 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8858, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for today. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to sweet buttons now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 8858. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 8858 be agreed, are we agreed? We are agreed. Now that the motion has been agreed, the nomination period for election of a member for appointment to the Parliament's corporate body is now open. Members may have received an email, but if you wish to get further information, you can seek it from the parliamentary business team. Nominations should be submitted to the parliamentary business team by 4.30pm, and the election will take place just before decision time today. The next item of business is topical questions, and we start with question number one from David Torrance. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what support is given to burnt island fabrications to secure jobs in Fife and in Luz? Cabinet Secretary Keith Brown, discussions are on going with the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise and the company, and this Government is fully exploring all the options available to save the company and the jobs that depend on it. When ministers became aware of the situation, we immediately engaged with all the relevant stakeholders. The Minister for Energy had a conversation with the management team at BiFab to get a detailed insight into the challenges. He also had detailed discussions with shareholders of the Beatrice project to ascertain more details and also discussed the issues directly with CWA heavy lifting, the main contractor for the Beatrice project. He and I have both been involved in discussions today with those parties. The Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise are continuing those discussions, and we are encouraging all parties to work constructively to find a solution. I have also spoken directly with the trade unions and conveyed that we will do everything possible to support the workforce. I really appreciate that this is a very concerning time for the workforce, but this Government is committed to doing everything that we can to find a positive solution to this situation. We want to see a solution at BiFab and ensure that Scottish engineering and manufacturing are central to the supply chain for the renewable energy sector and for oil and gas going forward. I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Following the announcement yesterday from the GMB and UNITE members regarding the planned working, I think that it is clear that the workforce at BiFab are serious about planar part and the company's survival and future success. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Scottish Government owes it to those workers to leave no stone unturned in finding a solution? I do agree that that is an obligation on the Scottish Government. Of course, we are not directly involved in this. This is a contract between private companies and the issues that have arisen have been between those private companies. However, just for the reasons that David Torrance has mentioned, of course, we are very interested and want to do what we can to try to help to achieve a solution. At Root, of course, it is the future of 600 people directly employed up to 1400 people in general, including contractors and subcontractors. That has a huge impact on the areas that David Torrance has mentioned, both in Fife and in the Western Isles. Of course, we are interested to make sure that, for the benefit of those individuals, for the benefit of the contract for the renewables sector and for the Scottish economy to do whatever we can to try to help the situation. David Torrance I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. More generally, BiFab plays a role in Scotland's green re-industrialisation. To maximise Scotland's renewable potential, create jobs and grow our economy. We need to engineer skills and fabrication capacity that BiFab has at its sites in Burntisland, Meffo and Arnish. What priority does the Scottish Government give to placing and securing the future of BiFab in terms of the importance of Scotland's wider economy and the long-term future of renewable energy? As I have said, it is my firm belief that Scottish engineering and manufacturing are central to the supply chain for the renewable energy sector, but also for oil and gas going forward, with several billions of pounds being invested in offshore wind and the potential for more investment in our offshore oil and gas sector. The Government believes that the Scottish supply chain should be well placed to take full advantage of those opportunities. There are five supplementaries, so depending on whether we can get through them all, I will start with Alexander Stewart. The report says that delays in payments have contributed to BiFab's cash-full problems. Considering that Scotland has the highest level of late payments of any part of the United Kingdom, with reports that 67 per cent of companies are effective, what action is the Scottish Government taking to solve the on-going and severe problem that BiFab and others face? Just to repeat for the benefit of Alexander Stewart, those are private companies involved in the contract. The Scottish Government, for our part, has taken action to make sure that we pay all our suppliers promptly. Also through the business pledge, we ensure that, as many companies as possible, the last count over 400 also follow best practice in relation to that. I do not think that delays in payment are at the root of the problem. Payments certainly are, and making sure that payments are made as they become due is an important part of that process. I do not think that there is much value in going into more of the detail, given the discussions that we currently have with the private companies involved. Alexander Stewart, as a regional member for the area, will want to be assured that the Scottish Government is doing what we can to try and make sure that we have a solution to that situation. At the base of that is, of course, the future of 1,400 people during a very difficult time of the year and a very important contract, and, of course, the reputation of the renewable sector in Scotland going forward. We are well aware