 1. Jeremy Balfour To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what flexibility will be afforded to the installation of interlinked fire alarms in light of recent reports about the available funding for low-income households. Flexibility is built into the existing legislation through a provision setting out that work should be done within such period, as is reasonable in all of the circumstances. That allows flexibility for homeowners who are unable to install alarms by 1 February 2022. Homeowners are generally responsible for paying for works to protect their property. However, in recognition that some may not be able to meet the cost of fitting the necessary alarms, we have provided additional funding of £500,000 to Care and Repair Scotland to help older and disabled people. That was in addition to the £1 million funding to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service for their home fire safety visit programme to install alarms for those owner occupiers who are assessed as being at the highest risk from fire. Furthermore, our £15 million loan funding to social landlords has enabled them to fit compliant alarms to the new standard by next year. I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer, but I wonder if she can define what is a reasonable period and what is the cut-off date when the law will be enforced so that people can have certainty when this work needs to be done rather than just some kind of vague reasonable time. A reasonable period is something that is quite often used within legislation, so it is not defined as a certain number of weeks or months. It just means a reasonable period of time for someone to get the system installed. We understand that there have been supply issues around the fire alarm system, so we recognise that. That is why we are prepared to give people that reasonable period in order that they can have a bit of breathing space, should they be finding it difficult to get their hands on the device or indeed get it fitted. As I have set out in my initial answer, there is support available to those who require assistance in order to do that. I put the cabinet secretary on this. There will always be issues around house insurance if those alarms are not fitted at the appropriate time. What conversations had the cabinet secretary had with house insurance in regard to whether that policy will be valid or not, and at what point will he decide that the date has become reasonable or not? There must be at some point a date fixed by the Government, or will he simply not learn to make that decision? I say to Jeremy Balfour that we have not said in any way that this should be taken into account by insurance companies. Insurance policies are a matter between the insurance company and those holding the insurance policy, but we have never specified or said that that should be included in it. As I said in my original answer, the legislation provides the flexibility for work to be completed within a reasonable period taking into account individual circumstances. I think that that is a reasonable position. At the end of the day, that is about getting the message across to people that we want them to install these devices because it improves fire safety within their homes. Of course, that has originated out of the Grenfell tragedy, so it is important that we all give a message to home owners that this is an important thing that they should do as quickly as possible. I absolutely accept the necessity of people being safe. However, with the current pressures of omnicron, which is very distracting for people just now quite rightly, and the rising cost of energy, I welcome flexibility in the deadline. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take into account those other pressures on households just now, quite apart from obtaining the devices and having them installed. Christine Grahame makes a reasonable point. People are, understandably, concerned about having the necessary alarms fitted by the deadline of 1 February. I understand the current challenges with living costs and Covid, as the member pointed out. That is why I want to emphasise that the legislation provides flexibility. Careful consideration is needed to balance the risks associated with even further delays of the legislation, which I am not keen on. At the end of the day, that is about improving fire safety. One death from a fire in Scotland's homes is one too many, so it is important that we give a message that people should prioritise making this investment. Of course, we have the support that is available for people who will struggle with that. The cabinet secretary has alluded to this, but colleagues in local government have told me that deliveries of orders of the interlinked alarms are being delayed, and that is in part due to the global semiconductor shortage, but also because of the disruption in trade due to the pandemic. In short, there is not enough to go around. What can the cabinet secretary say about what flexibility there is? He has spoken about a reasonable allowance, but people are worried about breaking the law after 1 February. What more consideration is the cabinet secretary given to a fixed-day delay to the introduction of the legislation? I am aware that some manufacturers are facing supply issues, particularly with imported components. Some manufacturers have stock availability, and specialist retailers are able to meet demand subject to logistical challenges. My officials are in discussion with manufacturers to establish when supply issues are likely to be resolved more generally, but that is why, as I have said in the previous two answers, we are giving that level of flexibility. It is important that people get these devices installed as quickly as they can because it improves the safety of them and others in the home, but we recognise because of the challenges that people need a bit of flexibility, and that is why we are giving that reasonable timeframe for people to comply with the law. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take in response to the British Academy of Audiology report on NHS Lothian's paediatric audiology services, which was requested by NHS Lothian following a review by the Scottish Public Services on Brisbane. Last week, I made clear my views of the unacceptable failures that were highlighted by the British Academy of Audiology report into the provision of paediatric audiology in NHS Lothian. Our priority is to restore and rebuild confidence and ensure support is provided to those affected by the situation in Lothian and to ensure that that is not repeated for any other family. In response to those on-going issues, NHS Lothian has been escalated to stage 3 of the NHS board performance escalation framework for paediatric audiology performance and service delivery. Yesterday, I met again with the board leadership team, and we will work in partnership with the board to develop a formal recovery plan. We agree with the BEA's recommendation to share that report more widely for greater learning in Scotland and across the UK. It is necessary to have a response to the findings and the concerns raised to assure children and their families across Scotland that their child is getting the best possible audiology care. For all those reasons, I will be writing to health boards to seek assurance on quality of care. Fiona Hyslop. Six children could and should have received cochlear implantation surgery, but were missed in assessment and missed out on life-changing surgery. That was set up by NHS Lothian in a briefing that I attended on Friday. Why should