 Felly, we are going to begin with general questions, and our first question is from Angus MacDonald. To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of businesses and domestic properties in the Falkirk East constituency can access superfast broadband and what percentage are connected. Minister Paul Wheelhouse. Independent broadband analysis site, think broadband, states that 96.6 per cent of all premises in the Falkirk council area are able to access superfast broadband speeds of 30 megabits per second, or better. The latest off-com figures from December 2018 for the Falkirk East constituency show that 89 per cent of all small and medium-sized enterprise premises and 96 per cent of domestic premises have access to superfast broadband of 30 megabits per second and above. Off-com figures also suggest that 62 per cent of all lines in the Falkirk council area have an active fixed broadband connection in excess of 30 megabits per second. That information is not available at the constituency level. I thank the minister for that answer. The Scottish Government deserves full credit for providing superfast broadband to communities who would have fallen behind had it been left to the UK Government to get their act together. Despite the success, however, rural communities within my constituency, particularly in Avonbridge, have faced severe delays and are still without access to the superfast network. Around 12 properties face the prospect of having to wait for our 100, including businesses who are reliant on the best broadband available, having originally been advised that superfast broadband would be available to them some two years ago or more. Those issues have been compounded by a lack of communication from contractors, misinformation from project literature and websites causing frustration, confusion and anger in those communities who feel that they have been left high and dry while other communities are very close by surgeon to the digital future. Can the minister therefore provide reassurance that our 100 will learn from the issues faced in rolling out the DSSB programme, ensuring that better, more effective community engagement is at the heart of the R100 programme? First, I recognise, especially given the applause from the Conservative benches, that broadband matters, as all telecoms, are reserved to the UK ministers. As Mr MacDonald knows, we are very much recognising that—indeed, the member wants to ask a question in his parliament, I will certainly answer it—Mr MacDonald will recognise that the issues that he raises in respect of his constituents are ones that we very much acknowledge. We are certainly unhappy to hear that members of Mr MacDonald's constituency have been led to believe that they are going to get superfast broadband and have not had that. There are a number of complexities around the interaction between the commercial investment plans of operators and the public-sponsored projects such as DSSB, which we are very proud of, in terms of those state interventions such as the Scottish Digital Scotland superfast broadband programme, not being able to intervene where there are commercial plans. That means that there is some interaction between the two programmes of commercial investment and the publicly funded investment, and that can present some difficulties in understanding exactly which properties are going to be covered. As the member knows, we have committed to a 600 million programme under R100, which I hope will deal with the properties in Mr MacDonald's constituency, but if he would like to let me know which ones they are, I can give a more definitive answer. I reassure him that we have learned very much from the DSSB process and are trying to avoid some of the communication difficulties that he describes and make sure that we work very much from the start of R100 to try to give as much clarity as we can to communities about when services will be delivered in their area. To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to raise awareness of the Apologies Scotland Act 2016, since it came into force on 19 June 2017. The Scottish Government expects public bodies and other organisations to be aware of the current legislative framework and to update its procedures and guidance accordingly. The Scottish Government did not commit to issuing general guidance on the basis that to do so would risk interpreting the law, and that is obviously the job of the courts. Given that the act is not retrospective and applies only to legal proceedings commenced after 19 June 2017, it may be premature to look for any practical content that courts may have added to the legislation. I thank the minister for that reply. Will she consider launching an information media campaign possibly to be done using the Government's digital presence, Facebook, etc. Targeted at solicitors, local government, businesses and the general public to raise awareness about the act, and if so, will she initiate research on the uptake before and after the campaign to establish its effectiveness? I thank the minister for raising that point. The member for raising that point and I can see where the member is driving with that is more of a guidance of more of a general nature rather than particularly of a legal nature. The Scottish Government is working closely with the interaction action plan review group, and it is anticipated that they will consider reparations, including apology, acknowledgement, support and commemoration this year and next. That is likely to include consideration of how information about the Apologies Scotland Act 2016 and its benefits can best be communicated. I will take the member's point about a media campaign and so on, and I will look at that. I will come back to the member once I have considered it. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the comments in its China engagement strategy regarding respect for human rights and the role of law, what discussions it has had with the Chinese consulate regarding the recent protests in Hong Kong? The recent protests show the strength of feeling among the people of Hong Kong who have exercised their rights to freedom of speech and assembly, as guaranteed in the joint declaration. The Minister for Trade, Investment and Innovation discussed the protests in Hong Kong with the Chinese consulate general at a recent engagement. He has since written to the consulate general outlining the Scottish Government's position that it is vital that Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy and the rights and freedoms set down in the final British joint declaration are respected in full. I welcome the cabinet secretary's remarks on the fact that the Scottish Government minister has engaged with the Chinese consulate on this. Two million people out of a population of seven million in Hong Kong came out to protest and were yet again met with battens and