 B 1982 tra! 9. Ruth Davidson Those last weeks, the justice secretary tried to close down questions on his role regarding Police Scotland and the position of the chief constable. He failed and since then, we have had lawyers and senior police officers exchanging further blows. We have had more evidence i'w ddeithasol o'r filoedd—aiz i ffrindwyr, a fuddwyd mwyn nhw, byddai newid y rheidio i ni oedd rhai o gydych chi'n gwneud y Gweithgrifennu Michael Matheson a'r cyfrifodau o'r cyfrifodau ar gyfer ymgyrch. Felly, mae'n fyddwch i'n cael eu ddefnyddio ymbrwysig dros ddifunisig, yn amgylchio ar gyfer y sydd fyddwch yn cyfrifodau dim bryd o'r gwirach i ni inveigderiaeth, i ddewch chi'n oes. Mae'n fawr i gnithio i, Ruth Davidson, ond mae y Gweithgoffratt datblygu chi ddim yn ddaig i gweithio i gweithio i'r ddinaptau. Mae'n ddweud i'r Gweithgoffratt a wedi'i gweld i'r ddim yn ddod i gweithio i gweithgoffratt o'r поes cyfryddiau o'r hyn y gweithrethag i'r ddweudiau i'r gwahygol, ac mae'n ei ddatblyg nhw i'r ddweudiau o'r gweithgoffratt i'r ddweudiau i'r gwahanol o'r unrhyw o'r ddweudio i'r dweudiau. today is this. There is a role for the Scottish Government, there is a role for the justice secretary in making sure that the Scottish Police Authority carries out its functions properly. Of course, the decisions about the employment of the chief constable are for the Scottish Police Authority. That division of responsibility is very clear and well understood. Michael Matheson was right when faced with the news that the Scottish Police Authority was inviting the chief constable back to work the very next day from that meeting to ask questions such as had Perk been consulted given the on-going investigation into allegations about the chief constable and had the senior command in Police Scotland been consulted and had steps been taken to ensure the welfare of any police officer that had raised concerns and he wasn't able to be satisfied on those matters. That's why the then chair of the Scottish Police Authority looked at the matter again. I'm not sure what Ruth Davidson would have said. If the following day to that meeting, the chief constable had turned up at work again, no doubt that that would have created a great deal of controversy. When, as undoubtedly they would have done, MSPs had rightly started asking questions, had it transpired that the justice secretary had asked none of those questions, we would have had opposition leaders in that case, I think, justifiably coming to this chamber asking why not. The justice secretary has acted entirely appropriately and I would have thought that all people across the chamber would welcome that fact. Ruth Davidson. The First Minister repeats the justice secretary's comments for last week, but this goes a lot further. This is about whether the justice secretary acted unlawfully by directing the Scottish Police Authority to stop the chief constable coming back to work against their own recommendations. The truth is that we don't know. In fact, we can't know, because last Thursday Michael Matheson said that he'd be happy for minutes of his meeting with the SPA to be released, only for the SNP Government to then claim that incredibly no minutes had been taken. The justice secretary takes this massive decision to intervene to stop the head of Scotland's police force from returning to work, and there's no written record. I think that's shocking, and why doesn't the First Minister? First Minister. I think that there are a number of relevant points to be made here. I made this point last week in response to a Tory backbencher. Week after week in the chamber and in the media, we hear Opposition MSPs effectively accusing the Scottish Government of not intervening enough in the operation of Police Scotland. Now we have Opposition leaders coming here complaining that the justice secretary asks legitimate questions. The justice secretary did not instruct the chair of the Scottish Police Authority, but the justice secretary did was ask questions. I say again that had the justice secretary not asked these questions and the chief constable had returned to work, I am absolutely sure that Ruth Davidson would have been amongst the first to get to her feet and demand to know why the justice secretary hadn't asked these questions. Finally, we do know what the justice secretary asked, because the justice secretary came to this chamber last week and answered questions on that very matter. Ruth Davidson. We've got to a point where the cabinet secretary intervenes to stop the chief constable coming back to work, but with no official record of the meeting, this Parliament was not informed until six weeks later, and the First Minister stands there and says that it's fine by her. To cap it all off, we have the former justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, saying that it was just a chat, that there was no need to take minutes, the public don't need to know anything about anything, just trust the SNP. Well, we can't. Last year, three other senior police officers were suspended, and in those cases, the justice secretary couldn't have been clearer. He insisted repeatedly that he could not intervene and that we must respect the process. The problem is that he said that after he had already secretly intervened in the case of the chief constable. So, can the First Minister explain why the justice secretary told Parliament that the law stopped him from intervening in disciplinary matters when, just weeks