 The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by Derek Mackay on the draft budget. A point of order from Daniel Johnson. At First Minister's questions this afternoon, Nicola Sturgeon made a statement and replied to a question from Kezia Dugdale. First Minister said that there was evidence of a narrowing of the attainment gap at access to universities. In fact, today's figures, independently verified by Spice, show that the gap between applicants from the most and least deprived backgrounds has actually increased over the last two years. It is therefore clear that the First Minister's statement was inaccurate. Will the PO allow time for Nicola Sturgeon to correct the record of this important measure of her Government, especially given that tackling the rising attainment gap is her Government's apparent top priority? I thank Daniel Johnson for the advance notice of the point of order. In this case, it is not a point of order. However, the First Minister will have heard Mr Johnson's comments, and if she chooses to correct the report or correct your understanding of what she said, then it is up to the First Minister. I move on to the first item of business this afternoon, which is the draft budget. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interruptions during his statement. I call on the cabinet secretary to speak. It is a great privilege to set out to Parliament my first draft budget. It is the first budget in which the Scottish Government will make use of powers devolved through the Scotland Act 2016, including income tax, and historic budget delivered in challenging economic and political circumstances. The tax and spending proposals that I will set out today will improve our public services, support our economy and provide the foundations for future sustainable growth and prosperity. Over the coming weeks, I will work with all parties and stakeholders to build support for those proposals. The Scottish economy has grown over the past year in spite of weak global growth and the impact of a low oil price on our oil and gas sector. Unemployment, whilst it varies from month to month, is down over the past year and employment is now higher than before the 2008 financial crisis. The UK Government's plans for a hard Brexit represent a key risk to Scotland's economy. We are seeing the fall in the pound pushing up inflation. That puts pressure on household budgets and companies are revaliating their plans. Those risks are compounded by the UK Government's continued austerity programme. In the coming years, we will face cuts to our funding for public services and social security. Between 2010-11 and 2019-20, Tory austerity will see our fiscal deal budget, which funds discretionary spending and capital investment fall by more than 9 per cent, or £2.9 billion in real terms, with a share of a further £3.5 billion of cuts by 2019-20 still to come. As a result of those pressures, the economic forecasts that I am publishing today will underpin our tax projections. It assumes that Scottish GDP will grow by around 1 per cent in 2016-17 and by 1.3 per cent in 2017-18. To put that into context, Scotland's GDP has historically grown by around 2 per cent a year. Those lower forecasts reflect the impact of the Brexit vote. That economic uncertainty makes all the more important that this budget provides support for the economy, for jobs and for household incomes through a fair and balanced set of tax and spending proposals. That Government will not follow the same damaging approach of Westminster. The new devolved powers mean that more of the money that we spend will now be funded from taxes that are set by this Parliament. In addition to currently devolved taxes, we will introduce a bill to devolve air passenger duty to Scotland to be known as the air departure tax. That tax will be operational from 2018, and we will reduce the tax burden by 50 per cent by the end of this Parliament, improving international connectivity and boosting tourism. In all our tax proposals for 2017-18, I am grateful to the Fiscal Commission for scrutinising the forecasts of receipts and endorsing them. That Government is committed to a principles-based approach to taxation, particularly that tax should be proportionate to the ability to pay. Our land and buildings transaction tax has already lifted 15,000 households out of tax compared to stamp duty in the rest of the UK, supporting people into home ownership. Following the successful introduction of the tax, the budget proposes to keep residential and non-residential rates and bans the same as this year—a tax freeze that maintains our progressive approach. I also propose that the Scottish landfill tax, which contributes to our environmental objectives, will rise only in line with its RPI inflation. In using the Scotland act income tax powers for the very first time, we must have a balanced approach. Let me be clear. I will not pass the costs of UK austerity on to the household budgets of the lowest income taxpayers, so I can confirm that we will protect low and middle income taxpayers at a time of rising inflation by freezing the basic rate of income tax. However, we cannot accept, at this time of austerity, top earners benefiting from an inflation-busting tax cut, so I will limit the increase in the higher rate threshold to inflation and not give a substantial real-terms tax cut to the top 10 per cent of income earners. The higher rate threshold will therefore be set at £43,430. While I sympathise with those who have argued for an increase to the additional rate, I have had to balance that with the risk to our economy and I am maintaining the current rate. The Government's approach, endorsed by the electorate, is the right thing to do for our economy, for jobs and public services. For the first time, there is now a direct link between Scotland's economic performance and public spending. That Government has consistently delivered a competitive environment for business and we have used our tax powers to support growth. Not only have we ensured that smaller businesses pay zero or lower rates on non-residential LBTT, large businesses enjoy a lower rate than the rest of the UK. The introduction of the small business bonus scheme has saved businesses over £1 billion since its introduction in 2008. I am pleased to set out today measures that confirm a highly competitive business rates regime for Scotland for 2017-18, particularly for the thousands of small businesses in Scotland. First, I will reduce the business rates poundage by 3.7 per cent to 46.6p. Second, we will expand the small business bonus scheme by raising the eligibility threshold for 100 per cent relief to a rateable value of £15,000 lifting 100,000 properties out of rates altogether. Third, whilst I have listened carefully to business, just as I cannot cut tax for the well-faced individuals the rate of the large business supplement. However, I will restrict the supplement to the very largest businesses by increasing the threshold to £51,000, reducing the tax burden on 8,000 businesses. In addition, I will match the Chancellor's recently announced rate relief for rural areas and intend to match reliefs for fibre infrastructure subject to the confirmation of the