tear gas by their own police force. That tear gas was manufactured by a company called Kemmering, based in the UK, and in receipt of hundreds of thousands of pounds of money and enterprise grants from the Scottish Government. Given that the first minister has previously confirmed in this chamber that the Scottish Government is interested in helping arms dealers to transition into what was described as the blue light sector, i.e. the equipping of police forces, could the cabinet secretary confirm if supplying, if funding the companies that are arming police forces like those in Hong Kong is part of what the Government had in mind? If so, how on earth is that compatible with this Government's commitment to human rights? The plant at Stevenson does not produce tear gas. A grant of 160,000 was given to Kemmering in 2013 to help to modernise the company's site at Stevenson in North Ayrshire, helping to secure 13 permanent full-time jobs at the site. 4. Michelle Ballantyne Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made with the inquiry into the Queen Elizabeth University hospital. Since their appointment, the co-chairs of the independent review have consulted extensively with experts on the established systems for stakeholder contact. In line with the Britain report recommendations at a meeting today, they will publicly present the preliminary terms of reference and ask for feedback, and they will consult on those. They will also formally seek submissions of evidence and launch the review's website and contact details. That is all important because it is critical that a wide range of views and information is considered. Michelle Ballantyne I thank that cabinet secretary for that answer, but given that on the 9 of July next month, the Royal Sick Kids in Edinburgh is due to open, and given that it shares the same design concept and is being built by the same contractors, can the cabinet secretary tell me if she has received assurance that the same issues will not be experienced? As Ms Ballantyne I am sure will know, it is certainly a reply that I have given before in this chamber. NHS Lothian for the Royal Sick Kids in Edinburgh and other boards where we have new buildings, for example, in Orkney, were all tasked with making sure that they had the proper assurance from the immediate lessons that we had learned with respect to Queen Elizabeth University hospital in terms of air ventilation and water supply and the use of, for example, sinks, that they had applied that in terms of the design and the construction. We have that assurance and, indeed, that was one part of the reason why NHS Lothian did not take ownership of the site until it was absolutely assured that those steps had been put in place. The Queen Elizabeth University hospital is one of Europe's largest, with 1,100 patient rooms, 14 floors high and built on the site of the southern general. Why is that acceptable for Glasgow, but it is not acceptable for our hospital in Monkland, in which the cabinet secretary has just slapped a closed order on this morning? What a pity that Ms Smith did not actually read the answer to that GIQ that was issued this morning. I have not slapped a closed order on Monkland's hospital. What I have repeated is this Government's commitment, absolute commitment to source a replacement for Monkland's hospital. What I have ruled out is making that replacement on the current site. For a number of reasons set out in that GIQ, but let me give you some of them. There is no room around the existing hospital to build a new hospital. To build a new hospital on that site would require the demolition of the current hospital. The current hospital's capacity could not be picked up in the rest of Lanarkshire, therefore patients would wait longer for the treatment that they need. I am sure that, if that happened, Ms Smith would be first on her feet to criticise that. There is also an issue of patient safety if she constructs a new build alongside an operating hospital in that proximity. That is the case. What I have done is required NHS Lanarkshire to ensure that their consultation on a range of options, including making sure that new options that have come forward in the most recent period, are included. That consultation is, from the very beginning, one that involves the local communities that the Monkland's hospital serves, that ensures that the design that the clinicians have so well led for a new hospital continues to be applied in any new build, and that they take forward all of that with some speed, but making sure that local communities' voices are well heard and that they are part of the decision making before it comes to me. Those are the facts, Presiding Officer, and yet again I would appreciate if Scottish Labour would stick to the facts instead of making it up as they go along. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to maintain Scotland's participation in the European digital single market, which is estimated to be worth £400 billion, in light of the UK Government's reported intention to withdraw from it. I recognise the value of access to the digital single market with tech. Already a fast-growing sector in Scotland would be a deep shame that Scotland misses out on the emerging opportunities of being part of the European single digital market. Brexit will have a detrimental impact on Scotland's digital businesses as they face increasing trade costs if the UK and EU legislation diverge. Willie Coffey. I thank the minister for that answer. The situation with the digital single market is akin to a luxury £400 billion cruise liner sailing off into the sunset, and the UK is sitting in a tugboat at the jetty wondering whether to try and follow it or not. One minute, the UK was fully behind in leading the plan and the next we are waving goodbye to it, to the horror of IT companies right across Europe. If we do not follow, then roaming charges will be back. Shared digital services and access to IT procurement contracts will be seriously restricted. Will the minister give us some assurance that Scotland's reputation for world-class IT innovation and developments will be protected and that we will seek to maintain our links with Europe as the market develops in the future? Minister Kate Forbes. That is why the Scottish Government put forward a comprehensive set of positions for us to remain part of the digital single market. We have engaged with the Governments across EU member states, and despite Mr Hunt's recent interventions, we will continue to engage strategically with our European partners. As Scots head off on holiday and perhaps some people in this chamber as well to EU countries, we will benefit from surcharge-free roaming. In a no-deal scenario, that would no longer be guaranteed, so we cannot have an outcome of EU exit that puts Scottish citizens and businesses at a disadvantage as we are just beginning to reap the benefits of a fast-going tech sector. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on SIPA classifying the seawater at Fisherow in Musselborough as poor in 2018-19 and the potential impact that this has on tourism and the health of people bathing in the area. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of good bathing water quality for bathing and tourism, and any poor classification is unacceptable and must improve. Together with SIPA and Scottish Water, the Scottish Government is taking all possible steps to raise bathing water quality. That includes public sewer network improvements and fixing property misconnections. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. What further specifically can the Scottish Government do to help East Lothian Council manage the situation and is there a time frame to completion? The Scottish Government has provided £340,000 to fund a joint programme of intense sewer investigation for Fisherow and Portobello to identify and fix sources of pollution from property misconnections. Scottish Water is also carrying out improvements to the sewer network. The Scottish Government and SIPA provide support for East Lothian Council through the Edinburgh and Lothian's Bathing Waters stakeholder partnership group, and the Government-funded Keep Scotland Beautiful My Beach Your Beach initiative provides support to East Lothian Council to reduce the impact from litter, dogs and gulls on Fisherow sands. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to tackle animal cruelty. The Scottish Government is committed to the highest possible animal welfare standards, and we are taking forward legislation on animal sanctuaries and the breeding and sale of dogs, cats and rabbits and licensing of pet shops. We expect to announce in September the timing of that legislation to increase the penalties for cruelty offences and to allow animals seized to protect their welfare to be quickly re-homed. We are planning a follow-up public awareness campaign on the risks of buying puppies, and we are also working to establish an animal welfare commission to provide expert advice on future issues. Annabelle Ewing I thank the minister for her answer and the minister will be aware of the increasing calls indeed for a five-year maximum sentence to be available for the most serious cases of animal cruelty as opposed to the current maximum of 12 months. Can the minister confirm that she is indeed sympathetic to those calls and that in the legislation that she is referring to that will be a provision that will be part of that bill? Minister Marie Gougeon I can confirm that. The proposals for increasing the maximum sentence for the worst cases of animal cruelty, including the attacks on service animals, were consulted on as part of the Scottish Government's commitment to amend the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006. We published the responses to that consultation on 10 May and the analysis of those responses will soon be published as well. We expect to be able to make an announcement about the timing of that legislation in the approved and for government in September. Peter Chapman To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the use of patrol boats at Rockwall in response to Irish fishing vessels. Marine Scotland continues to monitor and gather evidence regarding fishing activity at Rockwall. However, we do not discuss specific details on the deployment of surveillance assets. Our aim is to resolve the issue through discussions with the Irish Government. Peter Chapman I thank the minister for that answer, but I am disappointed by it. We have seen a major increase in Irish fishing vessels within the 12-mile limit around Rockwall from 15 incursions in 2014 to 94 in 2017. Even two Irish international maritime law experts agree that that is illegal and should be stopped. What enforcement action has been taken? Have any Irish vessels been boarded and checked? If not, why not? As I said, we continue to monitor the situation. I am not going to discuss the specifics of deployment of surveillance assets, but it is important that we address the issue as we have been doing for some time. Indeed, the figures that he has quoted are the figures that I proactively gave this chamber when I answered a previous question. 9. Jeremy Balfour To the officer's government, what analysis for transport secretary has carried out regarding how the proposed workplace parking levy could affect disabled people's access and employment? The Scottish Government has not carried out this analysis. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee agreed John Finnie MSP's amendments to the Transport Scotland Bill on workplace parking levies on 19 June. Those amendments include a national exemption for blue badge holders and are a requirement for any local authorities that choose to develop a workplace parking levy proposal to carry out impact assessments. I thank the minister for his answer, but would he recognise that many disabled people do not have blue badges? They have hidden disabilities, they have upper limb disabilities and they will be included in the tax. Will he stop and look again before that bad piece of legislation is passed? I certainly recognise Mr Balfour's concern, but we encourage people who think that they are eligible to apply for a blue badge to do so, and I encourage members to do that. Secondly, the charge is levied on the occupier, not individuals parking, and therefore it is for the employer to consider the needs of its employees. That is one of the variables in developing a scheme that would be, obviously, the decision of the local authority to take forward and that they undertake an impact assessment to make sure that they are taking account of the needs of disabled customers. To ask the Scottish Government when it last discussed maintenance of the Clyde tunnel with Glasgow City Council. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, Michael Matheson MSP met with Glasgow City Council on 11 June to discuss a number of transportation issues that affect Glasgow, including the maintenance of the Clyde tunnel and its approaches. Thank the minister for that answer. The Clyde tunnel faces an annual funding shortfall of some £775,000. Major structural work is required to keep the tunnel open, which is used by 64,000 vehicles every day. What support is Transport Scotland offering to Glasgow City Council to ensure that the Clyde tunnel remains open and is safe? I very much recognise the strong interest in the issue. The Clyde tunnel and its approaches form part of the local road network. As such, responsibility for maintenance rests with Glasgow City Council. However, the cabinet secretary has instructed his officials at Transport Scotland to work with Glasgow City Council to explore the issues and costs associated with maintaining this important section of road.