before, he had privately done the opposite? The justice secretary did not intervene in a disciplinary matter. The justice secretary asked legitimate questions of the SPA to determine whether the SPA had carried out its functions appropriately. Let me be very clear to this chamber. My justice secretary asking legitimate questions is not just fine by me. I expect that of my justice secretary. I expect my justice secretary to do the job that he is appointed to do. I would simply ask Ruth Davidson this question. Had the chief constable, the day after that meeting, turned up at his work, and it turned out that Perk had not been consulted, that the senior command had not been consulted, that no steps had been taken to protect the welfare of police officers and had it turned up? Because no doubt the first thing that Ruth Davidson and other opposition MSPs would have asked was, what did the justice secretary do? What questions did the justice secretary ask? Had it turned out that the justice secretary had simply folded his arms and not bothered to ask any questions about whether the SPA had carried out its functions appropriately, Ruth Davidson would have been standing here, probably asking me if I still had confidence in my justice secretary. The hypocrisy of the Tories on this is quite breathtaking. The justice secretary did his job and he did his job properly on behalf of the people of this country. Ruth Davidson. Presiding Officer, I believe that the public have a right to see the decisions that the Government takes, not have them taken behind closed doors and in secret. It seems that the rules governing our police service are whatever the SNP decides they want them to be. We have ministers intervening in private while telling Parliament that they cannot. We have promises to be transparent while meetings are taking place without any record of what is going on. It is the SNP's secret Scotland and it stinks, and we have to act. It is clear that the legal framework does not ensure proper accountability. We say that it is time to amend the law so that it is this Parliament, not that Government, that has more power over our national force. The First Minister knows that she will find support from across the chamber for changes here, and it is her chance to show that she is listening for once. Will she? The public do know, because the justice secretary came to this chamber last week and answered questions. There is a distinction between the operational independence of the police and, of course, in terms of disciplinary and other matters of the Scottish Police Authority. The justice secretary did not intervene in matters where he should not have done, but it is the job of the justice secretary to make sure that the Scottish Police Authority, as a public body, is carrying out its duties appropriately. That is exactly what the justice secretary did. I am not sure what Ruth Davidson is actually arguing here. I am not sure whether she is arguing that the chief constable should have been allowed simply to come back to work without any of the appropriate questions being asked. The justice secretary is accountable to this Parliament and has given a statement in this Parliament. Of course, the relevant committee of this Parliament is looking into the matter as well. No doubt, it will ask further questions, but the justice secretary acted appropriately and will continue to do so. I cannot help thinking that this week of all weeks, what we are getting here from Ruth Davidson today is a deflection in the week when we saw her party fail abysmally to stand up for Scotland on important matters related to Brexit. The week that we found out that the Scottish Tories don't have a backbone between them, they are nothing more than lobby fodder. 2. Richard Leonard One of the foremost reasons for growing pressure on the NHS is a growing crisis in care provision. The sector is on the brink of collapse. Demand for high-quality care homes for our elderly is rising. As a result, Scotland needs at least 1,200 more care home places a year to meet that demand. Can the First Minister tell us how she plans to do that? First, while I recognise the challenges in social care, I do not agree with Richard Leonard that the sector is on the verge of collapse. That does a disservice to those who work in that sector. In the current financial year, almost £0.5 billion of front-line NHS spending will be invested in social care services and in integration of health and social care. That will continue to support the delivery of, among other things, the living wage for adult care workers and it will increase payments for free personal and nursing care. In the next financial year, we will give an additional £66 million to local government to bring the Carers Scotland Act into force and maintain payment of the living wage. Over the past three years, funding through the national care home contract has increased by more than 13 per cent, which helps independent care providers to invest in their staff, the quality of their service and to make a return out of their business. Of course, some care homes build care homes, for example right now, which is in difficulty. Our priority is to ensure continuity of care for those residents with no compromise whatsoever in the quality of their care. In fact, Scottish Government officials are meeting BUILD today. The Cabinet Secretary for Health will meet them later this month and we will do everything that we can to protect the interests of residents