 Welcome to General Questions. Question 1 is in the name of Richard Simpson. I know that Mr Simpson is not here. I have had no explanation as to why he is not undrap, and I would expect an explanation very soon. Question 2, Drew Smith. Good morning, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to resolve the industrial dispute at the National Museums of Scotland. Cabinet Secretary, Fiona Hyslop? Diolch yn fawr, mae'r gwrdd yn fawr i'r ffordd o'r Gwllffeddol a'r ddechrau arguingol o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r Gwllffeddol, ac i'n ddim yn gweithio'r gweithwadau a'r dweud o'r ddechrau i'r gweithwadau i'r ffordd o'r gweithwadau a'r dweud o'r gweithwadau i'r gweithwadau i'r dweud o'r dweud o'r dweud o'r dweud o'r dweud o'r gweithwadau. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The minister blames National Museum Scotland and National Museum Scotland seemed to blame the Scottish Government. This is not a complicated dispute. There are people working side by side doing the same job and getting different rates of pay. Why is this dispute going on? It's now 18 months. Can the cabinet secretary outline what action she will take from today to get some resolution to this situation, or could she perhaps indicate how much money it would cost to simply equalise the rates of pay, so that staff that are employed after 2011 receive the weekend allowance the same as the staff who have been employed there for longer? The changes don't affect existing staff who had the allowance, so it was for new staff after 2011. I think that it took longer than 18 months for the concern to be raised at the time. As part of the costs, we have information from the National Museum of Scotland that costs almost £400,000 a year. That would, over a spending review period, be £1.2 million. As he is aware, the Labour Party and the Conservatives have indicated that there would be further public sector cuts coming after the next Westminster elections. It would be a challenge indeed to identify £1.2 million over that period unless the member can tell me otherwise. Neil Findlay. That is your responsibility. What have you done personally to try and bring this dispute to an end? That has been going on for 18 months, and every time you get asked questions, blame someone else, blame Westminster, blame the management of the museum. Do you have a question, Mr Findlay? Can you take responsibility and bring this dispute to an end? As the member knows, and as I have indicated, I have met with the unions on a number of occasions. I have facilitated better working relationships with NMS. We have achieved progress in relation to a number of issues. However, the question of the weekend allowance is one that is still under dispute, and I would encourage all sides to engage. That is not possible if the trade unions are saying that the only way that they will talk to management is if the full weekend allowance is reintroduced immediately. That is not something that is possible. We need both sides to talk, and I personally have spoken to both sides and encouraged them. I am hopeful that they can continue a dialogue that they have been having over recent months to get some resolution to that, but I have met them and I have taken this very seriously. I have given as much information as possible to all members when they have contacted me. Christina McKelvie. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to protect public services from the impact of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. John Swinney. Since March last year, the Scottish Government has been raising concerns with the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission about the impact of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations on the national health service and other public services. We are continuing to press the case for an explicit exemption for the NHS and other public services from TTIP. As the First Minister has said, no ifs and no buts, there must be an explicit protection for the NHS on the face of the agreement. Christina McKelvie. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Last week at the STUC Congress, the following text was adopted. The UK reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure with regard to the organisation, the funding and the provision of the national health service in the UK, as well as with regard to public and or other not-for-profit character of the national health service in the UK, where services may be provided by different companies and or public or private entities involving competitive elements, which are thus not services carried out exclusively in the exercises of the Government authority. Can the cabinet secretary reassure us here today and the many people who are interested in the TTIP agreement that he will take that text to the UK Government's next inter-governmental meeting? The wording that Christina McKelvie has read out is a welcome contribution to this issue from the Scottish trade union congress. It is work that has been undertaken to define the legal terms that would provide necessary exemption and to ensure that the national health service and all public services were exempt from TTIP. As the culture national affairs secretary made clear in the parliamentary debate yesterday, and as I have made clear in the written response from the Government to the committee in their helpful and informative report on the subject, the Government is determined to ensure that we have wording that is sufficiently tight to put beyond doubt to our and the public's concerns that TTIP will have no effect on the Government's ability to determine how and by whom the national health service and other public services are provided. To ask the Scottish Government what the findings were from its pilot project to monitor assault injury surveillance in NHS Lanarkshire. As part of building safer communities, we are continuing to work with partners at a national and local level to reduce violence in Scotland. The pilot project helped to improve our understanding of violence within our communities. The views of key individuals involved in a pilot project were sought and recommendations were identified relating to improving structure and governance of the project. Improved staff involvement and collation of data have all helped to inform further developments in our overall approach to violence reduction initiatives in Scotland. A public health report titled violence prevention, a public health priority published in December last year outlines recommendations to roll out injury surveillance across all health board areas. At present there are three health boards in Scotland, Fife, Lanarkshire and Lothians, who are capturing injury surveillance data. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. However, the cabinet secretary may be aware that I have been pursuing this issue since 2006 and hope to see progress soon in implementing a policy that I believe will help to reduce knife crime across Scotland. I have a letter dated May 2013 from his predecessor as justice secretary in which he states, I agree that injury surveillance can be very useful to both the police and the NHS and my officials are continuing to work with the partners in NHS Lanarkshire, Police Scotland and the violence reduction unit to learn from their experiences in piloting this approach in Lanarkshire. Once we have a picture of what work is taking place across Scotland, we will look to see what assistance we can give in rolling this out further. In light of that response, is the cabinet secretary able to tell me when we are likely to see a roll-out of an injury surveillance system across the country? I am aware of the member's long-standing interest in the matter, which I believe he first raised back in 2006. The report that I made reference to is the public health report, which was published in December of last year. One of its key recommendations was for each of our boards to identify a public health lead that will be responsible for taking forward this particular area of work. Alongside that, the report also makes a range of recommendations on what areas of priority those lead officials should then take forward within their individual bold area in capturing the information and making sure that they have the right system in place. The report also recommends that the leads should establish an emergency department violence surveillance programme in each of their bold areas by January 2016. We are continuing to work with the boards on this matter, along with the violence reduction unit and Police Scotland, and we will continue to work with them to make sure that we make progress on this matter. Question 5, in the name of Richard Baker, has not been lodged and the explanation has been less than satisfactory. In the case of Richard Simpson, who just missed question number one, Mr Simpson made the best effort that he could to get here, and I hope that you are recovering. To ask the Scottish Government what help is available to local authorities to upgrade infrastructure to support new housing and commercial developments. Between 2014 and 2016, the Scottish Government expects to secure infrastructure investment of over £8 billion, helping to support economic activity in the delivery of public services in communities across Scotland. Through the use of innovative financial models such as tax incremental financing and the growth accelerator model, the Scottish Government, together with the Scottish Futures Trust, is working closely with a number of local authorities and other partners to deliver local investment that supports regeneration and growth. For his response, can he tell me exactly who is responsible for the infrastructure upgrades to accommodate any new development? It is a key principle of the planning system that the impact of new development on existing infrastructure should be mitigated and where there is an impact, a planning obligation can be used under section 75. That would set out what the developer is legally required to provide and may include the requirement for a financial contribution. That is one of many sources of financial contributions, and it is important to note that the Scottish Government provides this year £856 million of capital funding to local authorities, which has maintained their total share of the capital budget. We have recently commissioned a significant research project on that, particularly focusing on cumulative contributions to strategic investment, and the work that is led by Raiden will report in June 2015, and we would be intending to publish planning advice based on that by the end of the year. Does the Scottish Government consider that investment in infrastructure should be made in anticipation of population growth rather than in reaction to it? I think that there is a space for both, and certainly the important process for this to ensure that changes in population can be mitigated is the development planning process, and it is important that that is a very effective process that takes into account current situation, but it also anticipates future demand and delivers as appropriate in timescales for that. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to encourage individuals to use public transportation in order to reduce air pollution. The Scottish Government has a range of policies and programmes to make public transport better, more accessible and more affordable and to encourage people to use it. For example, we are investing £5 billion to 2019 to continue improving our rail network and services, and up to £246 million in the modernisation of the Glasgow subway. £250 million a year supports the bus network across Scotland and provides free bus travel to around £1.3 million elderly and disabled concession card holders. We also support travelling Scotland to help people plan their journeys and are working with transport operators to deliver smart cashless ticketing across modes, which will help to make public transport simpler and more attractive to use. Finally, through initiatives such as our Greener Scotland campaign in smarter choices, smarter places, we encourage individuals to make more sustainable travel choices. I thank the minister for his detailed response. Yesterday the UK Supreme Court ruled that the current plans to reduce levels of air pollution were insufficient and that the UK Government must take immediate action, and I presume from that the Scottish Government as well, to reduce air pollution in cities found to have illegal levels of air pollution. It is not just in cities that we have high levels of air pollution. We have high pollution levels in certain villages in North Lanarkshire, such as Chapel Hall. What steps does the Scottish Government plan to take to reduce air pollution in light of the ruling from the Supreme Court yesterday? Well, in addition to the policies that have been set out in terms of climate change, having the most ambitious climate change targets in the world, I can inform the member that there is a low-emission strategy consultation. Public consultation on the draft strategy closed on 10 April. We have received 67 responses, which are currently being reviewed. We will finalise this and publish the strategy at the end of 2015, and that will include proposals such as low-emission zones. I am sure that the member will welcome that news. Question 8, Kenneth Gibson. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to raise educational attainment in North Ayrshire. Ensuring that every child reaches their full potential whatever their background is at the very heart of our ambition for education, that is why we launched the Scottish attainment challenge, backed up by £100 million Scottish attainment fund. North Ayrshire is one of the seven local authority areas that has been identified as the first beneficiaries of the fund, which will allow for substantial financial support to be put in place for effective interventions. North Ayrshire also benefits from the universal support provided for all authorities through a range of existing and new national programmes, which are focused on raising attainment and reducing the equity gap. Those include raising attainment for all programme, attainment advisers in every local authority and the Read, Write and Count campaign, and £3 million access to education fund. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. I understand that North Ayrshire council intend to focus on classroom practice, teaching and assisting parents and providing learning support for their children. Can the cabinet secretary please indicate what impact it believes it will have on educational outcomes across North Ayrshire? Mr Gibson will be pleased to know that I met with the North Ayrshire council and the other local authorities, who are among the first to benefit from the Scottish attainment challenge and the Scottish attainment fund on Monday. All those local authorities are working very hard to develop and to implement the plans to take forward this ambitious programme. As Mr Gibson knows, tackling inequality is at the very heart of this Government's agenda, so that every child can succeed in school and gain the skills that they need for life. All the evidence shows that good quality teachers and teaching are crucial to making a difference, as are programmes that help parents to support their children's learning at home. I believe that, if North Ayrshire and indeed the other local authorities pursue such evidence-based approaches, they will indeed make a big difference to improving educational outcomes and reducing the attainment gap for children living in the most deprived communities. I will be very happy to share with Mr Gibson, given his interest for his constituencies, the details from the fund and the programme as it develops. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making towards ensuring that every child has the opportunity to undertake on-road cycle training. With grant funding from Transport Scotland of £800,000, Cycling Scotland offers all local authorities access to training resources and an instructor training pathway. In 2013-14, 37.4 per cent of primary schools and participating local authorities were providing bike ability Scotland level 2 on-road training up from 31.5 per cent in 2010-11. During 2014-15, 1,095 candidates trained as bike ability Scotland instructors and an additional 178 schools delivered on-road training. Updated figures for 14.15 will be reported by local authorities to Cycling Scotland and will be available in September 2015. Obviously, there are huge variations in investment and outcome across the country, but I welcome the progress that has been made. It would be a real waste if that training cannot be put into practice by our young people because our roads are still too unsafe, too busy, too polluted and congested, and given the diamond verdict of the Supreme Court regarding dangerous levels of air pollution, is it not time for the Scottish Government to take the advice of the Association of Public Health Directors and invest a tenth of the transport budget in walking and cycling? On the first point that Alison Johnston makes, I think that there is a range of local authorities that are taking up the offer that is made to them by the Scottish Government. I would particularly commend East Remshire Council, where 100 per cent of primary schools are included and Midlothian where 87 per cent of primary schools are included. We will continue to support education in a range of other policies to encourage people to get involved in active travel. In terms of the financial commitments around active travel, we have kept and delivered our manifesto commitment. What is more, Alison Johnston is well aware at the Perlon Parliament event at the weekend. I committed to increasing the record amount spent in 2014-15 in this financial year 2015-16, and that shows that this Government is putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to active transport. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to raise the speed limit on a-roads for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes. I know current plans to raise the speed limits for HGV vehicles over 7.5 tonnes on single-carriageway or dual-carriageway roads across Scotland. I thank the minister for his response. He will know that the UK Government has increased the speed limit for HGVs on a-roads to 50mph. It is estimated that this move will deliver not just economic benefit but the reduction in carbon emissions and improved road safety. The Institute for Advanced Motorists has warned that the Scottish economy could be at an economic disadvantage if we do not follow the suit. Clearly, there will also be confusion caused to cross-border traffic such as heavy goods vehicles using the A75 Euro route that is heading for Stranroir. Given all this evidence, why will the Scottish Government not take this very sensible move? The Scottish Government will take an evidence-based approach and the member will be well aware that the change was only implemented from 6 April. It is far too premature to make any judgments about the impacts. In terms of consistency, we will certainly make sure that we can town to work with the road haulage association and the freight transport authority and others to ensure that the difference between Scotland and England is highlighted. Drivers are professional, they understand the difference. Road speed limits are often determined by the characteristics of the road. The reason why the Scottish Government does not support the wholesale blanket change that is happening south of the border is that a very careful judgment has to be made. The Scottish Government puts safety as paramount. Although there may be some economic gain, the very same DFT, the Department for Transport Assessment, said quite clearly that there is a probability of increased fatalities and incidents in the road network south of the border. Understanding that, I think that it is entirely right that we take an evidence-based approach and put in reliability, safety and economy at the forefront of our minds, but we will not take a gamble with the lives of the people of Scotland. Thank you. Before we move to the next side of business, members will wish to join me and welcome to the gallery, his ex-law Hamza Teebeb, the ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia.