 I will now move to the topical questions, to the question 1 Richard Simpson. To ask the Scottish Government how it will increase protection for people subject to emergency detention under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act 2013. Emsydech Cymru, wrth ddefnyddio faddas 2003, oedd y fawr i ni fyddaf i ddadu yn mynd i rôl i gyd, dilydd i'n conoi i ddweudio i ymchwilodau a'r dweud o'i gyfosig oedd o'r ddweud o sicr ymgyrch i ddweud o phraith? Elisw fanhigau meddwl myd, oherwydd mae ei ddim yn tywy f ankle i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud o ddweud, ac mae'r gweldau nid yn dweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud a ddweud o ddweud I am concerned by low levels of involvement by mental health officers in some areas as identified by the Mental Welfare Commission in its annual monitoring report in September 2015. Consent by mental health officers is an important safeguard and it is essential that local authorities ensure they have the appropriate levels of staff in place to meet statutory duties. I am pleased to know that the Mental Welfare Commission has plans to meet with one health board where this appears to be a particular issue and I look forward to hearing the outcomes of that engagement. I have also asked the Mental Welfare Commission to undertake analysis of the reasons why the medical practitioner has reported that it was impractical for them to consult a mental health officer. Separately, I have asked the Scottish Government's chief social work advisor to investigate issues about the shortfall of mental health officers in local authorities with chief social work officers and expect him to report back by the end of April. I thank the cabinet secretary for that very helpful reply. The situation is now that in the last report from the Mental Welfare Commission, as she indicated, 45 per cent of those detained under the emergency detention system did not have an MHO, but this was an increase from 42 per cent in the previous year and 37 per cent the year before. We have been in a deteriorating situation in which the Mental Welfare Commission has drawn attention to in repeated reports. Given the new funding that is coming forward, will she consider specifically allocating additional funds to the local authorities to recruit more mental health officers? I thank Richard Simpson for his question and recognise his interest in it. As he points out, the Mental Welfare Commission's annual monitoring report has highlighted some of the issues. It highlighted a number of issues. It highlighted that the increase in new compulsory treatment is largely due to an increase in using the act to admit older people to hospital, for example, but the reasons behind the rise in compulsory treatment are unclear. There are a number of things that we need to understand better. The important point is that short-term detention certificates should be granted wherever possible, in preference to an emergency detention certificate, given the additional protections that they provide for the patient. There are a number of issues that we need to look at and to understand better, which is why, in my original answer, I have asked for a number of pieces of work to look at this, to understand better some of the reasons. More importantly, what action we can take. Richard Simpson asked about the resources that have been allocated to health over the next five years—a hundred and fifty million of additional resources. Of course, he will be aware that there is a clear separation between the roles of the mental health officers employed by local authorities and the NHS for good reason that they might be investigating issues within the NHS, which is why, where I would normally point to IJBs being the territory where those things can be resolved, there is a more complex issue here because of the nature of potential conflict of interest that we need to be quite careful about. However, I will do what I will do once we have the reports back. If that points to specific action that needs to be taken, and if there is an element of resourcing behind that, I will give consideration to whether or not there requires to be further work in that domain. I think that we should wait and see what the issues are first. I commend the cabinet secretary for both her replies to indicate a concern about this problem, which has been getting worse. The other aspect is the one that I always raise in these circumstances, and that is to look at the variation between different boards, and she alluded to that in her first answer. Specifically, the Mental Welfare Commission said that it concerns us that, in greater Glasgow and Clyde, the area of the highest use of emergency detention in Scotland, and we should remember that it also tends to be more in deprived areas that these detention orders are used. The proportion of EDCs with consent is even lower, at 28 per cent, down from 37 per cent the previous year. When 72 per cent of people are not getting an MHO, I think that it does require fairly urgent attention, though I understand from her first answer that clearly that is the one that the Mental Welfare Commission is going to have a close look at. A number of local authorities responded to the inquiries that were made by the newspaper reports at the weekend and laid out some of their responses to that in terms of their numbers of MHOs and how they organised that service. However, Richard Simpson is right to highlight the particular concerns of the greater Glasgow and Clyde and the local authorities in the greater Glasgow and Clyde area. That is why, of course, the Mental Welfare Commission has plans to meet the greater Glasgow and Clyde to look at its figures in particular, but also what lies behind that and, more important, what action can be taken to overcome some of the concerns that Richard Simpson has raised. I am very happy to keep Richard Simpson informed of those discussions and, importantly, the outcomes from those. Given that the shortage of mental health officers has been an increasing problem for some time, can I ask the cabinet secretary, given that mental health officers, in terms of sectioning patients, is not a legal requirement, it is an important safeguard and it is best practice to ensure that that input happens at the time that a patient is sectioned and to ensure that numbers are now brought forward to be fully trained and suitably qualified to fill the gap? I understand Mary Scanlon's concern here. First of all, on the shortage, there are issues around the requirements of skill level and qualification to become a mental health officer, which immediately reduces the pool of people available. There are issues around being able to recruit mental health officers that we need to look at and I am keen to look at what more can be done to perhaps expand the interest in that career. I think that we have to be cautious around the legislative suggestion that Mary Scanlon made, because, as I laid out in my original answer, where there is an immediate serious or life-threatening danger to the patient or others around the patient, it would be wrong to need to wait in order for a mental health officer's involvement if there are absolutely immediate concerns about welfare and safety. You can understand that sometimes those things have to move very, very quickly. However, the best practice, of course, is to involve a mental health officer. I think that it is about getting the balance here that we do not restrict action being taken that is required for immediate safety of the patient and potentially others around them as well with the best practice of involving a mental health officer. Again, I would be happy to keep Mary Scanlon involved in some of those discussions that are going to be taken forward with the Mental Welfare Commission and the chief social work adviser. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reports that plans for a high-speed rail link between Glasgow and Edinburgh have been shelved. It has not been shelved. I refer the member to my recent written answer to Tavish Scott on that issue, in which I made clear that it is not possible to progress planning for a high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow any further until a cross-border high-speed route is identified. Once that happens, we can consider integrating plans. The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities has also made clear that, both in public at the high-speed rail conference in Glasgow last September and in this chamber in response to a direct question from Willie Rennie on 24 February 2015, that connecting Edinburgh and Glasgow with a high-speed rail link is inextricably linked to the route options coming from the south. I can also advise that the joint work that has currently been undertaken with the Department for Transport to identify route options for extending high-speed rail into Scotland is now nearing completion and that the Cabinet Secretary fully expects to be in a position to share those findings in the coming months. The Scottish Government grandly told us that the high-speed rail link between Glasgow and Edinburgh was not dependent on the UK scheme. With journey times of just 30 minutes, it said, between Glasgow and Edinburgh, it could be done independently by 2024, 10 years ahead of any UK plans. Nicola Sturgeon, in fact, said that Scotland would fire ahead, would not wait for Westminster. When was the Minister planning to tell us that the Government is waiting after all? Glasgow to Edinburgh journey times won't be 30 minutes by 2024, will they? On sharing information with Parliament, I have answered a parliamentary question, but even before that there has been a couple of debates. One was in committee with Keith Brown, who was the then Minister for Transport, in answer to Alex Johnston in 5 February 2014, which explained the position. I also mentioned the investment in Egypt, the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement project, which is very much under way. In answer to Willie Rennie, Keith Brown explained the position on 24 February 2015. The position has been shared with the chamber and shared in an answer to a parliamentary question. In terms of the infrastructure investment plan, it covers in a number of sections in the plan that we still have the ambitions for high-speed rail. However, yes, I have said that it makes sense to see what is proposed in terms of high-speed rail coming from the south. That work has been undertaken in partnership with UK Government. As I have said, the cabinet secretary will say more about that in the coming months and how we are working with UK Government high-speed too. However, in terms of 2012, when that position was outlined, there was not a commitment from UK Government. There was not even a suggestion from UK Government that high-speed rail would come to Scotland. In fact, the commitments at the time were simply to take high-speed rail from London to Birmingham and Manchester and leads by 2032. What the Government was doing with our partners and stakeholders was advocating a case to bring high-speed rail to Scotland, and we have worked in partnership with the UK Government to progress that. There is now that opportunity to integrate our ambitions and our aspirations, which we have stated in a way that works in partnership and is a sensible approach. I do not understand why the Deputy First Minister announced at Glasgow Central Station that, within just 12 years, journey times in two cities would be cut to less than half an hour. Now we just simply know that it was overblown hyperbole. It was rhetoric in the extreme. What we need to know now is why the scheme was cancelled and why it shelved. The minister had the business plan back in September 2014. Is he now going to publish it? I have said that the cabinet secretary will outline the findings from our joint study in our work over the coming months. We are doing that in partnership with the UK Government, and that should not be pre-empted. When I am saying that the aspirations for high-speed rail connecting Glasgow and Edinburgh with high-speed rail clearly can be integrated with the proposals coming from the south, I think that that is a sensible approach. That is what the cabinet secretary will outline, the findings from that work. We still have the aspirations for high-speed rail. I have covered that. I have covered how those issues have been discussed in Parliament before, both in the chamber in response to Willie Rennie and the committee in answer to Alex Johnstone. The records are there. I am happy to share the notes that I have that cover the approach that the Government has taken. It really is not news, and it really is not new. When it comes to on-going investment in rail, I know that Willie Rennie will be very aware of the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement project, which is over £700 million of investment in terms of that whole package, which will improve journey times, which will invest in rolling stock and new stations. The Government is investing in rail in our country, particularly between the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, but there will be more to come in terms of high-speed rail, but in partnership with the UK Government. I thought that that was a kind of partnership working that Willie Rennie would have appreciated being in the constructive consensual figure that he is working through the department for transport. The cabinet secretary will be able to say more about high-speed rail later in the next few months. Surely, regardless of where the high-speed link crosses the border, whether it is the east coast or the west coast, a high-speed link between Edinburgh and Glasgow will be integral to the completion of that system. Is it therefore so difficult to take forward that project at an earlier stage than simply waiting to decide where it is going to come in? It is interesting that both members who have been given the answers before are back expressing surprise at the answers now. Keith Brown was able to say at the time that it makes sense to consider both proposals. If high-speed rail has options to connect Edinburgh and Glasgow, or one city then connecting this, surely it is right that we assess our proposals in that light, integrating the proposals in terms of Edinburgh and Glasgow in view and in light of what is proposed for high-speed rail coming from the south. I think that that is sensible and a fair rationale to spend public money to make the right assumptions and options coming forward. Once the cabinet secretary is in a position to report to the chamber following the work from the UK Government, I think that we will see a sensible way forward, but our aspirations have not changed in bringing high-speed rail to Scotland and continuing to invest in rail and those high-speed connections, and that is clearly expressed in the infrastructure investment plan. That brings us to the next item of business, which is