Good morning. The first item of business is general questions. Question 1 is from Margaret McDougall. [Interruption.] You are late, Ms McDougall.
Fracking (Consultation)
I apologise, Presiding Officer.
To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in setting up the public consultation on fracking. (S4O-04324)
Ministers have met representatives from community, environmental and industry groups to discuss the consultation and our pre-consultation preparations. We will continue to take a participative approach in the lead-up to, and during, that important consultation. Further details of the consultation and accompanying work will be announced in due course.
Underground coal gasification was not included in the temporary moratorium on shale gas and coal-bed methane developments. I ask the minister to clarify whether the Scottish Government supports the process of underground coal gasification, so that there are no doubts on the issue. If it does not support the process, why is it not included in the temporary moratorium? Will he commit the Scottish Government to including underground coal gasification in the moratorium until proper and robust evidence is collected and the public consultation has been completed?
I am happy to reassure the member that the Scottish Government considers environmental protection to be of paramount importance. The moratorium that I announced on 28 January was specifically about onshore technologies involving hydraulic fracturing and coal-bed methane, and it is correct to point out that underground coal gasification employs different technology and is not covered by the moratorium.
To what extent will the consultation be evidence based, given that the Scottish Government’s independent scientific panel, which reported last July, concluded that fracking could be conducted safely in Scotland if properly regulated?
I am pleased to confirm to Murdo Fraser that we take a cautious, evidence-based approach to the whole policy area—an approach that his party called for in a previous policy document. We will continue to take that approach, which is why the public welcomed the moratorium that we have put in place. Incidentally, I hope that all parties support the moratorium. We are still waiting for confirmation of that, but we will continue to take an evidence-based approach.
The group that Murdo Fraser referred to identified gaps that need to be filled, and it is therefore appropriate that we consider further evidence on areas such as the possible impacts of what the hydraulic fracturing process entails on public health, the environment, and traffic and transport. As I have pointed out frequently, Scotland is not North Dakota. The central belt, where deposits are believed to be situated, is densely populated. We must therefore consider all those matters carefully and take the time to do so, as they are rightly and understandably of great importance to the public.
The minister will recall that I lodged a question 12 weeks ago and wrote to him six weeks ago to ask whether his moratorium covers the drilling of conventional boreholes with a view to doing fracking later. Can he answer that question today? Does it cover exploratory drilling or not?
I announced the moratorium on 28 January in very clear terms. I am aware that Mr Macdonald has raised a number of questions, and to that end I have armed myself with the reply that I wrote to him on 20 April, which states that such matters are all receiving careful attention.
It is reasonable to point out that Mr Macdonald has asked a very large number of questions. To ensure that the answers are correct and evidence based, we will take proper time to consider all the many issues that he has raised, including the one that he has singled out today, and we will ensure that the questions are answered fully in due course.
Smith Commission
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its position on the recommendations of the Smith commission. (S4O-04325)
The Smith commission recommendations offer an opportunity to provide the Scottish Parliament with further powers to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, although many of the key levers to boost growth and promote fairness will remain reserved to Westminster. The draft clauses published by the United Kingdom Government in January fall short of the Smith recommendations in a number of areas, and the Scottish Government is continuing to engage with the UK Government to secure improvements before the proposed Scotland bill is introduced at Westminster.
It is clear that the Smith commission is not the final word on the question of more powers for the Parliament. Saturday’s editorial in the Daily Telegraph—the house journal for the Conservatives—indicated that the proposed powers might not be enough. Will the cabinet secretary assure us that the Scottish Government will continue to press the case for additional powers as robustly as possible?
I confirm two points to Mr Campbell. First, the Government will continue in its efforts to ensure that the Smith commission recommendations are effectively legislated for. I welcome the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee report that was published this morning with all-party agreement. The report’s thoroughly dispassionate and considered wording sets out a number of deficiencies in the draft Scotland bill clauses that we have seen. I look forward to pursuing those matters with the UK Government, with the assistance of that committee report, which has been supported unanimously.
Secondly, I assure Mr Campbell that the Government will continue to argue for additional powers. That was what the Scottish National Party fought the UK election on. We have set out the arguments for additional powers and we will take every opportunity to advance those arguments. As the First Minister confirmed to Parliament yesterday, we expect to have such an opportunity when she meets the Prime Minister in early course.
Does the Scottish Government intend to seek evidence and engage in civic consultation on its Smith-plus proposals?
That would be advantageous and beneficial. Despite Lord Smith’s efforts to engage widely with the stakeholder community in Scotland, my opinion as a participant in the Smith commission—this is my view; I appreciate that Ms Goldie was on the commission with me and she will have her view—is that we were not able to engage sufficiently with Scotland’s wider body politic on many of the issues. My answer to her question is therefore yes—it is essential that the views of the wider community in Scotland are considered closely when we make decisions on all the questions.
Joint Exchequer Committee (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when the next meeting of the Joint Exchequer Committee will take place and what will be discussed. (S4O-04326)
The date of the Joint Exchequer Committee’s next meeting has not been set.
Lord Smith recommended that the intergovernmental machinery between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments needs urgent reform. We need to put in place appropriate governance arrangements that will support the implementation of the Smith commission financial provisions. I want to discuss that with the new UK Government at the earliest opportunity.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. Much of what he said has pre-empted my supplementary question. Although there are other intergovernmental bodies, such as the joint ministerial committee, the Joint Exchequer Committee has not met for more than two years. Does he agree that, if additional powers are to be devolved effectively, such intergovernmental bodies must meet regularly and on a transparent footing to allow effective scrutiny by the Parliament?
I agree with Mr Gibson’s points. One of the things that have affected the meeting programme of the Joint Exchequer Committee, such that it has not met for two years, is that we have been unable to agree on some of the elementary arrangements for implementing even the Calman commission proposals. Part of that could be ascribed to an unwillingness to consider some of the Scottish Government’s alternative perspective in countering the requirements in HM Treasury’s proposals.
If intergovernmental machinery is to work effectively, it must work on the basis of respect between the different Governments of the United Kingdom. I welcome what the Prime Minister said on Friday—that he intends to govern through respect. I hope that some of that sentiment will be evidenced in the implementation of such intergovernmental machinery as the Joint Exchequer Committee.
I agree with much of what the cabinet secretary said about effective intergovernmental machinery. I am sure that he will want to pursue his policy of full fiscal responsibility, whether through the Joint Exchequer Committee or another intergovernmental mechanism. That being the case, will he outline a timetable for achieving that?
As I said in my answer to Baroness Goldie a moment ago, such issues are now to be taken forward in the dialogue that we will have directly with United Kingdom ministers. We expect a discussion with the Prime Minister to take place relatively soon, which will enable us to begin to explore the issues. The timetable for any implementation will depend on agreement being reached in that discussion.
I reiterate the point that I made to Baroness Goldie. The approach that the Scottish Government will take will involve engagement and consultation with the wider community in Scotland. It cannot be simply a Government-to-Government discussion. There are perfectly appropriate Government-to-Government discussions to have, but it is essential that we have the discussion with the wider community in Scotland to ensure that our proposals command support in Scotland.
Affordable Housing (Rural and Remote Areas)
To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it is providing to increase affordable housing in rural and remote areas. (S4O-04327)
The Scottish Government is committed to the provision of affordable housing across Scotland. We know that the housing system is different in remote and rural areas, and our resource allocation and subsidy system both recognise that. We are currently working with a range of rural stakeholders to develop a rural housing initiative that will complement the excellent work that local authorities and housing associations are doing. In particular, it will aim to support the work of community groups to increase the availability of housing in remote and rural areas.
Following the lifting of the moratorium on rural school closures, we have seen a number of local authorities across the Highlands and Islands rush to close rural schools. Does the minister agree that local planning departments need to take a more proactive approach to maintaining sustainability of rural communities, and a more enlightened approach to delivery of housing in those areas?
I reassure Mike MacKenzie that we recognise well that small numbers of new houses can make a real difference to the sustainability of rural communities. I have visited a number of projects and have seen that for myself.
The Scottish Government supports sustainable economic growth in all our communities. Our national planning framework sets out a vision for vibrant rural areas, with growing sustainable communities, supported by new opportunities for employment and education. The vision is further supported by “Scottish Planning Policy”, which sets out clearly the expectation that, in all rural and island areas, the planning system should
“encourage rural development that supports prosperous and sustainable communities and businesses whilst protecting and enhancing environmental quality”.
Question 5 is in the name of Sarah Boyack, but I note that Ms Boyack is not in the chamber to ask her question. I deplore the fact that no prior information has been given to me as to why she is not here. I expect an explanation from Ms Boyack by the end of the day.
