Scottish Parliament, 14 June 2012

387 contributions from 86 members. The official report.

Women’s Representation (Public Sector Boards)

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-03289, in the name of Jenny Marra, on women’s representation.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am delighted to be able to open a debate on equality in the Scottish Parliament in this, the United Nations year of empowering women. I note that this appears to be the first time that the Scottish Parliament has ever debated women’s representation on boards, but I hope that it will not be the last time.

Throughout Europe and the rest of the world, the debate about gender quotas has come to the fore. Now, more than ever, European nations that the Scottish Government seeks to emulate are taking action to make boardroom equality a standard practice in their businesses, public bodies and Parliaments. It can be done.

It has been almost 10 years since the Norwegian male Conservative Minister of Trade and Industry, Ansgar Gabrielsen, completed Norway’s transition from a state that operates a 40 per cent quota on public boards to one that includes the private sector in that quota system. It took just two years for Norway to reach its quota of 40 per cent female representation on its public limited company boards. Its boardrooms have equalised, both in the private sector and in its public bodies.

It took Finland six years, from 2005, to bring all of its public boardrooms from 30 per cent representation of women to up to 44 per cent. Iceland’s target of 50 per cent was achieved in just one year.

Gender quotas for public boards are in place in Denmark, South Africa, Israel, Quebec, Berlin and—at a local level—Nuremberg, and have been proposed in Belgium, Canada and Italy. They are becoming a more and more attractive choice for nations where, as is the case in Scotland, diversity strategies, leaflets, DVDs and the mentors that the Scottish Government proposes are simply not working. The attraction of quotas has grown so much that, just last week, the majority right-wing European Parliament backed a European Commission recommendation to bring gender quotas into the boardrooms of all of Europe’s companies by 2020.

Angela Merkel has called the gender composition on Germany’s boards scandalous, and even David Cameron has said he will not rule out quotas for gender representation. However, two days ago in committee, the Scottish Government rejected the amendments to the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill that would have introduced quotas. In light of all the evidence and all the progress that is being made around us, I ask the chamber this: when did the Scottish Government become less progressive on equality than a Conservative Prime Minister in London?

Labour’s motion suggests that Scotland would benefit by learning from progressive policies in other European countries that have successfully balanced their boards—a course of action that all sides of this chamber should agree upon.

At the heart of the matter is the fact that, as all sides of this chamber agree, gender should not matter, and board appointments should be made on merit and merit alone. However, what the Scottish National Party Government and the Tories fail to realise, but the Scottish Labour Party always has, is that no matter how much we will it to be irrelevant, the reality of the culture for those seeking positions at Scotland’s boardroom level is that gender matters, and that the situation is usually to the detriment of women.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Why, in the 13 years when it was in power, did the Labour Government not bring in a 40 per cent quota for public sector bodies?

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

We have always supported equal representation in our party and it is something that we will look towards in the future. We have been out of power for quite a few years in Scotland, but we will certainly look at the matter for the future.

We understand that, at the heart of Scotland’s public boards, there is a deep-rooted culture that ensures that the merit of a man is worth more than that of a woman. It is something that diversity strategies alone have not, and cannot, address.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

No, thank you. No amount of application information to highly skilled and qualified women through Government DVDs, brochures and e-mailed vacancies are changing a culture where the statistics show us that women fight an uphill battle for board positions, because they know that they will lose out to men. Pretending otherwise is simply burying our heads in the sand. Gender equality at boardroom level has not happened organically in the 13 years that the Parliament has existed, and the statistics tell us that it is unlikely to happen organically in the next 13 years either, unless we take bigger, bolder steps to make it happen.

As a solution, quotas offer us the ability to join other European nations to make a strong statement about our Government’s commitment to the equal value of women’s merit, as well as men’s, and the 40 per cent model that we have proposed does so elegantly. Let me explain it. Boards would require 40 per cent women and 40 per cent men, with flexibility of 20 per cent for boards with an uneven number of members, or in cases where there was an insufficient number of either gender. The model is taken from the highly successful Finnish equality act and it has been proven to work. For as long as we agree that the merit of a man is equal to that of a woman, we should not object to each having an entitlement to a minority 40 per cent representation on the boards that govern all our public services.

I lodged two amendments to the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill that would have introduced a 40 per cent quota on the boards of Scotland’s new police and fire service. I lodged the amendments after learning about the shocking rate of representation of women on the scrutiny boards of our police forces. Those boards hold the police to account. Officers deal with gender-based issues such as domestic abuse and prostitution every day, but the boards that scrutinise the police comprise only 18 per cent women.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Can the member indicate how the appointments to the current police boards are made? My understanding is that the majority of the appointments come from local authorities, some of which are dominated by the Labour Party.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I think that the member will find, if he looks at gender representation among councillors in Scotland, that Labour has a much better record of electing women to local authorities and to this Parliament than the Scottish National Party. He only has to look to Dundee City Council, where 16 SNP councillors were returned and only two of them were women. I think that the same happened in Glasgow City Council, but perhaps the minister will correct me on that.

The boards of Scotland’s police forces comprise only 18 per cent women. In Northern Constabulary, only two of 22 members were women. In Dumfries and Galloway, just one of 10 members was female and there were no women at all on the Central Scotland police board, which had 11 members. Where are the women’s voices to scrutinise and hold our police services to account?

When we look at other boards across Scotland, we find that the situation does not improve.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

The member is concerned about gender balance and interventions. However, does she agree that the Justice Committee took the view that it is quality on the board, be it a man or a woman, that counts, and not a gender balance?

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

If the member had been listening to my speech, she would have found that I have already made the case that a quota enforces the idea of a meritocracy and that we should not be scared of saying that women’s merit is equal to that of men and that, as Alison McInnes MSP eloquently put it in committee a couple of weeks ago, equal representation is not happening organically so it needs a hand along.

In Shona Robison’s portfolio, sportscotland’s governing board has a gender balance of 78 per cent men to just 22 per cent women. The average percentage of women on Scotland’s public limited company boards is a shocking 11 per cent. In fact, men comprise 80 per cent or more of board members on boards such as those of the Accounts Commission, Architecture and Design Scotland, Creative Scotland, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, VisitScotland, the Scottish Law Commission, Transport Scotland, Scottish Water and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy’s own NHS 24. Those are just a few examples. There is not a single board on the Scottish Government’s register of public bodies in which the reverse trend can be seen.

It is therefore little wonder that the motion has gained support from the likes of Oxfam, Engender, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Students Scotland and that it has been further welcomed today by the Electoral Reform Society. It is timely that gender quotas have been recommended to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Mike Russell, in his commissioned review of higher education governance. Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski has recommended the 40-40-20 model because the balance in university governing bodies is 72 per cent men to 28 per cent women.

The rest of Europe has grown tired of inequality, and it is high time that Scotland balanced its boards.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that women and men play an equal role in Scotland’s public sector; notes with concern that women continue to be underrepresented on the boards of Scotland’s public sector organisations; understands that barriers continue to exist for women gaining a place on such boards; further understands that nations across Europe such as Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland have introduced a quota system that has been successful in promoting equality of representation on public bodies and publicly owned company boards; notes that the European Parliament voted to recommend a 40% quota on company boards throughout Europe by 2020; further notes the recommendations of Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski in the Scottish Government’s Report of the Review of Higher Education Governance in Scotland to introduce a 40% gender quota for Scottish university courts, and believes that such measures should be replicated throughout Scotland’s public bodies to bring about equal representation.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government in this timely debate. I say that it is timely because, as every member will know, women are experiencing a disproportionate impact from the recession and, of course, as a result of the policies of the Westminster Government, particularly its welfare reform agenda.

We are focusing on areas in which women are disadvantaged. I welcome the chance to explore the barriers that women face and which prevent their maximising their representation in public life and in senior positions in employment across all sectors.

The tone of the debate is important. Jenny Marra and the Labour Party have had the opportunity to set the right tone for the debate and to reach out to the rest of the Parliament to help to build a consensus around this very important issue. Jenny Marra cited a number of organisations that have supported her motion, but I am not sure that they would support her tone. They want to see action and progress being made on the issue, and it is disappointing that, with Jenny Marra’s rather unfortunate party-political attack on the SNP and others, an opportunity has perhaps been missed to build that consensus.

Jenny Marra talked about Labour’s record. Its record not only in eight years in the Scottish Parliament, but in 13 years in Westminster has been pointed out in interventions. There was nothing about quotas in Labour’s manifesto last year for the Scottish Parliament elections, and there was nothing about them in its manifesto for the local government elections this year. I would like to move the debate on to where we can agree, and I hope that we will get action around the issue after the debate. I think that there is a lot of agreement across the chamber and across the parties, but consensus has to be built, and it will not be built by taking the tone and approach that Jenny Marra has taken, which is unfortunate.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I find it very sad that the minister cannot recognise that we have passion for equality. I wish that her party could show the same passion for the issue.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

A person can be passionate about an issue without having to resort to the petty party-political attacks that we saw Jenny Marra making. If Jenny Marra and the Labour Party are serious about the issue, they should be reaching across the chamber to build consensus, not making party-political attacks that set the tone for the debate.

I want to move the debate on to more positive aspects. Women make up 52 per cent of the population, but we are nowhere near being represented at that level in a range of key institutions. When we look at the boards of businesses that do not have a gender balance and, more important, at those that do, we find that the latter businesses do better. That is an important point. There is also a case in relation to Government, councils, health boards, police forces and so on.

It can be suggested that talent will rise naturally and that the best person should always be selected for a position, regardless of gender. It can also be suggested that it is patronising to provide support to enable women to achieve positions. However, I think that it is patronising to assume that there are not equal numbers of equally suitable male and female candidates, and it is worse than patronising to assume that the best candidate just happened to be male on so many occasions.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister give way?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

In a minute.

There has been good progress in relation to public appointments over the years, but it is not enough. Our public bodies need board members who reflect Scottish society, including not just women, but people from all walks of life, who can bring their unique skills and experience to help us to deliver for the people of Scotland. The diversity delivers strategy was launched in September 2008. In 2011-12 just over 30 per cent of applications came from women, against a target of 40 per cent, and women accounted for 34 per cent of appointments. We should recognise that progress is being made, but I am the first to acknowledge that more needs to be done.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

The minister’s party regularly points to Scandinavia and to the Norwegian and Finnish Governments. Are those Governments patronising, too?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I did not say that. Perhaps the member should have listened. It is refreshing that the Labour Party has stopped denigrating small independent countries and has started to acknowledge some of the things that such countries are doing. That is positive—long may it continue.

Let us look at what we have done so far. We are building capacity, through the establishment of the public appointments and diversity centre of expertise, which advises on and administers the public appointments process across the Scottish Government. We are raising awareness, engaging with stakeholders and undertaking a range of outreach activity to promote awareness of public appointments opportunities. That work is bearing fruit, because we are attracting significant numbers of women applicants for public appointments. However, we must do more.

I have sympathy for the call for quotas and have done so throughout my political career, but we must acknowledge that there is no consensus on the issue. There is no consensus in the Parliament and there is certainly no consensus outside it. Consensus has to be built, and I for one am prepared to work with anyone in the Parliament who wants to consider what more we can do.

People must be aware of the potential restrictions in relation to the Equality Act 2010, which very much focuses on positive action but appears restrictive with regard to action beyond that. We must be clear about what can be achieved under the currently reserved legislation. If the matter was devolved, we would of course have much wider scope to act. I want to ensure that all that is clear by the time we get to the open event that I propose to hold later this year, to take the matter forward.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister acknowledge that this is perhaps the first time that a quota has been proposed in this context? She says that there is no consensus out there. That is because we have not started to talk about the issue; perhaps now we have the opportunity to start building consensus.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I could not agree more with the member. That is the tone that she should have taken from the start of the debate, because I am happy to work with her and others to do that. The initial way forward that I suggest is to have an open event, at which we can consider what has been done and where the barriers are. For example, although more women are coming forward and being appointed to boards, there are few women chairs of boards. There is much more to be done, even within the existing legislative framework. We need to be clear about what can be achieved in the current framework and what needs to change. The open event will give us the opportunity to get that clarity.

I hope that the debate can begin to build a consensus about where we might go from here to take things forward and ensure that women absolutely are equally represented throughout public life, private life and the business sector. That would be good for Scotland and good for society.

I move amendment S4M-03289.1, to leave out from “further understands” to end and insert:

“welcomes the steps that the Scottish Government has taken to address this imbalance through the Diversity Delivers strategy, including the establishment of the public appointments and diversity centre of expertise to advise on and administer the public appointments process across the Scottish Government; recognises the work that has been undertaken to increase the application and appointment rates for underrepresented groups, including women in public appointments, resulting in 34% of public appointments in 2011-12 being held by women; recognises that, while there has been progress on some strands of diversity, further work is required, and therefore agrees that there should be an open event hosted by the Scottish Government and supported by the Public Appointments Commissioner to review the progress of the Diversity Delivers strategy in relation to gender equality and to consider further actions to make sure that there is further progress toward improved women’s representation in public life.”

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

I shall try not to be provocative or patronising and I shall do my level best to be passionate. I thank Jenny Marra for bringing this important issue to the chamber for debate, because that is the point—there is an issue and we should try to construct a consensus around it. If we can unite in that purpose, we will do a great deal to address the concerns that Jenny Marra, absolutely rightly, is highlighting.

Women are resilient, capable, adept and determined. They are excelling in educational attainment and they are making headway—particularly in careers that were once the preserve of men. That is certainly happening in the House of Commons—perhaps not at the pace that we would like, but there is a direction of travel. Indeed, at the Scottish Parliament, 40 per cent of my party’s MSPs are women. That compares well with the other parties.

However, there are still significant issues and Jenny Marra indicated quite rightly where they lie. In particular, she highlighted the position of public boards in Scotland. I looked at the comparable situation for company boards. I noticed that in 2010, women made up only 12.5 per cent of the members of corporate boards of the FTSE 100 companies. That was up from 9.4 per cent in 2004. However, the figure for all FTSE-listed companies was only 9.6 per cent in 2010. That is why I say that there is an issue. It is not just peculiar to the corporate world. It is—as Jenny Marra indicated—also to be found in the public sector. I am interested in exploring the reasons behind that. Is there a ceiling that women cannot break through, or is it down to other factors, such as the lifestyle or career choices that women make?

In 2010, a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills report recommended that the chairmen of FTSE 350 companies should set out the percentage of women that they aim to have on their boards in 2013 and 2015. That is a way of getting the issue on the radar screen, which is where I want it to be. That approach is the best way to get this issue looked at sensibly and effectively. I say to Jenny Marra that the report went further—it also recommended that FTSE 100 boards should aim for a minimum of 25 per cent female representation by 2015. However, it is interesting that the report did not recommend the introduction of legal quotas and apparently only 11 per cent of the responses received recommended the introduction of quotas.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am very tight for time. Will the member forgive me if I try to use my five minutes as best I can?

Although I certainly broadly sympathise with the thrust of what Jenny Marra is seeking to do, my experience suggests that both men and women can provide the necessary skills for any job and sex does not somehow or other eliminate that. In my experience, where women emerge in fora that have been traditionally male dominated—whether a university court, a board of directors, a body of trustees, or even leading a political party, all of which I have done—they bring their own unique characteristics to bear.

I say to Jenny Marra that in my experience in dealing with David Cameron, I could not have found a more enthusiastic advocate for promoting the cause of women in politics. I accept that I was perhaps the first political auntie he had ever acquired and that that might have been a reason for his kind treatment.

Jenny Marra mentioned Norway. Although it has made progress, that success—and I accept that it has been a success to some extent—has not altered the fundamentals of how women progress through organisations. Non-executive director appointments account for most of the increase in representation. Quotas have not tackled the issue of women coming through their own organisation’s pipeline, because apparently in Norway women still make up only 2 per cent of chief executive officers and 10 per cent of executive committee members. It seems that the increase in the number of women board members was partly achieved by an increase in board size, rather than replacing significant numbers of existing members. That leaves me uneasy.

I want—as I think every woman in the Parliament wants—Scotland to be a place where women and men can succeed, but that has to be on the basis of skill and talent. I want that to happen in a positive, organic and incremental fashion. From my experience, I think that it can happen. That is why I am unable to support quotas, which Jenny Marra seeks to impose. However, I thank her for bringing the debate, which I welcome. What matters is that the issue does not now come off the radar screen.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the debate and agree that the lack of women’s representation at the highest level of public life—and in private industry—is a concern that everyone in the chamber should have and that all our society should share.

