from every avenue of Wall Street to tell everybody why the horrible earnings weren't horrible. And if they just gave them some time everything would be beautiful.  You're up about one and a fourth percent about yeah one and a four in a little less one and a half percent at the moment one thirteen thirty nine. It wasn't a good earnings. It was a horrible earnings and it's probably going to get worse. Now will the all the activism the pulling back the original CEO do any good. Well I don't know they're saying they're going to get rid of 7000 folks at Disney. So maybe that'll cut a little bit of the bloodletting. But for me unless they get rid of the gal that's been destroying the Star Wars franchise and several and several of the others probably doesn't matter we'll be back in a minute to go through the rest of the stuff. The reality is that navigating financial markets can be risky.


ughts on that issue of the undersized lot. I will say that it's my opinion that both of the structures on this lot, which is quite small, are very close to both East Pleasant Street and Strong Street uncomfortably close to those two roads, which are fairly major roads. It's access to Wildwood School with children going across there consistently. And the fact that the cars are parked there alongside the existing garage, frequently in excess of what is anticipated is both a hazard because of the way that they come out of the parking area that they're in right now. But it's also a hazard because if you're walking or running, you have to walk around the cars and onto the street. I don't understand why the garage was not being used for some time if that was one of the stipulations for the rental units to begin with. And I find that because of the configuration adding more the addition of the dwelling units in the garage would not be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, my opinion. Mr. Langsdale. Yeah, to that, the parking as it is now is, I mean, we have comments from different neighbors. I have Mr. Cobb's letter. I have, I have Brick's letter, both of which are talking about the traffic problems and that making this change would cause even more problems. However, the cars that are parked there now have to, as we're just saying, have to back out into a strong street. And especially if they wanna go west, they have to back in, go across a whole lane of traffic to get into the westbound lane. If the cars were parked in the garage, it would still be the same problem. They would still be backing out. As my understanding is when I was there, and I think from the pictures, the cars that are parked there now do not stick out into the sidewalk so that you don't have to go out around into the street or anyway to get past the cars. But the problem is that they have to back out. And if this is not, if this proposal is not accepted, then that remains the same. The parking as proposed, if the proposal is accepted means that the cars would be parked in four spaces in the back, they would, when they come out, they would come out facing the street, facing the sidewalk, and therefore would see easily any children or runners or anything plus traffic going by. To me, there's no question that this is parking wise, this is a vast improvement to what is there now. Because if we don't approve this, the parking remains the same and it is more dangerous than what would have happened under the approval. Now, to what Mr. Maxwell was talking about, I have here Mr. Cobb's letter from I think December in which he says, the number of violations, and I quote, the number of violations this rental property has accrued in just a few years is well documented in the property records. Adding another rental to this mix does not seem suitable or wise. So along with Mr. Maxwell said, okay, where are these records? What has been levied against this property in the last few years? And how long has have these people now owned this property? And what are the violations that have been reported and recorded during their ownership of this property? Maureen, we can get that information and distribute it to the board members probably tomorrow or the next day, right? Sure, yeah. Certainly in a day or two. I could look it up right now, actually, if you want. But yeah, I can provide that in preparation the next meeting if you wish. Please do it and the rental permit as well. I think the strongest case in looking through this, the strongest case for this is that increased safety on the sidewalk. Because I think that parking in the back is a far safer thing. I'm also concerned though is that the current, and while it wouldn't increase safety a lot, but the current rental requirement having, and I think I'm right having to park in the garage isn't being obeyed. The landlord could have under the current situation used the driveway that's there and had parking behind the garage and could have solved that problem right now and hasn't done that. So in a way, the current situation is a result of the land, the current owner of the property allowing to park out in front of the garage and not even comply with the current rental permit. And Mr. Langsdale, when I went past there today just to look, or the other day just to look at this, it really depends on the size of the car and the accuracy of the part of the parker, whether the sidewalk is blocked or not. If it's a large car and they give themselves a lot of room, it's more than the bumper that's into the sidewalk. So we do have, it's a bad situation as it's currently exists. Okay, thanks Mr. J. The other stuff that's, what I'm more concerned with, I'm really concerned also with what it does to the neighborhood. And I'm a big fan of infill. I think it makes a lot of sense. I think it makes a lot of sense, especially in the denser downtown areas. I'm not sure that it makes sense here. I'm not, I just, that's what I struggle with more than anything else is the additional people living in that small space, when you don't have that in the rest of the neighborhood. The concern of the neighbors that, well, we're just gonna see all sorts of garages and other dwelling units converted. I don't know that that's real because there's not a lot of extra dwelling, not a lot of units out there or structures out there that existed before the zoning, the bylaws are passed and that are available for this kind of conversion. I just, I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that when you increase the amount of students and pressure in the area and whether you can limit it to students as a question, the increasing amount of pressure in the area and the density and it does start to change the neighborhood in ways that may not be, it's not good for the neighborhoods. So that's the question I have, the struggle I have is between those two points and I'm just not ready to make a call on it yet. The last concern I have is about the drainage. I just don't believe, I just would wanna see more that drainage is going to benefit. I just, I look at that land, I see the slope, I see an abandoned gravel driveway and I say, that isn't within 2% of points of brand new asphalt. There's more, the ground soaks up more than that. And maybe that's just, that's all experiential as opposed to a good analysis, technical analysis, but it just, I have a hard time believing that that is almost the identical, what you see there today is almost identical to new asphalt. And so I worry that we don't have enough in the terms of drainage and the impact that has on the neighbors is a concern to me. So that's where I'm coming from amongst the, our board members, I just wanted to share that. I haven't made my decision yet, but those are what I'm concerned about. And the last thing is, I think it'd be