detail. Finally, I come to the question of transitional relief following the revaluation. If we were to introduce such relief, it would place a significant burden on many of our smaller businesses. That is not the right way forward. Given that all businesses will benefit from the lower poundage that I have announced today, I do not propose to run a transitional relief scheme. The poundage cut, the small business bonus extended, and the large business supplement focused only on the very biggest businesses. That is a good deal for Scottish business and a great deal for Scottish jobs. However, we will not stop there to help small businesses to grow. We will launch the £500 million Scottish growth scheme in 2017, offering financial support for business investment. The three-year scheme, now approved by the Treasury, will provide investment guarantees and some loans to small and medium-sized firms who would otherwise struggle to grow because of a lack of finance. We will increase support for our new innovation and investment hubs in Brussels, London and Berlin, building on the success of the Dublin hub. We will double the number of people working for Scottish Development International in Europe to promote our exports. We will support a rural economy through increased support for the food and drink industry and more than £100 million investment in digital connectivity, driving forward super-fast broadband towards our 100 per cent of access by 2021. Today's budget reaffirms this Government's commitment to infrastructure investment. Over the next year, we will complete the combined M8, M73, M74 improvements, the M8 bundle, the iconic Queensferry crossing and the AWPR, and we will make progress on the A9 and the A96, among many others. We will also complete the electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh rail line, introducing longer, faster greener electric chains as part of our £5 billion investment plans in Scotland's rail network by 2019. Following recent performance issues, some in the chamber have called for a rail fairs freeze. They claimed that it would cost around £2 million, but the real cumulative cost of a one-year freeze to the first breakpoint in the franchise would in reality be £58 million. That would compromise the investment programme that is vital to improving the performance of our rail network, but we recognise that investment can mean disruption for passengers as we upgrade lines and introduce new stations. I can announce today that, in the coming financial year, we will invest not £2 million but a £3 million package of targeted fair reductions to ease costs for passengers and thank them for their patience. The Minister for Transport will set out more detail tomorrow. Investment in our transport network is complemented by funding for city deals for Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness. We will continue to support city deals for Edinburgh, Dundee, Perth and Stirling and are considering the scope of an Ayrshire growth deal. I can also announce that I have signed today with Dundee City Council the financial agreement to allow the Dundee Central Waterfront growth accelerator to go ahead, supporting economic growth in the area and 500 jobs. I will be inviting proposals from councils for two further tax incremental financing projects in the coming year, leveraging private investment in infrastructure. This budget invests heavily in housing. We delivered our target of building 30,000 affordable homes in the last Parliament. Looking forward, we will deliver at least 50,000 new affordable homes, including 35,000, for social rent over the life of this Parliament. Today's budget confirms capital funding of around £470 million for housing in 2017-18, coupled with other funding mechanisms to help to deliver that commitment. This budget secures infrastructure investment of around £4 billion. That investment will underpin productivity growth and support an estimated 30,000 jobs. Investment in housing also helps to tackle climate change by improving the efficiency of our housing stock. Today's budget will help us to meet our climate change targets. I have protected resources for zero waste and sustainable and active travel. I have increased funding for woodland creation, peatland restoration and the sustainable action fund, and I can confirm today a funding of more than £140 million in 2017-18 to support energy efficiency programmes as part of our commitment to invest at least £500 million over this Parliament. Delivering long-term economic growth requires investment in people as well as business. Closing the attainment gap, reducing child poverty and ensuring equality of access to higher education will generate long-term benefits for our economy and public finances. That is why we are prioritising education and this budget provides resources to match. We will invest in skills and training, building on the success of our opportunities for all initiative and extensive consultation on the apprenticeship levy. Revenues from the levy mean that Scotland will receive £221 million in 2017-18. Let me be clear. It has been suggested that this is a new fund of £221 million. It is not. The UK Government has given with one hand and taken away with the other. For the most part, the levy replaces existing funding for apprenticeships and related activity. However, I can confirm today that £221 million will be committed to interventions that support skills, training and employment in Scotland. 2017-18 will see the next stage in our expansion to 30,000 modern apprenticeship new starts a year. We will also respond to the needs of employers by establishing a flexible workforce development fund. Details of funding have been published today and the Minister for Employability and Training will set out further information tomorrow. That budget also funds the expansion of early learning and childcare to 1,140 hours by the end of this Parliament by providing an initial £60 million to support the first phase of workforce and infrastructure development. Future years will see significant additional investment as we deliver on our commitment to transform childcare in our country. The defining mission of this Government is to raise educational attainment in our schools. At the election that we pledged £750 million over the course of this Parliament to the attainment fund and in a radical departure, we said that £100 million per year from that fund would be spent at the discretion of Scotland schools to help to close the attainment gap. The revenue that will be identified to the fund, the new stream of direct support, was the increase in the council tax that will be paid by those in the higher-band homes. I know that many MSPs did not agree with that proposal. Parliament debated, Parliament voted and I have listened to Parliament's views. However, I will not sacrifice the educational chances of Scotland's poorest pupils. I will not abandon a radical plan to give schools direct control over significant new resources instead. I can announce today that I will not simply make good on our pledge. I will go further. Next year, instead of £100 million going direct to schools, £120 million will be spent at the discretion of headteachers. That £120 