Our demographic profile in Scotland is such that women live longer on average than men. If our women pensioners have been less well paid throughout their careers and unable to progress as easily as their male counterparts for whatever reason—and I am sure that many of those barriers will be examined today—our society is storing a problem of pensioner poverty for women.

I am a member of the British Computer Society and I had a 20-year career in information technology before entering politics full time in 2007. I realise that that makes me one of the women who have chosen to leave that profession. However, I remain passionate about encouraging young women into rewarding careers in IT and in science, technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM subjects.

IT is a relatively new industry, and one might expect that the problems that exist in older, more traditional sectors, public bodies, and industries such as medicine, engineering and banking might not be so prevalent in IT. However, in 2008 the British Computer Society published a report, “Women in IT Scorecard”, which mapped gender imbalance in the IT workforce. It had some startling findings. Although women represent 45 per cent of the United Kingdom working population, in the IT sector women represent only 19 per cent. The representation of women in the IT sector in the UK is only two thirds that of Italy or Ireland. The report also shows that women coming into the profession outperform their male counterparts academically—as alluded to by Annabel Goldie—yet their career paths do not reflect that starting base.

Most significantly, the BCS report showed that the pay gap in IT answers many of the questions about why women leave or fail to seek advancement. The pay gap for 16 to 29-year-olds was a staggering 14 per cent, and it was shown that that gap starts from virtually day one of employment. However, by the time people get to ages 40 to 49—a point at which the board room is perhaps a natural progression for people in the profession—the pay gap between men and women is 30 per cent.

That is why I have much sympathy with the concerns and serious issues that the Labour motion raises. However, I do not believe that the problem can be tackled from the boardroom down. It is far more fundamental and must involve us all embracing a cultural change in our society. That has been identified in the Royal Society of Edinburgh report, “Tapping all our talents”, which is an investigation into women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics that looks for a strategy for Scotland. The report shows that the loss of talent of women in STEM subjects is mainly due to cultural factors. In paragraph 6 it states that change will

“require a major cultural change in attitude and approach.”

That is why I do not believe that quotas will be the answer. We need to achieve a much more fundamental change in our society.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am in my last few minutes.

A European Commission report, “Women in economic decision-making in the EU”, looks at improved company performance evidenced by women in the boardroom. I suggest that that improvement is because women have achieved the boardroom in those companies and that their culture reflects that success.

I commend the progress that is being made by the Scottish Government.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. We have had several interesting speeches, particularly from Jenny Marra, who mentioned the international aspects, which we all agree are important. For me, the issue is about more than gender equality, as there is a clear business case for increasing the number of women in decision-making positions in Scotland, not just in the public sector, but in boardrooms in the private sector. The debate is also about how we create the conditions for women to have the skills and experience that Annabel Goldie spoke about so that they can take those into decision-making positions. That is one of the issues that we need to address. We have to think not only about quotas, but about how we support women in the workplace in non-traditional industries to gather skills and experience and then make a difference.

That highlights the real issue. The debate is not just about the glass ceiling that people talk about a lot; it is about the sticky floor that affects many women. Women have to face issues to do with bringing up a family. Many expectations are placed on them and they face a lot of challenges in life, in the workplace and elsewhere, which they have to balance. Frankly, men do not have to face those issues. As well as considering quotas, we need to address those issues.

Work by the Fawcett Society has produced some key figures that show that the case for more women in senior positions in the boardroom in the public and private sectors is undeniable. Women are estimated to be responsible for about 70 per cent of household purchasing power; they make up 46 per cent of the economically active workforce; and they provide more than half of university graduates. Companies with more women on their boards have been found to outperform their rivals, with a 42 per cent higher return in sales, a 66 per cent higher return on invested capital and a 53 per cent higher return on equity. The facts and figures exist to back up the proposal. It is the right thing to do not only to ensure that we have equality, but to ensure that we have better business practice in the boardroom.

I appreciate the warm words in the Scottish Government’s amendment. There is nothing in it with which we in the Labour Party can disagree, but a consensus is building, particularly outside the Parliament, that we need to take more radical steps and action to address the issues. The world is changing and people are asking questions about the orthodoxies that have been in the workplace and industry for many years. In this debate, we are asking serious questions about what we have always accepted as the norm.

John Wilson made a point about political representation. If it was not for the fact that the Labour Party took direct action in 1999, including through our selection processes for the regional list, it is unlikely that Jenny Marra and Kezia Dugdale would be sitting on our front bench today talking about the issue. Regardless of members’ political persuasion, that shows that such decisions can work.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I agreed with much of what John Park said, but Kezia Dugdale and Jenny Marra have quality—they are here not because they are women, but because they are good politicians. That is not patronising; it is an observation from an old hand.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

May I clarify my point?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Yes.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

They are good politicians, but if we had not taken decisions to ensure effective gender representation through our selection processes, it is highly unlikely that they would be here.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I am afraid that that does not help the member, so he should not dig any further.

Just last week, I attended a Penicuik high school ceremony in which 5th and 6th year pupils received awards for academic excellence. The balance on the platform was tipped in favour of the girls. That was before I started to think about what I would say in this debate, but I wondered how many of those girls would continue to outperform the boys who were receiving awards on the same day. I am pretty clear that they will not continue to do so.

For many of the reasons that Annabel Goldie and, to some extent, John Park outlined, some of them will not even reach, let alone attempt to break that glass ceiling. The fact is that certain practicalities lie in the way of women’s progress—indeed, I myself came across those very practicalities many years ago. In my time, I have been a teacher, a lawyer and a politician, but at the time I had my children I had to leave work for six years. That made a huge difference to my career progression as a teacher—although I should add that that is not why I left the profession. The same practicalities remain; indeed, men who parent children now face some of them. I do not mean this in a bad way, but the fact is that children and even elderly parents get in the way and prohibit progression.

As Jenny Marra will know, because she raised the issue at the Justice Committee, I very much sympathise with her ideas but cannot support the notion of quotas. Instead, I support the provision of support to all kinds of people who cannot progress because of certain practicalities in their lives. Let me examine the logic of the argument that Jenny Marra advanced at the Justice Committee. She argued that women should comprise 40 per cent of the membership of the Scottish police authority because they make up 50 per cent of the population and understand and deal better with “women’s issues” with regard to, for example, domestic violence, sexual assault and so on. Notwithstanding the fact that domestic violence can happen across generations, between women, between men and, indeed, in all kinds of situations, Ms Marra took the view that women as members of the Scottish police authority would be better at dealing with resource and policy issues in relation to these matters. I simply do not accept the logic of that argument. I think that there are men who can be extremely sensitive to what one might call women’s issues and women who can be extremely sensitive to what one might call men’s issues—and both can be sensitive to children’s issues. I look at the quality of the individual. At this point—and with regret to Annabel Goldie—I am going to have to say two bad words: “Margaret Thatcher”. She became Prime Minister, but I can think of no one who was less sensitive to what one might call women’s issues.

I also highlighted certain practicalities at the Justice Committee. For a start, if 40 per cent of the women coming forward were not of the same quality as 40 per cent of the men—and vice versa—we would not be picking the best people.

Jenny Marra rose—

I am sorry—I have only 20 seconds left of my four minutes.

I am concerned that we would not be picking people on the basis of quality. As I said before, Jenny Marra and Kezia Dugdale are sitting on the front bench because they have been chosen on their merits, not because they are women.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

As someone who has campaigned for equality for decades, I have a great deal of sympathy with Jenny Marra’s frustration at the lack of progress in women’s representation in public life in Scotland. Although, as the only female Liberal Democrat MSP, I am particularly conscious that some might argue that if we cannot get our own house in order we should not try to engineer what happens elsewhere, I have to wonder when it will ever be the right time to tackle the issue. The older I get, the more impatient I am—not for myself, but for the next generation of women. The pace of change is glacial.

No one who takes even a cursory look at our Parliament, our council chambers, our boardrooms and our public bodies will be able to argue that Scotland has got it right. Although Scotland is a really diverse country, that diversity is not reflected in those institutions. We are short-changing everyone, not just those who are underrepresented. Our public bodies guide a range of very important services and if we are to properly meet the needs of our diverse population we should be able to draw on the full potential of all our citizens and value their individuality. Board membership should be broadly representative of our wider society.

For many years, I have reluctantly accepted the argument that soft measures such as mentoring, education, awareness, improved access to child care and so on are the way forward. The diversity delivers strategy, which was drawn up in 2008, seemed to be a reasonable attempt at improving equality in public appointments and I welcomed the Government’s commitment to tackle the matter. The vision had three strands: first, a pool of applicants as diverse as the people of Scotland; secondly, an appointments system that inspired confidence; and, thirdly, a programme of support for our future leaders. Has it worked? The latest annual report from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland says:

“The outcomes by equality group offer a mixed picture. It is encouraging to see increases in the percentage of female applicants, ... demonstrating that the awareness-raising activity undertaken as part of Diversity Delivers has made an impact. However, it is frustrating to see the decrease in the percentage of women and applicants declaring a disability who are shortlisted and to note the decline in the appointment figures.”

Indeed, back in 2008, the “Diversity Delivers” document, while arguing against the need for targets, warned that

“a strategy that results in more diversity at the application stage—but sees no change on the boards themselves—will not have succeeded.”

By its own measurement, the strategy is not delivering on the vision.

As I said, our boards perform important functions and in no way do I undervalue the commitment and service of those who currently serve on them. I am not criticising any individual male on any board, but it is time to scotch, once and for all, the old argument that keeps getting trotted out: that positive discrimination leads to mediocrity.

More women are applying but men keep getting the jobs. Do we really believe that that is because men are always the outstanding candidates? Are our boards around Scotland just fizzing with innovation, enterprise and erudition, or is it the case that perfectly acceptable, well-qualified men are displacing equally acceptable, well-qualified women? Maybe it is even worse than that—what if it is the case that perfectly acceptable men are displacing some very bright women?

Are all MSPs happy that their daughters and granddaughters should continue to be at such a disadvantage? Are they happy to accept that 52 per cent of Scots do not deserve proper representation? Are they happy to continue to give a special advantage to men and to be blind to the fact that ability comes wrapped in many guises? Is it not time that we made a step change? Is it not time to face up to the fact that some extremely difficult-to-conquer biases are operating under the radar?

Around Europe, there is a growing realisation that soft measures are not working, and here in Scotland we need to be open-minded enough to consider introducing the measures that are working elsewhere. Jenny Marra argues that it is time to take positive action. Instead, the Government’s response is to offer yet another meeting. If not quotas, what? If not now, when?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It is with a little trepidation that I rise to speak in the debate from my somewhat limited male perspective on such matters. I am glad that, as John Park has already spoken, I am not the first male speaker in the debate. I admit—also with some trepidation—that I had not been aware that this year is the UN year of empowering women. It is therefore apt that we are having the debate and, on that basis, I congratulate Jenny Marra on securing it. It is right that the Parliament considers such matters.

That said—I say this as gently as I can, not because I want to be patronising, but because I think that it is important that the debate has the right tone—I think that the manner in which Jenny Marra set out the case for more equal representation on boards was unfortunate. I do not think that the case is well served by partisan point scoring. [Interruption.] Jenny Marra suggests that I am often the first to engage in that sport, but perhaps we need to reflect on how we can best pursue the legitimate concerns that exist about the underrepresentation of women in public life. Is more equal representation best secured by suggesting that some parties have a better record than others on the representation of women in local government? The extent to which one party’s record is better than another’s is perhaps a moot point. We must consider how best we can make progress on the issue and how best we can come together and find some common ground. After all, this is an issue on which there must surely be some common ground.

I mentioned my limited male perspective. I will say a bit more about that and will explain why I wanted to speak in the debate. Alison McInnes touched on the issue. I am the father of a young daughter—she is two and a half years of age. My wife will give birth to her second child this summer. It is possible that I will be the father of two young daughters. I do not want the life chances of my daughter to be limited because of her gender, as the evidence suggests happens.

I accept entirely that it is possible for women to reach the top of their chosen profession. There are many examples of that in the Parliament—my esteemed colleague in the Presiding Officer’s chair is one such example. We have heard about other examples. In recent times, we have had a female Lord Advocate and we now have a female Solicitor General for Scotland. However, to use such examples to prove the rule would not be to tell the true story.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the member accept that the issue is not just about women getting to the top? It is not about their careers; it is about the people they represent and the issues that should be addressed. It is critical for our boards of public bodies in Scotland and the way in which we govern our services that that happens.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Yes, I accept that entirely, and I will come on to that point. However, it is important to ensure that women can rise to the top of their chosen profession. I was making the point that that can happen, but that, equally, that does not tell the entire story.

Despite women having so many advantages—they form a slight majority of the population and are better educated than their male counterparts—I entirely accept that they are underrepresented in both the corporate world and public life. Figures from the Commission for Ethical Standards in Public Life that show that 37.1 per cent of those appointed to public bodies in 2011 were female. That is close to the 40 per cent target, but I readily question whether it is good enough.

It is incumbent on us to consider initiatives to advance women’s representation, which should include consideration of whether the use of quotas or a fixed mechanism is a proper way to do that. Some people have spoken of their opposition to the proposal. I am not instinctively opposed to it. I am quite willing to hear the case, and I think that the minister said that she is equally willing to hear it. On that basis, I will support her amendment, and I look forward to the discussion continuing.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

We will not get far in this debate unless we face up to two facts—first, that there is a serious problem, and, secondly, that the action that we have taken so far to deal with it has failed. I could read out the long list of boards on which there are either no women, just one woman, or just two women, but as I have only four minutes I will not do that. I say in summary, however, that in the case of executive NDPBs, which are important public bodies in Scotland, there are 261 men and 89 women, and in the case of police boards, in which context the issue was originally raised by Jenny Marra, the figures are 119 men and 27 women.

I would take seriously Christine Grahame’s argument about appointment on merit if it was true, but in the face of those figures, she cannot possibly believe that appointments are being made on merit. The fact of the matter is that the merit of a man is being regarded as of more worth than the merit of a woman.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I will give way if I have time towards the end of my speech, but I must make my four or five points first.

As I said, we have to face up to the fact that what we have tried so far has not worked. I take Humza Yousaf’s point. I was the minister with responsibility for equalities, and we did a lot in those days in relation to gender equality, but we did not do what is proposed in the motion. We have to face the fact that we have tried certain things and they have not worked. We should pay tribute to the wonderful new members around me, who are coming up with lots of new ideas. In the context of this morning’s debate, I pay particular tribute to Jenny Marra, who has run with the idea.

It seems to me that Karen Carlton is coming to a similar conclusion. She is the Public Appointments Commissioner for Scotland who for several years has headed up the work around “Diversity Delivers”—unfortunately, that is a bit of a misnomer, because we know that the strategy does not deliver. Nevertheless, she has headed up that work, which has been based on increasing the number of women who apply for positions on boards. In her latest annual update on “Diversity Delivers”, she states:

“despite an increase of nearly 4% to the application rate there has been no significant change in the percentage of women being appointed, and an actual reduction at the point of shortlisting.”

That actually refers to the figure that the minister quotes positively in her amendment. Karen Carlton is criticising the figure that Shona Robison has highlighted.

In the same report, in response to Scottish Government proposals to conduct more research into applications, Karen Carlton states:

“the research necessary now is into the barriers to women when they do apply—that is, the barriers women face in the Scottish Government’s process.”

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

If I have time, but I do not think that I will have.

People must be prepared to change their minds in the face of the facts. The minister talks about building consensus, but she should look at the people who are already supporting the position that we are putting forward. The report on universities has been referred to, as has support from Oxfam, Scottish Women’s Aid and the STUC.

Europe is also crucial in this area, and, to answer the point that Shona Robison made with reference to the Equality Act 2010 and positive action, Labour’s positive action in relation to candidates was tested and was found to be consistent with the act. More fundamentally, it is obvious from the European examples—it is not just Finland; I was going to talk about Norway and Denmark, but I do not have time—that the 40 per cent process is consistent with the European Union equality legislation that underpins the 2010 act.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I advise Malcolm Chisholm that it was an all-woman panel that considered the applications for the Scottish Information Commissioner, it was a woman who was appointed, and it was all done on merit.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I am sure that that happens, but I am talking about the generality of the issue. Christine Grahame has to face facts. She cannot argue with the figures that I have presented.

We have tried to make progress through encouraging more applications and so on, but that has not worked. It is time to take a bold step, although it is not that bold, because it is already done throughout Europe.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I, too, commend the Labour Party for bringing the debate, because the issue of female representation in all aspects of public life is hugely important and should transcend party politics.