great if there were families in there. That does appeal to me, but I don't know that that can be enforced or that we can rely upon that. Ms. Parks. Ms. Parks. I was gonna say, I'm also concerned about that impervious surface because all of the pictures that we've looked at, there is grass growing there. And so there's a big difference to me between grass and asphalt. And I do see that there's a couple of stones here and there at the beginning and at the end of the driveway. And I do believe that that cars have driven over that, but I do think there's, that it stands out to me that that's a lot of pavement going over grass in the backyard. The other thing that concerns me is two dwellings on one lot. I don't think that's a normal situation for Amherst to allow two separate dwelling units on one building lot. But I do get Dylan's point that it's existing. And so you have to deal with what's existing. And the other thing that stands out for me is the parking issue is an issue today. And if that parking lot were put in and the garage were left as it is, that would take care of a lot of problems with this property. So putting a dwelling in the garage does not solve the parking problem. Putting a parking lot in the back solves the parking problem. I know that the owner does not have an incentive to put parking in the back unless there's a dwelling unit. But I see them as two separate issues. Like, we shouldn't have to agree to allow the dwelling in order to handle a parking problem that is existing now. It'd be nice if that were just taken care of. So that's on my mind is that I understand that it's an improvement in safety, but that's not because there's not a dwelling unit there. And if I may comment on your comment, it's almost as if this could be, it could be handled without the landowner could handle this on his own. You could put the parking behind the garage, the existing garage now, regardless of whether we approve the special permit or not and solve the problem. And, or the, I don't know if the town could require that, but that would be, that would solve the safety problem for the, that I see on that street. One other thing. Ms. Parks. One other thing I forgot to say is that we are, I hear the neighbors and I hear the concern. And I, you know, that, that has an impact on, on for me when, you know, when neighbors talk about how, you know, how they feel that this is not an improvement to the neighborhood for them. It's a detriment. And so I do, I do hear that. I wanted to say that. And on a whole, another subject, I am frustrated that we keep getting paperwork at the last minute and I do work full-time. And so I can't always with, if paperwork gets sent to us in the morning, I can't necessarily see it until 4.30. And so I do feel like I don't have enough time to review all of the information. And like Mr. Sparkle's presentation or a response to Tom Reedy's letter is really useful. But, you know, when we don't get it until we're actually at the meeting, it's, it's, it's harder for me to kind of put everything together into a cohesive idea. So I just, I second Keith Langstahl's concern about having paperwork in a timely fashion because every time we've said that, it still hasn't happened. So, you know, and I know there's a lot of factors that weigh into that, but maybe, maybe the thing to do is to have a hard deadline and just say, you know, three days before we just don't look at it. You know, that, that's a really good point. I mean, that's what we tried to do with this. The last, the bylaw change is to have seven days and then have, if it wasn't, had some flexibility that we could judge. And we just, and what we found is that it didn't work very well. And I think we just need to put everybody on notice that you got to get stuff in seven days before. That's just a hard and fast rule. Now there's going to be de minimis changes and de minimis things that have to come up in the seven days. And we have to make a, we'll have to make a judgment about that or the chair will have to make a judgment about that. But I just think we have to have a hard and fast rule on seven days because we do have people that work. We have people we just can't. And I think that in this case, the two respondents were tried to get something in early, but they didn't meet the seven days. But I think we just have to put everybody on notice. Mr. Reedy, Mr. Sparkle, for the next meeting and for all meeting in the front in the future, we need seven days ahead of time of the information to come in because I think most many of the people on this board work. I'm lucky I don't any have to any more. But you can't get this done in 24 hours. And I, but I also think that it's going to be difficult for the staff to get all the project reports done seven days ahead of time because they have to respond to what they see. So we're not going to get the project application report until a couple of days, I think a couple of days before the meeting because you have to factor in the other material coming in. So that will continue to be something that will probably have to be looked at on a Monday for a Thursday meeting or a Tuesday on a Thursday meeting. Is that going to be acceptable to board members to have that as the one thing that comes later or not? Or do we have to move 14 days back and then have the project report seven days ahead of time? For me, I think what you're saying about the Monday is quite good. And I know that, you know, Maureen gets information sent to her, she has to process it and then get it out to us. So that if the material comes in seven days before and then three or four days later, Maureen is able then to get it out to us, that should be fine. I mean, but yeah, so it's just this last minute. It's too much. So, and the pay grade isn't great enough, you know. Yeah, that would be good with me certainly. All right, I think the important thing is to put everybody on notice is that seven days is now hard and fast. And we really do intend to enforce that one. Two, we'll try to get that. The goal is to get that project application report out as quickly as possible Maureen and you tell us if that's not gonna be possible on Monday, if that's, then maybe we have to move, maybe we have to move the date, not seven days, but we have to consider changing our rules to have nine days ahead of time. But you need to tell us how much time you need to prepare the project application report reasonably reasonable amount of time. And maybe you can't do that right now, but that's what we have to, that's the piece of information we really have to have, you know, four days, three days ahead of time. And you can't do it when you're getting stuff at the last minute. So you let us know how much time you need for this, okay? And we'll base the requirement on that. Okay, all right. So we're just about at nine o'clock. Does anybody else have Ms. Pollock? Mr. Chair, so I've been sort of, you know, I'm in keeping notes of this meeting. I've jotted down a list of things that the board would like in preparation of the next meeting. Well, so, you know, you individually will review Mr. Attorney Redie's memo. I will provide you all a copy of Mr. Sparkle's PowerPoint presentation from tonight about items for the applicant to perhaps consider submitting is about the change of amount of tenants, the prohibition of student rental and the converted dwelling, gatherings and overnight guests. You know, you may want to consider updating the lease to reflect those proposals that you have. I believe the chair asked for more information about the stormwater design and calculations and a little more clarity about the law coverage. Update the site plan to show the, if you decide to extend the fence to show that