 I offer a very warm welcome to the First Minister who has come along to be grilled by the committee conveners on her legislative programme. This is, of course, the second time that we have had a First Minister coming along in this way to the committee conveners. It is part of the whole reform agenda of making sure that government is accountable. The order of the meeting is that I am going to invite the First Minister just to say a few opening words about her programme and then intend to go round all of the conveners and give everybody a good chunk of time to develop your points and your arguments with the First Minister. Without any further ado, you are very welcome, First Minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As you say, this is the first opportunity that I have had to attend a convener's group meeting and to use your words to be grilled by the parliamentary committee conveners. I know that it is only the second time that a session like this has taken place, so I am very pleased to be here. I am looking forward, I think, to the session. At the outset, while this is a decision for yourself, Presiding Officer, and for the conveners collectively, I would be very happy to make this a much more regular session and I would welcome the opportunity that that would give. The programme for government, which I published and announced to Parliament in November, as conveners are aware, included 12 items of legislation. One additional item of legislation, the franchise bill to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, has since been announced, making a total of 13 items of legislation. I know that the programme for government has a number of policy interventions over and above legislation as well. The programme for government legislation and non-legislative measures is grouped around the three key priorities that the government has set. Those priorities are very briefly to build prosperity because we all know and understand that a strong economy underpins the wellbeing of every community across our country. Secondly, to promote fairness, we need to ensure that growth benefits all sections of our society and all parts of the country. We know that, if we succeed in making Scotland more equal, that in itself will help us with our first objective, which is to make the country more prosperous and economically successful. The third theme and strategic priority that the government has set is around participation. We want to empower and enable people to improve their own lives and those of others living in their communities. As a result of the referendum last year, it is no exaggeration to say that Scotland has one of the best informed and most engaged electorates anywhere in Europe. I am pretty sure that there will be a shared objective to encourage that sense of engagement. An important part of that, in my view, is devolving power from this Parliament to local communities, as our community empowerment bill is designed to do. It is also about making our national institutions, including this Parliament, as open and accountable as possible. That is why I have said that I want to lead the most open and accessible Government that Scotland has had. We are doing that partly by taking part in public discussions. We are doing so almost every month of this year. We had an event in Aberdeen just two nights ago. It is why I am keen to make these sessions as constructive and productive as possible. I look forward to the opportunity that our discussions will present this afternoon. Obviously, the principal purpose of this session is for me to answer your questions, but I am also keen to take the opportunity to hear the views of conveners, which will then further inform my thinking and the thinking of my Government as how we face up to the challenges and build on the opportunities that we face. Thank you for the opportunity to give a few opening remarks, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, First Minister. Can I just go straight to Kevin Stewart? My first question is on fairness and empowerment. How do we ensure, First Minister, that enough resource is put into community capacity building, given folk the tools to do the things that they want to do and challenge where they need to challenge? I think that that is an absolutely vital part of community empowerment. The community empowerment bill, as conveners are very well aware of, creates new rights for community bodies, and it puts new duties on public authorities. The whole intention of that bill is to strengthen the voice of communities in the big decisions and sometimes the smaller decisions that matter to them and enable them to shape communities. However, those new legislative provisions will only make the difference that we want them to make in practice, if individuals and groups and organisations in communities have the capacity to make use of them. I know that that was a theme that came very strongly through the stage 1 evidence that your committee took on the Empowering Communities Bill. That is why, in the programme for government statement that I made in Parliament, as well as talking about some of the provisions in the community empowerment bill, I also announced that we would increase the funding that we were making available to community empowerment initiatives. I indicated an additional £10 million, which takes total funding in this area to £19.4 million. As an example of how we are using that funding, we are already currently supporting somewhere in the region of 80 community-led organisations, specifically to help them build their capacity and become more sustainable. That is funded through the £3 million Strengthening Communities programme, which is focused on areas such as suffering, disadvantage and inequality. We are very mindful of the need not just to give those new powers and place those duties in public authorities, but also to empower and enable local communities to take advantage of them. You heard some of the voices in Aberdeen on Monday night. Sometimes process is the thing that holds people back from being able to articulate their view. Marshall Square development in Aberdeen being a prime example. How do we ensure that processes and notification is as simplified as it possibly can be so that folks can have their voice heard? We can do that as government in a number of ways through the reforms and the improvements that we have over a number of years been trying to make to the planning process. That is one example. We can do it and it is an issue we may or may not come on to later in the session around the current debate about fracking, making sure that where there are big decisions on big, often controversial issues, we are making a particular effort to listen to the voice of local communities. Public authorities, whether that is national government or local government, have to be mindful not just in the processes that govern how they do things, but in the spirit in which they go about things that they are listening to the public voice as well. We are talking here about empowering communities. I talked in my opening statement about my desire to see powers devolved from this place to local communities. I think that we have got to recognise that there will always be attention around that agenda. When people want something to be decided locally, they will very much resent the idea of a national government stepping in in any sense to interfere with that decision. Conversely, when people do not agree with a decision that has been taken locally, there will often be a clamour for national government to step in and overturn a decision or bring about a different set of circumstances. I think that we have got to recognise and be quite open-eyed about that tension, but the more we can empower local communities and the more local public authorities can respond to the genuine desire of communities and individuals to get involved, the better we will handle all of that. I am now going to call Margaret McCulloch. First Minister, you recently spoke about the much more rigorous standards we have in the Scottish Parliament regarding equality and the budget. However, in responding to the budget equality statement, the Scottish women's budget group said that equality impact assessment practice is poor in general. Would you accept that we still have a long way to go and equality proof in the Scottish budget? Why do you think that the women's budget group has been so critical of assessment? The women's budget group, as Margaret McCulloch will be aware, has been central to our developing thinking and practice around all of this. The late Able for Macai was one of the key figures who informed our thinking. The very positive thing is that all of us should be proud of the fact that we have much more rigorous equality impact assessments built into how we develop legislation, how we do budgets and how we assess policy. Again, drawing on some of the objectives in our programme for government, I am keen to see a supplement with poverty impact assessments so that we are being very rigorous in challenging ourselves and testing ourselves about the impact of our policies, not just the intention of our policies. That said, I readily accept, and I have no oppressiveness about this at all, that we have to continue to try to improve not just the processes that we have in the way that we do things, but how we use those processes, how we refine them, how we get better at them. I think that we should be fairly upfront about that. In terms of your question about the women's budget group as a Government, we are very keen to work with them and to understand from them how they think we can make things even stronger and even more rigorous in the future. My last question is, again, the women's budget group identified a number of areas where they do have concerns about the Scottish budget, such as valuing the care economy, childcare and the council tax freeze. They directly challenged the assertion in the budget equality statement that there is parity in the council tax freeze and they do not accept that it actually helps people in low incomes because of cuts to council services. I am not clear if they oppose the council tax freeze outright or if they simply believe that it is underfunded. However, I wonder if you would agree with our call for a gender analysis of the council tax freeze and would you extend the gender analysis to any replacement for the