Plenary, 12 Feb 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, February 12, 2009

Official Report 700KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Health and Wellbeing

---

General Practitioner Services (Privatisation)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made on banning the privatisation of GP services. (S3O-5901)

We issued a consultation paper on 22 October last year on our proposals to amend the eligibility criteria for providers of primary medical services. The responses to the consultation supported the Government's key proposal, and we will shortly introduce legislation that will preclude the commercialisation of GP practices.

The Government's swift action on the matter has been welcomed by both health professionals and members of the public, as the threat of the commercialisation of health services has been a great concern to many. Will the cabinet secretary give further details of the changes that will happen following the recent consultation to ensure that there will be no privatisation of GP services in Scotland?

I thank Shirley-Anne Somerville for raising the matter. As she and other members will be aware, vacant GP practices in Scotland are rare, but when a vacancy arose in Harthill a couple of years ago a bid was received from the commercial sector. That brought to everybody's attention the loophole that exists in the legislation.

The new eligibility criteria for which we intend to legislate will require all parties to the contract—all the partners in the case of a partnership and all the shareholders in the case of a company—to be individuals who are engaged in the provision of primary medical services to patients. That will support the principle of a mutual national health service. If a company has shareholders who have only a financial interest in the company and are not actively involved in providing primary medical services, it will not be eligible to hold a contract. That is an important step forward. The approach was warmly supported in the consultation, and members will be aware that the British Medical Association strongly supports it as well.

---

Housing Associations (West Highlands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is giving to housing associations in the west Highlands. (S3O-5863)

In the current financial year, the Scottish Government has allocated a total of £20.69 million from the affordable housing investment programme to the six housing associations that operate primarily in the west Highlands. This year's AHIP across the wider Highlands and Islands and Argyll and Bute has increased by 12.3 per cent from £54.45 million to £61.17 million.

Taking into account the accelerated spend and pre-budget report consequentials, we are making £531 million available across Scotland in 2008-09. In the next financial year, that will rise to £644 million, which represents a 21 per cent increase.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that Argyll Community Housing Association is measured against a housing association grant benchmark of £73,000 but that the corresponding figure for Lochaber Housing Association is £108,000 per unit? If that is correct, does she agree that the matter needs to be revisited? Surely two neighbouring housing associations that operate in similar geography and housing markets should not have such different benchmarks.

The member will be aware that there is flexibility in the HAG system. He is right to say—if this is what he was saying—that there is a national subsidy target of £73,000 per unit. However, the Scottish Government has approved and will continue to approve higher costs under certain circumstances—for example, in rural or island areas—when they can be objectively justified. We will offer higher allowances for smaller associations because we recognise that their costs can be higher. There is scope for local variation when projects are approved if there are additional costs that can be objectively justified.

If different HAG subsidy rates are applied to the two housing associations that the member mentioned, that is presumably because one has been able to demonstrate objectively that it has higher costs and the other has not. If the member wishes to discuss the matter in more detail, I will be more than happy to do so in person or in writing.

---

Green Spaces (Deprived Communities)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of a study by Scottish researchers published in The Lancet on 8 November 2008 showing that populations exposed to the greenest environments have the lowest levels of health inequality related to income deprivation, what it is doing to ensure equitable access to quality green space for the most deprived communities. (S3O-5905)

The Scottish Government supports the delivery of well-designed, sustainable places where everyone can access the amenities and services that they need. We provide direct support for the promotion of green space through the funding of organisations such as Greenspace Scotland and initiatives such as paths to health and green gyms. We also fund research into the links between green space and health. "Equally Well", the report of the Scottish Government's task force on health inequalities, recognises the importance of healthy physical environments in tackling health inequalities and outlines the actions that are taken as a result of that link.

According to Greenspace Scotland and Dr Richard Mitchell, accurate data on green space are essential for research into health benefits. Green space has been mapped in 25 local authority areas using geographic information system maps and aerial photography. Renfrewshire Council is one of the first to complete that and to put in place systems to update its data. Does the Scottish Government have any plans to support the mapping of the remaining seven local authority areas?

I will certainly look at that, because it is important that we identify which areas to focus our attention on. It is obviously important for our partnership working with local authorities that we are able to do that.

As part of improving our understanding, we are funding research into the links between green space and health, which will input into policy development across a range of areas. I am sure that we will take that forward with our local authority partners to improve their understanding, too.