length of extension and update the fence detail that would remove the sort of the gaps penetrating at the top. And I will provide the board a copy of the rental permit parking plan, the existing rental permit and parking plan and to see if there's any violations on record. I believe there aren't any violations on record, but I will certainly just look into that. I think that was it for Mr. Meadows. Okay. Mr. Meadows. One other question for Mr. Moore. Can the town put up no parking signs along that road? I'll let Mr. Moore answer that, that might be a fire. That, yeah, that, I mean, that's a, generally it's a recommendation that might start with either public works or the police department, but the decision is ultimately made by the town council on whether or not there's a no parking zone. You know, the board could certainly be creative if they don't want parking in the front of the converted of the garage with boulders or something that would sort of block a car. We could create a condition that there would be making it impossible to park in front of the garage, but you still have the, you still have a case of parking to the left of the driveway. So that's a, you can make it all impossible, I guess, with a lot of boulders or fences or something. You have to be creative. All right. Are there other questions, comments, suggestions? Then when's our next meeting Maureen? Let me check my calendar. I believe it's February 11th. February 11th. All right. So, right as of tonight, the requirement is for seven days ahead of time for any, any new material. Maureen, if you find that that's not, that doesn't give you enough time, inform the applicant and Mr. Reedy of the date you need to get material ahead of time. Okay. So. Sure. Okay. But it would be safe to say, so next week would be the fourth and 11th, you know, if Bucky, it sounds like if I'm getting any submissions, it would be via Bucky Sparkle. So if I could get submissions by the third, that would be great. Okay. All right, third. Okay. Is that all right? Wednesday? Wednesday, yep. Wednesday. But sooner, sooner is always better. Sooner is always better. But I'll type in, in my outlook to bother you on February 3rd. So the submissions on the third for this meeting, is there other items on the agenda for that? There is, there is another special permit application for 34 Baker Street, it's a continued public hearing. And I want to say there might be one public meeting that is a sort of minimal, a minor request, but I can't exactly think of the item. And also I might be making that up, but 34 Baker Street is on the agenda. All right. So we are going to, is there a motion to continue this matter until the 11th of February at six o'clock? And I, about that, so the 34 Baker Street public hearing was continued from the December 10th meeting. And if you bear with me, unfortunately, for a few moments, I believe we continued it to 630. So, and that might have been one of the last 630 ZBA meetings that we have. So we could start, if it's okay with, you know, Attorney Bard and Mr. Mora, we could open this public hearing at six and then open the Baker Street at 630, if that's okay. Fine, fine with me. Okay. That works. Okay, so we'll do six o'clock if everyone's cushioned with that. All right. Six o'clock and then we'll move to Baker Street at 630 and we'll go back to this. Exactly. All right, that works fine. Okay. And then the last thing is, do people want to have an administrative meeting to discuss the, discuss submission requirements or have we solved that problem for now? Submission requirements. Well, the due date, seven, I had originally the beginning of this talked about having this discussed at an administrative meeting. And if we need to have an administrative meeting to discuss it, that we could do it at the end of that part, the 11th. If not, if we don't need to do it and we've solved the problem, we can move on. I think we've solved the problem, but I don't know if all of the members want to speak. Mr. Langsdale, you raised it first. I think we've talked about it and I think we can go forward. I'm fine. Good. So we have those two meetings, two matters to meet on the 11th. All right. So I'll, Mr. Maxfield has moved to continue this meeting to the 11th at six o'clock. Is there a second? Second. It's a roll call vote. So we have Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Chair votes aye. Mr. Langsdale votes aye. Aye. Mr. Park, Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Matos. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. The meeting is continued until the 11th at six o'clock. Public hearing is continued. Excuse me. Thank you. The public hearing is continued to six o'clock. The next order of business is any public comments on matters not before the board tonight. Any attendees have a comment? We have no comments and no matters that were not anticipated before 48 hours, before the meeting. I think we're done with the public hearing. Do I have a motion to adjourn? I move. Is there a second? Second. This, there's no discussion. And this is a roll call vote. I vote aye. Mr. Langsdale. Aye. Ms. Parks. Aye. Mr. Maxfield. Aye. Mr. Matos. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Good night, everyone. Good night.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we will discuss the values that cause rational equations to be undefined. Let us recall the definition of rational expression. Rational expression is of the form p of x upon q of x where p of x and q of x are polynomials in variable x and q of x is not equal to 0. Now we will find the values of x for which a rational expression becomes undefined. A rational expression becomes undefined for those values of x where denominator is equal to 0. Let us consider the following rational expression. x minus 3 whole upon 2x plus 3 here numerator that is p of x is given as x minus 3 and denominator that is q of x is given as 2x plus 3. This expression becomes undefined when its denominator will be equal to 0. That is 2x plus 3 is equal to 0. Now we solve it for x and it implies that 2x is equal to minus 3 which further implies that x is equal to minus 3 by 2. So the value of x for which the rational expression x minus 3 whole upon 2x plus 3 becomes undefined is x is equal to minus 3 by 2. Now we find the values that cause a rational equation to be undefined. A rational equation is undefined at that value where the least common denominator is equal to 0. Now if in the solution we get a value where one of the expressions given in the equation becomes undefined or the least common denominator is equal to 0. Then we omit that value from the answer set and that value is called extremist solution.  