million will fund a new pupil equity scheme. Schools across the country will be allocated around £1,200 for each pupil in P1 to S3 that is eligible for free school meals. What is more, I will not fund this from the council tax, instead I will use the Scottish Government's own resources. Councils will keep the full value of the revenue from the council tax rebanding. Every penny raised locally will be spent locally, as councils see fit. We will deliver our pledge to help schools to close the attainment gap from central funds. We have listened, we have acted and we will deliver for Scotland's poorest pupils, but we will not stop there. At a national level, we will also provide central funding for closing the attainment gap of £50 million, maintain the pupil-teacher ratio following this week's increase in teacher numbers, provide £60 million for our flagship early learning and childcare commitment, and we will invest over £1.6 billion in higher and further education, ensuring that access for eligible students remains free and maintaining 116,000 college places. Those commitments that I am announcing today mean that overall national investment in education and skills will increase by £170 million this coming year. Let no one be in any doubt from birth and the earliest years, through school and beyond, education is this Government's number one priority. In case educational attainment will contribute to our efforts to address poverty and build a more equal society, as part of our social contract with the people of Scotland, we will provide £47 million to continue to mitigate the bedroom tax and we will abolish it at the earliest opportunity. We will continue our support for the independent living fund and, as part of our new powers, we will begin to build a social security system based on dignity and respect. I have published a public sector pay policy for 2017-18 that guarantees the Scottish living wage offers those earning less than £22,000, a basic pay award of more than 1 per cent, and caps other basic awards at 1 per cent, while continuing our no compulsory redundancy policy. Today's budget also delivers on our commitment to protect the resource budget for policing in real terms, supporting front-line policing as we seek to maintain record low levels of recorded crime. We have also made a clear commitment to increase the NHS revenue budget by £500 million above inflation, by the end of this Parliament going beyond anything offered by any other party in this chamber. That will see the share of front-line NHS budget invested in primary care, community care, social care and mental health all rise. We will invest £72 million next year in an improvement fund for primary care and GP services and over £150 million in mental health over five years. Overall, next year we will invest an additional £300 million in NHS resource budgets, £120 million more than inflation, a massive step towards our promise to Scotland's health service. As I set out, local government will receive £120 million from central government to fund our shared ambitions to close the attainment gap. In addition, we will maintain council share of capital spending with an increase of £150 million compared to 2016-17. If we stopped here, the Scottish Government funding for local government services would be set to fall by just £47.4 million next year. However, I want to do more to protect vital local services, so I have decided to go further. Last year, we transferred a quarter of a billion pounds from the NHS to support health and social care partnerships. I can announce today that, on top of that transfer, we will provide additional funding of £107 million from the NHS next year. That is additional funding that will deliver the living wage for social care workers and protect overall investment in those crucial services. That will secure a total of £8 billion for health and social care services, ensuring that people have access to the right care at the right time and in the right place. That additional investment in social care means that, in the coming year, there will be no overall reduction in the funding provided by the Scottish Government to support local government services. Funding will increase by £59.6 million. Of course, Government funding is not council's only source of additional revenue next year. As I have already said, the £111 million that will be raised through the council tax rebanding will be retained locally, and local authorities will also be free to set an increase in the council tax generally by up to 3 per cent next year, generating, if they so choose, a further £70 million. The measures that I have announced today mean that the total support from the Scottish Government and through local taxation provides an increase in spending power on local government services, not of £59.6 million but of £240.6 million or 2.3 per cent. That is a settlement. Which invests in education, invests in social care and invests in local services. This is a budget for growth and public services for our environment and our communities. It delivers increased investment in education, record investment in the NHS, protects low-income households from tax hikes and supports more and better jobs. Overall, it delivers £700 million of additional spending on our economy and public services. That is a budget for Scotland and I commend it to Parliament. The cabinet secretary will now take questions. There will be around 40 minutes for questions, so if you wish to ask, please press your request-to-speak button now. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for an advance copy of his statement. This is a historic budget. For the first time, this Parliament has control over an extensive range of taxes in Scotland. It might not think so right at the moment, but the finance secretary is a lucky man. He has more choices than his predecessor ever had, thanks to a Conservative Government at Westminster delivering financial devolution. He had the choice to use these new powers to support economic growth and to tackle our underperforming economy. It is much to be regretted that he has chosen instead to hike taxes on families and businesses in Scotland, risking choking off economic recovery and depriving Scottish public services of vital tax revenue. That will make Scotland the highest tax part of the United Kingdom. As it stands, it is not a budget that we can support. Despite his complaint about Westminster cuts, the finance secretary received an additional £140 million in real terms from the Treasury compared to the current year. That package included an extra £800 million for capital. We have said that we want to see that spent in four priority areas, in housing, energy efficiency, digital infrastructure and rail projects. I look forward to hearing more detail about the Government's capital plans. As Ruth Davidson made clear earlier today, we welcome the dramatic climb down on using council tax funding for a national policy of an educational attainment fund and a front to the principle of local accountability and assault on local government, just proving the power of the strong opposition that is provided by the Scottish Conservatives. The First Minister said earlier that this budget would protect local services, but what the supporting documents tell us is that local councils face a cut in their revenue grants of £130 million. Even if they are allowed to keep all the council tax increases, how does that cut protect local services? The finance secretary accuses the UK Government of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Hasn't he just played exactly the same trick on local authority? We welcome the signal to cut air passenger duty to help grow the economy, but why not apply that logic to other taxes? Scottish businesses have been crying out for relief from business rates. That budget retains the punitive level of the large business supplement that double the UK rent and put Scottish businesses at a competitive disadvantage. In not matching the UK increase in the threshold for the 40 per cent rate of income tax, the finance secretary is making Scotland the most expensive part of the UK in which to live, work and do business. The First Minister's hand-picked chair of her growth commission, the Scottish National Party's former economy spokesman in this chamber, Andrew Wilson, gets it when he says that the way to grow tax revenue is to grow the number of high-earning taxpayers. If the finance secretary won't listen to us, he will at least listen to the First Minister's own adviser and think again on tax. Yesterday, the finance secretary said that he would deliver a budget that was pro-enterprise, pro-entrepreneur and pro-growth. By hitting the Scottish economy with higher taxes, hasn't he failed on all three counts? I think that Murdo Fraser has forgotten a number of things, not least that it's this Tory Government's centering office that's reduced the Scottish financial support by around 9 per cent, 9 per cent real-terms reductions to Scotland's budget since it took office. That put into a value context about £2.9 billion reduction to Scotland's budget over the period of 80 decade. We discovered yesterday in the tax debate that not only did the Tories want a different position on tax just to undercut, but that they're actually anti-devolution now. They're against devolution and us making different choices on the things that we value, such as the NHS, free prescriptions, free education, concessionary travel. Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Opposition, is shaking her head. She clearly hasn't seen the pressure leases that Murdo Fraser writes for the Conservative Party. Our budget has outlined a range of measures that are very pro-enterprise and pro-business that will grow the economy. The Tories want to have it both ways. They want to reduce tax but, of course, only tax for the very richest in our society. Whilst in this Parliament the nicer, softer Scottish Tories want to increase expenditure in many areas, they can't have it both ways. The Tories can't cut tax, as they propose, and spend more on public services. They haven't even suggested how to do so in this budget. In terms of business rates, that is a very strong package for business rates. It will continue to grow our economy, particularly supporting small businesses with a range of measures. Murdo Fraser could at least have welcomed that. He asked about the capital investment plan, and there is much detail that has been provided. He says that he was demanding more investment in housing, energy efficiency and digital. There is more investment in all of those areas, and substantially more investment. I suspect that the Tories will vote against it nonetheless. However, the key issue is that we are giving more resources to our vital public services opposed by the Conservatives. Whilst we build a very pro-Scottish economic message, it is clear that the Tories want to talk Scotland down. That is why I will keep listening as I have done to our local authorities and to parties in this Parliament. That is why we will fund the attainment fund through our central resources, supporting local government but delivering on our commitment on educational attainment. On all of those areas, I think that the record of the Government is very strong and the proposals that we have set out will deliver our programme for government. The SNP finance secretary has unveiled a budget today that will see the heart ripped out of public services. School results and teacher numbers are in decline. Our valued NHS workers are overstretched. However, the finance secretary tries to spin it, today's budget means a real-terms cut of £327 million from the SNP Government to local services. It is here in black and white on page 91, and SNP members would do well to read it. They are making up the difference by holding councils to ransom, forcing them to use their tax powers, while the SNP Government refused to use its own. It could have asked the richest 1 per cent to pay a little more with a 50p top rate of tax, but yet again it refused to do the right thing. The budget passes on Tory cuts to the people of Scotland. It makes Derek Mackay no better than a Tory chancellor. We have the powers to do things differently. Let's use them. Let's stop the cuts and ask those with the broad shoulders to pay a bit more. Let's protect local services. Let's grow the economy and create well-paid jobs. Labour cannot support a budget with more than £300 million of cuts to local services at its heart. Isn't it the truth that Scotland needs a plan for investment, for jobs and for our economy, a plan to protect our public services from SNP cuts? I cannot help but reflect on the fact that, in terms of the tax position in the UK Parliament where Jeremy Corbyn sits on this particular issue, I wonder if Kezia Dugdale thinks that Jeremy Corbyn is no better than a Tory chancellor, considering how he said that he will continue with the Tory's proposition around tax. In relation to overall public spending, Kezia Dugdale said that there was no real new public spending for public services. That's just not true. There are £700 million extra for public services in Scotland coming from the Scottish Government in the detail in the budget document. However, when you look at all the detail, all the detail for the settlement for local authorities, the ability to raise council tax and the wider package of local government services, it is a good deal and a fair deal. No wonder that Kezia Dugdale has not rejected the package that I have offered to her, because she knows that it is a good and a fair proposal that has been set out by the Scottish Government, and one in yes that we have listened to where there were points of difference whilst delivering on the key priority areas. Even on that, I would have thought that the Labour Party would have welcomed more money for education. I would have thought that there would be some welcome of that. I remember Alex Rowley saying specifically that if we want to do something around attainment, we should fund it centrally, and we have done it. We have not just delivered on our commitment, we have surpassed our commitment to £120 million for the attainment fund. The Labour Party should reflect on the positives of the budget, reconsider their position and welcome the substantial increase to Scotland's public services. Bruce Crawford, to be followed by Donald Cameron. I am delighted, cabinet secretary, that