---

St Margaret of Scotland Hospice (Funding)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it has taken to secure an agreement over funding between St Margaret of Scotland Hospice and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. (S3O-5870)

I understand that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde will discuss that matter at its next board meeting which will be held on 24 February. I have said before, and I will say again, that it is essential that an appropriate and sustainable solution that reflects national and local priorities is achieved without undue delay.

I recently wrote to the cabinet secretary regarding the progress, or lack of it, in the on-going discussions about the future of the hospice. It appears that those charged with reaching an agreement have lost all confidence in one another, which has led to a complete breakdown in discussions. That Scotland's oldest and largest hospice could be lost on that basis is ludicrous.

I appreciate that the cabinet secretary cannot force a deal, but will she appoint a special representative who enjoys the confidence of both parties and who can realistically be charged with brokering an urgent agreement before the sand runs out on the midnight hour glass for vital continuing and end-of-life care at St Margaret of Scotland Hospice?

I thank Jackson Carlaw for the interest that he has shown in this issue and for the constructive way in which he has pursued it. I recognise that members throughout the chamber have a genuine interest in the hospice.

I have said before that I value the services that St Margaret of Scotland Hospice provides, and I believe that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde does, too. It is clear that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde needs to commission services that it considers are required for the population that it serves and, of course, the hospice has a right to consider what services it feels able to provide.

I note the suggestion that Jackson Carlaw has made—indeed, others have made it before. I understand that substantive options will be discussed at the next meeting of Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, which will take place later this month. That discussion will provide the basis for future dialogue with the hospice. Given the imminence of the meeting, I do not think that it would be helpful for me to pre-empt it at this stage. However, I appreciate that members will continue to raise the issue and will want to return to it once the outcome of the meeting is known.

I am sure that the minister is aware that the deadline that was originally set for moving from the current arrangements to new arrangements was 1 April. In that context, would it not be appropriate for a meeting to take place between the hospice and the health board in advance of the board meeting on 24 February, so that the hospice has at least some idea of the proposals that will be brought forward for discussion? That would give us the maximum opportunity for the matter to be resolved successfully.

I thank Des McNulty for his suggestion and I acknowledge his interest as the constituency member. I am well aware of the deadline, as is NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and I am sure that it will be in the minds of board members when they discuss the issue on 24 February.

I will pass Des McNulty's suggestion to the health board. There has been considerable dialogue—albeit not dialogue that has resulted in a conclusion—between the health board and the board of St Margaret of Scotland Hospice. The most important next step is for the health board to have the discussion on substantive options that will allow it to formulate its response to the hospice's proposals.

I acknowledge the urgency of the issue, as I have always done. Although members might have different views on the process and some of the issues that are at stake, I think that we are all of one mind in wanting the board and the hospice to reach an outcome that satisfies both sides. I hope that that will happen following the next board meeting.

I spoke to hospice staff recently, who face uncertainty in their workplace and their lives. Will the cabinet secretary use her influence to encourage the board to say what it intends to do and when it intends to do it? If changes are to be made, will she encourage the board to defer them for as long as possible, to give the hospice time to adapt to whatever is suggested?

I thank Gil Paterson for his helpful comments. I hope that there will be clarity after the board meeting on 24 February. I will make no comment about blame or who is in the right and who is in the wrong. I genuinely regret that both sides have not been able to reach a conclusion before now, and I hope that clarity is provided on 24 February and that a basis is found on which the matter can be taken forward.

I will ensure that the health board is aware of the comments of members, including Gil Paterson, and I will ensure that it reflects on those comments as part of the discussions that take place later this month.

---

Care and Nursing Homes (Waiting Lists)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many elderly people are in hospital waiting for places in care or nursing homes. (S3O-5912)

According to the most recently published delayed discharge census, in October 2008, 263 elderly patients in hospital were waiting to move to a care home. Of those patients, 50 were delayed for more than the agreed discharge planning period of six weeks.

Although the level of delayed discharges at the October census was 87 per cent lower than was the case in October 2006, under the previous Administration, the Scottish Government is determined to ensure a positive return to zero as soon as possible.

It is helpful to know that the Government is still committed to reducing bed blockages, as they are called. I have anecdotal evidence from people throughout Central Scotland who are concerned that a prime difficulty is to do with funding for places. Will the minister give guidance on that and reassure me that she will do what she can to ensure that funding is available to local authorities and other funders to speed up transfers?

