 Thank you. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 6439, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the bureau. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to say so. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No one is asked to speak against it. Therefore the question is that motion 6439 be agreed. Sorry, 6349. Motion 6349 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of motion 6357, also in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the bureau. This is sitting at a timetable for the railway policing bill at stage 3 later this afternoon. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to say so now. I would call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. Moved. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motion 6357 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is topical questions. We start with question number one from Jamie Greene. To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it will provide to workers in Scotland who might lose their jobs as a result of RBS moving hundreds of jobs to India. Cabinet Secretary, Keith Brown. Presiding Officer, I want to start by saying how very concerned I am by this news from RBS and, of course, the impact that it will have on staff. I am also extremely disappointed and perturbed by the total lack of action to stop this by the UK Government, who are the majority shareholder in RBS. As soon as I heard the news, I asked my officials to speak to RBS to clarify the position and its likely impact in Scotland. We have been informed that RBS will do everything it can to support those affected and we will look to see positive action being taken, including redeployment into new roles where that is possible. It is very unhelpful that the UK Government appears to be allowing those job losses to take place and work to be transferred outwith the UK purely to save costs without any consideration of the financial impact on employees and their families. The Scottish Government will do everything we can to provide support and help to those affected in Scotland by job losses through the finance sector jobs task force and, if required, our initiative for responding to redundancy situations, the partnership action for continuing employment to pace. Jamie Greene I thank the cabinet secretary, at least for some of that response. I think that it is also important to note the context of those losses, of the total jobs being relocated to India, 59 of them will be lost in Scotland. Given that RBS employ over 10,500 people in Scotland and is quite a substantial Scottish employer and given that it is a part publicly on bank and has a mandate to reduce its operating costs, can I ask the cabinet secretary what contact the Scottish Government has had with RBS concerning its restructuring to help this bank to minimise any redundancies that it has had to make, while, at the same time, helping it to meet its streamlined objectives? We have had, in response to the member's question, very good discussions. In fact, it has been the feature of those that we have regular meetings through different forums in terms of the financial sector in Scotland. We have also had specific contact with RBS who have been very good at advising us in advance of major developments and, of course, in RBS, there are some very substantial developments in relation to what they went through during the recession. However, there was no contact made in relation to this development, which I think is very unfortunate. However, just to say to the member that this is a majority-owned bank and a majority ownership with the UK Government. We were told, of course, that we had to, in 2014, vote no to save those jobs. That was the cry from the Tory party. I think that I would expect to see, certainly elsewhere, Tory members of Parliament raising the issue with the people that have the big decision to make here, the UK Government. It may well be the case that, apart from arguing against Scotland's interests and not getting its fair share in terms of the deal with the DUP—not speaking up at all for Scotland—now we have a situation where I expect that we will see no representations from Tory MPs to the UK Government, who have a major responsibility here. It is not so much that we have a baker's dozen at Westminster, but we have a balker's dozen where they do not stand up for Scotland. Perhaps, if they did that, more than having a go at the Scottish Government, we could have saved those jobs. Jamie Greene It is rather unfortunate that the cabinet secretary has chosen to politicise this very important question about jobs in Scotland. What this Government is doing to help people to be made redundant is still no answer to the question. What is this Government doing to help people who have been made redundant is absolutely nothing. Moreover, this is not the first time that a large company has off-shore back-office functions to India and other places like that. This is an ever-growing global workplace, and the virtual services market is becoming increasingly international. Therefore, what is this Scottish Government doing to ensure that our Scottish workforce is adequately skilled to meet the demands of a changing marketplace? Cabinet secretary. Of course, if you care to check the official report, you will see who the first was to politicise the issue, and that was Jamie Greene. However, if you checked the official report, you just said that I did not answer what you intend to do. It is here in my first response. We will provide support to those affected in Scotland by job losses through the finance sector jobs task force, and, if required, through the partnership for action for continuing employment, I said that in my first response. I have to say that those responses, in particular pace, have been extremely effective in making sure that those who lose their jobs in these circumstances can be redeployed or find new continuing employment. That is the purpose of them. I have responded twice to Jamie Greene on what the Scottish Government will do. It would be good if we had some clarity as to what the Tories will do, whether they will raise this on Westminster or sit there meekly and accept the fate for what Jamie Greene rightly says is 59 individual employees and their families. Is it not about time that the Tories started to speak up for people like that? Cabinet Secretary, I agree that, after £45 billion of taxpayer's money has been spent propping up RBS, it is adding insult to injury that the UK Tory DUP Government is standing idly by while 443 jobs are being shipped to India. At a time when Brexit was meant to bring jobs and investment to the UK, he was also shocked that Tory DUP MSP Jamie Greene seems not to care that it is only 59 jobs on Scotland. Does he share my view that every single job lost is a job that