the UK Government has followed the Scottish Government's lead in regard to the Stirling-Clack City region deal. Now detailed discussion on the potential transformation can begin in enrush. However, in regard to the bigger picture, would the cabinet secretary confirm that the very good news of £300 million uplift in NHS resource funding in Scotland is an above inflation increase, matches the Barnett consequentials from health spending in England, and is certainly greater than any of that promise by any other party in this chamber? Presiding Officer, I can confirm all of that. Of course, I welcome the partnership working around the city deals. I think that that working is very productive for unlocking local economic potential, but specifically in relation to the question around the NHS. Yes, today marks an important step in delivering this commitment. We have passed on resource consequentials in full, and the increase in the health resource budget of over £300 million in 2017-18 represents an above inflation increase in excess of £120 million. Donald Cameron, to be followed by James Kelly. Investment in our NHS is much needed, particularly in primary care, but it is important to note the distinction between primary care and general practice in particular. Between 2010 and 2016, increases in investment to general practice specifically has lagged far behind that of health boards. For years, this Government has failed those GPs who work at the front line of the NHS. Today, will the cabinet secretary specify how much of the £72 million stated to be an improvement fund for primary care and general practice services will go directly in support of Scotland's struggling GPs? I should say to Donald Cameron that we have a far better relationship with staff in the NHS in the case that the UK Government has with their professionals south of the border. Of course, we will engage and then detail that further transfer to local services. Donald Cameron has just made the point for me. Front bench of the Conservatives says tax cuts, back benchers say more public expenditure. You cannot have it both ways. It is clear that only this party and this Government is delivering more for the NHS overall and specifically to GPs in Scotland. James Kelly, to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Despite all the gloss, as the budget document shows, £327 million of cuts from the SNP Government's grants to local government. Why has the SNP reversed its position from the 2015 election of a top tax rate of £50, meaning that local communities will be hammered while the richest 10 per cent of taxpayers will not pay any more? I point out to James Kelly that it is customary when he is elected to the Government to deliver the manifesto on which he was elected. That election was made of 2016, and we are absolutely in this budget delivering our manifesto commitments from this election. On the additional rate specifically, we have said that we will keep it under review, but there is a risk that if we increase it, we could lose revenue and receipts, and that would impact on public services. That is not a gamble that this Government is willing to make. There are extra resources to say once again taking the totality of resources to local government services and increase, not a reduction to the settlement to the local services of Scotland. Patrick Harvie, do you feel about Willie Rennie? The cabinet secretary says that he wants to listen to Parliament. I welcome that, but I regret that he does not seem to be listening to anyone when it comes to income tax policy. We know that the poorest third of our society will see their incomes go down next year, while high earners will get a tax cut. Those might be UK Government decisions, but the Scottish Government now has the power to reverse those effects and has chosen not to. There is a 1 per cent cap on most public sector pay, while MSPs will enjoy a 1.8 per cent increase in our salaries. At the same time, there will be a brewing dispute with local government and a tax break to the most polluting form of transport in the country. Is it not clear that, if the cabinet secretary wants to persuade public sector unions, local government and Parliament, he will have to do a lot more listening over the coming month and make meaningful changes to his budget plans? Of course, I will listen to all voices in Parliament, and I think that I have shown that I was willing to do that around how we fund and support the attainment fund and our support for local government. I would say again that the most important people that we should listen to are the people of Scotland. I remind Patrick Harvie that we did secure a mandate at the election to deliver our tax proposition and to put that to Parliament. I will continue to engage with all parties in Parliament to see where we can find some mutual agreement, but it is certainly not the case that will follow the Conservatives in passing on a tax cut for the richest in society. Patrick Harvie, on a number of occasions now, has pointed to Government ministers on our tax position. I want to gently remind the chamber that Scottish Government ministers have taken a pay freeze since 2008, which I think is the right thing to do, but maybe some other members should reflect on that. However, the key issue is not to pass on austerity to the taxpayers of Scotland, and that is what we would do if we followed the Labour approach in increasing the basic rate. That is not a choice that we are willing to make, but I will continue, of course, to engage in all matters in relation to the budget as we take it through Parliament. Willie Rennie to be followed by Clare Haughey. I thank the finance secretary for an advanced copy of his statement. I welcome the decision to abandon the council tax plan to strip funds from councils, but can he clarify why it appears that Highlands and Islands enterprise budget seems to be cut as is the budget for universities? With our international standing in education slipping and our faltering economy, there is an urgent need to use our brand and new powers to raise £500 million for education to get it back up to the best. That is the best way to boost the economy. I cannot see the scale of what is required in his budget. We need a transformational budget, and this budget falls well short of that. The First Minister said today that there were acres of common ground between the parties, but can I tell the finance secretary that he has got miles to travel before we can reach an agreement? He will know that the Liberal Democrats are pragmatic and reasonable people, but is the finance secretary prepared to make the changes necessary in his budget to meet that urgent need for education and our economy? Of course, I will say to Willie Rennie that, if he is a pragmatic and reasonable man, I am sure that if he engages in talks with me in a very positive and constructive spirit, he will see the positivity of this budget. To the wider question, am I willing to engage to look at what we can do differently or areas in which we can go further? Yes, I am willing to engage in such a discussion, but it will be easier to do—I can hear the Conservatives' complain from the left of me physically, of course—but it