Local authorities have received record levels of funding, which were reflected in yesterday's announcement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth. Of course, the priority that delayed discharge is given is shared between ourselves and colleagues in local government. I hope that, because of that shared priority and because of the extensive work that is going on between local authorities and health boards to redesign services, to make them more fit for purpose and to ensure that people can have as quick as possible a transition from hospital, not only will there be a return to zero but—this is important—such a position will be sustained. I am confident that the work of local partners will deliver that.

---

Community Health Care (Parking)

To ask the Scottish Government what guidance it gives to local authorities, police and health authorities on parking rights for health care professionals as part of their duties to deliver care in the community. (S3O-5876)

No such guidance has been issued. Local authorities are responsible for the operation of parking controls in their areas. We would, of course, expect a council routinely to work with the relevant health boards to ensure that parking controls support health care workers in delivering care to patients.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that there is a need for a constructive attitude towards the use of residents' car parking spaces and permit-only areas by care-in-the-community health professionals, especially in cities where there is more parking regulation and spaces are scarce, so that those professionals can carry out their jobs in a timely manner?

I agree with Brian Adam that there is a need for such a constructive attitude. Community health workers, by definition, travel around to do their job, visiting people in their communities. I encourage all health boards and local authorities to work together as far as possible—acknowledging that demand for parking always outstrips supply—to ensure that the needs of that important group of health workers are properly taken into account. If there are specific issues in Brian Adam's constituency that he wishes to pursue in more detail, I would be happy to consider them.

---

Male Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse

To ask the Scottish Executive what resources it will make available to meet the needs of male survivors of childhood sexual abuse in light of the recent research report launched at the turning research into action conference. (S3O-5943)

As I indicated when I spoke at the conference, which launched the research on the subject, the Scottish Government has still fully to consider the recommendations that were made in the report. SurvivorScotland, the national strategy for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, will continue to address the needs of all survivors, including male survivors. The national reference group that was set up to implement the strategy will discuss any relevant action arising from the report.

As convener of the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse, I am very much aware of the complexity of the issues. I welcome the work done under the survivors strategy, and I congratulate everyone, past and present, who has made the strategy a reality.

As the minister is aware, many male survivors find it difficult to ask for help and support. What steps is the Government taking to ensure that the most vulnerable people are reached and that, when those people come forward, appropriate local services are available to all those who need them the length and breadth of Scotland's communities?

I acknowledge the long-standing commitment of Marilyn Livingstone as convener of the cross-party group, and I can outline a couple of things that we are doing. We have provided thrive, a Glasgow-based service specifically for men, with funding for a three-year period provided under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. We have also provided health in mind, a service that carries out specific work with male survivors, with funding for the forthcoming period.

That work is important, but it is also important that mainstream service providers throughout Scotland, which might well come into contact with male survivors, are sufficiently sensitive and can signpost people to the right support. I am happy to work with the member to consider how that could be done better. One of the recommendations of the research report dealt with that issue, and I am happy to keep the member informed about how we take it forward.

---

Affordable Housing

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in the allocation of accelerated spending on affordable housing. (S3O-5962)

The accelerated funding of £40 million for 2008-09 has been fully allocated. Of that, £5 million has been directed towards an increased mortgage to rent scheme and £35 million has been allocated to enable accelerated housing starts, the acquisition of land and the purchase of off-the-shelf units from private developers. The £80 million of accelerated funding in 2009-10 will be allocated as part of the wider affordable housing investment programme process.

First, I commiserate with the former housing minister, Mr Maxwell, who is to be commended for being present in the chamber this afternoon. I always found him to be a decent guy to deal with. Indeed, I wrote to him only last week about a situation in my constituency—I hope that his successor replies to the letter as quickly as I know Mr Maxwell would have done.

The minister has indicated how much is being spent on buying land and unsold private sector stock, but will she tell us exactly how much of the funding has gone into new-build social rented housing, how many houses she thinks will be built with that funding, and when the first brick will be laid?

I am glad that David Whitton has welcomed the accelerated funding, albeit perhaps a bit grudgingly. I echo his comments about Stewart Maxwell. I only wish that Labour members were as nice about us when we hold ministerial office as they have been today to those who have left.