I must confess that gender balance has not always been at the forefront of my consciousness. As a journalist I worked on a fairly well-balanced mixed-sex, editorial floor and, rightly or wrongly, I tended to view workmates as colleagues rather than as men or women. However, I recall now that only a small handful of women held positions of authority. Now, working in Parliament and sitting in the chamber, how much of an issue gender balance is hits home. Indeed, as I sat in the chamber a little less than a week ago, how underrepresented women are within Scottish public and business life smacked me between the eyes.

Last Thursday and Friday, a number of MSPs from all parties participated in a highly successful business in the Parliament event. I am sure that I speak for many when I say that it was a hugely informative and thought-provoking gathering. For me, the most thought-provoking moment came in the midst of the question-and-answer session towards the end, when I suddenly realised how few women were there. A quick headcount revealed that in a chamber that hosted around 140 people at the time, only 31 women were present, MSPs included. I do not doubt that a number of female participants who perhaps attended Thursday night’s dinner could not make it on Friday or left early. Nevertheless, that snapshot is indicative of the fact that we have a problem.

However, I remain to be convinced of the merits of quotas. I accept that, as a man, I can probably never fully understand the challenges and barriers that women have to overcome to forge successful careers in business or politics, or on public bodies, but I want to gain a greater understanding of what those challenges and barriers are in order to play a part in removing them. I believe that, right across Scottish society, our aspiration should be to ensure that by 2020 we are looking to go beyond 40 per cent female representation. That may be a big ask, but surely the way to go is to identify the reasons why the current imbalance exists, actively take steps to make it easier for women to come forward in greater numbers and then sustain better gender balance.

I want—we all want—even more women in our councils, Parliament and boardrooms, but not by virtue of their being favoured by their gender. I feel that that is the inherent danger of quotas. We must not only aspire to but succeed in increasing the number of women coming forward. They can then be judged on their ability as they go head-to-head with their male counterparts. Once that has carried the day, we will have in place an environment that guarantees that we have not taken two steps forward only to take one step back.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I am sorry, but I have only a limited amount of time.

Jenny Marra mentioned the make-up of the ruling administration on Dundee City Council. I draw her attention to Angus Council’s new 15-strong Scottish National Party administration and to the fact that it comprises eight men and seven women—not full equality, but almost. That was achieved naturally, by selection and election, with no quotas. The only positive discrimination shown was in selecting the people who were deemed, regardless of gender, to be the most able. I do not downplay the fact that there are challenges for women in politics, but I think that that sets a good example. Further, four of the seven first-time councillors are female.

I recognise that not every council is in as strong a position in that regard. Indeed, within Angus Council we need only look across the floor to the opposition benches to see that there is only one female councillor among 14. That is not a political point but a statement of fact and a further acknowledgement that there is a problem that all of us need to commit to tackle. We can bandy statistics back and forth—for example, five of the 23 United Kingdom Cabinet members are women, whereas six of the 20 ministers in Scotland’s Government are women, so we could claim to be doing better than Westminster. However, the fact is that nowhere in Scottish society can we say that we really have fair representation of women. All of us in this chamber—MSPs of both sexes—have a responsibility to address that.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

We now move to the winding-up speeches. I call Annabel Goldie, who has four minutes.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

The debate has had currents of tension and passion. In some respects, that has been unfortunate, but I feel that the debate has been useful. I pay tribute to Jenny Marra for gripping an issue that has to be addressed. She has undoubtedly, to use a phrase that I used earlier, got it on to the radar screen.

Having listened to the debate, I am encouraged, because I think that there is a genuine desire across the chamber to recognise that there is an issue and to build a consensus around how we address it. To anyone who is in any doubt that there is an issue, I say that I think that the matter is self-evident. Jenny Marra, John Park, Alison McInnes, Christine Grahame and other members spoke eloquently about that.

Jenny Marra was absolutely right to focus her attention on public bodies in Scotland. I, too, looked at that area. I remind members that Quality Meat Scotland seems to have a female-free board—it has a 12-person board with not a woman on it. Who, may I ask, is likely to cook most of the meat? The Lands Tribunal for Scotland has four blokes on its board. The Water Industry Commission for Scotland has a Gordon, a David and a Charles. Jenny Marra mentioned the Scottish Police Services Authority—there is only one woman on its seven-member board.

Some of the other quangos that are low on female representation with one female board member are the Crofters Commission, VisitScotland, David MacBrayne Ltd, the Scottish Law Commission, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, Children’s Hearings Scotland—that is particularly worrying—and the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee.

The tale does not get much better. By any assessment, there are other public bodies that are, in my opinion, in a similarly deficient state of composition—in fact, one might be tempted to say decomposition. Frankly, that is a gloomy catalogue of female exclusion.

It would be tempting, in looking at the issue, to call for a cure by quota. However, I have to say to Jenny Marra that I am not convinced by that approach. There are legitimate concerns, which Christine Grahame and Graeme Dey eloquently alluded to. Although it is tempting to call for a cure by quota, getting more women is not synonymous with getting better talent. Getting more women on to a board may look good in numerical terms, but the test must always be how best representation on that board can serve the public interest.

There is no doubt that there is an issue, and there is no disagreement whatsoever that that issue must be addressed. When it comes to the boards of public bodies in Scotland, it seems to me that there is a ray of sunshine: an appointments structure over which we have collective control and input. The minister’s contribution in that regard was extremely helpful.

The most important feature of the debate is that Jenny Marra has brought the issue into the public domain. Whether we agree or disagree with her proposed solution, the issue will not now go away, and the most important consequence of the debate is the united will to do something about it.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I thank all the members who spoke in the debate. Unusually, there was increasing consensus as the debate went on, but that is no bad thing.

Clare Adamson made a thoughtful speech, in which she talked about IT, which is a challenging sector for women, with only 19 per cent female representation in it. Her point was that quotas alone will not tackle the problem—women must put themselves forward. What women have achieved in the boardroom is very important because other women see them as role models, inspiring others within that company. That was an important point.

John Park made a constructive contribution. The business case for gender balance is a strong one—I agreed with much that he had to say—especially in non-traditional industries. A real challenge is to ensure that women are able to come into those industries, never mind make their way up to the top of the organisation—the boardroom, for example. Importantly, he addressed the wider issues, such as childcare, that affect women’s ability to carry on with their career. Although we know about the legal position, there is no doubt that when women take time out, for example to have children—Christine Grahame illustrated the point well—they generally start at a different point in their career when they go back, and that is a problem.

Christine Grahame highlighted many barriers and is clearly against quotas. She made the important point that gender balance is not about having more women so that they can deal with women’s issues. Gender balance is about having more women because that is the right thing to do. Whatever walk of life they are from, or whatever board or institution they are involved in, women will be as involved in the day-to-day issues of that institution as men. They will not deal with only certain issues. It is important to be clear about that.

Alison McInnes made a good speech, a lot of which I agreed with. I thought that she was a little bit unfair about the diversity delivers strategy, because some progress has been made. We must acknowledge the fact that more women have been coming through the appointments process. I have spoken to women who, for the first time in many years, were encouraged to put themselves forward, which did not happen in the past. That is a good thing. I disagree with Alison McInnes on our ability to make progress on the issue with an open event. I thought that she dismissed that idea rather out of hand, which is unfortunate.

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

The minister is quite right about equality and diversity. Annabel Goldie made a good point about gender and how one’s sex should not really matter when it comes to equality and equal opportunities. Does the minister recognise the fact that visible minorities are in the same position?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

That is an important point. The position of people who have disabilities or those from ethnic minority communities has not really come through in the debate. In many ways, the same principle is involved. When we open up boardrooms and boards, we encourage people from a variety of backgrounds to put themselves forward.

Malcolm Chisholm, as always, gave a very good critique of many of the issues. However, he must realise that the Equality Act 2010 permits political parties to have mechanisms that it does not expressly permit other sectors to use. We cannot dismiss that issue; we must look into it in some detail.

How long do I have left, Presiding Officer?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I will finish on a constructive note. In her summing up, Annabel Goldie opened the door to dialogue across the parties and outwith the chamber. She laid out the extent of the problem clearly and in strong terms, but she remains to be convinced of the solution. We should take from today the starting point that there is a huge reservoir of goodwill, while recognising that what we have done so far has not delivered what women expected in terms of being in public sector boardrooms, and that we have far more to do.

I hope that the event that I have suggested will give members across the chamber the opportunity to engage with outside organisations to work out what we can do—that should include a discussion on quotas—and what should be done, with recommendations going back to the Scottish Government. I hope that that suggestion will be taken in the spirit in which it is intended and that we can end today’s debate on the consensual note that it should have had right from the start.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Presiding Officer, I am slightly sorry that it is you in the chair today and not Tricia Marwick. Today’s debate has not covered the problems that working-class women face, particularly in political and civic life. We have a strong working-class woman at the top in our Parliament, and I would have liked to have been able to say that to her today. [Applause.]

I also pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Jenny Marra, who put the issue at the centre of our political discourse, to all the women who came before me, and to the women’s movement that lies at the heart of our party. This is a Labour debate—it is not just Jenny Marra’s debate—because it speaks to our values and what we stand for.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I would like to make a bit more progress, please.

Quotas would be good for women’s issues. I say to Christine Grahame that I agree that they would be good for women and men—and for addressing apathy in the political process. That is at the heart of building a more progressive and equal society. I hope to go into that in some depth as I go on.

I am also pleased that Graeme Dey brought up the issue of journalism. In my view, we need to talk about not just political and civic life, but how that is reported. The number of female faces in the lobby in this building has been tiny during the five years that I have worked here, and that shows in the reporting. The news is of divisions and splits or barnstorming speeches; it rarely sees an issue in the round. I refer to what I have heard Lesley Riddoch describe as civic health. Child poverty is a good example: all aspects of it should be looked at and then reported on in the round. There is an age-old feminist adage that the personal is the political, and we need more of that in our politics if we are to turn around declining turnout figures.

Members might question the link, but I repeatedly hear two things when I am out on the doorsteps: first, that politicians are all corrupt and, secondly, that people are not very interested in politics. Part of the battle to overturn apathy is in reaffirming the relevance of the political process to people, and we can do that by making it personal. Instead of abstract fights about splits, we need more actual stories about how people live their lives and pay their bills—human voices that articulate the political ills of the day. If we change the way in which we talk about politics, we can change the audience, building one that listens. Breaking down the establishment and the political elite is crucial to achieving equality.

Lesley Riddoch has a lot to say about that issue. In fact, an article that she wrote back in 2000 has stuck with me over the years. In the article, which was entitled “In the land of cynics and numpties, let’s hear it for the Holyrood women”, she poses the question:

“What’s the point of electing women to parliament if they have to act like men to survive?”

The article points to the early trials and tribulations that leading women such as Wendy Alexander and Susan Deacon had to face in order to do things differently and, therefore, well. The article describes the bold steps that Susan Deacon took to tackle the health inequalities that women faced—to address smoking rates among young women, abortion rates and access to contraception—and how she was harangued for them. Johann Lamont, Margaret Curran and Wendy Alexander are all women who inspired and continue to inspire me. So, too, did Nicola Sturgeon, who is a fantastic role model for young women in politics, operating at the highest level of Scottish politics for more than a decade. It is important that we demonstrate solidarity with one another, as women, across political lines, in the name of progressing the case for gender equality together.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Will the member give way?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I am sorry, but I have a lot to cover and there are a few points that I want to rebut along the way.

The most powerful person in the room can be a woman, but that does not achieve a gender perspective across all decision making. It is true that things have changed for the better and that women can rise to the top, but the critical mass remains absent. I say to Clare Adamson that we need critical mass to drive cultural change, and that is what quotas are all about.

Annabel Goldie raised the issue of the glass ceiling. Yes, there is a glass ceiling. In the American presidential elections, Sarah Palin—of all people—talked about that. She said that Hillary Clinton had created 18 million cracks in it because she spoke to women Republican voters, trying to bring people together.

John Park is right to say that there is a sticky floor as well. There are things that hold women back, and we must create a critical mass to address that. We need to hear women’s voices in order to identify the problems, so that those problems are heard by the majority, which can act in response to them.

All those issues are detailed in the “Sex and Power” report that was produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The report also talks about the dangers of an opt-out revolution of women who get so far—who hit that marzipan layer—and then do not go any further because they choose not to make sacrifices. They believe that they can do things differently and leave the highest levels of politics to make a life elsewhere—one that does not have the problems that they have faced every day—in which they can still be successful. We need to ensure that we do not just give up on that point.

We understand that there is a deep-rooted culture at the heart of Scotland’s public bodies that ensures that the merit of a man is worth more than that of a woman. That is something that diversity strategies have not and cannot address alone. I ask Christine Grahame whether she seriously believes that we have the best possible people serving in every one of our public bodies.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

No, certainly not. I agree with everything that Kezia Dugdale says about critical mass. She heard what I said about the pupils at Penicuik high school. My personal approach would be not to have quotas, as that would be counterproductive. However, women certainly need more support in getting through, creating that critical mass and reaching—if not breaking through—the glass ceiling. There are practical things that we can do, but which are not quotas.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I thank Christine Grahame for that response. I am sure that it is a conversation that we will continue.

There is more to do on appointments to public bodies than bring in quotas alone. There is a culture around public appointments that we need to address. Even if we deliver quotas, we could still be creating jobs for the same boys and the same girls. We need to address that along the way.

I will deal briefly with Humza Yousaf’s point, to which I am afraid I took offence. Labour did not deal with the issue when we were in power because there were so many other gender equality issues that we had to address first—discrimination laws, access to maternity leave, the Equality Act 2010 and rights at work. A lot was done but there was a lot more to do. Humza Yousaf’s point was misplaced.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.

I appeal to Annabel Goldie to change her mind. The woman I put before her is Christine Lagarde, who supports quotas. She was asked, “How can someone who believes in the free market possibly support gender quotas?” Her response was that if 1 per cent of the board of directors of major enterprises around the world are women, that is market abuse. When there is abuse in the market, we regulate it. When we have regulated that, we can continue as we were before. We are seeking to address the abuse in the market. I appeal to Annabel Goldie to consider that a bit further.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am not instinctively a regulator. I am sorry.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

The member says that she is not instinctively a regulator; I do not believe that Christine Lagarde is either, which is why I put her voice to the member. We are trying to regulate the market so that barriers can be broken down and we can build a more equal and progressive society together. That is at the heart of Labour’s motion.

The SNP Government says that it is progressive, but to make progress we have to do something, and we believe that quotas are the answer.

PIP Silicone Breast Implants

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-03294, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on women’s health.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the PIP breast implant scandal.

I welcome some of the women who have been caught up in the scandal, who are here today campaigning for a public inquiry. The reason for a public inquiry is to ensure that something like this can never happen again. In the words of Trisha Devine, one of the leaders of the campaign:

“We’ve taken the battle to the floor of the Parliament and we look forward to giving our MSPs as much information and support as possible so we can make some real political progress in our quest for answers.

Our main goal is to ensure this awful situation can never happen again, and today’s public discussion gets the ball rolling.

We’ll build on this momentum and won’t stop until we have justice and a healthcare system we can trust in.”

Today’s debate in Parliament is the culmination of a tremendous effort on the campaigners’ part to have their voices heard by Parliament and Government. The debate is not about the rights or wrongs of plastic surgery. It is about how we act to improve care and support for patients, particularly when things go so spectacularly wrong.

These women have had their lives turned upside down by the scandal, but have rallied together to articulate a convincing case for a public inquiry to take place in Scotland. This is a serious public health issue, and the PIP implant victims deserve answers.

Today, Scottish Labour has published a seven-point action plan, which I hope that the Scottish Government will embrace. Covering everything from the need for a Scottish register of implants to the scope for a public inquiry, it forms the basis of ensuring that we avoid a scandal of this nature happening again.

Let me deal first with the need for a public inquiry. As the Scottish Government’s amendment suggests, a number of reviews are under way. All of them are internal reviews, conducted by the United Kingdom Government, and none of them is independent. One of those reviews, conducted by Earl Howe into the actions of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, has now reported. There is a strong view from the campaigners that that fails to address some of their fundamental questions and concerns. Although the report concludes that the MHRA acted appropriately, it notes that it was trying to reach evidence-based conclusions without the necessary data to do so. It is the case that, for some years before their use was curtailed, a number of clinicians complained in the strongest possible terms to the MHRA about the efficacy of the implants, and that includes Scottish clinicians. I do not believe, therefore, that the Howe report can serve as a substitute for a full public inquiry; I think that it will helpfully inform any public inquiry that might be taken forward.

I look forward to the review that is being undertaken by Sir Bruce Keogh about the need for an implant register and whether better regulation of the cosmetic industry is required. However, given the scope of his review, there will still be questions to be answered at the conclusion of the process.