First of all we will simplify this quadratic by factorization. By factorization we can write this quadratic as x minus 3 the whole into x minus 9 the whole and we get this equation. Now here the least common denominator of all the denominators of this equation is x minus 3 the whole into x minus 9 the whole. So we multiply both sides of the equation by least common denominator that is x minus 3 the whole into x minus 9 the whole. We get x minus 3 the whole into x minus 9 the whole into x upon x minus 3 minus x minus 3 the whole into x minus 9 the whole into 4 upon x minus 9 is equal to x minus 3 the whole into x minus 9 the whole into 3x minus 51 whole upon x minus 3 the whole into x minus 9 the whole. Now this implies that now here x minus 3 the whole cancels with x minus 3 the whole. So here we are left with x into x minus 9 the whole minus. Now here x minus 9 the whole cancels with x minus 9 the whole and here we are left with 4 into x minus 3 the whole and this is equal to now here we are left with 3x minus 51. Now simply find this further we get x into x that is x square minus x into 9 is 9x so we have x square minus 9x. Now minus 4 into x is minus 4x minus 4 into minus 3 is plus 12 and this is equal to 3x minus 51 which implies that x square minus 13x plus 12 is equal to 3x minus 51 which further implies that x square minus 13x minus 3x plus 12 plus 51 is equal to 0 which implies that x square minus 16x plus 63 is equal to 0. Now we solve this quadratic for x by factorization and here we get x square minus 16x plus 63 can be written as x minus 7 the whole into x minus 9 the whole. So here we have x minus 7 the whole into x minus 9 the whole is equal to 0 which implies that x is equal to 7 and 9. So now we have two solutions of the given equation and these are x is equal to 9 and x is equal to 7. Now here we should note that x is equal to 9 makes the least common denominator equal to 0 that is if we put the value of x as 9 in least common denominator we get its value as 0. So we can say that the equation will become undefined at x is equal to 9 so it does an extraneous solution and we will omit it from the solution set. So x is equal to 7 is the only solution of the given rational equation. To solve our rational equation we follow the following steps. First we find the least common denominator of all the denominators. Then we multiply both sides of the equation by the least common denominator. Then we solve for x and lastly we take for extraneous solution that is those values of x where the equation becomes undefined that is those values of x where the least common denominator is equal to 0. This completes our session. Hope you enjoyed this session.


The next item of business today is consideration of business motion 4157 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for today. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 4157. Formally moved. Thank you. No member has asked to speak against the motion. I will put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 4157 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The next item of business is a statement by Aileen Campbell on the national review of maternity and neonatal services. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, therefore there should be no interruptions. I would call on any member who wishes to ask a question to press their request to speak buttons now. I call on the minister to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to update Parliament on our response to the publication of our review of maternity and neonatal services and set out our response to that report. Every day, our maternity services deliver an excellent service to families across Scotland. In our maternity care experience survey, women reported over 90 per cent satisfaction with the care that they received. We also continue to reduce rates of maternal mortality, stillbirth and neonatal mortality in Scotland to record low levels. The number of neonatal deaths has reduced by 40 per cent in Scotland since 2007. That means that in 2015, 76 more babies live where lives were saved due to the high-quality care provided by staff in neonatal units across Scotland. That also means that 76 fewer bereaved families. That improvement is a testament to the hard work of staff who look after sick babies in Scotland. We have a maternity system in Scotland that has high satisfaction ratings from women and continues to improve care and outcomes for the sickest babies. We are in a position of strength, but we are not complacent and know that there is much that we can do to make further improvements. That desire to improve and transform in part inspired the review. The report is a landmark publication that will represent a major opportunity to improve services even further. Its recommendations will transform service delivery in Scotland. For example, in our current system, there are women who currently experience no continuity of maternity care and can see numerous different midwives and obstetricians throughout their care journey. This is not what women want or what staff want, and evidence tells us that it is not good for care. To give women and staff what they tell us they want, which the report describes as family-centred care, will require a radical shift in the way that we deliver care. There is no doubt that such change will be challenging to deliver, and for many of our midwives and obstetricians it will represent a significant change in ways of working, but it will give better care. The importance of this review and its far-reaching and considered recommendations are down to the leadership of the chair, Jane Grant, and the members of the review group. I put on record my thanks to them for carrying out that commission. Their hard work and commitment has produced a report that is based on evidence and grounded in the views of families who use those services and the staff that deliver them. The breadth of engagement undertaken by the review team supported by the Scottish Health Council is impressive, and I welcome a report that is so strongly anchored in the views of hundreds of service users and staff across Scotland who contributed. I want to outline the next steps on implementation and highlight some of the key principles and recommendations in the port. First, it is my pleasure to announce that Jane Grant has agreed to chair the implementation of the review recommendations. It was Jane's drive, commitment and inclusive approach that produced such a well-researched and thorough report. As an experienced NHS chief executive, she is the right person to chair the major programme of implementation that we will now embark upon. Over the coming weeks, Jane will appoint the implementation group to drive forward delivery of the recommendations. Chared by Jane, this group will be tasked with progressing quickly the priority recommendations in providing a detailed plan and timetable for implementation over the five-year delivery period envisaged. I will ask this group to get under way quickly and to report back to me at regular intervals on progress. All of the 76 recommendations will take time to implement but are important, but there are a few that I will want to highlight. First, continuity of care. The report at length highlights the importance women and families attach to forming a relationship with professionals caring for them and having continuity. This recommendation, as the report acknowledges, challenges traditional NHS approaches. The report recommends identifying a number of early adopter boards to lead the change in practice, supported by proper training and development for staff who will require it. I am also pleased that a number of boards have already volunteered to do so. We will announce shortly which boards will lead the first phase of implementation and will work carefully with boards to scope out the scale of task and ensure that the early adopter boards can properly chest the challenges of implementation. Secondly, I want to move quickly with the proposals to implement the range of recommendations on pens, persons-centred maternity and neonatal care that are aimed at keeping families together. Those include recommendations to keep mother and baby together, to involve parents more in the delivery of care and to provide accommodation and a national approach to expenses for families with babies in neonatal care. I want to underline how important it is that families stay together. No mother wants to be separated from her new baby, even for a very short time. We should never underestimate the importance of the early days of life for family bonding, for breastfeeding and for attachment. I want that to be a core feature of our services in the future and I will ask the implementation group to prioritise