 Afternoon everyone, the first item of business today is portfolio questions. In order to get as many people in as possible, I would be grateful for short and succinct question and read answers to match. Question 1 is from wirdon. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the autumn's statement on comprehensive spending review will have on its capital budgets. Thank you, afterward, Gentleman. Thank you, John Swinney. The autumn's statement and announcement confirmed that we face significant further austerity over the coming years, when the Conservative party formed the coalition yn 2010-11, rydyn ni'n gweithio'r bywyd yn 3.239 miliwn. Felly, yn 2019-20, rydyn ni'n gweithio'r bywyd yn 3.187 miliwn. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'r bywyd yn 600 miliwn pwysig yn 2010-11. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'r bywyd yn ymgyrchu'r bywyd yn gweithio'r bywyd yn 100 miliwn pwysig yn 2010-11. Felly, rydyn ni'n gweithio'r bywyd yn ymgyrchu'r bywyd yn ymgyrchu'r bywyd yn ymgyrchu'r bywyd yn ymgyrchu'r bywyd yn ymgyrch bywyd yn ymgyrchu'r bywyd yn ymgyrchu'r bywyd yn ymgyrchu'r bywyd yn ymgyrch yn gyffin tuadau'r bywyd yn yr hyfryd Elis-Fisham ac yn ni'n gyfwynえてilig iaeth bryd o gyfynod yma, sicrhau ei ddechrau ffordd, cychydig iaith, agorwud o'r ffordd, cofnodiol iaith, gyda geithain bwysig. Mae Gwst żebynобol o amlwgaterachiaf o'r ddyddol ffôr bobl Open tofodiadau cyd-fasr oedd yma yn cyfnodau auffsuio cyd-fasr o'r ddiwethaf o'r cyd-fasr o eu ddyddol, roedd yn cyfnodd gwaith i ddweudAAF ac a'r gweithio cyd-fasr o'r ddiwethaf. Rwy'n dod i ddigon o'r ddwygar, ac wrth hwn, i fewn neck i adaeligau cyd-fasr oherwydd rhai cyfnoddol i ddïddiaethu rhoi ei ddyddaradau cyd-fasr oherwydd ychawr o'r capital budget. I will announce that to Parliament next Wednesday. We will also be setting out our thinking in relation to the national infrastructure plan, which, of course, is the means by which we gather together the investment and infrastructure priorities of the Government over a longer period of time to ensure a strong pipeline of investment activity over a number of years. She asked the Scottish Government what impact its budget will have on the economy of the West Scotland region? The Scottish Government will continue to support the West of Scotland through a wide range of programmes in public expenditure. As one example, on 26 November, I informed Parliament that investment through the hub programme in the Inverclyde care home, our Lady and St Patrick's High School and Barhead High School could proceed. Those programmes will make an enormous difference in their communities, not just in the jobs that their construction will bring, but in the health and education benefits that they will bring to local people. The Government will publish its future spending plans on 16 December. According to the O&S since 2009, there has been a reduction of 62,000 public sector jobs in Scotland, many of them in the West Scotland region. There are now estimates that around 30,000 public sector jobs could be lost in Scotland by 2020. Unison Scotland has rightly said that we cannot keep slimy, slicing public sector jobs, or that Scotland have highlighted the very serious impact that it is having. Will Mr Swinney therefore agree to Unison's reasonable request and work with them to set up a task force to look at the future of public sector employment in Scotland and support the public sector workers who face losing their jobs? The first point that I would like to say to Mr Bibby is that I am a very strong believer in the Government that takes the same view that the investment in public services and in the work of public servants is a wise investment for the wellbeing of our country. I very much regret the fact that we have lost public sector employment over the course of the past five years, but I am sure that Mr Bibby will understand and accept the importance that the Government has to live within its means, and we have had to wrestle with the challenges of the austerity agenda from the United Kingdom Government. However, Mr Bibby makes a valuable point, which was certainly made by the trade unions that I met this morning at the biannual meeting of the Scottish Trade Union Congress and trade unions with the First Minister and myself, in which many of the aspirations that Mr Bibby set out there were expressed by the trade unions of a willingness to work to ensure that we create the strongest possible platform for public sector employment and public services within Scotland. That is an approach that I very much welcome. I would of course say to Mr Bibby that the Government has taken an approach since 2008 or perhaps 2009, where we have had a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies within the public sector. I think that that has been an important character of the nature of the relationship that we have had, that we have worked with the public sector workforce to find the most effective way of wrestling with the financial challenges that we face. One of the areas where local authorities are under massive pressure is health and social care, and the growing pressures on social care budgets. Given the relationship with the NHS, the Deputy First Minister has protected the NHS. Does he recognise that social care should be funded as part of that protection? I am certain that there is health and social care in the west of Scotland, if I can help Mr Rowley in that respect, and I will manage his telephone calls in the future as well, if that would be helpful too. Mr Rowley makes a substantive point. When citizens