 I have business, which is topical questions, and our first question is from Rachel Hamilton. To ask the Scottish Government what its forecast is for income tax growth in the coming years. The Scottish Government does not produce its own income tax forecast. The independent Scottish Fiscal Commission published its official forecast of Scottish income tax receipts twice per year and has done so since December 2017. The SFC forecast annual income tax receipts of £11.5 billion in 2018-19 growing to £14.6 billion in 2024-25, which is an increase of £3.1 billion. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Scotland collects its own income tax, meaning that it is more independent of its own economic performance. The IPPR suggests that if tax projections are correct, the Scottish economy could lose £1.8 billion over the next five years through weaker income tax growth compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Despite £360 million of income tax rises in 2020, increased income tax growth in the rest of the UK means that the Scottish Government's budget will be £5 million worse off than it would be under the previous system. Without hiding behind a Brexit bushel, can the cabinet secretary tell the chamber how the Scottish Government will fill the tank of an economy running on empty? A number of issues in there. First of all, Scotland's economy is performing well in terms of record low, record high employment, strong performance on productivity exports and a number of other economic indicators. There is certainly an issue around what might be cyclical or distributional issues in terms of income tax growth. I have studied us thoroughly at the Finance and Economy Committee, where there might well be deepening inequality in the rest of the United Kingdom, where more higher-rate taxpayers' increases are going further and that distributional, cyclical, deepening inequality may well have a negative impact on Scotland's income tax rates net because of the arrangements in the fiscal framework. However, if our economy is growing strongly—and of course we want to support that on-going economic growth—yes, avert Brexit, because it will have a damaging impact for the whole of the United Kingdom and for Scotland. However, we want to see that sustainable growth agenda, but I want to point out that the benefit of having a devolved income tax system is that we can make decisions for ourselves, such as having a more progressive income tax system, which is one that sees 55 per cent of Scottish taxpayers paying less than they would have done if they lived south of the border. That is 55 per cent at the lower end of the income distribution, rather than at the top end, who the Conservatives seem to want to pander to. Rachael Hamilton, I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The SFC and Fraser of Allander have noted that Scotland's net tax position is worse because of the downward revisions to Scottish earnings growth, despite the fact that Scottish taxpayers are paying £500 million more in income tax compared to their counterparts in the rest of the UK. Does that mean that the cabinet secretary will have no choice but to increase taxes further, leading to less money in hard-working Scots pockets, less growth, less revenue, and ultimately leading Scotland further into the black hole? Cabinet secretary, I know that it does not mean that at all. The income tax reconciliation number is down to forecast error at the hands of the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the OBR. That is the reality of the income tax reconciliation. That is the issue that will be addressed in terms of those reconciliations, which at the moment are still forecast on forecast. Once we have got out-turned data, we will know exactly what position is, and then we can more deeply understand the issue that might be distributional about the potential of higher-rate tax payers growth in the rest of the United Kingdom compared to Scotland. Factual point, income tax is going up year on year. We will be collecting more in income tax, but because of the block grant adjustment and UK rates potentially going up more, that is some of the issues that have been addressed by the SFC. The truth is that the Scottish economy is doing well. The economic indicators are strong. Income tax will be going up. Of course, we want to further stimulate that growth, but it is poo at threat. That is what the Fiscal Commission report says. Fraser of Allander Institute, a economic success story, is under threat as a consequence of Brexit, which can still be averted. In relation to taxpayers, because that is partly what the question was about, we have a more progressive tax system in Scotland. The structure is fairer. The decisions that we have taken are fairer as well, but, if, for example, there is a Boris Johnson premiership, it is perfectly clear that the funding will go towards tax cuts for the richest 10 per cent in society that is unfair, that will continue austerity, and that is not the kind of choices that the Scottish Government will be making, because it is not the choice of the Scottish people. There are three members who wish to ask a supplementary on this, so I hope that they will all be quite succinct. James Kelly is before by Tom Arthur. One of the points that the IPPR makes to boost tax revenue is to promote wage growth and increase of 1 per cent in wages would add £750 million to tax revenues. That is particularly relevant when there are 470,000 people in Scotland not being paid to live in wage. The cabinet secretary is now not the time for the Scottish Government to change procurement legislation to make it mandatory that anyone working on a public contract is paid at least the living wage. We are working within the law to try to ensure that, as many people are paid the living wage as possible. I get advice to say what is legal and what is illegal, and we are absolutely doing everything that we can within the law to support the living wage. That is why it is good news that more people are paid the living wage in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom, but everyone should of course be paid at least that. We have a real focus on the living wage and the fair work agenda. In tackling inequalities, that is really important. That is one of the issues that is driving the reports that we are hearing about. Inequality is getting deeper and greater in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is having an impact, i.e. those at the top are being paid more, disproportionately more, as we are trying to bring those at the bottom of the structure up. I absolutely agree on that minimum level. It would be better, of course, if we had devolution and control and power over employment law and over setting the minimum wage in Scotland, but in the absence of that authority in those powers, we will do everything we can as a government to encourage payment of the living wage from those whom we procure services from, and of course more widely than that. Tom Arthur will be filled by Patrick Harvie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Central to the operation of the fiscal framework is relative economic performance between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and a key driver of both wage growth and income tax receipts is productivity. Can the cabinet secretary therefore outline how Scottish productivity growth compares with that of the rest of the UK? Well, specifically, the latest statistics show that, in 2018, Scotland's productivity grew by 3.8% compared to the point 5% in the UK as a whole, and furthermore, from 2007, productivity in Scotland has grown by 10.8% compared to 2.7% in the UK. Patrick Harvie. Thank you. All Governments face some degree of uncertainty from fiscal forecasting because there is always going to be a risk of forecasting errors, but the Scottish position is now that we have forecasts both from the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the OBR to separate sets of fiscal forecasts done by separate bodies with separate methodologies. Isn't it increasingly clear that the absurdly complex fiscal framework has left Scotland with compounded economic uncertainty in exchange for half measures on fiscal autonomy? Cabinet secretary. I think that that is a good description of the complexity of the system and there's an easy remedy to the complexity of devolution and that's Scottish independence. Question 2, Mary Fee. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that children and young people who attempt to take their own lives have to wait weeks for specialist mental health support. Minister Claire Hocky. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that children and young people get access to the mental health support that they need and recognises the distress caused to children and young people and their families by any delay in accessing mental health support. Children and young people are a particular focus in the suicide prevention action plan published in August 2018. A national suicide prevention leadership group has been established by myself, chaired by the former DCC, Rose Fitzpatrick, and the membership is broad, including representation from health and social care, justice, third sector, local authorities and COSLA, as well as clinical professionals, importantly young people and people whose lives have been affected by suicide. The Scottish Government is working with the NSPLG to ensure that all the actions of the suicide prevention action plan consider the needs of children and young people. Mary Fee. In June last year, the Government tried to sneak out the audit report on rejected carm referrals, which found a belief amongst patients that unless the situation was serious enough, the individual would not be seen. Nine months ago, Audit Scotland published a report on cams, which found that young people were not getting appropriate care until they reached crisis point. This weekend, it was reported that a teenager who had already tried to take her own life had to wait a further four weeks to be seen. Given the seriousness and the urgency of the situation, does that sound like adequate progress to the minister? I thank Mary Fee for her follow-up question. There are long waits for cams treatment and support are unacceptable, and that is why we set out in the 2018 programme for government a £250 million package of measures to support positive mental health and prevent mental ill health. We also formed the children and young people's task force, whose delivery plan was published at the end of December, and who will be publishing their recommendations on how mental health services can be improved for children and young people in their families next month. I thank the minister for that answer. However, it does not sound like much progress is being made to me, and I am sure that many people are listening to that. One in four children and young people are still having to wait over four months to be seen for their first appointment. Last month, during the statement on the NHS Tathide interim report, the minister refuted a suggestion from Miles Briggs that the issue of services not taking suicidal patients seriously was widespread across the country. Given the reports over the weekend, does the minister stand by that statement? After a full year in the job, is she really so unaware of the issues on the ground? I thank Mary Fee for that answer for that question. At the end of March, 26,740 children and young people were under the care of CAMHS services across Scotland. That is testament to the amount of work that CAMHS staff do in supporting children and young people at a time when they are feeling particularly vulnerable. However, there is much more for us to do, and that is why I am looking forward to the recommendations from the Children and Young People's Task Force and working with COSLA to set about how we address those recommendations. I am sure that the response to that will be something that Mary Fee will be interested in hearing when we make a statement in September about the progress of the mental health strategy. Figures released in May show that the Scottish Government is following woefully short of getting anywhere near its mental health workers target. Despite a promise in the mental health strategy to recruit 800 additional workers by 2021-22, as of April this year, just 186 whole-time equivalents had been recruited. Can the minister guarantee today that it will meet that target? We are reporting quarterly on the additional workers under action 15 of the mental health strategy. The last figures were published in May, so there will be further figures published in August time. We are certainly keeping close track. We are working hard with our colleagues in health boards and integrated joint boards to ensure that we get the workers in those key target areas as quickly and appropriately as we can do. Do you ask the Scottish Government how it will reduce the reported long ways for in-patient and day-case dental treatment? Our £850 million waiting times improvement plan will substantially and sustainably improve waiting times, including in-patient and day-case dental treatment. I thank the minister for that answer. Across Scotland, dental consultant vacancies are going unfilled and patients are left waiting. The British Dental Association described the figures acquired by SPICE and the Scottish Liberal Democrats as eye-watering, and they said that patients can effectively expect to wait much longer. The BDA said that those long waits are being driven by a failure on prevention and a failure to invest in the workforce. The most recent ISD figures show a noticeable drop in NHS dental staff, down 14.7 per cent in the past five years alone. Can the minister explain why? There were two points made in the BDA. One was workforce, which I will come to shortly, but the other was prevention. Prevention is an area in which we are making substantial success across Scotland. The child smile programme is making a real difference, so it helps to make sure that children know how to brush their teeth properly, providing fluoride varnish applications. The next stage in that will be announcing under the community challenge fund of the oral health improvement plan, which will be taking forward in reducing further health inequalities in children in terms of their oral health. First of all, one of the challenges that we no longer have in terms of dentists is that now there are very few people who cannot access an NHS dentist. When we took over in 2007 as a Government, the huge numbers of people who are unable to access an NHS dentist have really managed to turn that round. Sometimes it is important to say where progress has been made, so we should raise some acknowledgement of the progress and thank our dental colleagues for rising to the challenge and making sure that people can in the first place access NHS dental practices. In terms of some of the specialist areas, one of the big areas I had a chat with the BDA just last week. One of the challenging areas is around anaesthetic consultants and that leads to a number of the waiting times, but even there we can see that we have managed to increase the numbers of anaesthetic consultants by 41.7 per cent since 2006, so that is moving from 549 up to 778. I am in no way suggesting that everything is rosy, and I accept that some of the waits that we know about, in particular some of the more challenging cases, are entirely unacceptable. Particularly when we are talking about children who are often in pain, we need to continue to do better around that, but we are managing to make a difference, and the waiting times improvement plan is designed to make that even better. Alex Cole-Hamilton I am grateful to the minister for that answer. I have a constituent who requires both inpatient and day-case support, but he is not getting any treatment whatsoever. In 1995, Angela Mulhern fell victim to William John Duff. He performed a series of unnecessary and incompetent dental surgical procedures, which cost tens of thousands of pounds worth of damage to her teeth and jawbone, and left her in constant pain. Ms Mulhern underwent this treatment as an NHS patient, yet has not had the necessary remedial work carried out or even offered by the Scottish NHS. Will the minister agree to meet with Ms Mulhern and I? Alex Cole-Hamilton I think that, in the first instance of Mr Cole-Hamilton, he wants to write me about a case that I have absolutely no awareness of. Right now, we can discuss how we should take that forward. Alex Cole-Hamilton We have four members who wish to ask supplementaries, but I am just conscious that we have got such little time this afternoon, so I am afraid that I am going to be very harsh, not to take any of the members, and I encourage them to put in written questions. I apologise to Monica Lennon, Miles Briggs, James Dornan and Neil Findlay. We are going to move on now to the next item of business. In fact, we are just a short suspension, not a suspension. We are just going to take a pause while we move on to the next item of business.