 Mae'r ystafell eich mynd i gael gwneud o bwysig rhanol yn gweithredu. Rhyw hwnnw nid o clywed i'r cwestiynau hwnnw i Benidyn i chi'w gwneud a'u cwestiynewid i'w gwneud. Cwestiynau nid o gymhwyllgor Pwg. A fyddai'r Ddydd – a wnaeth y Gweithredu y Llywodraethau yng Nghymru sydd gweithredu ei wazion a chael llawer i gweithredu hefyd gan gyffredinol gwyrnau chi? Sefydli Cym EQ, Alex Neil. Ydw i'n ceisio cyfiaeth rwy'n gweld yn cael ei ddau peirion yn ei hunudau eich wychïn hwn byw yn mythiau gwaith arall o'i ei ddau cyfanyddiadau, sydd oes i'r reguedd gwaen nhw, sydd oes i'r cyfanyddiadau ei cair, sydd oes i hyfrddau cydweithio gymunedau hwn ar y cyfanyddiau a'u cyfanyddiau ac i'r cyfanyddiau a'u cyfanyddiau. Cymru wedi gwzig o'r gwybodaeth sy'n cyfanyddiau i mwyfwysgrifoeddau mewn cyfanyddiau drop they have failed to create a future-integrated primary care ecosystem that is linked to acute services. The GP-AN contract is due for the gearbox repair in 2017, which will offer the opportunity to review systems and applications and to find future requirements to inform the procurement process. It has an ethe health strategy that identifies investment priorities, ac thangos i ddiogelion o gwaith panlaethol a'r hyn sy'n iawn. Thank you, Jim Hume. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for his answer. Cabinet secretary should be aware of the work of the borders deaf and the hard of hearing network is doing with NHS borders on using SMS texting for deaf and hard of hearing patients in terms of making and cancelling appointments for doctors or dentists. It's a credit to Jim Proutfoot and our team at the borders deaf and hard of hearing network in Galais mae'r blaenau ngusa separated ardal nes downwards, Cisco'r petion tspolaeth yn hyödethe. Saeddaad eich barsyghomethau fod yn y Awl Ffaisau X. Isbunом ROS mewn dynaptau a gwleidwyr pob follow, a gでch chi'n gholders Workyaistonol i'r diwrnboatid i'r Graהffogaeth hi ddamlu eich��wol? Ordoedd y cys pests lawrjdwyl? Buto hyd eich bod hi'n gvertieitio fwylu'n cynhyrch oedd ni yn tynnu i'r maen likelymau y gwaith. Mae diwrn щab 어떻게 fydd wrth yr hynni i'r gwaith. I'm always delighted to help members with their local press releases, and I'm therefore delighted to endorse everything that Mr Hulme said and ensure that he doesn't need to amend the release. Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I ask the Cabinet Secretary to have officials enter into discussions with RNIB Scotland and Optometry Scotland regarding the positive health that it uses, that tablets and their in-built software can actually bring to people who are visually impaired. Cabinet Secretary. Yes, absolutely. It's another very good example of the importance now of new technology that's coming through. Let me say one of the areas where there's most new developments is in the use of apps. We now have a lot of apps helping a lot of different types of application right across the health spectrum, and Stuart McMillan, along with Jim Hulme, have highlighted a number of these today. I'm attaching very high priority to working with the industry, the innovators, as well as with patients and doctors and nurses to spread the use of these new technologies as quickly as possible, because they can do enormous work in improving the standard of life of all those affected by blindness and other ailments. Thank you. Question 3. Gavin Brown. To ask the Scottish Government what the priorities are for the health budget in 2015-16. Cabinet Secretary. Presiding Officer, the 2020 vision for health and social care sets out the vision of the Scottish Government that, by 2020, everyone is able to live longer, healthier lives at home or in a homely setting. The 2020 vision provides a focus for the priorities for the health budget in 2015-16 with three central aims. One, improving the quality of care that we provide. Two, improving the health of the population. Three, securing the value and financial sustainability of health and social care services. Gavin Brown. I'm grateful for that answer. Is the 2015-16 health and wellbeing budget lower in real terms than both 2012-13 and 2013-14? Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Presiding Officer, as a member will know, not only have we passed on every penny that's been passed on to us for revenue spending in the health service, but when Mr Swinney announced his budget a few weeks ago, we announced that, on top of doing that, for next year we're putting an extra £80 million into the health budget. If you look at the capital side, despite the massive cuts made by Westminster in our capital budget, overall for the Scottish Government of 25 per cent, the notional value of the NPD and hub projects in annualised basis for next year is more than £300 million. By any stretch of the imagination, given the very tight budget that we're working to, we're devoting every penny available to our national health service. Thank you, Aileen McLeod. I ask the cabinet secretary how much additional funding the Scottish Government would have for the health budget spending priorities in 2015-16 had the UK Government not renegade on the 1 per cent pay deal for NHS staff in England? Had the Treasury allocated additional funding to the Department of Health to support the 1 per cent pay deal, which, of course, it didn't implement south of the border, we estimate that there would have been an additional spend of £300 million in England, the Barnett consequentials for health in Scotland would have been just under £30 million, which would have been a substantial additional contribution to improving health care in Scotland next year. