 Y First Item of Business is general questions. We start with question 1 from Gordon Lindhurst. I would draw the chamber's attention to my entry in the register of interests as a practicing advocate. My question is to ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the conclusions of the independent review rethinking legal aid. I have met key stakeholders, including the Scottish Legal Aid Board, faculty of advocates, and I am due to meet with the Law Society this afternoon to discuss relevant issues ahead of the publication of the Scottish Government's response to the review. The Scottish Government has not made any cuts to the scope of legal aid, and the review recommended that the current scope remain. As set out in our programme for government, the Scottish Government's response to the report of the independent review of legal aid will be published in the autumn. I thank the minister for that answer. Will the government's plans for legal aid take account of what is being described as an extremely serious situation where there are not enough new entrants to the criminal legal aid sector to sustain the network of criminal firms providing access to justice in Scotland? Does she agree with plans being drawn up for first-year trainees to appear in court on behalf of clients? Regarding the issue of first-year trainees, this is not a matter for the Scottish Government. That reflects an agreement made between the Lord President and the Law Society of Scotland. Our analysis of the current situation is that, while crime is reducing, the number of criminal court actions is reducing. The number of criminal legal aid producers is still high in comparison to the work available. Crime has been reducing over several years, and since 2013, the number of criminal case reports to the Crown Office has reduced by nearly 39 per cent. In the same period, the number of criminal legal aid providers has reduced by less than 16 per cent. As identified in Rethink legal aid, there is an oversupply of providers in some areas, but we accept that there is an undersupply in others. The report of the legal aid review suggests that the current wide scope of civil actions for which legal aid is available in Scotland should remain is the minister supportive of that suggestion. Unlike our counterparts in England and Wales, the Scottish Government has kept legal aid provisions to help with family, medical housing and welfare benefit problems. It is important that legal aid continues to offer support for those issues, which have a devastating effect on people and often those who are disadvantaged and vulnerable. It is an important aspect of our legal aid system in Scotland, and there are no plans to change that position. Those areas are not covered in England, where legal aid has been intentionally and severely cut reducing its scope. That is yet another area where the SNP Government acts to protect the vulnerable and the Conservatives do not. Daniel Johnson Thank you, Presiding Officer, and firstly let me welcome the minister to her new post. I note her comments about the following court actions, but one of the points of the report is that demand is falling. Would she acknowledge the points in the report regarding simplification and improving access and awareness of legal aid, considering that 70 per cent of Scots are eligible for legal aid? The legal aid system is entirely demand-led. We have the review at the moment, which included 67 recommendations. My officials are currently looking at the number of recommendations. We are engaging with all the stakeholders on a number of issues, including the one that the member has just raised. That will be included in the Government's response, which I will publish in the autumn. Bob Doris To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides when a family member dies overseas. Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, Fiona Heslif. Concert assistance, including the notification of a death abroad and subsequent advice to bereaved families, is a reserved matter for the UK Government. The Scottish Government would ordinarily refer individuals to the Foreman and Commonwealth Office, who work with Police Scotland in such cases. On the issue of repatriation, as it is a reserve policy area, concert assistance is provided by the FCO as set out in the public guide support to British nationals abroad. The Scottish Government is unable to offer any repatriation services above and beyond that. Following repatriation, several organisations within Scotland can provide bereavement support for individuals in addition to the work of community support and police groups. That includes Victim Support Scotland, who have a partnership in place with the FCO for the provision of support to families. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. There is often significant distress, uncertainty and financial cost when a loved one dies overseas. Can I draw the cabinet secretary's attention to the fact that there is a financial cost to having that death registered back home here in Scotland or indeed anywhere else in the UK? The total cost is £200. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that, given that it is free to register death at home here in Scotland, it is only right that it should be free to register death of loved ones when they pass away overseas? Will the Scottish Government work with me to secure the scrapping of such charges to put fairness and affordability into our system in such distressing circumstances? I think that the member raises a very interesting point. When someone dies abroad, the death is normally registered in the country where they have died, but the next-of-kin wants to choose to register the death in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK. The next-of-kin or the executive can make an application to the FCO in London for a consular death certificate, which will be in English. Applying, as he points out, for a consular death certificate is optional, but the cost is currently £150 for registration and £50 for a copy of the certificate. However, I am happy to instruct my officials to look at the issue to see if there is a... I think that we have probably heard enough of the last, perhaps the minister could send a note. I think that we have lost the microphone just for the last few comments that the minister made. Perhaps the minister could send a note to the official report afterwards. Question 3, Richard Lyle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Network Rail to ensure that it responds to residents' complaints regarding rodents on the track at Carfin Motherwell. I am aware that Network Rail and North Lanarkshire Council Environmental Health Department have already met on the matter and agreed that the railway may not, in fact, be the source of the issue. Is therefore remains a matter for the council to progress? Richard Lyle. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and recognise that Network Rail does not come under responsibility of Scottish ministers. However, if the cabinet secretary agrees with me that it is another example of worrying trend of UK Government departments, agencies ignoring Scotland's elected representatives, what action can we take to ensure that Network Rail and others respond to request to attend meetings or indeed communicate both with MPs and MSPs in the community in Scotland to resolve issues that we believe they have caused and we do believe they have caused? By refusing to attend a recent resident meeting in Newark Hill, which I attended, with more than 100 people there, it has left many unanswered questions and now faces a barrage of distrust within the local community. As a Government, we work closely with Network Rail in Scotland on matters that affect rail users and those living and working alongside our railway network. The member is correct that Network Rail is a UK Government body. I would expect them to fully engage with local communities on issues of concern and, of course, to also engage with local authorities and local elected members on matters of concern. I would expect them to respond to the issues that Mr Lyle has raised on behalf of his constituents in a constructive and in a way that helps them to resolve the concerns of local residents. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what issues were discussed. Ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet representatives of all health boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to discuss matters of importance to local people and to our health service. Neil Bibby I expect that there is plenty to discuss. Accident emergency waiting times, cancer detection rates, cancer waiting times, dementia support, treatment time guarantee, the 18-week referral to treatment, the 12-week first outpatient appointment, staff sickness and childhood mental health waiting times. Nine national standards all failed under this Government, some even going backwards. We know that our hard-working NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde staff are doing their best under difficult circumstances. Indeed, in many cases, they are outperforming colleagues in other parts of the country. However, when will patients in my community get the level of health and care that is promised to them by this Government? I am interesting that Mr Bibby likes to recite a long list. I have an equal long list of my own that I could recite, including GP numbers up by 5 per cent, workforce up by overall by 9.5 per cent. My absolute intention, if Mr Bibby would care to just pause for a moment and let me finish, might be helpful. My absolute intention to bring forward to this Parliament a plan to significantly reduce the current waiting times. However, the fact of the matter is that none of this is assisted. As I mentioned yesterday, we have Opposition colleagues deliberately looking to conflate matters. Let me give you an example. On 27 June, under the headline, bombshell board papers revealed huge cuts to NHS in Glasgow and the west. Labour conflated both financial papers and a high-level strategy paper for the health board in order to get a headline. That kind of behaviour is deeply unhelpful to those who work in our health service, but much more importantly, does an injustice to the constituents that Mr Bibby claims he wants to represent. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that it is incumbent upon all politicians to put full and accurate information into the public domain so as not to try to paint an inaccurate picture? Something that Labour politicians seem to already do when it comes to the future of Inverclyde Royal hospital, and it would appear that they shut their eyes and ears when the chairman of the NHS, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, again reiterated the health board's long-term commitment to the hospital. Well, yes, I do. As I indicated earlier, that is absolutely my view. We undoubtedly have challenges in the health service. Opposition members have a right and a responsibility to challenge this Government, but I am asking everyone to effectively raise their game here and have a bit more of a mature discussion. It is disappointing when a board chair has to use his time and energy to issue media statements to address public concerns that have been raised entirely by false speculation on the part of Opposition members when, time and again, that board and that chair have made it clear that the future in this instance of Inverclyde Royal hospital is secure. It is not simply the colleagues on my right hand side, colleagues on my left are also guilty of this matter, and we really need to grow up in this Parliament and deal with health in the manner in which it deserves to be dealt with. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the health board is reviewing and redesigning breast cancer services. An FOI, by myself, revealed that they had only consulted one person about their preferred option, which is to centralise services. The health board said, and I quote, that the Scottish Government has indicated satisfaction with the level of engagement. In the interests of the accuracy that I wish to share with the cabinet secretary, can she tell the chamber that this is true? The Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board has a high-level approach, entitled Going Forward Together. Ms Baillie and I have discussed this on many occasions in writing and in person. Part of that includes the work that we have undertaken and has been approved on the best approach to maternity services. That is not about having one service only in an area such as Greater Glasgow and Clyde, but with clinicians and other advice, widely welcomed by the Royal College of Midwives and others, it is about providing the right service of sport in terms of maternity services and breast screening across all our health services in Scotland. Consultation will begin on the detail of that. Where we are at the moment is at a relatively high level. Can I make the point that it is the Scottish Health Council that provides a recommendation and a view to me as a cabinet secretary as to whether a board in wider ranging consultation has undertaken that properly? In that instance, we are not yet at that stage. I fully expect us to get there, at which point I have a very strong view personally about what adequate consultation