require the support of our public services, we have to make sure that they are supported in the most appropriate circumstances and surroundings, and given the most appropriate type of care. As we know, there are individuals who are cared for in a care setting that is not appropriate to their needs. It may well be an acute hospital in which they do not need to be in, so we have to be very careful to ensure that we focus on the needs of the individual citizens of Scotland to make sure that they are supported and cared for in exactly the right circumstances. Some of those issues, I am sure, will be the subject of this afternoon's debate, which will be interesting to observe. However, the approach and the distinction that Mr Rowley makes, whether it is in the west of Scotland or anywhere else in Scotland, is an important point to me. Yes, it would be helpful if we can stick to the question asked. Please. Question 3, Joan McAlpine. Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government when it is planned to reduce the renewable heat incentive by 40 per cent. I have been engaged in extensive communications with the UK Government over a prolonged period, calling for them to continue the renewable heat incentive and give confidence to households, businesses and the wider heat market. There has been no detailed discussion about the £700 million efficiency in the budget over the period to 2021, which I presume that your 40 per cent refers to, nor about the detail of changes to the RHI, regardless of the fact that I have consistently requested that. What are the knock-on effects of the UK policy change on the Scottish Government investment in energy efficiency schemes such as Home Energy Scotland's renewables loan scheme and other measures aimed at tackling fuel poverty? The announcement that was made by the chancellor cannot aid investment because it lacks what is required. A parliamentary statement should be characterised by clarity. Instead, Mr Osborne's statement, insofar as it relates to the RHI, is characterised by opacity. It is as though instead of devising a parliamentary statement, he was making up a crossword clue whose purpose was to guide people away from the actual answer and meaning. Therefore, we are pressing the UK Government for clarity. However, I am pleased that the RHI scheme and its amendments will not take effect until 2017. In Scotland, more than £45 million has been paid to accredited installations since the introduction of the RHI in November 2011. Can I thank the minister for that answer? That is very useful. In that opportunity between now and 2017, what new schemes can we see being brought forward because there is general agreement that renewable heat is the missing link in terms of our energy and heat, in terms of green energy, but also in terms of green jobs and apprenticeships? I think that Sarah Boyack raised a very good point. Just yesterday, I had the privilege of opening in the Borders College campus in Gallishield, a brand-new waste-to-energy scheme that provides heat in an excellent scheme where costs are clear and guaranteed. We also have a low-carbon infrastructure transition scheme with an investment of £76 million, or thereby. We also have further investments. In regard to the question—can I give some specific examples? We are seeking to incentivise geothermal solutions, one potentially in Aberdeen serving the proposed new conference centre, and we are also looking at water-sourced heat pumps. While seeking to bring forward all those schemes, we do not have the legal competence and responsibility for energy, and therefore the limited budgets that we have, we seek to use the best effect for demonstrator projects. Nonetheless, we are taking forward schemes that I hope would receive the approval of Ms Boyack and across the chamber. To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to support the Aberdeen City Region deal bid since it received the statement of intent. Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council submitted the statement of intent to both the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments on 4 September. Since then, Scottish Government officials have been working closely with both councils and the UK Government, providing support as the councils develop their proposals. The Scottish Government City's team has met regularly with representatives from both councils, and officials from a number of policy areas including housing, innovation, digital connectivity and Transport Scotland have provided on-going support and been involved in detailed discussions around proposals. The Scottish Government continues to work closely with both councils as proposals evolve. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The chancellor referenced the negotiations on the city region deal in his autumn statement and spending review, which was welcome. Then he went on to make a decision regarding CCS funding, which effectively sabotaged one of the northeast key projects. Given the economic importance of the northeast to Scotland's economy, will the finance secretary back the CRD, the city region deal, in his budget statement next week? Unlike the UK Government decision, will he make sure that the budget decisions that he takes complements and supports the various strands of the city region deal rather than undermining them? I agree with the point that Alison McInnes has made about the importance of taking complementary decisions. I am absolutely with her about the disappointment about the Peterhead decision. It is a very regrettable decision on a