 The next item of business is a statement by the cabinet secretary Derek Mackay on the Scottish Government's draft spending and tax plans for 2019-2020. The cabinet secretary for finance will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I urge members who wish to ask a question to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible. The Scottish budget prepares our economy for the opportunities of the future, enables the transformation of our essential public services and builds a more inclusive and just society. It does so in the context of continuing UK austerity and against a backdrop of a UK Government careering towards Brexit at any cost. In sharp contrast to the chaos and uncertainty of the UK Government, the Scottish Government will keep on delivering good governance for Scotland. Just this week, we have had confirmation of 80,000 affordable houses built since 2007, record low unemployment, the numbers of teachers and teaching students increasing school attainment improving and the new best start grant starting to provide help for low-income parents. For the benefit of the Tories in the chamber, that is strong Government. Some might even say strong and stable Government doing its job delivering for the people. This budget builds on that strong base. It provides an economic stimulus and supports the sustainability of our public services. This is a budget that safeguards the people of Scotland as best we can from the risks that we face using all the powers and resources at our disposal. We all know that, despite their promises, the UK Government has not ended austerity. The UK budget in October 2018 failed to provide much-needed direction and leadership for a longer-term finances and wider economy. On spending, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed in October that the UK Government could spend £15.4 billion more and still meet its fiscal rules in 2020-21. There can be no doubt that the Prime Minister did not keep her promise to end austerity. Instead, we have austerity delivered by choice, not necessity. Austerity is condemned by the United Nations. The price that Scotland is paying as part of the UK is economic and social vandalism. The facts are these. Those resource block grant will be almost £2 billion lower in real terms in 2019-20 than it was in 2010-11, a fall of 7 per cent. If this year's budget consequentials for investment in the NHS are excluded, which is reasonable, given our commitments to pass all those consequentials on to health, our 2019-20 resource block grant is £340 million less in real terms than it was in 2018-19. That puts a huge strain on public spending, which this budget works hard to manage. It is not just austerity that puts pressure on our budget, economic consensus warns us of the damage of Brexit. The UK Government admitted two weeks ago in a watershed moment that it does not matter what kind of Brexit it will secure, any kind of Brexit will make us poorer. The Scottish Government's position is clear. The best option for the future wellbeing and prosperity of Scotland is to remain in the EU. If Scotland is forced out of the EU as a result of the actions of the UK Government, it is vital that it ensures no detriment to the Scottish budget. The UK Government's decision to take us out of the EU single market and customs union, a market of more than 500 million people, is reckless and unnecessary, and our growth forecasts are subdued as a consequence. Today, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has published its latest set of independent economic and fiscal forecasts for Scotland. The commission has revised up its forecasts of GDP growth in every year. It now forecasts GDP in Scotland to grow 1.4 per cent in 2018, which is faster than the growth that is expected in the UK as a whole. It then expects the Scottish economy to grow 1.2 per cent in 2019, 1 per cent in 2020 and 2021, 1.1 per cent in 2022 and 1.2 per cent in 2023. However, the commission highlights that Brexit is a key factor that is expected to lead to slower growth in productivity, population and trade in future years. That means less money for public services and it risks making Scotland a less attractive place for businesses. As a responsible Government, we are preparing as far as possible for all exit possibilities and we are intensifying preparations in order to protect the Scottish economy, our businesses and our workers. We have set up new teams in the Scottish Government to support preparations, including an international trade and investment policy team. We have doubled the Scottish development international presence in Europe and we are investing £20 million over the next three years to enhance and intensify support to businesses that are looking to export. Significant resources have had to be diverted, not just in the Scottish Government, but across the public sector to prepare for the impact of Brexit. I know that deal Brexit and continued chaos from the UK Government will only make matters worse, so it is disappointing but necessary for me to advise Parliament that, if the UK does end up in a no-deal Brexit, I may be required to revisit the priorities in this budget. However, stepping back from the brink and remaining in the EU would mean that resources could be returned to supporting front-line priorities. That is just one of the many reasons that this Government believes that we should remain in the EU. Unlike the UK Government, we have chosen to use the levers at our disposal to boost our economy and support our public services. We will continue in 2019-20 to deliver a public sector pay policy that lifts the 1 per cent cap on public sector pay. I can confirm today that I have agreed a public sector pay policy for 2019-20, which provides a 3 per cent pay rise for all earning £36,500 or less, higher than forecast inflation. It caps the pay bill at 2 per cent for all those between £36,500 and £80,000. It continues to contain pay rises at the higher end, capping any increase for those earning over £80,000 to £1,600. That is a reasonable and affordable public sector pay approach, and it continues on a journey of restoration of public sector pay. However, I must disappoint my colleagues and say that ministerial pay will once again be frozen at 2009 levels. Our commitment to public sector workers is part of our commitment to high-quality public services. This Government has made clear that our priority is closing the attainment gap and improving education. We are determined to improve the life chances of children and young people in Scotland and change the lives of our future generations for the better. That is our defining mission, and that is why I can announce today that the education portfolio will receive a real-terms increase in investment in 2019-20. We will also provide almost £500 million to expand early learning and childcare, supporting the recruitment and training of staff and investment in the building, refurbishment and extension of around 750 nurseries and family centres. We will invest more than £180 million to raise attainment in schools and close the attainment gap, including £120 million that will go direct to head teachers through the transformational pupil equity fund. We will invest more than £600 million in Scotland's colleges and maintain investment at more than £1 million in Scotland's universities. To ensure that young people have a range of avenues open to them, we will invest more than £214 million in apprenticeships and skills to support the on-going expansion of apprenticeships in Scotland as we progress towards 30,000 starts per year. That Government will continue our work to tackle poverty and mitigate the worst impacts of the United Kingdom Government's welfare cuts. We are already using the newly devolved social security powers to create a social security system based on dignity and respect. Recent reports on the UK, the UN rapporteur on poverty and human rights condemned the British Government's punitive, mean-spirited and often callous treatment of the country's poorest and most vulnerable. I welcome the rapporteur's references to the very different approach being taken by the Scottish Government, noting the establishment of a social security system, guided by evidence and the principles of dignity, fairness and respect, recognising that we are mitigating the worst of UK Government welfare cuts and describing our plans for tackling child poverty as ambitious. That Government will continue to work to tackle poverty, support new families and ensure that every child has the best possible start in life. It will also continue to mitigate the worst impacts of the UK Government's welfare cuts. The delivery of the new social security system and the safe and secure transition of the new powers will continue to be a key priority for this Government. In 2019-20, we will deliver fair and dignified social security assistance over and above what the UK Government provides, with a total forecast expenditure of £435 million. That will include forecast spend of £37 million for carers allowing supplement providing vital support for our carers, £12.4 million for the new best start grants to assist low-income families with essential expenses on the birth of a child and at key transitions in the early years. That will support families with young children who are feeling the impact of the UK Government welfare cuts and £6.2 million for our new funeral expense assistance, helping those on lower incomes with funeral costs. We will also provide nearly £100 million to continue our mitigation of the bedroom tax and the UK Government welfare cuts and will increase the budget for our fair food fund from £1.5 million in 2018-19 to £3.5 million in 2019-20, with £2 million specifically to tackle food insecurity during school holidays. Safeguarding Scotland will continue the protection of the police resource budget in real terms, providing over £5 million of additional resources to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to support their transformation and to increase the funding to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service by £5 million to recruit additional legal staff to manage increased caseloads. The Scottish economy is the powerhouse that fuels ambition for Scotland and we are determined to unlock its potential. I want to see a country that is globally competitive with innovation, sustainability and fairness at its heart. That is why this year I launched our new economic action plan, with a number of decisive measures to improve the competitiveness of our business environment. We will support an advanced manufacturing challenge fund of up to £18 million to ensure that all parts of Scotland benefit from developments in advanced manufacturing. We will invest £5 million as part of our three-year 20 million plan to boost exports and work with partners to enhance the digital skills that businesses require, including a new £1 million digital start fund to support people on lower incomes. We will also invest around £2.4 billion in our enterprise and skills bodies and develop the work of the enterprise and skills review and strategic board. In addition, the Scottish Government has committed around £1.3 billion to support Scotland's seven cities and their regions to maximise economic opportunity. In 2019-20, we will secure fully agreed city region deals for Stirling and Clackmannanshire and for the Tay cities region, will progress growth deals for the Ayrshaws, Borderlands and Murray, progress discussions for Argyll and Bute, Falkirk and the Islands and continue our financial commitment for the city region deals in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness and Edinburgh. Those investments will benefit all of Scotland, creating thousands of jobs and upskilling local labour markets, building on the economic strengths and opportunities for each region. We have a clear commitment to fair work and employability, and as part of that, we will invest £5 million over three years to support around 2,000 women to return to work following a career break, with support parents to address barriers to work and providing in-work support to help low-income parents to remain in work. We will develop our fair work first principle for public procurement so that as much of our funding as possible supports a fair and inclusive economy. Investment in people is crucial. Creating meaningful employment is the best social policy. We also know that greater investment in infrastructure improves quality of life, boosts productivity and makes our country a more attractive place to do business. That is why this Government will increase capital investment by £1.56 billion per year by the end of the next parliamentary session. That budget begins that journey and sets out capital investment of more than £5 billion over the coming year, including £1.7 billion investment in our transport infrastructure, more than £180 million towards city region and growth deals and £175 million investment in nursery and childcare buildings. Of course, it is vital that the right investments are made to generate inclusive growth and deliver on our low-carbon objectives. We must act on climate change. Our investments in broadband, transport and utilities will provide a foundation for companies to invest and bring new economic opportunities across Scotland. As part of that vision, I will continue with our groundbreaking work to establish a Scottish national investment bank. That budget will provide £130 million of funding to establish the bank and precursor investments. The next £50 million of the £150 million building Scotland fund, announced last year, will provide debt and equity support to the private sector and organisations such as housing associations and universities to support the development of housing across all tenures, develop modern industrial and commercial space and support industry-led research and development. In 2019-20, we will invest a record £826 million as part of our total investment of more than £3 billion to deliver 50,000 affordable homes over the course of the Parliament across the length and breadth of Scotland, building for Scotland and building new homes too. As well as building more homes, we are continuing to protect those buying their first home and progressing through the property market with our progressive land and buildings transaction tax, but for those purchasing additional properties, I am proposing to increase the additional dwelling supplement from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. Legislation will be laid before Parliament tomorrow and if approved, the rate change will come into force on 25 January 2019. I have listened carefully to the business community. It seeks investment in skills, people, innovation and infrastructure, and this budget delivers such investment. We are committed to providing the best possible environment for businesses supported by a competitive non-domestic rates regime. Last year, I limited the increase in business rates to CPI inflation, and this year I will go further. I am announcing today that we will cap the increases in the rates poundage in 2019-20 in Scotland at below inflation level of £49, limiting the increase to 2.1 per cent. That will ensure that more than 90 per cent of properties in Scotland and all small and medium-sized businesses will pay a lower poundage than they would in other parts of the United Kingdom. I can also confirm that I will continue to upgrade the poundage in line with CPI for the remainder of this Parliament. Our package of business rates reliefs, including the small business bonus, is the most generous anywhere in the United Kingdom, worth an estimated £750 million in 2019-20, and continuing the growth accelerator will give us a further competitive advantage. I am also proposing changes to non-residential land and buildings transaction tax, which will mean that Scotland has the most competitive rates in the UK. Under those proposals, two thirds of all non-residential transactions will pay less tax in future than at present. Again, I will lay legislation on this change before Parliament tomorrow, and if approved, the rate change will come into force on 25 January 2019. Those measures will help our businesses to grow, prosper and be successful. We are proceeding with the Barclay review recommendations to reform non-domestic rates. Businesses have asked me to rule out the introduction of a out-of-town levy, a recommendation from the Barclay review. While the Barclay review recommended that we explore that possibility as a means of supporting our town centres, in light of proposed UK taxes, I do not believe that it would be right or fair to introduce such a tax at this time. We will, of course, keep that under review. However, I share the view that our town centres require support in a changing retail environment, so I can announce today that they will establish a new £50 million capital fund to support our town centres to diversify and develop, ensuring that our town centres are thriving, sustainable places where people choose to spend their time. Last year, we took the decision to introduce a new progressive fair and balanced income tax system that raises additional revenue from those who can most afford it and protect public spending. That helps us to make Scotland the kind of country that we want it to be, funds our public services, supports our economic infrastructure and supports those most in need. Our income tax proposals will continue to follow the four key tests that the Scottish Government introduced last year, protecting the lowest-paid taxpayers, improving progressivity, raising additional revenue for public services and protecting the Scottish economy. I have decided this year that I will not increase any of the rates of income tax, tax rates will remain the same. As a result, 99 per cent of all taxpayers will see no increase in the tax that they pay. However, in 2019-20, I will increase the starter and basic rate bands by inflation to protect our lowest and middle-learning taxpayers. The higher-rate threshold will be frozen. That will ensure that 55 per cent of Scottish taxpayers continue to pay less than they would if they lived elsewhere in the UK. Scotland will continue to be the lowest-tax part of the UK. For example, pensioner earning £15,000 with access to free personal care, free bus travel and cheaper council tax will be better off by around £9,700 in 2019-20 relative to the rest of the UK. Someone earning £62,149, the same as an MSP, will pay just over £30 a week more in income tax in Scotland than they would elsewhere in the UK. However, that is before you consider any of the benefits of Scotland's social entitlements, such as state-funded university tuition, which we will continue to protect. At a time of constrained growth, prolonged austerity and growing economic uncertainty, all as a result of a failing UK Government, now is not the time to cut tax for the highest earners at the expense of our public services. Instead, I will be using the additional resources raised through my tax decisions in this budget to support our public services and ensure that our health service gets all of the additional money that they were promised. The UK Government failed to deliver in full on the resources that they promised our health services, leaving us £55 million short. My decisions will ensure that we can restore that amount, and I believe that this is the right decision for Scotland. Our tax policy supports our public services and investment in our economy. While Scotland continues to be the fairest tax part of the UK, our economy has grown faster than the rest of the UK in the first six months of this year, and there is no evidence whatsoever in the Scottish Fiscal Commission's report that our income tax policy in Scotland is slowing growth. However, I want my decisions to be based always on the best evidence, so I will be asking our Council of Economic Advisers to expand their analysis of the impact of the potential behavioural effects and the possible impact on future revenues. Providing the necessary investment for health in a fair and balanced way, this is equipping our front-line services to take forward the measures set out in the health and social care financial framework and waiting times improvement plan. We recognise that our NHS and wider health and social care system must continue to adapt to the changing needs of our population. In 2019-20 we will continue our improvement of those vital services. I can announce today that I am increasing the health portfolio resource budget by almost £730 million. That is an increase of almost £500 million in real terms. This decision confirms that health is a top priority for the Government and will take spending levels to £754 million over and above inflation since 2016-17, the equivalent of 19,000 nurses. We will also deliver a further shift in the balance of spend towards mental health and primary community and social care. As part of that, we are increasing our package of investment and social care integration to more than £700 million in 2019-20. We will increase our direct investment in mental health services by £27 million, taking the overall funding for mental health to £1.1 billion in 2019-20, and that includes our work to improve mental health services support in schools. The decisions that I have taken in this year's budget will also allow me to increase funding for local government in 2019-20, providing total support of £11.1 billion, and let me be clear that that provides a real-terms increase in both revenue and capital funding and an overall real-terms increase in the local government settlement of more than £210 million. The budget safeguards Scotland uses all the powers, resources and tools available to do so. If Opposition parties choose to argue for additional spending in any area over and above what I have set out in this budget, then to have any credibility, they need to indicate where the money should come from. Should it come from a rise in the basic rate of income tax and hit those on lower incomes? Should it come from a cut to public services? And if so, which public services would be cut? The NHS, education or local government? Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government cannot completely protect Scotland from the recklessness of the UK Government, but the decisions that we have taken in this budget ensures that we protect what matters most. We choose to transform our early learning and childcare, protect funding for education and improve attainment, invest record sums in our health services, provide a real-terms increase in total funding for local government, expand free personal care and deliver a fair and just new social security system that will support those most in need. We are doing all this whilst the UK Government implods on the journey of economic self-harm. That is why the people of Scotland have entrusted us to focus on the delivery of our public services and the economy. That budget delivers for the Scotland of today and invests for the Scotland of tomorrow, and I commend it to the chamber. Thank you very much. I encourage members who have yet to do so to press their request to speak buttons if they wish to ask a question. I call on Murdoff Fraser to open. I thank the cabinet secretary for the advanced sight of his statement, heavily redacted, as it may have been. It is a source of regret for us all that today's big statement has been overshadowed by events at Westminster. I refer to the £950 million increase in the Scottish block grant that was announced by the chancellor in his budget in October. An increase that means that, according to Spice, the finance secretary's total budget has not been cut by the Conservatives, but it is up in real terms, nearly £1 billion since 2010. In advance of today's budget, every business representative group in Scotland had one key ask from the finance secretary. They asked that the tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom would not increase, because they were concerned about the impact a growing tax gap would have on their ability to recruit talented people to Scotland, a concern that has been echoed by those in the public sector. Yet the finance secretary has today chosen to ignore all of those calls with the announcement today that the threshold for paying higher-rate tax will be frozen. That means that, from April, those earning in Scotland between £43,430 and £50,000 will face a marginal tax rate of 53 per cent on every extra pound that they earn. It means that police sergeant earning £45,942 a year will pay over £700 in tax more than his counterpart south of the border. A senior nurse manager earning £49,000 will pay £1,350 more than south of the border, and a principal teacher earning £51,330 will pay more than £1,500 more than those south of the border. That is the price of living in the SNP Scotland. Anyone earning just over £26,000 will be paying more than their equivalent south of the border. No one will seriously argue surely that a household with an income of £26,000 is rich, and yet those are the people being punished in the SNP Scotland. There was no need to do this, because the finance secretary had more money in his budget. £950 million more in Barnett consequentials. There was no requirement for the tax rises that we have seen today. We will scrutinise carefully the spending pledges in the budget today. We welcome the additional money for the NHS, made possible by spending choices made at Westminster and the UK Conservative Government's commitment to health spending. In relation to local government, we will look at the figures in detail, but the headline sum that is announced today falls short by £1 billion, compared with what COSLA says that it needed just to stand still. While people are paying more in taxes, they will face poorer local services. That is a pay-more-get-less budget. There does not have to be this way. There is a different route that the finance secretary can choose. We are happy to sit down and have a serious discussion with him about his budget. If he commits to reducing, not increasing, the tax gap with the rest of the UK, and if he commits to dropping the SNP's ruinous plans for a second independence referendum, will he join with us and develop a budget to help the people of Scotland and not punish them? That was an offer that I would like to refuse from Murdo Fraser on the budget. It is true to say that our budget from 1819 to 1920, excluding the health uplift that I will just return to, means a £340 million real-terms reduction for all other public services in Scotland. That is the outcome of the chancellor's budget. However, through our tax position, we are restoring the short-changing, undertaken by the Conservatives, taking £50 million away from the health service, and our tax decisions restore that amount, taking NHS funding to record levels. Of course, the chancellor's budget does nothing to undo the £2 billion real-terms reduction since 2010 that has had such a damaging impact on our public services. Murdo Fraser has been discussing with Ruth Davidson the position on tax, because it was Ruth Davidson who said that we should forgo tax cuts to invest in the health service, and in her absence the Tories have changed their minds. I will not take any lectures from the Conservatives on the performance of the economy. The Scottish economy is outperforming the UK economy. Higher GDP growth, lower unemployment and more exports coming from Scotland internationally. Of course, if I were to follow the Tory tax plans, we would have to cut Scotland's public services just on income tax, just to follow the Tory position on income tax by £0.5 billion. That does not mean £1 billion more for local government, but that means £0.5 billion less for our public services. That would be the consequences if I followed Murdo Fraser. We are investing in innovation, internationalisation and the infrastructure of our country while the Tories deliver economic self-harm. In terms of what businesses are asking for right now, they are asking for us to invest in skills, infrastructure and a competitive tax regime, and that is exactly what we are going to do, having the lowest tax for small and medium-sized businesses in Scotland—the lowest tax part of the UK—and the fairest tax part of the UK. However, the business community is speaking out today, and that is what they are saying. That is the chambers of commerce. The utter dismay amongst businesses that are watching events in Westminster cannot be exaggerated, or the federation of small businesses. The chaos makes planning ahead impossible. Small firms are crying out for some certainty. I will take no lectures from the Conservatives on the economy of our country. We are aspirational. When I hear about the tax divergence, we are building the country that we seek. If I were to follow the Tory planned cuts on public expenditure, you would talk about the divergence in the pay packet between Scotland and England. Many of those people would not have a job under the Conservatives because of the cuts that they would have us deliver. That is a fair and progressive budget for the people of Scotland, and I am sure that it will deliver stability and stimulus for our country. Public services are at breaking point. Headteachers are writing to parents about unprecedented cuts. One in four children in Scotland are living in poverty, and our real system is in chaos. That is yet another woeful SNP budget that will let the people of Scotland down. Yet again, ministers refuse to use their powers and to continue to force cuts on councils. Scotland has been let down by Nicola Sturgeon's timid Government and Derek Mackay's timid budget. Scotland needs a radical budget that supports public services, tackles rising poverty and fixes the mayhem in our rail system. If you want to see how badly the SNP is failing the people of Scotland, you just have to look at how local councils are struggling. There are now nearly 3,000 fewer teachers in our schools, and nearly a third of children fail to reach the required level of literacy by the end of primary school. Few things sum up the cruelty of the Tory Government more than the two-child cap on tax credits and universal credit, which punishes people for raising a family. The SNP has refused to use its powers to put an end to the vile policy. With 230,000 children in Scotland living in poverty, the cabinet secretary should have back calls to increase child benefit by £5 a week. It would lift 30,000 children out of poverty and put money in the pockets of families across Scotland. Why, with more than 4,000 families in Scotland affected by the two-child cap, has the cabinet secretary sat on his hands refusing to use the powers of this Parliament to cancel that vindictive policy? If education really is the SNP's top priority, why has the SNP Government continued to penalise local councils with £95 million in swinging cuts? And why, at a time when one in four children in Scotland are living in poverty, has the cabinet secretary retained more than £300 million in reserves? I have to say to the Labour Party that, although we have been safeguarding Scotland, the Labour Party has been selling Scotland out, leaving their powers with the Conservatives and Westminster. How about we try this? How about we try and resolve the problem at Torst? How about we remove the Tory's pernicious policies by removing the Tories and taking those decisions on our own Parliament with the powers so to do? I was waiting very eagerly for the Labour Party's