Scotland should not lose? I would be careful about how we refer to other members in the chamber. I very much agree that the point that Kenny Gibson makes is that every single job is absolutely critical to the individual that holds a job and usually to the families that will depend on that job. Their life chances are being jeopardised by that decision. It is possible, of course, that it is possible, for the majority shareholder of the UK Government to step in in this circumstance. We would also say that, rather than getting involved in Brexit and deals and bunks and whatever else, if they concentrated on the day job of keeping people in work, we would all have a better situation in terms of employment in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Treasury regarding any additional funding for Scotland arising from the agreement between the Conservative and Democratic Unionist parties. I spoke with the chief secretary to the Treasury on 21 June and raised concerns about the potential financial implications for Scotland of the DUP deal that was being negotiated. I was given no detail on the negotiations and no reassurances whatsoever from the chief secretary of the Treasury about the potential funding impact. I followed up that conversation with a letter where I repeated my concerns about the potential implications of the deal but have not yet received any response. Following the announcement yesterday, the Deputy First Minister spoke to the Secretary of State for Scotland and he has agreed to take Mr Swinney's concerns to HM Treasury. I have also written today to the chief secretary seeking an urgent meeting to discuss the situation jointly with the Welsh Finance Minister, and I have highlighted that, if the matter cannot be resolved with HM Treasury, we will invoke formal dispute resolution proceedings to ensure that the matter is resolved. The UK Government's deal prioritises expenditure in Northern Ireland at a cost of all other parts of the UK, and if Scotland leaves almost £3 billion worse off, it would be if funding had been allocated using the well-established arrangements that are set out in the statement of funding policy. Lewis MacDonald I very much on ministers should indeed pursue any reasonable means to improve the position of our public services. It is right to test the basis for this billion-pound bung and its implications for the Scottish budget. It would appear that Theresa May has agreed to bring an end to austerity in Northern Ireland but only in order to continue imposing austerity on the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the cabinet secretary agree that this deal demonstrates that austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity? If he agrees, then what new policies can we expect from the Scottish Government to end austerity here, too? I agree with Lewis MacDonald on the position around the alternative to austerity, and over the course of the general election in Scotland, the SNP put forward an alternative to austerity. The UK Government has clearly overlooked that in this grubby deal with the DUP for Northern Ireland, and we do not grudge Northern Ireland a penny. We just want fairness for every other part of the UK and not least Scotland. It is remarkable that the Conservatives find this a laughing matter, ripping off Scotland to the tune of £2.9 billion. That is a rip-off at the hands of the Scottish Conservatives, who seem to have lost their voice in that matter. The spending areas for additional funding for Northern Ireland are devolved areas—infrastructure, health, including mental health, education, broadband and deprivation—all within the scope of Barnett. A clear breach of the statement of funding policy undermining devolution and undermining that deal that we had across the devolved Administrations. That is why I have taken this issue up in the way that I have, and I will work with the Welsh Administration to pursue it as well. I have seen the excuse from the Conservative Party that this is about city deals, and that was the equivalence of Scotland. Of course, we know the reality in Scotland that this funding package is in addition to city deals for Northern Ireland. That is a rip-off for Scotland. The Tories did not take them long to settle down in Westminster and sell out Scotland. Lewis Macdonald Thank you very much. The Prime Minister has been fond of telling voters in Scotland, England and Wales that there is no magic money tree and there could be no increase in one budget without a cut in another. That is the sterile politics of austerity, but can the cabinet secretary tell us from the conversations that he and Mr Swinney have had if there is any indication from UK Government ministers which budget will be cut by £1 billion to fund Mrs May's deal with the DUP? John Swinney The UK Government has given no explanation whatsoever on how that will be funded. It certainly has not responded to my letter. It gave no explanation when I contacted the chief secretary to the Treasury. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that the chief secretary was unaware of the details of that negotiation when it was under way. However, it looked as if the rest of the UK will be paying the price, including Scotland, for this grubby deal for Northern Ireland. It promised transparency, so let us see what figures come out of that and what explanation comes out of it. In terms of transparency, we did get one piece of transparency. It feels like daylight robbery from Tory MPs who have admitted that that deal was simply about staying in government. Ivan McKee Thank you, Presiding Officer. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that this May DUP deal raises serious questions for Scottish Secretary David Mundell, who said a day before that deal was announced that he would not support funding that is deliberately sought to subvert the Barnett rules? Cabinet Secretary? Yes, I do agree with that. He also went on to say in a separate interview, I am not going to agree to anything that could be construed as backdoor funding to Northern Ireland. Now, as the secretary of state, is he irrelevant? Is he irresponsible? Is he ill-informed? Or, at the moment, he is in communicado failing to explain his position on this matter. However, it is important to point out the breach of rules. It is clear in paragraph 2.15 of the statement of funding policy that the assessment of whether a programme is unique at a UK level and, thus, outside the Barnett arrangements, should be exceptional and that any such assessment should be evidence-based, be undertaken in a timely manner and be considered by Treasury ministers and their counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure that all viewpoints are understood before final decisions are taken. Scotland and Wales have been overlooked in this grubby deal with the