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to promote the benefits of organ donation. Minister Michael Matheson. Scotland is the only UK country to have consistently run annual high-profile media and advertising campaigns promoting organ donation and transplantation. I launched this year's campaign on 27 October, and this will run until January next year. Annual campaigns are the reason why 41 per cent of the Scottish population is now on the NHS organ donor register compared to 32 per cent in the rest of the UK. Additionally, on Monday this week, the Scottish Government published the first annual national report card on organ donation. This is the first time anywhere in the UK that the NHS performance in this area has been made available in this way. This year's report card reflects very good progress with Scotland having achieved almost a 100 per cent increase in organ donations and a 62 per cent increase in transplants since 2007. We have also seen a 25 per cent reduction in the transplant waiting list since 2006. I thank the Minister for the outstanding work that the Scottish Government has been providing, however, in light of the fact that, for every one organ donor, seven lives can be saved and that last year 38 people died waiting for organs in Scotland alone. Will the Scottish Government back the introduction of a soft-offed out system for organ donation to increase the number of available organs, such as the Welsh Government has, leading the way with Northern Ireland and England, promoting such a lot also to save many more lives than present? It is worth keeping in mind that the part of the UK that has got the highest level of organ donations taking place prior to its population is in Scotland. We need to be very careful that we do not think that the need for increasing numbers of organs can be addressed by an opt-out system because there are countries that already have an opt-out system that already have a very low level of donation level. It is not the solution in itself, but we have guided these matters by the Scottish Transplant Group. The Scottish Transplant Group is made up of clinical experts, those who donor recipients and their families and carers. At this point, their view is that, in their opinion, an opt-out system is not appropriate. However, what we need to do is to continue to build on the very good progress that we have made here in Scotland by the infrastructure changes that we have made that have delivered the record numbers of organ donations taking place in Scotland. Our intention in our new plan for transplantation is to make sure that we continue to drive that forward in the future years. The minister has told us of recent increases in number of organ donors. Is that part of the impact on the human tissue bill that was approved in this Parliament back eight years ago? How does Scotland now compare with countries such as Spain and Holland, which I believe have had a soft opt-out system for a number of years now? The reason that we have actually made significant progress—this is not due to legislation but because of the infrastructure changes that we have made, for example, on having transplant nurses based in particular units. Of course, organs can only be received from a recipient, from an individual donor, in particular circumstances, in particular within our accident intensive care units. There are very specific measures that we have taken in order to increase the number of organs that we can achieve from those particular environments. It is worth keeping in mind that it was back in 1979 that the Spanish introduced a soft opt-out system. It was over 10 years before it gained any increase in organ donation. The reason for that is because it had not made infrastructure changes that were necessary. America has a consistently higher level of donor organs than any other part of Europe, but it does not have an opt-out system. The reason that it has a higher level is because of its infrastructure development. We have to be very careful in considering this matter. There is no single thing that will address this issue to make sure that we get more organs donated. However, we have been able to demonstrate over the past five years that, by the work that we have taken following the Government, we now have record numbers of organs being donated and a record number of transplantations taking place. What we are determined to do is to make sure that we build on that progress and that we continue to make sure that Scotland leads the rest of the UK in this area. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent healthcare environment inspectorate report on Hermeyr's hospital. Presiding Officer, reducing healthcare-associated infections in Scotland is a key priority for the Scottish Government. The inspection report revealed unacceptable standards in Hermeyr's hospital and I have been clear that NHS Lanarkshire must address the issues highlighted as a matter of priority. I know that the board is taking this report very seriously and has drawn up an action plan that details how it intends to resolve the issues and prevent them from happening again. A support team led by Health Protection Scotland is working with the health board to help to rectify the issues raised in this report. The healthcare environment inspectorate will continue to inspect the hospital to ensure that lessons identified are being taken forward and that the cleanliness, quality and safety of services is maintained at all times. It is extremely important that patients and the public continue to have confidence in the cleanliness of Scottish hospitals and the quality of NHS Scotland's services. That is why we have introduced those inspections as one of a range of measures to tackle healthcare-associated infections. I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. However, people were shocked at the reports of blood and bodily fluids contaminating trolleys, scales, beds and handrails. Feces were on the walls and dirt on the shower floors and there was a build-up of dust in a ward that was supposed to have just been deep cleaned. That is unprecedented and unacceptable deterioration in standards at Hermire hospital. Why have the standards declined so much under this Government and do you believe that there is a connection with the findings of last year's HIST report on NHS Lanarkshire? Does that not confirm that the report that Hermire hospital and