in very regrettable situations like that one. Richard Leonard Thank you. I am glad that the First Minister raised BUILD homes because last Saturday Labour MSPs attended a Save Our BUILD campaign group meeting in Glasgow. They heard at first hand families tell of the stress that their frail elderly relatives are under because they are about to be evicted from their specialist care homes. First Minister, those are people in their 70s, their 80s, some are even in their 90s being evicted. One woman, Nancy Sutherland, is 94. She has been a BUILD tenant for 23 years and along with 166 other elderly people she is about to lose her home. Mrs Sutherland has dementia so every day she relives the trauma. Every day she asks her daughter where she will be moving to and every day her anxiety levels rise. They rise because her daughter has no answer. Does the First Minister? The First Minister Can I say to Richard Leonard? I appreciate him raising this issue because it is an important issue in general, but particularly for the residents of BUILD care homes. It is exactly because we recognise how unsettling and traumatic this decision has been and will be for residents, their families and employees that the Scottish Government will continue to work to ensure that we do everything that we can to guarantee continuity of care for BUILD residents and make sure that there is no compromise whatsoever in the quality of their care. Since being alerted to BUILD's decision, we have engaged with the company, the Care Inspectorate, the chief officers of integration authorities to ensure that plans are being put in place for residents. As I said in my earlier answer, officials are meeting with BUILD today. The cabinet secretary will personally meet BUILD later this month to discuss the progress of that work, the national contingency. Planning group, which includes the Government, COSLA, Care Inspectorate, integration authorities, trade unions and providers, is also engaged in this issue. The group in particular considers how national and local partners manage the impact of decisions such as this in respect of residents, their families and, of course, the workforce. That is a vitally important issue, and that is why the Scottish Government has been and will continue to be engaged in making sure that the interests of residents are protected. I thank the First Minister for the tone of the answer and remind her that she told the chamber last March that she was absolutely committed to protect the most vulnerable people and ensure that supported accommodation is put on a sustainable and secure financial footing. However, I am bound to ask where that protection and commitment to those most vulnerable people is now. Scottish Care's chief executive, Dr Donald McCaskill, has warned her Government that the care home sector is in a fragile position. He has said that the Beale situation should, and I quote him, act as a wake-up call to properly fund care in Scotland, and yet we know that instead it faces cuts. Week after week, my party makes the case against these cuts, your cuts, cuts that affect people like Mrs Sutherland and too many others like her. First Minister, your care policies are failing. Surely you must see that the time has come for your Government to stop the cuts to lifeline services, or will you continue to fail people like Mrs Sutherland? I am not sure if Richard Leonard listened to the first answer that I gave to him, where I pointed out that, over the past three years, funding for the national care home contract has increased by more than 13 per cent. That is a recognition that the Government understands the challenges that the care home sector faces and is working with them, including with Scottish Care, to address those challenges, and we will continue to do so. I have already addressed the issue around Beale care homes. As well as the care home sector, we are also seeing extension of care delivered at home. The hours of home care delivered in Scotland have increased in the last year by 11 per cent. Across all those different aspects of care, we are taking action to make sure that the interests of our older people—we know that that will become increasingly important because of the ageing nature of our population. I am not particularly keen to get into a political tune and throw over an issue that is so important to the interests of so many older people, but Richard Leonard has mentioned the budget. We are putting forward a budget that is about protecting public services, investing an additional £400 million in our national health service, for example, giving a fair deal to local authorities. Yesterday, we agreed with the Greens a motion that says that we are open to amendments from other parties ahead of the next stage of the budget. I think that it was regrettable that, on a motion that, at the end of the day yesterday, we talked about protecting public services and giving a fair wage increase to public sector workers. Instead of voting with the SNP and the Greens, Labour voted with the Tories against those things. It is utterly inexplicable. If Richard Leonard wants to engage properly in the remainder of the budget process—I assume that he can get a tax policy together before then—I will welcome that, and we can have constructive discussions about how to make sure that we continue to deliver on the very important issues that he has raised today. The First Minister will be aware that North Ayrshire health and social care partnership has decided to cease at £75,000 a year grant to food train North Ayrshire from 31 March. 172 vulnerable elderly people, 43 per cent of whom are aged 85 or older, will be denied a vital service that allows them to stay in their own homes, rather than, in some instances, being taken into care at a cost of £26,869 per person per year. Housebound constituency has told me that the volunteer who delivers their food is often the only person that they speak to each week. Does the First Minister agree that a decision to cease funding of food train North Ayrshire is a penny-wise pound-fullage decision, which should be urgently reconsidered and reversed? Food train does a lot of good work. The Scottish Government has provided funding in previous years to pilot the food train, which has been expanded to a number of local authority areas. Responsibility for the commissioning and delivery of services lies with North Ayrshire health and social care partnership. However, I will ask the Minister for Public Health to examine the situation further. I am sure that we all want to recognise the very important contribution made by the volunteers who have been delivering the food train service so successfully in North Ayrshire. Jenny Marra Last week, chief superintendent Paul Anderson said that mental health demands are the greatest challenge facing his officers in the city of Dundee. Does the First Minister agree with me that the time has now come for a mental health accident and emergency facility to open seven days a week over the weekend, with access to specialist nurses, doctors and councillors, for that kind of facility to open in Dundee and in other places across Scotland that desperately need it? The First Minister I agree. Indeed, one of the factors behind the future strategy for policing in Scotland is about the changing nature of demand. When I speak to senior police officers, they often talk about mental health and the additional demands that they are putting on the police. It is also why, last year, I announced through our mental health strategy additional funding to have mental health workers in places such as police stations and prisons, for example, to recognise that there is often a need for mental health support across a range of different settings. Those are issues that have been taken forward through our mental health strategy and the issues that I hope will attract cross-spartheid support from right across the chamber. Fulton MacGregor Thank you, Presiding Officer. This week, during Cope Ridge's advertise, I brought to my attention the heartbreaking case of 17-year-old Kyle Laird from Cope Ridge's mother unexpectedly passed away over the festive season. Kyle's mother was a lone parent, and he is now financially responsible for himself and his family home. Kyle is actively seeking work, but is struggling to make ends meet due to gaps in the benefit system. What support can the Scottish Government give to Kyle and other young people who have no parental support and qualify for only limited support through the benefit system to remain in their own homes? Fulton MacGregor First Minister, I am sure that we would all want to convey our condolences to Kyle on the passing of his mother and the dreadful heartbreaking situation that he now finds himself in. Obviously, I do not know all the details of Kyle's circumstances. I would be very happy to ask the Social Security Minister and, indeed, the Economy Minister to speak to the member to see whether there is any support that the Scottish Government could provide or point to Kyle. I think that everybody knows the concerns that I have about the operation of the benefit system. I visited Start-up Stirling yesterday, a fantastic organisation that is doing a great amount of work principally around food support for people who are falling victim of the benefit system. I spoke to two individuals in particular who tell the story of the problems that universal credit in their case has created for them. The benefit system, the welfare system in any country, should be a safety net and it should be there to support people and help people in times of need, not push them further into poverty. Unfortunately, all too often, it is doing the latter rather than the former and perhaps the case that has just been raised as an example of that. I would be very happy to have ministers look into Kyle's particular situation, and I am sure that all of us wish him the very best. On Saturday, I had the privilege of taking up the invitation, which I think was extended to all MSPs to attend the Save Our Build campaign, to hear directly the consequences of the decision by Build to revise its business model. A revision that has effectively led planned eviction of elderly residents from their homes and the potential loss of 300 jobs from a workforce that does its best by those residents. I think that those 300 jobs were all located in the one place. Perhaps they would have been more effective action already. I hear what the First Minister said about all the meetings that are taking place, but will she direct her cabinet secretary now to meet with a Save Our Build campaign and union representatives as a matter of urgency to identify how the Scottish Government will protect the rights of older people to be treated with proper respect and ensure that the staff-facing huge uncertainty in terms of their own jobs can be told what the Scottish Government will do to support them at this very difficult time? The health secretary will