will be easier to engage with other parties in this chamber than it would be to engage on ideas with the Tory party, who just want tax cuts for the rich and undermine Scotland's economic message, frankly. In terms of what Willie Rennie has raised specifically on Highlands and Islands Enterprise, if you look at the totality of support in the region and the area for the Highlands and Islands, there is a very strong package of support in here for the whole country and specifically. In our enterprise agencies, it provides assistance, but I will just give you one example of where this Government stepped in. Look at the deal that was able to be done in Lochabba, where Government intervention has helped to secure hundreds of jobs and potentially brought hundreds of new jobs as well. That is the kind of support and interventions that this Government has made right across Scotland, whether it was in steel, in shipyards or in Lochabba in the facility. That is the kind of direct interventions that we can make while supporting the region's economy through our support for food and drink and exports and skills. Incidentally, the university budget is increasing as a consequence of that budget, but Highlands and Islands can also enjoy the business-raised reduction that I have outlined, further interventions and support from the Scottish gross scheme. When you look at the totality of support to Scotland's businesses, Scotland's regions, you will see that, overall, this is a very strong package for growth while supporting some of our more vulnerable communities. Clare Haughey, to be followed by Dean Lockhart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Throughout the last Parliament, local authorities and opposition politicians continually called for the council tax freeze to be lifted and for bills to increase. Would the cabinet secretary agree that, given the potential increase in spending powers for councils that could come from those powers, it would now be ridiculous for local authorities to refuse to use those powers in order to make political points against this Government? Clare Haughey will know the position of the Scottish Government that it will be up to local authorities to determine their council tax increase, but we want to see it limited at a 3 per cent increase. It will be up for local authorities to determine the increase that is appropriate to them, but I think that it is a very strong and fair settlement to local authorities. I hear the Labour Party complaining to the right of me, and maybe it is. Having heard the Labour Party say for years that the council tax freeze was unsustainable and then we lift the council tax freeze and say that our policy is unsustainable, I wonder what exactly is the position of the Labour Party on the council tax. I suppose that we will find out when Labour authorities make their determinations, but I think that it is a very fair settlement to local authorities, and they will be able to take a balanced approach when they consider council tax going forward. I remind taxpayers that our balanced approach has been more progressive, but the general increase will be a matter for local authorities where our position was to limit it at 3 per cent. The relative decline of the Scottish economy in the past decade and the increasing underperformance compared to the rest of the UK has become the hallmark of this Government. Improving the economy is now the single most important issue that we must address if we are to improve vital public services in this country. The budget has delivered nothing that will promote the economy in Scotland or boost our international trade. Indeed, it cuts the enterprise budget by 22 per cent at a time when Scotland desperately needs to grow the economy and our international trade. Does Mr Mackay not understand the seriousness of the decline in the Scottish economy? Of course, Dean Lockhart from the party that gave us the consequences of Brexit, chaos, total mismanagement, poor handling, spending money on things such as policies and nuclear weapons, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich and absolutely no ideas around productivity or innovation. Dean Lockhart clearly wrote his question before he heard my speech, because in that speech were clear lines and growth areas around Scottish growth scheme, increasing exports, supporting food and drinks, supporting industrial interventions, a clear focus on innovation, trade missions and, crucially, a business-raised reduction for every business in the country in terms of the poundage. That is a very sound package in which to support our economy. I will make another plea to the Conservatives. Do you really think that it helps the Scottish economy to continually talk it down? It is about time that you started talking up. I have hit a raw nerve, Presiding Officer, whilst we promote Scotland and promote our economic message, giving people reasons to live, work and invest in Scotland. The Tories just want to see Scotland do less with what a proposition from the party that is clearly so London dominated and has undermined our economy with its mismanagement of Brexit. Kenneth Gibson to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I warmly welcome the cabinet secretary's statement and note the crocodile tears of the Tories about the amount to be invested in public services. This is the first budget conducted under the fiscal framework agreed by this Government and the Chancellor. Can the cabinet secretary advise Parliament what the impact on this budget would have been if the UK Government's original plans to use a framework to cut Scotland's budget had gone ahead, plans that drew not a peep of opposition from Tory MSPs incapable of putting Scotland's interests first? I think that Kenny Gibson has a point. I think that he has a point. I can hear Ruth Davidson shouting at me. Ruth Davidson, of course, was shouting before lining the sand, no new powers to Scotland, then was prospecting new powers, delivering new powers, doing it more quickly, then when it came to the finances of the fiscal framework, it was compromise. Compromise is what the Conservatives said to Mr Swinney. Mr Swinney did not compromise and secured a better deal for Scotland and Scotland's budget. I can tell the chamber that the published grant adjustment figures, the figures that we have, will show that we are £46 million better off as a result of using our model compared to Westminster's model. That shows that John Swinney was absolutely right in standing up for Scotland in ensuring that we got a better fiscal framework that works for Scotland. Jackie Baill needs to be followed by John Mason. I listened to the cabinet secretary's statement. I even had time to read sections of his draft budget, so if the economy is so important—which I think it is—why has he cut enterprise by 50 million, 22 per cent reduction in that budget line? Why has he cut Highlands and Islands enterprise by 8 million, a 10 per cent reduction in that budget line? Why is the cabinet secretary silent on how he will fund infrastructure projects? Is that because he had to use all his capital borrowing from last year and this year to cover up for John Swinney's £942 million error in the classification