NHS Lanarkshire are reaching breaking points? I gently say to the member that Hermire hospital is a PFI-contracted hospital and one of the great tragedies from the previous administration is that £50 million of NHS Lanarkshire's budget every year is spent on PFI charges. It equates to 25 per cent of all the PFI charges right across Scotland. Therefore, to try to blame this on the Scottish Government with all due respect is absurd. The reason why this happened is because people did not carry out their duties and, as I have said and I agree with you, it is totally unacceptable. Let me tell the member that I am instructing my officials to carry out an issue-attender for a deep-dive review of the PFI contract at Hermire hospital, because I am not satisfied that it is providing the best value for money for the Scottish taxpayer. Cabinet Secretary explained a little bit better why the significant hygiene feelings at Hermire hospital were allowed to get to this state. I would agree with me that it is simply a case of taking the eye off the ball on key issues such as her hospital hygiene, while busy referendum campaigning. To the best of my knowledge, none of the cleaners in the Hermires were involved in the referendum campaign. I do not think that the link between the referendum campaign and the standard of cleanliness is a very strong one. I absolutely accept that the failures in cleanliness are totally unacceptable, but, under the previous administration, we did not have those inspections. They did not inspect, they did not check. What we are doing is that we have been open, transparent and we are managing the situation on an on-going basis, which is why those things are now flagged up, which previously were never reported. Cabinet Secretary, it is clearly welcome that there is an inspection system, although I have to say that I called for it two years before you actually introduced it. It was introduced in England two years earlier. However, you have made a great play being Cabinet Secretary in the role of the non-execs and having them walk round and make sure that things happened. How do you feel about the situation where there is an unannounced report, a discussion with the board about the problem, and then a further follow-up report that showed that a ward that was supposedly deep-cleaned had not been deep-cleaned? Where were those non-execs in dealing with it? That is the bit of this that is even more unacceptable, but it has not actually been taken seriously by boards, because our inspection system can only report to you, and I appreciate that you are trying to deal with it, but they do not have the teeth to go in and enforce the sort of cleaning that we all want to see. Can I first of all say to the member very gently that he was a minister in the Government before this Government, and if he was so keen on inspections, why did that administration not introduce them instead of waiting for us to do it? However, like me, he is absolutely right in saying that this inspection regime is the right thing to do, and very clearly there has been a real failure to keep higher mires clean. That is a failure in management at higher mires, and I expect the board of NHS Lanarkshire, like any health board, to take a very active interest in establishing why it happened, why it was allowed to continue, why it was not identified, why corrective action was not taken much quicker than what it was. The member on all of those questions raises a very valid point, which I have already, through my officials, communicated in no uncertain terms to the board and the senior management team at NHS Lanarkshire. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the facilities being similar, what the reason is for the difference in the costs of building the Murray Royal, Gartnavel Royal and the new Craig's psychiatric units. There are substantial differences between the scope and specification of the facilities that the member mentions. Gartnavel Royal hospital was completed in 2007, with an estimated capital cost of £17.7 million. New Craig's hospital was completed three years later in 2000, with an estimated capital value of £16.5 million. Both have floor area in the region of 9,000 square miles. The Murray Royal hospital, which was completed in 2012, with an estimated capital value of approximately £75 million, is a substantially larger facility with a broader scope of services. Also included in the Murray Royal hospital, unlike the other two facilities mentioned by the member, it is a secure care facility. The overall floor area is approximately, and I will say this very carefully, 24,200 square metres. In addition, construction costs vary substantially over time, and there is a difference of 12 years between the earliest completion date and the latest. Thank you, Jenny Marra. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. It is a very interesting answer, because there are actually less beds in the Murray Royal psychiatric unit than there are in New Craig's. However, it costs £50 million more to build. I wonder if the cabinet secretary might put his or NHS auditors on the case of the £50 million increase. Can he also tell me why it was that the Murray Royal hospital dropped £10 million to £11 million in value the day it was taken on to NHS Tayside's books? NHS Board has not come up with an answer to this. Maybe the cabinet secretary knows the answer. First of all, on the main point that the member raises, she will probably have heard of apples and oranges. My advice to her is that she should never compare the two and try to draw conclusions. To compare the costs associated with the Murray Royal with the other two facilities is nonsensical for the reasons that I outlined. First of all, in terms of the time difference, second in terms of the configuration of the services and the facilities, thirdly, Murray Royal has got a secure care facility, and therefore you would expect. Building something 12 years later would cost more, particularly during that period when construction costs generally were rising substantially, and you would expect if it was a bigger hospital in terms of the square meterage and it included a secure care facility, I think that even any poor economist would expect her to be a very substantial price difference. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the Scottish Medicines Consortium decision not to make the drugs Cadsilla and Perjetta available for breast cancer patients in the light of those being available in England under the Cancer Drugs Fund. The Scottish Medicines Consortium makes decisions independently of ministers. The SNC decisions in those drugs are disappointing for many and, like many patient groups, I would encourage the manufacturer of those drugs to make them available at a lower cost to enable more people to have them as a treatment option in future. NHS England announced last week that those drugs are included in those being reviewed in England in order to reduce the products and indications in the Cancer Drugs Fund to bring their projected spend within budget. I thank the minister for his answer, and he and I are both aware that in many cases those drugs have the potential to prolong life, perhaps even for a short time, with those who have inoperable cancers. Given that there is a possibility that those decisions may be reconsidered as a result of drug companies coming forward with lower prices, can he give any indication of what the possible timescales for achieving that objective and having those drugs approved in Scotland might be? The member raises a very substantial point. First, under the reform mechanisms for the SNC that were reformed last year, we are encouraging drug companies to have informal discussions with the SNC before they make a formal application. That would allow them to have a negotiation around issues such as cost and price, and, hopefully, when the formal application goes in, the chances of success are substantially enhanced. However, the second point is that, in one of the reforms that we also made, it is that where a drug is rejected, there is the opportunity for reasonably rapid resubmission. As I said earlier and I have said publicly, I would encourage the manufacturers of those particular drugs to reconsider the issue of price and offer the taxpayer. Those who are suffering are the earliest opportunity—a better deal—so that, hopefully, those drugs could be approved by the SNC. It is very important that we do everything that we possibly can to ensure that people suffering from cancer—particularly in a end-of-life type situation—do everything that we possibly can to ensure that they have the fullest possible access to the drugs that they need to prolong their life. I was at a meeting in Perth and Friday with a cancer sufferer who has a terminal diagnosis, and I am absolutely of the view that even if a drug extends life by a few months, we should try as far as possible to make it available because those extra few months with your family and your friends really matters to the people who are affected and, of course, to their family. Cabinet Secretary, I understand the extreme disappointment of breast cancer patients, given that there is a £40 million new medicines fund for orphan and end-of-life medicines. Can he tell us whether those drugs were reviewed using the patient and clinical engagement process? Can he also tell us whether he expects the whole of the £40 million to be spent on orphan and end-of-life drugs this year? Cabinet Secretary, first of all, those drugs were reviewed under the PACE mechanism, but were still turned down by the full SMC for the reasons that I have already explained. I should emphasise that, if any patient believes that they would benefit from the drug, under the new system of independent application and review, they can still apply through their clinicians and with the support of their clinicians still to get access to the drug. Although there is a general decision made by the SMC in the meantime, that this drug is not generally available, people can still access the drug through what used to be called the independent patient treatment and review process. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the benefits of the project, general practitioners at the deep end, which has been carried out in deprived communities? We welcome the work of the deep end group of GPs, in particular their recommendations on how we can tackle inequalities in the most deprived areas of Scotland. One of our recommendations was to have link workers in general practice who would signpost and support patients to sources of support within the community and relieve some of the burden on general practitioners. We have committed to funding that for five years. The Scottish Government, through recognising the challenges in the national GMS contract in relation to practices whose patients face the greatest inequalities, has also significantly been altered in the 2015-14 to 2015 GMS contract in order to free up those practitioners to be able to devote more time to the complex problems of their patients. We are working closely with the deep end group and other NHS organisations to help to develop the most appropriate solutions for areas of deprivation. I thank the minister for that answer, and I was indeed going to refer to the link worker project in my supplementary. I visited a project in Pawsal Park with the cabinet secretary in relation to the good work that link workers have been doing. You mentioned that the programme has been funded for five years. Initially, it was for seven practices in the deep end, 100 most deprived communities. Has that been extended further? What review has there been of the scheme? Can I look forward to more of my constituents and patients across Glasgow region with complex health needs, who would most definitely benefit from link workers seeing an enhancement of that service in the years to come? I am sure that the member recognised that, during his own visit, a key part of what we are doing as part of the