 The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Michael Matheson on policing. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary, 15 minutes. Presiding Officer, I welcome this early opportunity to update Parliament on policing in Scotland. Our police officers and those who work to support them continue to do an excellent job in challenging circumstances and I pay tribute to them again all the men and women within Police Scotland who work day in, day out to protect our communities. Crime is at a 40-year low with violent crime at its lowest level since 1974 and there is now more consistent access to specialist expertise and equipment across the country and credit for this goes to the officers and staff across Police Scotland. Presiding Officer, we were all shocked and saddened by the terrible instant which claimed the lives of Lamarabelle and John Yew. Our thoughts continue to be with their families and friends. Police Scotland has publicly apologised and on behalf of this Government I repeat my sympathies and also to apologise to the families for the loss of their loved ones. We are truly sorry for what has happened. The perk is carrying out an independent investigation into the circumstances of the incident under the direction of the Crown and this is a live and on-going investigation. The remit of the HMICS review and instructed was to provide an accurate picture of the current capacity and capability within all control centres, both staff and systems, and the processes in place to ensure that all calls are handled and dispatched appropriately. HMICS recommends that the reform programme for the control centres is completed as planned. However, it makes clear that this should only take place when the current control rooms in Govan and Bilston Glen have a full complement of trained staff and when the systems and processes are capable of taking additional call demand from the north. When the new area control room in Dundee is fully operational and after a detailed and independently assured transition plan is developed and delivered. HMICS recommends that centres in Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness should remain open while this takes place. That is what will now happen. The remaining phase will only proceed once the SPA and HMICS are completely reassured that all those issues have been addressed. Police Scotland states that this recommendation will require the exhilarated recruitment of 70 to 75 call handling staff to consolidate the service centre operations, plus additional area control room staff to ensure that the combined north area control room in Dundee is fully operational before the closure of Aberdeen and Inverness control rooms. It will also require to support the retention of staff in Aberdeen and Inverness for a period beyond 31 March 2016 to allow for an extensive handover operation. That will, of course, be subject to discussion with the unions and staff. There is a cost attached to implementing this recommendation, estimated by Police Scotland at around £1.4 million in this financial year. I can confirm to the chamber today that I am making £1.4 million of new money available immediately for Police Scotland to meet this cost. The remaining phases of the change programme will be subject to regular and intensive scrutiny by both the SPA and HMICS. I have asked HMICS to ensure that any further recommendations on the operation of call handling are shared as the review progresses to allow the SPA and Police Scotland to act as quickly as possible. The M9 incident had terrible consequences. I do not want any family to have to go through that experience again. We will also take early action on the issue of stop and search. In March, I asked Emirant Cymru rights QC John Scott to consider the legal framework around stop and search. His independent advisory group has now reported, and I have published that report today. They recommended a statutory code of practice to underpin how stop and search is used. We will implement their recommendations in full. I can therefore confirm that the current system of consensual stop and search will end once the code comes into effect. I have informed the convener of the justice committee that I intend lodging appropriate amendments to the criminal justice bill at stage 2 to give effect to that. There are two further areas where investigations are on-going, and I wish to update Parliament of the progress of those investigations as much as I can. The perk investigation under the direction of the crown into the death of Sheikhou Bayou in police custody is well advanced and members will recognise that I am constrained in what I can say. However, my thoughts are with Mr Bayou's family at this terrible time. As the perk commissioner emphasised earlier today, a number of expert forensic pathologists have been commissioned on the instruction of the Lord Advocate to further investigate and to provide an opinion on how Mr Bayou died. The Lord Advocate and the perk have met with the family and are committed to keeping them informed of the progress of their on-going investigation. Media interest over the summer has also focused on reported breaches of the code of practice on the acquisition and disclosure of communication data that came into force on the 25th of March this year. A final determination by the Interception of Communications Commissioner is awaited. Ioco has made clear that it would be inappropriate for it to identify the forces under investigation while its investigation is on-going and has set out clear reasoning for this. In light of this on-going investigation, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further other than to say that ministers expect all public authorities in Scotland to comply with the code of practice on accessing communication data. The press must be able to operate freely with appropriate protections and no individual should have their communication data inappropriately accessed. Placing reform in Scotland has gone through the most significant public sector reform in a generation. While there have been challenges, the creation of Police Scotland has allowed us to maintain officer numbers 1,000 higher than they were in 2007. Compare that to south of the border where policing numbers were this week predicted to fall to their lowest level in 40 years. National units are ensuring a consistent approach to the most complex and time-consuming issues, such as serious and organised crime, rape and murder. Those hard-fought gains would not have been achieved without reform of policing in Scotland. In the programme for government in Tuesday, the First Minister set out the next steps that this Government will take to strengthen policing. I want to provide Parliament with further detail on how those issues will be taken forward. Reform has increased scrutiny. Currently, 32 local scrutiny boards mean that there are now more councillors than ever before having a say on policing priorities in their area. As Parliament will recall, to ensure the day-to-day operation of the police is entirely independent of government, Police Scotland is accountable to the SPA, which in turn is accountable to this Government, with the Parliament's Justice Sub-Committee providing regular and active challenge. There is independent oversight from HMICS and the PIRC, as well as from Audit Scotland. Police Scotland has faced greater levels of political, public and media scrutiny than ever before. I believe that we can strengthen it further. The chief constable will therefore undertake a new programme of scrutiny sessions to provide more direct local accountability for the performance of policing in local areas. That will give local councillors the opportunity to discuss policing in their area directly with the chief constable, senior officers and members of the SPA. I want to explore further with local conveners how that will work at the local scrutiny summit that I am holding on 23 September. That will be an open dialogue and I would welcome contributions from members across this chamber and how they think local scrutiny can be enhanced further. The Scottish Government set the national priorities for policing prior to the implementation of police reform. We will now engage with stakeholders and communities on setting new national priorities for policing in Scotland. We will do so in partnership with a wide range of stakeholders with an interest in policing. That is an opportunity for people to tell us what they think the priorities should be in the future. Members will be aware that the chief constable announced last week that he would be stepping down. I thank Sir Stephen House again for his service and contribution to policing in Scotland. He provided leadership at a crucial time with a strong focus on tackling violent crime, and he has made a major contribution to recorded crime falling to a 40-year low. Members will also be aware that the SPA chair, Vic Henry, announced that he would not be seeking reappointment when his three-year term ends this month. Following an extensive recruitment process, I can confirm that Andrew Flanagan will become the new chair of the SPA, taking up post from Monday 7 September. Andrew has served as a chief executive, chairman and non-executive director on a number of organisations. He brings an abundance of experience and challenging and high profile posts in the public, private and the third sector. I am confident that Andrew will prove to be an excellent appointment. One of his key early priorities will be to appoint a suitable successor to Sir Stephen House, who can carry forward the process of reform to its conclusion and consolidate the delivery of its many benefits. The SPA has already started the process. I have already spoken to Andrew, and my immediate ask is that he undertake a review of police governance, supported by a reference group to contribute their views and suggestions. That will ensure accountability arrangements for policing, can build on the lessons learned to date, and ensure robust arrangements are in place for the future. Specifically, I have identified four areas that I want the chair to focus on. Ensuring that local interests are effectively represented in the national scrutiny process. Ensuring that the SPA has the appropriate structures and skills to undertake effective scrutiny. Ensure that the SPA, HMICS and the Scottish Government and the Parliament have the material and data to allow it to hold Police Scotland to account and to review the way that the authority works with other stakeholders to ensure that its approach is rooted in partnership and contributes to wider objectives of our public sector in Scotland. I have today published a full remit of the review. What I have set out today is a significant and wide-waging set of measures that will strengthen policing in Scotland. I know that there have been challenges, and some of the events over the summer have prompted legitimate public concern. However, the fundamentals of our policing remain sound—a skilled and committed workforce of officers and staff who deliver for our communities every day and a process of reform to protect policing from the effects of austerity. The actions that I am announcing today will address the challenges and help us to learn from the initial years of reform. It will ensure that policing in Scotland is effective, accountable and that it is community focused. I look forward to working with members to ensure that we have the police service communities expect and deserve. Thank you. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow you in 30 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. If you wish to ask a question of the minister, please press your request button now. I call Graham Pearson. I am obliged. I would like to thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his statement. I welcome the tone in which it was delivered here today. I join him in acknowledging a complete support from the chamber for those officers and staff who deliver on policing across Scotland in the interests of our community. Today, however, we have received two weighty reports, which reflect the significant problems at the heart of policing across Scotland—problems unseen and untouched by the SPA or the Government until tragedy and controversy struck. Shortly after the cabinet secretary announced his call-handling review, he said that there was nothing to suggest that, I quote, a systemic failure or that the centre was overburdened. Given the damning contents of the HMIC review indicating the very opposite, can Mr Matheson tell Parliament on what basis both he and the chief constable were justified in pointing the finger at an unnamed officer accusing an individual failure? Scrutiny is about asking questions. Governance and accountability is about getting answers and justifications. In the light of those reports, will the cabinet secretary now commit to delivering what I asked for since arriving in Parliament—an independent system of rigorous governance and accountability—with the aim of delivering the best police service in the world? Will he enable the incoming convener of the SPA, Mr Flanagan, to be appointed by this Parliament in that endeavour? Can I turn first of always Mr Pearson's made reference to the two reports? He should be aware that the report in Stop and Search is a result of asking John Scott to undertake a review of Stop and Search in Scotland back in March, not in the summer. It was back in March that that report was commissioned and the independent advisory group was established. Can I also return to the issue that he made about the point that he made regarding the M9 incident? Of course, at the time following that incident and the discussions that I had with the chief constable, they had looked at what happened in that particular instance, and I was making my comments based on the advice that was being provided by Police Scotland. However, as the member will recognise, I instructed HMICS to undertake a review to rest capacity, capability and process in order to be assured as to where there were any systemic failings in the system. That is why I set up HMICS's review on that basis, because I wanted that assurance that we can ensure that nothing like that ever happens again. Welcome. What we have got from the HMICS report so far is a way in which we can start to address some of those issues. Once we have the final report, later in October, we will be able to then look at what further measures may be necessary. However, I am sure that no-one is in any doubt having considered the range of issues that HMICS has already considered that this is anything other than a very thorough and independent investigation into all-call handling within Police Scotland. I turn to the issue that Mr Pearson has raised again. That is the issue about scrutiny and accountability and how the national process fits into the local process. It is an issue that the member raised with me back in June this year, when I was before the policing sub-committee in Parliament. I have already stated that I believe that there is a need to make sure that that local accountability ties into the national process. As I have set out, the Government's review will have a responsibility in looking at how we can achieve that much more effectively. I am determined to make sure that the way in which we make sure that Police Scotland is accountable is that there is very strong local community input into shaping how policing is provided within local communities. With the national review and the scrutiny summit, I believe that we can achieve that much more effectively. In doing so, I make sure that policing is delivered within local communities in a way that local people want it to see being delivered. I thank the cabinet secretary for an early sight of his statement. With an extra £1.4 million now having to be allocated to the recruitment of support staff, it was clearly a false economy to make so many crucial support staff redundant in the first place. Those individuals are absolutely essential to the smooth running of our police force and ensuring that calls are handled properly in an effort to keep our streets safe and protect the public. Given the vexing problems associated with the centralised 101 call system, it is astounding that the HMIC's interim report makes the recommendation that the reform programme for control centres should be completed as planned, especially given the concerns and complaints from rank and file officers about its operation and about the target-led approach to stop and search. Will the cabinet secretary confirm today that, as part of the governance review that is establishing a system of meaningful dialogue with rank and file officers is included in the SPA remit and that the Scottish Government, who has now been in charge of policing for eight years, ensures that this is delivered? Just to try to help to make some progress on the issue, the SPA engages with staff and union associations on a regular basis in order to discuss issues of mutual interest and concern with them. I have no doubt that there are ways in which they can improve that dialogue, but the member will be aware of the four key areas that I have asked the new incoming chair of the SPA to consider as part of that national review. Part of that is about how they engage with stakeholders and the contribution that they could make. Given the remit that I have now issued for the new incoming chair to take forward as part of that national review, she should be reassured that that is what all her sisters are doing, making sure that there is effective dialogue with the range of stakeholders and how the governance process of policing is taking forward in Scotland. Can I refer the cabinet secretary to the recommendation 6 of John Scott's review group and say a welcome suggestion that the Scottish Government may legislate for statutory authority to search 18-year-olds and under if they have got suspicions of alcohol, but that is my question. What have a child suspected of carrying drugs or a knife either for their own use or drugs for sale or because someone has secreted those about them? Consent would not be appropriate in the maybe urgency. Will the proposed statutory code of guidance deal with what is actually a welfare issue? In the report itself, the advisory group identifies potentially the searching of under 18s for alcohol as an area where there may be a legislative gap. However, the advisory group is not persuaded that that is the case, but they believe that we should have a consultation in order to consider this issue further. They also consider the issue around welfare matters for children and they were not persuaded that there was a need to make any specific provision for that with a legislative change because they believe that there is existing legislation to deal with that. However, as I have said, we are taking forward all the recommendations and that means that we will also have the consultation into the statutory code of practice so that all parties will have an opportunity to scrutinise it and to comment on what the content of that statutory code should be. Following that process, it will then be my responsibility to bring that before Parliament. I have no doubt that, as is often the case with Mrs Graham's committee, she will be vigorous and very thorough in considering that matter as to whether it deals with all of the issues that she has raised effectively. However, I am confident that, going through with the consultation exercise, we can address any other issues that may arise before we finalise the code of practice. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement and, indeed, John Scott at QC for his thoughtful report. For two years, SNP ministers insisted that they were comfortable with consensual stop-and-search and refused our appeals to intervene. Meanwhile, Police Scotland conducted 1 million unlawful searches and young and vulnerable people were targeted. In February, I tabled amendments to the criminal justice bill that would abolish consensual stop-and-search. Will the justice secretary now undertake to work with me to end this utterly discredited practice? However, I want to press the cabinet secretary to go further. In setting up the single police force, the Government set off a chain reaction that continues to build. Stop-and-search is just one indication of the top-down, target-driven culture that exists in Police Scotland. Will the cabinet secretary go further and instruct an independent review of Police Scotland's management and culture? We have already instructed a review of the governance processes within Police Scotland, as was set out by the First Minister on Tuesday in the programme for government. I have given further details of that today, alongside the other work that we are going to take forward in looking at building in further improvements around scrutiny. When the member makes reference to the top-down culture in targets, she will also appreciate that there is a level of operational independence from ministers in setting particular targets for the police. I have no doubt that an incoming chief constable will choose to consider what they believe is the most appropriate way forward in setting any targets or the culture that they set in the organisation. I have no doubt that the SPA will want to engage with them on that matter. Turning to the other point that the member made reference to, that is around stop-and-search as well. I recognise her long-standing interest in pursuing that particular matter. It is worth noting that the level of stop-and-search under Police Scotland over the past couple of years has been dropping dramatically. It has dropped by some 40 per cent. I also point out that the figures out today have shown that, for June, 69 per cent of searches were statutory and 31 per cent were consensual. That is almost exactly a reversal of the 2014 percentage. There has been significant changes already taking place. However, as I set out, we now believe that there should be a statutory code of practice serving out the powers of the police around that matter. Once the consultation has been taken forward and we have finalised that code of practice, we will then implement what will be the ending of consensual stop-and-search. I am, of course, more than happy to work with the member on the amendments that she has already laid before the criminal justice bill to consider whether they are appropriate or whether they need to be adapted in order to fulfil the objective of making sure that we put the statutory code of practice into the criminal justice bill. Roderick Campbell, followed by Clare Baker. Given matters as they stand now, does the cabinet secretary agree with Callum Stale of the Scottish Police Federation that, if anyone wants to see what a real crisis in policing is, they need only to cast their eyes to our friends in England and Wales, where police numbers are set to, for older levels, not seen since the 1970s? There is absolutely no doubt that reforming policing in Scotland was an essential requirement in order to make sure that we could protect our policing numbers. We have continued to make sure that we have 1,000 more police officers than we inherited back in 2007. We had to make sure that the structural form that we delivered would assist us in maintaining those police numbers. It is also very clear from other parts of the UK that, because of its failure to address some of the mayor's very significant inefficiencies within police services, they are now facing very significant cuts in police numbers. For example, in England, we have almost lost 17,000 police officers already since 2009, and it has been predicted that there will possibly be another 20 to 22,000 police officers lost over the coming years. I am absolutely clear about the benefits of police reform in making sure that we can release resource in order to help to maintain our police numbers. As a Government, we will continue to move forward with police reform to ensure that we have the most efficient and the most effective police service that we can have in Scotland. Presiding Officer, I have been supporting the family of Shekou Bayou who died in police custody this year. It is unacceptable that it took more than a month for police officers to provide evidence to Park. That delay appears to have been caused by a memo that was issued by Police Service of Scotland, which advised officers not to give evidence. That was a grave error. Will the review into police governance include looking at how death in custody is responded to by Police Scotland, and will examine the extent of parts powers to deal with those types of cases? I am not sure whether the members are aware that HMICS has already looked into the way in which Police Scotland deals with individuals in custody. The report was issued last year, which showed that there had been significant improvements in the way in which Police Scotland handled individuals in custody and dealt with those particular matters. Given that the report is a live investigation, I think that it is most appropriate to allow the PIRC and the Crown Office to undertake that investigation in a thorough and detailed way as the Lord Advocate and the PIRC have already set out. Once that process has been completed, it would be appropriate to then consider whether any further measures are required. Over the summer, I have already had a discussion with the commissioner at PIRC to consider whether they have any concerns about the powers that they have at the present time for undertaking those investigations. The view of the commissioner at this stage is that they believe that their powers are adequate for the purposes of undertaking those investigations, but they clearly keep those matters under review. At any point, as I have said in the past, there is an indication that the powers that the PIRC have are not adequate enough in order to undertake those investigations appropriately than we, as a Government, will act. However, I think that it is most appropriate that we allow both the PIRC and the Crown Office to complete the investigation and once that has been completed to consider whether there are any further measures that will then be necessary. John Mason, followed by Eileen Murray. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking on boards some recent, very serious and tragic issues, but I wonder whether he agrees with me that the overall picture on policing is very positive. Violent crime is at its lowest since 1974 and we need to keep the present problems in perspective. As I stated in my statement, the fundamentals of policing in Scotland are very strong and we intend to make sure that we continue to build upon them. As I also outlined, crime is at a 40-year low, particularly areas such as violent crime are at their lowest levels. However, there is clearly more that we need to do in making sure that we continue to make progress in tackling crime within our society. I have got no doubt that, as we move forward, Police Scotland will continue to make a very significant and positive contribution to reducing crime within communities across Scotland. Eileen Murray, followed by Kevin Stewart. The cabinet secretary has accepted the recommendation in the interim HMICS report to suspend the planned closures of the control rooms in Aberdeen, Inverness and Dundee. Does the cabinet secretary regret that Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and his predecessor refused to listen to the concerns expressed by control centre staff, police officers and elected representatives in Dumfries and Galloway prior to the closure of the Dumfries control room in May last year? Does he accept that, had the warnings given by experienced police officers and staff been heeded, some of the subsequent problems with centralised call handling might have been avoided? My focus is on moving forward on this particular issue and making sure that the issues that are identified by HMICS are appropriately addressed and that they are addressed quickly. It is important that the experience that we had with the M9 incident is never allowed to happen again, and it is important that we make sure that all the systems and processes that they have in place are there to minimise the risk of that. That is why we are providing the additional £1.4 million to Police Scotland as new money in order to allow it to take that forward as quickly as possible. That is why I have also asked HMICS to make sure that any issues that they identify over the course of their investigation in the next six to eight weeks, where they identify them, they flag them up to both the SPA and Police Scotland to ensure that they can be addressed quickly and effectively. I will continue to engage with HMICS to make sure that appropriate actions are being taken where they have been identified. Kevin Stewart, by John Finnie. Audit Scotland and HMICS were fairly critical of police boards and the poor level of scrutiny and governance in the past. We are probably saying a greater degree of scrutiny and accountability than ever before. Can the cabinet secretary say more about the scrutiny and accountability that Police Scotland will face in the future? I think that any fair-minded person would recognise that Police Scotland is under more scrutiny than any other police force that we had previously under the eight legacy forces. That is not just my view. That is the view of the chair of the Scottish Police Federation, who has made that very clear. However, I believe that we can enhance on it yet further. As I have mentioned, there is an issue of the chief constable meeting on a regular basis several times a year with scrutiny board chairpersons to be questioned on local policing matters. What I want to do at the scrutiny summit, which I announced back in June of this year when I was at the policing sub-committee before this Parliament, is to look at how we can build on that and to make sure that the good practice that goes on in some of our local policing scrutiny committees is rolled out to those other policing scrutiny committees in other parts of the country. I want to hear the views of those within the scrutiny panels to consider what they think. Could a system in undertaking that enhanced scrutiny? I have no doubt that members across the chamber will want to express their view on how they believe that scrutiny can be further enhanced. The important thing to recognise is that the level of scrutiny that we now have in policing in Scotland is greater than ever before, but I do believe that we can build on that and make it better and, in doing so, making sure that we have a much more transparent and accountable police force in Scotland won, which the people of Scotland can have faith and trust in. John Finay, followed by Lewis MacDonald. Cabinet Secretary, John Scott is an eminent QC. In his report, I quote, in relation to stop and search, there is a lack of legal framework questionable lawfulness and legitimacy. Would you acknowledge that many people would be astonished that, in response to that, you have said and notwithstanding the Government's legislative programme, you have said, I can therefore confirm the current system of consensual stop and search will end once that code comes into effect. Many people would have anticipated that you would have been calling on no stop and search to take place that does not have a basis in common law or statutory law. Would you appreciate that? As a member will be aware, Police Scotland is currently operating on the basis that they have a presumption against consensual stop and search. They are no longer undertaking any consensual stop and searches of those under 12, which reflected in the figures that I have just mentioned that were published here today. However, I am taking forward the approach that has been outlined by the independent advisory group. They are the independent advisory group who are recommending that we have a consultation on their draft code of conduct and that we should then have a phased introduction as a changeover to how stop and search is undertaken. I think that the best thing for us to do is to listen to that advice and to take it forward. That is why I am going to move quickly in making sure that we have an amendment within the criminal justice bill that will give effect to the statutory code of conduct, and once that has been completed through the consultation process to then have that implemented. However, I think that we should listen to the independent advisory group who say that we should take that forward in stages, which involves training and information for officers on the changeover approach that will come about as a result of that. In doing that, we can make sure that we get the balance right between the rights of individuals and the rights of the police to be able to pursue legitimate issues as well. I believe that the independent advisory group strikes that balance. Lewis Macdonald, followed by Christian Allan. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the 101 service centre in Aberdeen led the way not just in Scotland but in policing across the UK in pioneering modern call handling technology? Does he regret the damage done to the quality of that service as it has been run down over the last 18 months, as described in today's interim report? Will he not now act to restore a high quality public service by scrapping those closure plans altogether? As I have mentioned, the member is almost inviting me not to go with the recommendation of HMICS. The end model of the changeover of the contact and control centres should continue and progress should continue to be maintained in pursuing that. What we should do in the intervening period is to consolidate and to make sure that we have sufficient resilience in the other contact and control centres that we have in place at the present moment. What I intend to do is to make sure that there is sufficient financial resource to allow them to continue with the provision of service that they have at the contact centre in Aberdeen, Dundee and Inverness. I am going to go with the recommendation that has been set out by HMICS rather than taking approach, which would be the member's view that we should take a different route altogether. Given the nature of their expertise in this matter, I am much more inclined to go with HMICS than Lewis MacDonald's. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement and I agree the fundamentals of our policy agreement sound, so does the new structure. On accountability, would the cabinet secretary agree with me that chief constables have stepped down in the past before the creation of police Scotland and the solution is not to change the structure as proven south of the border by the police and crime commissioner for South Yorkshire, who resigned from the Labour Party but refused to stand down from office? I believe that the overall architecture that we have from the police and fire reform legislation is the right architecture for taking forward our police and fire service into the future. What I do believe that we can do is strengthen elements of it, particularly around scrutiny and accountability. The measures that I set out this afternoon along with what the First Minister set out in the programme for government will assist us in achieving that. Now that we have the new chair of the SPA in place, the process of recruiting a replacement for Sir Stephen House will move forward. As that process moves forward and we then appoint a new chief constable, I have got no doubt that they will want to reflect on the present standing of police Scotland to consider whether they want to take a different approach in different areas. However, what I am determined to make sure happens is that there is a very good level of local engagement in the decision making process around how police Scotland moves forward. That is something that I have asked the new chair of the SPA to take forward as part of the wider governance review. I would expect that to be reflected in the new national standards that we set for policing in Scotland, which will then provide the new chief constable with a clear sense of direction in what we expect to see delivered from policing going forward. I know that you say that the chief constable will undertake a new programme of scrutiny sessions. What training will be given to local councillors who already have a very heavy workload to ensure that they properly interrogate the chief constable and the SPA board so that they are held to account? Is the membership of the SPA board going to be reviewed given that they failed to meet during the summer when there was clearly a crisis within Police Scotland? I do not know whether the member missed the point that I was making about having the scrutiny summit later this month. The purpose of that is to bring together the convenals of the scrutiny boards to consider how we can make sure those policing scrutiny boards that are working very effectively and are doing a good job can spread that practice to other parts of the country as well. That is to engage with them to hear exactly what they think is necessary in order to support and assist in achieving that. Now, if some of them need some form of training, of course we will look at that, but what I think is important is to make sure that the quality of that engagement translates into action in the way in which the SPA and Police Scotland respond to that. That is where I am determined to make sure that we see a step change in being taken forward in the way in which the governance process of Police Scotland and the SPA is taken forward. In relation to scrutiny and practice, does the cabinet secretary share my concern that Police Scotland will neither confirm nor deny that it is monitoring the activities of environmental trade union and political activists and whether that information is being provided to third parties? Will the cabinet secretary in Government time bring a debate on policing to the chamber so that we can discuss all those issues relating to the state of Police Scotland? Finally, will he join me in condemning John Mason's grossly insensitive comments about keeping perspective? Mr Mason, people have died. People have died. You should be ashamed of your comments. You are asking questions on the statement, not on the comments of others. Deal with the two substantive points that Mr Finlay raised. On the first point in itself, I have no knowledge of Police Scotland having certain individuals under surveillance in this matter. If the member has an issue of concern about that, it is an issue that he could obviously pursue with Police Scotland. If he is dissatisfied with that, he could take up with IOCOL who would be able to look at this matter or the surveillance commissioner themselves. In relation to having a debate on those issues and wider issues, I should point out to the member that in a 17-minute speech yesterday, on Tuesday, the leader of our party made absolutely no mention of policing whatsoever. In the closing speech yesterday, Ian Gray made absolutely no mention of policing as well. Not one single point did he raise about policing. Given that the Labour Party has got business names, if they wish to have a debate on policing, they are obviously free to be able to bring it forward in the debate next week. That ends the statement on policing from the current secretary. Presiding Officer, the ministerial statement that we have just heard covered eight distinct and important areas of concern about Police Scotland. I welcome the statement and the fact that time was extended to allow as many members as possible to ask questions. Nevertheless, our Parliament cannot possibly do justice to the matters outlined in such a constrained format. Since Police Scotland was set up, the Government has never once used its debating time to discuss or review the impacts of reform. I think that it is perhaps pertinent today to reflect on that. Presiding Officer, can I ask you to ensure that the Government business manager has every opportunity to bring forward, as soon as possible, a debate in Government time on the important matters that the Cabinet Secretary has raised today? I thank the member for the advance notice of this point of order. As the member is aware, the business programme is not for the Presiding Officer to determine. It is a matter for the bureau to recommend the business programme, and I would suggest that she as a business manager raises it directly in the bureau. We now move to the next item of business, which is a statement by Fergus Ewing. On the Scottish Government's response to the planned closure of Llangannate power station, I will give a few moments for members to change seats. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This statement concerns the economic consequences of the planned closure of Llangannate power station in 2016 and the response of the Scottish Government of our agencies and partners. We need to acknowledge, of course, that Llangannate remains open and will continue to operate over the coming winter. Highly skilled staff and contractors will stay in place to produce much-needed power over the winter months when electricity demand is highest. Although spare capacity across the UK remains perilously low, Llangannate plays an essential role in keeping lights on across the islands. Just over a fortnight ago, on 18 August, Scottish Power confirmed that Llangannate would close on 31 March next year, ending 46 years of power production at the five station. Facing high transmission charges and rising cost of carbon, Scottish Power has concluded that electricity production at Llangannate is no longer commercially viable. For the same reasons, the company has also decided not to progress development of the planned 1,000 megawatt gas fired generating station at Kakenzie in East Lothian, which was consented in 2011. Those announcements are deeply regrettable. They reflect very badly on a system of transmission charges introduced to Scotland in 2005 by a Labour Government, which makes it increasingly difficult to operate existing thermal plant in Scotland or invest in cleaner replacements. The outcome of UK energy policy and regulation is totally irrational when new cleaner thermal capacity is the very thing that is needed to safeguard our energy security. Despite the huge scale and range of Scotland's energy resources, energy policy remains largely a reserved matter and the Scotland bill will not radically shift the status quo. So we must suffer the effects of policies that are devised in Westminster that undermine our own energy objectives to maintain a balanced low-carbon energy mix based on renewables, flexible thermal generation, fitted with CCS and greater energy storage. Despite raising our concerns repeatedly with the Prime Minister, absolutely nothing has changed. Before I outline our response to planned closure, I want to underline the huge significance of Llanets. Llanets is the largest power station in Scotland, the second largest in the UK, with capacity to power 2 million homes. The station directly employs 236 people in high-skill work and sustains a large and valuable supply chain with hundreds of associated jobs in the coal, transport and service sectors. We know, for example, that around half of the coal produced in Scotland in 2014 was destined for Llanet. Presiding Officer, it is against this background that I turn now to the response of the Scottish Government, our agencies and partners. As concerns over the station's future increased earlier in the year, both I and the Deputy First Minister visited Llanet to meet with company and staff representatives. I also met with the leader and deputy leader of Fife Council in March and, without pre-empting Scottish Power's decision, we agreed to develop a joint response in the event of closure. On 25 March, I made a parliamentary statement following news that Llanet had lost out on national grid's voltage control contract. Since then, I have had two formal meetings with Scottish Power, Fife Council and workforce representatives to assess the situation and consider ways to secure the best possible outcomes for all those affected. Those meetings, in May and June, set the foundation to build a collegiate and co-ordinated response. Our initiative for responding to redundancy situations, PACE, that is partnership action for continuing employment, has offered immediate support for directly affected employees. PACE will continue to work closely with the company and workforce representatives to provide a tailored package of support. That support extends to any employees indirectly affected, for example, in supply chain companies. By providing skills development and employability support, PACE aims to minimise the time people affected by redundancy are out of work. Our statistics show that 72 per cent, nearly three quarters of those who received PACE support, obtained employment within six months. We have also established a new task force to develop a joint multi-agency action plan to mitigate the impacts of the closure locally and across the supply chain. The Llanet task force, which I co-chair with David Ross, the leader of Fife Council, comprises elected parliamentary representatives, local authorities, trade unions, businesses and government agencies, including Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland. At our first meeting on 24 August, we agreed our focus and committed to produce an economic recovery plan. That will support workers to find new jobs, mitigate the effects on the supply chain, produce a master plan for the long-term future of the Llanet site and consider how best to create sustainable employment in the local area. Secondly, on Monday this week, the 31 August, I hosted a supply chain event in Dunfermlyn to hear directly from a cross-section of businesses about the expected impact upon them and their staff of the closure. I listened to businesses from across Scotland that face losing substantial income, including small family-run businesses concerned for their very survival. The event outlined the range of support available from the public sector for skills, training and business development. Our agencies are committed to working closely with affected businesses to help them through this worrying time and to support people who could be facing redundancy. That is a process of on-going engagement with the business community, and our economic recovery plan will be informed by the needs of business. The coal sector, which is already challenged by low coal prices and reducing demand, will feel the effects of Llanet's closure especially hard. The Scottish coal industry has put forward proposals to the United Kingdom Government for Restoration Coal. The initiative would introduce a carbon price support exemption for legacy opencast coal sites to incentivise the restoration of those sites and, in turn, bring the land back into use. That is the potential to mitigate the job impacts on the coal sector of the Llanet's closure and help to sustain activity. The UK Government committed to discuss restoration options for opencast coal sites with the Scottish Coal Task Force in the Chancellor's 2015 budget statement. Following that, I have written to the UK Government on three occasions to accelerate discussions. As a result of that, UK Government officials agreed to meet key industry players and Scottish Coal Task Force officials last Friday, 27 August. The exemption proposal was discussed at length during this meeting and the Coal Task Force is now awaiting the UK Government's formal response. In conclusion, I have outlined a series of initial actions that the Scottish Government, our agencies and partners are taking to mitigate the effects of Llanet's closure. Well before Scottish Power's closure announcement, discussions had begun behind the scenes. We fought hard to achieve a different outcome for Llanet, while the UK Government refused to lift a finger. We engaged the Prime Minister and National Grid principally on the grounds of Llanet's unique contribution to Scotland's energy, security and resilience. Llanet's power is needed for the coming winter, and the station could, under the right circumstances, have operated successfully until at least the turn of the decade. Now that that closure has been announced, I can assure the chamber that the Scottish Government will continue to do all that we can to secure the best outcome possible from this disappointing situation. That is our duty, Presiding Officer, to the employees who are affected, to their families, to the main supply chain companies impacted and to the immediate and surrounding communities of the Llanet plant. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow her in 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to next item of business. It would be helpful if members wished to ask a question where to press a request to speak button now. I thank the minister for advance notice of his statement. The announcement was a shock and a body blow to all the workers in Llanet, to local communities and to businesses across Fife and Central Scotland. Did he ask Scottish Power, a global energy player, for a delay in the closure programme to enable all possible options to be explored? My understanding is that the transmission charges gap has been closing, and that was something that we would certainly have supported being looked at. Given that 50 per cent of Scottish coal goes to Llanet, there are not just the jobs at Llanet under threat, but in the supply and freight chains right across Scotland. Given the widespread concerns that the minister has referred to about restoration, what is the current position on those sites that we are already challenging and how will the closure of Llanet impact on delivering the restoration projects that we urgently need across the country? The announcement cuts across efforts to achieve a just transition to meet our energy needs. Colleagues representing local communities will clearly have detailed questions about the investment that the Scottish Government will put into a future to all those affected. Given that this week's programme for government highlighted the importance of thermal generation to Scotland's electricity mix and the importance of carbon capture and storage for our energy mix going forward, will the minister now review the Scottish Government's energy strategy to ensure that we have a bridge to the future and that the jobs and the experience of those affected by the early closure of Llanet across the whole supply chain are not lost? I will endeavour to answer as many of the questions I can from the member. First of all, of course, we urge Scottish power to do everything possible to keep the station open. We did so over a long period, and we did so at a number of meetings, including ones at Llanet itself. I have to point out to the member that it was, in fact, the Labour Government in 2005 introduced the system of charging. The system of charging now, and it is a matter of fact that I do not think is really disputed, means that, as the company explained, the additional charges that it had to pay in transmission for access to the grid were of the order of £40 million a year now, as opposed to what it would pay where it is located in Kent. In other words, the Scottish surcharge was £40 million. That followed from the system that the Labour Government introduced. The member said that I believe that the gap was narrowing, and I think that I can attribute this particular line of argument to a certain Brian Wilson who wrote a piece in the Scotsman, which I did find somewhat on the splenetic side for my liking. Sadly, for him, the facts were clearly set out in a response to that article by Keith Anderson, who is the chief executive of Scottish power, is in a better position to set out the facts in this matter. Far from the gap narrowing, Mr Anderson says, and I quote from his letter, which I believe was carried in the Scotsman, it would become not £40 million but £50 million in 2017. The facts were wrong, in Mr Wilson's argument. Sadly, we have the situation where the Scottish surcharge means that, as many expert commentators from whom I can readily quote, it is commercially not viable to either set up a new thermal plant in Scotland at the moment because of the Westminster penalty, nor continue to operate Scottish existing thermal plants, as I am happy to explain to other members in the course of this session. I thank the minister for advance copy of his statement and for the invitation to join the task force, the establishment of which we welcome. The reasons for the early closure of Longanna have been much debated over recent weeks. The minister focussed on the transmission charging issue while glossing over a range of other matters, not least this Government's obsession with wind power. He does not mention that the SNP's preferred alternative to the current transmission charging regime would, according to Ofgem, add a staggering £8 billion to consumer bills, £8 billion hitting hardest in Scotland, where fuel poverty is already too high. As a representative for Fife, I want the priority now to be what can be done to help the workforce and retain skills. There are opportunities to create jobs in the area from developing underground coal gasification, but the licence holder, Clough Natural Resources, announced two weeks ago that they would be putting their development plans on hold, citing political uncertainty. Should the minister not be trying to attract investors to Fife rather than scaring them away? The problem about attracting investment of new power stations is clearly set out by commentator in BBC Radio Scotland News Drive on 17 February, referring to the current transmission charging system. He said that the charges do discriminate against Longanna, and that is a matter of concern for me. The commentator, of course, was one Murdo Fraser MSP. He was joined by Alex Johnson, who is not here, but said that he would support the Scottish Government's argument that a more favourable charging regime would be welcome, and I hope that it will come forward. Well, it has not. Finally, just to complete a trio here, Mr Brian Wilson again said that Ofgem's decision on locational charging is just one part of the jigsaw, but it sends a clear signal. His view is that generations should take place close to the markets, preferably south of the wash, not an argument that he rehearsed recently. With regard to the £8 billion argument that Murdo Fraser alluded to here, first of all, I have to correct him because the witness that gave evidence to the EET committee did not refer to £8 billion but to £7 billion. Again, what is a billion between such commentators? The difficulty about that argument is that it is entirely wrong because experts have subsequently confirmed that, rather than the £7 billion referring to extra costs for the Scottish consumer, it was largely based up on wholesale costs of tribute for the whole of the UK. That figure is completely useless. In conclusion, the stark fact is that, in Scotland, we have 13 per cent of the electricity generation and 42 per cent of the transmission charges. Imagine if income tax in the UK was set at different rates, 13 per cent in England and 42 per cent in Scotland. That is an exact parallel to the additional tariff facing the company. Imagine if that were the case. I think that we would see that Mr Fraser and his colleagues would be the first to condemn it. I would like someone to follow by Willie Rennie. Is it not the case that, if we could move long on it to central London, instead of paying the penalty of £40 million in transmission charges, it would receive a subsidy of £11 million? After 10 years of campaigning against charges introduced by Brian Wilson as the energy minister of a Labour Government pursued by a Conservative and Liberal administration and now by a Conservative administration, we have received some slight modification of the charges, but nothing like what is required to eliminate this clear discrimination against Scottish electricity generation. If France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands can pursue an electricity policy without such discrimination, why cannot we unleash the natural resources of Scotland to help us to produce the most competitive electricity in these islands? Is it not time, instead of parroting nonsense from off-gem, that we are at control of that organisation in this Parliament? I must say that it is a new pleasure to be able to entirely agree with the former First Minister from the front benches. To be serious, if anyone is entitled to advance those arguments, it is Alex Salmond, because he has been campaigning for a fair deal for Scotland, not just over the past year on that, but, indeed, since the charges were introduced by the Labour Government. He is entirely right that we have a system of transmission charge apartheid in the UK, where Scotland is on the receiving end of extra charges and where, whilst Murdo Fraser is smirking and grinning and laughing now, on the radio he admitted with his colleague Alex Johnson that that is exactly the problem. However, let me quote independent experts who are out with the political terrain, Stuart Hazeldine University of Edinburgh. At the moment, the transmission charging regime militates against the rebuilding of thermal power plant in Scotland. Very simple, not complicated. Professor Karen Turner says, and I quote, and this was evidence that Mr Fraser may recall because it was given to him in the EET committee. Perhaps he's forgotten it. Let me remind him. The main obstacle is the network pricing, where generators are charged based on their distance from the population centres that they serve. There could be an argument that, based on that policy, no power stations will be built above the Watford gap. Will there be any follow-up by Kara Hilt? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the minister for an advanced site of his statement. As the former MP for Longanna, I worked long and hard to try and get new investment into the plant, to extend its life and to make it greener. I am disappointed by the decision, including on carbon capture and storage, which effectively ended its life. I am sure that the minister will agree with me about the UK Government's onshore wind policy. It is very damaging, and I hope that he agrees with me on that. Has he considered the policy exchange's proposal that was published just last week called Powering Up, which sets out a considerable opportunity for onshore wind in Scotland? Considering its associations with the Conservative Party, I hope that he might look at the area of policy, because I think that we need to put inordinate pressure on the UK Government to change its views. We are putting inordinate pressure on the UK Government to change its views. We will continue to do that. I am looking forward to meeting Amber Rudd on the 21st of this month, Presiding Officer. I have not seen the particular article, but we believe that it is correct to have high ambitions for renewable energy in Scotland, not least because we are the best place in the UK and arguably in Europe to generate electricity from the power of the elements. That is the case for Scotland being the green powerhouse of the UK. That is the role that we have been exporting electricity to England on 98 per cent of the time between the years from 2012 to 2015, and that is because of the power of the wind. Last year, of course, 49.8 per cent of our electricity came from renewable sources. We do believe, of course, that, in the light of chain circumstances and fax and the abrupt withdrawal of support for onshore wind by the UK Government, we have to review matters to reflect the changing facts. It is a matter of total fiscal perversity that the UK Government should pull the rug from the least expensive method of generating renewable electricity, given that the CFD is £80 for onshore wind, £114 cheaper for offshore wind. That means that, according to my maths, the cost will be £34.80 more than it should be, or to put it more clearly, as Keith Anderson said, consumers will pay £2 to £3,000 million extra on their electricity bills because of the muddle-headed, perverse and irrational policies pursued by Mr Fraser's London bosses. I now have nine members who wish to ask a question. Can I ask that the questions and the answers are brief? As a constituency member for Long Anet, the closure announcement is obviously a devastating blow for the communities that I represent and for the workers and the fur for their families. I am pleased that the minister acted within days of Scottish powers announcement to set up the task force and was pleased to be asked to be a member of the task force too. Given that the Scottish Government have long anticipated the closure of Long Anet by 2020, regardless of the transmission charging issue—for example, when the Scottish Government's climate change action plan and the Scottish Government report on proposals and policies—why has there been no clear strategy to insecure inwards investment to Concardin and Fife to manage the inevitable transition for the communities and workers? We are now looking at 1,000 job losses in Fife across central Scotland as a result, and that is alongside the job losses that Tullus Russell and Haveloc Europe announced this week. Given the significant investment made available in the halls of Roxburn closed, what money will the Scottish Government make available to the Long Anet task force for regeneration activities? First of all, I was pleased that we pursue the bipartisan approach in the task force. Members will appreciate that we always seek to conduct those meetings, as we did in the case of the Long Anet task force, which met on 24 August, in a way that astews partisan politics and gets on with the job in hand. I welcome the fact that both Cara Hilton and Douglas Chapman MP attended the meeting. The Conservatives gave their apologies, so we hope to see them at some future date. It is entirely wrong to suggest that there has been no strategy. On general terms, the inward investment strategy of Scottish Enterprise is being implemented all the time, and the member will be aware that, according to independent EY report Scotland, it is more successful than any part of the UK, other than London, at attracting inward investment. I myself have played a modest part in that by, for example, meeting the chief executives of companies such as FMC and Oceaneering, who are both based in Fife, while visiting Houston on several occasions over the years. I am very pleased that, in Scottish and Highlanders Enterprise and SDI, we have a team that is working around the clock on those issues. It is entirely unfair to them to suggest that they have not been working away behind the scenes, and they continue to do so, but we are acutely aware of the impact on businesses. Of course, we are redoubling our efforts to make sure that every potential opportunity to provide alternative business and employment is pursued. Can the minister outline what recent steps the UK Government has taken to work with the Scottish Government to create an environment that incentivises the huge potential of clean, thermal technologies such as carbon capture and storage? I am working with the UK Government on that, with particular regard to progressing the summit power-captain clean energy scheme. Both Scottish and UK Governments have contributed financial contributions towards that. That would be a 500 megawatt scheme that would generate clean energy from coal with pre-combustion CCS. I hope that it will get the support of everybody, including the Greens, since it is the only way to tackle climate change effectively, and it would also deliver enormous economic benefits. We are working with that. I will discuss that with Amber Rudd on 21 September, and I am very grateful to have the opportunity to make that point today. Clare Baker, followed by Kenneth Gibson. Longanot is very worrying for the Fife economy, as the minister knows, it comes on the back of other closures and redundancies recently. The statement refers to discussions with the UK Government on the carbon price support mechanism proposal. If those discussions are not successful, will the Scottish Government consider supporting and funding a similar measure for the Scottish coal industry? I also ask if the minister can say more about the plans that are for the long-term future of the Longanot site and who is responsible for a future restoration of that site. We have worked hard with the opencast task force, which I think has meant 13 times, in order to persuade the UK Government to work with us to produce a scheme based upon the coal industry scheme of the restoration plan. That would involve an exemption from the carbon price support mechanism. Those matters are entirely reserved and entirely within the UK Government's gift. It enjoyed the in-principle support of David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary. Mr Mundell has a constituency interest, but I think that he has been supportive of this. I therefore hope that he will continue to be supportive of this, and he will use all the influence that he has and that he can command as the Scottish Secretary to persuade the UK Treasury to say yes and not no. Therefore, we will take that forward optimistically and do so as a matter of urgency. The operators of Hunterston coal terminal in my constituency, Peelports Group, has announced that a consultation that we have with the site's 95 staff following the decision to close the Longanot in expectation of significant redundancies. Will the Scottish Government and its agencies work with Peelports Group to explore alternative uses for the terminal, which is suitable for the import and export of a wide range of bulk solids and liquid products and offshore decommissioning, and while exploring all available options to minimise a number of redundancies, will he ensure that the partnership action for continuing employment is available to assist any Hunterston employee threatened with redundancy? Yes, we will. We have, of course, offered pay support to the Peelports Group in respect of the impact that the closure of next year of Longanot power station is expected to have on them. I can also say that the representative attended both the task force meeting and also the round table supply chain meeting, so we are already working close with them. I did in fact refer to Mr Gibson's sterling efforts in campaigning on this issue in the course of the round table event that I chaired on Monday of this week. We are meeting and engaging closely with the company to see what can conceivably be done to assist them to meet the very serious impacts that this closure will face on many, many businesses in Scotland. That is not just about one power station, hugely significant though that is. That is about hundreds of companies that are impacted by the results of a decision that should have been avoided if the UK Government had been prepared to lift a finger. Looking to the future, how will the Scottish Government prevent the same transitional issues arising again with thermal plant closures and other changes by ensuring that there is now a robust strategy to manage the inevitable shift to a low-carbon economy through a just transition with the unions for workers and communities across Scotland, including those that are impacted by knock-on and supply chain effects such as at Clyde port? The problems that I have outlined already of higher charges for Scotland than England for exactly the same power stations mean that we can devise any strategy that we want, but that strategy in itself will not alter the basic realities of the arithmetic, that no company is going to invest in one part of a country where the charges are three times as higher than another part of the country. Sadly, it was, and I have to repeat this to the Labour Government, to introduce this discriminatory system in 2005. Our strategy, as the former First Minister has advocated for about a decade, is to have a fair system for Scotland. Of course, that would then allow us to manage the transition to a low-carbon energy policy. It is not just Scotland, but the whole world, which is coming to recognise, finally, that we cannot keep burning coal to produce our electricity. As the decision this week to have early closure of a coal-fired power station in Yorkshire demonstrates, that is not just a Scottish issue. Are not we facing a situation where long-term planning for that transition is what is lacking? Is not it clear that the requirement for an immediate decision to set up a pace working group only when businesses' clothes and redundancies are announced is inadequate? We need a much longer-term planning arrangement so that we invest the profits of outgoing industries in the development of the new. First of all, it will be a bit strange if we set up pace activity before people face redundancy. That would be absurd. It is a task force that helps people who are made redundant. That is the whole point of pace. Secondly, to take his major point, of course we have a strategy that is set out in our electricity policy generation statement. If he has not read it, I can provide him easily with a copy. I suspect that he is aware of it. Of course, a major part of it is that we need to have a continued backup and baseload in the EGPS, which was brought forward just a couple of years ago. It recommended that we would require continuing around 2.5 gigawatts of thermal generating capacity, increasingly progressively fitted with carbon caption storage. Therefore, we have a strategy, carbon caption storage, clean energy from fossil fuel, removing the carbon emissions supported by the international energy authority, supported by green groups in the USA, but, apparently, although it is a sine qua non of achieving climate change targets, it is not supported by the party that advocates this case most fervently on most other occasions. I think that, not for the first occasion, Mr Harvie and I will have to agree to disagree. Clearly there will be knock-on effects from the closure to supply chain companies. For example, there are more than 30 train drivers transporting coal into Longannate plus shunter drivers, signalmen and fitters, many of them living in my constituency. I have been approached by train drivers at Longannate who wish to retrain to allow them to transfer from freight to passenger transport. Will PACE assist with retraining of the drivers if requested? I am grateful for a sensible question, and we can confirm that PACE has been in contact with DB Schenker to offer support. I was very pleased that DB Schenker attended the round-table meeting. I was also grateful that ASLEF and other unions made exactly that point that Mr McDonald has rightly made on behalf of his constituents. We are absolutely determined to make sure that all the practical steps that we can do to tackle the immediate and direct consequences of the closure of Longannate next year are taken, and I am therefore undertaking and happy to continue to work very closely with the company and its workforce representatives, as well as Angus MacDonald, who has pursued this matter very robustly indeed. That ends the statement from the minister. I sincerely apologise to the two members that I could not call, but I have let their son on for five minutes longer than scheduled. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 14048, in the name of Murdo Fraser and the economic impact of the film, TV and video games industries. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press their requests but now we call on Murdo Fraser to start the debate. Mr Fraser, you have 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Parliamentary reports come and go. This one happens to be the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's 47th report of this session. I have counted them all out and counted them all in. A few wins, a number of defeats, many a scoreless draw. Sometimes you get a report that cuts through the morass, the fug of bureaucracy and finds itself in real danger of making a tangible impact. That could be about timing, it could be about asking the right questions, it could simply be the power of the evidence that the committee has heard. The response that you get is more than cursory or polite or in the phrasing of Eric Blair, designed to give appearance of solidity to pure wind. This is one of those times. The committee's report on the economic impact of the film, tv and video games industries has been rather well received. I have been through the Scottish Government's response with my red pen and made a good many more ticks than I was expecting. Double ticks even, particularly where the words agrees or accepts or welcomes appear, and they appear frequently. The Scottish Government, along with Creative Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and others, has accepted so many of our recommendations, is indeed pleasing. I have been called a few things in my time, Deputy Presiding Officer, but Chirlish is not one of them. I am pleased to report that we even managed to coax a pair of cabinet secretaries along to our final evidence session, two for the price of one. The test, of course, will be putting the policy statements into practice. Fiona Hyslop has said so herself. We will wait and see what comes of the work of the newly announced film industry leadership group. The committee is looking for credible leadership, an inclusive approach, expert and timely advice, sustainable funding, co-ordination of agencies, nurturing of new talent, and that apparently perennial, but now most pressing of issues, the need for a film and tv studio here in Scotland. I suspect that we all have a favourite Scottish film. It might be train spotting, it might be the Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, it might be local hero, it might be sunshine on-leath. However, I wonder how many of us know how much the Scottish film industry is worth. The answer is £30 million, £30 million. Put that into context, how much is the UK film industry worth? It is worth £1 billion. We are punching so much below our weight that we are barely tickling the potential of what could be achieved. It might be going too far to borrow an expression from Gandhi when asked what he thought of western civilisation, he said, I think it would be a good idea. It might be just a little bit too harsh to say when asked what I think of the Scottish film industry. I think it would be a good idea. However, we have to ask where are the next Scottish films going to come from, the next local hero, the next Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. The answer is, I am afraid, unlikely to be made here in Scotland, not unless we are more serious about upping our game. The creative industries matter to our economy, and we ought to be supporting, sustaining and celebrating them accordingly. The Scottish Government estimates that the sector is worth £5 billion plus, employs more people than oil and gas, and boasts a higher GVA than life sciences. Our inquiry considers three areas. Film, I have touched on briefly. TV, I will come to video games, the passion of my children, indeed many adults I suspect, I will keep that to last. Plenty of us I am sure are fans of Game of Thrones, but do we know that the people who made it originally wanted to film in Scotland? Ian Smith of the British Film Commission told us that tale in evidence. The makers knew that Scotland was bigger and could offer more locations, but there just wasn't the shooting space inside. A show like that, he told us, can't be made entirely on location. It wouldn't work. So upstepped Northern Ireland. They had Titanic studios, which sealed the deal, and the rest is history. Well, if not history, exactly, a story of ambition, sex, warmongering, murder and dragons, you can draw your own comparison with Scottish politics today. Perhaps we have fewer dragons. And a story now earning Northern Ireland's economy some £40 million a year. On the back of Game of Thrones they have, of course, built a wider TV and film industry based in Belfast. The TV industry here declared itself to be, in the words of one witness, depressed and disillusioned. They wanted to know what the strategy was for better supporting the independent sector. They wanted less reliance on lift and shift, so more programmes could be made in Scotland and in a more sustainable way. And they wanted broadcasters to look beyond the limited and, some would say, myopic vision of London-based commissioners. But let's not be excessively glum, Presiding Officer. There are good stories to tell, too. Take Outlander, a huge TV success in the US, described, would