 The next item of business is consideration of business motion 10832, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out revisions to the business programme for this week. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request-to-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 10832. Moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question to the chamber, the question is that motion number 10832, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage-three consideration of the Red New Scotland touch powers bill. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request-to-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 10828. Moved. No members has asked to speak against the motion therefore I now put the question to the chamber, the question is that motion number 10828, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, wrth fy defnyddio arall y cwmfeydd, mawr yn corffwyrn yn nifer 108, 208, yn ddiogelwydd yng nghymru, gan gyda i hynny? Rwy'n byw'r gweld, yn fwy yn dweud. Wrth fy defnyddio arall y cwmfeydd, mae yw'r gweld. Fyny'r gweld. Fyny'r gweld. Mae'n cymdeithas scalech Morhoffydd Ambr持knwch mae emergellio ei mirid mulhau deall iawn mewnaddeg iddyn nhw yn trafodaethio iudo-cialeg mae'r munitidd bread- Call婆an i'r sefydliadau, ac mae'r cyfnodau ar gyfan i sydd â ffythanal yn Ff membryd Ffwrdd. Mae Professor Sir Dunl that's been built in a short term in terms of energy. The production has been expected to grow by around 14 per cent by 2018 and, if production and investment trends follow the industry's forecast, Scottish recets could increase to around £7 billion in the coming years. In addition to the taxes that are paid on oil and gas production, a album 1213 – International activity now accounts for over half of total oil and gas supply chains sales I thank the minister for his comments. I'm sure he'll join with me in welcoming that the report also endorses the Scottish Government's plans to set up an energy fund. Given that Westminster has failed consistently to set up an energy fund, does the minister agree with me that the only way to ensure that current and future generations benefit from Scotland's vast natural wealth is with a yes vote next month? Yes, it is encouraging to see that the report that Maureen Watt refers to endorses the Scottish Government's plans to set up an energy fund, something that successive UK Governments have failed to do, to the regret now of some former members of those Governments, at least in the Liberal and Labour parties. Norway is a great example of how, by fostering a stable and predictable fiscal tax regime, it has not only developed a very strong oil and gas sector but also has a master fund, which is now worth £522 billion, owns over 1 per cent of the world's stock market, and I was very interested to learn in conclusion, most recently, the Norway's oil fund investment has been to purchase large sections of Mayfair, including Savile Row. In this report, the N56 report and, as the minister mentioned, Professor Donald Mackay has said, that the OBR forecasts are grossly underestimate the value of Scotland's oil. Does he agree that, given that increasing skepticism over their forecasts, from a range of respected commentators, that their forecasts have lost all credibility? I am not sure that they ever actually possess much credibility, so that means that they cannot really lose it. It is clear that they are out of step with the industry. Donald Mackay is the latest expert commentator who has expressed that view. In fact, he dismissed Danny Alexander's claims about North Sea revenue projections. He says that, if Danny looks at this, he might conclude that there is no hole in the Scottish Government's oil predictions but that there is a mountain of black gold missing from his. Alex Kemp has also estimated that, instead of the 10 billion barrels of oil production anticipated in the next couple of decades, that is likely to be 14 billion. Most ironic of all, if you look at the UK's support and espousal of Sir Ian Wood's analysis, it says that, if the right policies are pursued over the next 20 years, there will be additional £200 billion. On the one hand, the UK endorses Sir Ian Wood's analysis entirely, therefore committing it to that extra revenue, but on the other hand, its own Government forecaster denies that that is going to happen. Can I say to members that I have selected three topical questions for today? Time is really tight all afternoon. I will do my absolute best to allow as many supplementaries to those three questions as I can, but can I urge brief questions and brief answers? Has the minister compared the N56 report with the report from Carbon Tracker initiative also out this week, which finds that capital investment in major projects west of Shetland will depend on an oil price $20 a barrel higher than the price of Brincud is today? If so, how does he square the findings of those two reports? Well, I just recently, yesterday, in fact, met with BP and we had a very interesting and useful discussion about their project in the west of Shetland, Clare Ridge, a project that is going ahead. We believe that the view of Alistair Darling when commenting on the OBR—this is Alistair Darling's quote, Presiding Officer—right from the start, the Tories used the OBR not just as part of the Government but part of the Conservative Party. Now, I would never utter such a partisan comment as that, but it does seem that the predictions that the OBR make, although supported by Lewis MacDonald, are not supported by his party luminaries such as Alistair Darling. The N56 report paints a medium-oil scenario. In its medium-oil scenario, it says that the Scottish deficit would be higher than the UK's deficit in 2016-17 and it would also be higher in 2026-27. Does he agree with N56? Well, we have set out our own projections, which are based on a model middle-range scenario, and are entirely in line. That is really the main point in this argument, which should not really be just about statistics and figures. Our view is based and shared by the industry, the pessimistic view that is constantly espoused by the Conservatives and their colleagues in the Labour Party is born of a desire to persuade Scotland that, instead of oil being the enormous asset and source of wealth for future generations that we know it to be, it is somehow a disadvantage. It does