those recommendations. Thirdly, on redesign of maternity services with a focus on local care and multidisciplinary community hubs, we all know that women want care to be delivered as close to home as possible. Again, I want boards to move quickly with the assessment of potential for hubs within their local areas to allow local delivery of the majority of maternity care as soon as possible. Finally, on the model of neonatal care, the model described in the report aims to reduce the number of babies who needed to spend time in neonatal units by keeping mothers and babies together in postnatal wards with in-reach support from neonatal staff and by putting in place wraparound community support to allow babies to be cared for at home by their parents sooner than they can be currently. All 15 neonatal units will remain and continue to care for babies in their area. The clinical evidence shows that the outcomes for the very smallest and the very sickest babies will be better if they are cared for in up to five enhanced neonatal units, delivering highly specialist care and moving to three such units in the longer term, if possible, based on experience of operating in up to five. This new model is based on evidence and emerging good practice from Scotland and the rest of the world. I want the implementation group to outline clear plans to allow the neonatal community to progress quickly with implementation of those recommendations. Again, that will be a priority for the implementation group. I have already outlined the strength of the engagement with women, families and staff in NHS boards that underpins the report. I want this partnership and co-production for delivery to be a core feature of implementation. I am sure that we all agree that solutions developed in partnership will have a far more chance of success and sustainability, but will also require time and space to ensure that the beginnings of this transformational shift are right. That is why I will continue to keep Parliament and spokespeople informed of progress, particularly on neonatal units and pathfinders. Proceeding on the basis of partnership and co-production will take care and time, and while the report has been warmly received across Scotland and discussions are already underway with the NHS community about the recommendations, implementation will be challenging and complex. I will request the chair of the implementation group to build partnership into delivery from its start, and I am prepared to give the implementation group the time to do that properly. Similarly, I am keen to work in partnership across the parliamentary chamber on that. Although much of what is in the report is about redeployment of existing resource, it is also clear that some of the recommendations will need investment to deliver. All boards are at different starting points in terms of delivery, and we will work closely with them learning lessons from early adopters and existing good practice to quantify what additional resource will be required. In many cases, it is hoped that this investment will realise savings over time, though improved outcomes for women and babies is ultimately the real prize. Finally, I will ask the implementation group to instigate a detailed piece of work on staffing. The review has firmly grounded in the views of staff, and the review report describes some of the challenges that they face. Those have also been reflected in recent reports by Bliss and the RCM, and I will ask the implementation group to undertake some early modelling work with NHS boards so that we can get a better understanding of the workforce changes that are required to take forward the package of recommendations, and that will align with the workforce strategy. The shift in care that the report describes sits within the overarching strategic context of our reform agenda for health and care services, as outlined in the national clinical strategy, the chief medical officer's annual report of realistic medicine and tackling inequalities. The Royal College of Midwives described the report as having the potential to revolutionise maternity care and to deliver safer and better services for women, babies and their families. Bliss Scotland described it as an ambitious and progressive vision for family centre care and good news for the future of Scottish neonatal services. This report makes a clear case for change in our maternity and neonatal services, and its recommendations and aims are supported by professionals, practitioners and importantly parents. Our aim is to make Scotland the best place to grow up, and that journey starts with excellent maternity care and giving all babies the very best start in life. Our job now is to implement those recommendations strategically and to take the time needed to ensure this unique opportunity to transform the way services are delivered makes good on our ambitions and visions. I welcome, Presiding Officer, questions to the statement. Thank you very much. I urge those who have not done so to press their request to speak buttons if they wish to ask a question. I thank the minister for early sight of her statement. We on these benches welcome this report and the general principles and recommendations contained within it, as well as the consensual approach that is professed by the minister today. We agree that, where possible, mothers having a normal delivery should have appropriate access to local or community-based maternity services. However, it is clear that there are still issues that the statement has not addressed. Let me name two. Firstly, we are concerned at the reduction in intensive care units, with the current eight units being reduced to between three and five, and ultimately to three by the end of this Parliament. Secondly, there are still major issues over staffing that the minister has brushed over in her statement. The Royal College of Midwives commented after publication of the report and outlined their concerns about retirement, saying that heads of midwifery get nearly double the amount of retirement that they used to get. They also spoke of general recruitment issues in the Highlands and in Grampian in particular. The report states that all women should have an appropriate level of choice in relation to place of birth. There are a number of choices that should be available to all women in Scotland, including birth at home, birth in an alongside or freestanding midwifery unit and hospital birth. To that end, what action will the minister take to ensure that all women in Scotland have that choice? Will the Government support the provision of such services in rural and remote areas of Scotland? I thank Donald Cameron for his series of questions. He said that he is eager and keen to work on a basis of consensus in delivering the recommendations of the report. In terms of the neonatal provision that he raised and his concerns about what he described as a reduction, there will always continue to be 15 neonatal units across the country. What we are talking about here in the report is about making sure that we have that clinically specialised care that will allow us to deliver better outcomes for the very, very sickest of babies, and that is where the careful planning will be required with that progression and enhancing that care for those sickest of babies. We are talking about a small proportion of babies across Scotland, but that is why it is important that we deliver that specialist care. We will also take care to do that, working with the clinicians, working with parents and with professionals to ensure that that role-production and that collaboration allow us to proceed on the basis of consensus. Again, as I said in my statement, I will continue to make sure that