you believe, as a feminist game of thrones. It's filmed entirely in Scotland, some of it in the studio at Cumbernauld, some on location, including at Dooncastle and Curos, both of which happen to be in the region that I represent. And I believe Visit Scotland are drooling at the potential for bumper visitor numbers on the back of this. The numbers that relate to the video games industry in Scotland are something we can all shout about. We have just round the corner now, Rockstar North, our new neighbours in the old Scotsman building. And they have their mind-bogglingly successful Grand Theft Auto 5 and every child's favourite 4J Studios all-conquering Minecraft. Scotland has in these two of the world's fastest-selling entertainment products ever. That's extraordinary, Presiding Officer. And perhaps we haven't always appreciated the scale of that success or understood what the sector needs to sustain it. Creative Scotland's Janet Archer told us as much. 4J Studios' Chris Van Der Kyle acknowledged the support that the fledging industry had received during the 1990s from Scottish Enterprise. This is not a bleating session, he told the committee. It would still be possible to gather the key players from the companies and agencies into one room to produce a coherent plan. Video games, he said, could transform Scotland into the Seattle of Europe. However, the evidence showed that we want those involved in developing the games to be more entrepreneurial and the agency supporting them to be more agile in working alongside such a fast-moving industry. The so-called gamification of other areas, whether it is education, health or tourism, is a fascinating development. Minecraft has been described as the world's single biggest educational tool. We were told of games companies in Glasgow and Dundee working in collaboration with Cancer Research UK—a glimpse of the future. Back to the hearer now, and there are two specific matters that came out in our report that I would like to raise with the cabinet secretary. I would be grateful if she could try to address both of those in the course of the afternoon. First and foremost is the film studio. We heard in our evidence just how important it is to Scottish producers, both in film and TV, that we have the studio capacity here in Scotland. One time recently, there seemed to be three separate bids coming forward—at least three, there might be more—one at Lonehead, one in Cumbernauld and one in Glasgow. We need to know what is happening with this, what is the latest and what happens next. We understand that the Scottish Government cannot set up a film studio, cannot entirely fund a film studio, but how are we going to decide which of those projects finds favour and what is the process for getting there and what is the likely timescale? The second key point is the working relationship between Creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise, or I should say the non-working relationship. Whether that was a class of cultures or a class of personality or a case of conflicting priorities, the evidence was that it was simply not harmonious. One witness even imagined the behind-the-scenes conflict as being on a par with Borgen. I hope that the cabinet secretary will update us on the latest episode in this drama, perhaps with a happy and preferably non-fictitious ending. It is a serious point because the success of our creative industries is reliant on coherent leadership. Just to close, the Scottish Government has declared its ambition for Scotland to be one of the world's leading creative nations. All those working in film, TV and video games share that ambition, and the committee shares that ambition. We have the talent, locations and innovation. We have all the necessary ingredients, but we must turn the bold statements and best of intentions into solid actions and sustainable outcomes. I commend the report to the chamber, and I have great pleasure in moving the motion in my name. I now call on Fiona Hyslop, the cabinet secretary of seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Also to the committee, convener, for his opening remarks, I welcome the inquiry in this debate as an opportunity to shine the spotlight on the sector very timely, because it comes at a time of significant development for the sector. I think that it shows the Parliament at its best if it can look at a sector as important as that to provide recommendations and to see as part of the development that we respond to those recommendations, but it is also happening at a time where so much is happening that we can share. I think that we are in a good time for momentum for the sector, but much to be done. He is also very correct to identify the sheer scale of success of Outlander, and the success it has not just in promoting Scotland but also in providing jobs and skills and production. That is very significant at this time. The Scottish Government provided a very full response to the committee's inquiry report on 28 May. I look forward to seeing the ticks and the double ticks from Murdo Fraser, if you force them to me. As outlined in that response, we have already actioned a number of the recommendations. The Government published Scotland's economic strategy in March this year. The creative industries were reaffirmed in that strategy as one of our key growth sectors. The creative industries employ more people than the oil and gas industry in Scotland and generates a higher GVA than the life sciences sector. We said that quite deliberately, because it is very important that we give the space and the time and the attention for this sector, as other sectors also receive, within the perview of the public sector, our Government. Support for the creative industries has also been articulated in our programme for government. In that context, the Deputy First Minister and I have made clear, in response to Murdo Fraser, to Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland, that a memorandum of understanding needs to be in place to ensure clarity of respective roles and the effect of joint working to ensure the co-ordination of support from those agencies to the sector. That was an issue that was identified by the committee, which is one that we are very conscious and able of. In the process of the last few months, we have made significant progress in bringing those agencies together in their focus on how they can work collectively. On the subject of the memorandum of understanding, the Government said pretty clearly in its response that it was a priority and that it would be set up when in place by August. Has that happened? In terms of the progress, I am also committed to ensure updates to the committee in terms of the timing of the memorandum of understanding, the release of that and to make sure that the committee is kept to rest, as with the industry. One of the things that has happened over the summer, perhaps to make you aware of, is that Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland have been meeting with the industries to see exactly their understanding of the importance of the clarifications of those roles. I also want to focus on some of the four areas that the committee focused on. On the screen area, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government evaluates what further support or incentives it could provide to the Scottish screen sector. The film studio is still subject to negotiation with the private partner and progress is being made. However, as the committee inquiry itself found, a studio on its own is not the only answer and it is important to have additional incentives to stimulate interests and investment from the private sector in our screen sector and to enable us to compete with other locations. That is why I am pleased to inform the Parliament that the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland have today launched a new £1.75 million production growth fund for film and TV. The fund, which will run over 2015-17, is expected to attract more large-scale film and TV productions to Scotland and is the latest in a series of measures taken by the Scottish Government and its agencies to support the Scottish screen sector to grow. The production growth fund and the £3 million of additional support from film production skills development that I announced earlier this year further enhances the package of public support for the screen sector over 2015-16. New figures show that the public sector's screen support for 2014-15 totaled more than £24.1 million. That is an increase of over £2.5 million from 2013-14 and an increase of almost £8 million since 2007-08. In difficult times, people might recognise in the chamber the progress that we are making, so I hope that you appreciate and welcome that on-going support. On video games, another set of welcome figures are those recently published by Tiga, the network for game developers and digital publishers. They show that the employment in the Scottish video games development sector grew by 9 per cent in 2014. That means that Scotland now represents 11.1 per cent of the UK's total games companies, compared with 8.8 per cent in 2012. Scotland also represents 9.7 per cent of the UK's total games developer headcount, which is up from 9 per cent in 2012. Those figures are extremely encouraging. I agree with the committee's recommendations, however, that a detailed review and analysis of the Scottish video games sector is required to understand the financial and business support that it requires. Creative Scotland and the Scottish Enterprise are therefore taking forward an initial process of monitoring the video game sector through a set of surveys that will be conducted over the coming year, and they will be produced in collaboration with the Scottish Games Network. The outcomes of the survey will ensure that the public sector support is tailored to the needs of the video game sector, enabling it to grow and develop further. In addition, the additional media strategy will be launched this month. It will be followed by a series of focus sessions with sub-sectors such as video games to promote the strategies' messages and to bring the creative industries that utilise digital technology into the implementation of the strategy. The committee also made a number of recommendations in relation to a sustainable Scottish television sector. I am already working with the broadcasting sector to determine what changes might be required to achieve a sustainable and growing sector. The First Minister recently outlined the kind of federal model for the BBC as part of the charter renewal, which we believe will allow the sector to achieve that. I am also pleased that the Government recently signed the memorandum of understanding, along with the Scottish Parliament, which will take forward some of the renewal process. We are currently in discussion with a range of stakeholders in developing policy options for broadcasting. I intend to discuss with all parties in this Parliament the emerging ideas that are gathering support. Collectively, we have the opportunity to influence the BBC, particularly on the need to abandon the reliance on lift and shift, as identified in the committee's report, to increase commissioning and production and to increase the skills and expertise within the Scottish TV sector. In relation to the skills aspect, Skills Development Scotland has published its skills investment plan for the creative industry. That was done at the end of June. It has set up a skills forum to implement the plan. The actions that are identified in the plan will enhance the sector. It follows the launch of the ICT and digital technologies skills investment plan in March, which came from Skills Development Scotland, with £6.6 million from the Scottish Government. In terms of promoting that, I think that you will see that not only are there plans under production also being affected but also supported by funding. I am very conscious that it is a very short speaking slot. I have touched on a number of key areas arising from the inquiry. I would refer members to the full response from 28 May. It is my intention to write to the committee convener shortly with a more detailed update on the progress against all the recommendations set out by the committee. However, I welcome the debate. It is very timely. It is an exciting sector for Scotland, and let us take this forward. Thank you very much. I thank the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for providing such a wide-ranging and engaging report into the creative industries in Scotland. It seems to have been very effective, with money announced this morning that the cabinet secretary was used to giving evidence to the committee and money announced this morning as we were about to have the debate this afternoon, so I am very pleased that it was the economy committee that took the decision to have this inquiry. With more than £100,000 jobs, over £12 billion in turnover and over £6 billion in gross value added, the economic contribution of the arts and the creative industries must not be underplayed. The committee's report raises many important points that we must engage with in this short debate. That includes a film and TV studio in Scotland. When I first took on the spokesperson role for Labour, it appeared to be imminent. There had certainly been a lot of interest in Scotland, as Murdo Fraser highlighted, but so far nothing has come to fruition. In the nine months that we have seen action, not in Scotland, but from Screen Yorkshire, who announced in June their plans for a new film studio just outside of Leeds, that is further competition to the sector in Scotland, and Screen Yorkshire has already started to show productions around their potential studio. Scotland has the skills and talent to be at the forefront of the film and TV sector, not just here in the UK but throughout the world, but we do lack a studio. We have seen the recent successes of film shot in Scotland, including World War Z and Sunshine on Leith, and high-quality TV dramas such as Outlander. However, for every Outlander, there is a game of thrones, and that was a major production that was missed due in part to the lack of studio infrastructure. All too often, Scotland's rising talent feels the need and the urge to go further afield to fulfil their potential. If we had a film and studio in Scotland, a TV studio, that would go a long way towards ensuring that skills and talents could be retained and developed within Scotland. We also need clear leadership, and one of the issues raised by the report was the confusion of the roles of Scottish Government, Creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise. We need clear leadership from those organisations to ensure that we have a sustainable sector and a vibrant Scottish film and TV scene. The cabinet secretary talked about the memorandum of understanding, and in reply to Gavin Brown, it would appear that it seems to be still quite a challenging situation. We do not have that memorandum of understanding yet. Is she confident that the commitment of all partners is there to deliver in this sector? It was welcome that the report and the evidence taken by the committee seem to have forced the Government into action. In May, we saw the creation of a film industry leadership group. It was so welcome that the Scottish Government announced it three times in the space of three paragraphs and Tuesday's programme for government. There might be a typo in there, but there seems to be quite a lot of repetition of certain paragraphs. That must be the start, because, while we recognise the economic significance of the creative industries, Scotland spends only £6.9 million on film. One area in which support could be increased, and an area that must also be debated in the context of the BBC Charter Renew, is that of lift and shift. The quota set by Ofcom for original production amongst public service broadcasters are being met, and that is welcome news, but the policy of lift and shift can be detrimental to the sector in the long run, failing to provide employment opportunities for the local TV industry. If we are to develop a sustainable TV sector in Scotland, then this policy must be improved and bring greater value to the sector. I was encouraged in the report by the committee to see that the BBC have acknowledged that and recognised that the policy was a short-term mechanism to accelerate investment and that now they needed to ensure that the companies that are based in Scotland are winning entirely new businesses and are drawing from the local population and talent base. Beyond lift and shift, the charter renewal process must also look at the competitive challenges facing the BBC in the years ahead. I am not convinced that the solution to this is the creation of a Scottish-only channel, and I have yet to see evidence that this is what the Scottish public is calling out for. The cost of setting up such a channel would be considerable. At a time when the BBC is essentially having its budget cut by the UK Government, we must ask whether it is an appropriate use of the licence fee payer's money, nor do I believe that a federal system within the BBC is the answer. That would be the first step towards the break-up of the BBC and a weakening of the corporation. In the First Minister's reply at FMQs today, it certainly looked like it was more about politics and control rather than about what is best for licence fee payers. That model also raises concerns that, as we saw with STV in downtown Arby, if we move to a situation of buying and selling programmes, popular programmes could be shown in other parts of the UK that would not be available in Scotland. If we want to be bold and radical, we must face up to the challenges and opportunities that are ahead of the BBC in their future and address those. The world of broadcasting is changing rapidly. We are seeing BBC 3 being moved online, more and more people are using iPlayer, access to Netflix or some other kind of models, and we need to be more imaginative in finding solutions. If not, I fear that the BBC is at risk of being attacked by the Conservatives while squeezed by the SNP. The committee has done an excellent job in highlighting this sector, and I thank them for their work. I commend the committee for its excellent work for a very robust report, which has already made a practical difference and will continue to do so. The Government, of course, will not be judged by its written response to the report. It will be judged by the action that flows and actually takes place on the ground as a consequence of the report. We should be very proud of our film, TV, animation and video games industries, but there is much more to be done and we, frankly, should be doing a lot better than we currently are. I want to pick up first of all on one of the bits that jumped out on the report to me. It was the lack of co-ordination between Creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise. I wasn't on the committee, so I didn't hear it first hand, but reading through the report, it jumps off the page at you. Ian Smith of the British Film Commission said that it wasn't systematically set up to deal with the