DUP. Murdo Fraser. Presiding Officer, if the cabinet secretary wants to see a grubby deal, all he has to do is look at the Green Party benches behind him. Given the Scottish Government's new-found enthusiasm for the Barnett formula, can the cabinet secretary give me a very simple answer to that question? Is it still the policy of the Scottish Government to pursue full fiscal autonomy for Scotland? SNP MSPs and SNP MPs will always try to get the best deal for Scotland. I heard Ross Thompson this morning on GMS, the new spokesperson for the Conservatives Party in the absence of the Secretary of State. He was delighted with the deal that he got, which was a wee nudge in the ribs of the Chancellor while selling Scotland down the river to the tune of £2.9 billion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I can say how delighted I am that Murdo Fraser is still annoyed that we reversed cuts to local government services in Scotland and cancelled the proposed tax cut to high earners. However, the UK Government deal, the Conservative DUP deal, is clearly a breach of trust with the principle that resources are allocated according to need. In that case, it is only the need of the Prime Minister for what she needs to cling on to her job. It undermines the ability of the UK Government to be an impartial party between the different sides in the debate in Northern Ireland about its devolution future. It undermines also its ability to treat fairly all devolved Parliament's assemblies and Governments within the islands. Does the Scottish Government agree that that must not, however, undermine the trust and solidarity between the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that, just as the Scottish Government has agreed that same-sex couples are entitled to come here to convert civil partnerships into marriage, we should also ensure that women who need to access abortion from Northern Ireland are able to access the NHS on the same basis as any other citizen? I will be generous to Patrick Harvie. He is clearly a better negotiator than all 13 Tory MPs put together. However, I agree with that very sensible point. I happen to think that the peace process is also a very serious matter, and that is why I made the point that we do not begrudge Northern Ireland a penny. We just want fairness and financial justice for every part of the UK and, of course, Scotland. In terms of that process, we wish them well. We hope that the interventions can be taken in the light of a constructive engagement. I say again that this is about fairness and applying the rules that we have established, not trying to disadvantage any part of the UK. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that inpatient paediatric services are permanently available at St John's hospital in Livingston. Cabinet Secretary Shona Robison Due to concerns over maintaining a safe and sustainable rotor for the paediatric service at St John's hospital, NHS Lothian has reluctantly taken a decision based on a risk management assessment to implement a temporary model of service, which means that, from 7 July, its paediatric inpatient ward will open between 8 am and 8 pm Monday to Friday. The board considers that staffing levels are fragile and remain at risk, such as there may be no backup available should a member of the medical staff be absent at short notice, for example if they fall ill. NHS Lothian has engaged with clinicians on building resilience into the rotor. However, the board's position is that there is a risk of unplanned closure of the ward at short notice, causing confusion for parents and staff and possible delays to emergency care. The board chief executive, supported by the medical director, have reiterated the decision to implement the temporary model that was taken in the best interest and safety of children and their families. NHS Lothian has confirmed that its aim is to return to a full service as soon as possible after the summer. Alison Johnstone Thank you. Although NHS Lothian is committed to reinstating the service as soon as possible over the summer, it is not acceptable for patients and their families to be faced with an indefinite period of closure—a closure that results in increased accommodation costs, increased travel costs and additional stress. What assessment has been made of the needs of those patients and their families? What assessment has been made of the impact on the Royal hospital for sick kids in Edinburgh? Around 1,000 pediatrics patients are admitted to St John's every year, and that closure will put pressure on staff in Edinburgh, too. Alison Johnstone makes important points. The action by the board over the coming weeks includes further engagement with the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health to ensure that we can get the service back up into a sustainable model. The involvement of staff both at St John's and indeed at the sick kids is going to be very important as that work is taking forward. The medical director has confirmed that St John's consultants are going to have a central role in the consideration of possible solutions arrangements that are in hand to start the dialogue as soon as possible. We will also, in the Scottish Government, continue to support NHS Lothian to ensure that the services on offer at the inpatient pediatric ward remain safe and sustainable in the long-term, and communication with the public and the parents who are using the service is going to be a critical part of that. Alison Johnstone, I am concerned—I am sure that we all are—that we are not seeing increases to whole-time equivalent pediatric consultant numbers. Between March 2016 and March this year, there has been a 4.2 per cent decrease in whole-time equivalent pediatric consultants. Can the cabinet secretary tell us when the Scottish Government intends to publish its national health and social care workforce plan? We have been promised this. We were expecting a draft national health care workforce plan by the end of 2016, with plans published this year. So far, all we have had is a discussion document, and I think that this issue is key to the need for such progress in this matter. I can tell Alison Johnstone that the workforce plan will be published tomorrow, and I am happy to have further engagement with her and other members around that. I should also tell Alison Johnstone that the model that was based on the model agreed with the Royal College of Pediatricians and Children's Health has seen a total of six applicants have been accepted to those posts. Five are now post-working between the sick kids and St John's, because those were joint appointments. Progress has been made in moving forward with those appointments, but that does not take away from the fragility of the rotas over the summer, and that means that safety has to come first in taking this decision.