 Felly, mae'r iawn i gweithio arna i gwyfwng gwrthodau i dyn ni. Mae'n gweld ar y gwrthodau ni, David Torrance. A wnaeth i gyfer y Gwbl Llywodraeth a Gwybodaeth i'w cerdd i ddod yn gyfrannu'r bod i gael alchohol yn ystyried? Llywodraeth wedi gweld eu cyrraedd o gael digwydd ac yndrawawyr ac ei ddoch chi weld eich ddweud ddylau'r imigol, ac yn ystyried i ddysgu cyfresgwynt, reduce crime and preserve public order. While the Scottish Government is responsible for the overarching legislation in relation to liquor licensing, responsibility for procedures and individual decisions lies with local licensing boards, made up of locally elected councillors. All licensing boards have wide discretion to determine appropriate licensing arrangements according to local needs and circumstances and their own legal advice. David Torrance I thank the minister for that answer. At local level, licensing boards now have a more concise and targeted data recording alcohol-related incidents, medical omissions, and now this is available to them whenever before. Does the minister consider that local authority licensing boards would benefit from additional powers in order to effectively focus and target resources to come back alcohol-related issues being experienced in their areas? I would say to the member that licensing boards already have extensive powers available to them to help to build their own policies for regulating the sale of alcohol to the public in their local area. The key strategic role of a licensing board is the preparation of the licensing policy statement. The statement includes an over-provision assessment, which states whether local boards consider there to be over-provision of licensed premises in any locality in their area. In fact, there has been a significant amount of legislation in relation to the alcohol licensing regime over recent years. Therefore, there would need to be a strong case before any additional legislation was considered. However, I can say to David Torrance that the Scottish Government is working with stakeholders to update the alcohol licensing regime guidance, and it is expected that that will be issued later this year. Also, of course, if David Torrance has any particular concerns about the operation of the licensing regime in Fife, I am sure that we will be very happy to meet him. I will undershoot. People from areas of deprivation are eight times more likely to be admitted to hospital due to alcohol consumption than those from affluent communities. Alcohol abuses not only a symptom of poverty but can also be a driver and can be damaging to the impact of communities across Scotland. Will the Scottish Government examine how it can work alongside local authorities to reduce the impact of alcohol in those communities? Of course, the member will be aware that the minimum unit pricing provisions are to come into force on 1 May. I am sure that he welcomes that. However, that is not the only approach that the Scottish Government takes. Of course, we have our framework for action, which is a package of more than 40 measures to reduce alcohol-related harm in Scotland, including quantity discount ban, a ban in their responsible promotions, as well as a lower drink drive limit to improve substance misuse education, and our nationwide alcohol brief intervention programme. It may be of interest to the member that, of course, while we continue to work with all relevant stakeholders, in addition, a refresh of the alcohol strategy is due to be introduced shortly. Mary Fee A report from Alcohol Focused Scotland reported that a number of licensing boards have difficulties in assessing and determining over provision. Those difficulties appear to centre around two interlinked issues—the relationship between outlet density and alcohol problems, and the standard of evidence that is required for a licensing board to find an area is overprovided. What steps will the minister take to ensure that licensing boards have clear guidance to assist them in their decision making, which in turn will help to tackle the issue of over provision? Of course, Mary Fee will be aware that the position in general is that, of course, the local licensing boards operate independently, but, at the same time, we have been working, as I said in my answer to David Torrance, with stakeholders to update the liquor licensing regime guidance, and that is expected to be issued later this year. If the member has any specific concerns, I think that she was getting up with regard to the criteria for determining over provision, we would be very, very happy to look at that if she would care to take that up with us directly. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its engagement with the Two Sisters Food Group regarding the company's consultation on closing its factory in Camberslang. Presiding Officer, in the period since I responded to Clare Haughey's question on 22 February, I can inform the chamber that the Scottish Government has continued to engage with the company, exploring options to support the business and workforce. Scottish Enterprise is meeting again with Two Sisters Food Group this morning to progress its discussions, and the meeting was arranged for 1 March, but had to unfortunately be arranged due to the impact of last week's severe weather. I understand that the PACE meeting, due to take place in 5 March, was cancelled by the company and that our local partnership action for continuing employment or PACE team is standing ready to discuss how best to support employees, and awaits to hear further from the company. I reassure Clare Haughey and the workforce and wider community that we will do all that we can to save the site and mitigate the impact on the workforce and local economy. As communicated to Ms Haughey, I have written to the company to offer our assistance to retain activity in Camberslang. I thank the minister for his answer, and I thank him for his assistance with this matter thus far. As the minister recalled, I asked a question of him two weeks ago, and I have been working with relevant stakeholders to ensure the long-term viability of the site and to support the 450 jobs at the plant. Two sisters are a major source of employment in my constituency, with generations of the same family working on the site. Therefore, the effect of any closure would be devastating locally. I am certain that my constituents and all those affected by the potential closure are reassured that the Scottish Government are doing all that