Question 6, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, has not been lodged. The member has provided an explanation.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what issues were discussed. (S4O-04330)
Ministers and Government officials regularly meet representatives of all health boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to discuss matters of importance to local people.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to join me in paying tribute to the staff at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley for their continued efforts to reduce patient waiting times. However, many of those staff are telling us that there are not enough beds or staff at the hospital. In the light of her new accident and emergency action plan, which was announced this week, what concrete steps will the cabinet secretary take to increase the number of staff and beds at the RAH to ensure that we avoid a repeat of the crisis that we saw at the hospital last winter?
I join Neil Bibby in congratulating the staff at the RAH, not least because of their performance in A and E. The most recent figures, ending on 3 May, show that 89.6 per cent of patients were treated within the four-hour target, which is a substantial improvement on the 75 per cent figure that was recorded at the end of February. I record my thanks to the staff. Of course, that has been supported by the improvement team, which has been working very closely with staff at the RAH and at other hospitals to make such improvements.
The £9 million resource that I announced yesterday was part of a £50 million unscheduled care package to increase the number of A and E consultants, whose number has gone up by 170 per cent under this Government, which is a substantial increase. That resource will help to ensure that, as we make preparations for this winter, resilience in our hospitals is increased.
I assure Neil Bibby that I will do absolutely everything to ensure that our hospitals are staffed and prepared for the pressures that will emerge this winter, and am very confident that we are in a good place to do that.
Question 8, in the name of Cara Hilton, has not been lodged. The member has provided me with an explanation, which I do not consider to be acceptable.
Dangerous Dogs
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that communities are protected from dangerous dogs. (S4O-04332)
The Scottish Government is committed to policies that will help make our communities safer from out-of-control and dangerous dogs.
We are pleased that the latest figures show that local authorities are making good use of their powers under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. Initial figures show that in the year from February 2014 to February 2015, local authorities issued 261 dog control notices relating to out-of-control dogs. The number of dog control notices that was issued is the highest in a single year since the act came into force in February 2011, and the number excludes four local authorities that have yet to provide the information for the latest year.
We want to work with local authorities and Police Scotland to help them to use the existing powers relating to dogs wisely, and we are involved in work to develop a national protocol between local authorities, Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to ensure that there is clarity about powers in relation to control of dogs.
In addition, the Scottish Government has recently announced that it will in April 2016 introduce mandatory microchipping. That will assist primarily in the welfare of dogs—for example, it will make it easier to reunite owners with their dogs—but it should also assist in control of dogs in our communities.
I welcome the Government’s proposed legislation, particularly in relation to the compulsory microchipping of dogs, but the minister will recall the debate that I led in Parliament in connection with the serious attack on Broagan McCuaig. Is the minister seriously advising me that compulsory microchipping of dogs will be a significant step towards ensuring that such attacks do not take place in the future?
Mr Martin is perhaps misreading my answer. We are working closely with local authorities to develop potential strengthening of the 2010 act, so microchipping is not happening in isolation. However, it will certainly play a part in ensuring that we can find dogs’ owners. If dogs are left off the leash and are running around, we will be able to track down the owners. Obviously, irresponsible dog ownership is partly to blame for instances of dog attacks. I am certainly aware of the distressing and harrowing attack on Broagan McCuaig and I am happy to work with Mr Martin on tackling any deficiencies in the law.
As the minister knows, I piloted the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which seeks to bring early intervention, before they may become dangerous, to dogs that are deemed to be causing anxiety. Notwithstanding what the minister said about co-ordination between the police and local authorities, my experience is that the public and many professionals are unaware of the legislation. Can I ask, for the umpteenth time, whether the Government could publicise the act which, as a member, I cannot do?
I shall choose where I sit more carefully in the future, as regards supplementaries. [Laughter.]
Thank you for that.
I thank Christine Grahame for her work on the 2010 act, which has been enormously helpful to us. In relation to publicity, I think that the rise in the use of dog control notices is an indication of growing awareness among local authorities, but I am happy to work with the member if she has any specific proposals to increase publicity, and I will do so at a time that suits her. I thank Christine Grahame again for her work on the act and look forward to working with her in the future.
Perhaps. [Laughter.]
Before we move to the next item of business, members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery Professor Manuel Hassassian, the head of the Palestinian mission in London. [Applause.]