of projects such as Dumfries and Galloway hospital and Edinburgh sick kids? Can the cabinet secretary finally tell me what projects will be delayed as a consequence and how much he will need to borrow next year to plug the gap? Let me start off with Jackie Baill's comment on what specifically projects will be delayed none. No projects will be delayed as a consequence of our investment decisions. We have outlined a position on classification. I have set out plans for digital investment, housing investment and transport infrastructure, energy efficiency and other areas. I have covered the points on enterprise budgets. It is clear from our enterprise budgets that I expect efficiencies, but you have to look at support that I expect. I expect efficiencies right across the public sector, but what I am delivering is a good, strong package of support for businesses that I have outlined. The Scottish growth scheme supports using the strength of our balance sheet to support businesses in Scotland, expanding our exports, delivering on innovation and productivity, reaching out on the living wage and a business rates package that is good and competitive and will support Scottish business. Look at the support in the round and you will realise that this is a budget to grow our economy and support business. I very much welcome the extra £120 million that the cabinet secretary is making available for schools. Can he confirm that that will be allocated according to need and, in particular, a city like Glasgow with considerable needs will get its fair share? Yes, I can confirm that every local authority keeps their council tax and the attainment fund will absolutely be distributed on the basis of need, and absolutely Glasgow will be a major beneficiary of the fund. The allocation will be around £1,200 per pupil, which means that Glasgow can expect to receive around £21.5 million of those funds, which I believe will make a significant impact in closing the poverty-related attainment gap in the city. Liz Smith will be followed by Neil Bibby. I am sure that all parties in this chamber will welcome the initial £60 million that is going to the expansion of childcare. However, what is the total cost of the SNP's promise to deliver 1,140 hours of childcare by the end of this Parliament? I am happy to write with the detail to Liz Smith on that. What we are doing is expanding childcare to support families and support our economy. It is right that investing and staffing and infrastructure and how we reach out on that programme supports our childcare commitments, so I am happy to write on the detail of that. However, there is certainly a step in the right direction as our phased implementation of our childcare policy. Neil Bibby. After months of delays and disruption, ScotRail passengers deserve a break. I am pleased to see after pressure from Scottish Labour and passengers that the Government would finally seem to agree. While we await more information from the transport minister tomorrow, could the finance secretary tell us today whether the fare reductions relate to regulated or unregulated fares? Will Abelio be funding any of those fare reductions? In terms of fares, could the minister explain why he did not see fit to tell the chamber today that he plans to cut the concessionary bus fare budget for older and disabled people by £9.5 million? We will consult on the sustainability of concessionary travel, but it is perfectly clear that there is continued support for the concessionary travel scheme. In terms of the rail fares issue, it was Mr Bibby not listening when I said that we would commit £3 million to that package of support and the transport minister would outline the detail tomorrow. However, the big question is having moved from Labour's figure of £2 million support to £3 million support, will the Labour Party vote against the budget or support it to let it happen whilst delivering? The Government wants to deliver the £5 billion package of improvements to rail in Scotland, something that would be totally undermined by Labour's proposition. Kate Forbes, to be followed by Douglas Ross. The draft budget recognises that economic growth has a direct impact on revenue for public spending with the announcement of a major package of support for Scotland's businesses. Can the cabinet secretary indicate how rural businesses will benefit in particular? I should note that I am the PLO to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Fair Work today's draft budget outlines details and interactions on delivering economic growth across Scotland, regardless of location. We will double rural relief from 50 per cent to 100 per cent. We will expand the small business bonus scheme so that it exempts 100,000 properties from business rates and will reduce the rates poundage by 3.7 per cent. We are also committed to delivering 100 per cent superfast broadband coverage by 2020-21 to transform connectivity and improve the productivity of businesses in remote and rural areas, transforming the prospects of those who live there. The Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee is conducting an extensive inquiry into the role of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Witness after witness has said that the service is not sufficiently resourced. On page 148 of the cabinet secretary's document today, he has cut its budget by £4 million. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is a key pillar of our criminal justice system. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is a key pillar of our criminal justice system. Why, then, have the Scottish National Party Government cut its budget in spite of clear evidence from witnesses to this inquiry? The first reflection from Douglas Ross' contribution is that we go again from the Conservatives, cut tax and spend more. In terms of engagement with the justice system in Scotland, I have engaged and I am satisfied that the budget position that I have outlined will continue to support the service and to continue in a sustainable and satisfactory way. I believe that it is a sound settlement for the service. As Labour has been warning, the introduction of the apprenticeship levy presents a real risk for the Scottish Government's skills budget. Will the finance secretary confirm that, despite the new levy on businesses, the skills budget will fall by £10 million in real terms? Indeed, the cut to SDS is on top of a cut to SDI, a cut to Scottish Enterprise, a cut to Highlands and Isles Enterprise. With more than £70 million worth of cuts to enterprise and skills, is this budget not a hammer blow to business support in Scotland? I have said that there is information outlined and there will be more detail tomorrow from the employment minister, but there are clearly new resources for education, support for skills and the workforce development skills fund. There are a range of measures that will support employers and those who are working their way through the education system to ensure that colleges can calibrate their systems to support employment. There are also a range of areas in which we are supporting the economy, supporting education and supporting apprenticeships. Apprenticeships have increased under this