be happy to meet with any interesting parties given the seriousness of the situation. I will not repeat everything that I said in response to Richard Leonard, but when I was a health secretary, I dealt with a similar situation in terms of the collapse of a care home company. I know how difficult that was for the residents involved and how difficult it was for all of the partners to come together to find the solutions. The Scottish Government, for its part, will continue to work with anybody and everybody to find the solutions that are in the interests of residents. We will be happy to meet others who want to achieve the same outcome. I am sure that the First Minister is aware of some of the work that my colleague Andy Wightman has done with his home's first campaign, drawing awareness to the impact of the incredible rise in short-term letting. That is an impact that is being felt in Edinburgh as well as around the country. It is damaging to communities. It raises the cost of homes being let for permanent homes for people to live in and for many people, particularly in examples close to Parliament, where an entire stairwell has been turned over to short-term let's say for a single lone resident less. It has a terribly damaging impact on people's mental health as well. The changes that are announced today by one major platform, Air, B and B, will not undermine the business model of those who want to convert entire properties to short-term letting. Does the First Minister accept that there is a huge difference between what is generally called the collaborative economy of people putting a spare room in their own home up for short-term let and the conversion of entire properties to effectively many hotels that operate without paying any business taxes and which distort the housing market in this way? There are a range of important issues that we need to consider here. Patrick Harvie is right to raise them. I understand the pressure in some parts of the country, not in all of the country, for new controls over short-term letting of residential properties. We will consider any appropriate changes in the period ahead. Patrick Harvie mentioned the collaborative economy here. I know that he will be aware that there is currently an expert panel on the collaborative economy that has been gathering a wide evidence base. I have seen a range of topics, but including on the topic of short-term let's say. The chair of the panel, Helen Golden of the Young Foundation, actually met with the economy secretary earlier this week. We understand that the panel's full report is due to be published shortly and we will certainly consider the recommendations that it makes and then make a decision on what action it is appropriate to take. Patrick Harvie? I am certainly aware that the report on the collaborative economy is due soon. We will all take an interest in it, because there are many opportunities from that as well. I say again that there is a huge difference between the collaborative economy and the exploitative housing economy that we are beginning to see. Air B&B are members of the Government's expert group on the collaborative economy, so we should not be looking to them for solutions to that particular problem. The impact on the housing market is our responsibility as Parliament and the First Minister's responsibility on behalf of Government. We can only resolve those issues by giving councils the power to regulate. That could be done relatively simply. The Government can allow councils to use planning use class orders to make it clear that there is a distinction between a home being a home and a home being converted into a many hotel using continual short-term lets. Will the First Minister agree about the important distinction between a collaborative economy and the exploitative economy? Does she agree that councils should have the option? None would need to use it where they do not think that it is a problem, but they need to have the option to use that mechanism to control the growth of short-term lets and ensure that the housing market operates for homes first. Patrick Harvie said that Air B&B was on the expert panel. I understand that that is true, but it is important to point out for balance, so is the STUC on that expert panel. It is a panel that we should be interested in in terms of the recommendations that it brings forward. I recognise, in my earlier comments, the distinction that Patrick Harvie is making. Everybody would recognise that distinction. It is important to point out that it is for the planning authority, which in the case of Edinburgh would be the City of Edinburgh Council, to consider the evidence case by case on whether the principal use of a property has changed from residential to business use. I know that there is an argument that some make that new powers are required. I am not ruling that out. I am simply saying that, given that the expert panel is meeting right now, it is taking evidence. I readily acknowledge that it is taking evidence on a range of issues, but it is looking at the issue of short-term lets. Given that the panel's report is due to be published shortly, I think that it makes sense to wait until that report is published, consider the evidence, consider the recommendations that it brings forward and then decide on what changes might be appropriate and bring them forward at that time. We will continue to look very carefully at that and we will continue to listen to and hear ideas from across the