 Good morning, we have general questions question 1, Mark McDonald. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the presumption of mainstream education. The Scottish Government's position on the presumption of mainstream education is clearly set out in legislation. The standards in Scotland's schools etc act 2000 places a duty on education authorities to provide education in a mainstream school unless specific exceptions apply. In summary, those exceptions are where education provided in a mainstream school is not suitable for the aptitude and abilities of the child in question, where placing the child in a mainstream school may be seriously disruptive to other pupils at the school, or where placing the child in a mainstream school would incur unreasonable levels of public expenditure. The legislation indicates that it is presumed that the circumstances arise only exceptionally. I thank the minister for his answer. I have received concerns from across Scotland that there are great inconsistencies in how the presumption of mainstream education is being applied. Can the minister confirm that the Government's intention is to review the presumption and can he give some indication of what he hopes that review might achieve? I can certainly confirm to the member that a review of the guidance on the duty to provide mainstream education will certainly take place. The review will aim to refresh the current guidance in light of legislative and policy developments and will be undertaken in partnership with stakeholders. The draft guidance, which is subsequently developed, will be subject to public consultation to ensure that the contributions of a wide range of interested individuals and organisations can be made and heard. Given the member's long-standing interest and knowledge about the subject, I would certainly more than welcome to hear his views about the refresh of the guidance as it develops. Can I ask the Scottish Government what the implications for Scotland are of the Paris agreement for fossil fuel production and consumption? The First Minister and I were privileged to represent Scotland at the UN climate conference last month. Thanks to the efforts of everyone in Scotland, we reported a 38.4 per cent cut in emissions since 1990, which is much more than the 31.7 per cent that was originally envisioned. We now generate half of our electricity demand from renewables, delivered our 500 megawatts target for community renewables five years early, and our 12 per cent target for energy efficiency improvement was already at the required level in 2013. The First Minister pledged a further doubling of our climate justice support for some of the world's poorest people. The Paris agreement, as we hope, provides certainty about the global low-carbon future in the same way that we set certainty for Scotland's low-carbon future in legislation in 2009. The agreement sets a clear international context for our climate change proposals and policies covering the period to 2032. In addition to Scotland's economic and industrial objectives, it will also set the context for our new energy strategy. Patrick Harvie. I am grateful for the answer, although it did not mention fossil fuels, which was the subject of the question. The fifth assessment report from the IPCC was the first to include a carbon budget, an expectation of the amount of fossil fuel that the world can use if we want to have a reasonable chance of that two-degree goal—restraining climate change to two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Given that the Paris agreement sets a more ambitious goal of well below two degrees and aiming at 1.5, is it now inevitable that we have to acknowledge that the world has dramatically more existing reserves of fossil fuels than we can afford to use? A country such as Scotland or the UK is going to have to abandon the strategic objective of maximum extraction. We very much welcome the Paris agreement that it pledges best global efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. That is a tremendous victory for our poor and vulnerable and for climate justice, but advice on the next set of the greenhouse gas annual targets is expected from the Committee on Climate Change in March 2016. It will be based on the latest evidence, including on international policy. The Scottish Government has been clear that Scotland needs a diverse and balanced energy portfolio to provide us with secure and affordable electricity and heat for decades to come. Our ambitious renewable targets, our climate change targets and our policies on electricity generation, renewable heat and energy efficiency are progressively reducing our use of fossil fuels. Scotland, as I said, already generates half of our electricity demand from renewables. I would like to know if the minister agrees with me that the number of rapid 50 kilowatt charging points, electric car charging points in the highlands and high islands should be increased to make the ownership of electric vehicles in the highlands and islands more attractive. I thank the member for his question. Yes, that is why we are working closely with our local authorities and our other partners to deliver rapid charge points across the highlands and islands. 43 of those are already available for public use, with a further 10 to be commissioned in the coming months. Scotland now has one of the most comprehensive networks of rapid charge points in Europe supporting the continued growth of the electric vehicle market. To ask the Scottish Government what socio-economic impact assessments it has carried out of the new marine protected areas and how many jobs will be lost onshore and at sea in those locations as a result of their dissemination. Protecting the habitats and species that exist in our seas is vital if we want to see sustainable futures for the industries that do operate in them, as well as realise the wider benefits for society, for our ecosystems and what they deliver in terms of carbon capture and storage, coastal defences and, of course, conserving fish stocks. We have undertaken detailed impact assessments that are available publicly covering our network of marine protected areas and what those show as long-term benefit for Scotland is very positive. Will the minister listen to concerns from fishing communities who have protected the marine environment for generations? Had they not, there would be nothing left to designate them. They are concerned that the operation of those designations will pose the biggest threat to the fishing industry and indeed to fragile communities for decades. Will he ensure that there is appropriate compensation for workers affected by job losses both at sea and onshore, and will he set up a pace in each