programme is the evaluation of the link worker to see how effective it can actually be used. Initially, the link worker programme was to run for around three years, and because of the discussion that we had with the deep end practice team, they felt that a five-year programme would be much more effective in being able to evaluate its overall benefits. We have therefore extended it for a further two years. Alongside that provision for a five-year period, we have also commissioned Glasgow University to undertake an evaluation programme, which will be undertaken over the initial two to three years of the link worker programme. Once we have that initial evaluation, we will then be in a position where we can make a decision about rolling it out to other deep end practices and to also consider what model is the most effective way for the link worker to operate within those deep end practices. What I can assure the member of is that we are determined to do what we can to help to support those practices working in our most deprived communities and to do so in a way that delivers the most effective change to allow them to improve their patient care, and many of whom have very complex health needs. The evaluation work will then inform how we can look at rolling out this programme across more of our deep end practices in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the introduction of the mandatory workforce and workload planning tool for nursing has had on the number of nurses in NHS Fife. NHS Fife recently completed its first-ever review of the general adult inpatient nursing workforce across all seven NHS sites using the nursing and midwifery workload and workforce planning tools. The review also considered their existing nurses' own professional judgment and local quality outcomes. NHS Fife will, as a result of its review, be increasing their workforce by more than 100 registered nurses. I understand that recruitment is currently under way to fill those new posts. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer, but what reassurances can he give that the front-line NHS budget will continue to be protected to ensure that the improvements that are being made by NHS Fife can continue to be delivered? Protecting front-line health services is an absolute priority for this Government, and we will do that by increasing the NHS front-line budget despite cuts in the overall budget from Westminster. Scotland's health service will receive in full the Barnett consequentials from increases in health spending down south. In 2015-16, territorial bores will receive allocation increases of 2.7 per cent, an increase above forecast inflation reflecting the importance that we attach to protecting our front-line health services. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to help rural NHS boards to recruit and retain clinical staff. The Scottish Government remains committed to the delivery of sustainable, high-quality healthcare in remote and rural areas. Although it is the responsibility of NHS boards to recruit staff to ensure that they can deliver services, where there are recurring recruitment difficulties, I expect boards to review current service provision, including utilising alternative staffing structures where that would meet the needs of patients. We are supporting boards in this work. For example, I recently announced an additional £40 million of funding for GP and primary care services over the next year, which will help fund local initiatives to improve GP and primary care services, where there are particular pressures, such as rural and remote rural and island communities. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Having visited the Galloway community hospital with me in August, the cabinet secretary will be aware of particular concerns regarding the recruitment and retention of A&E staff at the hospital in Strenard, as well as the concerns that were raised around the lack of training opportunities. Can he tell me what specific measures he is looking at to assist NHS to Friesen Galloway in managing that situation? I did have a very successful visit to Strenard, and I can update the member on exactly the point that she raises. It is the board's responsibility to ensure that the correct staffing levels are in place to deliver safe patient care. I have been advised by the board that its medical staffing position has improved and that it has recently recruited an additional 2.5 whole-time equivalent doctors. The board has advised that that takes a complement to 4.3 whole-time equivalent doctors out of a funded establishment of 6.5. As a consequence, there are no uncovered shifts in the planned rotas up until January 2015. The board continues with recruitment activity, official ISD statistics showed that in Friesen Galloway workforce numbers are up by 5.3 per cent under the SNP. Emergency medicine consultants are up by 307.5 per cent under the SNP equivalent to 3.1 whole-time equivalent positions. Further to the answer that the cabinet secretary gave to Aileen McLeod, he stated that the £40 million was additional funding. My understanding is that this has come out of the integration fund, and therefore it is not additional funding. That was a point that he made to the health committee a couple of weeks ago. Given the issue that covers more than rural areas, indeed urban areas, it is not full time that the cabinet secretary took control of the issue and gave us an NHS that is fit for the 20th century. Of course, one of the big pressures is both in GP surgeries in primary care and in acute services. One of the reasons why there are so many pressures on acute services, not just in rural and remote rural areas and island communities but throughout Scotland, is because we need to invest more in our primary care services. For example, we know and we have the evidence to show that many people turn up at accident in emergency departments because they are getting turned around there within four hours instead of having to wait for days or in some