chamber, but also from a wider perspective than that. I have some additional supplementaries from Ivan McKee. After last year's general election, we heard that great boasts from Ruth Davidson and her troop of Scottish Tory MPs would fight for Scotland's interests and more powers for Hollywood. Does the First Minister think that we have seen much evidence of that this week? No. As I said earlier on, I think that we are still trying to locate a backbone among the group of Scottish Tory MPs. That is a really serious issue. We know from the committee report that was published that across this chamber, MSPs of all parties think that the withdrawal bill in its current form represents a power grab on this Parliament. When there was an amendment lodged by Labour in the House of Commons this week to help to rectify that, instead of supporting that amendment, the Scottish Tory group voted with the Government against the interests of Scotland. In fact, there has not been one single occasion on the part of any of the Scottish Tory MPs—I think that with the exception of one measly abstention somewhere along the line—there has not been one single occasion where a single Scottish Tory MP has voted in the interests of Scotland against the Westminster Government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Perhaps on a more consensual note, I take this opportunity to congratulate Sorica Cantwell in the gallery today, who was recognised as a clean-up Scotland hero by Keep Scotland Beautiful for her time dedicated to cleaning up plastic pollution on our beaches. Will the First Minister explain how the Scottish Government can best encourage and support such individual, community and sectoral initiatives—for example, with the supply of equipment—to help us all to tackle this global problem? I thank Claudia Beamish for raising that. Can I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Sorica Cantwell? Her work serves as a reminder that all of us have a responsibility to do more to tackle the throw-away culture and the issue of plastics, particularly in our seas. I think that the Environment Secretary has just met Ms Cantwell to discuss the work that she has been doing. The Scottish Government, as I said last week, has been leading the way in taking action for some time now. We have already introduced a more comprehensive carrier bag charge. We will develop a deposit return scheme for Scotland. Last week, Roseanna Cunningham announced plans to ban the manufacture and sale of plastic cotton buds and will become the first country in the UK to do so. We are also considering how to tackle the issue of plastic straws and disposable coffee cups. I know that there is a need to go even further. The cabinet discussed that on Tuesday, how we continue to make sure that Scotland is a leader in tackling the issue that is such a blight on our environment. Can I ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the UK Government regarding concerns expressed by the Scottish whisky industry regarding the possible consequences of Brexit for customs arrangements? The Scottish Government is in regular dialogue with the Scottish whisky industry. We are aware of its concerns regarding the introduction of a new computer system by HM revenue and customs for collecting duties and taxes for goods entering and leaving the UK. The industry believes that leaving the EU will increase transactions fivefold. That is an extra burden on industry, which is completely unnecessary and is one of the many reasons that we have argued that leaving the EU will significantly weaken our economy compared with the continued membership of the EU. However, the least damaging option is to remain within the single market. I hope that something that members across the chamber will support. I thank the First Minister for her answer. I am sure that she is aware that 90 per cent of Scottish whisky is exported, and a third of those exports go to the EU, which represents 10 per cent of all Scottish exports to the EU. Is the First Minister aware that, with the UK Government rushing headlong into a hard Brexit, there are now increasing concerns being expressed by the Scottish whisky industry over the potential for confusion and chaos at customs posts, given that the industry needs plenty of advance notice of new arrangements, a smooth process and to avoid congestion and delay in getting their goods to market? Now, with the clock ticking, will the First Minister continue to apply maximum pressure on the UK Government to recognise the importance of the Scottish whisky industry and, indeed, Scottish food and drink generally? There are also similar concerns that were expressed by Rotterdam port as well about the impact of Brexit. Does she agree that this is a perfect example of why the Conservative party's political dogma and determination to leave the single market and the union is detrimental to Scotland's national interests? I cannot believe that the Tories were groaning in moaning through a question about one of our most important industries. It speaks volumes. The whisky industry, as Richard Lochhead has said, contributes hugely to Scottish exports. The concerns of the whisky industry provide a case study in the self-destructive futility of leaving the single market. It is not just whisky that has those concerns. The food sector resilience group, chaired by the Scottish Government, brings together associations across the food and drink supply chain, as well as other public sector bodies. That