alternative budget, but there has been a leak that there will not be an alternative budget from the Labour Party. According to the times, there will be no alternative budget. What I have said— Let's hear the cabinet secretary, please. What I have said in previous years— Order. One second, please. One second, please. Can we just ask members please to keep quiet for a second and let's hear the questions without members bellowing out? I am particularly referring to Mr Swinney and Mr Kelly, who do not bellow at each other across the chamber when a question has been asked and the cabinet secretary is replying. I am going to try and help the Labour Party out a wee bit. This Government and this budget is proposing to increase NHS spending in real terms, substantially, massively. Education increased in real terms and local government increased in real terms. Welfare and social security powers over and above, spending over and above what the United Kingdom Government has given to us. We are taking an approach that is based on dignity and respect, but if the Labour Party wants an alternative, it has a duty to set out what an alternative budget would look like. I can see what the Labour Party has said. This is a source from the Labour Party in the times. We could justify our spending decisions with how we would raise the money in previous years. Now we have nothing. It's a shambles, says the Labour source. Yes, it is. It is a shambles from the Labour Party, and the same source said in relation to their budget plans, a lack of them. At least when we had a plan, ridiculous as it was, we had a plan. That's the clarion call from the Labour Party. Where's the industrial strategy today? We're investing in the infrastructure. Of our society. Order, please. You see the Labour Party. I'm going to ask two things. Cabinet Secretary, I wonder if you can move your microphone slightly closer. Can I ask Labour members in particular to please keep the noise down? We cannot hear a word that has been said. I'm sitting a matter of feet away from the minister. I cannot hear what he's saying. Please keep the noise down, Cabinet Secretary. You see that the Labour Party has no alternative to our budget because they are no alternative whatsoever in this chamber. So could it be tax? Will he propose an alternative? Tax plan? Beat this in mind. In Westminster, the shadow chancellor has said that he will not reverse the Tory's tax plans in the budget. That's the position of the Labour Party and the House of Commons. But what about here in Scotland? What's the alternative revenue-raising option? In Scotland, a Labour spokesperson confirmed that an alternative income tax plan would not be set out this year to show how the alternative policies would be paid for. There we have it. A totally incompetent Labour Party opposition. No alternative to our plans, which would increase investment in our country by some £2 billion. That's what the Labour Party would be voting against if it opposed this very positive and progressive budget. Thank you. It's clear that, after two budgets in a row where the Scottish Government proposed deep cuts to local government to see those reversed under green pressure, the Scottish Government no longer feels able to turn the screw on local councils and the services that they provide across the country. I'm pleased that that pressure has been brought to bear, but it's equally clear that, in the face of rising demand for those services, councils urgently need the power to raise the funds themselves to meet that rising demand and to do it fairly. Why was there no mention in the budget statement of the need for reform of local taxation? It's not a word from the cabinet secretary on that agenda. Toward the end of the local government section in the budget document, there is a paragraph buried away confirming that the Scottish Government continues to commit to the policy that the council tax itself must end, but no word at all on the timescale, no word at all on the actions that the Scottish Government will take to implement that policy. Can the cabinet secretary now say what will the Government be doing, what will he be doing in the coming weeks, months and years to give real effect to the urgent need for local tax reform to put our local services right across Scotland on a stronger footing, less reliant on a single block grant every year from the Scottish Government? I'm pleased that Patrick Harvie is no doubt the first to welcome the package of support for local government, which amounts to £11.1 billion. That represents a real-terms increase of more than £210 million in the overall settlement. In relation to engagement on the council tax, since I've been finance secretary, the Parliament has looked at the council tax that provided a critique of it, but there has been no majority in the chamber for an alternative. The pledge that I've made repeatedly in the chamber is that I will work with anyone who is interested in what local taxation should look like going forward, but it should be fair and progressive, and I'm happy to do it in an open, constructive and engaging way. I think that it's important to find that consensus so that we can give stability to local government finance as well as designing the future system that we all wish to see that's fair and progressive. I remain open to that dialogue, I remain open to those discussions, and that can be on a cross-party basis. Willie Rennie The finance secretary has rightly focused on the chaos and uncertainty of the UK Government over Brexit. It's bad for the economy and public services at a time when the Fraser of Allander Institute just this week highlighted the low productivity levels in Scotland. That's exactly why I have asked for a cessation in this Government's campaign for independence, because that would bring even more chaos on top of the Brexit chaos, just when we need stability to focus on the big challenges that this country faces. Our priorities for this budget are investment in mental health services, a decent pay deal for teachers and a fair deal for local government. Why won't he agree to put aside independence for now so that we can work together on these important matters? Willie Rennie I didn't mention independence in my budget speech. I mentioned how we're getting on with the day job, delivering our services, growing our economy, stimulating our economy, delivering a more progressive tax system. I wasn't focused on independence. I do happen to support Scottish independence. That shouldn't be a surprise to Willie Rennie and the Liberal Democrats, but so obsessed is Willie Rennie with independence that he could be willing to vote down the kind of resources that he's been asking for for years on mental health, on education, on the NHS, on a local government settlement, on colleges. Even ferries that the Liberal Democrats are willing to vote down the resources that we are offering up in this budget, with growth of around £2 billion. That is reckless, not the approach that the Scottish Government is taking. Bruce Crawford I thank the cabinet secretary for getting on with the day job, delivering for Scotland with a budget that's fair, balanced and sustainable. In stark contrast, we see Westminster consumed with constitutional mayhem and the Tory party busy tearing itself apart. The cabinet secretary has set out an income tax policy that will raise an additional income. Can I ask him how much it would cost Scotland's public services if we were to replicate the Tory's UK plans here in Scotland? Would the cabinet secretary agree with me that this Tory recipe would be an absolute disaster for our vital public services? The Tory's causing chaos and crisis at Westminster is planning to do the same with Scotland's public services. I agree with Bruce Crawford's sentiment, but the figure that he seeks is that if we were to follow the Tory tax plans just on income tax, it would cost us around £500 million from investment in our public services. If I were to follow more widely than that, it would be a cut of around £650 million. We would have to take out of public services to fund their tax cuts. That's interesting. When every other Tory in this chamber stands up with funding requests and demands over this and that, it's true to say that they want tax cuts at the same time as spending more. It just is not a credible position from the Conservatives. If they want to change the budget, let them identify what public services they would cut to follow their tax plans. Dean Lockhart will be followed by Angela Constance. The SNP has made Scotland the highest tax part of the UK, not only for workers earning above 26,000, but also the highest tax part of the UK for businesses looking to expand. The Barclay review made that clear. The doubling of the large business supplement under the SNP has made Scotland less competitive for business compared to the rest of the UK. With almost £1 billion of additional funding coming from the UK Government, why hasn't the cabinet secretary used this budget today to cut the large business supplement and make Scotland's economy more competitive? Clearly, Dean Lockhart wasn't listening when I pointed out that 90 per cent of properties in Scotland will pay a lower poundage than other parts of the UK. Every small and medium-sized business in Scotland will pay less tax by being in Scotland than they would if they were south of the border. As well as that on income tax, we are fairer, more progressive, investing more for our public services and protecting the economy. We are, in fact, the lowest tax part of the UK, but even more importantly, the fairest tax part of the UK. Given the on-going uncertainty and chaos in Westminster, can the cabinet secretary tell us what the consequences will be for Scotland's public services and our economy if this Parliament does not support this budget in the new year? The total budget that is proposed for approval in 2019-20 will provide £42.5 billion of investment in Scotland—almost £2 billion more than in 2018-19. The main elements of that are £660 million extra capital, the £730 million extra health resource and £340 million more for social security, compared with last year's draft budget. That is what is at risk if this budget is not passed. There is no mention of an industrial strategy in the budget. It simply reheats initiatives that have not worked. There are no new ideas to boost our economy. The cabinet secretary takes the opportunity yet again to announce his intention to set up a Scottish investment bank with funding