seem to me that, with the announcement of increased reserves in Bentley, which we saw this week—now more than 700 million barrels—that, with the announcement of projects such as Tormor and Lagan going ahead, Cracken, Enquest, Mariner, Statoil, the redevelopment of Magnus, the investment in Shee Halley and the new FPSO, I could go on, Presiding Officer, but I suspect that it would be unparliamentary for me to exceed any further time. The truth is that oil is a source of enormous wealth to Scotland. It will be so for decades to come. It will generate enormous wealth, but, without independence, we cannot ensure that our citizens will advantage therefrom. Thank you, Presiding Officer. He criticises the OBR, but it is not the case that the OBR has always overstated, rather than understated, the oil revenues from the Rossie. Norway has increased tax in order to put money aside in the oil fund. Which taxes will he increase or services will he cut? A very curious line of argument is that the OBR is wrong, but in a different and unacceptable way. I entirely agree with Willie Rennie that the OBR's record of forecasting is dire. It is absolutely dire. It is documented. It is there in black and white. One little clue as to why it is so dire was espoused very clearly by Donald Mackay, who stated quite clearly that one set of the three sets of the OBR's estimates about oil in their very short life was based on an assessment, an estimate of the future oil price, which they based, on looking at the futures market prices for oil for a period of 10 days. Which statistician said that to base a forecast of oil prices for years to come should be based on 10 days figures from the futures market? No wonder the OBR gets it so dreadfully wrong. The minister gave a view of the opportunities for oil and gas reserves of the west coast of Scotland and the north channel, Firth of Clyde in west of Hebrides, and details of the plans announced at the weekend to hold a joint workshop to further investigate the possibilities. I can confirm that the Scottish Government has arranged for a workshop to be held, and that workshop will be held with the input of very senior academic figures, experienced and respected in the oil industry, such as Doric Stowe and many others. Those experts have given forward the information that there have been 3,000 drillings in the north sea in west of Shetland and around 20 off the west coast of Scotland. It is obvious from that, therefore, that only relatively small and modest areas off the west coast of Scotland have actually been subject to drilling. Therefore, it is not surprising that many people feel and many of those people work in the industry and have done for decades that there could be enormous opportunities off the west coast of Scotland. Therefore, it is entirely correct that we pursue that work, as the Scottish Government most certainly will do in a careful and forensic way. However, of course, we already have 24 billion barrels of estimated all reserves. We already know that their value is greater than the value that is already extracted. We already have an industry that is world-leading and world-beating. What we do not have is the Government to pursue the correct policies that Norway has done to the immense benefit of Scotland, but we will get those powers following a yes vote on 18 September. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to help the food and fishing sectors affected by the Russian Government's recent decision to implement an import ban on EU food exports. Last week, I met representatives from the pladic sector to discuss the potential impact of the Russian trade sanctions. The restrictions are likely to have the biggest impact on our pladic industry, given that Russia is the sector's largest market, with around 20 per cent of its global exports going there, worth around £14 million last year. At the meeting that we had, we agreed a five-point action plan to mitigate as far as possible the impact, including targeting alternative market opportunities, growing domestic sales within Scotland and the rest of the UK, increasing domestic demand for seafood, working with the United Kingdom Government to maximise leavers such as export insurance and working with the European Union to maximise leavers such as the banking of quotas. Of course, other parts of the food and drink industry could also be affected. Earlier today, I met representatives from across the sectors to discuss the potential wider impact and how the Scottish Government and our agencies can work with the industry to find solutions to address any impact of the ban. I share the very real concerns of the Scottish pelagic fishermen and processors about the disproportionate impact on their industry of Russian ban. As he rightly says, it is 20 per cent a macro processed in Scotland are exported directly to Russia. Can the cabinet secretary give further details of the extra funding support that the Scottish Government will provide to the sector for additional marketing for both the domestic and export markets? Can he confirm that the Scottish Government is fully supportive of the sensible call from the Scottish pelagic fishermen to bank up to 30 per cent of this year's quota, thus leaving the fish alive in the sea? If he has made any progress on securing the same, since he is vital, that is in place in time for the mackerel season this October. I met the new Secretary of State for Defra on Friday in Peterhead to discuss just these very issues because we estimate that perhaps Scotland accounts for half of the impact of this ban on the whole of the UK. There is a disproportionate impact on Scotland, and, as we have said, there is a disproportionate impact on the mackerel sector in particular. That is indeed why we met Peterhead and the relevant companies. We do support the idea of banking of quotas. Ironically, this year of all years, there is likely to be a 70 per cent increase in Scottish mackerel quota after some hard negotiations a few months ago. We are facing a substantial increase in the quota. At a time, one of the key markets has been closed to Scottish mackerel. Therefore, that is a serious situation. If the fleet is allowed to bank some of the quota from this year to next year, that will help to alleviate some of the pressure. We are making representations to the European Union, and, as I said before, we are seeking