it have taken concerns being taken all the way to the Scottish public services ombudsman for the failure of service to be identified? What can the cabinet secretary do to ensure that health boards take concerns seriously to assess if there are underlying systemic issues that need to be addressed so that problems years in the making, such as that, are identified promptly? If Fiona Hyslop is absolutely right to ask that question with the strength of feeling that she does, she asked me, if I got the phrasing of her question right, why should it have taken this complaint to have surfaced those issues? It should not have taken that complaint to have surfaced those issues. That is fundamentally the issue that the BAE brought forward in the report. There was a number of failures that, frankly, the BAE and the report brought to the attention of the health board. One of the most disturbing ones that I thought was, in some instances, how dismissive of concerns and complaints those involved in that department were when parents came asking concerns about their own children. In relation to what will be done next, as I said, there will be a formal recovery plan. It will look at the very issue that Fiona Hyslop raises and all the issues that are raised by the various different reviews, including the BAE review. One of the concerns about how the service had been operating was that it was not a regulated statutory service and all training was in-house, which entrenched inadequate observational assessments for young children. What can be done to ensure that this is not happening elsewhere in the health service? Will the cabinet secretary action the call on this from the death society and other recommendations that she is making? Finally, and most importantly, what support and assurances have been given to the children and families that are affected and how can trust in the service be restored? There are three questions that I will try to answer quickly. I am meeting with the BAE and the National Deaf Children's Society, an organisation that I have known for many years. I am meeting with them later this week. I have seen their recommendations that they have made and will consider them with an absolutely open mind. I have already asked Lothian in terms of assurance if certain flankery-led flags were missed in the paediatric audiology department. How can they give me assurance that similar issues and complaints are being flagged in other departments? How are they being surfaced? I have also asked all health boards, and I will ask them formally, but I have asked them informally to look at their own paediatric audiology departments to ensure that those same issues are not present there. In terms of the point that Fiona Hyslop raises about regulations, it is a very good one. I am having discussions with the UK Government about reform of professional healthcare regulations at the moment. Even before that report, I was in favour of looking at regulations for audiologists. That report has strengthened that feeling. The shocking review reveals the completely inadequate level of care given to youngsters with hearing difficulties in NHS Lothian. Many of the families deserve an explanation of how the scandal could happen. Sadly, those critical failings have a life-long and significant impact on young people and their families. I am pleased that NHS Lothian has accepted all the recommendations from the audiology report, but I am concerned that that could happen elsewhere. The National Deaf Children's Society is calling for an independent review of children's audiology services across Scotland, which is more than what the cabinet secretary has stated that he is going to do today. There is a real danger of many more deaf children not getting the quality of care unless this review is carried out across all of our services across Scotland. When will such a review take place and when? To Robert, that raises a number of important points. I should have said that I admitted to say my answer to Fiona Hyslop that the NHS Lothian did issue letters to the affected families last week and that measures are in place to identify any young child whose case may require further clinical review. I have asked NHS Lothian to keep close to those families that have been affected. On the broader point, I will meet the National Deaf Children's Society later this week. I would like health boards to look at their own paediatric audiology departments thoroughly examine and explore if any of the issues that are raised by the BA report are present in their health boards. If I find that any of those issues are more widespread, any suggestion that they are more widespread than an independent review might be the appropriate thing to do. I would not rush into that before I let the health boards through the work that they will do, but it will be done at pace. Ms Webber is absolutely right to raise the concern that this could be more widespread than just NHS Lothian, but that is what I am exploring and examining. I am happy to give all members that have expressed an interest in this an update when that review is complete. I associate myself with the tenor and remarks from Fiona Hyslop, because I attended the briefing on Friday. I also ask further, in terms of the welcome points from the cabinet secretary, that this clearly goes beyond just the technical application of a test. There are clearly fundamental problems with the culture in this unit, as identified in section 4 of the audit report. What is going to be done to tackle that culture? Secondly, on the red flags, does he think that he needs to go further than simply ask that question and do other areas of practice not subject to statutory regulation need to be examined more fully? Finally, can I ask those children, who have had life-altering consequences from the failure, will the Government examine putting together a compensation process so that those families do not have to go to court to get the support and financial support that they need for their children and their on-going needs through the rest of their lives? I thank Daniel Johnson for the questions and the manner in which he asked them. On the culture, I will say two things. One, HR processes that NHS Lothian is taking forward. I would not comment on them and he would not expect me to comment on those individual HR processes, but he is also right to say that the BAA and its recommendations recommend changes in culture and practice. NHS Lothian has had no hesitation in accepting those, but I will stress the points that he makes about culture when I meet with NHS Lothian next, which is very regularly. On the points on regulation, I do not disagree with him. As I said to Fiona Hyslop, I am in discussions at the moment around what healthcare services specialists should be regulated that are not and how the regulation can be perhaps more streamlined. Those discussions are on-going. Again, if he has particular concerns about a particular specialism, he can furnish me details with that, and I am happy to have those conversations. On compensation, I will look at what Daniel Johnson has to say. There are processes whereby individuals can seek compensation from NHS health boards if they feel that there has been negligence. He is right that we would want that to be a lengthy process if there is fault. Again, that would be a matter between the health board and the families, but I will take on board what Daniel Johnson has said and give it some further consideration. Thank you. That concludes topical questions. There will be a very brief pause before the next item of business.