Chamber and committees

That is a useful clarification.

The report mentions the Grangemouth future industry board, which I understand has been recently repurposed. Graham Simpson touched on that, and there are definitely questions about getting the right people around the table and the potential roles for the Scottish National Investment Bank and people from the community, including workers and trade unions. I know that the UK Government recently hailed the repurposing of the future industry board as an opportunity for both Governments to come together. I hope that it is received in that spirit.

As we have heard in the debate, the approach to the issue has largely been consensual and cross-party. Richard Leonard recently hosted a drop-in session and we met Unite shop stewards who do not want politicking—they want to hold politicians to account and they want us to work together in the national interest.

I know that time is short and I have taken a couple of interventions, so I will conclude by saying that Derek Thomson, the Scottish secretary of Unite, told us that every option must be on the table. As we try very hard to build a just transition for workers and communities, we have to get our act together collectively. Every option must be on the table, but we need a planned approach. We have heard about the importance of an industrial strategy, which has been lacking, and we heard in the debate a commitment to joint working. Let us see what happens after recess.

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Who Cares? Scotland research report, “Is Scotland Keeping the Promise?”, which reportedly indicates that, on the fourth anniversary of the publication of “The Promise”, key pledges made to care-experienced people are not being fulfilled. (S6F-02810)

I agree that Who Cares? Scotland deserves credit for the report, which highlights areas of progress but also major areas of concern. To give one example, its freedom of information investigation uncovered that care-experienced children have lost more than 1.3 million school days to exclusion, despite the Promise pledging to end that exclusion. That could be just the tip of the iceberg, as several councils could not provide any data.

We need transparency, accountability and leadership if we are to fulfil the Promise, but lack of data is a constant theme of the report. Does the First Minister agree that, to keep the Promise, we have to tackle quality of data? Will he and his Government urgently review the data that is held by public authorities and report annually to Parliament? What we have here is not good enough.

As mentioned in my entry in the register of members’ interests, I am a member of Unite the union and the GMB, and I undertake other trade union activities.

I join colleagues in thanking Stephen Kerr for securing this important debate. I echo my Scottish Labour colleague Daniel Johnson, who was right to say that the Scottish Government needs to devote some of its chamber debating time to the matter because that would allow for a fuller debate and more parliamentary scrutiny.

I think that we all welcome the fact that there has been a summit and engagement, and the recognition that there are challenges. However, although some progress might have been made, the amount of new woodland that has been created has fallen in each of the past five years. We cannot look at just one single year—that has been the direction of travel.

I can understand why stakeholders who have expertise and who operate on the front line are writing to the committee. They knew that you were coming here today, cabinet secretary, and they say that they are really worried. They are asking what action the Government will take to focus on woodland types that provide the greatest emissions benefits if the resource allocation is not increased. People are realistic about the 41 per cent cut not being massively reduced, but what other actions and mitigations are you going to take?

Has the minimum and maximum range of that been identified?

Many people are still struggling to see whether that is accurate and that the money has been dispersed across the budget. Can you not answer the question about whether you expect any of the money to be reinstated to its original purpose?

I have some questions about Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, the regional transport authority. Why has SPT’s capital grant from the Scottish Government been cut to zero?

We might have time to come on to some of the impacts. However, putting aside the merits of the decision, why was no advance notice given to SPT or why was no request made for information on the possible impacts? You have said that discussions between your officials and SPT are happening now. I have a letter from the chief executive of SPT, Valerie Davidson, and I have heard from Councillor Joe Fagan, who is the leader of South Lanarkshire Council, which is in my area, and they seem to be pretty annoyed. There was no up-front discussion. We have heard about the Verity house agreement, how the Government wants to work collegiately with colleagues in local government, and the need to work strategically and co-ordinate. Why did that come out of the blue for SPT?

What day was that?