technology that I think could have created a global opportunity for Scotland, but it has undoubtedly been interrupted by the arbitrary decision that was made in the spending review. As I have indicated to Alison McInnes, the Government is very supportive and sympathetic towards the Aberdeen city deal. We are working constructively with the two councils to take that forward. I welcome the steps that Serene Wood has taken to give leadership to the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire business community in recent days. City deals are a joint venture with the United Kingdom Government, so we will work collaboratively with the UK Government to try to advance those proposals to ensure that Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire continue to make a strong contribution to the Scottish economy. I welcome the cabinet secretary's words. Can he confirm when he anticipates the Scottish Government together with the UK Government making a decision on the city deal proposals? I cannot give Mr McDonald a definitive decision, as I have just indicated to Alison McInnes. Those are joint matters to be pursued with the United Kingdom Government, and I think that it is better if we take those issues forward in a spirit of partnership and collaboration, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. However, we will make sure that progress is timely and that any announcement is made as quickly as possible. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the reduction in its resource budget from 2016 to 2020, announcing the autumn statement in spending review will have on public sector jobs and services. The chancellor's continued programme of austerity of choice, not necessity, will see Scotland's fiscal resource del budget, the budget responsible for day-to-day spending in Scotland, decreasing real-terms by almost 6 per cent over the course of the next spending review period. The Scottish Government will continue to strive to minimise the impact of the austerity agenda on jobs, investment and services in Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary agree that continued year-on-year cuts to Scotland's funding imposed as a result of UK austerity ultimately can only result in a serious decline in both the quality of public services, the breadth of those services and the loss of many important services that do not have a statutory underpinning? There are clearly very significant challenges that arise as a consequence of the continued restraint on public expenditure, and this affects the ability to invest and to take forward the public services for which we are responsible. However, one of the objectives that the Scottish Government has always taken forward in this climate of austerity has been to try to protect jobs, investment and services in Scotland. That might involve us delivering services in a different fashion to the way in which we have delivered them in the past, but that might be necessary to ensure that members of the public, the people for whom we are elected to serve, are not in any way damaged in their access to public services as a consequence. The environment in which we operate is a very constrained fiscal environment. It requires us to be prepared to embrace reform in our public services, but throughout that journey, the Scottish Government will be determined to protect jobs, investment and services in Scotland. The Deputy First Minister will be aware that local government's share of the budget has dropped from 29 per cent in 2011-12 to 25 per cent in 2014-15. With departmental spending for health and, as I understand it, the police protected, what level does he envisage local government's share to be for this coming year? I am not at all sure the basis of the numbers that Jackie Baillie has cited to Parliament today, but I will look carefully at the points that she has made. Local government has been very effectively protected by the Scottish Government during a period of significant restraint. I agree with the Government with the decisions that we have taken about investing in the health service. If they agree with those decisions, they will find that once the increases in expenditure have been delivered to the health service, local government's share of the remaining budget has increased as a consequence. I am not quite sure what point Jackie Baillie is trying to make if she agrees with the Government on health expenditure. I think that the point that she is possibly making is that she wants me to spend the same money twice. That is, of course, the familiar approach of the Labour Party, but it is not a way to balance the books. I can only spend the money the once. What the Scottish Government has done over time has been to deliver a strong and sustainable settlement for local authorities within Scotland. John Perlin, briefly. Cabinet Secretary, earlier today you said that you value public sector workers and their jobs will be protected. Will the Scottish Government budget recognising common seat councils, who under SNP have suffered real-term cuts that were double those imposed by the UK and Scotland, as shown recently by a spice briefing? I do not think that I have got much to add to the answer that I gave to Jackie Baillie, because obviously the Labour Party's condition must be endemic across its benches about wishing to spend the same money twice. However, what the Scottish Government has done is—I am sure that Mr Pentland must agree with me, even if Jackie Baillie does not agree with me—that the Government was right to invest in the health service. I had thought that the