as that develops, we will continue to keep the Parliament informed of any moves. In terms of workforce, there is no doubt that that represents a fundamental shift in the way in which people will be required to work, but it is also important to recognise that the engagement that happened with professionals was a key message about what they wanted. It is why they wanted to deliver maternity services to women across the country, but it is important that we recognise that we have in place in Scotland a workforce strategy, that we have good numbers of women, and that we have midwives in our NHS, and that we will continue to work with professionals to ensure that we can improve on the situation that we have already in Scotland, which is based on a position of strength and work with staff as best as we can in terms of delivering on those recommendations. In terms of making sure that we deliver for women in rural areas, which I think was the last point that the member raised, of course we want to make sure that women have choice, appropriate choice, and that is again part and parcel of the recommendations based within this report. It is about making sure that we can remodel existing care structures to deliver for women and give them appropriate choice, but also recognising that for some specialisms that will require a bit more specialism and that it will require a bit more, in terms of working out where those specialisms will be delivered. That is the basis in which the neonatal recommendations are being taken forward. Again, much of the work will be delivered by the implementation group and done at a pace in which we can deliver good outcomes for women and also for babies. Anas Sarwar, I thank the minister for prior sight of the statement. I think that it is important to look at this report alongside the Bliss Scotland baby report, because it is clear that this Government's failure to workforce plan has left our maternity and neonatal units understaffed and existing staff overworked. Their report found that three quarters of units do not have enough nurses and two thirds of units do not have enough medical staff to meet minimum standards of care, and more than half of units do not have enough overnight accommodation for parents of critically ill babies. Can the minister therefore tell us when the Government will publish a detailed workforce plan, how many additional staff will be delivered and by when, and when all the units will meet national standards for high-quality care? The report recommends removing intensive care cuts from 10 units over the next five years, which 10 units will lose their intensive care cuts? What impact will that have on travel times and on keeping families together? The report also makes clear the desire to keep mothers and babies together. What additional capacity will therefore be created for free accommodation for parents of critically ill babies? Finally, the report says that all women should have the appropriate level of choice on where to deliver. Therefore, will the minister recognise that the proposals to close the maternity units at the Vale of Leven hospital and at the Inverclyde royal hospital are ill-thought through that she will call them in and reject them? I think that what he fails to recognise is that we have a good record in Scotland in terms of delivering maternity services. While there are challenges, as outlined in the report, we have some things that we should be proud of. We have an innovative midwifery workload and workforce planning tools. A UK first has helped to ensure that NHS Scotland continues to meet the RCM-recommended midwife-to-birth ratio, unlike in other parts of the UK, where RCM is clear that there is currently a shortage of midwives. Again, in Scotland, we are taking a leading way forward in delivering for women across the country. In terms of keeping babies and parents together, of course, that is why we want to transform the way in which maternity services are delivered in Scotland, making sure that we keep women alongside their babies, because we know how important that is for bonding, for attachment, for breastfeeding and a whole host of other positive outcomes for some of our most sick babies. Again, the neonatal recommendations for specialising neonatal care to from five to three services across the country are based on clinical evidence about what works for a very small proportion of babies across the country and making sure that we have good outcomes for those sick babies and making sure that we can do all we can. That is why we are taking forward those recommendations at a pace and a scale that is comfortable to ensure that we can transform the way in which care is given and we can improve outcomes for babies. That is something that we need to unite behind. That is going to have to be based on clinical evidence, but what tells us is the best for the babies across our country. As I said in my statement, we will be looking at things around accommodation and transport to make sure that those people who live in rural areas across the country are able to access those specialist care in a way that is comfortable for them and do not have unnecessary stress and strains that we know has happened in the past. We want to eliminate to ensure that every mother gets the very best care and that every child gets the best start in life. Fulton MacGregor I take this opportunity to remind the chamber that I am the parliamentary liaison officer to the health secretary. Can the minister outline what the expected patient care benefits are from the recommendation that every woman using maternity services has a primary midwife? The recommendations are to make sure that there is a continuity of care for women across their maternity journey. That is because people want to develop relationships, they want to have familiarity and they want to make sure that they are informed. This whole process has been developed with deep engagement with mothers and with mothers to be with professionals. There is a meeting of minds on that. That is the way in which people who deliver maternity services want to create the service as well. They want to make sure that they have a relationship that is built up with the mother who is in their care. The potential to transform the way in which maternity services are delivered in the country is great. We have a unique opportunity to now build on the recommendations in the report, transform the way in which maternity services are delivered in Scotland and really make sure that we embed co-production, partnership and empowering of women across the country to deliver what they want to happen across our country. I welcome the fact that the review calls on all NHS boards to review their current access to perinatal mental health services to ensure early and equitable access is available to high-quality services with a clear referral pathway. However, given NHS boards' difficulties in recruiting trained psychological staff, what more can be done by the Scottish Government to ensure that perinatal mental health services are appropriately staffed so that mothers who need those services and who would benefit from early intervention are not kept waiting for months for that support? I thank Miles Briggs for his question. I recognise the real and long-lasting interests that he has had on the issue and more generally on mental health. I know that he hosted a conference yesterday as well. I would be absolutely pleased to get some of the outcomes from that if he wishes to share those. Maureen Watt, the Minister for Mental Health, announced a managed clinical network around perinatal mental health. Of course, we are taking forward the mental health strategy, which will also dovetail into the