group is meeting, as we speak, and will discuss the impact of customs issues and the possible disruption of ports in England, which could have a really damaging effect on all of Scotland's exporters. It is exactly that kind of concern that drives our analysis that Brexit could hit our GDP to the tune of up to £2,300 for every person in Scotland. I do not want us to leave the EU at all, but, if the UK is intent on that, we must stay within the single market. I remember the day, not long after the EU referendum, when Ruth Davidson stood in this chamber and challenged me to make sure that we protected our place in the single market. Now she just meekly does, as she has told, while we will continue to stand up for Scotland's interests. First Minister, what support the Scottish Government is providing to the inshore fishing industry? The Scottish Government recognises the importance of fishing to many of our coastal communities through our inshore fisheries strategy. We are working with fishing businesses and organisations around Scotland to deliver a more sustainable, profitable and well-managed inshore sector. That includes conservation measures for important inshore species, supporting inshore fisheries groups and a £1.5 million programme of investment to improve data collection from our inshore fishing fleet. I thank the First Minister for her response. The First Minister is aware of the great importance that the scallop fishing industry plays in the economy of the south-west of Scotland. I believe that the First Minister was scheduled to discuss issues regarding the 2012 fisheries management agreement with the Isle of Man's chief minister this morning, and I sincerely hope that those discussions were successful. Concerns about the potential of the Isle of Man introducing conservation measures, which were more about protectionism than conservation, were raised by me back in August 2017 and a letter to the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing. Why did it take until late December for the cabinet secretary to take any meaningful action on the concerns of the scallop fleet? Why has it taken the intervention of the First Minister to sort out the mess partly due to the late intervention of Fergus Ewing, and will she apologise on behalf of her cabinet secretary for the unnecessary inconvenience and deep concern that caused the Scottish scallop fleet and associated businesses? Let me deal quickly with Finlay Carson's comments about the Scottish Government. Let me put on record some of the comments of those who work in the sector. Chief Executive, the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, great support for our scallop fishermen from the Scottish Government. The West Coast Sea Products, which is a cwcubri-based processor owner of vessels, welcomed the action that the Scottish Government has taken to invoke the dispute resolution process, so the Scottish Government has been acting on behalf of our scallop fishermen. Now, as Finlay Carson said, I spoke with the chief minister of the Isle of Man this morning. I made very clear our opposition to the restrictions that the Isle of Man has put in place. I made very clear our view, which I accept that the Isle of Man disagrees with, but our strong view is that those restrictions actually breach the fisheries management agreement that is in place. I also said that we would use the dispute resolution mechanism should a resolution not be found. I am glad to say that the discussion with the chief minister was very constructive and very positive this morning. The Isle of Man will review its position, and I am very hopeful that we will reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of it within the next week. I hope that we will get to a position on that, which is in the interests of our scallop fishermen, and it will be because, partly, of the action that Fergus Ewing has been taking. 6. Monica Lennon To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's response is to the campaign for freedom of information in Scotland's campaign, Get It Minited. The Scottish Government is fully committed to openness and transparency. I agree with the campaign's view of the importance of ensuring appropriate records of business are taken, where meetings involving ministers meet the criteria set out in the civil service guidance, then appropriate records are routinely taken. Monica Lennon I thank the First Minister for her reply. In my hand, I have a list compiled by STV journalist Aiden Kerr of 40 unminuted ministerial meetings and counting. This widespread practice of failure to record must end, so I commend the Get It Minuted campaign, which is simply asking that agendas, notes and minutes of the Government's meetings are held. The First Minister told the chamber earlier on that she is fine with the way that the justice secretary is conducting government business when asked about the unminuted meeting with the former chair of the SPA. Sticking with justice, her official, Paul Johnstone, met with the chief constable on 30 November, was that meeting also unminuted? If so, does not the First Minister accept that it is not only a bad look, but that practice is simply wrong? Will she make a commitment today that from now on all important Government meetings will be minuted? The First Minister I will make a commitment that we will continue, as we do just now, to make sure that the guidance about keeping minutes is complied with that. I believe that guidance for civil