configuration of the business. Ken Hay says that he works in isolation. Bob Lass, an independent producer, said that the agencies have been set up to fail. The committee concluded that, without anyone disagreeing at paragraph 76, the separate and distinct remits of Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland are acting as a barrier to working cohesively to effectively support the film industry. In committee speak, that is a damning conclusion. That is a conclusion that should have, frankly, shocked the Scottish Government and pushed them into action. Yet, five months down the line, it is difficult to establish what the progress actually is. We even had Creative Scotland giving evidence, saying that Creative Scotland had not been set up in a way that enabled it to engage with other public bodies. I had to read that several times to make sure that I read that correctly, but I think that I did. It was actually set up so that it couldn't engage with other public bodies. When I asked the cabinet secretary today what has happened with the memorandum of understanding, I was disappointed with the response. I assumed that the response was no, it stated quite as clearly as that, but the Government in its response said that that is what it was going to do. It was going to host a series of workshops, it was going to establish clear links, and all of that would culminate in a memorandum of understanding between Creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise, and it would be published by August 2015. Clearly, it was not published by August 2015, but it is not even clear at this stage when it will be published and what the barriers actually are. Of course, I will give me a brief answer. The workshops have been taking place, and the memorandum of understanding will be published, but the creative industries partnership that brings together the bodies only met on Monday, so the timing as to whether that can be released at this time might mean that the August date has been missed. I am not sure whether I am more confident or less confident after hearing that response. It set out any formal response to the committee by two cabinet secretaries that the memorandum will be published by August. Five months down the line, we are just saying that it will be published. We do not actually know when it will be published, and if it is taking that long to get to a memorandum of understanding, then it does not fill me, I have to say, with excitement about where we are going to take things. I think that the Scottish Government needs to do far better in that area. Clearly, there are a number of structural changes that were announced by the cabinet secretary either in the response or later today, which he would be welcomed. I think that the fresh funding, whether it flowed from today's debate or not, is not hugely important in my view. The fact that the funding has been announced should be welcomed. Obviously, we will not hear the results of how it is going to function until later on, so we obviously want to see that. That is right, because I think that there were a couple of other funds—I noticed that Murdo Fraser's questioning of the cabinet secretary during the committee stage about the loan fund for studio development, where none of that money, certainly at the time, had been drawn down. It is great to announce these things, but it is important that the money is drawn down and flows to where we want it to flow. I do not want to touch on the video game sector, because I was struck by the quote that we could not want to become the Seattle of Europe. I think that that is a terrific ambition. However, if we are going to do that, we have to have far better figures and knowledge of the economic impact of the video games industry. That is a dynamic, quickly-evolving industry, but when I look at the Scottish Government's response to the committee, we are still relying on figures from 2013 for employment and 2012 figures for turnover. That is a couple of years gap. When you think that employment doubled between 2011 and 2013, I have to say that we are not going to become the Seattle of Europe if we are relying on figures that are two years out of date. You are making that signal at me, Presiding Officer, so I am content to leave it there. Many thanks, and we now move to the open debate. I call on Christian Allard to be followed by Johann Lamont. It is a bit difficult to come just after Gavin Brown, because I fought with the starting of the committee that we were going into a very consensual debate where we saw that the Parliament works very well, and when committees work very well, even aided by somebody from the opposition, and when government respond that there is some amount of funding. I would like to make my plea today for my region, for the North East of Scotland, on the back of this debate. Presiding Officer, a few weeks ago, I was denied a visit to the fantastic harbour of Port Soy, a couple of security personnel of an accent I recognized to be from Glasgow, told me about the remake of Whiskey Gala, based on the true story of the SS politician, choose Port Soy as a prime location. I asked them in my well-recognized North East accent where else was the shooting taking place, and they told me that it was taking place all over the east coast in Penin, where the day before in Penin is the home of the iconic red phone box, and they were going down to Fife later on in the week, where of course a lot of the popular TV series Outlander was shot. All this location, quite far away from where those two gentlemen came from, I pointed out to them. They went complaining, the weather was fantastic. Presiding Officer, about a episode a few weeks ago, after this encounter, I came to me that the film industry in Scotland should be based in a central location, and I give you Dundee. Over the last few decades, Dundee and the North East of Scotland has developed and established a well-respected place within the growing industry of film, TV and video game, one which is highlighted in this report from the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. I am delighted that the committee looked at this because film, TV and video games are primary industries that generate, as we heard, already employment and a vast amount of revenue for Scotland. This parliament recognise the true economic value so does this government. Presiding Officer, let me make my case for Dundee and the North East to the Scottish Film Studio delivery group. The main reason for the success of Dundee in this industry is not only about its central location, but it's about the creativity of its people and their ability to attract creative people to live and work in the North East. I can sit at Aberdeinion Film Director, Presiding Officer, John Byrne, or at the Global Heat Computer Puzzle Game, whose creator first met at Dundee Computer Club. The economic and cultural impacts that come from the creative industries are clear, strong and evident in the report published in March this year. I thank the committee for the acknowledgement and plans to review the current overarching lift and shift arrangement from the large producing companies which are based in Scotland. This method used in the television and film industry is discarding another generation of Scottish talents and products. In a bid to enrich and maintain the creative industry in Scotland and provide opportunities, it would be highlighted valuable for the new proposed film studio to be based in the North East, to be based in Dundee. The city of Dundee understood as a small city of the future by the small society lab as a long-rich history in the creative industry. The promising future of Dundee could be made present with a new studio and could exceed current aspirations for video gaming, TV and film. Everything under one roof in Dundee. A last point I would like to make, it's about some, an article who was in The National from Kevin Mackenna. He was talking about the BBC TV production, Bob Servant. As Kevin puts it, he said it was the infantile Bob Servant, it's about as funny as looking for chips. And Mr Mackenna added who needs England to misrepresent us when we seem perfectly capable of doing it to ourselves. As a fair point, to the journalist. The first time I listened to Bob Servant, it was on the BBC Radio Scotland and it was a fantastic programme, which maybe didn't convert so well in television, but I think we need to give time to this industry to flourish and to make sure that we can produce as good programmes as we can do in the future. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. I now call on Joanne Lamont to be followed by Gordon MacDonald up to four minutes. I add my thanks to the witnesses who came before the committee. It was an important inquiry. I was very struck by the evident hunger by many in the film and television industry and the video games industry for this inquiry and the robust way in which they took the opportunity to highlight their concerns about the circumstances in which they are operating. I think that the challenge for this Parliament is not, frankly, to sit and hug each other about how it was a great inquiry, because the test will be if we respond to that anger, that frustration and that sense of concern about what is happening in the sector. We cannot just become another part of what has been a very disparating process for far too many people in film and TV in particular. I think that we should be concerned about what the evidence showed, the clear frustration and resignation, the stark contrast in my view between the energy of the sector, the fleet of foot in business terms, developing new ideas, taking risks, creating opportunities for skills and talents to thrive, coming up against what seemed an unbelievably slow bureaucratic process, which seemed to think that having meetings about important issues was the same as taking action on those issues. I must say to the cabinet secretary an explanation that we have not fulfilled a commitment to have a memorandum of understanding in August is because they did not meet until Monday. It is not any kind of response. I am sure that, over the weeks and months and years, within that sector, I have heard that kind of explanation too often. We need to move on in that, because I think that the scale of frustration is a matter of concern. I am concerned about the response of the Scottish Government to some of the key issues. The key issue about Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland working together is not about working practices, but about supporting the sector. We are told that we acknowledge that our communication for the suite of services needs to be improved and that it needs to be far more serious than that. Also, in the question of the film studio, when we might argue where it is going to be, we are not even at first base and whether it is going to happen. Paragraph from the Scottish Government on that is also dispiriting an explanation of how difficult and complex things are when people are crying out for that need. I want to make a couple of important points. First, we need to be clear that this is not just a cultural issue and how we enrich and support artistic talent. It is about how economically we can benefit from a thriving film, TV and video games industry and how, in our budget decisions, we recognise the need to create the infrastructure to support that industry, like we do to others. It is not subsidising creativity. It is a rational investment in a sector of huge potential economically, with knock-on effects to the broader economy and tourism. It is a rational investment to allow Scottish companies to compete. As we see, a recent report suggests that an £11 million investment to secure the Game of Thrones series in Northern Ireland resulted in a £491 million economic benefit over four years. That is why we need to up our game. By not acting, we are not simply leaving things as they are. Things are deteriorating. We are falling behind Wales and Northern Ireland, and now we see initiatives in places such as Manchester and Yorkshire, too. The problem is encapsulated by the issue of the studio. It is not just a big space, but it is about the lack of infrastructure that sees Scotland hampered. Glasgow won the Commonwealth Games, not just because it was good at sport, but because 70 per cent of its venues were built before the bid went in, and the broader facilities available in transport hotels and so on were recognised. That is why I support a film studio in Glasgow. Part of the media village was room for a film school and room for expansion, which would fund itself in short. We need a can-do approach. The people who came to our committee do not want us to part ourselves on the back. We all care about it, and we must now make sure that the recommendations are acted upon and that those voices allow the economy to benefit from a thriving creative film, TV and video industry. The arts and creative industries employ 130,000 people and contribute £6.3 billion to the economy of Scotland. The video games industry is one of the successful parts of Scotland's creative industries, producing international best-selling games in Grand Theft Auto and Minecraft. We have groundbreaking university courses at both Abertau and Glasgow Caledonia, and some of the largest companies in the games industry are located in Dundee and Edinburgh. However, it is the less successful areas of creative arts that we need to examine if we are to continue to grow this area of our economy. The television sector is a combination of public sector broadcasters and independent television production companies that employ 1,700 people in Scotland. In order to grow the television industry here, Scottish producers need to get a larger share of the £100 million that the BBC spends on programmes in Scotland. That is especially important, as the budget is due to drop to £87 million in 2017, meaning that only one-quarter of the licence fee of £320 million currently raised in Scotland will be spent in Scotland. In recent years, television production has been increasing with the BBC reporting that, in 2013, nearly 11 per cent of the network budget was spent in Scotland, and Channel 4 was achieving just under 4 per cent on Scottish productions. Yet witnesses informed us of the difficulties they had experienced in gaining access to commissioners in London, with no responses to either phone calls or emails requesting meetings to discuss ideas for programmes. Arlen Clements emphasised the importance of getting Scottish ideas back on network television, particularly high-end drama. He considered that, to achieve that, the industry needed commissioners based in Scotland, focusing on increasing Scottish-based production. So if Scottish producers do not get access to commissioners, then how does the public sector broadcasters meet the off-com quota? Much of the increase in production in recent years is due to a policy of lift and shift by the broadcasters, where production companies temporarily move to Scotland, bringing up their own film crews, actors, technicians and production staff and return south when filming is over. Drew McFarlane of Equity explained that moving a production to a national or regional area and moving actors there too impacted on local actors gaining valuable employment and experience. Jane Muirhead of Pact highlighted that lift and shift frustrates the whole idea of building sustainable businesses because the intellectual property and the revenue remains outwith Scotland. However, it is not just BBC funding that the television sector has difficulty accessing. Creative Europe is European Commission's new programme to support the cultural, creative and audio-visual sectors with a budget of nearly €1.5 billion over the next six years to 2020. Connect Film suggested that it was hard to access the fund as Scotland was defined as being part of the UK, meaning that Scotland did not achieve the necessary points given for projects from countries with low audio-visual production capacity. In order to build a sustainable television sector, we need to emulate the success of the video games industry. The committee has called on the BBC and Channel 4 to abandon their reliance on lift and shift in favour of investing in production by independent TV companies with a permanent base in Scotland and to increase the number of commissioners based in Scotland and to engage effectively with the industry. With the new powers coming to this Parliament in relation to the scrutiny of the BBC, I am sure that members of the EET committee will ensure that it has met its production and spend quotas for Scotland, but also that the impact of its policies on our indigenous TV industry is a positive one. I am glad that I have the opportunity to take part in the debate, and, like others, I am grateful to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for the report. I just wanted to focus on the film in TV industries, as those have been the areas in which I have certainly been contacted by constituents about their experience in the industry and their concerns for the future. One did tell me that he just did not believe that officials realised how important the Scottish film industry is or the potential that it has. It might be of interest to the chamber to hear some of those comments that I have certainly heard from my constituents in Glasgow of people working in the industry, and I hope that that would be of value as part of the debate. The Scottish film industry is lagging far behind the rest of the UK. There are incredibly talented people here who just cannot get the work and have to travel away from home, not through choice but through necessity to get work suited to their skills. That might seem glamorous, but it is hard to be away from friends and family in your home. Your life is put on hold, and it has an effect on other people to which you are related. That individual said that she was not alone in feeling this way, and she believed that, in fact, we had a dying industry in Scotland and that one of the consequences of that was hostility within the business itself. She talked about that the work is so thin on the ground that it breeds distrust in others talking about the few jobs that actually come up. There is nobody issuing a list of jobs about to start, so it is all word of mouth. Until a person secures a job, they will not tell anyone else about it for fear of not getting that work themselves. If there was plenty of work around, the right person for the job would be picked and there might be a buzz about what was happening. Some of the things that have been told are reflected in the committee's report. I think that most notably others have referred to it as the lack of understanding and co-ordination between Creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise, neither of whom can claim to have done a good job for this industry. I think that that really just is not good enough. I have also heard frustration about the lack of a studio and we have discussed that already. There is also irritation and cynicism that something that has been talked about for so long has not happened. However, there are also hopes for what could