Government and will continue to increase as a consequence of our investments. In England, we are seeing reports of a crisis in social care with workers in low wages and chronic underfunding of the system. The cabinet secretary's commitment to see £8 billion invested in health and social care is a welcome sign that there is no complacency in Scotland. Can he confirm that in delivering the living wage for social care workers, this money will also resolve the issue of pay for overnight shifts and how many low-income care workers will benefit directly from this policy? That is a very fair question from Christina McKelvie. I hear the Conservatives laugh at the issue of the living wage in the social care sector. Maybe they should take that issue a bit more seriously. This is a very important matter. I say to Christina McKelvie that I do believe that that new support for social care should support the delivery of the living wage. Specifically, in relation to sleepovers, we should cover that provision as well. However, because there is no clear established figure around that, we will have to monitor and review that position. However, absolutely, the financial package is there to deliver the living wage within the social care sector. It is a key element of the transformation of health and social care that we do, as we help to improve capacity and quality in the system. Of course, we recognise the value of the workers doing some of the most valuable work in Scotland, and I am pleased that they will be able to continue to support them with this well-deserved pay rise. Brian Whittle, to be followed by Neil Findlay. I am disappointed to see in the budget that there is an 8.3 per cent slash and cut in sport over the next two years. I want the cabinet secretary to explain to me how that speaks to a preventable health agenda. You talk about preventable health all the time, but, in reality, what I have seen from this Government is a lack of understanding of how we should approach this. I want health inequality. Is that important to you? Why would you cut the sports budget by so much? I can say that at least the Conservatives are now absolutely consistent in demanding more expenditure in pretty much every area, demanding more expenditure in every area whilst wanting tax cuts for the rich. In relation to sport and healthier lifestyles, we have a great deal of investment in our preventative approach. More support for family nurse partnerships and more interventions around healthier lifestyles. When it comes to sport and sporting events, there is considerable budget to support to ensure that the big sporting events are supported, while also ensuring that, through schools and other areas, sport is supported. Look at the total package that is going to that area, and you will see that the sector is very well supported. Neil Findlay, to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Because of Mr Swinney's NPD mistake, £932 million has gone on balance sheet from off balance sheet, and yet Mr Mackay says that, despite that, there is no less money for investment in infrastructure projects. Can he explain his great money trick? Well, I trust Neil Findlay to reduce it to that level of nonsense. This Government has invested heavily in infrastructure and, through our pipeline of projects, some of which were opposed by the Labour Party. We have built new infrastructure, schools and hospitals and community centres, and we will continue to deliver on capital investment around housing, infrastructure, schools, hospitals and digital and energy efficiency as well. We have set out our capital plans and our spending commitments, and we will do it in a prudent way. We have kept within our financial limits delivered balance budgets. I have got a clean bill of health from the auditors who said that we have got a good record on financial management, so I think that I would rather listen to the auditor general than Neil Findlay any day. Mike Rumbles, to be followed by John Scott. The finance minister said in his statement that the Aberdeen western peripheral route would be completed next year. However, Keith Brown came to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee just yesterday to tell us that the Aberdeen western peripheral route wouldn't be completed until 2018. If he's got this wrong, what else does he think he's got wrong in his statement? I'm surprised that Mike Rumbles doesn't know that I was talking about the financial year in the budget that I've set out. Of course, we're delivering the Aberdeen western peripheral route where the Liberals failed to deliver it after being in office for years, so where the other opposition parties talk about major infrastructure projects, it's only this Government that's actually been delivering them. Finally, John Scott. As far as I can see from the budget document, there is no change to the empty property reliefs on industrial buildings. Is this destructive tax to remain at 90 per cent, which is discouraging investors in new buildings that would help to grow the economy and saying that buildings are destroyed on a daily basis? The message is just to spend more money and everything to the other Tory message when it comes to the economy in Scotland, which is just doomongering from John Scott. No, we haven't changed the position on the empty property rate relief, but we have, to the advantage, changed our position to improve the position on poundage, a tax cut for every business in Scotland in relation to the poundage, more support for small business bonus, refinements to large business supplement and greater reliefs. I think that that package will be welcomed by many businesses in Scotland and the many who will be lifted out of paying business rates as a consequence of our non-domestic rates position. It is the case that, with our package of measures, we will be able to grow Scotland's economy, to deliver more receipts, to invest in public services because this party and this Government has got their balance right. That concludes our budget statement. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and apologies for being unable to give advance notice of that. As you are aware, statements are provided to backbench MSPs when ministers rise in the chamber to deliver their statement. Surely, at that point, key information should not be redacted, and today it was particularly galling for key figures on tax to be withheld when they were actually in the press this morning. Further, the minister said several times that further information would be provided tomorrow from other ministers, but surely such important information ought to be provided to members in the chamber. So can you advise why members were given redacted statements, if that is acceptable, and what way further important information on the budget should be provided to members of Parliament? The provision of statements in advance or during the budget statement itself is a matter of courtesy and for the Government. I am sure that the minister and the cabinet secretary will reflect on the member's remarks. Certainly, any statements in advance are entirely a matter of courtesy, but I am sure that the minister will reflect on their remarks and think on whether to change practice.