of the challenges that are here. It would be useful to have the general support of other parties in relation to that, and I think that that would help us to carry as much weight as possible into those discussions. Rhoda Grant Arnish in the Western Isles employs over 150 people in BiFab, and that is a disproportionately large impact on the local economy. Those jobs are one of the biggest private sector employers in the area. He talked about the Scottish Government working with Scottish Enterprise, but he never mentioned Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and I wonder what role it will have in working alongside the workers in Arnish and, indeed, the trade unions to make sure that reassurance is given to the workforce and alternative jobs, if those jobs cannot be saved, will be found. Just to reassure the member that Highlands Enterprise has been kept fully engaged in the process and, of course, has a direct interest in the site in the Western Isles being the owners of that site. I think that I would just make the point that we want to use anybody's good offices to try to achieve the right solution here. As I said, Highlands Enterprise has been involved in the process and kept engaged as well, but we want to try to use anybody's good offices. The point that Rhoda Grant Arnish has made is a very important one. The impact on the Western Isles of 100 jobs is huge. It is no small matter that 1,300 other jobs elsewhere in Scotland could also be jeopardised by that. We are well aware of the potential damage that can be done not just to individuals but to the economy. Whether it is Highlands Enterprise or any of the other parties—indeed, the UK Government has a role in that as well. I am not going into the details of that, but it has a very direct role as well. We want to work with all parties. We are not being precious about this or trying to keep this to ourselves. We want to get the right solution and are happy to work with anybody and make use of all the assets that we have to get that solution. Mark Ruskell Thank you. Given the statement from the Dutch contract to Seaway heavy lifting that it is and I am keen to support Bifab's workforce, can I ask the minister what his understanding is of that offer? If he plans to speak to his counterpart in the Government of the Netherlands. We have engaged with the company mentioned by Mark Ruskell and are looking to engage further with that company. It is central to the contract itself. There has been some movement in the willingness of different partners to try to come to a solution that will keep Bifab going through the contract and achieve that contract, but there is still some way to go. We have not had discussions and do not currently plan to have discussions with the Government of the Netherlands. We are discussing with the appropriate party in this case, which is Seaway heavy lifting. If there was a rationale or a purpose behind contacting the Dutch Government that Mark Ruskell is aware of, I would be keen to hear exactly what that is in all sincerity so that we can take advantage of any opportunities. In the meantime, we will continue to discuss it with the parties most closely involved. The cabinet secretary will be aware that potential job losses at Bifab are not the first time in recent months and years that leaving mouth has been devastated by unemployment. Today, across my constituency and my colleague David Torrance's, one in three children live in poverty. What consideration has been given to establishing a group or a task force in light of the Bifab situation, and whether he will meet with himself and fellow Fife MSPs to discuss urgent proposals to support the local economy? First of all, Jenny, Garuth makes a very good point about keeping members MSPs and MPs aware. Paul Wheelhouse has been involved with this for some time. We are very willing to meet those members to keep them updated. As far as we are able to do that, some of the discussions, as can be imagined, are commercially confidential, but we can pass on information and the current state of discussions. We are happy to do that. I will ensure that that happens in relation to both Jenny Garuth and other members with an interest in the area. On the point that has been made about a task force, we have assembled the people who are necessary to do that. Of course, we have had task forces in the past. At this stage, our focus is on making sure that the company stays viable and that the jobs stay in place. We have all the resources and the different parties available to do that, but we will keep that under review. To confirm to Jenny Garuth that we are well aware of the points that she makes, there are pertinent points about the level of unemployment in Fife, and her partner Fife in particular is very aware of that. That is another reason why we want to pull out all the stops to try to ensure that those jobs stay where they are and that the contract is completed. This is an extremely worrying time for the workforce and the local community, and there has been conflicting speculation in the press that the root of the problem at BiFab is a dispute over delayed payments between the company and Seaway heavy lifting. Although the cabinet secretary says that he does not believe that that is at the root of the problem, does he recognise that delayed payments are an issue here? If so, can he confirm the value of the payments that have been requested of Seaway by BiFab, the value of the work that has been certified and the value that has been paid to BiFab, either in the chamber today or perhaps in confidence to MSPs? Until we have clarity over the financial picture, we and most importantly all the workers at BiFab are in the dark over how that issue can be resolved. I give the assurance to Clare Baker that we will seek to pass on as much information, especially in terms of the amounts involved. As we are able to do, I would rather check and make sure that we are doing that in a way that is consistent with our obligations to the private sector partners that we are discussing this with. In relation to delayed payments, it is not so much delayed payments, but disputed payments, which may of course lead to delay in a payment being made. That would be the nature of a dispute. That is more in the character of the issue that we are looking at than necessarily a delayed payment of the relationship between the two. It is trying to get to the bottom of that issue and the number of other issues such that we can ensure that there is a cash flow available to BiFab to keep things going in the meantime in terms of paying the staff, which is crucial. I can just say how much we appreciate the activities of the trade unions in continuing to work in the yards under this, as Clare Baker says, a very distressing time for them. We have to have an obligation to try to work with the private sector partners. There is a position of trust there in relation to some of the figures that are passed on to us, but I undertake to pass on whatever figures we are able to to both Clare Baker and other MSPs with an interest. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported criticism of the Scottish Police Authority by some members of its board. The report that was published yesterday relates to the early years of the authorities' existence. A range of measures have been taken to learn from experience and strengthen governance arrangements since that time. In order to address a number of remaining issues identified by HMICS earlier this year, I commissioned a review of the executive functions to ensure that the board is getting the support that it needs to perform its role effectively. The review is expected to report in the coming weeks. Margaret Mitchell Thank you, cabinet secretary, for that response. In the Scottish Institute for Placing Research Report, one former SPA board member states that, every time we try to bite, the Government removes the tooth. I have been absolutely shocked at the level of Government interaction. Will the cabinet secretary comment on that quote? Given that Scottish ministers have formal powers to give directions to the SPA, so long as those directions are not related to police operations, will he confirm if he or any other Scottish ministers have ever used those powers? If so, when and under what circumstances? Michael Matheson On the former point, which the member made reference to, although ministers have power of direction over the SPA, it is not a power that I have exercised. I do not think that it was a power that was exercised by my predecessor. In relation to the idea that Scottish ministers are in some way interfering with the role of the SPA, that is one that I strongly refute. However, the member is not satisfied with my own response to that. He only has to look at the evidence that was provided to the Public Audit Committee by HMICS Derek Penman when he said that he found no evidence of Scottish Government interference in the setting of agendas or submissions of papers. However, as a Government that is responsible for serving the national strategic policing authorities overall objectives, we clearly have on-going engagement with the SPA in a regular basis in areas of shared interest. However, as HMICS has already identified, it has found no evidence to support the suggestion of Government interference. Margaret Mitchell When the 2012 act was passed, concerns were raised from all the opposition parties about too much ministerial influence. Those concerns fell in deaf ears. Whilst the SPA chair appointment process has been modified for the current selection process to include the convener of the police sub-committee, the cabinet secretary still retains major influence in that appointment. Will he now confirm that the Government will revisit the 2012 act and amend it to ensure that Parliament as a whole selects and crucially is involved in the decision as to whether to reappoint the SPA chair and that the discretion for ministers to intervene will be transparent? In that way, the new SPA chair will at least have the comfort of knowing that he or she does not have to rely on the good grace of the cabinet secretary for continuation of their appointment. Mary Fee If we have no plans to revisit the legislation. Mary Fee Media focus and attention on the SPA board has been an on-going issue and detracts from the work that the board does. What steps will the cabinet secretary take in conjunction with the board to ensure that all board members have proper training and fully understand not only their individual roles but also their collective responsibilities? In relation to governance, will the cabinet secretary ensure that the clear dividing line between the scrutiny role of the board and Government oversight is fully understood by all parties? Michael Matheson The member raises an important issue because there is an issue about making sure that those who join public boards have the necessary training and support in order to undertake their duties effectively. As a Government, we are keen to make sure that that is happening effectively. That is why in September last year the Scottish Government implemented a new corporate induction programme for all new board members and went on to public boards to ensure that they have the necessary training and support to assist them in undertaking their role and also ensuring that they have a proper understanding of the on-board guidance that is issued to them and how they should interpret that guidance as well. I can also assure the member that the work that I instructed through Nicola Merchant, the deputy chair of the SPA, along with Malcolm Burr, is to look at the overall support function that has been provided to the SPA board to identify whether there are further measures that can be put in place to help to support the board members in their role. That is not just about the board and themselves making sure that they are getting the right information, but it is also about making sure that Police Scotland is providing them with information that the board requires in order to hold Police Scotland to account and to scrutinise the actions of the Police Service and, in particular, its executive team. I am very much committed to making sure that board members get the training and support that they require and that the work that is being taken forward by Malcolm Burr and Nicola Merchant is precisely there to help to support the board in discharging its responsibilities and identifying what further supports are necessary to make sure that they can do that effectively moving forward. That concludes topical questions. I apologise to members for not getting in.