Labour Party was supportive of health investment, but, if it is not, that is a revelation. However, assuming that the supporters on that point, local government's share of the remaining budget has increased under this Government. That represents the strong and emphatic commitment that the Scottish Government has given to local authorities spending in Scotland. Question 6, in the name of Jenny Marra, has not been lodged and a less than satisfactory explanation has been provided. Question 7, Neil Findlay. To ask the Scottish Government whether it is non-profit distributing programmes regarded by the Office for National Statistics as a public sector programme. I explained in my statement to Parliament on 26 November 2015 that a rapid reversal of the Office for National Statistics' public classification of the Aberdeen Western peripheral route project under the revised Eurostat rules will not be possible. I have, however, asked the Scottish Futures Trust to continue to review options for the potential amendment of the AWPR project and other NPD projects. That follows the Office for National Statistics welcome decision on the revised hub model and confirmation that the project that is being delivered by the model will be classified to the private sector. There will be no impact on the cost or the delivery of the Aberdeen Western peripheral route project, or indeed other NPD projects currently in consideration. Thanks, Neil Findlay. The finance secretary and his party have regularly claimed that NPD and hub projects are different from PFI and PPP. Meanwhile, the ONS has said that these are private sector projects, an announcement that was warmly welcomed by the cabinet secretary. Given that and one of the other issues with the non-profit distributing model is that it distributes profit, is it not time that the cabinet secretary apologised for misleading parliament and the electorate because NPD is just PFI with a more cuddly name? Well, there's nothing cuddly about Mr Findlay or his questions. I'm mightily confused by Mr Findlay's question. I have always maintained and have put forward information to the Office for National Statistics, and I've been completely open with Parliament about that, with the objective of securing a private sector classification for the NPD projects and for the hub programme. For the simple reason that that delivers the ability to deliver additionality in the economy, and by creating additionality in our capital programme, that creates jobs and investment. In a recent spice briefing, it indicated the scale and impact of the Government's capital programme on the creation of jobs and the growth in the economy within Scotland. Of course, the big difference between NPD and PFI is the concept of profit capping. Profit capping was brought in by the Government to make sure that the rampant profits of PFI profiteers that were presided over by the Labour Party were brought to an end. The fact that the ONS has now decided that those projects are to be classified to the public sector, I think rather refutes the point and the accusation that Mr Findlay was levelling at me. Dr Richard Simpson? I don't think I can thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but I suppose I must out of courtesy, because I agree with my colleague Dr Findlay about the NPD. Question, Dr Simpson, moving specially on. Sorry, it's an anticipated reflection of his intellect. I'm quite concerned about the 20 per cent charity element as to how he's going to construct that. Will he give us an early indication of how that 20 per cent charitable input is going to be dealt with? It has to be in the private sector, so it can't be Government. Will the Government appoint the people on it? Can we get some more detail, or at least an indication of when he might give us some more detail? I think that we were verging there on hearing about Dr Findlay's casebook. Dr Simpson raises a question, but I'm at it as well. Heaven for friend, if Mr Findlay ever has to attend to me in a doctor's capacity, that will be. I'd put my faith in Dr Simpson before Mr Findlay on that point. If I can move on to answer the question, Dr Simpson raises a substantive issue. For the charitable organisation to satisfy the test that is required of it under the ONS decision, it must operate out with the scope and the intervention and direction of Government. It has to operate in that fashion, and it has to satisfy the requirements of the Office of the Charter Regulator in Scotland, and that process is under way to secure that classification. I'm very happy to provide Parliament with an update on the governance arrangements and the regulatory arrangements. However, I hope that those two key principles that it must act utterly independently of Government—which I suspect probably means that appointment of members would not be able to be undertaken by Government, but we'll have to work through the details of all that. To satisfy the Office of the Charter Regulator, I will address some of its points, but I will, of course, put more details on the public record when those are to hand. Many thanks. Question 8, in the name of Animal Gold, has not been lodged, apparently, a satisfactory explanation has been provided. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Chancellor's Scottish Government, with recent discussions, it's hard with the UK Government on the progress of the Scotland Bill. The Scottish Government has frequent contact with the UK Government on the progress of the Scotland Bill. Most recently, I met the chief secretary to the Treasury on Monday to continue detailed discussions on the substantive elements of the fiscal framework. I thank the cabinet secretary for the answer, and I do know or understand that negotiations are still on-going. However, does he share my concerns that many people are still unclear on what the impact will be on Scotland's finances? Can he confirm whether this Parliament will have adequate time to scrutinise the proposals before the next Scottish Parliament elections? The Smith commission required the two Governments to agree a fiscal framework, and those discussions are on-going. We have now had five meetings between myself and the chief secretary to the Treasury to try to agree the details of the fiscal framework. Those discussions are on-going, and I expect there to be further sessions set up to agree the details of the framework. I give the assurance to Sandra White that Parliament will have adequate opportunity to scrutinise the fiscal framework once it has been developed in intergovernment and negotiation, which is what was required of us by the Smith commission. The Parliament, if it is to be in a position to agree a legislative consent motion on the Scotland Bill, will have to have that in front of Parliament by 12 February. The Government has made clear that we will only propose a motion for legislative consent if we have an acceptable fiscal framework available to put to Parliament. Essentially, that task has to be completed by 12 February, which provides Parliament with opportunity to scrutinise the details of the fiscal framework before any legislative consent motion is considered. We agree that the fiscal framework is central and that the indexation of the block grant adjustment for income tax is pretty central to that. Does he acknowledge that the majority, now it seems, of academic expects are saying that the best and most risk-free option for Scotland is indexing for changes in the tax base per head? I tend to agree with that. I agree very much with the point that Mr Chisholm has made. Sandra White made a comment about the fact that there is not much detail about the fiscal framework available. There cannot be detail about the fiscal framework available until it is agreed, but I think that there have been a number of substantial contributions to the debate, from the Scottish Trade Union Congress, from Professor Anton Muscatelli, from Professor David Bell and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which I think provide very good, dispassionate commentary on the issues that are at stake here on what I would consider to be the crucial issue, which is the block grant adjustment for income tax. Mr Chisholm asked me if I agreed with him that index deduction per capita was the best way to proceed with that, and I am very happy to confirm to the Parliament that I do. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the recent spending review will have on public sector finances in Scotland. As outlined previously, the Chancellor's spending plans for the period 2016-17 to 2019-20 mean that the Scottish Government's total discretionary budget will, by 2019-20, be around 12.5 per cent, or 3.9 billion, lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11. I wonder if the First Minister can confirm that the Scottish Futures Trust has delivered massive improvements in value for money compared to Labour's discredited PFI. Can he confirm that, in line with figures published this morning, the number of pupils in poor or bad conditioned schools is continuing to fall under this SNP Government? I can confirm that point. It was very welcome the improvement in the school estate that was recorded in the statistics published this morning. I think that there was a very welcome endorsement of the investment programme that the Government has taken forward. Although I have been the finance minister, we have faced the accusation that not a brick would be laid in the school building programme, and that was the accusation that the Labour Party put to us. Of course, the school estate is now significantly improved as a consequence. I am having it shouted at me that that was in the last parliamentary session. I, Dr Simpson, have a long memory. I remember all the things that were fused up by the Labour Party, and we have ensured that the school estate of Scotland is significantly improved by the well-coordinated programme of the Scottish Futures Trust, which has delivered real value for money for the taxpayer in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy has had with Dumfries and Galloway Council regarding its budget for 2016-17. I have not met Dumfries and Galloway Council specifically to discuss its budget for 2016-17, but I have had a series of meetings with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to negotiate the overall level of the 2016-17 local government for unsettlement, which I will announce alongside the 2016-17 Scottish draft budget next Wednesday, the 16th of December. Dumfries and Galloway Council had prepared a three-year budget that planned for cuts of £12.5 million in 2016-17. The council has now been advised to expect cuts of between 4 and 5 per cent, which would equate to £20 million to £25 million worth of cuts. What services does the cabinet secretary suggest that Dumfries and Galloway Council stops providing? I would recommend that we all address the financial realities of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. That is the best thing that I think I can suggest that we all do, because what the Government will set out is the set of decisions that we have taken in relation to the utilisation of public resources. We will take those decisions consistent with the values of the Government and the commitments that I have made to Parliament in the course of my answers this afternoon. Do that in a fashion that is designed to protect public services and to ensure that we deliver sustainable public services in our localities. I reiterate one of the points that I made in an earlier answer that that might involve change and redesign in services, but that is something that we have to contemplate as a society. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding the introduction of fiscal measures to promote oil and gas exploration. We recognise that exploration in RC is at historically low levels and much more needs to be done to support this activity. We have long called for substantial reform in the oil and gas fiscal regime and successfully argued for the introduction of an investment allowance and a reduction in the headline tax rate. However, we are disappointed at the lack of support for exploration and continue to make the case for the need for further fiscal reform. The Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, outlined the concerns to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a letter ahead of the autumn statement, asking him to outline his commitment to further support for the sector, as well as a firm timetable for policy reforms. Next week, on 16 and 17 December, I will be attending in London a meeting of the industry MERUK forum to discuss the outlook for the sector, which will touch upon issues relating to exploration. A time when we should be encouraging exploration to support the oil and gas industry, the UK Government has sat on their hands. Will the minister do everything possible to ensure that the Chancellor gets a grip, follows Norway's example and provides exploration incentives to secure jobs in Aberdeen, the north-east and beyond? I think that Kevin Stewart makes a good point, and all in gas UK have estimated that substantial exploration potential remains in the North Sea. His estimate is that between 2,000 and 6,000 million barrels of oil have yet to be discovered. He refers to Norway. Of course, it was their tax breaks for exploration that, in part, led to the discovery of the Johann Sferdrup field, described by some as the crowning achievement of Norway's successful rejuvenation of exploration in more mature areas. That holds 2.35 billion barrels of oil reserves and is forecast, Presiding Officer, to produce more oil than the whole UK sector by 2025, a discovery as a result of the Norwegian progressive exploration policies. Last week, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee took evidence from the oil and gas industry, and we were told by them that, contrary to the view of Mr Stewart, thanks to the actions of the UK Government, now fiscal measures are a long way down a list of their concerns. There is, however, a greater concern about the on-going disinvestment campaigns relating to fossil fuels that we have seen on university campuses and elsewhere. Would the minister agree with me that such campaigns are unhelpful, that they are wrong-headed and that they risk undermining the future and that what is still a very important industry to Scotland is supporting tens of thousands of jobs? To address the first part of his remarks, I am extremely well aware that the industry's primary focus at the moment is to achieve cost reduction without prejudicing health and safety and to achieve greater efficiency. No one is more aware of that than me, and I shall be discussing this at a number of meetings in Aberdeen on Monday with senior industry figures and working with them as we always do. Secondly, I think that at any kind of political point scoring at this time, when so many people's jobs and families' livelihoods are at stake, it is really not very clever and not very helpful. This Government supports the people in the oil and gas industry in Scotland. I think that most of us do. The Green Party don't, but they're not here this afternoon, so we won't hear from them. I think that we could do without the sort of gesture politics that the member refers to. Question 13, in the name of Liam McArthur, has not been lodged, although an explanation has been provided. Question 14, Colin Beattie. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact will be on its finances of not devolving the Crown Estate share in Fort Cynaird retail park. The Fort Cynaird retail park provides a current revenue to the Crown Estate of around £4 million a year. That sum, which, under the terms of the Smith agreement, should be available to the Scottish Government to spend, will instead be available to the UK Government. In addition, the Crown Estate share of the capital value of Fort Cynaird retail park, which was £103 million in 2014-15, will also be under the control of the UK Government. By comparison, the total capital value of the entire Crown Estate portfolio of all other assets in Scotland was £261.5 million in 2014-15. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. Fort Cynaird is highly valued by my constituents as a shopping and entertainment centre. Can the cabinet secretary comment on how he sees the local community benefiting if Fort Cynaird is not devolved alongside the rest of the Crown Estate? I think that Mr Beattie highlights an important local issue. I am certainly concerned that there will be no direct financial benefit to the community from Fort Cynaird if it continues to be excluded from the transfer, which I believe undermines the principle of the devolution of the management and revenue of Crown Estate economic assets in Scotland, which was a clear recommendation of the Smith commission. To ask the Scottish Government what representations the cabinet secretary for finance, constitution and economy has received from the Minister for Children and Young People regarding kinship care funding. I regularly speak to all my colleagues about matters that affect the well-being of the people of Scotland, particularly our most vulnerable children. We are investing £10.1 million per annum to enable local authorities to pay eligible kinship carers the same allowances as they pay to foster carers to support the children in their care. That is tackling inequality and poverty head-on for some of the most vulnerable children and families that live in Scotland. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and I wouldn't disagree with the policy intent. However, did the minister for children and young people draw to his attention the fact that Glasgow City Council, which has 32 per cent of all kinship carers living in the area, will only receive 15 per cent of the funding allocation made to councils? Did she point out to him that the underfunding of kinship care by the Scottish Government will put pressure on other important services in the city? The cabinet secretary suggested to my colleague Dr Murray that cuts to local government budgets were as a result of decisions elsewhere, but the underfunding of kinship care in Glasgow is caused by a Scottish Government decision. Will the cabinet secretary think again? First of all, I acknowledge the seriousness of the issue and the concerns that Patricia Ferguson has on the matter, but the allocations that the local authority teaches were calculated using an established formula agreed with the convention of Scottish local authorities when all 32 Scottish local authorities were still members. That has not been a Scottish Government decision alone. I have made it very clear to Parliament over the years that the funding formula that is agreed with local government is that. It is agreed with local government and it drives some of the decisions that have to be taken. I hear the representations that Patricia Ferguson is making, but it is a product of a funding formula that has been agreed to by local government in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government how many businesses today benefit from the small business bonus. The latest official statistics show that an estimated 99,500 business properties benefit from paying zero or reduced business rates as a result of the Scottish Government's small business bonus scheme saving businesses across Scotland an estimated £174 million in 2015-16. I thank the minister for that answer and I welcome news that so many businesses in Scotland are indeed benefiting from this Government's small business bonus. What further action could be taken to support Scotland's thriving small businesses? I think that one very clear way in which all of us across this chamber can help small businesses is to pledge that the Scottish Government's assurance that the small business bonus will be maintained not just for the lifetime of this Parliament, which is nearly over, but to maintain it for the duration of the next Parliament if we are re-elected, if we have the privilege of doing that. If all parties could unite in confirming that the small business bonus will be a fixture, if you like, free of party politics and will continue to 2021 and take it from the realms of partisan party politics, that more than anything else will provide assurance and long-term stability that small businesses in Scotland require. The minister will be aware that a federation of small businesses said at the peak of the recession one in six small businesses were went bust without the small business bonus scheme. What would have been the impact on the Scottish economy if that had happened, as Labour recommended when they voted against the small business bonus scheme? Brief answer, too, please minister. The impact would have been disastrous. Many thanks for that brevity. When we will now move to the next item of business, that concludes question time, portfolio questions, and the next item of business is at a beat. Mr Kelly, point of order. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I rise to make a point of order in relation to the statement from Derek Mackay Transport Minister on the fourth road bridge yesterday. In response to a question from Alec Johnson about cancellation of planned maintenance works, Mr Mackay stated that work that would have been covered by the cancelled maintenance contract was not where the fault on the bridge occurred. However, in a good morning BBC Good Morning Scotland interview this morning, Mr Mackay said that work that was planned under the maintenance contract cancelled in 2010 would have covered the area where the fault occurred on the bridge. Clearly, those statements are contradictory. That is a serious matter. It would appear that Mr Mackay has misled Parliament. I therefore ask, Deputy Presiding Officer, that Mr Mackay return to Parliament before closing business this evening to correct the record and give an open and transparent explanation as to the impact of planned maintenance works on the fourth road bridge. I thank Mr Kelly for his point of order. Clearly, Mr Mackay's statements are a matter for Mr Mackay and only for him. Therefore, as Mr Kelly will also know, this is not a point of order. However, you have nonetheless made your point. We will now move to the next item of business.