servants is publicly available for any member to look at. This Government has done more to put more information into the public domain than any previous administration. For example, under previous administrations, it was not the practice to proactively publish details of meetings and travel. We now do that, so we will continue to make sure that the guidance is complied with. Of course, ministers are properly accountable to this Parliament. Liam Kerr Thank you, Presiding Officer. It was suggested earlier that no minutes were taken when the justice secretary met the SPA to discuss the chief constable because it was just a mere chat, but we checked the meeting room bookings, and it shows that, to have that chat, the justice secretary went to the trouble of booking an eight-person meeting room for two hours. Can the First Minister tell us? Okay, let's hear the question, please. Is it general Government policy, not— Let's hear the question, please. Is it general Government policy, not to minute eight-person, two-hour meetings on the fight of senior public servants? Or would a minister have to specifically request that no minutes are taken? I wasn't at the meeting, but I'm hearing from the justice secretary that the meeting that we're talking about actually took place in his office, so I'm not entirely sure what an earth Liam Kerr is talking about. If Liam Kerr wants to come back to the chamber at some point and ask a coherent question that I can understand, I'll do my best to answer it. Question 7, Tavish Scott. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to increase and improve diversity in the early learning and childcare workforce. First Minister. Ensuring that we have a high-quality workforce is key to our plans to almost double-funded nursery education, and that includes improving diversity. Phase 1 of our recruitment campaign was launched in October last year. The campaign encourages people from all backgrounds, abilities, age ranges and genders to consider a career in early learning and childcare. We're also increasing the number of early years modern apprenticeships by 10 per cent year-on-year, and we're raising the amount paid to employers and businesses to support apprentices over 25 to help to widen the age profile of the workforce. Tavish Scott. I'm grateful to the First Minister for that reply. This week, her own skills agency said that the work that's going on on recruitment isn't enough and a more diverse workforce is needed. Does she therefore accept that the take-up by two-year-olds is way below expectations and many organisations doubt the Scottish Government can meet its recruitment target? Is recruitment of the 11,000 new staff needed to deliver the expansion of childcare on track? The policy is on track. I'm not sure whether Tavish Scott is mixing up two equally important issues. The issue of take-up of two-year-olds is important. We see very high take-up of three and four-year-olds, and we want to see take-up from two-year-olds increase. That's important. It's slightly separate from the broader issue of recruitment of additional workers into the workforce to support the expansion of provision that I have spoken about. I've already set out the ambitions of the Government to attract 11,000 new workers into the workforce to support that. In addition to that overall number, I think that the point that Tavish Scott is absolutely right to make is that we want to see a greater diversity. One of the things that I talk about often is the need to get more women into careers such as engineering and technology, the STEM-type careers. It's equally important to encourage more men into childcare professions. Those are really important matters, and as part of our overall ambition to grow the workforce, the need for greater diversity is central to all that we do. Michelle Ballantyne That leads very nicely into my question, because childcare and early years have traditionally been seen as a female industry, with women accounting for 97 per cent of the workforce. That suggests that we can do more to encourage men to see childcare and early years for the important rewarding careers. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to change perceptions of careers in childcare and early years? The First Minister That's a responsibility for the Government. It's a responsibility for all of us. When I launched the requirement for the Scottish Government to recruit thousands of more people to support our expansion, we made those points. The recruitment campaign focuses on the need for greater diversity as well as the need for growing the numbers. The underrepresentation of men in careers such as this is a long-standing thing. It's an intergenerational thing, and it's important that we take the time to explain why this is a worthwhile career for men to pursue, but also why it's really important in terms of the development of our children that there are men as well as women providing this care. This is all part of tackling the occupational segregation that we know in most professions affects women, but this is a particular issue around men. I hope that we can all do as much as we can to encourage young men in particular to see this as a very worthy and worthwhile career option. Thank you very much, and that concludes First Minister's questions. We'll move on now to members' business, the name of Morris Corry, which is about 100 years of women in the armed forces. We'll just take a few moments for members to change seats.