I am not sure whether David Whitton managed to catch the Labour debate on housing this morning. It was a good debate, in which the split of the accelerated funding between the three different options was discussed. Roughly speaking, of the £35 million that has been allocated in this financial year, just under a third—just over £10 million—has gone to accelerated site starts, about £12 million has gone to buying houses off the shelf and another £12 million or thereabouts has gone to land acquisition.

As I said this morning, I believe that it is right to focus on each of those three strands, as long as we can be sure that we are meeting the objectives of our affordable housing programme. Other members agreed that the spend of money in each of those three categories was appropriate and brings economic and other benefits. As I said this morning, the £35 million that has been allocated in this financial year will support a total of around 1,700 additional houses in Scotland, which is very good news.

In the cabinet secretary's response to David Whitton's original question, she mentioned the Government's support for the mortgage to rent scheme. The cabinet secretary may be aware that I have raised concerns regarding eligibility for the scheme. Does she agree that in the exceptional financial circumstances in which we are living, it would be an advantage to those people who wish to move from mortgage to rent to have their decision processed before they are faced with repossession orders?

I am glad that the member welcomed the mortgage to rent scheme, which has recently been expanded to include mortgage to shared equity, and has attracted significant additional funding.

As the member will be aware, and as Stewart Maxwell covered in his statement to Parliament a couple of weeks ago, we recently concluded a review of the mortgage to rent scheme. I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I think that the review was started by the previous Administration. That review has led to some changes in the operation of mortgage to rent, which have been welcomed as sensible.

Suffice to say, though, we want to ensure that mortgage to rent and mortgage to shared equity provide as much support as possible to people who run into mortgage difficulties. However, we have to ensure that we cast the rules of those schemes in such a way that we not only help the maximum number of people but use the money as sensibly as possible. If Cathie Craigie or any other member wants to propose any changes to the eligibility criteria, they are free to do so and we will give them due consideration.

Will the cabinet secretary tell us approximately when announcements will be made about the £80 million that is being brought forward to next year? Will she also tell us whether the indicative housing allocations that were given to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on Monday contained any of that £80 million?

As I indicated in my original answer to David Whitton, whereas the accelerated funding in this financial year has been a separate pot of money that has been allocated to particular projects, the £80 million of accelerated funding for the next financial year will be mainstreamed into the affordable housing investment programme process and budget. The allocations that are given from the AHIP budget will include that £80 million of accelerated funding. As I said this morning, next year's AHIP budget will be record investment, partly because of our decision to accelerate funding.

I forgot to say to David Whitton that East Dunbartonshire and other areas are likely to see a substantial increase in their allocation next year due to the pressures that those areas face. It is right that we are making that record investment, not only in the interests of housing need in the country but because of the significant benefits that it can bring to the economy at a very difficult time.

---

Housing

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to upgrade or replace poor-quality housing stock. (S3O-5920)

It is the individual responsibility of every social landlord to invest in their stock to ensure that it meets the Scottish housing quality standard by 2015. Where necessary, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Housing Regulator will work with individual social landlords who are having difficulty meeting the standard to ensure that all options are explored fully. Local authorities also have a range of powers and duties to tackle poor-quality housing in the private sector in line with their local housing strategies.

Will the cabinet secretary ask her new minister to help my constituents in Crombie? They include Ms Dawne Ireland and her three children, who live in a statutorily defective, damp house with warped metal window frames and doors. Ms Ireland suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and it is impossible to heat the house adequately using its inefficient coal-fired central heating system. The family faces that situation while living on benefits. I invite the new minister to visit Crombie with me to speak to the residents and to view the unitroy housing for himself. Perhaps then he will be able to appreciate the urgent need for housing association grant to repair or replace those 50 homes.

I am aware of the situation in Crombie and thank Jim Tolson for raising it. It is for Fife Housing Association to make decisions about the repair and maintenance of the rented properties in question. The housing association owns the stock and receives the rental income to generate the necessary investment.

Jim Tolson will be aware that the original Scottish housing quality standard guidance made it clear that social landlords were expected to achieve the standard from their own resources. We have advised Fife Housing Association that, if the properties are classed as statutorily defective, it is unlikely that they will be able to meet the standard by 2015. In such circumstances, the landlord has the option to seek an exemption.