It is undoubtedly the case that the regulation of medical products is reserved to the UK Parliament, and I hope that it will consider much more robust action so that we can have better confidence in the efficacy of medical products and the means by which they are regulated and tested. Like most members, I am conscious that we have stringent levels of testing for drugs—it is right that we do—but the standard of testing for medical products appears to be substantially lower. That has to change.

However, in itself, that is not the whole story. There are questions that fall to the Scottish Parliament. I have always believed that the Scottish Government has an overarching responsibility for the nation’s health. The Scottish Government should instruct a public inquiry because we could include consideration of issues such as the extent of the use of PIP implants in Scotland and the rupture rate, because we are not clear that Sir Bruce Keogh’s review will deliver that information in a Scottish context. The inquiry could also consider establishing minimum standards for private clinics that operate in Scotland, which would include issues such as insurance coverage, disclosure to patients of the risks and safety of procedures, regulation of third-party providers—those companies that use hospitals and clinics in Scotland—and regulation of providers that consult in Scotland but perform the surgery elsewhere, usually in England.

Early notification is an issue. The issue was first highlighted as a problem by the MHRA in March 2010. However, I was surprised to see that it took until December 2011 before some women became aware of the problem through press reports. That is a 21-month difference. I know that Health Facilities Scotland, an agency of the Scottish Government, should have been told in March 2010. I am not sure whether it was told or, if it was, what action was taken by it or by the Scottish Government to ensure that people knew about the issue. It would be useful for a public inquiry to reflect on communication as one strand of critical work.

We could also use NHS National Procurement, which is a very efficient organisation that I had the privilege of visiting just a few weeks ago. It already purchases medical equipment and devices for the NHS, and uses clinicians as part of the team to inform that purchasing. Building on the expertise of an existing organisation would have provided quite an effective safety net. I have suggested that approach to the cabinet secretary, during a meeting with the campaigners. I hope that she will respond positively to the suggestion, as that is something that we can do now.

Of the 4,000 women who are thought to have received implants, the cabinet secretary told us that there was only one case of the NHS in Scotland using a PIP breast implant. That is great. For some reason, the NHS in Scotland used other products. Whatever the reason, the cabinet secretary was of the clear view that that was more a matter of chance than anything else. We really should not be leaving that to chance in the future.

Our action plan explores a range of other issues and I commend it to the chamber. Immediate issues can be tackled. For example, many victims told us about a postcode lottery of care when they approached the national health service. Some doctors turned women away and other women were not referred on to consultants. I want the Government to ensure that there is a consistent response.

Let me tell members about Emma, who lives in Scotland. Her implants were inserted in Birmingham by the Hospital Group. She went to Monklands hospital breast clinic in Lanarkshire and said that she had a problem on 21 September 2011. She was refused a scan. Her general practitioner sent an emergency referral letter on 19 January 2012, but it took until 16 April 2012 for that emergency letter to be acknowledged and for her to receive an appointment. The consultant whom Emma saw relied on incorrect information. He refused to offer a scan and refused to perform an extraction of the implant. Despite the Government’s best efforts, that is the kind of experience that women in Scotland are having. We want a consistent response to happen quickly.

Another initiative would be to call a summit of the private providers to ensure that they adopt a consistent approach to the aftercare of the women affected. Some providers have been very good, but others have been awful. Some providers asked women to pay £2,500 to have the implant removed and replaced, some initially charged for scans and the Hospital Group asked women to sign away their legal rights in return for treatment. That must stop and the Government must bring pressure to bear.

We need to regulate private healthcare better. Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s remit includes the regulation of private hospitals, private psychiatric hospitals, private clinics, private medical agencies and private ambulance services, but its regulations cover only private hospitals, psychiatric facilities and voluntary hospitals. The rest are not covered. We must close that loophole urgently and regulate private healthcare clinics and third-party providers in Scotland. In fairness to the Government, it has been consulting on the matter since July 2010, but I say to the minister, as gently as I can, that we cannot afford to wait much longer. In the spirit of consensus, let me offer to work with the minister to introduce regulations much more urgently.

The current regulatory regime does not include a minimum standard for what patients can expect if things go wrong. I urge the Government to consider setting out some of those standards in the national care standards. Our action plan calls on the Government to develop a better framework relationship with the MHRA to ensure that there is, on the one hand, proper retention and testing of implants and, on the other hand, a formal structure of regular communication. If such arrangements had been in place, the numerous and substantive concerns that clinicians expressed might have been picked up sooner and acted on more quickly.

I have two final points. Let us re-establish a Scottish implant register. I know that there were problems with the last one, but it is not beyond us to sort those out. On a practical level, let us allow the NHS to carry out both removal and replacement of PIP implants in the same operation, as it is safer for the women to go through one procedure rather than two. That should be done on the basis that the woman assigns her right to recovery of the cost to the NHS. In other words, the NHS reclaims the money from the private provider. That would be cost neutral to the NHS and clinically better for the women concerned.

What happened is a scandal. We must do our utmost to ensure that no one is placed in this position again. There needs to be confidence in the system of testing medical devices and implants. We need improved regulation, we need to improve care and support for patients when things go wrong and we need a public inquiry, which will help us to understand how we can prevent such a situation from happening again. I commend to the chamber Labour’s action plan and my motion.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that an estimated 4,000 women in Scotland are believed to have received breast implants manufactured by Poly Implant Prothèse (PiP); supports the ongoing criminal investigation in France into the former owner of PiP, Jean Claude Mas, for his role in the manufacture and distribution of the substandard implants containing industrial grade silicone; further notes with concern that PiP’s activities remained undetected by regulators for a considerable period of time and the lack of information provided to the victims of the scandal, a number of whom only became aware of the potential dangers through news reports in December 2011, over a year after the medical device alert was issued by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in March 2010; regrets the lottery of aftercare offered by the private clinics that carried out breast augmentation operations with PiP implants for women in Scotland, particularly the charging for replacement operations and attaching conditions to treatment such as the waiving of legal rights; further notes the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy’s assertion that it is only by chance that the NHS in Scotland did not use the potentially dangerous implants and that the true scale of the scandal in Scotland may never be known, and calls on the Scottish Government to do everything possible to address the suffering of the Scottish victims of the PiP implants scandal and ensure that lessons are learned for the future, including holding a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I welcome the opportunity to have the debate. I also welcome those from the Scottish campaign group who have joined us for the debate. They have been at the forefront in calling for a variety of actions to be taken following this incident.

The Scottish Government takes the issue very seriously. We fully recognise the concerns that have been expressed by people who have had PIP silicone breast implants. Members may be aware that the Deputy First Minister has met representatives of the PIP implant Scotland campaign on two separate occasions; the most recent meeting took place just last week.

At the outset, it should be stressed that the alleged fraudulent activity of a company that produced breast implants is at the very heart of the issue, and it is extremely difficult and challenging for any regulatory regime to deal with such fraudulent behaviour. Members will be aware that the regulation of medical devices is reserved to the Westminster Government, and the competent authority for that within the UK is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which has lead responsibility for considering products that are to be used as medical devices.

It may be helpful if I outline some of the actions that have been taken since the issue came to light. As a Government, we have worked closely with the MHRA, the Department of Health and the other devolved Administrations in addressing the concerns that have arisen, and three reviews have been established. The first of those—to which Jackie Baillie referred—reviewed the actions that the MHRA took, and the report was published on 14 May this year. That report found that the MHRA had acted appropriately based on information that was made available to it and that it had been proactive in seeking further information on PIP. The report, which was by Earl Howe, sets out a number of recommendations for the MHRA to take forward; that work is on-going.

A further review was commissioned to look specifically at data around rupture rates and toxicology issues relating to the particular implants. That expert review is currently taking place, and we expect its findings to be published later this month.

The third, longer-term review, also led by Sir Bruce Keogh, will look at the regulation of cosmetic surgery across the UK. In addition, it will review a number of the issues that were highlighted in the Howe report to see whether further action is required.

The intention of the three reviews is to ensure that a similar situation does not occur again. We should allow the review process to take place so that we can ensure that we have the right system in place to prevent such an incident from being repeated.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

One of our concerns is that the second Bruce Keogh review—not the toxicology review—is on cosmetic procedures only. There are many other procedures, such as laser eye treatment, that are real treatments and are not just cosmetic. The problems may be much broader than what the second Keogh review will cover.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The review is dealing specifically with the issues that arise from the PIP implant matter, and we should give the review group the opportunity to consider that matter in detail. As a result of that review, other areas of cosmetic surgery and other aspects of healthcare may be identified that have to be addressed, but we must allow the review to take place so that we can see what its findings are and consider whether any further action is required.

I have set out the context of regulation in the UK, in which we operate. I also want to consider NHS Scotland’s response and address the request for a Scottish public inquiry. Although the initial indications were that NHS Scotland had not used PIP silicone implants, NHS Lothian subsequently identified one patient who had been given PIP implants. That patient was offered and received from the board an appropriate clinical care package to address her concerns.

As a Government, we have been very clear that we expect private healthcare providers to offer their patients clinically appropriate packages of care, and we believe that they have an ethical responsibility to do so. NHS Scotland is committed to supporting all women whose private healthcare provider is unable or unwilling to provide appropriate care or who places unreasonable conditions on women in providing care.

The approach that NHS Scotland has taken is appropriate and is in line with the longstanding mechanism in our NHS on the provision of cosmetic surgery. Members will be aware that NHS Scotland does not provide cosmetic surgery on a routine basis. That is well established in the NHS’s published criteria.

When the Deputy First Minister met the PIP implant Scotland campaign last week, she made clear her view that, on the basis of the information that was available to her at that point, she was not convinced that a case has been made for a Scottish public inquiry. She made clear that other options are open that would help to reassure women in Scotland. That includes continuing to work with the campaign group here in Scotland.

I hope that members are assured that the Scottish Government takes the matter seriously and is working with the appropriate bodies to ensure that provisions are in place to prevent this type of thing from happening again. We continue to be committed to working with the PIP implant Scotland campaign and to addressing concerns and issues that the group raises, which we will pursue with the Department of Health and the MHRA, as appropriate.

We are also committed to ensuring that we consider the recommendations that come from the two further reviews and their implications for the NHS here in Scotland. We will consider where it is appropriate to take action in Scotland to address the concerns that are raised.

I move amendment S4M-03294.1, to leave out from first “further notes” to end and insert:

“notes that the Scottish Government is working with the UK Government on the three UK-wide reviews; welcomes the findings of the report, Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) silicone breast implants: Review of the actions of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Department of Health, which found that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority took appropriate action based on the information made available to it; looks forward to the outcome of the expert group looking at the rupture rate data and toxicology testing led by Sir Bruce Keogh, which is due to report later this month, and the review looking at the regulation of the cosmetic industry also being led by Sir Bruce Keogh, which will report by March 2013, and commends NHSScotland for the action taken by it to ensure that it responded appropriately by making information and advice available to women and ensuring that, where the private healthcare sector was unable or unwilling to provide a clinically appropriate package of care, NHSScotland provided appropriate care.”

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank Jackie Baillie for bringing forward the debate, because although we do not agree with her conclusions on the issue we think that it is important that the matter is discussed openly in the Parliament and that appropriate reassurance is given to the public.

I echo the sentiments of previous speakers in noting that the PIP implant fiasco undoubtedly caused grave concern among many women in Scotland, and I commend the cabinet secretary, NHS Scotland and the UK regulators for their good work in allaying some of the women’s fears. The amendment in the name of Michael Matheson recognises the full extent of that action, and I welcome that.

There has been a considerable and robust response from all levels of government, in Scotland, across the UK and within the European Union. We should remember that the 4,000 women who are potentially affected in Scotland are part of a much wider picture of 40,000 women in the UK and 400,000 women across 65 countries. The PIP incident was truly international and merited co-operative action, which I think is happening.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

In recognising the scale of the problem, does the member support a public inquiry being held at UK level?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will give the member my reasons for not doing so later.

We must remember that silicone implants carry an inherent risk to an individual’s health. No such implants are completely safe and the use of medical-grade silicone is just one way of reducing the risk and the potential harm to women. As the UK expert group concluded, there is no clear evidence of a materially greater risk to health being presented by PIP implants. Both Governments have accepted that there is no justification for routine replacement of implants on the NHS, and that conclusion is backed up by scientific and medical evidence.

That is not to say that we have heard the last word on the issue—of course not. The matter is still being extensively reviewed by Sir Bruce Keogh. Meanwhile, Earl Howe’s review, which was conducted through the UK Department of Health, made a number of recommendations to ensure that our processes are as strong as they can be. No system of regulation can guarantee absolute safety of medical products, but there are lessons to be learned and we await Sir Bruce’s conclusions, which will add to the body of information that we have on how best to move forward.

I accept Earl Howe’s conclusion that the MHRA’s communication to the German regulatory body that certified the implants for use was entirely reasonable and that the agency’s actions were based on a proper examination of the data available to it—data that have continued to be analysed.

I am aware of and understand the strength of opinion of campaigners in Scotland on the issue, particularly those who have been personally affected and whose health has been placed at risk by the actions of PIP and, potentially, a number of individuals in that organisation. That is why Sir Bruce Keogh’s review will take a rounded view of the situation, including the reported experiences of patients.

I understand that the PIP implant Scotland campaign called its recent discussions with the cabinet secretary productive. I am confident that the cabinet secretary will do all that she can to work with NHS Scotland in bringing forward any modification of its internal practices, which may need to be examined in light of changes brought about by the UK reviews.

In all that, the role of the Scottish Government will be to ensure that there is a robust framework of reporting and of implementing guidance between clinicians and the regulatory bodies. Primarily, however, we must note that if blame is to be attributed, it lies entirely and unequivocally with the manufacturer, which failed to show any regard whatsoever for the victims of its actions. It was an appalling, but thankfully rare, act.

That is fundamentally why we on the Scottish Conservative benches believe that a public inquiry in Scotland is not the correct way forward. Although we should review our practices, the most important investigation to be carried out will properly be a criminal one. To operate effectively, a regulatory regime must at some stage rely on a degree of good faith, and will sometimes need to operate on the assumption that that exists. That is reinforced by the threat of criminal prosecution and the penalties that exist when fraudulent practices are evident.

In the meantime, we can do little better than to repeat the clear advice that has come from the NHS, the MHRA and the Government—people who received PIP implants and who have any clinical questions or problems should contact their implanting surgeon.

The clear statement from the First Minister that NHS Scotland will step in and provide appropriate care if private provision fails—either by refusing care or by no longer being in existence—is of course welcome. However, it should be remembered that healthcare providers—as with all businesses that are involved in the supply of goods—are obliged by law to replace unsatisfactory goods that they have provided.

I will leave it at that just now and deal a little more with the on-going reviews in my closing speech.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

We are in a serious and worrying situation, so I am glad that we are having this debate. We should take the opportunity to reassure the many women out there on just what the situation is in terms of the evidence. Rupture rates for the PIP implants are running at about 1 per cent with a possible maximum of 5 per cent. It is important that we put on the record that there is no evidence of genotoxicity should there be a rupture and that 1.7 per cent of the ruptures may lead to an inflammatory reaction. Those statistics are worrying, but it is important as a measure of reassurance that we have them on the record.

In the motion and in Ms Baillie’s speech there was mention of 4,000 women in Scotland possibly being affected by this—I am not sure about that, because it was made clear at the Health and Sport Committee meeting on 28 February that the maximum number was probably 1,300. Again, I think that reassurance is needed.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I was quoting the cabinet secretary, who has consistently said that we would perhaps be safer using the upper limit, which is 4,000 women.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Thank you, Ms Baillie. I confess that I was not at the Health and Sport Committee meeting that day—I was in hospital getting my gallbladder removed. However, on reading the evidence it looked as though the figure of 1,300 women was perhaps more robust.

How, under a regulatory regime that crosses Europe and the UK, could we come to the position that we have been in for the past year? There are three European directives that cover medical devices. Those directives have been implemented into UK legislation by the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. They are there to regulate safety and performance and to include provision for mandatory CE markings. Under that EU framework, we have REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Under that architecture, we have the European Chemicals Agency, which is responsible for the CE marking. Parallel to that, we have the competent authorities in each member state; in the UK, the competent authority is hosted by the Health and Safety Executive. Under the competent authority are the notified bodies, which are appointed and accredited by the member states. In the UK, the notified body is the UK Accreditation Service—UKAS—whose role is to ensure that the design and manufacture of products make them safe and compliant.

Given that extensive regulatory framework, how was the fraud possible? I turn to the Howe report, which has already been quoted. Earl Howe said that the review found that the MHRA fulfilled its obligations regarding incidents that involved the implants, and that the MHRA’s work was hindered by a lack of complete or reliable evidence. Much of the information came from a manufacturer that has been found to have been working fraudulently.

Given all that, Howe concludes that there is nothing to suggest that the system for regulating medical devices is unsound and that the responsibility lies squarely with the fraudulent manufacturer. I must ask a further question: is the regulatory regime flawed? When I look to see what the REACH regulation was founded on, I find that it states that it

“places greater responsibility on industry to manage the risks from chemicals and to provide safety information on the substances.”

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Come to a conclusion, please.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I contend that the EU and the UK have swung too far towards self-regulation and self-policing. Given that Scotland has no voice in Europe and only a small voice in the UK, I hope that an independent Scotland would ensure that it got health and safety right for workers, consumers and everyone involved.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

When I first heard about the PIP silicone scandal, I was shocked. I still cannot comprehend the feelings of anguish and worry that must have been—and still are—going through the affected women’s minds. They would have been asking themselves whether they had received faulty PIP implants, and, if so, whether the implants would rupture, when they would rupture and whether they would cause lasting damage to their health; they would have been asking when their implants could safely be removed.

The conflicting views of the French and UK Governments, as well the inaction of the Scottish Government, have not helped those women. A public inquiry is long overdue. It is vital that any public inquiry is conducted by an independent member of the judiciary, as happened with the Penrose inquiry and the inquiry into C diff at the Vale of Leven hospital. So far, official investigations into the PIP scandal have been concerned only with maintaining public confidence in the Government.

Labour’s seven-point plan, which was introduced this morning by my colleague, Jackie Baillie, is the best and only way to help PIP victims and to avoid this happening again. The Scottish Government argues that the matter is reserved and therefore that it cannot hold a public inquiry. However, the Government has a duty of care to the Scottish people and it has a primary responsibility for the nation’s public health issues.

Earl Howe’s report does not adequately answer all the questions that are posed by campaigners. They deserve answers. Critical questions remain, such as the extent of the scandal in Scotland and what can be done to avoid something like this happening in the future. That is why Earl Howe’s report cannot be a substitute for a public inquiry. Statistical evidence needs to be gathered to discover the extent of the scandal in Scotland. A public inquiry would help to determine a minimum standard of care that private health clinics must provide to operate in Scotland. It would also determine whether more could and should have been done by the Scottish Government and Scottish health service in this matter, irrespective of the restrictions imposed on the Scottish Government. It would give clear and unequivocal regulations, going forward.

I agree with the view that a thorough public inquiry could determine the practicality of forming a Scottish procurement body for all medical products that are brought into Scotland. As many of my colleagues will highlight today, such a body would consider clinical issues specifically for Scotland.

As the amount of reconstructive and cosmetic surgery continues to rise in Scotland, with thousands of procedures conducted, it is imperative that we introduce uniform regulation of private health providers and that they are held to the highest of standards.

The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy must put herself into the shoes of the 4,000 women in Scotland who received faulty implants, including Jenny Brown and Emma Hardie, who are in the public gallery today. Their health has been put at risk and they are still suffering today. That group of women are asking why this happened in the first place and what their Government is doing to ensure that it does not happen again.

The Scottish Government has a duty of care for the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Currently it is letting down those 4,000 women. There is a dire need for an independent, transparent and comprehensive public inquiry so that the best justice is given to one and all.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I can only imagine the stress and anxiety that are felt by women who have PIP breast implants. For some time, they have lived with that worry day and daily. Although the expert advice suggests that there is no evidence to support routine removal of PIP implants, I absolutely understand why some women who have them want them to be removed and replaced. Those women know that they have in their bodies implants that are made of a material that is not approved for medical purposes, and they fear that those implants might rupture at any time. In such circumstances, I would be angry and worried and possibly a bit frightened, so I understand the sentiments of the action group.

I am sure that all members support the on-going criminal investigation in France into Jean-Claude Mas, the former owner of PIP. We must not forget that that fraudulent manufacturer has the ultimate responsibility for the distress that has been caused to so many women throughout the world, including, as I understand it, about 1,300 in Scotland. As stated in Lord Howe’s review, the company covered up its deceit and showed complete disregard for the welfare of its customers, which is absolutely shocking. The people who are responsible must be brought to justice.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s actions in responding quickly and giving a commitment that the NHS will provide help and support—including removal of implants, if that is clinically appropriate—for women whose private surgery provider refuses to do so or has gone out of business. Private providers of the procedure throughout the sector have a duty of care to all their patients. Women should not be charged for replacement and removal of PIP implants. People who are affected by the scandal have enough on their plate without having to worry about how they will get the money to put things right.

I hope that any clinical assessment of whether to remove and replace implants will include an assessment of the mental health impact on the individual if the implants are not replaced. As many members have said, lessons need to be learned in order to prevent such an incident from happening again. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s involvement in the existing UK-wide inquiries, which are covering a range of issues, including health issues surrounding the implants; improving adverse incident reporting; better communication methods on issues that cause public concern; regulation of the cosmetic surgery industry; and a register of implants, for which there is a strong case.

There is also a European inquiry that is considering better information sharing between EU countries, increasing the scope for EU countries to work together, increased product traceability, and a European database to bring together information about medical devices, economic operations, market surveillance and clinical investigations. Those inquiries and the recommendations that will flow from them should ensure that a similar situation does not arise again.

I understand the sentiments of those who call for a Scottish public inquiry but, as we have heard, the regulation of medical devices is a reserved matter and the licensing of the products is an EU matter. Therefore, a Scottish public inquiry could not properly investigate all the issues. I have no doubt that the Scottish Government and the Parliament will continue to do all that we can to ensure that people in Scotland who are affected by the scandal get the answers that they deserve.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

I, too, welcome members of the campaign to the chamber. However, although I have a great deal of sympathy for their situation, I am not sure that a public inquiry would be of benefit to them. This issue has certainly highlighted that women who seek breast implants need stronger guidance and information; indeed, it appears that many women have not been getting the information that they deserve prior to surgery.

My understanding is that breast implants require to be replaced anyway after 10 years or so, but I must point out that the 4,000 figure that Labour keeps highlighting appears to be based on figures from the UK Government about the purchase of implants. Evidence to the Health and Sport Committee suggested that the figure for Scotland is more in the region of 1,300.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I did not invent the 4,000 figure; it actually came from the member’s own Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy. Nevertheless, the point is that we do not know the exact figure, and a Scottish public inquiry would help us to address that lack of knowledge.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

As I said, the 4,000 figure came from the UK Government and relates to the purchase of implants. The cabinet secretary was quite right to highlight the upper limit, while pointing out that it relates to the purchase of implants and not to procedures. As I have made clear, we need stringent guidance; after all, everyone who puts themselves forward for that kind of surgical procedure should know the risks involved.

The Health and Sport Committee considered a petition—PE1378, I believe—that called for a ban on all procedures involving silicone implants because of fears about rupture. I believe that there is a need for implants for cosmetic or other purposes and therefore do not think that a total ban on implants is absolutely necessary; however, the silicone that is used must be of the quality that is prescribed in EU regulations.

I noted Fiona McLeod’s speech, which was very precise and based very much on evidence. Indeed, I sometimes think that every speech that is made in this chamber is based on evidence from Fiona McLeod.

The Scottish Government has done, and will continue to do, everything that it can to provide information and support to people who have concerns, and the minister has said that dialogue will continue. He also made it clear at last week’s meeting that the petitioners and people in the campaign had indicated their satisfaction with the cabinet secretary’s response to date.

Sir Bruce Keogh’s report will make recommendations, so we should wait until that work has been completed. I hope that, as a result of that, a register will be established in Scotland, because I believe that such a move will reassure people in the future. We certainly need that, as well as robust guidance. After all, one of the problems that we face is that a lot of the information that we need is not available because of poor recording—mainly in the private sector, and not in the NHS.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I first became very concerned about the issue a few weeks ago when a constituent came to one of my surgeries and showed me photographs of two breast implants that had been removed from her—one intact, the other ruptured. The contents of the ruptured implant had spread into her lymph nodes and she was experiencing great pain from lumps in that part of her body. I am pleased to report that she said that the NHS care that she received in the Western general hospital in Edinburgh was very good, but it is clear that there are inconsistencies in the NHS response throughout Scotland, to which Jackie Baillie referred.

My constituent also explained to me the shocking response that she got from the private clinic when she went to see it about the problems that had arisen. That shocking response has now become an absence of response, because the e-mail that she sent to the clinic three months ago, in which she summed up her concerns, has still received no reply, although I have recently followed up on that for her. I hope that we will hear something from the clinic soon.

My constituent also has many issues with the MHRA, the most urgent of which relates to testing of implants. I have written several letters to the MHRA and have asked for a meeting with it, because it is not willing to test the implants. Members will understand the anxiety of my constituent, given that the contents of one of those implants are still, to some extent, in her body and were in it to an even greater extent until recently. I ask the Scottish Government to continue to raise that issue with the MHRA. If the MHRA will not test the implants, I ask the Scottish Government to arrange testing.

There are two massive historical issues to do with the MHRA. First, why was it so slow to react when many clinicians pointed out problems, for which there was statistical evidence? Secondly, why did it not make more effort—indeed, it made no effort at all—to inform women once information about the use of industrial silicone became clear in March 2010? That question could also be put to the UK Government and the Scottish Government.

The Government’s amendment offers uncritical support for the UK Government’s Howe report, which I have read. I have never seen so many SNP members competing with each other to praise a UK Government report. I am sometimes more disposed to be more sympathetic to the UK Government—although not the present one—and I was highly critical of the Howe report. My views were shared by the Health Select Committee at Westminster and by its widely regarded chair, the Conservative Stephen Dorrell, who was the Secretary of State for Health when I was a Westminster MP in the 1990s. They are certainly not happy with what one might call an internal whitewash of the MHRA, and my constituent and the other women campaigners are not happy with it, either. I empathise with them and sympathise with their request for an independent look to be taken at the issue. I am sure that Michael Matheson must also have some empathy with them, as he took that view in relation to hepatitis C several years ago when I was the Minister for Health and Community Care. I am happy to admit that he was right about the need for an independent inquiry on hep C and that I was wrong.

An inquiry into breast implants would not just be about the past, as was the case with the hep C inquiry; it would also be about the future. An inquiry needs to look at regulation of private health care. The whole area, including private healthcare clinics, is a devolved responsibility of the Scottish Government. The way in which medical products are regulated and licensed also needs to be looked at. There is a procurement dimension to that, which is also a devolved responsibility. An inquiry could also consider the numbers issue that has come up.

The basic message is this: let us stand in the shoes of the women who have been affected, empathise with them and realise that they want the issue to be looked at independently.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

There has been much debate about exactly how many women in Scotland, the UK and across Europe might be affected. Those numbers remain unclear, but we can be sure that, for those who are affected, it is a very serious matter indeed; they are going through a time of great anxiety.

Although we can be somewhat relieved that no link has been established between the implants and an increased risk of cancer, it is a cause for concern that PIP implants appear to be more prone to rupturing and can be toxic. As my colleague Fiona McLeod pointed out, the rupture rates are estimated to be between 1 per cent and 5 per cent, but the women concerned do not know whether they will fall into that category.

It is welcome news that the NHS and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy have reassured the people of Scotland that there is only one known case of PIP implants being used by the NHS. However, I am a little puzzled by that. Does that mean that single purchases of implants are made, or does the patient bring the implants with them? Perhaps the minister could enlighten us.

The NHS is to be commended for offering to remove PIP implants from anyone who has been affected following either NHS or private surgery. We can only hope that the private clinics will choose to offer the same treatment. I echo the call from the Scottish Government and from various members during this morning’s debate that private practices provide the care that their patients expect, and offer surgery to rectify the problem.

Like Margaret Burgess, I agree that we should look again at resurrecting the register of implants. Clinics and hospitals must know the source of their implants and there must be batch numbers, so we should be able to do that. Some women might not even know whether they have PIP implants, and although NHS and private clinics are making efforts to contact those who do, the advice for anyone who is still concerned is to contact their GP or clinic in the first instance.

Reassuringly, it appears that the rigorous MHRA processes were not at fault. The manufacturers fraudulently, and with callous disregard for their customers, altered the make-up of their products. I reiterate my hope that the continuing UK-wide inquiries into the issue will provide both answers and peace of mind for those who have been affected.

It should be borne in mind, however, that no breast implant surgery or cosmetic procedure is entirely without risk. I know that there are often good medical reasons for having breast implants, but I am not alone in being concerned by the ever-increasing numbers of women who feel that they have to put their bodies through this ordeal for cosmetic reasons. The PIP case highlights the real dangers that are involved in cosmetic surgery. The unrealistic image of women that pervades much of our society, most worryingly among our young people, continues to drive women to measures such as cosmetic surgery at great expense and danger to themselves, all in the name of someone else’s idea of beauty.

Carol Craig of the Centre for Confidence and Well-Being is extremely concerned about the amount of money that is spent—by people who can ill afford it—on such treatments. The health impact of the practices is well documented and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the situation threatens to undermine the equality and emancipation of women in our society. We can all agree that the manufacturers and practitioners in question have a duty of care to their customers, but we should not forget the duty of care that we all owe each other in society, and to ourselves as women.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

This has been a worthwhile, interesting and considered debate with good speeches from members in all parts of the chamber. As I said previously, it is important that the debate has been held. It has provided an opportunity at least to try to reassure the thousands of women in Scotland who are affected by the issue.

We heard a considerable amount about the response to date of the various bodies that are involved, whose conclusions have been supported by fully fledged expert reviews. Of course, the matter is by no means closed, and information will continue to accrue. The longer-term review into the regulation of cosmetic medical devices is predicted to run until March next year. I note what Richard Simpson said in his intervention, but I agree with the minister that we should look at the PIP issue first and perhaps go on to other matters after that. Considerable scientific data on PIP implants is also being gathered by the EU’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks.

The various reviews have already identified some of the weaknesses of adverse incident reporting as a mechanism for analysing safety. It relies entirely on the people who provide care to appreciate the seriousness of the data that they can provide and their role in protecting patient safety. It does, however, form a genuine statistical link between reported patient experience and the regulators. The European investigation will go further and take evidence from across the member states in order to draw further conclusions on PIP implants and the possibilities for change in EU medical device legislation.

In calling for a public inquiry, Jackie Baillie has come to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to assume that there is a gap in our knowledge, or that there is some failure that has been caused by people other than the perpetrators of this fraud, and that that can be determined only by a public inquiry. However, I am afraid that I cannot come to the same conclusion.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

This is not about apportioning blame, but about learning lessons of responsibility for the after-care of the women so that the same mistakes do not happen in the future.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I appreciate that, but I still think that the on-going work and its conclusions will satisfy.

It is certainly true that we can continue to improve regulation of our healthcare system. Fiona McLeod raised some interesting points in that regard and I agree with Jackie Baillie and others that the suggestion that we re-open the implants register is worthy of consideration. I would welcome the minister’s opinion on that.

I am in no doubt that it is extremely important that we continue to review all regulation for its effectiveness. Areas for improvement have already been identified at UK level, and I continue to be confident that NHS Scotland is capable of co-operating effectively on the issue in the near future, and of considering what further changes may be required when the more general review concludes next year.

Many of the issues concern simple communication. For example, concerns were identified about the communication of medical alerts between the MHRA and private medical providers. Recommendations from Earl Howe have gone some way towards addressing those concerns, but Sir Bruce Keogh’s review, which is taking an holistic view of regulation in the sector, will be vital in tying together our actions and addressing weaknesses that may have arisen as the industry has changed over many years. As Earl Howe has observed, it is incumbent upon all those involved in delivering care to redouble their efforts in reporting incidents of concern, but it is even more pressing that communication as a whole be improved. We are also reminded of the importance of co-operation across national boundaries and regulatory sectors.

In view of all the work that has already been undertaken and that is on-going, Scottish Conservatives do not see the need for the public inquiry that Jackie Baillie seeks, and will therefore support the Scottish Government’s amendment at decision time this evening.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

It has been a useful debate. I think that, on reflection, most members would recognise that this is an issue that goes beyond party politics and is about trying to ensure that we do the right thing in addressing the concerns that have been raised. Unfortunately, Mary Fee’s suggestion that there has been inaction by the Scottish Government in that regard is not only not reflective of the facts, but is simply wrong. It is important that, in contributing to a debate on an issue of such importance around women’s health, members reflect on what action is being taken.

The experience of one of Malcolm Chisholm’s constituents demonstrates the type of response that we have asked NHS Scotland to make. I recognise that members may have different views on what that response should be, but it is simply wrong to suggest that no action has been taken.

It is right, when a matter such as this arises and when the regulatory regime that we have in place has not protected individuals from the alleged fraudulent activity of the company that produced the breast implants, that we look at whether there are ways in which we can ensure that the regulatory system is more effective in addressing the concerns. Nanette Milne is correct to say that it is not possible to get a 100 per cent fail-safe regulatory system, but we clearly have to ensure that we learn lessons in order to ensure that the system is sufficiently robust, which is what the Earl Howe review was intended to do. I acknowledge Malcolm Chisholm’s view about the content of that review, but it is important to recognise that the review will be supplemented by the wider review by Sir Bruce Keogh that is being undertaken at present and which will report next year on whether further measures need to be taken beyond the recommendations of the Earl Howe review.

I recognise that despite the review, people—including members of the PIP implants Scotland campaign—continue to have concerns about the regulatory regime. However, it is important that we ensure that the reviews that are taking place address those concerns and the concerns that the PIP implants Scotland campaign believes the MHRA, the Department of Health and others have to address. As a Government, we are open to considering the matters and to making the necessary representations where that is appropriate.

Concerns have been expressed about the content of PIP breast implants—Malcolm Chisholm made a specific point on that in relation to his constituent. I understand that the MHRA has carried out further tests on PIP implants and that, as part of Sir Bruce Keogh’s work, the data and the toxicology findings are being looked at. I am informed that there are difficulties in carrying out toxicology tests on breast implants that have ruptured, which leads to difficulties in offering certainty on what may be in those particular breast implants. That is the scientific expert advice that has been provided, but I understand that further tests have been taken as part of the Sir Bruce Keogh review.

Maureen Watt raised the issue of how breast implants are chosen by different clinicians. NHS Scotland does not routinely provide cosmetic surgery, and the number of breast implants is limited. The guidelines and criteria on their use are clear—they are largely for breast augmentation for women who have undergone a mastectomy. The choice of breast implant is largely decided by clinicians, who work with patients to establish what is most appropriate to that individual. That is why we allow boards to procure breast implants that their clinicians believe are best suited to their individual patients, rather than controlling procurement nationally. I am sure that Maureen Watt will recognise the benefit that is gained from that approach.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am very short of time and I want to cover as many points as I can.

A number of members mentioned the introduction of a register. Some members may be aware that we had a UK register that ceased because of the number of women who chose not go on it—only a small number were prepared to do it. That, too, is being looked at through regulation and the Sir Bruce Keogh review, which will report next year. If there is a clear recommendation about the need to consider establishing a register we will, as I have said, reflect on the reviews and the implications for Scotland and see what action we can take to address that.

Jackie Baillie expressed concern about a difficultly that has been experienced by an individual from the PIP Scotland group from whom she has received representation. That experience contrasts markedly with the experience of Malcolm Chisholm’s constituent. I assure all members that we will ensure that all cases of concern about how NHS Scotland has responded will be looked into. Members whose constituents have such experiences should feel free to make representations to the cabinet secretary or me to ensure that the matters are appropriately considered. The chief medical officer has written on two occasions in the past six months to GPs and surgeons to set out the Scottish Government’s position on assisting women with PIP implants through our NHS.

I acknowledge the concerns of members of the PIP campaign. As the cabinet secretary set out last week, she does not believe that—based on the present information—the case for a public inquiry has been made.

We need to continue to work with the PIP campaign in Scotland to address its concerns. When necessary, the Government will take appropriate action in areas in which we have responsibility, and will make representations to the UK bodies that are responsible for addressing the issue. We will continue to work with all those bodies in order to provide certainty and to address concerns as and when they arise. On that basis, the most appropriate course that we can take at present is to allow the review process to be completed. Once that is done, we will look at its implications for Scotland and address any issues that arise for us when appropriate.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As all members have acknowledged, this has been a useful debate, but some questions remain unanswered.

Why should there be an inquiry? Why should we not just rely on the Earl Howe report on the MHRA, and on the two reports by Sir Bruce Keogh? Why are they not sufficient? As the minister said, those reports are helpful, but they are not sufficient, although they will and should inform our approach.

In her thoughtful contribution, Nanette Milne reminded us of the fraud by the manufacturer, but the issue is not one of blame. We are talking about ensuring patient safety. That is what regulation is about, and the regulatory system failed those patients, some of whom are in the gallery today.

The Earl Howe report says that the MHRA did all that it could, but it fails to examine whether the system of reporting was adequate, as reports were made directly to the company and might have been used as a substitute for an effective UK reporting system. Systems for reporting on adverse effects generally are an area of concern and, as Malcolm Chisholm said, there was a refusal to test at least some of the extracted implants.

The House of Commons committee has been justifiably critical of the Earl Howe report, although it is a pity that there has not been a greater analysis of it. The Government simply appears to have accepted it as being wholly valid.

I was somewhat disappointed in Maureen Watt’s contribution. Many of the women that we are talking about have had reconstructive surgery, but others who sought private implants did so for quite genuine and reasonable psychological reasons. Although I understand what she is talking about when she talks about the emphasis on body image, it is not particularly relevant.

The stories of the affected women are striking for a number of reasons. It is those women who are asking the Parliament to act to ensure that what happened does not happen again in either this or other contexts, and I will come to that point in a minute. It is those women who are asking for an inquiry in Scotland—because there is a Scottish dimension to the issue. It is they who want the situation not to arise here again.

A number of members have talked about the difficulties that the women encountered as the scandal unfolded. The French Government took strong and decisive action, which contrasted with the rather slower and more confused action that was taken at the UK level. Margaret Burgess’s description of the women’s distress resonated, and that was quite helpful.

When we are told that some women had to pay for removal of the device even once it was established that the producing company had switched from medical grade silicone to industrial grade silicone without telling us and had not passed on information about the level of ruptures, we have to question what private companies were doing.

Those affected tell us that there has been some suggestion of a postcode lottery, so I welcome the minister’s agreement to listen to and take up the issue for any woman who has not had a satisfactory response from the NHS. I hope that the campaign group will spread that information around so that some of the cases that we have already heard about can be raised.

When we hear about the woman who was not only charged for the removal procedure but was charged £100 for disposal of the removed device, we must question the ethics of the private company involved. Some women were also charged when the provider did not think that the removal of the device was necessary, but if a woman faced with the situation wishes to have the device removed because her anxiety levels have increased, she should be entitled to have it removed, especially given the level of fraud that has allegedly occurred. We have particular problems in Scotland, because class actions cannot be taken here, unlike in England, but that is a separate issue that I do not fully understand.

The Howe inquiry has gone so far and the Keogh inquiry will go further, so why do we want to establish our own public inquiry? It is not that we do not welcome both of those inquiries, but if we are serious about a potential move to independence, we will need to consider having not just a Scottish Medicines Consortium to authorise medicines, but a similar body—the 81st regional body—to authorise devices. With 27,000 devices approved, that would be no mean undertaking.

The EU may revise the rules on devices, but it is clear from the scandal and from the scandal that is going to unfold regarding metal-on-metal hip replacements that the regulation of medical devices—particularly those involving implantation—is inadequate. Moreover, we cannot look to the United States for better regulation, as they, too, have problems with what constitutes a threshold for notification by companies of changes in devices. They, too, have their own unfolding scandals.

Scotland and this Government have a duty of care to Scottish residents, as Jackie Baillie and Mary Fee made clear, which falls within the scope of an inquiry. What efforts did the Scottish Government make when the first medical alert came out in March 2010? We are not accusing the Government of inaction once the scandal began to evolve, but there was a medical alert in 2010. Did we, at that point, inform all the providers in Scotland whose regulation we have responsibility for that they must pay heed to that medical alert? Did we, at that point, talk to women who had had implants that were subject to the alert? No, we did not. There was delay, and that must be considered by the inquiry because the issue may also arise in relation to the metal-on-metal scandal that we will shortly face. We need much greater clarity and effort to ensure patients’ safety.

Some issues are reserved, and the MHRA deals with those. The Health Professions Council deals with the regulation of practitioners, but we have responsibility for determining the minimum standards of care, which can include things such as insurance cover and the medical qualifications that we believe are required. For example, should only dentists be able to perform tooth whitening? That is another issue that is coming up. There have been legal cases on the subject, but the fact remains that unqualified people are still performing tooth whitening. Eye laser surgery is not cosmetic, but the level of qualification required of those who undertake it in Scotland is not fully regulated beyond HPC level. Regulations in respect of companies that do marketing in Scotland or undertake surgery in Scotland should be introduced quickly. We passed legislation in 2010, we held a consultation in 2010 and the consultation was completed in July 2011, but we still have not had a report. We have not acted with speed on the issue of more effective regulation of high-street surgery and the private sector; it requires greater speed.

Those are all issues on which we believe a public inquiry is needed to ensure that Scottish patients are adequately protected going forward. I therefore support Jackie Baillie’s motion calling for a public inquiry.

Factoring (Buildings in Mixed Tenure)

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive whether consultation with owner-occupiers is mandatory prior to a registered social landlord introducing factoring arrangements in blocks of flats in mixed tenure. (S4O-01119)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Consultation is mandatory if the matter is included in the title deeds. When the deeds do not make provision for the process of appointing a factor, the tenement management scheme in the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 may apply. The scheme makes provision for majority decisions at meetings or, failing that, following consultation.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfriesshire)

The cabinet secretary’s answer will be of interest to my constituents. If a ballot has been undertaken of householders in a block—involving both owner-occupiers and tenants—regarding future factoring arrangements, will all householders be bound by the result of that ballot to comply with the terms of the factoring agreement?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The answer is more complex than a straight yes or no because it depends on the status of the title deeds and various other factors. I suggest that Ms Murray writes to me with the specifics and we will do our best to give her a definitive reply on what applies in the circumstances.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of my concerns about unintended consequences of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011, which is admirable legislation. For example, East Kilbride and District Housing Association feels that it is obliged to set a factoring cost for a limited number of shared equity owners for whom it had agreed that it was not worth it economically to set up a factoring system. Can he give some comfort to associations such as that?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The member has written to Keith Brown, the Minister for Housing and Transport, on that point and will receive a detailed reply in the next few days.

We are looking at any unintended consequences of the legislation with a view to making any necessary amendments in the housing bill that is planned for introduction next year.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question 2, in the name of Ken Macintosh, has been withdrawn. The member has provided me with an explanation and I am satisfied with it.

NHS Boards (Targets)

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what recent discussions it has had with national health service boards that show significant variation below the mean in the recording of either referral-to-treatment or waiting time targets. (S4O-01121)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Ministers meet regularly with NHS chairs and discuss issues of importance to the service, including waiting times. Each board and the health department also closely monitor each individual health board area as part of their routine discussions on delivery of waiting times standards.

The referral-to-treatment target is for 90 per cent compliance. The latest statistics show that the linkage rate from initial referral to treatment was 90.5 per cent for March 2012.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer but what I was really asking was what specific conversations she had had with boards such as NHS Ayrshire and Arran, which accounted for 93 per cent of all the breaches over nine weeks in the waiting time target for diagnostics and, in addition, accounted for nearly 50 per cent of the breaches of six weeks, which is the current target.

Almost another 50 per cent was accounted for by NHS Fife. Out of the total breaches of the diagnostic target, two health boards accounted for well over 90 per cent. I have asked NHS Fife about it and it has explained what happened and how it is being tackled. Has the cabinet secretary asked the questions of NHS Ayrshire and Arran? Can she tell us what the problem is in NHS Ayrshire and Arran and what support she is offering both boards, or has she yet again failed to ask the right questions?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

If Richard Simpson had listened to my original answer, he would have heard me say that we discuss all of those issues on an on-going basis with health boards, as appropriate. Where there are questions relating to the data submitted to Information Services Division by an individual health board or indeed the apparent performance around waiting times standards by that health board, that will be interrogated and followed up, as appropriate, by ISD, where it considers that appropriate, and by my officials.

I am more than happy to write to the member specifically in the case of NHS Fife, although I hear him say that he has already done that, and in the case of NHS Ayrshire and Arran, to ask them to offer their explanations for the issues relating to the data in each case.

Sheriffhall Roundabout

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to redevelop the Sheriffhall roundabout and achieve grade separation. (S4O-01122)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Our plans for junction improvements at the Sheriffhall roundabout on the A720 Edinburgh city bypass are outlined in intervention 22 of the strategic transport projects review, commonly referred to as the STPR.

We continue to engage with the relevant authorities regarding their proposals for future development around Sheriffhall to help to inform the further detailed design and development work required to determine the nature of those junction improvements.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

Sheriffhall roundabout continues to be a congestion nightmare for my constituents and those travelling to my constituency. It also remains a safety hazard for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Does the cabinet secretary agree that some form of grade separation is urgently needed as part of a solution to the problem? Does he agree that in order to resolve the chronic congestion, urgent action is needed?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We recognise the importance of upgrading Sheriffhall roundabout, which is why it is included in the STPR. The timetable for the junction improvements will be set in the context of overall affordability and our commitments to other STPR proposals. Inevitably, the 30 per cent reduction in our capital budget that Westminster has imposed is delaying programmes such as that one because, if we had the money, we would have been able to carry out many such projects far sooner than we will now be able to.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

As the Sheriffhall roundabout impinges on my constituency, will the minister confirm that I have taken a correct note of his words—is it intervention 22 in the STPR? Is that what will help me?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

That was a welcome intervention on intervention 22. I am absolutely sure that every intervention in the STPR is there primarily with the Borders in mind and will help Christine Grahame. We are absolutely determined to improve transport in the Borders, as we are throughout Scotland.

Commonwealth Games (Benefits to North-east)

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what benefit the 2014 Commonwealth games will bring to the north-east. (S4O-01123)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government is committed to creating a lasting legacy and maximising the benefits for the whole of Scotland from Glasgow’s hosting of the 2014 Commonwealth games.

Activity throughout the north-east is being delivered with national partners and the three local authorities. Thirteen community sports hubs are, or soon will be, delivering services to the local community. One business that is based in the north-east is benefiting from having won a Commonwealth games-related contract, with many more contract opportunities to come. Six youth legacy ambassadors are developing new skills by engaging in a wide range of legacy activity and championing that to their peers and communities.

Local people and groups are also getting involved through our annual games for Scotland events and grant funding from the Big Lottery Fund’s 2014 communities programme.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Is the minister satisfied that councils such as Aberdeenshire Council are doing everything that they can to embrace the principle of the Commonwealth games in the interests of our young people and are ensuring that the community sport hubs and our school estates are accessible and affordable for our young people?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Dennis Robertson focuses on an important issue. I am satisfied that there is good engagement with all local authorities in Scotland on the issue. We have made a commitment to deliver 150 community sports hubs throughout Scotland by 2016, and that is because many of them are the mechanism for opening up schools, so that schools are not closed beyond the school day. The facilities, which are often the best sporting facilities in a community, should be open in the evening and on the weekends. The community sports hubs provide us with a good way of achieving that.

Scottish Government (Off-payroll Employees)

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how many of its employees have their salaries paid off-payroll. (S4O-01124)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There are no such cases.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

I am pleased that action has been taken since I lodged the question. The issue of tax avoidance in the public sector is incredibly important. Will the minister advise when the 20 employees who were off-payroll will come on-payroll?

Going beyond individual employees, will the cabinet secretary consider action to ensure that fear of legal action does not discourage public bodies from contracting private firms that have responsible tax arrangements?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There has been no requirement to take action to remedy the situation since the question was lodged because there are no circumstances, and never have been, in which employees of the Scottish Government have been paid off-payroll.

As part of my review of public bodies appointments across 143 organisations, I identified 20 cases in which individuals were not being paid through the payroll, with tax deducted at source. The average remuneration for those individuals was £2,000 a year, so we should have a sense of perspective about this particular question.

The other point with regard to the remuneration of contractors who manifestly are not civil servants and manifestly are not employees of the Scottish Government is that the framework agreement from the Government requires consultants and contractors, including suppliers of temporary workers, to satisfy the Scottish Government that they conduct all financial accounting and reporting activity in full compliance with tax laws and regulations. That is what I expect, and that is what I will enforce.

Ferry Routes (Tendering Process)

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it is making with the tendering process for CalMac routes. (S4O-01125)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Our current focus is on finalising the Scottish ferries plan, which will define the main features of the future procurement of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services. An announcement on the timescale for the tendering of those services will be made in due course.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the serious concerns of RMT and Nautilus International about the significant increase in the number of foreign seafarers who are employed to work within United Kingdom waters at well below the national minimum wage and on inferior conditions?

Will he undertake to ensure that the new tendering process for the 2013 to 2019 routes is conducted on a level playing field, with no unfair advantage being accrued to one operator?

Does Mr Neil share my view that CalMac’s consistent and successful record in investment in and training and employment of seafarers is critical to the future of the Scottish maritime sector?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am aware of the concerns. Within the procurement legislation and the framework of the European Union, we will do what we can to ensure that there is a level playing field in ferries procurement, as we do throughout the Government procurement process.

Like David Stewart, I am very impressed by the work that CalMac has undertaken, but of course I cannot allow that to dictate the outcome of any particular contract award.

Scottish Futures Trust (Hubs)

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what social and economic impact the Scottish Futures Trust’s hub programme is having on local communities. (S4O-01126)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The long-term nature of the hub programme facilitates the creation of new employment and training opportunities, and supports the development of long-term sustainable businesses.

Central to being appointed as a hub territory partner is making a pledge to create employment opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises and the third sector and supporting and engaging with local communities and training programmes. To date, more than 80 per cent of the value of hub construction work has been locally procured among SME companies.

The hub programme is also delivering high-quality public buildings for joint occupation by health, education, social work and other community staff, and the co-location of services is supporting the on-going drive to improve public services for communities right across Scotland.

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

Since its opening four months ago, the Drumbrae library hub has attracted more than 55,000 visitors. Does the minister agree that the all-round success of the project is evidence that the hub model’s joint working and shared delivery approach is succeeding in delivering value-for-money public services for local communities?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Drumbrae library hub is the first project to be completed by hub South East Scotland Ltd, and the first hub project to be completed in Scotland. I am delighted that it has received an enthusiastic welcome from local residents.

The hub programme that the Scottish Futures Trust is taking forward will deliver £1.4 billion of community infrastructure across Scotland over the next 10 years. It is an innovative approach, and central to its success is collaborative working among local authorities, health boards, blue-light services and private sector development partners.

I look forward to many more projects like the Drumbrae library hub being delivered, bringing benefits to local communities throughout the country. That would not have happened if we had listened to the Labour Opposition and its opposition to the creation of the Scottish Futures Trust.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Given that single-supplier framework agreements are restricted to four years under the European Union procurement directive, is the cabinet secretary confident that hubs are compatible?

Assuming that they are—and I hope, in the interests of the north Edinburgh health centre, that they are—will he tell me why the north Edinburgh health centre is taking so long to materialise, given that an initial agreement on the project was approved by the Scottish Government capital investment group in 2009?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am totally satisfied that the procurement arrangements are perfectly in order in relation to both EU legislation and our own requirements.

The reason for the delay in the specific project to which Mr Chisholm referred is to get agreement on some of the details among all the constituent partners, but my understanding is that substantial progress is now being made.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Last week, the Scottish Futures Trust won a clutch of awards for being the “Best Central/Regional Government PPP Promoter”. Is it not about time that we had some honesty from the minister and that he accepted what everyone else knows—that SFT schemes are just public-private partnership schemes under another name?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I do not think that any member of the Labour Party is in a good position on this, given the huge disaster that private finance initiatives have left both north and south of the border. Let us take a Labour Party PFI project such as the one at Hairmyres hospital, where we will end up spending three to four times the original cost of the project. Labour opposed the SFT, but the SFT is delivering for the people of Scotland. Labour imposed cuts and the Conservatives endorsed them, and if it had not been for the SFT, we would not be getting new colleges in Inverness, Kilmarnock and Glasgow, we would not be making progress with the sick children’s hospital in Edinburgh, and we would not be doing all the other things that the Government is doing that Labour failed to deliver over eight years.

Renewable Energy Investment Fund

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

9. Perhaps this issue will be less controversial than the previous one.

To ask the Scottish Government when the renewable energy investment fund will be open for bids from community bodies. (S4O-01127)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Alongside the announcement in March of our plans to establish a renewable energy investment fund, we announced an interim package of support worth £2 million for community renewables for this financial year. That transitional support is open for applications, and community bodies that are interested in the scheme should contact Community Energy Scotland. That support will build on existing support specifically to ensure that communities can obtain finance for capital build. It will thus help to maintain the momentum towards our target for community and locally owned renewables while arrangements for the renewable energy investment fund are being finalised.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I hope that, in answering my supplementary question, the minister will confirm when the renewable energy investment fund will be up and running and open for bids.

Previously, I have sought assurances from the Government that the definition of “communities” will be broad and inclusive and will allow joint bids in association with public bodies, such as councils. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that communities of interest will be able to apply for support, rather than only geographic communities?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will write to Patrick Harvie on the specific point that he has raised to clarify matters, as there is a very specific definition of community interest companies. I will need to confirm that with him.

I reassure Patrick Harvie that an interim package of support, which was announced back in March by the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, is available for applications as we work through the details of the renewable energy investment fund. There is no impediment to applications coming forward and being considered for the interim funding that we have put in place.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What is the minister’s response to urgent concerns that renewable energy developments by communities and individuals are being hampered by a lack of grid connection availability?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is clear that ensuring the alignment of individual projects with grid connections is a major factor in ensuring that renewable energy projects can be taken forward. As Mr McGrigor will know, questions about access to the grid are essentially points for discussion with the power companies. If there are specific cases about which Mr McGrigor is concerned, ministers will be happy to try to assist in forming solutions. Ensuring that there is alignment between emerging projects and the available grid connections is a very practical issue that is at the heart of taking forward the agenda, and ministers would be happy to help out in any way that they can to resolve such questions.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

What part can local authorities play in encouraging communities to make a contribution to the climate change effort? Does the cabinet secretary share my regret that Glasgow City Council’s obstruction over the Castlemilk and Carmunnock Community Wind Park Trust has meant that people in my constituency have lost out on years of potential benefit from the project?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, public bodies must act in a way that will contribute to the delivery of the targets that are set out under the act. Therefore, on Mr Dornan’s key question, Glasgow City Council and other local authorities have a key role in helping us to reach the targets.

I understand that it was not possible for Castlemilk and Carmunnock Community Wind Park Trust and Glasgow City Council to reach an agreement on the lease of land. We encourage dialogue, in the spirit of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, to make progress on such questions.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00774)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There will be meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

There were fun and games at Leveson yesterday. I am pleased that the First Minister managed to get through the whole day without telling Robert Jay that he was not asking the right questions.

The First Minister said yesterday that the only reason why he backed the Murdoch takeover of British Sky Broadcasting was for Scottish jobs. Can he confirm how many jobs would have come to Scotland if the Murdochs had taken over BSkyB? Will he say what the civil service and Scottish Enterprise assessments were of the deal?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Maybe that was because Robert Jay was asking the right questions yesterday.

The evidence for the impact on jobs and investment in Scotland comes in three parts. First, there is the evidence of James Murdoch—under oath, of course—to the Leveson inquiry on 24 April. I will read Johann Lamont the relevant part:

“I think we have to recall that this merger was about the creation of a pan-European digital television platform with major operations in the United Kingdom, and particularly that meant potentially quite a lot of operations and an increase in operations in Scotland, where technical support, IT, service centres, et cetera, were located for British Sky Broadcasting as an important employer there”.

Secondly, we know—and Johann Lamont knows now—that 36 per cent of BSkyB’s global employment is located in Scotland. At a meeting that I had with Mr Murdoch last year, it was explained that there would be an increase of 150 jobs in Livingston; those jobs were announced on 13 March and 16 May last year.

Thirdly, and crucially, there is the question of the outsourcing jobs. Johann Lamont will have studied my letter to James Murdoch after the meeting last January, when I quoted back the key point that he had conceded, which was that Scotland is a world-class centre for outsourcing. We were in danger last year because of the decision to move from six to two suppliers, which potentially put almost 2,000 jobs at risk in Scotland. Fortunately for Scotland, HEROtsc—with the assistance of Scottish Enterprise—was able to win one of the two contracts and, instead of losing jobs, we gained jobs in Scotland.

Those are the facts of which Johann Lamont was not aware the last time she started asking such questions. Now that she is aware of the facts, will she concede that, whatever politicians elsewhere were doing, jobs and investment for Scotland were the priority for this Government?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

First, that compelling case would have been interesting if, when the First Minister was first asked about the matter, he had not dismissed out of hand the fact that he was going to make a call to James Hunt. Secondly, my question was about what assessments the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise had made, not about what James Murdoch told the First Minister or anyone else that the deal would mean.

The fact is that the First Minister did not make the case on jobs. At the Leveson inquiry, Robert Jay QC put forward a compelling case that the First Minister appeared to be lobbying on Rupert Murdoch’s behalf in return for the support of The Sun. The First Minister admitted that he was prepared to lobby—in secret, bizarrely—for Murdoch because a takeover would have been good for Scottish jobs. How many jobs did the Murdochs tell him would be created in Scotland if they had taken over BSkyB—or did they threaten to pull jobs out if he did not back the bid?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

James Hunt was an English racing driver. James Murdoch was chairman of BSkyB. James Murdoch is the one who, under oath at the Leveson inquiry, made the commitment and the argument that the digital television platform would have led to an increase in jobs in Scotland.

BSkyB has credibility in Scotland because it has more than 6,000 direct jobs in Scotland—36 per cent of its entire global workforce. Incidentally, the success of HEROtsc—and of Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International in working with it—in winning one of the two outsourcing contracts is not a particularly strong suit for Johann Lamont, given that when she discussed it in April she was totally unaware of its importance, despite the fact that it led to the opening of a new centre in Glasgow.

The people who are aware of the importance of those jobs are the people in Livingston, Dunfermline, Uddingston and Glasgow. They are glad that they have a Government that fights for jobs in Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Everybody knows that those jobs have nothing to do with the BSkyB takeover. If the First Minister believed that, he might have shared the information that it was about those jobs rather than being prepared to make secret phone calls on behalf of Murdoch.

The First Minister tells us of the importance of BSkyB to Scottish jobs, and he is right. [Interruption.] Indeed, that is a novelty, but he is right. BSkyB was a major employer in Scotland before the bid and it remains a major employer after the withdrawal of the bid—so what was the benefit to Scotland of the Murdochs taking over BSkyB?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

To quote James Murdoch’s evidence again,

“that meant ... quite a lot of operations and an increase in operations in Scotland, where technical support, IT, service centres ... were located for British Sky Broadcasting”.

When the chairman of a company that employs more than 6,000 people in direct jobs in Scotland says that the digital television platform would lead to an increase in its operations and more jobs in Scotland—and when he announces another 150 jobs in March and in May—he has a great deal more credibility than Johann Lamont, a Glasgow MSP who was not even aware of the huge threat to jobs in Glasgow.

What ultimately reveals Labour’s difficulty in this is that, when Johann Lamont was asked on Radio Scotland whether she would meet Rupert Murdoch because he was an important investor in Scotland, her answer—after a bit of hesitation—was that yes, she would meet him. That makes Johann Lamont the only Labour Party figure who wanted to meet either James or Rupert Murdoch to talk about jobs—the rest of them were apparently talking about many other things.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The difference between me and the First Minister is that if I met Rupert Murdoch, I would ask him how many jobs the deal brought with it. The First Minister seems to have taken him entirely at his word. The First Minister did not ask Scottish Government officials or Scottish Enterprise to assess things. Apparently, if Mr Murdoch says it, it must be true—meaningless assertion after meaningless assertion.

If the Murdoch bid would have created jobs in Scotland, why did the First Minister not ask Scottish Enterprise to assess the plan? What did the civil servants say about the bid and when did his Cabinet sign off the Government support for the deal? Why has he not answered the more than 40 questions that we have put to him about his dealings with Murdoch? As Robert Jay QC said yesterday,

“at the very least, there was a perception of cosiness”

between the First Minister and Rupert Murdoch. Nothing the First Minister has said changes that fact. Is it not true that Alex Salmond became Rupert Murdoch’s lackey not to create Scottish jobs but in an attempt to keep his own?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have told Johann Lamont what James Murdoch said under oath at the Leveson inquiry, which speaks for itself. I have told her about the increase in jobs in Livingston, of which she seemed totally unaware. I have told her about the saving of 2,000 jobs through the intervention and excellence of HEROtsc, of which she was totally unaware in April. The Labour Party has been blissfully unaware of all those things.

I pointed out that I have had five meetings with Rupert Murdoch in the past five years. I also pointed out to the Leveson inquiry that that is not in the same league as the Labour Party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. In fact, over Gordon Brown’s brief period as prime minister, he managed some 17 meetings with Rupert Murdoch.

In case it is said that that was all in the past, in the bad old days of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, I remind Johann Lamont as gently as I can of the words of Ed Miliband in The Sun on 22 April 2011. He said:

“Red Ed has died a death.”

He explained for The Sun’s readers, who were his main concern, that he was going to develop a new set of policies. He told the readership of The Sun that, even before the new policies would be known by Johann Lamont or any other MSP,

“You will read it first in The Sun.”

That strikes me as a pretty cosy relationship.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The First Minister has the cheek to accuse me—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order!

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

He has the cheek to accuse me of using a script, when he has prepared abuse that has nothing to do with the question that I asked him. [Interruption.]

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The First Minister has to confront the contradictions between the fact that, on 11 February 2011, Fred Michel said that the First Minister

“will call Hunt whenever we need him to”

and the fact that, according to written evidence to the Leveson inquiry, the Scottish Government had not expressed a view in early 2011 on the takeover. The First Minister must explain why he supported a takeover when it was self-evidently not about jobs. Everybody knows that it was not about jobs, so he needs to answer the question.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I thought that I explained this at some length at the Leveson inquiry yesterday. I am afraid that Johann Lamont’s interpretation of that does not meet the general interpretation of what was said. Let me see whether she can understand the key point. The responsibility of this Government is not competition policy—that lies with Westminster. Nor is it plurality in the press—that, too, lies with Westminster. The statutory responsibility of this Government is jobs and investment for Scotland. I assure Johann Lamont that that is the priority of this Government and that it is what we fight for every day of every week. If the Labour Party does not like that, that is fine, because this is a contest between two parties, one of which cares about jobs and the second of which cares about whatever Labour cares about. Certainly, the Scottish people care about jobs, jobs, jobs.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00750)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future. I think that the Prime Minister is otherwise engaged today.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am sure that the First Minister kept his seat warm for him.

Let us stick with yesterday’s testimony. When Rupert Murdoch’s new baby, The Sun on Sunday, was launched, Alex Salmond was the first edition’s poster boy. He gave exclusive access and a full interview—nothing was off the table. The same edition had a front-page splash that said “Day of Destiny” and “Revealed” the date of the referendum. Yesterday, the First Minister said that he did not leak the date—indeed, it could not have been leaked because apparently you cannot leak a possibility. However, he did not say whether that date was given to The Sun as a possibility by one of his advisers. Did it come from the First Minister’s office—from a spin doctor, a civil servant or another adviser—and did he approve the date’s release?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Kind of unwittingly, I anticipated that Ruth Davidson might ask that question, because I read about it in The Daily Telegraph this morning—we could have an investigation into the cosy relationship between The Daily Telegraph and the Scottish Conservative Party. The point that I was making was simple—the date is not a preferred date or the date; it is a possible date, because it is in the autumn of 2014. The date of the referendum will be announced after we have analysed the consultation responses and seen what people have had to say in the more than 20,000 representations to the consultation. I understand that the Conservative Party did not make a representation, so we can safely say that Ruth Davidson has no views on these matters. However, the people of Scotland have views and, when we have analysed the consultation, the date of the referendum will be announced.

Since Johann Lamont previously asked the same question, we have had a move forward, because we have heard that the Prime Minister is not fussed about the autumn 2014 date although, unfortunately, he did not tell Ruth Davidson. After all the huffing and puffing, week after week, it turns out that her leader—he is at the Leveson inquiry today, although I am sure that he will not be asked about this—is not bothered. The date will be in the autumn of 2014.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

It seems that all the charm and candour was used up yesterday and the First Minister is back to his usual self today. That was just like the First Minister—attacking anyone else and not answering the question. We were told:

“a Scottish Government source said: ‘This date is being lined up as the day when people will get the chance to vote for independence ... for Scotland.’”

Alex Salmond asks people to trust him on the issue, but we should look at the record of the past few weeks. The First Minister asserts that he has cross-party support for the independence campaign—no, he does not. He says that he knows that Scotland would not have to apply to join the euro—no, he does not. He asserts that he can put a Scot on the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee—no, he cannot. He asserts that Scotland can just use the Financial Services Authority as a financial regulator—no, we cannot. He is making it up as he goes along. He is getting found out and people are watching. People are looking for real answers to legitimate questions about the future of Scotland, but the First Minister is selling Scotland short by refusing to give them. Does he really think that, based on past performance, people will believe him any more?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As cheerfully and as gently as possible, I point out to Ruth Davidson that the Financial Services Authority is being abolished. It is no more. It is a dead Financial Services Authority. It has fallen off its perch. It has gone. It is finished. We cannae join it even if we want to.

On political parties, we should remember that, only a week or so ago, Ruth Davidson and her new colleagues in the cross-party alliance and joint campaign with the Labour Party were outvoted in the Scottish Parliament by the cross-party campaign for independence. Ruth Davidson touched on political parties’ fortunes. I have been reading that Tory Hoose website again, and I note that the Holyrood candidate for Almond Valley has been talking about the most disastrous results for the Conservative Party in the past 20 years, and then summing up by saying:

“Leader Ruth Davidson ... has to accept ... responsibility. This was her first electoral test, and the results were certainly not a vote of confidence from the Scottish public.”

She should sort out her own hoose first, before she starts asking me questions.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Is the First Minister aware that, on Tuesday, Scottish Gas announced 135 job losses at its call centre and support facility in Uddingston? The GMB and Unison officials there are concerned that the work is to be transferred within the company to a facility with poorer pay and conditions. The First Minister was quick to call Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for his friend Sir David Murray and he could not wait to make a call to Jeremy Hunt for his friend Sir Rupert Murdoch. Are 135 Scottish Gas employees in Uddingston worthy of a phone call, or does the First Minister’s statutory responsibility to fight for Scottish jobs, jobs, jobs apply only to some and not to others?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That remark about Sir David Murray is totally untrue. I am used to Michael McMahon and others saying things that are less than factually accurate about me and the Scottish National Party, but if the member is going to say something about someone who is not in the chamber and therefore has no ability to defend themselves, I must at least put on the record that his remark about Sir David Murray is totally untrue.

Perhaps I can turn to the substance of what was meant to be a constituency question about jobs. Is Michael McMahon so caught up in the political battle that he cannot do the essential duty of any member of Parliament, which is to represent his constituents as best he can? I am aware of the matter and will be talking to the unions and the company to see what can be done for his constituents. We put the interests of his constituents first, even if his remarks put that into doubt.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00752)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Earlier this week, I received a letter from a former senior official of Scottish Enterprise, who was angry at the appointment of the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to the board of Intertek for an annual payment of £55,000 on top of her £200,000 salary. What does the First Minister have to say to that former Scottish Enterprise official?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am surprised, because there are precedents for the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise being a non-executive director on the board of private companies under the Labour and Liberal Administration. Perhaps the former official was part of that Scottish Enterprise team. I am not sure whether Willie Rennie was aware of that but, nonetheless, it is a fact.

Willie Rennie should look at the positive reaction to this move from a range of business organisations. A lot of people understand the benefits of having the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise as one of the very few Scottish women who have ever been on the board of a FTSE 100 company. There are no conflict of interest concerns, because they have all been dealt with in Scottish Enterprise’s rules and regulations. Perhaps Willie Rennie should look at the broader picture and see the potential benefits to Scotland—and to Scottish Enterprise—of the appointment that was announced earlier this week.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Two years ago, the First Minister told the chamber that John Swinney had already acted to heavily restrict bonuses in the public sector; only now we find that there is a loophole allowing access to an extra £55,000. Most people—perhaps not those on the Scottish National Party benches—would not accept that £55,000 for 12 days’ work can be justified for someone who is already being paid £200,000 every year. [Laughter.] SNP members might laugh, but most people will find their laughter hollow.

I cannot really believe that the First Minister supports this appointment. If he reverses this decision today, he will get my support. Will he act?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I was just wondering myself what anyone would pay Willie Rennie as a non-executive director. I suppose that that might have been part of the reason for the interest shown in his comments.

There is a substantive point that Lena Wilson did not put in the press release—it is typical of the woman—but which I should make clear to Willie Rennie, because it might change his attitude to these matters. Under contracts that were drawn up during the years of the Labour and Liberal Administration, Lena Wilson has a contractual entitlement to a public sector bonus; indeed, it was commonplace for the contracts for the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to set out bonuses. She has relinquished her right to that public sector bonus. It seems to me that Willie Rennie should support that move, because it is in line with Government policy to eliminate contractual entitlements to bonuses from public sector contracts, even those that were drawn up and framed during the Labour and Liberal years of government. Eighty per cent of the people who were entitled to a bonus have voluntarily relinquished it. Lena Wilson has relinquished any entitlement to a public sector bonus. For the sake of fairness, on the record, Willie Rennie should accept that that is in line with Scottish Government policy. He should welcome that.

Suicide Rate

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to address the disparity in the suicide rate in Scotland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. (S4F-00755)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government is working hard with our partners in the national health service, local authorities and the third sector to reduce suicide and improve mental health and wellbeing. One life lost is too many, but the most recent figures published by the General Register Office for Scotland show that 2009 and 2010 had two of the lowest numbers of suicides in the past 20 years.

We have been supporting suicide prevention by improving access to psychological therapies; training front-line NHS staff in suicide prevention awareness; taking action to support people who abuse alcohol; and funding NHS Health Scotland’s choose life programme, which is the national strategy and action plan to prevent suicide in Scotland.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Research by the University of Edinburgh that was published this week showed that Scotland still has higher rates of suicide than the rest of the UK, which stems from the fact that Scotland has much higher rates of mental ill health in general. Research aside, anyone who has had personal contact with suicide through friends, family or loved ones knows how deep a tragedy every case is. Can the First Minister provide an assurance that the forthcoming and incredibly welcome mental health strategy will set out a substantive and comprehensive approach to improving Scotland’s mental health?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I echo the member’s comment about every suicide being a tragic loss. He is also right to point to the importance of mental health in many such tragedies. That is one reason why mental health is a priority for the Government. As the member knows, the mental health strategy was one of the first that we consulted on after last year’s election. The consultation closed on 31 January this year. We received a substantial number of responses—more than 340—and we will publish the mental health strategy in the summer. It will build on some of the successes that have been achieved in mental health and will set priorities for future improvement between now and 2015.

I am sure that the whole chamber understands the importance of the issue and the historical problem that Scotland has with such tragedies. Once the new strategy is in place, we will unite behind it to do whatever we can to reduce the number of such tragedies.

Modern Apprentice Programme (New Jobs)

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

5. To ask the First Minister how many new jobs have been created as a result of the modern apprenticeship programme. (S4F-00760)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As at 31 March this year, there were 35,262 apprentices in training, of whom 21,931 were aged between 16 and 19. Modern apprenticeships enable young people to gain better skills and a recognised qualification, and to develop confidence in the workplace. In addition, of course, every modern apprenticeship in Scotland is tied to a job.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Everyone in the chamber wants to tackle Scotland’s youth unemployment crisis, but to do so we need the facts. The people of Scotland were led to believe by the First Minister, week after week, that the 25,000 apprenticeships were created to help the 100,000 young Scots who are out of work, but now we know that at least 10,000 of those went to folk who were already well established in jobs. On an issue as important as this, why cannot he just be straight with people?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Over the past few days, I have watched Kezia Dugdale engage in what I think has been one of the most disreputable campaigns against modern apprenticeships in Scotland. At the heart of her new-found complaint—the rules on the matter have not changed from when the Labour Party was in office—is her belief that there are far too many people on the modern apprenticeship scheme who have been in jobs for six months or longer.

I have had a look at the figures. Let us remember that the number of modern apprenticeships in Scotland has almost doubled since this party took office in 2007—[Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Of course, the Labour Party voted against that in this year’s budget.

I have looked at the heart of Kezia Dugdale’s complaint. If we look at 16 to 24-year-old apprentices, who predominate in the modern apprenticeship programme, we see that the proportion of them who had been in employment for more than six months was 23 per cent. That means that 80 per cent were new workers going into apprenticeships in the 16 to 24 age group. What was the figure when the Labour Party was in office in 2006? It was 49 per cent. In other words, when Labour was in power, with a reduced number of apprenticeships, half of the young people had been in a job for six months or longer. That figure has now been reduced to 23 per cent.

Kezia Dugdale has the effrontery to conduct a campaign against a modern apprenticeship scheme that is one of the most successful in western Europe.

Higher English Curriculum

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the teaching profession regarding proposed changes to the higher English curriculum. (S4F-00770)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The SQA works closely with teachers and subject experts in the development of qualifications. More than 5,000 teachers, lecturers and academics have been involved in the development of the new national qualifications in more than 60 subjects. That is an unprecedented involvement of expertise in the development of this key element of Scottish education. The higher English qualification to be introduced in 2015 has been developed in that manner.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Last week, teachers of English in Scotland’s schools backed an Educational Institute of Scotland motion that told Mike Russell to reverse his controversial decision to insist that there is a compulsory question on Scottish texts in the English higher, describing it as

“nothing to do with education”. [Interruption.]

That is the view of the EIS and many English teachers across Scotland. They raised concerns that

“Instead of ... enriching children’s learning, it will close it off and narrow it.”

Does the First Minister agree with that comment?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Liz Smith should look at the report of the expert Scottish studies working group, its recommendations and the people who were on it. I give as an example the view of Brian Boyd, professor of education at the University of Strathclyde. He said:

“I welcome the announcement that all students sitting higher English should be entitled to study a Scottish text. It’s the least we can do to signal the importance of our literary heritage and celebrate contemporary Scottish writing at the same time.”

The EIS, incidentally, should not be represented as being against the study of Scottish history and Scottish texts and literature. That is not its position.

I say to Liz Smith that the Conservative Party’s hostility, often, to the element of Scottish literature and history being developed in schools, and to the move to give the next generation of young people things that were, frankly, denied to my generation, does her party no credit. Indeed, its former deputy leader identified its attitude to such subjects as one of the reasons for the continual and everlasting decline of the Conservative Party in Scotland.

The Conservative Party should reconcile itself to the idea that many, many people in Scotland want to be able to learn about Scottish literature, culture and history in our schools and to have those placed in an international dimension.

12:33 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Rural Affairs and the Environment

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The first item of business this afternoon is themed question time. The first theme is rural affairs and the environment. I would be grateful for short and succinct questions and answers to allow as many questions as possible to be asked.

Proposed Water Framework and Industrial Emissions Directives

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has received regarding the impact on businesses of the proposed water framework and industrial emissions directives. (S4O-01129)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The Government has regular dialogue with businesses over the development and implementation of policy. The water framework directive is a well-established policy and officials recently met the chemical industry and others as part of our development of a forthcoming consultation on the implementation of the industrial emissions directive.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Some concern has been expressed recently by industries in my constituency regarding timescales for implementation of both directives. Given that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said a few months ago that the impact on industry would be minimal, will the minister highlight to his United Kingdom Government counterpart and European Union officials the fact that, given that the current economic downturn is creating significant challenges in the petrochemical and agrochemical industries and the fact that the costs involved in implementing the directives can be considerable, there has to be a degree of give and take—

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Will the minister ask that industries that require extra time be given it in order to comply with the directives?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

As recently as 19 April, I wrote to the UK Government to support the UK negotiating strategy on the implementation asking that it be proportionate and that timescales be appropriate in order to avoid unnecessary and disproportionate cost.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Government’s consultation document on proposals for an integrated framework of environmental regulation says that, in order for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to become the sort of regulator that we need, consideration should be given to having a single permitting procedure which, it is argued, will simplify the range of current procedures. Can the minister clarify what sort of procedures we need? In the week of the Rio+20 conference, can he assure us that there will be no risk of private enterprises being able to opt out of regulation and being able to undertake their own regulation of our natural resources—specifically, water?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

It is up to private enterprises to obey the law and regulations. To that extent, they have to be internally self-regulating, and everyone in the company has to understand that. The role of bodies such as SEPA in regulation is in inspecting those processes and the outcomes. None of the changes that we are considering will change the basic principles of the duties within the company, or our role in monitoring what they do in order to deliver the desired outcomes.

Common Agricultural Policy

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the reform of the common agricultural policy. (S4O-01130)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I met the UK and other devolved ministers in London on 2 May to discuss, among other things, the common agricultural policy negotiations. I also have regular discussions with UK ministers ahead of each agriculture council meeting in Europe, and will be meeting them again on Monday when I attend the next agriculture council meeting in Luxembourg.

In addition, Scottish Government officials are working closely with UK officials to ensure that Scottish views are fed into the process.

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What assurances can be given to the crofting community that reform will address the anomalous situation that has resulted in crofting land being classified in the same way as prime agricultural land elsewhere in Scotland is classified?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The crofting communities are taking a close interest in a number of issues, and we are paying close attention to the situation. However, in theory, the move from the historic way of paying single farm payments based on area could benefit the crofting counties and crofters who qualify. The reasons for that are obvious, and concern the taking into account of the amount of land that is involved.

I could go on at great length about a range of issues in this area. If the member is aware of any specific concerns, he could ask for a meeting with me, or he could write to me, and I will investigate the matters.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

What hope can the cabinet secretary hold out to those who have entered farming since the previous reforms and who, consequently, have no entitlement to the single farm payment? What assurances can he give that their situation will be addressed in this round of common agricultural policy reform?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Alex Fergusson has raised a very good point. The issue is one of our top priorities for the negotiations. I know that ministers tend to respond to all concerns by saying that they are priorities, but I am sure that Parliament is aware that the matter is a key priority for Scotland.

We must ensure that we have a much fairer system for delivering agricultural support. Irrespective of when someone became an active farmer, they should qualify for the payment if they are active. We are trying to convey that clear message to the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development.

There has of course been movement, which allows new entrants who pass a test in the draft regulation to qualify for support, but we do not think that that goes far enough for Scotland’s circumstances and many new entrants would still be excluded, so we are still pursuing the issue.

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

What discussions has the Scottish Government had to ensure that, in the new system following CAP reform, only those who actively farm the land are entitled to receive the single farm payment? Does the Scottish Government believe that provision should be made to prevent the single farm payment from being shared with the landlord as part of the rent?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

That relates to the previous question about ensuring that genuinely active farmers receive the single farm payment and other related support. That issue is one reason why we were pleased to secure in the negotiations what we are calling the Scottish clause, which is in the draft regulations and which the Scottish Government communicated, with industry support, to the European Commission. That provision will allow us some leeway to define activity in Scotland in due course, once the new policy is in place.

We clearly want active farmers to benefit from the payments—not inactive farmers. In the situation that was highlighted in Margaret McDougall’s question, tenant farmers should qualify for the payment.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the context of CAP reform, the United Kingdom Government agriculture minister has said that what matters is that the UK Government speaks for Scotland on the basis of what he terms “shared objectives”. However, unlike the UK Government, Scottish farmers do not support a reduction in pillar 1 funding. Can the cabinet secretary therefore clarify how the Scottish interest can be protected in Brussels when we currently have no seat at the top table?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

In the absence of a seat at the top table, I suggest that the first solution is the election of an SNP Government. Thankfully, that happened not too long ago, so we are in the best possible position to try to influence the UK Government and Europe in the interests of Scotland’s farming communities.

Of course, we must negotiate not only with other member states and the European Commission but with the UK Government. That dilutes our priorities to a certain extent, because a member state can have only so many priorities and we need to share priorities with the rest of the UK when it comes to negotiations.

However, I believe that Scotland is punching above its weight. In my answer to the previous question, I gave the example of the so-called Scottish clause in the draft agricultural policy, which is a solution that has been made in Scotland and which the Scottish Government persuaded the European Commission to adopt.

Water Pollution

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to tackle water pollution. (S4O-01132)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Scotland’s river basin management plans include a range of measures to protect Scotland’s water environment from pollution. The Scottish Government is working closely with key stakeholders on the implementation of the plans.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Concerns have been expressed by constituents in Kinglassie in Fife about pollution in the Lochty Burn. Locals have worked hard to improve their local environment and to make it an attractive waterway to the village, but their efforts have been hindered by recent pollution of the burn by iron deposits, possibly from old coal mines. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is working with the Scottish Coal Company to investigate the issue, but it has been doing so for over a year and we are no further forward. Will the minister raise those concerns with SEPA? Will he ensure that SEPA is adequately resourced and has robust strategies in place to deal with water pollution arising from Scotland’s industrial past?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I say briefly that I am happy to raise the issue with SEPA and to ensure that I am informed on this clearly very important but local issue. On SEPA’s resources, it has become a very effective organisation and the way in which it now discharges its responsibilities means that we probably have better coverage than we have had for many years.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister join me in welcoming Scottish Water’s best practice incentive scheme, which seeks to protect water supply quality, for example at Loch Ascog on Bute? Could that scheme be extended elsewhere?