cases longer for a GP appointment. That £40 million is directed at rural areas, deep end practices and those practices where there is an above-average ageing population, particularly where there is a very elderly population, which a lot of rural areas have a disproportionate share of elderly people. Rural areas will benefit enormously from that £40 million. Will the Government emphasis on moving patients away from their acute services into primary care? What steps will the Government take to recruit and retain nurses, health visitors in rural communities such as my own in Aberdeenshire West? We take quite a wide range of initiatives. What is important is to ensure that nurses and allied health professionals have the facilities to work with. I would argue that the heavy investment that we are putting into many areas, for example the Grampian area, the new Inveruri centre, when it is built in two or three years' time, which I know has the support of the local member, is a very good example of how we retain good-quality staff in remote, in that case, just a rural area. I have been around the Inveruri centre as it is, and while it does a fantastic job including some operations, the need for a new facility is urgent, which is why we have given the go-ahead and the new facility will be opened in 2017. Questions 12 and 13 have been withdrawn. I have explanations. I have to come back to George Adam. To ask the Scottish Government how important local authority care homes are in the provision of care for older people. Local authority care homes are extremely important in the provision of care for older people. The Scottish Government's reshaping care for older people programme aims to keep people living as independently as possible in a homely setting, including care homes. Local authorities have an important role to play in ensuring that there is provision of the right type of care settings in their areas now and in the future. Now I can announce that questions 12 and 13 have been withdrawn. Is it me, Presiding Officer? I got confused because you did not mention Paisley. You will be glad to know I do not. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer. Can the Cabinet Secretary join me in congratulating the members of my constituency who campaigned to retain Hunterhill care home? Renfisher council tried to close it. That caused understandable outrage among family members, local SNP councils and staff all campaigned to retain the home. Does that not prove that councils like Labour-controlled Renfisher council should consult with members of the public more when they are making decisions like this? I agree with the member, but I am delighted to contribute to his press release, which I am sure is already enroute to the Paisley Daily Express. It is entirely a matter for local partners to plan provision to meet local needs. However, I would wish to take this opportunity to congratulate all involved in the campaign and the reference to extend the consultation on the closure of Hunterhill. It has convinced Renfisher council of the case for keeping the home open, and that will ensure the residents, some of whom have dementia, will be able to remain in their home without the need for a move that might have caused them disruption or extra distress. I also say that it is extremely important in facing up to the challenge of delayed discharges that we retain and build on the capacity where there is high-quality provision in residential homes throughout Scotland. It is an absolutely vital part of our health and social care system. For the third time, can I say that the questions from Game Day and Mary Fear have been withdrawn? I do have an explanation. Question 14, Bruce Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what support provides for people and their families living with fibro dysplasia, ossifocans, progresiva or FOP for short. Presiding Officer, I want to acknowledge the devastating effect on individuals and families of the very rare disease, fibro dysplasia, ossifocans, progresiva, often called FOP. The combined bone clinic at Yorkhill hospital in Glasgow provides support for children with FOP through a multidisciplinary team of specialist physicians, geneticists, occupational therapists and anorthopedic surgeon. Bruce Crawford. I thank the minister for his answer. The minister agreed with me that FOP is one of the rarest, most disabling genetic conditions known to medicine that causes bone to form in muscles, tendons, ligaments and other connective tissue that progressively restricts movement effectively on prisoning a person in the body's own bone. I have a family of my constituents who are a member badly affected by FOP. The family are seeking help through the open market shared equity scheme or any other scheme that might be available to improve the quality of life of their housing. I wonder if the minister would agree with me that I can meet with some appropriate official to discuss how best we can take forward their particular needs to satisfy their condition, not help the condition to be cured, but make sure that their quality of life is a lot more improved. The member is, of course, correct in highlighting the very challenging nature of this condition and its progressive nature on how it can increasingly result in someone's mobility being lost. The member is also correct in highlighting the open market shared equity scheme, which is a scheme that we have developed for people who are on low to medium incomes to be able to access house ownership. It has a particular priority for those who have a disability or social renters or are members of the armed forces, including veterans. I would, of course, be more than happy to make sure that the member is able to meet with a group of our officials who can assist them in considering his own constituents' case to see what assistance can be provided to them. Thank you for your questions. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 11581, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick.