 next item of business is consideration for business motion number 14616 in the name of Joff It's Patrick on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a revision to the business programme for today, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request speak button now. I call on Joff It's Patrick to move motion number 14616. Formally moved. Thank you, no member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 14616 in the name of Joff it's Patrick be agredd to? Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. The next side of business is topical questions, and the question number one, Jim Hume. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Audit Scotland report, NHS in Scotland 2015. Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison. Audit Scotland report mirrors our own assessment on the need for our NHS to evolve to meet the changing needs of Scotland's people. The report recognises that we have increased health resource spending in real terms, and we will continue to increase the front-line NHS budget at least in real terms for the next Parliament too, should we be re-elected. The NHS has made substantial progress under this Government, and Audit Scotland report highlights a record high workforce, providing a variety of high quality services, support and advice, which have contributed to people living longer, along with continued advances in diagnosis, treatment and care. On A and E, the statistics for the last two full months show that Scotland is performing above 95 per cent, not matched in any other part of the UK, and hospital waiting times have been transformed and are at historically low levels under this Government. The median wait for a hip replacement has reduced by 87 days, for knee replacements by 93 days and for cataract operations by 44 days. On patient safety, the statistics for seadiff infections in patients aged 65 and over has reduced by 84 per cent, and MRSA has reduced by 88 per cent. Finally, this Government has a clear vision for the future of our NHS, and we will take the right action to ensure that we continue to have an NHS that Scotland can be proud of into the future. I thank the cabinet secretary for an interesting reply, but I think that most people were actually shocked to learn from Audit Scotland that the Scottish National Party has actually cut health spending in real terms since 2008, even though health spending has risen in the rest of the UK. What this is, is a regressive agenda. This is the exact opposite of what the Scottish Government has been telling us and is still telling us. In trying to fix this backdoor austerity from the SNP, will the Scottish Government address why nine of the 14 health boards are still below their funding with some force to request loans to meet their commitments? If Jim Hulman read the Audit Scotland report, page 10 between 2008-9 and 2014-15, the revenue-dell budget increased by 2.2 per cent. That is from the Audit Scotland report. Of course, what Jim Hulman has referred to is the capital budget included, which, given that, when he was part of the UK Government, cut the Scottish Government's capital budget by nearly 25 per cent. Of course, there was going to be a consequence for health capital, but the front-line spend for our hospitals, doctors and nurses has increased in real terms. Audit Scotland clearly lays out challenges for us. As I said in response to the report when it was published, we absolutely recognise that we need to increase the pace of change, particularly in implementing the 2020 vision. I have made that clear, but I would hope that some opposition politicians might be able to bring themselves to recognise that the Audit Scotland report actually says that the resource spend has increased in real terms. Will Jim Hulman do that? The health cabinet secretary is not recognising that spending has grown in the rest of the UK, but has fallen here. It has not answered fully on the nine out of the 14 health boards. NHS Grampian remains at nearly £17 million short of its funding share. The news is worse for mental health. In any month, half of the boards are not meeting the target. Mental ill health affects so many people and deserves to be taken more seriously. Why has the share of the mental health budget fallen in each of the last five years? On mental health, Jim Hulman will be aware that Jamie Hepburn announced £100 million additional resource for mental health going forward. He mentioned that Grampian received the highest level of increase of any mainland board. Perhaps when Labour and the Liberal Democrats had been in power, if they had fixed the allocation formula to boards, NHS Grampian might not have had the big distance to make up that it had. All boards will be within 1 per cent of priority. We have made that commitment and we will keep that commitment. On health resource consequentials from the UK Government that Jim Hulman touched upon, in every single year since 2010, every penny of that health consequential resource has been passed on. Indeed, in 2015-16, we added an additional £54 million. I accept that there are challenges in our NHS but I will not accept any inference whatsoever that this Government has not given every penny of resource consequentials to health. We have protected the health budget and we have made sure that boards have had uplifts that have been made able to take forward the improvements in patient care and safety that they need to make. I am very conscious of time, which is extremely tight for the whole afternoon. To get in as many people as I can, could you please keep to one question and keep it brief, Jo McAlpine? Yes, thank you. Can the cabinet secretary tell us exactly how the health resource budget of the NHS has changed since the last election and what