work around improvements for maternity and neonatal services in the country. We have a whole host of other ways in which we provide support for those who are more vulnerable, including things like the family nurse partnership, which engages deeply with women who are potentially vulnerable, young, first-time mothers, teenage mothers, and we are rolling that out across the country. There are a range of services at present, but, of course, we recognise the challenges that exist. That is why the minister announced the MCN, and that is why we are taking forward a mental health strategy. Together we will make improvements for women's and mothers' mental health issues because of the real recognition in the report that we have to make vast improvements on that area. Clare Haughey I would like to refer members to my register of interests. I am a registered mental health nurse, currently registered with the NMC. I think that it is important to start off by thanking all those who work in our NHS. They do a fantastic job and provide an excellent maternal and neonatal service, and I welcome the update from the minister. I wonder if she could expand further on any development and training opportunities as a result of this review and confirm that she will be working with NHS boards to examine staffing implications. Absolutely. Again, this reflects that this will require a shift in the traditional norms of delivering maternity services across the country. However, however has been done with engagement with NHS staff in response to what they have told those who are involved with the review. There will be implications for workforce that will require remodelling, and that will also require training to ensure that we have the correct and appropriate services in place to deliver for mothers who are about to use maternity services across the country. Clare Haughey is absolutely also correct to recognise the hard work and endeavour of staff across our country. We are in a position of strength in how we deliver maternity services in Scotland, but we want to build on that and improve it further. Jackie Baillie Time last year, before the Scottish Parliament elections, the SNP accused me of scaremongering when I spoke about the closure of the Vale of Leven maternity unit. Immediately after the election, the proposals that were denied were published. I very much welcome the minister's commitment to delivering maternity services closer to whom. Is she aware that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde have kicked the formal consultation into the long grass and surprise surprise will not be considered by the health board until after the election? I am sure that the minister will view that as a deeply cynical move, so will she today put an end to this nonsense and commit to the continuation of the full maternity unit at the Vale for the remainder of this Parliament? The member mentions the Vale of Leven. As yet, there are no firm proposals from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde on the future of the units in the Vale, and I understand that boards are currently considering the recommendations in light of their review as published. However, the report suggests that it is important to maximise the potential of CMUs and that boards should undertake an assessment of their viability against the agreed national framework to ensure consistency involving local service users so that their needs can be balanced with the need to maximise the use of resources. We would expect boards to take cognisance of the report, but I will gently point out to Jackie Baillie that the Vale of Leven hospital is there because of the work of this Government to ensure its future. Jackie Baillie's uncomfortable truth for Jackie Baillie was that her administration was prepared to close the Vale of Leven. Jackie Baillie might see that that is abhorring, but her colleagues who are shouting 10 years at us would have been shut for 10 years if her party had been brought back to power. It was this Government that took decisive action and gave the Vale of Leven a future that is bright. Many of the aspirations in the report deserve support, especially the emphasis on local care. However, in terms of delivering local care, will the minister commit to supporting our more rural neonatal units in maternity services such as the excellent service at Dr Gray's and Elgin? Will she acknowledge that, to maintain those services, the current pressures have to be addressed by health boards in terms of workforce planning and resources, particularly given that, in more rural units, a vacancy for a consultant or a midwife can have a disproportionate impact? It is not always in the best interests of mums and babies to travel long distances in clinical practical resource reasons. Richard Lochhead is right to point out the importance of workforce planning, and that is why we will enshrine safe staffing and law by putting our workforce planning tools on a statutory footing. He is also correct to point out the importance of rural services, which is another key element of the report, where mothers and families have told us how important they feel it is to have services delivered as close to home as it possibly can be. Of course, that raises challenges where there is a requirement for specialist interventions. I reiterate that we do attach a great importance to rural services across our country, but that signifies a transformation in the way that services will be delivered and will continue to work with health boards, patients and mothers and maternity users across the country to ensure that that key principle of ensuring that maternity services can be delivered close to home is the way in which we proceed as we implement the recommendations. I thank the minister for advance sight of the statement. The statement says that babies will be better, the very sickest babies will be better if they are cared for in up to five enhanced neonatal units, delivering highly specialist care, moving to three such units in the longer term, if possible. Can the minister advise what would trigger such a move? If there are fewer units, that will necessitate more transport. To what extent has Scott Star been involved in the review process and what work is planned to ensure that we have sufficient capacity in our neonatal transport services? Scott Star will be absolutely involved in the process of recognising the requirements, the greater requirements that we have made of transportation as we work through the recommendations around neonatal units. Again, I said in my statement that I will keep the Parliament abreast of those as things progress around the neonatal recommendations. Because we have to do this in a managed way, that is recognised in the report. The first step is to make the move up to five units, and that will require careful planning and capacity building in some units. The move to three will be considered over a much longer timescale and will be informed by the experience of moving to those initial five units. That, of course, will also be influenced by the recommendations and the aspirations that are set out in our national clinical strategy. Alex Cole-Hamilton will be followed by Stuart McMillan. I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. Given that one in five new mothers experienced mental health difficulties as a result of pregnancy and childbirth, I very much welcome the comments of the minister in response to Miles Briggs earlier. In Scotland today, only five health boards currently have specialist community perinatal mental health teams. Will the minister outline practical steps that her Government will take to expand provision across other health boards and to equip maternity ward staff