actually is. I will ensure that, across our health boards, adequate consultation with members of the public and others is fully undertaken. To ask the Scottish Government whether we are providing an update on its assessment of the anticipated security supply of medical isotopes after the UK leaves the EU. I am grateful to Mr Stewart for raising that important issue again. I understand that a meeting was offered in May to discuss those matters further. That did not take place, but I am happy again to make that offer. In a written answer in August, I said that it was imperative that the UK Government continues to secure a sustainable supply of time-critical medical isotopes, which, as members will know by their very nature, decay over a short time frame. That supply has to be right for Scotland. I added that we were in discussions with the UK Government about this issue and the UK's future relationship with Eurotom. Unfortunately, the UK Government has not yet been able to provide any certainty about future arrangements with the Eurotom community, about future customs arrangements or about many other aspects of future arrangements with European institutions. I completely understand that this uncertainty is a source of anxiety for medical practitioners and patients across Scotland. We will continue to attempt to maintain contact with the UK Government and continue to stress the importance of that issue. David Stewart Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary is well aware that the UK Government is withdrawing from Eurotom, which regulates the supply of radioisotopes used in the treatment of cancer. The UK has no nuclear reactors and relies on the implementation of medical isotopes, such as Idein 131 from Europe. I am very happy to meet the cabinet secretary to discuss this issue in more detail. The future of the treatment of our cancer patients relies on safe importation of radioisotopes, and I will get in touch with the cabinet secretary later on today. I am grateful to Mr Stewart for that, and I look forward to that discussion. Of course, it is not simply radioisotopes that are a matter of concern here. As Mr Russell, I believe, made clear in his statement earlier this week, we are talking about 8,000 suppliers of medicines, not counting other devices, who have been asked by the UK Government to begin stockpiling six weeks' worth of medicines. As we know, it is only right and proper that we as a Scottish Government take appropriate steps, and we have engaged with our boards to do that, in order to look at how we might manage a situation of the Brexit, particularly a hard Brexit, but it is also only right and proper that I say very clearly that there is a limit to how much we can mitigate this. Not only is there a question in terms of radioisotopes, but there are some of our medicines that, quite frankly, cannot be stockpiled. We should not be giving, as the UK Government, I believe, is attempting to do, some sense of false preparedness for a situation that, frankly, cannot be prepared for in the manner in which it suggests. It is only right and proper that we take what steps that we can, but that we are honest and responsible with those that we represent to say that there is a serious limit to how much the dangers and the catastrophe of Brexit will be mitigated against. James Dornan To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve the provision of perinatal mental health support. I thank James Dornan for his question. Good perinatal mental health care is vitally important in improving outcomes for mothers and their young children. That is why we are funding a national managed clinical network MCN on perinatal mental health. The MCN brings together specialists on perinatal mental health, nursing, maternity and infant mental health. The network's long-term aim is to ensure that all women, their infants and families have equity of access to the perinatal mental health services that they need across all of Scotland. Additionally, as was announced last week in the programme for government, we are providing a package of measures to do more to support positive mental health and prevent ill health, which includes a quarter of a billion pounds of additional investment starting this year and progressively increasing over subsequent four years. This funding includes 50 million pounds for perinatal mental health services to develop a strong network of care and support for the one in five new mothers around 11,000 a year who experienced mental health problems during and after pregnancy. James Dornan I thank the minister for her full answer and I believe her first question in her new role. As she will be aware, almost 20 per cent of women experience mental health during their pregnancy, so I am grateful that the Government is taking decisive action to improve the provision of perinatal mental health support in Scotland. Within the programme for Scotland at States, and I quote, we will also substantially expand the range of perinatal support available to women. Can the minister advise on how many women they expect to benefit from those new support measures? James Dornan mentioned that we set out a package of commitments in our programme for government to expand the help available to new mothers who may experience a mental health issue around the time of pregnancy, and we will provide three tiers of support across Scotland in line with the needs of individuals. For those 11,000 women a year who would benefit from such help, such as counselling, we will support the third sector to provide that. For the 5,500 women in need of more specialist help, we will ensure rapid access to psychological assessment and treatment. For those 2,250 women with the most severe illness, we will develop more specialist services and consider the need for a small number of additional inpatient beds or enhance community provision. In April, the Scottish Government was widely criticised after data from maternal mental health alliance showed that, in 50 per cent of health board areas across Scotland, women had no access to specialist perinatal mental health services. Can the minister assure that measures set out in the programme for government will enable that access so that women do not face a postcode lottery when it comes to perinatal health support? I thank Annie Wells for her question. The managed clinical network is currently carrying out a mapping and gapping exercise in support of its shorter term aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current service provision. The additional funding that was announced last week will help to ensure that women are able to access the services that they need when they need them.