they can to keep the factory open. As such, can the minister expand on the agencies that are involved in the process and list the range of activities that they have undertaken in their attempt to find a positive resolution for the workers and the wider community? I thank Ms Haughey for her question and for her interest. I appreciate the point that she has made about the severity of potential impact on her local community if the company was to close its plant there. Scottish Enterprise and PACE, which is a multi-agency partnership, are the key agencies. Scottish Enterprise is meeting again, as I say, with the company today. PACE is in contact with the company. We are also working with the trade unions. The cabinet secretary for the economy, Keith Brown, met with Unite Union and a company union representative on 22 February to explore viable options to avoid the potential closure. We are committed to working with the unions and all other stakeholders to provide every support possible and to ensure, as I say, a productive future for the two sisters food group site and workforce in Camberslang. Specifically, we are looking at food processing and marketing capital grants. We are looking to help with the capital issues, training, R&D support, support of the Scottish Manufacturing Advisory Service and Skills Development Scotland support. Those are all active areas where we are trying to support retention of the factory there. We have a good track record of working with the company in securing investment in its Cooper Angus site, which gives us confidence that we can work in partnership with the company. 3. Anas Sarwa To ask the Scottish Government what action it takes to ensure that people with a violent or threatening past do not work directly with vulnerable patients in health and social care settings. Scotland boards routinely undertake checks of conviction-related information as part of the appointment process, in accordance with the safer pre- and post-employment checks, national partnership information network policy, the PIN policy. For regulated work with children or vulnerable adults, all applicants are required by law to become members of the Protecting Vulnerable Group scheme. For other posts, applicants are usually subject to a disclosure check undertaken by Disclosure Scotland. All NHS boards are required to review every post to determine the type of disclosure check that is applicable. Additionally, disclosure checks are undertaken where individuals are volunteering or undertaking work experience in NHS Scotland boards. Anas Sarwa Thank you, cabinet secretary, for that detailed response. A very concerning case has been raised with me by a constituent. Her brother has a profound form of down syndrome, and he resides in an NHS care facility. He suffered serious injuries due to physical abuse by an employee. The individual concerned was dismissed and also found to have a conviction for abusive and threatening behaviour. The family now understands that the individual concerned is back working in an NHS facility with vulnerable patients. Will the cabinet secretary agree to review the procedures that are in place to ensure that staff working with vulnerable patients are fit and proper persons? As I said in my initial answer to Anas Sarwa, we have robust national policies in place that clearly set out health board responsibilities in relation to disclosure checks. Those policies include explicit guidance on how health boards should investigate alleged incidents of abusive conduct in the workplace. Anas Sarwa, I may recall that I corresponded with his office directly on respect of the case to which he refers, and it would be inappropriate to comment directly on the handling of an investigation into an individual NHS employee's conduct, which is a contractual matter between the health board and the employee concerned. Nevertheless, in respect of the particular case to which Anas Sarwa refers, Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board has provided assurances that relevant pre- and post-employment checking has been undertaken and that effective risk management and safeguarding processes are in place. In terms of the procedures, we always keep all procedures under review, but I would want to stress, as I said in my initial answer, that they are robust and provide protection in a very robust way. I am sure that, if Anas Sarwa wants to write to me with any further information on that, I would be happy to receive that. Jimmy Halcro Johnston Bust of Scottish Government, whether it will provide an update on the action that it is taking to tackle waiting times issues in NHS Grampian and its impact on other NHS boards with which it holds service-level agreements. NHS Grampian uses £4.9 million from the £50 million that is made available to boards in the current financial year to address long waits across the whole patient pathway, including cancer pathways and specialties such as orthopedics and ophthalmology. No matter which board of resident a patient comes from, NHS Grampian will treat patients based on their clinical need. Jimmy Halcro Johnston I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. While there has been some welcome improvements on RTT times, it is still three and a half years since Grampian met national standards, and improvements have been in line with national average, while Grampian continues to lag behind and remains, by some distance, the worst-performing health board in Scotland in this regard. The cabinet secretary spoke briefly about the past and the work that has been done to deal with waiting times. To take one example, I was told by the cabinet secretary in September that a service-level agreement with Newcastle for cardiac patient was secured. However, more recently, the board's chief executive told me that this agreement was never finalised. How can my constituents in Murray and in Ocney and Shetland have confidence that the cabinet secretary is really on top of what is going on on the ground, and can she tell me when she expects waiting times in Grampian to meet national standards? I say that we continue to work with NHS Grampian and other boards to ensure that patients are treated in a timely manner. We have spent a great deal of time and resource supporting NHS Grampian to improve their waiting times performance. As the member will be aware, we have just agreed a budget increase for health and sport by more than £400 million. Frontline NHS boards, including Grampian, will receive a baseline uplift of £179 million with additional investment in reform, which will help to reduce waiting times of £175 million. NHS Grampian's resource budget will be £920.6 million, an uplift of 2.1 per cent, which is the highest of any territorial NHS board. I should also add the point that the member, along with his colleagues, voted against that increase to NHS Grampian as he voted against the budget. Perhaps he might need to explain that to his constituents. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the reported problems at Rhaigmoor hospital, how many operating theatres in Scotland have wooden doors and plaster walls? I would like to take the opportunity to thank all staff who helped to restore the theatres to full capacity as quickly and safely as possible and minimise the disruption to patients. I would also like to recognise that staff across NHS Highland at Caithness, Galsby and Fort William helped to treat some patients who were due to go to Rhaigmoor. I have received no indication from NHS Highland that wooden doors or plaster works contributed to the incident. Health Facilities Scotland has also undertaken a review of the work undertaken, and in their view, wooden doors and plaster works did not contribute to the incident. Additionally, NHS Highland is undertaking a serious adverse event review, in accordance with its standard procedure. If there are any lessons coming out of either review, we will share them across NHS Scotland. Edward Mountain. I agree totally with you that thanks go to the staff of NHS Highland and across the Highlands for all the extra work that they put in, but you frankly did not answer the question. My question was how many theatres still had plaster walls and wooden doors. Construction requirements and operating theatres have lagged woefully behind the requirements in other high-risk areas. Can the cabinet secretary confirm if the Scottish Government intends to invest in our operating theatres across Scotland to replace materials such as plaster walls and wooden doors with antibacterial plastic walling to reduce the chances of infection and ease cleaning? I do not know of Edward Mountain who listened to my first answer, but Health Facilities Scotland in their view has said that wooden doors and plaster works did not contribute to the incident. I am not quite sure why Edward Mountain is continuing to talk about wooden doors and plaster works when I have just told him that that was not the cause of the issue according to the experts in Health Facilities Scotland. If he knows otherwise, perhaps he can give me the evidence that Health Facilities Scotland is wrong. In terms of the investment, let me be very clear that the Scottish Government is investing over £30 million upgrading the theatres and critical care at Rhaigmore hospital alone. That is a huge investment by the Scottish Government in that one hospital in theatres and critical care. I would hope that Edward Mountain might find it within himself to welcome that £30 million investment, which will lead to a major construction, which will help to ensure that the fabric of Rhaigmore is as good as it can be, providing a first-class environment for patients to be treated in. To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it will give to the recommendations of the Scottish Poverty and Inequality Commission as it develops its plans for tackling child poverty. I welcome the advice of the Poverty and Inequality Commission following my request to them in November last year to have published such a considered piece of work in such a short time is indeed testament to their determination and collective experience. The advice that they have provided is invaluable as we prepare to publish our first child poverty delivery plan in the coming weeks. The plan will have full regard to the advice and will make clear how we have responded. The commission outlines that poverty and inequality cannot be solved through one portfolio area or policy. It highlights three key mechanisms that increase household income and reduce costs to make the biggest impact on child poverty targets, namely working earnings, social security and reducing housing costs. The commission also highlights the importance of action to improve the quality of life for those living in poverty. I have been working closely with colleagues across Government to ensure an approach that delivers action across every aspect of life, including those key challenges. Thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Does she agree with me that, in stark contrast to the ambitions of the commission, the UK Government continues austerity measures and welfare cuts are set to push more children into poverty, and their policies on tax and the living wage and unemployment will do nothing to support households and help to pull families out of poverty? Angela Constance, let me first and foremost say that I believe with every fibre of my being that we can and must end child poverty in Scotland. That is why we have led the way with our ambitious new child poverty act, but none of that lets the UK Government off the hook either through its inaction or its damaging actions. The independent expert advice from the poverty and inequality commission rightly focuses on devolved powers, but it also recognises that there are factors outwith our control that will make our job harder and will impact and progress. We know that the impact of the Tory Government's continual assault on welfare spending is well documented. For example, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that the benefits freeze is the single biggest driver behind rising poverty. The child poverty action group has identified that there will be a million more children across the UK pushed into poverty by 2020 due to the welfare cuts since 2013. In Scotland alone, welfare spend will reduce by £4 billion by the end of the decade to orphan in some regards, the £3.3 billion spend that will become the responsibility of this place. The member is absolutely right that the UK Government could be doing far more to tackle what Mrs May described as the burning injustices. For example, by increasing the work allowance in universal credit and by lifting the minimum wage to that of the real living wage, but the challenge for each and every one of us in this Parliament as we go forward is how we go beyond mitigating the very worst excesses of the UK Government and actually lift children out of poverty in this country.