and neonatal staff with the tools to identify early onset mental health issues when they first appear? Minister. Again, the importance of good maternal mental health is a big feature of the report as published. Again, that recognition was a motivator in the Minister for Mental Health, publishing an MCN and committing to rolling out best practice across the country. We recognise that there are challenges that still persist around mental health for mothers and mental health more generally, which is why the Minister for Mental Health will be publishing her strategy very soon. However, the point that Alex Cole-Hamilton makes is a good one. We will take a nice sense of his keen interest in ensuring that we can do better by mothers around their mental health as we implement the recommendations. We will ensure that the implementation group and gene grant that leads it will prioritise that work. Thank you very much. Minister, the RCM Scotland director Mary Ross Davies said earlier this month that, in terms of midwife numbers in Scotland, we are doing well. We have known for a long time in England that there is a really significant shortage of midwives. Can the minister outline if the RCM will be engaged in national and regional workforce planning to ensure that we have the right mix and numbers of staff in the future and also to avoid the shortages being experienced in England? Again, we have a commitment to make sure that we have the right complement of staff. We have already mentioned that our innovative midwifery workload and workforce planning tools—a UK first—have helped to ensure that the NHS ratio in Scotland continue to meet the RCM recommendation of midwife-to-birth ratio, unlike in England, where the RCM is clear that there is currently a shortage of midwives. However, we are not complacent in Scotland. We will know that we will have to do more. That is also about redeployment of existing maternity staff and midwives to ensure that we can transform the way in which maternity services are delivered in Scotland, which challenges the existing norms of the way in which the NHS delivers maternity services and ensures that there is continuity of care on a person-centred approach. We will continue to engage with staff as we move forward with the implementation and the recommendation group will continue to engage with staff on that. Brian Whittle is followed by Neil Bibby. I declare an interest in that one of my daughters is a midwife. There are currently about 500 midwives in training spread over the next three years. The Royal College of Midwifery reports that 41 per cent of current midwives, around 1,200, are over the age of 50 and are therefore eligible to retire at the age of 55. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde reports that they are losing midwives at double the rate that they used to. With the inevitable chronic loss of experience that cannot be replaced by newly qualified staff, how does the Scottish Government propose to correct the lack of foresight by the then health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, in which she cut maternity training places in 2011 and ensure that not only are staffing levels raised to an appropriate level but also that crucial levels of experience in maternity services are not lost to enable delivery of this strategy? In a number of responses that I have made to members who have asked questions about maternity and midwife numbers, I have mentioned that Scotland's ratio continues to be better than many other areas of the United Kingdom. I also want to give some clarity to Brian Whittle that we have increased the student-midwife intake for five years in a row, including another 4.9 per cent increase for 2017-18. That equates to 191 midwifery training places in 2017-18, which complies to 172 students in 2006-07. We also will have to cope and deal with the situation imposed by his party around Brexit, in which we rely on many EU nationals to deliver many services across our country. The reality is that those are things that we are having to deal with with our workforce planning. I hope that Brian Whittle has been so robust in his question with me, with his colleagues down south. I am ensuring that we can make sure that Scotland's position is protected. What is motivating me to move forward with the implementation of the recommendations is to transform the way in which maternity services are delivered in our country and to build on a position of strength that we currently have in Scotland, in which mothers report a high degree of satisfaction and improvements to outcomes for our babies. I will take two very brief questions if the minister is brief. Neil Bibby. Ministers have plans to reduce intensive care units at neonatal units across Scotland. Today, NHS Greater and Glasgow Clyde agreed to submit their plan to close the children's ward at the RAH. That comes after months of denials from the SNP that those proposals even existed. The final decision will rest with the SNP Government, and it must be rejected. Can the minister tell me whether the RAH is one of the neonatal units to be downgraded further with a removal of intensive care cuts too? Given that the review talks about the need for choice in local maternity provision, will the minister make sure that the Government keeps its promise to protect services in the Clyde and reject plans to close the Inverclyde birthing unit? We have within the recommendations that there is a move for five neonatal units that will specialise to provide care for the very sickest of babies. That is about providing a specialist service for our very sickest babies and to do so with the knowledge that that is driven by clinical evidence to deliver good outcomes for those sick babies. I said in my statement that I will keep Parliament informed of that progress and to make sure that, when we do so, it is at a pace and a scale of change that is comfortable to ensure that that can be as smooth as it possibly can be. The NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has continued to work through its proposals. I know that he has a real interest in the services that are delivered close to his home, but we will expect our NHS boards to take cognisance of the recommendations within our report and proceed on that basis. I welcome the statement and the minister's commitment to accept all 76 recommendations in the report. Working to continue to reduce stillbirths and neonatal deaths must be this Government's absolute priority. Nevertheless, for those families who have suffered such a tragedy, what steps will now be taken to ensure that they are then treated with empathy, dignity and respect by the NHS rather than confronted with inertia, suspicion and hostility when trying to find out how and why their baby died? I thank Kenny Gibson for raising the question. I cannot imagine the pain and suffering that any parent goes through when they have lost a child. He is right to make sure that we, when we improve the maternity services, parents are treated with respect, dignity and empathy after having to cope with such a dramatic loss. There are reasons to be hopeful about the improvements that we are seeing around maternity services because they are safer than they have ever been, but that does not take away from the pain of a family that is having to endure such a loss. We will continue to make sure that we support parents through bereavement and make sure that we have a better understanding of what that will require. bereavement is very much a part of the recommendations that are set out within the report and will take cognisance of members' own experience and personal suffering around any improvements that they think we should take forward in the review.