be achieved. The point to me is not just that it is about a big empty space to put production, but what we will need now is creating a quality facility. Scotland is already behind so many of the competitors. Our studio facility, if it is to build, would have to offer something different, something above and beyond what could be achieved elsewhere. The point has also been made to me that many of the skills in the industry and it has been well made to me are indeed in and around Glasgow. Therefore, I certainly take the view that a facility there would be best placed to maximise its potential. There are a few other industries where time and money can be more accurate. I would be interested if there is a posing view to that. What evaluation has been done to contradict the view that that is where the skills base is and where it has the most potential for growth? The comments have shared that it is not just about a list of complaints about support for the sector, but I hope that some insights of the people who work in film and TV and who are passionate about its success. I hope that the Government will take them in that spirit. We have heard briefly about the issue of the BBC, so I will finish with a comment on that. I am worried, as Clare Baker said, that the BBC could be caught between two Governments, one with an agenda to belittle it and another with a desire to break it up. Future success would be best served by making more programming in Scotland for network television rather than seeking to divide limited resources. Scottish content is very important, but it should not be seen as the sole contribution of the BBC to Scottish life. In an online age, I am just not convinced that talk of another channel is the way to go, but I can see that you are keen to change the channel, so I shall desist at that point. Very tight time now. John McAlpine, up to four minutes to be followed by Patrick Harvie. I hope that I do not seem too modest when I say that it was myself who, as a committee member who first suggested an inquiry into the creative industries, because, as co-convener of the cross-party group and culture, it is a subject close to my heart. Of course, the success of this report is down to every member of the committee, our witnesses, our clerks and SPICE, which I think has done a particularly good job in supporting us in this inquiry. I was very keen that the committee had an inquiry into the creative industries, and we decided to concentrate on the screen industries in the end, because I believe that it is important that we recognise just what a vital sector it is to our economy. It is the same size and employs the same number of direct employs as oil and gas. The committee report, as has already been acknowledged by the convener, is testament to the Parliament's committee system and its ability to bring important matters to public and government attention and to give Scots a voice in their own Parliament to shape government policy and priorities. At the time of embarking on the inquiry, we had not anticipated the debate around the future of the film industry and what it would generate. That emerged entirely as a result of the quality of the written and oral evidence that we heard, and the efforts of two extremely impressive and formidable women who also happened to be leading film producers in Scotland—Arabella, Pagecroft and Gillian Burry. I would like to pay tribute to their tenacity and the way they engaged with the committee. I know that Arabella and Gillian will be disappointed that we still do not have a film studio, which was one of the key recommendations of the report. However, since the inquiry began, there have been a number of significant announcements, as has already been alluded to. In particular, the two new funds announced in February, worth £3 million. The fund announced today. In May, of course, the Scottish Government announced plans to form an expert group to assist the Government's agencies to better understand the film industries, and that was in direct response to the committee's recommendation. Others have talked about that, and it is worth re-emphasising that one of the key difficulties that was highlighted by the inquiry was the failure of Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland to work well together. The committee made a whole raft of recommendations, and since I only have four minutes, I will want to quote from number seven, which refers to joint working, and says that the separate and distinct remits of Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland act as a barrier to working cohesively to effectively support the film industry. The committee recommends that the Scottish Government directs Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland to work in partnership to support the economic and cultural needs of the industry and to review the agency's performance annually against specific criteria. In response, the Scottish Government acknowledged that communication between the two agencies needs to improve, and it has put a number of workshops in place, as the cabinet secretary has already mentioned. In response to Gavin Brown's point, I decided to get my staff to call up Creative Scotland today to ask about the progress of the memorandum of understanding. They were told that it was in the action plan and that it was still being drafted. I acknowledge the Scottish Government's role in prioritising the recommendations of the committee, and I think that the Scottish Government has shown that it takes this very seriously indeed. However, I am not convinced that the two agencies that are concerned have quite taken on board some of the inquiry's recommendations in the same way as the Scottish Government. I think that the heads probably need to knock together, and it was quite clear from the evidence that they were to be put to the committee by some of those agencies that they just did not get it. I hope that the pressure will continue to be put on them, that they respond to the committee's report in the way that the Government has, and that we see a better way forward. Colin Patrick, how are we to be followed by Lewis MacDonald? I would like to add my thanks to my fellow committee members, as well as to our clerks and support staff, and to the many, many witnesses who came and gave evidence, either in person or in writing. I got a lot out of this inquiry. I broadened my understanding of the subject significantly. I think that the committee has made a substantial contribution to debate on this topic as well. I did have to endure a fair amount of wind-ups from my colleague Alison Johnson, who each week would receive her weighty papers for the devolution committee looking at the Scotland Bell and tease me about the fact that we were off to go and play games. I would also like to thank those from the video games industry who did bring some of their product, some of their creations to the Scottish Parliament, so that we could get a bit of a hands-on experience of what they were doing, what they were creating and what they were contributing to that industry in Scotland. In the time available, just a few brief observations I would like to make that these are not all the same industry. We can put them under a heading of the creative industries, but the circumstances and the needs of TV and of film are very, very different from those of the video games industry. TV and film, by their nature, are rooted somewhere, and this is embodied very clearly in the debate about a studio. The sense of weariness that many of the witnesses clearly had after not just years but decades of discussion about whether we can create such a space in Scotland as a place that can attract substantial productions, they have to be rooted in a place. The video games industry much less so. The video games industry not only by its technical nature but by the attitude to life of many of the people who take part in it is hypermobile. If we want that to become a lasting and a growing part of the Scottish economy, we will have to find other ways of attracting it, other ways of keeping it, which are much more about the skills, the networks of people and the attitude to life, the attitude of young people thinking that Scotland is a place where you can do this, not thinking that we have to be the Seattle of Europe but that Scotland is a place where you can do this on its own terms, not by aping or echoing or envying somewhere else and something else. The things that we need to do to attract and retain and to continue to grow the video games industry are fundamentally different. I share that sense of frustration that the TV and film industries—and I think that Bolo and Christian Allard's comment—on retrospect, we should perhaps have broadened the scope to include radio as well, because many of those same technical writing, creativity skills that are coming into the TV industry find their way in or find a first expression through radio as well, so we perhaps should have been a wee bit broader there. The circumstances are so different. I share the frustrations about getting a studio. If we could attract more productions on the scale of Game of Thrones or the other things that will come with the fulfilment of that space, I will celebrate it just as much as I celebrate Rockstar across the road and everything that they have done. However, my final comment, my final reflection is that in all of those areas we also need to celebrate the little, the informal, the small-scale self-starter creativity that does not necessarily want to be the next Game of Thrones or the next Rockstar, but is absolutely where those skills and those attitudes of creativity are going to be born and are going to be fostered in people's back rooms and bedrooms and coffee bars around the country with people working off their own back and working with their own creativity, rather than thinking that beg is the only way to be. Thank you very much. Scotland's contribution to film and television goes back to the very beginning, but the truth is that we have failed to maintain that early advantage. Ian Smith of the British Film Institute told the economy committee that, 20 years ago, Scotland was the biggest production cluster outside the south-east of England. Now it is probably fourth or fifth. It is surely no accident that Scotland's loss of competitive advantage coincided with the abolition of Scottish Green, a public body with a specific agreement for promoting opportunities in film and television. It is certainly not by chance that Northern Ireland has moved ahead of Scotland with its own screen agency and relatively greater public funding. Of course, Creative Scotland was set up to replace Scottish Green, but as Janet Archer herself told the committee, it was set up in a way that made progress difficult. It struggled to attract private investment. It even struggled, as Gavin Brown said, to give a lead to other public bodies working in the same field. A lack of clarity about the relationship between Creative Scotland and the enterprise agencies came up again and again in evidence to the economy committee's inquiry. There has since been a major reorganisation of Creative Scotland and the agency believes that it is now in a better place to negotiate and generate the relationships that it needs across the public and private sectors. That optimism is welcome, but the failure to agree a memorandum of understanding on schedule is a concern. There is clearly now quite a lot of catching up to do, and that, of course, is the responsibility of ministers to deliver as well as of the agencies themselves. There is a particular challenge for Creative Scotland to do more to support independent television production in Scotland. The agency conceded in the inquiry that its film and TV broadcast fund was too small to do much on the television side. Welcome but modest increases in funding are unlikely to change that in any fundamental way. The challenge then is to get the most out of other public sector agencies and funding sources in order to fill that funding gap. The committee's inquiry found that there seemed to be little flexibility available to Scottish enterprise here to support production companies because of its focus on account managing growth companies, but on the other hand that Highlands and Islands Enterprise could do more because of its remit for community development. There is surely a case here to look at how best to join up support from public bodies in skills as well as in production and to find ways to replicate the effective support provided by HIE in other parts of Scotland. Perhaps most important to stimulating independent television production is the lead that is given by off-com and public service broadcasters in setting and meeting quotas for production outwith London. That has helped. An enterprise in companies such as Tern Television in Aberdeen have been able to produce high-quality programming for different channels and across the wider UK network. As Clare Baker and others said, the time has come for the public service broadcasters to go beyond the interim approach of lift and shift and instead to deliver sustained long-term benefit for production companies with staff based here on a permanent basis. However, it is important that commissioners should be based here, too, because commission programmes will always start with high-quality producers whose work they already know. The commissioning point is absolutely vital. Yes, I agree that we should provide more independent production and production from Scotland for Network, but we also need to have the commissioning, the decision-making here in Scotland. That is the proposal that we are bringing forward for the BBC. I welcome the broad principle of that and commissioning as well as producing programmes is of critical importance. If all parties can focus on what public service broadcasters can do for the creative industries in Scotland and for the Scottish economy, that is the right approach to take when we come to discuss the BBC going forward and other related matters. If we do that, I believe that we can make a positive difference to the Scottish economy at this critical time. Many thanks. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Although I am not on the committee, I am only too aware of the impact that the creative industries have on our economy in terms of jobs, investment and being used as a promotional tool for the various parts of our nation. Their invaluable contributor to economy is Murdo Fraser, the committee convener has already stated that the creative industries are worth around £5 billion and currently employ 68,600 people, but they also can influence how the world seizes internationally. I also welcome—there has been much said during the debate about the progress that has been made towards the establishment of a permanent film studio in Scotland. That need was articulated by many individuals from the film and TV industry the last time they addressed the Education and Culture Committee. The studio would make a vital difference to considering the newer way of broadcasting TV and film with the different platforms that are now available through online subscription channels and digital platforms as well. Outlander that has been talked about much today as an example, because in the UK it is broadcast by Amazon Prime at the moment. Having read a bit about Outlander, it is a drama series based on the historic time travel series of novels of Diane Galbeld on TV created by Ronald D Moor of Battlestar Galactic and Star Trek fame. What is not to like about this? I know what I will be watching this weekend, because as a fully certified film and TV geek, I cannot wait to see that progress even further, because we live in exciting times as far as broadcasting is concerned. There are other opportunities within the industry as well. Although things for the studio are at a very early stage, I can see no better place for a national film studio than the great town of Paisley. The creative talent is there. Our geography is perfect for it and it has the transport links both internationally and domestically for such a studio. However, filming TV can influence the way the world looks at us, our towns and our communities. For once again, I would like to use my own constituency as an example where movies and TV have influenced. There was a movie made a number of years ago about the stone of destiny in Aen Hamilton when he reeked a Paisley man incidentally who reclaimed the stone of destiny in the 1950s. It was filmed at the Paisley Abbey in Paisley, which stood in for the Westminster in a cathedral. It showed that we could use the historic buildings and infrastructure that we have in a town like Paisley for that. That has led to many other TV and production companies coming to the town. BBC has on-going various antique shows that travel the length and breadth of the country. One in particular was Flogget, which my wife was in. I am sick of hearing about that show because it is broadcast throughout the world, and family members in other countries have been telling us constantly as if it just happened yesterday. It happened about five years ago. That shows the impact of a television show like that. When we are talking about the way things are done differently in broadcasting now, it shows another show for the BBC, Antique Road Trip, which has visited Paisley in numerous occasions because it sees the history and what is available in the town. I welcome the report and the hard work that has been done by many of my colleagues on that committee, but I also say that we live in exciting times. I think that it is now the time for Scotland to reassert itself as a broadcasting nation and film nation. We now move to closing speeches. I call on Gavin Brown up to four minutes, Mr Brown. It has been a very interesting debate, and I have to say that I particularly enjoyed the rather uplifting contribution that we just heard from George Adam, a man who never disappoints, I have to say. In bringing the close to this debate, at least from this side of the chamber, I think that I want to pick up on the points that I want the Government to really focus upon and drive forward in the coming months because it is not about activity, it is about action on the ground and making a real difference. I welcome the fact that the Government agree that there should be a review of the video game sector to be led by Creative Scotland. That was a conclusion of the committee. The Government signed up to that, and I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary saying that it would begin shortly. If she has time in closing, if not, perhaps something written could be put forward. I would be interested to know when that is going to begin and the rough timescale for it. Because of the nature of that industry, it is something that has to happen quickly. It is an industry that does change regularly, and the idea of a typical industry review that might take a year or two I think just wouldn't be appropriate for that particular kind of industry. Just to give you a notion on the sort of changes that happen in that industry, according to Scottish Government figures in 2010, there were 200 employees in the industry. In 2013, there were 1,000. A five-fold increase over a three-year period is an industry that is going places, and I think that the right strategy could really go places. When that review happens, I would ask the Government to keep an open mind on the results of the review on the idea of a national strategy. The committee suggested that a national strategy ought to happen for the industry. The Government did not dismiss it, but it seemed a little lukewarm about the idea and certainly did not commit to it in the written response that I was able to see. Once that review has taken place, I urge the Government to revisit that and to pull together a national strategy. I know that there is a digital leadership group of which the video games industry is a part, but given the type of growth that we have seen over the past couple of years, in my opinion anyway, it certainly merits a national strategy of its own, but let's see what the review turns out. Just one point that I wanted to throw in. I do not know whether it is true or not, but it is a statement that was made in the report and it appeared to go unchallenged. I am hoping that it is wrong. The statement said that there is no strategy for growing the television sector in Creative Scotland's 10-year strategic plan. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I would like the cabinet secretary to respond to that. If that is true, clearly some change needs to happen there. It appeared to go unchallenged, but I may well be incorrect in that. I have talked about the memorandum of understanding. I will not say much more than that, just to say that I think that that is a priority, not just for its own sake but because of the message in the signal that it sends out to industry. If we cannot get that right, we are not going to see the cultural changes that we need across the organisations who are responsible for it. We heard from the cabinet secretary about the £3 million that the funding announced some seven or eight months ago. The £2 million was a loan fund for production companies. The £1 million was for the Screenskills Scotland fund. It would be interesting to know what sort of drawdown we have seen for the £3 million. Are we in a better place where that money is being put to good use, or do we still have some of the same challenges that we had with the previous £2 million fund? The last thing that I want to say is that it is clearly for the committee members to decide their work programme going forward, but I would just put out a plea to them to say that I hope that having done all this excellent work, having really pulled together a very good paper, I hope that they will do some kind of fall-up session perhaps towards the end of the year or early next year to get those same witnesses back to check on the progress that has happened so that we do not have a similar debate any year's time or two years' time with the similar challenges that we have heard of today. We also welcome the number of recommendations that were made in the report, including leading the co-ordination of the industry, academia and public bodies to establish a national strategy that will deliver a sustainable Scottish games industry. We also welcome the funding commitments that were made today in advance of today's debate. However, the findings made in the report that there is an apparent lack of ability of agencies to collaborate or work within the industry itself, which is rather concerning for many of our speakers today. I quote from the report that the separate and distinct remits of the Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland are acting as barriers to working cohesively to effectively support the film industry. This situation is so detrimental to Scotland's culture. As outlined in the report and in today's debate, it is vital that a decision over a film and TV studio in Scotland is reached as soon as possible, otherwise the effects on our film and TV industries will be damaged. Together with the Scottish Government and its agencies and the film and TV industry, we can agree that this is a priority for growing the sector. I do not think that I could go any further, but as a Glasgow MSP, I would obviously believe that Glasgow would be best placed to accommodate it. Claire Baker and Gordon MacDonald mentioned in their speeches the off-com quotas for greater production and spend in Scotland by the public service broadcasters. They represent a huge opportunity to increase the skills and expertise within Scotland's independent TV industry. We welcome the call made by the committee upon the BBC and the Channel 4 to adopt this as a new approach to commissioning by the end of 2016, if not sooner. It is important to note that, following the Smith commission, we will have a consultative role for the first time in the charter renewal process, and it is vital that we all work and cross-party work constructively to get the best deal for our viewers in Scotland. The Scottish Labour Party is committed to calling for increased investment for BBC Scotland from within the licence fee settlement and for the retention of the quota systems for commissioning from nations and regions. There is no doubt that the creative industries bring valuable economic benefits to individuals, communities and the country as a whole. Scotland's cultural and creative activities are as relevant to our international reputation, our economic prosperity and the trading investment agenda, as does direct business support and export promotion. However, it is vital that all the agencies in this industry should work together and collaboratively to achieve the greater results and the best results that we can for Scotland's people. We are open to working together with the Scottish Government in providing a better support to meet the needs of individuals and companies within the sector. I want to specifically address those that I cannot or will follow up. I am committed to return with updates to the committee, because I think that this is a moving feast. I think that there will be developments and that it is right for the committee to hold the Government to account and, indeed, to hold the agencies to account as well. Some of the areas of key concern, the studio is still under negotiation in terms of the film leadership group's discussions with the private sector developer. There were five bids for the private sector when the private sector tendering and request was put out. Only three were eligible. Two were fully public sector funded approaches. We cannot provide 100 per cent public sector funding in support for the studio. One of the things that the independent producers have done is to take an intervention. It is quite a complicated picture to understand the film's studio proposals. In May, there was a proposal that was a private investor in the Pentlands area. How do you see those activities fitting in with the idea of a Government-supported studio? The exercise that was carried out was a call for a private sector proposal. I am quite happy to write to the member's contribution to the bid to give him an update of where we are and indeed the process to date. Those discussions with the private sector developer are continuing, but in terms of confidentiality, I cannot give you full details of who, where, when etc. However, we are on the case in terms of making sure that we have that studio because everybody is very clear that we need that infrastructure. We have locations. King Arthur, for example, was getting filmed earlier this year in terms of the productions that are taking place. Outlander, in terms of the scale of production and economic impact, I think is comparable in early years to Game of Thrones. In relation to the funds that we announced, £3 million, £1 million of that is skills development. We will be announcing very soon where that skills funding is going. The other was in relation to loans. They will also become more advantageous because of the UK tax changes. That £2 million loan fund was precisely a response to the producers that Joan McAlpine talked about coming to a meeting with me and John Swinney. That is one of the suggestions that came out of that. There has been some drawdown, but clearly it depends on the projects that are there. However, we are moving, particularly with the tax changes, into an obvious area for use of that fund. Clearly, in terms of the other aspect, a production fund itself, which is £1.75 million announced today, will also provide an incentive that might provide opportunities for people to draw down other areas where their skills are indeed the loans, because some of those financial packages can be quite complex from the industry's perspective. The point about sustainability in the screen sector is really important. That is where we need to think carefully about what we mean by public sector broadcasting. If we are going to have successful public service broadcasting in the future, it is really important that we have indigenous companies that are able to take the benefit from that. In terms of the creative industries more generally, I want to pick up Patrick Harvie's point. We have the very micro. We have the importance of supporting the entrepreneurial startups. We also see, particularly in the video games industries, where it is fast moving that people move from company to company very quickly. That is why, in relation to strategy, one of the things that the video game sector has said to me is that if you spend time on the strategy, it will be out of date by the time that it is written, because the sector is moving so quickly. Therefore, working with the sector in terms of the review of what is needed is really important, but acting on it and acting on it promptly is one of the key areas. I want to particularly focus on an area that has not been touched on, which will become increasingly important. That is the digital single market and the importance perhaps of the committee itself in looking at this area and its implications. One of the issues that affect the creative industries and the wider sector will be the digital single market strategy. I attended the EU culture and audiovisual council in Brussels. I represented the UK during the policy debate on the EU digital single market strategy and the audiovisual media services directive. It is very important that we ensure that the Scottish creative industries interests are represented in the EU's proposals on that in the coming months and years. I will work with the UK Government to make sure that its consultation processes around the digital single market are inclusive of the creative industries. In terms of other areas that were touched on, I have mentioned issues around games, in terms of television and sustainability, in particular on film and the importance of having a different package of activity. However, the underlying point—I think that it is very important that I address that—is how Creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise work together. It is clear from Lewis MacDonald's questions that this is not a new issue. Scottish Screen was originally proposed for merger with the Scottish Arts Council under the previous administration, but that creates challenges. However, why is it that when you have other sectors such as life sciences that have to work with the private sector, but also with the health service and the Scottish Enterprise, the solutions and the proposals can be brought to bear? That is where I might challenge Patrick Harvie. However, just because creative industries have a diversity in the different areas does not mean that we should not and cannot have similar types of dedicated and focused support as other key sectors have. I think that that is the expectations that quite clearly come through from the committee's report. It is what the expectations are from this Government. The Deputy First Minister and I are very clear to the two public agencies, Creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise, that we expect them to provide services to the sector, not to each other. That is why, in terms of what we will expect from them, it will be results in change of how they go about things and certainly being informed by the workshops that have been taking place over the summer period. However, I am really excited for this sector. There are possibilities. Perhaps there is a reflection from Drew Smith. There is cynicism, but there is also opportunity, and that is where I see this sector. I think that opportunities should, hopefully, in the near future, outwead cynicism as we move forward. Many thanks. I now call on Dennis Robertson to wind up the debate on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Mr Robertson, you have until five o'clock, which is exactly six minutes and twenty seconds. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and the clock is ticking. Presiding Officer, it gives me great pleasure to wind up this debate, because I want to focus on what the cabinet secretary said towards the end. There is a degree of excitement, but there is also frustration. Throughout the debate, and certainly throughout the witnesses that we heard, at committee, there was hope for the industry, there was excitement, there was ambition. When I listened to Patrick Harvie, I was thinking, my goodness Patrick, your energy that you were actually within the debate was fantastic. That was something that was represented within the committee when we were taking evidence. At the same time, as Joe McAlpine and John Lamont said, there was frustration, there was anger, there was disappointment. I think when we look at where we are within this report, it was challenging. We knew what the challenges were, maybe to some extent, because I certainly went into this one, not actually knowing what the outcomes would be. Did I understand the industry? Did I understand the complexities around it? No, I did not. I certainly learned a lot during taking evidence during the committee. I thank the clerks and the witnesses for the work that they put into this report. When Murdo Fraser started off by perhaps quoting Gandhi, I am not sure if he was being moved just a little tongue and cheeky, maybe a bit flippant sometimes, as Murdo can be, even as a convener. However, I really think that, as a committee, we were set a task and we set ourselves a task not to build up the Government and the success of it, but it was to look in depth and analyse exactly where we are and, hopefully, the direction that we are going. There is no doubt—I do not think that anyone is shying away from the aspect that Creative Scotland and Scottish Enterprise have not been working together as collaboratively as they could have been. I am delighted to hear that workshops have been taking place. It is perhaps with some regret that we have not come to some final outcome there, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary and certainly the Deputy First Minister, certainly when they were at committee, were in no doubt that they were looking towards both those public agencies working together for the good of and to the betterment of the industry as a whole. When we looked at taking this forward, we did look at film, TV and the video games—three very distinctive, although, as Patrick Harvie rightly said, you could probably take film and television to some degree together. What is the stumbling point for us? Well, the film studio. What is another stumbling point location of the film studio? When he was talking about the success of Northern Ireland and the film studio and other film studios in certainly Wales, what he forgot to mention was the state aid. We were very clear in the committee that we acknowledged the problems of establishing the film studio given the rules that were probably creating the barrier. Barrier was mentioned a few times during this evening's debate. Barriers should not be an obstacle. Barriers, if you acknowledge them and acknowledge that they exist, should be an opportunity for change. I think that this is probably the direction that we are going in. I was taken with the fact that Christian Allard—inventive, as he always is—started to talk up the north-east and Dundee, in particular, for the location of a film studio. Then we heard, of course, from George Adam saying, no, it should be in Paisley. It just shows that comedy is still alive, perhaps within the industry in itself. When I say that, Edinburgh is home to the fringe. However, Glasgow does make the point. I think that what we heard in evidence—I am certainly not going to pre-empt and pre-judge the location of a film studio when it eventually comes. John Lamont said, if we can have the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, why not? We have the infrastructure. I am sure that there will be many other bids. I was delighted when we looked at the TV industry, that the cabinet secretary took the time to visit Aberdeen. In fact, Lewis MacDonald mentioned Tern TV. The cabinet secretary visited Tern TV in Aberdeen to see for herself the work that goes on within the independent sector. I sincerely hope that she came away and was impressed with the work that was certainly being produced by Tern TV. I think that that shows us that we do have the skill, the ambition and the talent here in Scotland. There is much to be done. We have talked about commissioning, and we certainly need to see commissioning changing and the commissioning in production coming to Scotland. I sincerely hope that, with the public consultation that is out there, and certainly when we are looking at a programme for government, the opportunities that are before us—certainly looking at what we have in terms of a future within broadcasting—Scotland can certainly lead the way. People of Scotland can take the opportunity to take the lead. Within the video and games, I was criticised during taking evidence to some extent that I hadn't participated in the gaming in itself. I always found that using certain technologies in gaming may be somewhat arduous and difficult, but it may be not impossible. Perhaps I should make a commitment to look at trying to ensure that I will commit myself to try and see my way around getting into some of the games that are available to me. Patrick Harvie said that they came into the Parliament and demonstrated what they have and where they are going. We have the talent, ambition and skill. We have an amazing abundance of that, but they need that extra lift. They need the help from Gateway Scotland, the colleges and the infrastructure, bringing it together. They cannot be left out there in limbo. I think that we will return to the subject. I know that the EET looks forward to having an update from the Scottish Government at the end of the year, as we have asked it to do so. I am sure that we will return to this debate in the chamber. Mr Robertson, that concludes the debate on economic impact of the film, TV and video games industries. We now move to decision time. There is one question to be put as a result of today's business. The question is that motion number 14048, in the name of murder Fraser, on the economic impact of the film, TV and video games industries, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time.