council tax? First, I think that drawing on my earlier comments about the women's budget group and its importance, of course we should consider any suggestion they make about how we can better understand and measure and monitor the impact of our policies. Without going into any specifics there, we will have that very general sympathetic approach to anything that they might want to suggest in terms of how we do things. In terms of the council tax freeze, the evidence shows that in terms of those at the bottom end of the income scale, they benefit to the tune of a larger percentage of their income from the council tax freeze than those at the top end of the income scale. However, as Margaret McCulloch is already aware and it is another commitment that we are taking forward from the programme for government, preparations are under way in terms of the establishment of the commission cross-party, well, with one exception, cross-party commission that will look at the replacement for the current system or our replacement for the current system of council tax. I would expect many of those issues that Margaret McCulloch is raising to be considered as part of that process. In terms of some of the other policies that were mentioned, childcare, I am very firmly of the view that the expansion of childcare that we have seen thus far under this Government, the increase to 600 hours, which is a 45 per cent increase in the number of hours children are entitled to, and the further plans we have, if we are re-elected over the lifetime of the next Parliament, to almost double the provision of childcare is a policy that has significant benefits for first and foremost for children, but equally significant benefits for parents and in particular mothers who are seeking to get back into work or to pursue careers. That is an example, in my view, of a policy that is very specifically drawn from our desire to have greater equality running through our policies and our budget decisions. Bruce Crawford, the Devolution for the Powers Committee. Thank you, First Minister. Obviously, we now have the draft clauses produced by the UK Government, First Minister and the Command Paper. Since that date, there have been developments relating to intergovernmental working on finance matters. They start the work on the fiscal framework on the establishment of a new joint ministerial group on welfare. My committees also receive correspondence from the Secretary of State that discussions are on going between the two Governments and between the UK Government and party leaders on issues such as devolution of student visas, health and safety law and possibly abortion. Can the First Minister update us on what our Government is understanding of where those discussions are progressing and where they might lead? Yes, I can. I will do that in any particular aspect of it that you want me to get into further detail and I would be happy to do that. The new joint ministerial group on welfare, for example, met for the first time in London last week and John Swinney and Alex Neil were in attendance at that. More generally, when the draft clauses were published, the Scottish Government made clear and made clear again today that our aim was to develop or help to develop a bill that commands broad support and that can be ready for introduction as soon as is practically possible after the UK general election. That very much remains the objective that we are working towards. We are in discussion with the UK Government. We have already provided comments in all of the sections and that includes, as you would expect, some very technical detailed comments as well. We have already identified to Parliament areas where we want clauses to be improved and the Deputy First Minister included some of this detail in the statement that he gave to Parliament a couple of weeks ago. We want to see the need for the Scottish Government to obtain the consent of UK ministers on key areas, particularly around welfare, to be removed from the clauses. We want to see a move back to what the Smith commission proposed in terms of the power of the Scottish Parliament to create new benefits in devolved areas and to supplement benefits in reserved areas. We would like to see the removal of restrictions around employability programmes. There are a number of other areas that we want to explore with the UK Government. For example, the arrangements around the Crown Estate are very complex and we need to be sure that what the Parliament is getting is legislative competence out to 200 nautical miles. There was some doubt previously expressed about that provision in tribunals, for example. It does not devolve any new powers. There are some other areas where stakeholders have already expressed doubts about the effectiveness of draft clauses and fixed odds. Betting terminals are one of those examples. Although we take a very different view to the UK Government on the extent and the scale of powers that we want this Parliament to have, we are determined to work constructively with the UK Government to improve the clauses and to get a bill that is fit for purpose to be introduced as soon as possible. As we go along that road, there are a number of non-legislative areas, post study student visas, for example, where we will try to progress in parallel as well. Inevitably, there needs to be a space for inter-governmental discussion. Some of that space, certainly in the early days, will obviously have to be confidential as people are discussing these sort of issues. There are obviously discussions on going between the two Governments with political parties, but my interest in this is about what assurance the First Minister can give us about how the Parliament, particularly the committee that I am responsible for, can be kept up-to-date about what is going on and can she give any commitments about how her own Government and the UK Government can find appropriate mechanisms for the Scottish Carp Parliament and the various interested committees of this Parliament to keep to a kept informed. Obviously respecting that space is there for inter-governmental dialogue to take place. I agree, Martin, I feel very strongly that Parliament has to be central to this process. The Scottish Parliament, obviously the UK Parliament will be central to it as well, but I think the need for scrutiny in this Parliament by relevant committees and by Parliament as a whole is extremely important and the Scottish Government will seek to facilitate that as much as we possibly can. Deputy First Minister has already given evidence to your own committee, Mr Crawford, and to the Finance Committee, and we do stand ready and will continue to try to provide the committees with as much information as we can as this process develops to enable the committees to do their job in as full a way as possible. Obviously, although I spoke earlier on about the fact that a bill will not be introduced until after the UK general election, and depending on the result of the UK election, there may be further negotiation that further refines some of what we are talking about, but there is absolutely nothing standing in the way of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I know that your own committee is already planning to do that and to make sure that stakeholders' views are heard and both Governments get the opportunity to be held to account as well. Once a bill is introduced, then it will be subject through the LCM procedure to full scrutiny in this Parliament, both by committees and by the full Parliament, as was the case around the 2012 Scotland Act. I think that the final point that I would make, and again we may come on to this in the context of some of the other committee's lines of questioning, but although the legislative proposals here in the form of the bill that will be introduced are extremely important, so too is the fiscal framework that will accompany the legislation. In fact, in many ways, the fiscal framework may be even more important in terms of getting the detail of that right, so what I would suggest and again make it very clear that the Government will be as helpful as possible in enabling the committees to do this job is that scrutiny of the fiscal framework is as important as scrutiny of the legislation. In that regard, obviously, the Barnett formula and how it works is incredibly significant as far as the fiscal framework is concerned. I have yet to have an academic before our committee to tell us how we could actually explain how the Barnett formula works. Do you think that it would be helpful in that regard if both Parliaments could be much more aware of the intricacies of the Barnett formula and its adjustments so that we can all, whichever committee were involved in, can be much more in tune with what's going on in that regard as we begin to develop that very important fiscal framework? I would strongly suggest that that's a good idea. Some of the legislative proposals and the discussion around the non-legislative aspects of this are very technical and very complex. I think that that is even more the case when we get into the nitty-gritty of the fiscal framework. We know, as Government from our experience, over the block grant discussions around the block grant adjustment for the two taxis that will be devolved from 1 April this year that these can be incredibly complex and at times vexed discussions. As well as the committees of this Parliament having a job to do, a big job to do, a principal job to hold my Government account in the decisions that we take and the areas that we negotiate around these things, I think that there is a job for the committees to do just to shine a light on what can otherwise be very complicated and technical detail here. I think that the more the committees can help to perform that task, the more likely it is that we will get to an arrangement around the fiscal framework that is in the interests of this Parliament and the interests of the people we serve. Michael McMahon, the welfare reform committee. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First Minister, you referred to the programme for government and the announcements that you made. One of those announcements was to have an advisor on poverty and inequality, which was a very welcome step forward. Can you give us an idea on that and anything specific that the advisor has identified that you want to take forward in the early course? I am hoping to announce an appointment of the independent advisor I would hope before the end of March. I have been engaged in discussions over the past couple of weeks with a possible candidate for reasons that I hope Michael McMahon will understand agreeing an appointment. I am not able to say yet who that candidate might be but those discussions have been positive and I am hopeful of making an announcement within that timeframe. I am absolutely firm and will be making this clear again when we announce who the independent advisor is going to be that this will be a genuinely independent appointment. Somebody whose role it will be to advise the Scottish Government on the additional policies that we could consider to make a bigger impact in reducing poverty but also somebody who has a free hand in looking at our current policies and advising us on where we are not going far enough or where current policies may be in the opinion of the advisor frustrating our efforts to reduce poverty. It is a role that I would see having not just a function of producing an annual report although it might do that but much more of an on-going oversight of the Government's programme so that we almost in real time have a deeper understanding of the impact of our policy on the objective we have set to reduce poverty. At times, having somebody in a role like that will be uncomfortable for Government or at times when it is uncomfortable for me as First Minister. That is the whole point of it. It is an appointment that I think together with the other initiatives that we are taking to reduce poverty and close the inequality gap can make a big difference and I am extremely enthusiastic about it and looking forward to the point at which we can appoint that person and allow them to go on with their work. Thank you very much for that. In relation to some of the things that we know the Scottish Government are doing really good work in terms of mitigating the impact of the welfare reforms but one of the things that is currently in front of our committee is the welfare funds bill. The third sector have indicated their disappointment at the failure to currently have the Government signed up to ensure that those who are impacted in terms of poverty and who are having to rely on the Scottish welfare fund to have their dignity enshrined in principle in the bill and also when it comes to decisions of local authorities to support people whether that should be done in kind or in cash that there is a reluctance to give choice to people. There is a sense that just because someone is in poverty and is asking for support from the state that they should not have a choice can you explain to us why you are not yet in a position to support the principle of dignity and the principle of choice? I do support the principle of dignity and I know one of the debates that has been there since the establishment of the Scottish welfare fund and has run through the consideration of the bill to some extent is the debate around whether support for people should be in cash or in kind and I have been very firm that that should be a decision that is driven by the needs of the person first and foremost so the bill obviously hasn't completed its parliamentary process yet and we will continue to listen and to respond as positively as we can I hope anybody and as you know I used to have responsibility for this policy area before becoming First Minister and appeared before your committee on many occasions to talk about these things there is an absolute desire here to see the welfare fund give as much help as possible to people who are living in very vulnerable circumstances and being impacted by welfare reform some of the issues and I'm not suggesting that it necessarily includes all of the issues that you are raising here in the context of the bill but some of the issues which you frequently get in legislative scrutiny come down to debate about whether some of the detail is best on the face of the bill as opposed to being in guidance that will support the implementation of the bill there will be a suite of guidance that supports the implementation of this bill and third sector organisations will obviously have a part to play as we put together that guidance so there will be a number of issues where the government may take the view that a particular issue is best dealt with in the supporting guidance as opposed to on the face of the bill but we still got a stage of the bill to go and I certainly will make very clear that we will listen to the points that are being put forward by third sector organisations as we take final decisions. That's very welcome. Followed on from Bruce Crawford's line of questions obviously the welfare reform committee is going to take a keen interest in the powers that are going to be devolved can you give us an indication of what type of change or specific change that you want to see given the powers via the new settlement? Some of the things I would like to do around universal credit for example and one of the issues that we have to wait and see to what extent it translates into actual devolution of power is how much flexibility we are going to have around universal credit but I want to get rid of the bedroom tax I would like to be able to vary the frequency of payments to make sure that we can direct payments to the person in the household that is most in need of them as opposed to being one person which we've debated many times before often makes women and children in a household particularly vulnerable I would like to have the option in universal credit to pay the housing element director landlords where somebody is in a particularly vulnerable situation carers allowance I have made clear in the past that it is completely wrong that carers allowance is set at the lowest level of any benefit of its kind and I would like to see this Parliament be in a position to increase carers allowance and give carers who do such a fantastic job a much better deal Some of the areas where I'd make two points about the ability of the Parliament to establish additional benefits or top-up existing benefits where the draft clauses simply do not appear to give us the power that Smith proposed us to have and I think what we've got to do is make sure that we get back to what Smith was proposing The Parliament will have I'm sure if it does get these powers will have many debates about the ability to top up or create additional benefits where we have power already for example we've taken different decisions on things like the educational maintenance allowance that that will open up One of them to finish on a more general point is we go down the road of more devolution and we know our differing opinions on where that journey should end but the Parliament has to be very mindful of making sure there is an appropriate balance between its ability to spend money and its ability to raise revenue and I think that's one of the general points that we'll want to keep in mind as we go further down this road Christine Grahame Justice Committee Thank you very much Presiding Officer I'm going to have another wee moan like last year, I'm sure First Minister you'll be surprised you familiarised yourself with the issues raised on behalf of the Justice Committee at the first of these meetings then I do attention to the stream of legislation in train and ahead and I feel as a result of my comments nothing has changed and frankly now the legislative programme has been announced nothing can change in trafficking and exploitation starting stage 1 criminal justice bill coming back to us in September ahead fatal accidents inquiry community justice bill probably Michael McMahon's bill criminal verdicts and possibly Margaret Mitchell's apologies bill I understand that Governments like to put forward legislation of course they all have done but I complain then and this is on behalf of the committee that the level of legislation leaves no time none whatsoever for post-legislative scrutiny and hardly any time for a brief inquiry and I would also say that when you've got so many bills in the air it makes scrutinising very difficult to do it effectively when they're dealing with very different issues can I ask if consideration can be given to the impact on the legislative workload of the Justice Committee and I don't want to see two Justice Committees I don't want to see the Bureau assigning bills to other committees because we've got too much but would it be possible for because we should be holding the Cabinet Secretary to Account is it possible for the Government, prior to publicising legislation to give consideration to discussing with appropriate conveners not the substance but the volume of legislation so that we can return to our dual role of a standing and a select committee because my concern is A, we're not given time to really look properly at legislation which is nobody's fault but is must be, in my view, correct in Marvley Committee and also we've completely lost the ability to be a select committee and give inquiries I know Christine Grahame has raised this issue previously and I'm not unsympathetic to the case that she makes. The Government does take account when it's drawing up its legislative programme it does take account of the relative workloads of different committees and I see a former Minister for Parliamentary Business nodding beside you there. It's also the case that the Minister for Parliamentary Business is always available to discuss ongoing issues of scheduling and workload of committees and I would encourage any convener that feels there is an issue around its committee workload to take up that opportunity. I'm more than happy to look at how we in advance of publishing our legislative programme engage with committee conveners to have a discussion about the balance of bills and what that means for the workload of different committees. I'm sure that Christine Grahame, though in return will understand that there is often very good reasons for the Government's legislative programme in particular having the shape that it does because there will be particular issues that require to be dealt with but nevertheless I understand the point that the convener is making. My final point here would be and I'm not just trying to curry favour with Christine Grahame, although that's never a bad idea in my humble opinion, but the Justice Committee is a good example in my view of a committee that has had a heavy legislative workload in many of the years of this Parliament but has nevertheless retained a very high level of scrutiny both of the legislation and of the Government in general. Believe me, as a Government minister over the past seven years and now as First Minister, I've never really felt that the Government's had an easy ride from the Justice Committee of the Parliament, so I think the committee does do its job well but I hear what Christine Grahame is saying. I just say, well thank you very much for at least giving consideration to discussing with a convener it might not be for all conveners here but certainly with the heavy workload in legislation with the Justice Committee that we do justice, combine justice to the legislation ahead of us but there is again the issue of the balance that may not be for other committees of our role of standing and select and I have to say that in my early years of Justice Committee here, we had opportunities for instance to question the chief inspector of prisons on his report, we never get that now and it seems that over the 15 years for the Justice Committee that's been eroded and eroded and eroded so in the mix is this full of the committee within the Scottish Parliament not simply as a standing committee to scrutinise legislation and I hope that I'm sure the First Minister will give that consideration I'm carrying favour with you now The issues that Christine Grahame is raising are actually matters much more for the Parliament than for the Government itself and Ms Grahame will also know that I am in dialogue both with the conveners and the business managers of this Parliament about how our committees can be more effective and that includes workload and I can also say to Ms Grahame that it is of course open to any convener of any committee to make up an approach to the bureau and the business managers about their workload and I'm quite sure they would find a sympathetic hearing Jim Eadie Thank you, Presiding Officer Good afternoon First Minister My question relates to the proposed private rented sector housing bill although that bill does not feature in the current legislative programme I understand that it is expected to be introduced in the autumn The Scottish Government's consultation on the reform of the private sector tenancy regime proposed that the no-fault ground for repossession be removed this is where landlords can reclaim their property because the fixed term has ended and clearly there have been a range of views expressed during the consultation on this issue My question to you is there will always be tensions and competing issues between the rights of the tenant and the landlord but the overarching aim of the proposed new tenants is to improve security of tenants while providing appropriate safeguards for landlords, lenders and investors How confident are you that the legislation when it is published will strike the right balance? Our very firm aim will be to get that balance right and as you rightly say there will always be tensions in the interests of tenants and those of landlords and investors in private sector housing The private sector tenancy bill is intended for inclusion in our next programme for government but will be scheduled for introduction at a very early stage of the following year so round about the autumn of this year we are still in the process of analysing the consultation on this bill we have had over two and a half thousand responses to the consultation on the issue of removing the no fault ground of a landlord regaining possession of a property somewhere in the region of 80% of the consultation responses that expressed a view on that have been in favour of removing that ground but you are right to say that the majority of industry bodies, landlords letting agents didn't agree with that and their view is that it could act as a barrier to future investment or result in current investment in private sector rented housing being withdrawn so clearly we have got to listen very carefully to that the final point I would say and because we are still in the midst of analysing the consultation we have not taken a final decision on the content of the bill on this issue or on any other issue yet but if we do proceed with removing the no fault possession which as you say is simply allowing a landlord to repossess when a tenancy reaches its end date we will replace that with very clearly defined grounds on which a landlord can take repossession of a tenancy so that there is clarity around when that can happen and many landlords will cite circumstances such as if they want to sell the property then they need to have clarity to get possession back so we are listening to these things very carefully there is a very strong view that a key part of tenancy reform would be removing that very blanket no fault ground and replacing it with more defined grounds but we will come to a final decision when we have properly analysed the consultation OK, I think we will leave it on that issue for the moment I can ask you about another issue the consultation also asked for views on what action the Scottish Government should take on rent levels and what rent review conditions the new tenancy regime should include Can I ask you to outline what will be the factors governing the development of the Government's approach as it seeks to enshrine and embed concrete proposals in the housing bill The factors that will determine our view on this are perhaps not identical but similar to the kind of factors that we have been talking about in relation to the previous issue we have to do two things with the private rented housing sector we have to firstly make sure that it is affordable and of a high quality and I represent a constituency in Glasgow where there are significant issues with the private rented sector and those issues I think have to be able to be more effectively dealt with but on the other side we need to because more and more people are reliant on the private rented part of the market we need to make sure that it is an attractive proposition for investors and for landlords we don't want to end up having a constrained supply of private rented sector housing so we have to balance these things there's been discussion in the context of previous legislation about the arguments for caps on rents or a restriction in terms of the increases in rent and given the cost of housing for some people in the private rented sector I'm certainly not blind to the merits of that argument which is why we specifically put it into the consultation but similarly I guess that my conclusion on this is similar to my conclusion on the last issue we need to properly analyse the consultation before we can come to a final judgment on what would be appropriate to include in the bill okay, thank you Duncan McNeill, the health and sport committee thank you First Minister could I say from a personal point of view that I welcome your willingness to have more regular meetings with the conveners group I think we need to work out of course how we do that in a meaningful way with 16 people around the table but I think it is welcome and while I'm on this welcoming mood I can also welcome your announcement yesterday in regards to NHS transparency I think that that will be certainly useful to the health committee as well as members of the public and indeed the work of the health committee could I ask a short question following that though and will you be making all of the data that you receive from health boards at the health department available all of the health board information that you receive on a weekly basis will that be made available when we put it on the website if not what will not be reported I'm talking about generally in terms of your announcement of transparency yesterday to share as much information as possible we know that there's a wide range of information that comes on the health boards on a weekly basis and will that information be published on the proposed website and made public what I want to do is two things here and they're obviously related I want as much information about the performance of the health service to be available publicly and for that to be available as regularly as appropriate because there will be some measurements of performance that would not be particularly meaningful to publish on a weekly basis for example the performance around the treatment time guarantee because that is assessed over a 12-week period so you have to judge the appropriateness of the frequency depending on the particular circumstances so that's the first thing I want to do but secondly we want to make sure that the information that is being made available publicly is being made available in a way that is meaningful not just to be perfectly frank about it although that is important but parliamentary committees are well versed in delving into the technically produced information that is already available I want members of the public to be able to in a very easy way go on to a website and themselves look at how the health service is performing in the area where appropriate in the hospital that they may be referred to so that's what we're trying to achieve now in terms of what I think you're getting at the health department as you would expect and you would be I'm sure concerned if this wasn't the case monitors the performance of the health service on a very regular basis again the degree and the frequency of that depends on the particular aspect of performance that we're looking at so the health department will have a variety of information on a management basis all of the time but as you are equally aware what is published in terms of validated official statistics is a decision for statisticians not for politicians and sometimes politicians can get into trouble if they publish your unvalidated management information so it will be down to the statisticians in terms of what is published as official statistics but I am very clear that I want I think our health service notwithstanding the challenges that we routinely will see in the winter around A&E or around other pressures that our health service faces our health service performs extremely well and therefore I want as much of the information around that to be available routinely and in an easily accessible way Presiding Officer wasn't expecting as long an answer as that as I got a bit longer to ask a question Mr McNeill I need to move on although can I take from that long answer that it's not a question of practicality frequency but not principle that the information that the Scottish Government gets will be available to the committees in this Parliament and through that process available to the public subject to it's for statisticians to assess whether information can be published as official statistics if there's particular aspects of performance that your committee would be particularly interested in or to know how we intend to approach it in terms of publication I'd be happy to enter into that discussion with you also and again I was a regular a tender in front of the health committee when I was health secretary the committee can have a cabinet secretary in front of them at any time to delve into the detail of the statistics or the information that the health department has on the health service very very quickly then in terms of the programme for government I think again welcome that it recognises the need for transformational change and how we deliver our health and care and the health committee as you know First Minister shares that ambition but the change has been slow, demand grows we have significant pressures in the acute sector we've got tight budgets in local government and health which is the need to work together to deliver this change as the 2020 vision and all it entails is 70 care achievable within those timescales that are being laid out by the Government without additional transformational funding to make that happen Well we are committed to the 2020 vision and Shona Robison has shared with Parliament in very recent weeks her approach to taking that forward and involving Parliament and the public in the discussions about how we equip the health service to face up to the changes that we know are happening in society particularly around the demographic changes the health service budget is at record levels it's increased in cash terms by £3 billion since this Government took office it's gone over £12 billion for the first time ever and that's against the backdrop of a Scottish Government budget that's reduced in real terms by 10% so we're all like to be in the position of being able to give even more money to the health service or to local authorities or to any other area of our budget but we operate within a fixed budget and in that context we have protected the revenue budget and the health service we have also ensured that we are resourcing what is perhaps the biggest reform of how we deliver health and social care since the health service was established and with the first Government to have finally got on and done this which is the integration of health and social care which is a massive reform of how we deliver these services which will make a big difference in terms of the user of those services and we will continue to work through the longer term plans in terms of reshaping the health service to take account of changing circumstances as collaboratively as we can. The short answer to your question is yes. I'm not saying these things are not challenging but we are committed to the 2020 vision and to making the changes to our health service that are required. Without transitional funding? If you look at integration of health and social care for example we have funded specifically on that basis. If you look at the issue, we had transitional transformational funding around older people's care to prime and pump the issues around integration. We do similarly on early years funding so we do seek... ...a £12 billion budget. We are all on board for this transformation. Can we make it happen without additional transitional funding within the time scale of 2020? Is it going to be 2025 or is it going to be 2020? No, we are working to the time scales and the budgets we have set out but £170 million is the whole health budget and the whole social care budget that we are trying to join up here to better so it is not a case of £170 million for the integration of health and social care, that is additional funding to try to ease that transition but what we need to do is make sure that the entirety of the health budget is being spent effectively to manage that demographic change that we are dealing with. I am sorry Duncan, we are going to have to move on. Stuart Maxwell, convener education culture committee. Thank you very much. First Minister, you have made some announcements recently on the Government's intention to tackle the link between social economic deprivation and attainment. The education secretary was at the beginning of February and she said as a committee knows we plan to introduce an education bill to the Parliament in March and I want to ensure that it contains measures to address the attainment gap and promote equity for all our children. Can you just maybe lay out in some detail what the intention of the Government's programme is in relation to this particular area? You have obviously made announcements in terms of the attainment fund but I just wondered what action you would make on that fund. The education bill has not yet been introduced yet so obviously Parliament will have that introduced to it in the normal course but as well as the things that have already been talked about in terms of the education bill we are looking very closely at how we through legislation make or enable ourselves to make more progress in closing the attainment gap looking, for example, around the possibility of duties on local authorities as they take forward their decisions in education to have clear in their minds the obligation to be reducing that attainment gap so we're looking at how we can use the education bill to pursue and progress that objective but I think to be whether that's important in suggesting that legislation alone is going to reduce the attainment gap which is why we've put so much emphasis on some of the other measures that you allude to and that we've been talking about over the past few weeks the measures in the programme for government around the new redrive account campaign education attainment advisers in every local authority area and more recently the £100 million over the next four years attainment fund to pursue an attainment challenge and Education Secretary yesterday announced the local authorities that will initially be part of that fund so legislation has got a role to play and what we're looking at just now is how we use the vehicle of the education bill to make sure that role is maximised but what we do around the legislation will be as if not more important I very much agree with that You mentioned the attainment advisers if it's at all possible what an attainment adviser would do in each local authority and with regard to your comment about the local authorities it has been raised by a member of my committee and a member of the public with me you've listed or the government listed the individual local authorities where the money will be allocated and I'm sure we're all very pleased about the fact that we're tackling some of the most difficult areas in terms of deprivation first but clearly one of the questions that's been raised with me is that obviously deprivation doesn't just exist in those areas where there's generally wider deprivation it exists in all parts of the country and could you maybe explain to myself and others the thinking behind identifying it by a local authority rather than by other measures of deprivation The first point to make I suppose is you're right you can find deprivation in areas that are seen overall as being you can find classrooms that will have children from some of the more affluent backgrounds and some of the most deprived backgrounds in the same classroom which is why much of what we're talking about around attainment is being talked about on a universal basis so what I've spoken about around the redirect count campaign the attainment advisers that's part of what we're describing as the universal offer what we are determined to do is raise attainment overall but in terms of the attainment challenge we'll recognise it and obviously we're right to recognise it but it's really important that we do is that there are some parts of the country and the statistics in terms of exam passes bear this out where there are particular more deeply ingrained challenges and that's why in terms of the additional funding and this is the funding additional to what we have already been spending in terms of improving educational outcomes will be focused initially on the seven local authority areas that the education secretary spoke about yesterday and these are the areas where there are the biggest concentrations of households in deprived areas now the reason we set out this over a four-year period additional the initial £20 million will be spent in the coming financial year but it's a four-year plan initially is that well firstly evidence from other similar schemes the London challenge has been cited that we need to do this over a period of time but secondly because we would want to move through other areas in the future as well so it's about starting where the problem is biggest but it's not in any sense saying that that's the only place that the problem exists in terms of attainment advisers which I think was your first question there's some very intensive work on going with Education Scotland just now to move to the implementation commitment but attainment advisers in summary will be experts in their field who can as the name suggests advise local authorities and schools and teachers on best practice in terms of raising attainment and be part of the process of sharing that learning in best practice right across the country but the education secretary will have more to say about this in the not too distant future ok, thank you very much model Fraser, economy and tourism thank you, good afternoon First Minister I wonder if I could ask a couple of questions from the economy and business perspective there was a promise in the programme to introduce a new Scottish business pledge which is intended to reward in effect good employers who for example pay the living wage by bringing forward a package of tailored support what the timetable for bringing that in is do we know what the budget for that is going to be and I wonder if the Scottish Government have looked at or will look at the idea of using the business rates regime to help reward and incentivise companies, mid-sized companies that pay the living wage because of some direct financial assistance might well be beneficial in pushing them down that road ok, in terms of wanting to take those two questions in turn in terms of the business pledge I spoke at the national economic forum in December and signalled then that we wanted to have a period of work with businesses and with key stakeholders to develop the model and then begin implementation the work to develop the Scottish business pledge is on going my officials just for example met the federation of small businesses on yesterday in fact 17 February and I'll be meeting the institute of directors to discuss the pledge very shortly so we're designing the detail of that at the moment we've not set a date, a specific date yet for the formal launch of the pledge but it will be in the not too distant future once we've finalised the detail of it the pledge will not be compulsory on businesses but on the voluntary initial dialogue suggests that there is a significant appetite around what it is we're trying to do here which is effectively strike a partnership with business what is the support principally through our enterprise agencies that we can provide businesses with and what in return would we be looking for businesses to do not just to help government with the social objectives we've set but in recognition of the fact that businesses with well-paid well-motivated workforces tend to be more successful businesses in parallel to this of course we've got the commitment for the fair work convention and again there'll be announcements fairly shortly on the membership and the establishment of the fair work convention in terms of the living wage I'm very I don't take this as an absolute yes to your specific question or even a yes to your specific question at this stage but generally speaking I am so so keen to see the living wage extend as quickly as possible through our economy that I'm willing to consider all suggestions of how we can accelerate progress so I'm happy to consider what you've put forward there with no commitments at this stage I do recognise and I think this is what you're getting that for some businesses progress into the living wage will be much much more difficult than it is for others and that will be particularly true for some in the SME sector that said progress towards the living wage is actually very impressive at the moment I spoke in the programme for government John Swinney spoke in his budget a bit more about the living wage accreditation scheme we set a target for the end of this year to get 150 businesses to live wage employers I can tell the committee today we're already at 120 and it's February so that is going well but we need to keep the momentum behind it for good sound economic reasons but for good sound social reasons as well thank you that was a very positive response I want to ask a brief follow up still on business rates one of the proposals in the government's programme was to remove the business rates exemption now I had a meeting a few days ago with the Scottish Gamekeepers Association we were very concerned about the impact that would have on employment of their members and I wonder if the Scottish Government had done any economic impact assessment of the likely impact on the rural economy and of employment if this were to be introduced as we progress with the land reform legislation then in the normal course of legislation of course we will do business impact assessment and that will be available for committee probably your committee might be the rural affairs committee I don't know to scrutinise I said at the time the business rates exemption for sporting estates I think was introduced by a former conservative government in 1994 to be precise I can understand that those who benefit from that exemption have concerns about the removal of that exemption equally there will be many many businesses in other sectors who will look at it and consider it unfair when they don't get an exemption from business rates what we said is one of the reasons for removing the exemption is to free up resources that we can then use to accelerate progress through our land fund towards the million acres in community ownership by 2020 so these are objectives that we have set for good reasons but I'm determined as we progress our land reform agenda not just this aspect of it but all of it we work with the land owning community in order that they can make their views known and that we can make very clear we're not responsible landowners are to be celebrated in Scotland not penalised but there are significant issues around the land owning landscape if that's not too much a pun in Scotland that needs to be addressed and that's what we're determined to try to do the convener of the first climate change environment committee following on recognising that land reform is a central government policy objective thinking about the barriers that exist and the potential opportunities that there are from land reform how do you see Holyrood increasing the distribution of land ownership in Scotland among more families and more communities I've referred in passing in answer to Murdo Fraser to our commitment to have a million acres in community ownership by 2020 that's an important part of the answer to your question there's also a lot in what we're talking about around the land reform agenda that is related to greater transparency and information about land ownership which I then think helps the issue of diversification that you speak about so we've committed to completion of the land register within 10 years which in and of itself will improve transparency and we're also consulting on two other particular proposals that would have an impact here limiting the legal entities that can own land in Scotland and making available much more information about the value of the land and ownership of the land there's also some work because obviously we don't hold all of the levers in this area and there's some work at both Westminster and European Union level that may also be important in this context I'll think about the role of Westminster on this as the responsible authority for companies and trust law we've got lots of difficulties in identifying who actually owns Scotland crofting estates trying to have communities get a hold of who actually is their landlord would you see the revelation of beneficial owners as something that would be a great help to the land reform process and do you think that Westminster would be prepared to play ball on that well there is some developments at both Westminster and European level that I think are intended to make progress in this area and we'll support them if we think they are robust enough so for example the fourth money laundering directive part of that will require all member states to maintain ultimate beneficial ownership registers both for corporate entities and for trusts and there's also some developments at UK government level around issues of transparency and trust companies which are partly about combating fraud and tax evasion and money laundering but the small business enterprise and employment bill was introduced to Westminster in June last year which has a bearing on all of these so in short there's various initiatives under way obviously what I'm most concerned about is how we use our land reform legislation to strike the right balance on many of these issues what I've laid out in the programme for government is I think he's taken his forward one of the first acts this parliament to pass was land reform legislation and I think there is a consensus although I appreciate not everybody agrees with all aspects of it there is a consensus that it's time to move forward in some of these things and that's what we're determined to do just very very briefly is there a sense that UK government is prepared to reveal who are the members and the beneficial owners of trusts and companies? I'm not sure I can answer that definitively I think you'd probably have to ask the UK government there are as I've set out I think there are some developments in the law at both Westminster and European Union level that would if they are implemented taken forward and implemented would be helpful in the sense of doing that whether there is a political will to do that I guess you would have to ask ministers I'm not sure I can speak for them in that respect Good afternoon First Minister a couple of things that are vexed in my committee right now to very very hot topics that are on the agenda and possibly will come to a head tomorrow when we have Lord Livingston in front of the committee is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and a big aspect of the inquiry that we have undertaken is perceived lack of transparency and how the public outcry on that pushed a commission on Maelstrom to change that and to make it much much more transparent the other big issue within that and both things are related is on the impact on public services and especially on our health service in Scotland so what I was looking to ask you was if you could give us any update on the progress of discussions between the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the EU on how we ensure that the reservations that have to be made within the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are made to protect public services in Scotland Firstly on transparency I think that the more transparency there can be around this the better and I appreciate any negotiation by its very nature not all aspects of the negotiation can be done in public but nevertheless I think it would be helpful in this process if there was more rather than less transparency as all of us often are I ask do you agree with TTIP or not the truth is none of us can say that definitively because we don't know what's going to finally be in TTIP terms of the point about public services I mean I know John Swinney was before your committee a couple of weeks ago I mean our view on public services is very clear and has been communicated to both the UK Government and the European Commission very very forcibly we think there should be an express explicit exclusion on the face of any treaty for public services and for the national health service now you know we've had responses from both the UK Government and the European Commission on the issue of the health service and I'm paraphrasing here this is not a direct quote that say don't worry there's nothing to see here it'll all be fine now that may be the case but I'm frankly not prepared to assume that will be the case until we see the letter of the law and I think the easiest way to put this beyond any doubt is to say that there should be that express exclusion for public services generally I would say but particularly for the national health service First Minister I appreciate that and appreciate the openness that your Government has engaged with my committee on that very topic and I hate to spring this on you but we all got an email in our inbox this morning from Unite the Union who are suggesting that the NHS is included in the material scope of TTIP and they seem to suggest they've got some legal advice on that I'm just wondering whether that is something that the Scottish Government should be making a new approach to the UK Government on the basis that there is maybe some dubiety about whether it is part of the material scope of the agreement or not? I have seen the Unite press release from this morning I in common with other party leaders have signed the Unite pledge calling expressly for an NHS exclusion from TTIP I haven't seen the Unite legal advice but my view is clear and this is where I guess there is an additional concern for Scotland because we have and I don't want to get sidetracked down this road but we have a situation where in England the health service has been substantially opened up to private competition that's not the case in Scotland and as well as a general concern about TTIP opening up public services we have the additional concern that the UK Government should say this is not the case but if it was the case that because the health service in England has been opened up then TTIP would have a bearing and somehow we would be dragged into that then I think we need almost two assurances we need the general exclusion from TTIP but we also need the assurance from the UK Government that notwithstanding anything that TTIP might mean for its health service in England there would be absolutely no circumstances in which the ability of this Government to protect our health service from privatisation would be compromised in any way a wee bit early but I wonder if you can provide an update on the timetable for negotiations in terms of Scotland's fiscal framework and also how should into Government governmental machinery including the Joint Exchequer Committee be strengthened and made more transparent in terms of the timetable the UK command paper of course itself said that a fiscal framework should be agreed alongside the introduction of the legislation in the next UK Parliament and I know that Chief Secretary to the Treasury was before the finance committee recently and he said he expected the fiscal framework to be agreed at the same time as the bill is advanced through the House of Commons I certainly would be of the view that the fiscal framework should be agreed before the legislation is enacted and I think we should be looking at making sure that we have agreement around the fiscal framework before this Parliament is asked to give legislative consent through the LCM process which would mean assuming the broad timescales for this remain on track we would have to be in a position to agree that before March 2016 Obviously there's been a lot of engagement over the implementation of the 2012 act provisions with the finance committee and with the public audit committee and in the context of the fiscal framework I would be very very keen to see similar scrutiny and in fact enhanced scrutiny around that as I said to Bruce Crawford on parliamentary committees I think it's vital given both the complexity of what we'll be dealing with but also the import of what we'll be dealing with here that the committees of this Parliament are very, very closely engaged with this Yes, and one of the things myself and other conveners talked about was potentially a committee debate actually on this particular issue to involve the wider Parliament but moving on to another issue you just touched on the 2012 act One of the things that came out of that effectively was the issue of the block grant adjustment and over it took more than two years to get agreement on the block grant adjustment What concerns do you have that this will create difficulties as we go forward and what mechanisms can we have to ensure that that matter is dealt with transparently and also that the Barnett formula becomes much more transparent because as Bruce touched on earlier on it's not particularly transparent that we can actually scrutinise that and indeed the block grant as we go forward Without have you immediately been negative here our experience of negotiating the block grant adjustment around the 2012 taxes I suppose doesn't immediately make me all that optimistic about the timescales and the process that we are looking at for a fiscal framework that we will be looking at similar kinds of adjustments around a much broader suite of policy areas but on the other hand it's got to be the case in my view because we cannot allow ourselves as a Parliament to have legislation being scrutinised and considered and certainly not agreed that we understand what the fiscal framework implications of that are I think that would be the Parliament not fulfilling its responsibilities properly Now how do we make sure firstly that this process happens in the requisite timescale and that there is sufficient scrutiny around it without throwing it straight back to the people around the table the committees are going to have an absolutely critical role to play both in terms of making sure that the whole thing stays on track but in really getting into the detail of it now we as the Scottish Government will be as forthcoming as we can be with the committees in terms of making sure you've got the information and the material that you need to do that job but for the finance committee and for Bruce Crawford's committee this is as important if not more important than the scrutiny of the legislation Now when I met the Prime Minister on the day the command paper and the clauses were published one of the points that I made to him was the importance of the fiscal framework and getting as much work done around the fiscal framework Now John Swinney obviously will be looking to have early discussions with the Chancellor and with Treasury to make sure we get that work under way as quickly as possible Thank you First Minister you'll be aware of the number of public services that have been delivered by the third sector by charities and so called arms length companies has increased significantly over the last number of years Those organised issues don't come under the audit framework of the Auditor General Scotland I just wonder if this is something that the First Minister is looking at and the Government is looking at in terms of taking us forward I'm more than happy if the Public Committee feels that that's something that we should be looking at to do that and I'm sure the Auditor General would have a view on this as well You're right in the sense that there are more services being delivered directly or with significant input from third sector organisations I know because it's an area I had previous portfolio responsibility for a similar debate in terms of freedom of information legislation I'll take Glasgow City Council for example which has outsourced many services to allios that weren't under the ambit of freedom of information so we have already changed the freedom of information regime to bring sporting and leisure organisations within the ambit of that so I think we've got to make sure that we keep our procedures and processes up to date with the reality of how services are delivered so it's not something that we've taken and we've come to any conclusion on but I'm more than happy that we enter into a discussion with the Public Audit Committee about that Mika, I just say with respect though is it not something that the Government should have looked at given significant public sums that have been spent I wouldn't expect the Audit Committee to have to lead and take that forward I mean is it something that the Government I mean in terms of governance of these organisations is it not something that the Government should have looked at given freedom of information on an on-going basis I'm more than happy to provide more detailed information to your committee about what particular consideration we've given I wasn't suggesting that it was for the Public Audit Committee to take the lead I was trying to be helpful in suggesting that as would be the case with any committee if there was a dialogue that you wanted to have about how we improve your ability to audit and scrutinise the use of public money I'd be happy for the Government to enter into that Mika, come back to the point What I'm saying is the Government will look at these things on an on-going basis I'm happy to provide you with written information about exactly what consideration we're giving As there is with freedom of information there will be different circumstances depending on different organisations and the degree to which they are delivering public services so will not necessarily be a case of a blanket approach one way or the other which is why some detailed dialogue would probably be appropriate The point that I'm making is that it's not something that the Government should have looked at so that we can allow the Auditor General to scrutinise the organisations that you've already referred to perhaps they should be in there and it would not be best practice for the Government to ensure that those organisations who are spending quite considerable public funds come within that of the Auditor General What is something that the Government should lean on? I think I'm trying to agree with Paul Martin to be helpful here What I'm saying is I'm offering to send him and his committee detailed information of what consideration in the different aspects of this the Government will have undertaken and what I'm saying is the Government as we do on freedom of information will consider these things on an on-going basis but what I'm also saying again from my experience with the freedom of information legislation is that there are often complexities here that mean that it's not a blanket thing of one approach or another it's more nuanced than that so it's up to Paul Martin as convener of his committee to whether he would want to be part of that dialogue but I'd be very happy for that to happen Very briefly Final point just briefly just to clarify Pizena that you're being unhelpful I'm just asking the question given the Government has been in government for seven years surely given the considerable public sums that have been spent here it's something that should have been looked at by now and not something that the Government should just begin to look at we don't want this getting lost in the Bermuda triangle of things that the Government are looking at I'm not suggesting that I'm offering to send Paul Martin and his committee detailed information of what consideration in particular circumstances the Government will have given to that we're the first Government that has taken account of this in context of freedom of information legislation so there is no sense whatsoever that the Government doesn't want to make sure that our processes and procedures are taking account of the changing ways in which public services are being delivered many third sector organisations of course will be contracted by public bodies to deliver services that are themselves fully audited in terms of these arrangements already Stuart Stevenson In his most recent annual report the Commissioner for Ethical Standards and Public Life in Scotland highlighted that over 10 years the number of applicants who say they're disabled has risen from 2.4% of applicants to 13.1% and that's very welcome he also welcomes the Government's approach to gender equality but notes that over 10 years the figure has not changed very much and currently it's at 34.1% I wonder if the First Minister could help us understand what initiatives the Government might take to improve that I've made very clear that I want to see significant progress around gender balance on public boards private boards and third sector boards I've played a small part in leading by example over the Scottish Government's Cabinet which is now 50-50 we don't have power yet to legislate for quotas on public boards it's one of the areas where we've been arguing that there should be early devolution of power but to date we've not yet prevailed in that argument so as soon as we do have that power we would look at how we could use that appropriately but in the meantime and I set this out in the programme for government we are going to launch and this will be launched again over the next few weeks a partnership for change initiative which is challenging public, private and third sector bodies to sign up to a 50-50 by 2020 pledge and we're currently discussing with a range of organisations across these three sectors their willingness to sign up to that and it's about encouraging organisations to make a voluntary commitment to doing what we don't yet have the ability to mandate by law but nevertheless that I would hope we can make significant progress around we are making progress on gender balance but it's painfully painfully slow and if we leave it to the rate of progress we've seen over recent years then the next generation of female First Ministers and MSPs will still be sitting here talking about the need to make progress and I don't want that to be the case I would quite like this generation to fix it so that the next generation can worry about other things The command paper that's come from the UK Government shows in the draft legislation at section 24 an intention to devolve the ability to set quotas for public boards now in your previous answer First Minister you referred to private boards and clearly there's no intention to devolve anything in that respect is it not the case that we need a stream well qualified and experienced women coming from beyond the public sector to feed into public positions that unless and until we get that power as well we're likely to continue to experience difficulties in getting suitably experienced and willing volunteers Yes I would agree with that Firstly we wanted the entirety of equality legislation and employment legislation to be devolved to the Parliament but that's not yet being proposed I think though whether you're talking about public or private bodies and whether you're talking about doing this voluntarily or by quotas you do need to look at it not just in terms of the top levels of these organisations although that's really important but it's about the pipeline of people coming into the sectors or organisations that make it much easier over time and iniority I was chairing this week on Monday the Scottish Energy Advisory Board and we had a discussion about gender balance on boards and the point that was been made rightly by many of the people around that table was that if we're going to have 50-50 in the board rooms of energy companies then yes we should challenge them to do that very quickly but to make that sustainable we need to get more women coming into engineering organisations that then go into these sectors and these companies so we've got to tackle this at all levels if there's an argument against one I know there's several arguments against quotas but one of the arguments that would be used against quotas is that it's a blunt tool in the sense that it will help you deal with the problem at one particular level of an organisation it doesn't necessarily help you deal with the issues right throughout an organisation but my view on this has a lot in recent years the progress we're making towards gender balance is too slow and if the things we've been doing up until now have not delivered quicker progress then we should probably tell ourselves we need to do different things and that's the view or why I've come to the view that quotas do have a role to play but until we're in the position of being able to do more about that we've got to put in as much effort as we can behind the voluntary commitment I've now got six minutes so I'm going to call John Pentland and finally, Nigel Dawn so if you could keep it brief I'd be grateful Thank you, Presiding Officer First Minister is one of the newer conveners I've been trying to catch up on committees previous business and one of the things I have came across is that the Public Petitions Committee regularly receives petitions on access to justice in openness of the judiciary systems for example legal aid, availability and rights to the unmarried fara now I acknowledge recent legislation but I would like to ask what you First Minister and the Scottish Government are doing to make sure that people do have meaningful access to justice I'll try to be brief as possible obviously there's a range of things that the Scottish Government has done and will continue to do around court reform for example around making it easier for victims or witnesses when we're talking about criminal justice to participate in the justice process obviously there have been significant changes to legal aid and we're either consulting just now or about to consult I can't exactly remember but we're about to consulting further potential changes around legal aid so there's a whole range of things that we do to make sure that where people have got a need to access justice then they're able to do that with the right support of course there are always challenges around that and all of us see I'm sure in our constituency surgeries many examples of people who find it difficult for a variety of different reasons to access justice some of these cases will be things that there's not much we can do about others will be leading towards further reforms of the justice system if there are particular petitions that give rise to this question that you want to point me in the direction of I'd be very happy to look at the detail of them need to move on Nigel Dawn briefly First Minister you'll be very well aware of the fact that the legal writings bill is just about to get to stage 3 that's the first piece of legislation on the legal reform committee I'm wondering whether you give me some thoughts please as to how you feel we as a parliament with the assistance the government can do more in the future to tidy up the law book because we at the end of the day are the forum which has to look after and run the maintenance of the Scottish legal system I think that the legal writings bill which I know everybody's been falling very closely it's an important piece of legal reform but I think obviously it's not yet completely through the legislative process but the way in which your committee has led on that bill and the smooth passage of it so far I think is a good advert for the new procedure in terms of law commission proposed pieces of legislation and we're discussing with the law commission to ensure that we are able as government to identify at a very early stage what bills might be appropriate for that new procedure and as you know effectively it's bills that don't raise any particular legal or financial or ECHR issues that would be appropriate for that kind of procedure in terms of the programme for government that we're talking about just now it's thought that the succession bill which is due to be introduced in June assuming we can satisfy ourselves that it does meet the necessary criteria it's thought that the next bill that is appropriate to be taken forward in terms of the new procedure and that as you'll be aware is a bill that deals with a lot of very technical issues around succession not the kind of issues around succession that are raised by some of the land reform issues that will be the subject of separate legislation so I think the procedure as far as I can observe is working reasonably well but we need to make sure we're making full use of it because as you rightly say there is an important function in terms of making sure that the law of the land remains fit for purpose and up to scratch and regularly needs tidied up in some key respects. Thank you very much First Minister I need to finish by 2 o'clock because the chamber is just about to start and I do not want to be the person who gets the blame for her meetings when the Parliament is in session so can I thank you very much for coming in for answering the questions today I will go back to the convener's group and we will have a discussion about the kind offer that you made to come to be examined by the convener's group on a more regular basis but for the moment can I thank you very much on behalf of all the committee conveners. Thank you