has been the change to the Scottish Government's resource budget from Westminster over this same period? In my last answer, I made it very clear that every penny of health resource consequentials has been passed on, plus an additional £54 million. What is absolutely clear is that the capital budget to this Government has been reduced by 25 per cent. It is therefore clear that that was going to have an impact on the capital spend of this Government, but every penny of resource spend has been passed on. I should add that the percentage share of the Scottish Government budget has increased every single year and is a far higher share now than it was under the previous administration. Richard Simpson? Cabinet secretary, I think that we are all having some difficulty with these figures and it really would be good to clarify them, because the last two years of the Labour Government, there were increases of 6.2 per cent and 5.2 per cent in the health spend. Therefore, to hear that there has been a reduction of 0.7 per cent, albeit including the significant capital reduction, is extremely worrying. I think that we need to get this clarified by an independent resource source, but I ask about the fact that there is still one third of the NHS estate not fit for purpose and that the targets that were set by the Government for the elimination of high-risk maintenance backlog have not been reached. That is very worrying indeed, because those are significant elements. Will she agree to undertake to place in Spice a detailed interim report before the next report in March from each health board on the progress that is being made on the high-risk backlog maintenance? I can assure Richard Simpson that we keep a very close eye on the high-risk backlog maintenance, but he will have to recognise, as others will have to recognise, that a 25 per cent cut to the capital budget has implications for all the capital spend across the whole of the Scottish Government, including health capital. However, he should surely recognise that, on page 10 of the Audit Scotland report, it absolutely says in black and white that the resource spending for the NHS has increased in real terms. If you take that 15-16 in 15-16 prices, it increases by 5.8 per cent. I accept that capital has been challenging. Of course, each year, capital fluctuates within health, as it does within other capital budgets. I hope that Richard Simpson will take the assurance, because it is there in black and white in the Audit Scotland report on page 10. The cabinet secretary knows that we all support an integrated health and social care system. However, the RCGP tells us that general practice funding has fallen from 9.8 per cent of NHS spending in 2005, from 6 to 7.6 in 1314, and budget freezes this year have meant an inflationary loss of 1.2 per cent for general medical services. Audit Scotland and other figures from the RCGP highlight that more needs to be done to make an integrated health and social care system possible. Can I therefore ask the cabinet secretary what long-term action the Government is taking to reverse those trends and to prevent predicted repercussions to ensure that we do, in fact, achieve an integrated health and social care system? The cabinet secretary makes a not unreasonable point that, if you look at primary care going forward and the reforms and the modernisation of primary care that we need to make, that will require us to look at the appropriate resourcing of primary care in order to deliver those reforms. We have made a good start on that, so a good start with the £60 million investment over the next three years to kick-start that reform. We have announced that there will be a new contract based around a different set of principles moving away from the co-off from 2017 onwards. Of course, the transitional year, we have already dismantled or will dismantle large parts of the co-off to reduce bureaucracy. Of course, the First Minister has announced a substantial increase in the number of GP training places. All of that should indicate to the net mill and others that we absolutely recognise the need to do more in primary care in order to be able to keep people out of their hospitals safely in their own homes and treated in their own homes. The children's ward at St John's hospital is under review and struggles to recruit staff. Why, then, is there a recruitment freeze at NHS Lothian? Will the cabinet secretary be doing anything about it? Can she also say why there is a 53 per cent increase in the number of agency nurses being used? I am certainly very closely involved with NHS Lothian around the issue of St John's. As the member will know, the review is looking at a pan-Lothian approach to that because of the difficulty in recruiting paediatric specialities, not just to St John's, but across many other parts of Scotland. He can be assured that I am absolutely keeping a very close eye on that. He mentioned agency spend, which is very interesting. I do not know whether the member is aware of that, but agency spend under the previous administration—the last three years of the previous administration—is spent more on agency spend than in the whole of our time in administration. Three years, more on agency spend than in eight years under this Government. Your last year in office, in fact, you spent £2.5 million more than Jackie Baillie was attacking me for in her press release. You ought to look at your own history before you start throwing prick-bats at our NHS. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of its accident investigation branch, reporting to the helicopter crash at the Cluth of Alts, what steps it can take to bring closure for the families involved. Our thoughts continue to be with the families and friends of those who lost their lives in the Cluth of Tragedy. The Scottish Government once again offers its deepest condolences to them. I share the disappointment of the families that the AIB report does not provide the closure that they sought. After two years of investigation, the report does not reach a clearer conclusion and raises more questions than answers. The Crown confirmed last week that, as the incident involved death in the course of employment, a fatal accident inquiry is mandatory and that will be held as soon as possible. That will allow for a wider reflection on some of the other issues that could have impacted on the events that evening. What is clear, however, is that, without a flight data recorder in the helicopter, something that is not required by regulation for the size of the helicopter required, it will be very difficult to fully establish all of the answers. While the issue of helicopter safety is reserved to Westminster, the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and myself have contacted the Secretary of State for Transport seeking reassurance that the United Kingdom Government will ensure that the report's recommendations are taken forward swiftly. I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply and I welcome the announcement that a fatal accident inquiry will be undertaken. I hope that it will provide answers for the families that are involved and the answers that they deserve. The cabinet secretary mentioned previous AIB reports, but there are previous reports stretching back over 10 years, which recommend that flight data and recording equipment should be fitted to all aircraft, and yet they have never been implemented. I take on board what the cabinet secretary said about speaking with Westminster counterparts, but there is something else that we can do from the Scottish Government to help the people here who are suffering and have no answers yet. I am aware of the reports that the member makes reference to. She will be aware that there are two different aspects to the regulation in this particular area. There is an aspect that is regulated through legislation, which is a European Aviation Safety Agency that is responsible for the pan-European safety approach to aircraft safety. There is also the domestic regulator through the civil aviation authority. We are now in a situation where we want to see the recommendations from the AIB report taken forward swiftly. They fall in part both to the CAE and to the European Aviation Safety Regulator. What we want to do is to make sure that all action that can be taken is taken forward as swiftly as possible. That is why we are engaged with our counterparts at the UK Government level to ensure that the regulators and the European Agency are considering those matters timeously and that they act on the recommendations quickly. I thank the cabinet secretary and his support for the recommendations to be implemented in action to be taken. The cabinet secretary will know that the manufacturers had been aware that operators were periodically returning defective EC-135 fuel sensors and that, after the tragic accident, they had begun with a series of modifications to the EC-135 fuel system. Does he share my concerns that this potentially defective system could be apparent in other helicopters of the same design, and will he support calls for all similar helicopters to be examined for any such defects? I share the member's concerns on those matters. It is important that the issue of public safety is absolutely of paramount importance in those matters. I would expect all actions to be taken to address any issues that have been highlighted that may prove to be defective around the operating systems in that type of aircraft or any other type of aircraft. As the member will recognise, those are matters that are the responsibility of the regulators to ensure that manufacturers and operators are adhering to them appropriately and that they are taking timeously action in dealing with any issues that may arise from modifications that are required. Clearly, some of those are issues that can be explored further in a fatal accident inquiry once it has been constituted. I have no doubt that I would want to ensure that all of those types of issues are given the opportunity to be explored in that particular environment, but I would expect that public safety is of absolute importance in those matters and that all those who are stakeholders in air safety are taking forward appropriate measures to address any issues that are highlighted. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thank you to the cabinet secretary for the answers that he has already given. Is there any reason why operators of helicopters could not look to install recorders in advance of the regulation that he speaks about being brought into force? Part of the distinction here is in the nature of the regulation of these different flights. For example, the emergency medical flights are under a different regulation. They are regulated by the legislation that is set by the European Aircraft Safety Agency, whereas police helicopters and police flights are classed as state flights and they are regulated by the CAA. There are slight differences for the different regulators and the roles that they have in those particular matters. I can assure the member that it is a Government that we are looking at every avenue that is open to us to look at what further measures need to be taken in relation to those operate in Scottish contracts to ensure that the recommendations that are being set by the AIB are being implemented swiftly. Thank you. The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on the future of the Scottish steel industry. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no introduction.