affected area to help the workforce that will be displaced? Rhoda Grant speaks of the fishing industry and I would point out to her that there are many sectors within the fishing industry, some of which believe that we are not going far enough with her proposals and some of which believe that we are going too far. In terms of the concerns that have not been expressed, however, I have listened very closely to what has been said, and that is why we have had substantial consultation over many months on those proposals, as indeed has the Parliament's committees. I also announced a three-point plan covering environmental monitoring, including £500,000 worth of support for vessels to participate in that monitoring over three years, as well as monitoring the economic impact and taking other mitigation measures. The minister will be aware that the proposed marine SPAs are even more challenging in posing restrictions on activity as soon as draft areas are selected for consultation. In Orkney, the areas selected are disproportionately large and offer little scope for mitigation by relocating activity and risk sterilising huge areas of strategic economic importance for the local community and the country. Will the cabinet secretary commit to amending the proposals for Orkney waters to address concerns raised by the local council, Orkney Fisheries Association and others? I do not agree with all the language that Lee McArthur has used in his question. I recognise that there are concerns about the forthcoming consultations over the SPAs. However, we have European obligations to fulfil them. I believe that the people of Scotland want to protect our waters and our marine environment. Therefore, we have to strike that balance between protecting the social economic interests of our island communities with fulfilling our obligations to protect our marine environment, and we will listen closely to representations from Orkney and our other island communities. Does the cabinet secretary share my disappointment that the Labour Party with her question appeared disinterested in protecting the marine environment? I agree that, far from costing jobs, marine protected areas will boost them by helping to ensure a sustainable fishery, as well as delivering additional jobs in tourism, angling, marine research, et cetera. As is the case with many issues, we have had rather different messages from different members of the Labour Party. As there are spokespeople, I commend them for that. They have been very supportive of the direction of travel undertaken by the Scottish Government in terms of marine protection, although other members have perhaps taken a slightly different view. However, what is really important is that there is public support for what we are doing in terms of protecting marine environments in Kenny Gibson's constituency and elsewhere in Scotland. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the Clyde Fisherman's Association's concerns about the South Arran Marine Conservation Order 2015-437 for the recovery of the marlbeds that prohibits fishing with gear and certain types of fishing. Does he agree with the Clyde Fisherman's Association that the level of protection is both unnecessary and unwelcome and that the consultation period was too short and inadequate? The result of that order is that the Clyde Fisherman's incomes and livelihoods will be put at risk by that order. I assure John Scott and others that we have undertaken 20 weeks of consultation on those management measures. As I said previously, the Parliamentary Committee undertook around eight weeks of consultation on those measures. It should also point out that many parts of the fishing industry support what we are doing and we wish that we were going further, although we have a lot of support from local communities whose voices also have to be listened to in terms of the future of Scotland's marine environments. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is regarding calls to revisit its position on the principle of universalism in public service provision. We believe that a fair and equal Scotland in our commitment to universal public services, which was reaffirmed in the recent draft budget, is vital to creating the right social and economic conditions for everyone in Scotland to flourish. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Can I take it from that that he, like myself, is proud to be part of a Government that supports opposition to unnecessary means testing of the provisions of public service benefits rather than returning to the previous situation promoted by the Better Together parties? Absolutely, Presiding Officer. Universal services in Scotland are wide-ranging and consequently apply to different groups of people on a range of different bases. It would be extremely difficult to apply any form of means testing on an equitable basis with respect to existing universal services. Those universal benefits have the advantage of being transparent, equitable and non-stigmatising. Take-up is often a matter of an individual's choice rather than relating to the provision of experience of need, reducing unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy. Unlike Johann Lamont, who is the weekend question why people need free higher education, free bus buses, free school meals and free prescriptions, we believe that we do. We all contribute to society and we all benefit. Those are the choices and investment in our society that we make to reduce poverty and support the Government's commitment to a fairer, healthier and prosperous country. Does the cabinet secretary not think that it is time to embrace progressive universalism rather than crude universalism? For example, within the universal provision of health, more resources should be targeted to GP practices in deprived areas. Within the universal service of education, more resources should be targeted at schools and nursery schools, where there are significant numbers of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, as proposed by Kezia Dugdale. We already have progressive universalism, for example, in the health service. There are more than 100 deep-end practices in and around Glasgow in particular, and they get additional resources, for example, resources for link workers and the like. The point about the contribution from Johann Lamont is that it is neither universal nor progressive. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the outcome of its recent meeting with the RMT union. I met with the RMT union on Thursday 7 January, and again this morning, as part of an STUC delegation. I look forward to the continuing, on-going dialogue. The minister is aware that RMT members working on the Caledonian sleeper service are in dispute with the new operator circle. The RMT have identified more than 200 faults with the rolling stock that is being operated by circle. The RMT have also repeatedly expressed concern over the inclusion of an indemnity clause in franchising agreements that it believes undermines industrial relations. Following his comments in the member's business debate on this important issue last night, what action the Scottish Government can take to address those concerns before the arrival of new rolling stock in 2018? Of course, we are all looking forward to the new rolling stock, but there is also a programme of maintenance and improvement, and that has been subject to some interrogation that I am satisfied with. On the point about compensation and indemnification, there has been no approach to the Scottish Government for such a payment, but I am sure that all members will welcome the progress that has been made through ACAS between the RMT and the circle in terms of the current concerns and the on-going issues for dialogue. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason total expenditure and the legal aid fund in 2014-15 fell by 8 per cent compared with the previous years. Minister Paul Wheelhouse, comparison between years is not straightforward as a range of factors influence the demand for and level of legal aid. Anyone eligible who requires legal aid will receive it as it is a demand-led system. We do not ration access to legal aid on the basis of available budget. Indeed, in every year since 2012-13, actual spending on legal aid fund has exceeded the budget set for that year. A slowdown in court business has resulted in a decrease in criminal expenditure, and this is part of a longer-term trend that has seen criminal proceedings reducing the number from £179,500 in 1994 to £122,000 in 2013-14. We plan to work with the Law Society and the Scottish Legal Aid Board to review legal aid provision and to understand factors influencing the need for legal aid and to discuss how best to achieve a simpler and more efficient legal aid system that better manages expenditure while protecting access to justice, something that has not been protected in England and Wales. In addition, through the justice board we are taking the necessary steps to speed up access to justice within sheriff courts and SCTS has confirmed that trial diets are now being made available across courts in line with optimum timescales. The minister will be aware of the concerns raised by members of the Falkirk and District Faculty of Solicitors. Under the new sheriff appeals court arrangement, those judges presiding at hearings, the other court officials, police officers and lawyers for the prosecution will receive 2015 rates of pay, while those in court standing up for the appellant shall only receive 1992 rates of pay. Does the minister agree that this situation is unacceptable? In his response to me dated 4 November 2015, the minister stated that he is committed to reviewing legal aid arrangements to find a sustainable and appropriate free structure. Can he perhaps outline when he expects this review to take place? On the latter point, I have just outlined in my original answer the work that we are doing with the Law Society and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Indeed, I had an internal meeting in the Scottish Government today to discuss how we take that work forward. On the first point about fee rates, it is worth pointing out to the chamber that there have been significant changes to legal aid fees for summary criminal work in the past decade. For example, in 2008, the payment for guilty pleas under up-war was increased from £70 in sheriff court and is currently £485. Statutory provisions and rates across legal aid have been subject to multiple revisions over the years. For example, the broad structure of the current fixed payments regime for summary criminal work was put in place in 1999—not 1992—and has subsequently been amended. Focusing solely on the perceived profitability of individual elements gives an incomplete picture, because total payment for legal aid work is considered in the round. However, I recognise that there are concerns in the sector. I am happy to continue to listen to the member and others who bring forward points. I am happy to engage with Siobhan McMahon as the review is undertaken. To ask the Scottish Government what Barnett consequentials will arise from the £600 million increase in mental health spending announced in the recent spending review and how the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy plans to allocate that. At a spending review, Barnett consequentials are determined on a departmental level as opposed to a programme level. It is therefore not possible to isolate the financial impact of individual spending decisions, although any consequentials from expenditure on mental health in England will be reflected in the Scottish Government's total budget announced in the spending review. Last year, we announced investment of £100 million to improve mental health services over the next five years. The draft budget 2016-17 provides an additional £50 million, resulting in a total package of £150 million. On Tuesday, the First Minister announced that £54.1 million over one-third of that package will be invested over the next four years to provide support to boards to meet waiting-time targets by investing in workforce development, recruitment and retention, and service improvement support. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response, but I think that we must insist that we take the spending in context. The percentage of NHS expenditure related to mental health has been falling in Scotland since 2009. Cabinet services receive about 0.45 per cent proportion of the total NHS budget here in Scotland. That is compared to 0.7 per cent in England. Will the cabinet secretary recognise that children and adolescent mental health services are underfunded and are resourced? Does the cabinet secretary accept that an additional £10 million a year that is re-announced for mental health is not going to deliver the set change that we desperately need? The Government acknowledges the importance of ensuring that we have in place effective mental health services in the country, and particularly that the child and adolescent mental health services must meet the needs and the requirements of individuals in our society. It is for those reasons that the Government has increased the resources that are available to mental health services to make sure that we can fulfil and address the expectations that members of the public correctly have. There is provision for that improvement within the budget that I put to Parliament in December.