the UK Government's support in doing that as well. In terms of marketing, this week there is a trade mission from Scotland to a seafood event in Japan, which is one of the markets that we are keen on targeting, where a premium price is paid for mackerel and other seafood produce. That is why we are targeting those potential new markets for Scotland, which will be of immediate benefit, hopefully, to the mackerel sector in particular. There is a whole range of measures, but, in the interests of time, I will give those two key ones. Whilst the statement from the European Union yesterday about its decision to prop up the prices of fruit and vegetables will help Scottish producers to some extent, does the cabinet secretary agree that, because of the cumulative effect that may flood food markets, further action may be required in order to alleviate the negative effects of this import ban that it inevitably will have on Scotland's farmers, especially if those sanctions are to last longer in the year? Lastly, would the cabinet secretary condemn the recent actions taken by Russia that are causing these problems and many other problems worldwide? While the Scottish Government has said that there is good reason for the sanctions imposed against Russia by the European Union United States, there is no good reason for the tit-for-tat approach from Russia in terms of the food import ban. In terms of the wider impacts in the food sector in Europe, clearly there is a substantial impact in countries such as Germany, Poland, the Baltic States etc. However, there could potentially also be a substantial impact in Scotland's wider food sectors from the displacement effect, because if the Russian markets close to those other countries, the produce could be dumped or available in the European market to pressing prices. That is exactly why I just met the wider food sectors before I come in to answer this question. Indeed, I had to leave the meeting early to answer the question from Jamie McGregor, and we discussed just in the last hour a range of measures to potentially help the rest of the food sectors. He just announced that the European Commission related to fruit and vegetables, which will have limited relevance to Scotland in that context, but we are expecting further measures in the coming days from Europe, and we are saying to the UK Government and directly to Europe that they must be relevant to Scotland's situation. My apologies to the three members who wish to ask the supplementary off this, but I do consider that the cabinet secretary has covered most of your points in his answers. Question 3, Murdo Fraser. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Bank of England in relation to a currency union. The Scottish Government welcomes the clear and consistent position of neutrality in the constitutional debate taken by the Bank of England following agreement in March 2012 from Mervyn King and is set out to the Scottish Parliament by the First Minister in December of that year. A number of technical and factual discussions have taken place with the Bank of England. Following the first meeting between Governor Carney and the First Minister in January of this year, it was agreed that the technical discussions inaugurated by his predecessor, Lord King, between the Scottish Government and the Bank of England in advance of the referendum would continue. Murdo Fraser. Thank you. On Thursday, in an unprecedented move, the Bank of England issued a press statement stating, in response to comments from the finance secretary, the bank has not entered into discussions with representatives of the Scottish Government about proposals for future monetary arrangements in Scotland. What the finance secretary said last Wednesday was this, the Scottish Government has had technical discussions with the Bank of England regarding our proposal for a currency union. Does the finance secretary stand by every word of that statement? What I would say to Mr Fraser, as I have said in my original answer, both in relation to the contribution of Mervyn King in March 2012 and in the discussions between the First Minister and Mark Carney in January of this year, technical discussions between the Bank of England and the Scottish Government were to be taken forward and have been taken forward as agreed between the Scottish Government and the Bank of England. Those technical discussions have taken place, and I can confirm to Parliament that that has been the case. Murdo Fraser. I think that the finance secretary is at risk of losing his reputation as a straight talker. I asked him a very simple question and he gave me an evasive answer, so let me try it again. Does he stand by every word of his statement from last Wednesday? Yes or no? I would like to say to Mr Fraser, if by my choice... Would you please stop heckling the cabinet secretary and let him answer? Order. If by my choice of words last week I have given the impression that the Bank of England has been involved in negotiating a currency union, I can say to Parliament that that was not my intention. I have said to Parliament on countless occasions in an answer to Mr Henry on 26 November 2013 to inform the work of the Fiscal Commission working group that technical and factual discussions took place with the Bank of England. Technical and factual discussions have taken place between the Scottish Government and the Bank of England. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary is aware of the governor's statement given to the SCDI on 28 January. The bank of England, which is a financial technocratic institution, would implement whatever money to arrangements were decided. Does he agree that this neutral position is entirely the right one for the Bank of England to take? I agree with Mr Gibson, and that is exactly what the Bank of England has undertaken as part of the technical discussions that have taken place with the Scottish Government. That is the stance that Governor Carney has made clear on a number of occasions that the Bank of England will implement whatever monetary arrangements are put forward and agreed in the aftermath of the referendum on independence. Thank you, that ends topical questions. The next site of business is a statement by John Swinney on Ferguson's shipyard. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, and there should therefore be no interventions around