I understand that Fife Council included the replacement of the houses as a priority project in its strategic housing investment plan. That is a matter for the council. The properties were included on the basis that the landlord had decided to demolish them and seek to provide replacement houses, but I understand from our latest communication with Fife Housing Association that it now seeks grant funding to upgrade the properties. The Scottish Government and the council need clarity from the landlord about its plans and proposals for the properties. No doubt Jim Tolson will continue to correspond with us on the issue.

What is the cabinet secretary doing to encourage uptake of the rural empty properties grant, which can create good-quality affordable housing in rural Scotland?

Jamie McGrigor raises an important point. The rural empty properties grant is a good mechanism for upgrading properties. I am more than happy to correspond with him to give him the details on the uptake of the grant. If he has any suggestions for how it could be better advertised or explained to people, we would be happy to consider them.

The minister will be aware of the successful programme of demolition of older high-rise buildings in Glasgow, but is she aware of the problems that exist in West Dunbartonshire, particularly Clydebank, which has a high concentration of older multistorey buildings? I ask her to consider that particular problem in the context of reaching the refurbishment standard for houses in the future.

I undertake to consider that. As I said earlier, it is the responsibility of social landlords to bring the houses that they own up to standard. However, if there are issues, the Scottish Government and the regulator regularly have discussions to determine what further can be done.

From memory, I think that discussions on the issues in Clydebank are under way. I will confirm that to Des McNulty in writing in case my memory is leading me astray. If discussions are under way, I will update him; if they are not, I will correct the false memory.

---

Scottish Ambulance Service (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing last met the Scottish Ambulance Service. (S3O-5871)

I chaired the public annual review of the Scottish Ambulance Service on 24 September last year and I meet the chair of the Scottish Ambulance Service every month at my regular meeting with all national health service board chairs. In addition, Scottish Government officials meet with the service on a regular basis. I last met the chair and, indeed, the acting chief executive of the Ambulance Service when I officially opened Caledonia house in Cardonald, which is where the west emergency medical dispatch centre is now based.

The cabinet secretary is no doubt aware that in an NHS Scotland staff opinion survey that was carried out three months ago, which was prior to some of her meetings, only 12 per cent of ambulance staff agreed that their board managed change effectively, only 36 per cent of staff said that health and safety was taken seriously, and only 35 per cent agreed that they were treated with dignity and respect in the Scottish Ambulance Service. What is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing doing to address those issues?

It is, of course, for the Scottish Ambulance Service to address the issues that were identified in the staff survey, and I know that it is doing so. It is incumbent on any NHS board to respond seriously to such issues. I accept Bill Aitken's points about the Ambulance Service, but it would be remiss of me not to point out that the staff survey, which is carried out every two years, demonstrated improvements in almost all indicators, which is cause for encouragement.

It is also appropriate at this stage, given that we are talking about the staff survey, to place on record the thanks of us all to NHS staff, who do difficult jobs well in the circumstances. I am more than happy to keep Bill Aitken up to date on the things that the Ambulance Service will do to respond to the messages from the staff survey.

Given the challenging targets that, rightly, have been set for the Scottish Ambulance Service, does the cabinet secretary feel that the funding for the service will be adequate to provide for an effective inter-hospital transfer service—which is supposed to be developed—the service that is needed for percutaneous coronary intervention across the west and east of the central belt, and the implementation of the new Health Facilities Scotland guidance on cleaning that is being discussed?

Yes, is the short answer. Budgets are tight not only in the NHS but across the public sector, which flows from the tightest financial settlement to the Government and Parliament since devolution. However, within that, like every other NHS board in the country, the Scottish Ambulance Service is enjoying increases in its budget. In addition, the requirement across the public sector for 2 per cent efficiency savings to be recycled into front-line patient care will help the Ambulance Service to ensure that it can continue to meet the very exacting standards and targets that we set for it. All the issues that Richard Simpson cites are important. On the inter-hospital transfer system, for example, the Ambulance Service will have to discuss it and, if appropriate, progress it with other NHS boards. The initiatives are important, and our support for the Ambulance Service is very strong to enable it not only to meet its day-to-day work but to progress as necessary.

---

Vale of Leven Hospital (Anaesthetics)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to retain anaesthetics at the Vale of Leven hospital. (S3O-5907)

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's consultation on the future shape of services at the Vale of Leven hospital concluded on 30 January. The health board is meeting on 24 February to consider the responses to the consultation and to agree a set of service proposals that will then be forwarded for my approval.

As the cabinet secretary is well aware, the consultation document essentially was predicated on the view that anaesthetic services could not continue at Vale of Leven, which in turn was predicated on the Paisley-centric view of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that we have services either at Vale of Leven or in Paisley. When the cabinet secretary considers the responses, will she undertake to acknowledge at least that anaesthetic services are provided at the Golden Jubilee hospital and that a more imaginative solution to the problem might be to extend the catchment area for Vale of Leven and provide a service that meets the needs of those who live in that area, rather than pursue the dogmatic approach of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to centralise services in Paisley?

I never like correcting Ross Finnie, but since he is such a stickler for accuracy, I feel duty bound to do so. The proposals on anaesthetics in the "Vision for the Vale of Leven Hospital" consultation document are based on the conclusions of two independent reports. I will not pre-empt my final judgment on the issue—that would be wrong—because the proposals will come to me in due course.

I ask all members to acknowledge that the future for the Vale of Leven hospital is now much brighter than it was under the previous Administration, of which Ross Finnie was a member. When I took office as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, the hospital's community midwife unit was to be closed, its mental health wards were under threat and all unscheduled medical admissions to the hospital were to stop. In "Vision for the Vale of Leven Hospital", the future for all those services is significantly brighter than it was, even before we consider the significant increase in planned procedures that the document proposes. Possibly for the first time in a decade or more, the Vale of Leven hospital has a guaranteed future in serving the people of that community. That big step forward is thanks to the efforts of the Scottish Government.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if services at the Vale of Leven hospital had not been salami sliced under the previous Labour-Liberal Government, anaesthetics at the hospital would not be under any threat?

Gil Paterson is absolutely right. There is no doubt whatsoever that the sustainability of anaesthetics at the Vale of Leven hospital has been affected by previous decisions to remove, for example, accident and emergency services. We know that the previous Administration was fond of closing accident and emergency units, but, thankfully, we have reversed that policy and people can breathe a bit easier today. There is no doubt that the Vale of Leven hospital has suffered from the decisions of previous Administrations. That is why it is such good news that the hospital now has a guaranteed and secure future.

---

National Health Service Dentists (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many new dentists would need to be deployed in Roxburgh and Berwickshire to deal with patients registered as waiting to see an NHS dentist. (S3O-5865)

The responsibility for the overall provision of NHS general dental services in the area rests with NHS Borders, which has plans in place to increase access in its area. The number of dentists providing NHS general dental services in the NHS Borders area has increased from 47 in September 2006 to 54 in September 2008.

As the minister will be aware, more than 6,000 adults in the Scottish Borders are waiting to see an NHS dentist. Does she agree that that number is unacceptably high? Furthermore, will she give me an undertaking that NHS Borders will be instructed significantly to reduce the waiting list in the coming 12 months?

Access to NHS dentristry has been a long-standing issue in too many areas in Scotland, but the Government is determined to resolve it. I advise the member—I am sure that he will be aware of this—that the new dental centres at Hawick and Coldstream are nearing completion and will be opened by 27 April 2009. They will have state-of-the-art facilities both for staff and for patients. Altogether, 11 new surgeries will come on stream. That will go some way towards relieving the waiting list situation in NHS Borders. I will be happy to keep the member up to date with how NHS Borders plans to address what is a serious situation.

---

Raigmore Hospital (Parking Charges)

To ask the Scottish Executive for what reasons parking charges at Raigmore hospital diabetic clinic are still being enforced. (S3O-5911)

Car parking charges are not being enforced at NHS Scotland car parks. NHS Highland provides diabetes out-patient clinics and dental services from accommodation within the Inverness centre for health science, which is adjacent to Raigmore hospital but is owned by Highland and Islands Enterprise. The centre, which focuses on medical research and training, is served by a car park on its own grounds that is subject to the centre's own car parking policy. The centre's car park is separate from the national health service-operated car park for Raigmore hospital.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer, but it is quite unreasonable that NHS Highland is prepared to discriminate against a particular section of society in such a way. Will the cabinet secretary agree to intervene at an early date to ensure a level playing field? There should be free parking for all patients and all escorts at Raigmore hospital.

The short answer is that I might if I could. However, the clinic and its land are owned and operated by Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which has its own car parks that are subject to charges. I understand that the charges were part of the planning conditions set by the local planning authority. The NHS is blamed and maligned for lots of things, but the issue that John Farquhar Munro raises is not the fault or responsibility of NHS Highland.