 Goodbye. Graf wasdoddiolwydnaeth gy cornersuch gwyrdu ysgblwys gan Fy khochwil a'i gradd... To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with NHS TASstr side regarding staff numbers and future workforce planning. C lunar r inertialzieheng maen nhwします. TASIDE works to plan effectively to ensure patient safety with the right staff and right skills are where they are needed. In doing this, I have been clear with all boards that I will not accept changes that impact negatively on patient accessibility to care. I spoke yesterday to the chair of NHS TASIDE, who reiterated his concern at how work to develop long-term plans has been portrayed. He has also been clear that, as they plan improvements to accessibility, quality and delivery across all their services to meet current and future demand, they will not reduce capacity. I thank the cabinet secretary for her response. I am sure that she will appreciate the public concern that has been around reports that NHS TASIDE is looking to shed 1,300 jobs or 10 per cent of the workforce. We have already seen temporary closures in the minor injuries in pitlockery and grief due to shortages of nurses. The RCN has been in contact with my office this morning, expressing concern at the reduction in the headcount of nursing and wind wistery staff in NHS TASIDE over the past four years. We hear what she has to say about protecting front-line services, but surely with that level of a reduction in staff, it is not inevitable that there will be some impact on already stretched front-facing services. There is no agreed level of reduction in staff. There is no agreed level of any reduction in staff. What we are dealing with here is sub-committee minutes to a board that simply noted them—no decisions have been taken. What is happening is that NHS TASIDE, doing precisely what we want it to do, as with other boards, is to plan its use of resource, plan its service delivery with its health and social care partners, with its unions and its clinicians—exactly the right approach—indeed, exactly the contrary to what Mr Fraser's colleagues have accused us of not doing, where they have accused us of not planning for the future. That is what TASIDE is doing. In doing that, it looks at all options, but it does that within the overall context of improving accessibility, quality and delivery of care. I have been clear. Yes, I do understand public concern, but I understand public concern fuelled by reporting based on false assertions that, if those who had made those assertions had taken the trouble to know our health service as well as they think they do and to check the facts, they perhaps would not have made such irresponsible assertions in the first place. Murdo Fraser. I thank the cabinet secretary for that further response. She talks about false assertions, but the figure that was put out there of 1,300 jobs or 10 per cent of workforce was derived from minutes produced by NHS TASIDE. There has been nothing in any public statement issued by the health board since this appeared in the public domain on Sunday, denying that level of reduction. If it is not 1,300 jobs or 10 per cent, what is it? Cabinet secretary. Mr Fraser, you know better than this. You really do know better than this. You know as well as I do that when you are looking at how you will configure your services across a whole board area, far less the whole of Scotland, you look at all the options available. In doing that, you begin to gather the data about how you stand compared to what other boards are doing. That is what that minute from that sub-committee reflects. I am not going to either confirm 1,300, I am certainly going to confirm that we will not have compulsory redundancies, we will not have changes in our health service that removes capacity. When I talk about not removing capacity, you need staff to deliver capacity. I would have thought that that was self-evident. Capacity is not about buildings, it is about the people who deliver the service. If you want to plan and look ahead properly, you do it in the following way. You gather the data, you look at what your demand is, what your patient cohort needs now and in the future as best as you project it. You look at where your services are, you map one over the other and you look at how you need to make changes to redeploy the use of those services. That is precisely what Tayside is doing. They are not assisted by assertions that are factually incorrect because there is no agreement to cut any staff in Tayside. The NHS chair and I could not be clearer than that. What we need to do is understand how those matters happen. If we have concerns, absolutely raise them, but raise them on the basis of understanding how our health service works and not on the basis of looking for cheap headlines and scoring political points, that does no-one any service whatsoever. Just for information, there are six members who would like to get in. I am not sure that I will get through them all, but Emma Harper is to be followed by Monica Lennon. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I remind members that I have an interest as a former front-line staff nurse. I welcome NHS Tayside's commitment to review how to most efficiently make use of taxpayers' funding. However, I can understand that the press coverage of the report may make some NHS Tayside staff feel uneasy. For the benefit of doubt, can I ask the cabinet secretary to yet again confirm that the Scottish Government's policy of no compulsory redundancies remains firmly in place? Yes, it absolutely does. Both I and the chair of Tayside have confirmed that. What we are looking at here is how to best deploy the staff resource that we have in NHS Tayside and elsewhere in order to meet current and future demand across a whole system, which includes health and social care, as well as acute and secondary care in our health service. Monica Lennon is to be followed by Mark Ruskell. When I read the Herald on Sunday report, it was quite clear to me that the NHS Tayside was confirming the nature of the story. The cabinet secretary's remarks will have caused further distress to hardworking staff in NHS Tayside. She may be aware that, last year, there were 35,000 stress-related sick days in Tayside. Can I ask the cabinet secretary not to withstand this very serious report in the Herald on Sunday? What discussion has she had with NHS staff unions about the working conditions at Tayside and about those very worrying plans? Can we just be clear that the worrying report in the Sunday papers probably came from the news release from Scottish Labour, which talks about a recipe for disaster that would risk patient safety? What sloganising nonsense, based on little except sub-committee minutes, about looking at options precisely as I described to Mr Fraser? Can I get to the point of the question? However, it has to be clear that it is not to blame our press for how it covers news releases that come out in that language and in those terms. In terms of stress-related absence, I take that matter very seriously. That was part of the discussion that I had with Mr Brown yesterday. It will continue to be the discussion that I have with all the health board chairs and that we pick up with our chief executives. It is also part of what I am raising as I do ministerial reviews when I talk in some detail with the partnership forums in each of our boards. I am talking to them about the issues that concern them, but also about the issues that I want to raise with them, which include absence, staff absence and what more we can do to assist them in the work that they do as members of unions and also as employee directors. I take that matter very seriously and we continue those discussions and look to see what more we might do to assist our staff. Members would have received a statement from the chairman of NHS Tayside, where he says, and I quote, that he wants the public to know that any changes to our services and staffing will only be made if they enhance our capacity and improve quality of healthcare. Is the cabinet secretary aware of any comparable health board that has made a similar level of workforce reduction but still managed to support and protect its capacity and the quality of its services? If it has managed to do that, then how did it do it? Thank you, Mr Ruskell, for that question. Let me say again that NHS Tayside has not made any level of staff reduction. What they have done—I am also quoting from Mr Brown's statement—at this early stage of the programme, the programme is called transforming Tayside, it is important that, as well as looking at how and where health and care services are delivered, we start to consider where staff are best placed to respond to the needs of all our patients and service users. That is precisely what he is doing and we will support him and his board and other boards in doing that because we need them to look at not only what they are delivering now but how sustainable and appropriate are those services across the whole system for the future. The cabinet secretary describes the committee as a subcommittee, but I have no doubt that the subcommittee has some very important and informed people on it. The fact that they are discussing the level of reduction reveals the real problem that exists within the NHS and Tayside. Although she says that no decisions have been made, what is the process? When will conclusions be reached? I think that this Parliament has a right to know when that will be done. Mr Rennie is absolutely correct that the subcommittee has informed members. Indeed, the transforming Tayside programme, which Mr Brown refers to, involves directly with trade union colleagues, managers and lead doctors and nurses. It involves some very well-informed and experienced individuals in that programme, which, as I have said before, is at an early stage. In terms of whatever conclusions they reach as a board, those would be, if they are major changes or if I consider them to be major changes, are referred to me for decision. At this point, it is not clear yet from the board exactly how long they think that they will want to take before they reach final conclusions, because they began the work before I published the medium-term financial framework, giving boards not only relief from paying back brokerage but a three-year financial planning cycle and the waiting times improvement plan, which produces, as members will recall, significant additional investment. The board will now need to recast some of their work in light of those significant enhancements to the context in which they are working, and consider how they go forward from there. I am sure that they will provide me with a timetable of what they expect to be doing over the coming months, and I would be happy to share that with Mr Rennie and other members. I apologise to Fulton MacGregor and Jenny Marra, as we do not have enough time for any further supplementaries. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to protect emergency workers during the firework season in light of the reported increase in levels of violence and intimidation that they face at this time of year. The Scottish Government will not tolerate any attacks on our emergency services, and a number of legal protections are in place, including the Emergency Workers Scotland Act 2005. Powers available through anti-social behaviour legislation have been effectively used as part of the multi-agency approach to planning and prevention, but I am aware of some reports of anti-social behaviour and attacks on emergency services this year, and I recognise the impact that that has not only on emergency service personnel, but also on the communities that are affected. We are awaiting a full response from Police Scotland at this time, but I am sure that the chamber will join me in extending my formal thanks and recognition to our emergency services following their busiest night of the year. I thank the minister for that response, and I too would thank the emergency services for the work that they do. Firefighters, rather than running from danger, run to it. The very fact that people would use the event of firework night to draw in firefighters, and other members will be concerned as I was to read reports of the weekend of watch managers describing warzone-type situations with projectiles and fireworks being thrown at firefighters. Other members will have found that deeply disturbing. Therefore, I am alarmed that there is a need for a campaign at all, so I wonder if the minister would join me in welcoming the fire services don't attack me campaign. I would also ask what steps the Scottish Government is taking to follow that campaign up, and I was also hoping that the minister might be able to share initial reports from last night and what level of violence and intimidation the fire service faced with last night's festivities. I am aware of the don't attack me campaign, and very good work has been done as a result of that. Unfortunately, at the moment, we don't have the full data from last night, it's too early, the agencies are still putting together the numbers. The actual number of incidents last night is still yet to be confirmed, but at this stage there's no suggestion of a significant increase, so I hope that that will reassure the member on that point. Antisocial behaviour unfortunately does occur year round, and there are a range of powers and measures available to the police and local agencies to direct and disperse. There has been a lot of multi-agency working going on this year in planning and prevention. I've been to see the work that's been undertaken in Edinburgh this year. I was very impressed by the level of working together and the different range of measures that they had chosen to use this year, and I think that that has meant that different levels of planning were involved. It has been good, and I commend everybody who's been involved in that. We will work with Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland to review the events of last night and consider any lessons to be learned. Daniel Johnson I thank the minister for that response, and I hope that those early reports are correct that there was a reduced level of violence. I'm also pleased that the minister raised the emergency workers act of 2015, which was an act that was passed by the last Labour administration in this place. It has secured over 8,000 convictions with around 800 convictions per year, with individuals who are charged and found guilty receiving up to 12 months or £10,000 fine or both. Indeed, I was pleased that the Scottish Government extended that to GPs and community midwives. If the minister would agree with me that this is firstly useful legislation, most importantly, that those who protect us, those who we asked to uphold the law, should enjoy the protection of the law and that specific offences such as those are a vital tool in extending that protection. The minister I would agree with that, and I do. There are specific laws in place to protect emergency workers, as the member has mentioned, through the Emergency Workers Act 2005. In 2008, the administration extended the emergency workers act to cover GPs, to cover other doctors, nurses and midwives when they are working in the community. Penalties are available to the courts all the way up to life imprisonment and unlimited fines to deal with the most serious assaults. That gives the police, prosecutors and courts the tools to ensure that those who attack public-facing workers are dealt with appropriately and effectively. I have to apologise again to Liam Kerr and George Adam. I remind all members and ministers to keep their questions concise and pleased. We will have more room for other members to get in. We will move on now to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 14621, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on the impact of UK Government welfare cuts and universal credit on poverty. I would invite all members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible.