 Mae gynhyrchu yma. Margaret McDougall. Fyllteid yw lieth, Ms McDougall. I apologise. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it's making in setting up the public consultation on fracking. Minister, Fergus Ewing. Ministers have been meeting with representatives from community, environmental and industry groups to discuss the consultation and our pre-consultation preparations. amser hynny yn ei cyffredinol i gwaith i'r gwaith i'r Fynau Llywodraeth y Llywodraeth a gydych chi'n gweld iawn ar y gynghorliau, ac mae yn g teulu cofnwyr yn gwylliant yn gwylliant. Mark afinig ddigil. I thank the minister for that answer. The issue of underground coal gasification was not included in the temporary moratorium on shale gas and coal bed methane. I asked the minister to clarify whether the Scottish Government supports the process of underground gasification and so there are no doubts on this issue and if they do not support it then why is it not included in the temporary moratorium and will the minister now commit the Scottish Government to including underground coal gasification in the moratorium until proper and robust evidence is collected and the public consultation has been completed. I'm happy to reassure the member that the Scottish Government take environmental protection as of paramount importance. Of course, the moratorium, which I announced on I believe the 28th of January, was specifically about onshore technologies involving hydraulic fracturing and coal bed methane. It is correct to point out that underground coal gasification employs a different technology and is not covered by the moratorium. Can the minister tell us on what extent the consultation will be evidence-based, given that the Scottish Government's own independent scientific panel, which reported last July, concluded that fracking could be conducted safely in Scotland if properly regulated? I'm pleased to confirm to Murdo Fraser that our approach with regard to this whole policy area is that we take a cautious evidence-based approach. I think that his own party called for a previous policy document, so we will continue to take that approach. That is why the public have welcomed the fact that we have put in place a moratorium. I hope that all parties support the moratorium, incidentally, but we are still waiting for confirmation of whether that is or is not the situation. However, we will continue to take an evidence-based approach, and the group that he referred to specifically identified some gaps that need to be filled. Therefore, it is appropriate that we consider further evidence in areas such as the potential or possible impacts on public health, on the environment in respect of the hydraulic fraction process and what that entails, but also areas such as the impact on traffic and transport. As I pointed out frequently, Scotland is not North Dakota. The central belt where deposits are believed to be situated is densely populated. We must therefore consider carefully and take the time to do so all of these important matters that, quite rightly and understandably, are of considerable importance to the general public. Lewis MacDonald Thank you very much. The minister will recall that I tabled a question 12 weeks ago and wrote to him personally six weeks ago to ask whether his moratorium covered the drilling of conventional boreholes with a view to doing flacking later. Can he today answer that question? Does it cover exploratory drilling or not? I announced the moratorium on 28 January, and that announcement was very clear in its terms. I am aware that Mr MacDonald, Presiding Officer, has raised a number of questions, and to that end I actually am myself with the reply that I wrote to him on 20 April, stating that these matters are all receiving very careful attention. I think that it is reasonable to point out that Mr MacDonald did ask a very large number of questions, and therefore in order to make sure that the questions are correct and, indeed, evidence-based, we will take proper time to consider all of the many issues, including the one that he has singled out today, and to make sure that they are answered fully in due course. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its position on the recommendations of the Smith commission. Presiding Officer, the recommendations of the Smith commission offer an opportunity to provide the Scottish Parliament with further powers to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, although many of the key levers to boost growth and promote fairness will remain reserved to Westminster. The draft clause is published by the United Kingdom Government in January for short of the Smith recommendations in a number of areas, and the Scottish Government is continuing to engage with the UK Government to secure improvements before the proposed Scotland Bill is introduced in the House of Commons. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. It is quite clear that the Smith commission is not the last word on the question of more powers for this Parliament. Indeed, the Daily Telegraph, the House Journal of Conservatives on Saturday in its editorial, indicated that proposed powers may not be enough. Can the cabinet secretary assure us that the Scottish Government will continue to press the case for additional powers as robustly as possible? Let me confirm two points to Mr Campbell. The first is that the Government will continue in its efforts to ensure that the recommendations made by the Smith commission are actually effectively legislated for. I take this opportunity to welcome the report of the devolution for the powers committee of the Parliament that was published this morning, which had all-party agreement, which on what I thought was a thoroughly, dispassionately and considered wording of the report, set out a number of deficiencies in the wording of the draft Scotland Bill clauses that we have set out. I look forward to pursuing those issues with the United Kingdom Government with the assistance of the very carefully worded report of the committee, which has been supported unanimously by all parties and all members. Secondly, I assure Mr Campbell that the Government will continue to raise and to argue for there to be additional powers. That was what the Scottish National Party fought the election in May about. We set out the arguments for additional powers and we will take every opportunity to advance that argument. As the First Minister confirmed to Parliament yesterday, we expect to have such an opportunity when the First Minister meets with the Prime Minister in early course. May I ask the Scottish Government if it intends to seek evidence and engage in civic consultation in relation to its Smith Plus proposals? I think that that would be advantageous and beneficial. I think that one of the, despite the efforts of Lord Smith to engage widely with the stakeholder community in Scotland, I would have to say that, as a participant in the Smith commission, this is my view. I appreciate that Ms Barnas Goldie was on that commission with me and she will have her view, but, in my opinion, we were not able to sufficiently engage with wider body politic of Scotland on many of those questions. Yes, it would be my position on that question. I think that it is essential that the views of the wider community in Scotland are considered very closely to the decision-making that we make on all of those questions. To ask the Scottish Government when the next meeting of the Joint Exchequer Committee will take place and what will be discussed. The date of the next meeting of the Joint Exchequer Committee has not been set. Lord Smith recommended that the intergovernmental machinery between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments needed urgent reform. We need to put in place appropriate governance arrangements that will support the implementation of the Smith commission's financial provisions. That is something that I want to discuss with the new United Kingdom Government at the earliest opportunity. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer and, in fact, in much of what he said is pre-empted in my supplementary. Although there are other intergovernmental bodies such as the Joint Ministerial Committee, the Joint Exchequer Committee has not met for more than two years. Does the cabinet secretary agree that additional powers are to be devolved effectively such intergovernmental bodies must meet regularly and on a transparent footing to allow effective scrutiny by this Parliament? I agree with Mr Gibson's points. I think that one of the issues that has affected the meeting programme of the Joint Exchequer Committee and the fact that Mr Gibson is absolutely correct that it has not met for two years is the fact that we have been unable to reach agreement on some of the elementary arrangements about the implementation of even the Kalman commission proposals. Part of that could be ascribed to the fact that there is an unwillingness to consider some of the alternative perspective that is put forward by the Scottish Government to counter some of the requirements and the positions put forward by Her Majesty's Treasury. If intergovernmental machinery is to work effectively, we have to work on the basis of respect between different Governments of the United Kingdom. I welcome what the Prime Minister said on Friday that he intended to govern by respect, and I hope that we will see some of those sentiments evidenced in the implementation of the intergovernmental machinery, such as the Joint Exchequer Committee. Can I agree with much of what the cabinet secretary has said about effective intergovernmental machinery? Whether it is through the Joint Exchequer Committee or another intergovernmental mechanism, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to pursue his policy of full fiscal responsibility. Given that that is the case, could he perhaps outline the timetable for achieving that? I think that those issues—as I gave a respondent answer to Barnas Gold a moment ago—are essentially now to be taken forward in the dialogue that we have directly with UK ministers. We expect a discussion with the Prime Minister to take place relatively soon, which will enable some of those issues to begin to be explored. The timetable for any implementation will be dependent on reaching agreement in the discussion. I also say to Jackie Baill and reiterate the point that I made to Barnas Goldie that the approach that the Scottish Government will want to take will be one to engage with and to consult with the wider community within Scotland. That cannot quite simply be a Government-to-Government discussion. There are perfectly appropriate Government-to-Government discussions to happen, but it is essential that we have discussions with the wider community within Scotland to ensure that our proposals are taken forward in a fashion that commands support within Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it is providing to increase affordable housing in rural and remote areas. The Scottish Government is committed to the provision of affordable housing across Scotland. We know that the housing system is different in remote and rural areas and our resource allocation and subsidy system both recognise that. We are currently working with a range of rural stakeholders to develop a rural housing initiative. That will complement the excellent work that local authorities and housing associations are doing and will aim, in particular, to support the work of community groups to increase housing availability in remote and rural areas. Mike McKenzie I thank the minister for that answer. Following the lifting of the moratorium on rural school closures, we have seen a number of local authorities across the Highlands and Islands rush to close rural schools. Does she agree with me that local planning departments need to take a more proactive approach towards maintaining the sustainability of rural communities and take a more enlightened approach towards delivering housing in those areas? I reassure the member that we well recognise that small numbers of houses in rural areas can make a real difference to the sustainability of that area. I visited a number of projects seeing that for myself. The Scottish Government supports sustainable economic growth for all of our communities. Our national planning framework sets out a vision for vibrant rural areas with growing sustainable communities supported by new opportunities and employment for employment and education. The vision is further supported by Scottish planning policy, which sets out clearly the expectation that in all rural and island areas the planning system should encourage rural development that supports prosperous and sustainable communities and businesses while protecting and enhancing environmental quality. Question 5, Sarah Boyack. I know that Ms Boyack is not on the seat to ask her question. Can I just say that I deplore the fact that no prior information has been given to me as to why she is not here? I would expect an explanation from Ms Boyack by the end of the session. Question 6, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, has not been lodged. The member has provided an explanation. Question 7, Neil Bibby. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what issues were discussed. Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison. Ministers and Government officials regularly meet with representatives of all health boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to discuss matters of importance to local people. Neil Bibby. I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary will want to join me in paying tribute to the staff at the RAH in Paisley for their continued efforts to reduce waiting times for patients. However, many of the staff members are telling us that there are not enough beds or staff at the hospital. So, in light of her new A&E action plan announced this week, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary what concrete steps she will take to increase staff in bed numbers at the RAH to ensure we avoid the repeat of the crisis that we saw at the hospital last winter? First of all, I would want to join with Neil Bibby in congratulating the staff at the RAH, not least at the performance in A&E on the most recent figures ending 3 May, showing that those who were treated within the four-hour target were 89.6 per cent, a substantial improvement from the 75 per cent recorded at the end of February. I absolutely want to put on record my thanks to the staff there. Of course, that was supported by the improvement team who have been working very closely with staff at the RAH and other hospitals to make those improvements. The resource, the £9 million that I announced yesterday, was part of a £50 million unscheduled care package to increase the number of A&E consultants, which, of course, have gone up by 178 per cent under this Government—a substantial increase indeed. Of course, that resource will help to ensure that the resilience within our hospitals is increased as we make preparations towards this winter. I can absolutely assure Neil Bibby that I will do absolutely everything to ensure that our hospitals are staffed and prepared for the winter pressures that will emerge this winter. I am very confident that we are in a good place to do that. Question 8, in the name of Cara Hylton, has not been lodged. The member has provided me with an explanation that I do not consider acceptable. Question 9, Paul Martin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that communities are protected from dangerous dogs. Minister Paul Wheelhouse. The Scottish Government is committed to policies that will help to make our communities safer from out-of-control and dangerous dogs. We are pleased that the latest figures show that local authorities are making good use of their powers under the Control of Dogs Scotland Act 2010. Initial figures show that, in the year 2014 to February 2015, local authorities issued 261 dog control notices relating to out-of-control dogs. The number of dog control notices issued is the highest in a single year since the act came into force in February 2011, and that excludes four local authorities who have yet to provide the information for the latest year. We want to work with the local authorities and Police Scotland in helping to use the existing powers wisely relating to dogs. We are involved in work to develop a national protocol between local authorities, Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to ensure that there is clarity relating to powers to deal with control of dogs. In addition, the Scottish Government has recently announced that it will introduce mandatory microchipping in April 2016. That will assist primarily in the welfare of the dogs, for example, making it easier to reunite owners with their dogs, but it should also assist in the control of dogs in our communities. I welcome the legislation that has been proposed by the Government particularly in relation to the compulsory microchipping of dogs. The minister will recall the debate that I led in Parliament in connection with the serious attack on Brogan McWague. Is the minister seriously advising me that the compulsory microchipping of dogs will go a significant step towards ensuring that such attacks do not take place in the future? Mr Martin is perhaps misreading the answer that I just gave him. We are working closely with local authorities to develop potential strengthening of the 2010 act so that this is not in isolation, but certainly microchipping will play a part in ensuring that we can find dogs' owners if they are left off the leash, obviously running around and be able to track down the owners. It is obviously the irresponsible ownership of the dog that is partly to blame for incidents that were dog attacks took place. I am certainly aware of the attack on Brogan McWague and it is obviously a very distesting and harrowing attack that it was. I am happy to work with Mr Martin on tackling any deficiencies in the law. As the minister knows, I piloted the control of the Dogs Act, which seeks to bring early intervention to dogs that are deemed to be causing anxiety before they may become dangerous. It is notwithstanding what the minister has said about co-ordination between police and local authorities, my experience is that the public and many professionals are unaware of the legislation. Can I ask for the umpteenth time if the Government may publicise that act, which is a member that I cannot do? I should choose my chairs more carefully in future with the supplementaries. First, I thank Christine Grahame for her work in putting through the control of the Dogs Act. It has certainly been enormously helpful to us. The fact that the rising number of use of dog control notices is an indication of and growing awareness among local authorities. I am happy to work with the member if there is any specific proposal that she has to increase the publicity, and I will choose to do so in a time suiting to her. I thank Christine Grahame again for her work on the act. I look forward to working with her in the future. Thank you Minister for that. Before we move to next site of business, members will wish to join me and welcome to the gallery Professor Manuel Hasasian, the head of the Palestinian mission in London. We now move to First Minister's Questions.