of £130 million, which is some distance short of the £20 billion that we would invest in. However, despite announcing that initiative, we do not know when it will happen and when the funding will be in place to benefit our businesses. Can he tell us when the Scottish investment bank will be open for business? I do not think that I caught all of the question, Presiding Officer, because of the laughter at some of Labour's economic and industrial position. Labour has asked for an industrial strategy before. I do not think that we need an industrial strategy. We need and are delivering industrial actions. Industrial actions is what this Government is delivering. More investment, more interventions where it is right and proper and supporting the industry of Scotland, yet again we see from the Labour Party it is just empty rhetoric and words. It is totally meaningless coming from the Labour Party. In terms of the investments that we are making, clearly it is making a difference. We have direct investment, second only to London and the south-east of England. We have rising exports and GDP, as I say, outperforming the rest of the United Kingdom. We have unemployment at a record low level and lower than the rest of the United Kingdom. Our economic efforts include investment on infrastructure of some £50 billion. I was almost going to do a Labour thing there and I will just make up a total number, but I absolutely will not. I will not do that. The actual investment in infrastructure under this Government is £5 billion. That is real money, real cash and real investment in the infrastructure of our country. It will have a more competitive rates regime that leads to more jobs and economic growth and stimulus. We are developing the National Manufacturing Institute of Scotland. We are building the Scottish National Investment Bank. There is finance forthcoming, a pre-cursor investment. The legislation will be working its way through Parliament next year. It will be operational if the Parliament approves that legislation. Even before waiting for the bank to be established, we are investing now through the building Scotland fund to support our economy. Across those range of measures, we will be stimulating the economy, leading to more purposeful and meaningful jobs, while delivering inclusive growth and fair work at the same time. I agree with the cabinet secretary that this is a progressive budget from a strong and stable Scottish Government that stands in stark contrast to the chaos and confusion of the UK Government. However, given that the Tories, self-indulgent, self-obsessed, self-centred civil war, now risks the UK crashing out of the European Union without a deal, can the cabinet secretary set out just what the level of risk there is to these Scottish budget spending plans in the event that this shambolic UK Government leads us to a catastrophic no-deal Brexit? I agree with Tom Arthur. I thought he put it very well as well. There is a serious point here that this budget, just as the chancellor's own budget, was based on the assumption of a deal, a deal with the European Union and orderly Brexit. That was the basis on which the chancellor made his budget and, therefore, the numbers that underpin this Scottish budget. In the event that there is a change, yes, we may have to return to Parliament with a revised budget, but, of course, we have been trying for some time to get the UK in a better position in terms of the Brexit negotiations, recognising that no Brexit would be the best possible outcome. However, if no deal can be agreed and there is a further UK budget, we will need to understand the implications for Scotland's public finances before revisiting our budget assumptions and presenting revised proposals to the Scottish Parliament. Last year's draft budget estimated that Scottish income tax revenues would be £12.582 billion in 2019-20. Today's draft budget estimates that revenues will be £11.684 billion in 2019-20—a massive drop. Why? Maurice Golden is maybe not as fortunate enough as other Conservative members to be on the finance committee to understand that those forecasts are based on FSC numbers, the Scottish fiscal commission is looking again at the baseline. The more evidence they get, the more they move away from the estimates that they have been working to and focus on the actual outturn or the latest data. I am sure that, if the member wants to pay close attention to the FSC's forecast, he will find that much of that is around the forecasting issues rather than any substantial change in the Scottish economy. That said, Brexit is the major challenge to Scotland's economy, the impact that Brexit will have on population, on productivity and issues that are impacting on our economy. That is what is leading to the subdued GDP growth, such as wage earnings, so on and so forth. If we did have all the economic levers that would come along with being fully empowered as a country, we would be able to make the right economic decisions that could grow a country. However, the FSC has made it very clear about the issues around our methodology and the forecast that it has set out. Ruth Maguire, be full by Ian Gray. Scotland has made huge progress in tackling homelessness, but there is still a lot more to do. I know that, like me, the cabinet secretary will not be prepared to see progress being undone. Therefore, can I ask the cabinet secretary to outline what funding there is in the Scottish budget to tackle homelessness in Scotland? Clearly, local authorities have a function here, and it is partly funded through the local government settlement. The settlement has been increased by £23.5 million in recognition of local authorities' responsibilities for temporary accommodation. They can choose how to use that funding to best respond to the needs of their local area. This year, the budget also contains a further £10 million from the £50 million ending homelessness together fund to be spent on implementing the transformational recommendations from the homelessness and rough sleeping action group. In real terms, the budget cuts funding for colleges and universities, and it leaves councils unable to restore school budgets that are currently £400 million less than they were in 2010. Did the finance secretary not get the memo about education being his Government's top priority, or did he just choose to ignore it again? Iain Gray should reflect on the fact that there is a real-terms increase for education. We will be supporting local government with a real-terms increase as well. We are investing in skills and the attainment gap. We are making great efforts to support education. If the Labour party wishes to spend even more than we are proposing on education, it should set out how it would raise those necessary revenues rather than hide away without any serious alternative plan but only spending requests. Stuart McMillan will be followed by Miles Briggs. Thank you very much. The finance secretary spoke of the expansion of free personal care during his statement. Can the cabinet secretary confirm the amount of resource that has been made available to implement Frank's law and expand free personal care to under 65? In 2019-20, we are investing an additional £30 million in the local government settlement to implement Frank's law and to extend free personal care to under 65 as set out in the programme for government. Miles Briggs is to be followed by Jenny Gilruth. Can I start by thanking the finance secretary for listening to me and others and committing to the £30 million for Frank's law? Amanda Capel, the wife of Frank, is here today in the public gallery and has joined us. I would like to start by paying tribute to her campaign to deliver this. Can the finance secretary in wider health context confirm to the chamber today whether or not the underfunding of health boards and the NREC funding formula will today see no health board in his budget receive parity or above? The front-line health budget is increased. The budget to health boards is also increased. It is fair to say to Miles Briggs that I have heard the campaigning that Miles Briggs and others have engaged with around Frank's law and I, too, pay tribute to the family. I am delighted that we are able to progress that. Of course, it is incumbent on those who have campaigned for many issues to support the budget so that it can actually happen now that I have provided the resources and will provide the necessary bill to take that forward in terms of the budget bill. I look forward to the support, maybe even of just some of the Conservatives who are going to allow us to invest in this area, but it is a record investment in national health service and more going to health boards as well. Jenny Gilruth, to be followed by Monica Lennon. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that, as in previous years, the money that he made available to schools through the pupil equity fund is to fund additional initiatives chosen by schools to close the attainment gap, and that is on top of the existing funding for core educational responsibilities that councils receive through the local government settlement? Yes, the pupil equity funding is £120 million in additional funding that is allocated directly to schools to invest in targeted interventions to close the poverty-related attainment gap. That is in addition to the more than £5 billion core funding that local government authorities expect to spend to deliver core educational responsibilities. Monica Lennon, to be followed by John Mason. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary said that health is a priority for this government. If it had been a priority all along for SNP ministers, perhaps he would not have seen life expectancy in Scotland fall for the first time in 30 years, health inequalities widen. Audit Scotland warned that the future of our energies is not financially sustainable. NHS staff overworked and stressed a crisis in our underfunded social care services. Cabinet secretary, we need a transformative budget for health and social care that will end the deprivation gap and give everyone the same chance to live long and healthy lives. Can the cabinet secretary explain how the budget tackles Scotland's shocking health inequalities rather than simply attempting to keep health boards afloat? A rough guess would lead me to suggest that an investment of over £700 million might help in that regard that we are proposing in the budget. I have to say that to the Labour Party. I do not know if Monica Lennon is aware of that. Not only are we delivering more than the Labour Party committee to deliver in their manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016 and have opposed every single increase that I have put forward for the national health service since I have been a finance secretary. I think that we could do with a bit more support to invest in our national health service rather than the empty rhetoric coming from members such as Monica Lennon. John Mason, to be followed by Liz Smith. The cabinet secretary knows that many of us do not like council tax and would like to see it replaced. However, so far, there has not been any alternative that has got widespread agreement. Local income tax might be fairer but takes no account of property and land valuation tax is not widely understood and has some anomalies. Would the cabinet secretary agree that, if we are going to replace council tax, we really want widespread cross-party agreement on it so that it can be a longer lasting and permanent settlement for local government? John Mason is always the voice of reason. I agree with John Mason that we should try and work together and find the consensus to find a majority in this Parliament on what local taxation could look like. I am open to that. I have said so repeatedly when the Parliament previously debated the council tax and local taxation. My offer is for all parties to discuss together to see what alternatives we can find. There are various work streams under way at the moment, such as the Land Commission. I think that we can draw upon evidence that exists, but I commit to being open, balanced and fair in how we take that forward. However, a key element for this Government is that we want to be progressive in our tax system—whatever tax system that may be. Liz Smith is to be filled by Emma Harper. Thank you. With reference to the investment in infrastructure section that is set out on page 40 of the budget paper, will the cabinet secretary confirm how much money will be available from the Scottish Government for the essential cross-tey link road? I refer to the transport and infrastructure secretary who takes forward the work around infrastructure in both the city deals, but I am happy to get back to the member. Emma Harper is to be filled by Mark McDonald. The budget outlines a significant investment in Scotland's health and care services, which will go towards reducing health inequalities for my South Scotland constituents. Can I therefore ask the cabinet secretary how the increase in the Scottish health budget compares with the uplift in England? By passing on the resource consequentials and by reinstating the UK Government's health funding reduction of £55 million, the uplift for the health budget in Scotland amounts to 5.5 per cent, and that compares to 5.1 per cent for the health budget in England. Yesterday, I spent some time volunteering with the giving tree run by instant neighbour, a charity in my constituency. Thousands of children across the north-east will this year have to rely upon the kindness of strangers to enjoy a merry Christmas as a result of the poverty that they and their families are experiencing. Can the cabinet secretary outline how his budget will help to support families in my constituency, whose poverty is often masked by the wider prosperity of the city of Aberdeen? I have outlined in the budget support through our new social security system, and we will be spending more than was allocated to us by the UK Government, whether that is food and whether that is other payments such as the best start grant. We are also supporting housing investment and other welfare measures. It is important to recognise that a range of partners have a role in supporting people in times of hardship. That is why I have tried to protect public services and make a different choice from the Conservatives, which of course is tax cuts. The package of measures that we are undertaking will help to mitigate in as far as we can, but it would be better if we had all the powers in terms of economy and welfare in Scotland. I can reflect on that damning report from the United Nations about the pernicious welfare reforms of the Conservatives and the impact that it is having. It should be a cause to reflect on where power lies and how we reuse the resources that we have, but there are a range of measures to support families in need throughout the year and as a consequence of the budget. Kenneth Gibson, to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. I warmly welcome the announcement that our new £50 million capital fund to diversify and develop our town centres, helping them to thrive. Can the finance secretary advise the chamber on how communities or local authorities will be able to access those funds? I am glad that Kenneth Gibson has welcomed the £50 million capital fund for town centres, and I will deliver the fund in partnership with local authorities, and I will engage with them over the period ahead as to how that would be designed. However, I want it to be a stimulus for our town centres so that we can unlock the potential of our town centres, support the economy and help them to diversify and adapt, which is what we know is required at this time. Rachel Hamilton, to be followed by Shona Robison. Thank you. I draw members to my register of interests. This SNP minority Government will need allies to get the budget through allies of the green variety. Patrick Harvie wants local tax reform. He wants a tourism tax. A tourist tax that UK hospitality has pointed out will be detrimental to Scottish tourism businesses, detrimental to those who already pay hundreds of millions of pounds in business rates. So today, can Derek Mackay give reassurance that businesses will not have to endure a tourist tax? Will he rule it out once and for all? I know that Rachel Hamilton is very interested in this subject. As part of the Scottish Government, I am engaging in a national conversation. As I have said in my budget speech, I am looking at the evidence in relation to taxation, and specifically on the transient visitor levy, or tourist tax, as it is sometimes called. We are having that national engagement, and I look forward to seeing the evidence. Again, Rachel Hamilton might want to welcome some of the other elements of the budget, such as lowering the poundage on non-domestic rates. I think that I am getting a thumbs up to that from Rachel Hamilton. The most competitive package of business rates relief anywhere in the United Kingdom is the continuation of the growth accelerator, as well as all the investments that we are making to stimulate the economy. Of course, what will be welcomed by the tourist sector, I am quite sure, is further investment on infrastructure such as housing, digital and transport infrastructure. I think that that will all be very well received. As, too, will be the continuation of the transitional relief for the hospitality sector that I am continuing in our non-domestic rates regime. Just for the cabinet secretary's information, we have made good progress through the questions. We have about 15 members who still wish to ask questions, just under 30 minutes to go. Several members have added their names. If other members wish to ask or press their request to be buttoned to add their names, they can do it, or we might finish early or the cabinet secretary might take longer to reply. Shona Robison is to be followed by Daniel Johnson. The cabinet secretary has set out plans to invest almost £500 million in the expansion of early learning and childcare, which will be warmly welcomed right across Scotland. Is he aware that some councils are already delivering the 1,140 hours and some nurseries, including in Dundee, where an estimated 290 extra jobs will be created by 2020? Will he join me in urging all councils to use this money to deliver this policy as soon as possible? Some have said that I may wish to engage in time travel. That is an interesting request to keep going until 5 o'clock on the specific question from Shona Robison. Of course, some councils have gone ahead and have delivered the commitment in advance, but the delivery phase of the expansion is now well under way for early learning and childcare. That is why the multi-year revenue and capital package is so important to fully fund the expansion of the commitment. I would encourage local authorities to continue using the funding that we are providing to phase in increased hours in line with the local delivery plans and the expansion planning guidance to ensure that those children who benefit most from the expansion will benefit first and that we continue to work together to ensure that all eligible children benefit from the expansion from August 2020. Daniel Johnson is to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. I was wondering if the cabinet secretary could expand on the single sentence that he devoted to justice issues in his statement. Given that the SPA state that the recently agreed police pay deal will cost more than £125 million and indeed that the police overspent by £38 million last year, that means that the modest increase in the budget will be more than swallowed by that overspend alone. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that police will need to make savings to meet its commitment on pay, and what impact assessment has been made on front-line police numbers from that? Of course, it was the SNP Government that committed to increasing police numbers, and that is exactly what we have done. In sharp contrast to the decrease in England in Wales, numbers have grown in Scotland and have decreased in England in Wales. On the settlement for the police resource budget, there is a real-terms protection for the police resource budget—that is £19.1 million. It is significant to say that we have allowed the police authority, as is right, to retain the spending power from the decision to be able to reclaim VAT. The police authority would be in an even better financial situation if we got back from the Conservatives the VAT that they have taken from the police and, for that matter, the fire service. We are investing in the justice system and we have, once again, given real-terms protection for our police resource budget. Can the cabinet secretary set out what provision there is in the budget to ensure that the Scottish Government funds the inquiry into child abuse to ensure that the voices of victims are heard? The Scottish Government has and will continue to fully fund the inquiry, which operates like any other public inquiry, independently of government, to ensure that the voices of survivors of in-care abuse are heard. The purpose of the Scottish child abuse inquiry is to raise public awareness of the abuse of children in care. It provides an important opportunity to publicly acknowledge the suffering of those children and a forum for validation of their experience and testimony. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. The devolved elements of the social security system will be administered by Social Security Scotland with a total administrative budget of £41.5 million in 2019-2020. That is what is stated in your budget. Earlier this month, it was reported that the Scottish Government has asked the DWP to control carers allowance for two more years at the cost of £3.4 million, whilst the devolution of disability benefits is delayed until the end of this Parliament. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that there will be no further delay to the Scottish Government assuming executive competence of those benefits past 2021? To be fair, that is more of a question for the social security secretary to be able to answer accurately on the position as it stands at the moment. However, I have outlined in the budget that the resources that we are allocating towards the new social security system, the commitments that we have made around the payments. I have also mentioned the safe and secure transition of that as well. We are putting investment in place. I have to say that the Scottish Government's view of fairness is quite different from the view of fairness from the Conservatives, but we are putting in place the necessary infrastructure and resource to deliver the commitments that we have set out. I am happy to defer to the social security secretary on the specific nature of the question. The minister will be aware of submissions to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee from residents and traders in the Garnethill, Suckeyhall Street area of Glasgow, whose lives and businesses have been completely disrupted in the aftermath of the most recent fire at Glasgow School of Art, as has indeed the whole area of that particular part of the city. Will the budget offer them any comfort? The Glasgow Fire Recovery Fund, which I established in July, is providing up to £5 million to Glasgow City Council to support businesses that are affected by the fires at the Glasgow School of Art, Macintosh building and Victoria's nightclub. The fund has provided 200 businesses with around £3 million in direct support, £20,000 for businesses within the immediate fire cordons and £10,000 for eligible businesses within the wider Suckeyhall Street area, and it will shortly be announcing plans for the remaining £2 million and can assure all members that businesses that are affected by the fires will benefit from the full £5 million. Discretionary housing payment budget is split into two parts, the bedroom mitigation and other, and that budget has remained static for two years at £10.9 million. The cabinet secretary will know that termination of tenancy due to rent arrears is a major driver of homelessness, but in universal credit areas it is two and a half times higher and, in fact, there is a case to say that universal credit is now the biggest driver of poverty. Labour is calling on the Scottish Government today to double the funding of that fund to enable local authorities to spend on the other part of that budget within the discretionary housing payment to £20 million. Will the cabinet secretary for finance consider that, if that was included in your budget, you would prevent more evictions due to rent ar arrears and you would do a great deal to prevent homelessness? Can I ask Pauline McNeill, if I put that in the budget, would you vote for it? You would vote for it. I understand, Presiding Officer, that the purpose here is for the Opposition to ask me questions, which I am absolutely doing. I am answering the questions, but it is an important point here to even ask, if I do what is being asked of me, would that member vote for the budget and I get silence? Silence because the Labour Party has no alternatives to our budget that invests more in social security and welfare, in housing and in supporting the most vulnerable in our society. If the Labour Party wants any amendment or changes, the duty is upon them to show how they would fund it. I am open to constructive engagements with the Labour Party on ensuring that we have consensus to pass a budget in this Parliament, but I have just said that I hear Pauline McNeill now heckling me. I made the point that if I made the change in the budget, would the Labour Party vote for it? If they come with a credible set of alternatives and a position, of course I will engage constructively with the Labour Party, but I fear that, as the Labour source has suggested, the Labour Party right now is just a shambles. Alex Cole-Hamilton is followed by James Dornan. I thank the cabinet secretary for heeding the repeated calls of the benches for extra resources for mental health. What confidence can the cabinet secretary offer this chamber that this money will do anything to reverse the national scandal that is waiting times for child and adolescent mental health services? Will the resources that are defined in his statement for mental health support in schools ensure that there is sufficient resource available so that every child in Scotland can have access to the services of a trained mental health counsellor? I understand the point that Alex Cole-Hamilton is making. It is right to reflect on the evidence that we have heard and the calls that have been made upon us to support mental health funding, improve signposting and support right through the mental health landscape in terms of support that is provided, and to recalibrate systems to ensure that support is there when it is needed. That has included schools in the educational environment. It is a very serious question, and that is why we have allocated more. I know that the health secretary and the education secretary take a very close interest, particularly in the subject. We are confident that those extra resources will indeed make a difference, but I would again say that, if the budget does not pass, those resources are not released to the health service, to schools, to colleges and to those who will benefit from that investment. It is really important that, when members ask me what difference will the extra investment make, if they support that investment, surely, surely, if it is so important that they should vote for it. James Jordan, to be followed by Alexander Burnett. Local Government Committee this morning, Graham Sharpe, the chair of the Accounts Committee, confirmed to me that, despite the desperate claims by our political opponents, that including council tax and other revenue raising measures, funding available to local authorities has not fallen at all. Will the cabinet secretary tell me what action has been taken to ensure that local authorities continue to be protected despite on-going austerity cuts that the Scottish Government continues to receive from the Conservative Westminster Government? I have set out a budget that ensures that the total core funding package for local government amounts to £11.1 billion. That is an increased settlement, of course, an increase in cash terms and real terms, too. It provides real terms increase in both revenue and capital settlements in 2019-20 and a real terms increase of over £210 million, and the overall settlement. Alexander Burnett, to be followed by Elaine Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I note my register of interest. Can the cabinet secretary explain why he is proposing that spending on the prevention of flooding will decrease in real terms, while so many communities remain at risk, including several in my constituency? Would that be another funding request from the Conservatives whilst wanting to cut spending at the same time? Those figures in relation to flood prevention and the work around our environmental agencies take the evidence into account, and I think that that is a satisfactory resource. I do not think that the member should be scaremongering about flood prevention measures. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that effectively tackling poverty depends on increasing household incomes moving away from the kind of unacceptable society that sees food banks as the norm? Since he will not boost family income and immediately lift thousands of children out of poverty by implementing the £5 a week child benefit top-up, will his Government at least bring forward the planned implementation of the income supplement, as called for yesterday, by churches, charities and experts on eradicating poverty? Families living in poverty cannot wait until 2020. Again, if members have alternatives, they should also bring the alternative revenue-raising mechanism that they would use to pay for new commitments over and above what is already in the budget. I am sure that Elaine Smith will absolutely welcome the extra investment in health, education, housing and all forms of infrastructure to support our economy. I happen to believe that the best social policy is also employment, so surely it is to be welcomed that unemployment is at a record low. Of course, we want fair and meaningful and purposeful employment as well. To support families, that includes a social security system based on dignity and respect. We are working on our more targeted income support or income supplement measures, because that targeted measure will make a greater difference to some of the other alternatives that have been proposed. I hear that Labour members shall bring out forward. My job is to deliver a balanced, competent budget, which is exactly what I am doing. We will have to make the necessary revenues that are available to fulfil our commitments. That is what we are doing, in its commitments, such as investing in the national health service, tackling the attainment gap and mitigating against pernicious UK welfare policies. Labour members once again need to reflect on the fact that, for as long as they leave the economic and social levers at Westminster, there is only so much that we can do to safeguard Scotland and to mitigate the impact of Westminster decisions. That is why we should have the power and the resources in this place to fully protect the people of Scotland. Rona Mackayde will be followed by Andy Wightman. Tackling climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing the world today. In what ways does this budget help Scotland to meet its climate change obligations? Just some examples. We are doing more around energy efficiency. We are on track to make half a billion pounds available over the four years to 2021 to improve energy efficiency through the energy-efficient Scotland route map. We are investing nearly £59 million in forestry priorities, including support to stimulate and enable woodland creation across Scotland. We are investing £80 million in active travel to help build an active nation to make our towns and cities friendlier and safer places. We are investing £50 million in the low-carbon transport measures, including the expansion of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. We are also continuing to deliver the climate justice fund. We continue to invest £42 million annually in local authority flood prevention projects, as I mentioned earlier. There is a flavour of some of the actions to help to protect our environment, as well as taking forward the most ambitious climate change targets in the world. Andy Wightman is filled by George Adam. The cabinet secretary and his predecessor talked much about progressive taxes. HMRC data shows that the bottom 20 per cent of earners pay indirect and indirect taxes 38 per cent of their income. The top 20 per cent pay 37.4 per cent. He knows that a progressive tax is when the rate rises with the tax base. Given the data that I have noted and given that a large reason for that is the regressivity of the council tax, when will he provide leadership to deliver the commitment that is made by his party, by my party, by the Labour Party and by the Liberal Democrats in the local tax commission that, I quote, the present council tax system must end? The Scottish Government was elected on a 2016 manifesto in relation to the council tax that I have delivered in terms of it being more progressive, increasing the higher value bands and also the council tax caps. What I have been delivering is what was in the SNP manifesto, but I recognise that in this chamber this Government is a minority Government and we need to look in a consensual cross-party way to find alternatives to that. I am going to be constructive and open in engaging in having that discussion. I am sure that Andy Wightman will be as well. I know that the cabinet secretary is a keen sports fan and that the Scottish Government is committed to improving health and wellbeing. With that in mind, can I ask the cabinet secretary what funding has been made available to Sport Scotland to boost activity and participation in sport? I thank George Adam for that compliment. I did not realise that supporting St Martin Football Club qualified me, but, of course, I heard George Adam shout from a sedentary position. In 2019-20, Sport Scotland will receive a 3 per cent funding uplift to support the priority of getting Scotland active. The Scottish Government will continue to underwrite the potential shortfall in lottery funding of up to £3.4 million for Sport Scotland in 2019-20, and we will continue to encourage the UK Government to take the necessary actions to address lottery reductions. Peter Chapman, to be filled by Colin Smyth. Presiding Officer, we have been promised for some time under the R100 programme, a spend of £600 million to deliver superfast broadband to everyone in Scotland. I see from the budget just published in page 146 that the total digital connectivity spending in 2019-20 is only £32.9 million. What has happened to the £600 million, and when will superfast broadband be delivered to remote and rural areas? I can tell Peter Chapman that we are still committed to spending that £600 million to take superfast broadband to every part of the country, which is an incredible investment, considering that it was the UK Government's responsibility in terms of telecommunications. However, we are investing in our infrastructure. The total infrastructure spend proposed in this budget is £5 billion—a fantastic investment in the infrastructure of our country and no doubt opposed by the Conservatives. Colin Smyth, to be filled by Gillian Martin. Presiding Officer, this week's ScotRail introduced a new timetable, but it's business is usual for Scotland's hard-pressed rail passenger delays, overcrowding and cancellations. Performance is the worst since this rail franchise began, but come January, fares will increase by 10 per cent in that time. Why didn't the cabinet secretary use this budget process to try to give Scotland's long-suffering rail passengers a break instead of simply rubber-stamping yet another fare hike? I would be helpful if we had control. I know that this is a former transport minister, control of network rail in Scotland rather than leaving it to the UK. That's a significant issue. The Labour Party could greatly help the rail network in Scotland if it supported us in transferring that power to Scotland. Of course, it is this Government that is investing in more trains and new trains. Frankly, it is an electrified service that will be better investing in Queen Street and the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement project. Where the Labour Party spoke about the railway network, we are actually delivering and getting on with it. In relation to rail fares, I hear James Kelly shout about the rail phrase that Labour is proposing. No, Labour is proposing a shambles of an alternative budget, not any competent budget whatsoever. Rail fares in Scotland will go up by an average of 2.8 per cent in January 2019. That means that the average rate of increase for Scottish rail fares remains lower than the average increase across Britain, which is 3.1 per cent. Gillian Martin, to be followed by Liam Kerr. Can the cabinet secretary outline what his announcements today with regard to the increase in health budget means for NHS Grampian? I have the specific figure to hand, but I am quite sure that Gillian Martin will be able to welcome that in terms of the overall increase that the health service will enjoy. Liam Kerr, to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The SNP promised to drive forward police transformation, including vital IT upgrades in the programme for government. That budget appears to cut police performing funding by around £25 million. Has he broken his promise to police officers? Cabinet Secretary. No, I haven't. The commitment was to protect the resource budget in real terms, and that's exactly what we've done. Neil Findlay, to be followed by Gil Paterson. People are supposed to be Scotland's greatest asset yet, a thousand of them a year are dying on their streets from drugs. There's no extra money in this budget to address this national crisis that is not just in this city but in every town across Scotland. It is not even mentioned in the whole of the budget. Why? Cabinet secretary. The Scottish Government invests in strategies through health and through local government, and both of those particular portfolios will enjoy an increase in real terms. As I said earlier, as I set out very clearly, if I had left it to the numbers that I had inherited from the Conservative Party, it would have been real terms reduction for all other portfolios other than health. However, I have invested in health and local government, and of course there will be strategies and support within that to support those that Neil Findlay has mentioned. Gil Paterson, to be followed by Edward Mountain. Although there is a significant building of affordable houses in my constituencies, unfortunately, we need more. Will the cabinet secretary outline what the budget can do to continue this welcome and vital work? If I get a good answer, I will definitely vote for the budget. I really hope that I can get Gil Paterson's support for the budget, otherwise I really am in trouble. The commitment that I have set out in the budget for housing specifically is more than £800 million for the next financial year, and that is contributing to the £3 billion commitment around housing to reach the £50,000 target. We are on track in its good news, of course it is a necessary and welcome investment in housing, and I am sure that it will cover every part of the country, including Gil Paterson's constituency. I hope that everything else in the budget will encourage Gil Paterson and all other members to vote for it. Edward Mountain, to be followed by Sandra White. For a point of clarity, the Scottish Government has set aside £121 million for the next two years for two new ferries. I believe that the cost of the two new hybrid ferries was £97 million. Is the Scottish Government committing to a further new ferry, or anticipating the contract for the two hybrid ferries will exceed the £97 million budget cost by £24 million? We are investing in the ferry network. We have clearly set out a position in terms of the procurement issue at Ferguson's at the moment, but we are continuing to invest in our ferry network, be that the direct investment around, for example, road equivalent tariff, and in terms of vessels. We do set out a vessel replacement and investment strategy, and I am sure that the transport secretary will be very keen to set out more in due course. Having hosted a very successful cross-party group in older people this afternoon, loneliness and isolation came top of the agenda in regards to older people and what they are expecting. Can the cabinet secretary tell me about the framework policy in older people and the strategy? Is there a timescale for that? I think that that would be a matter for other colleagues, principally the community secretary, but I know that the investments that were put in place around social inclusion are significant. The uplift to local government will be welcome, and of course we are taking a preventative approach as well. Further areas to welcome will be around health and social care integration to support people in their own homes. Those are the kinds of investment that I think will help in terms of social isolation, and we are certainly doing everything that we can within our powers to support older people within our society. I refer the cabinet secretary to the section of his budget document on Scottish water, because there is no mention of the single person's discount try as I might to find it. Can he confirm that he has abandoned proposals to cut the single person's water discount, or is he still intent on robbing half a million people in Scotland, the majority of whom are on low and fixed incomes? I can advise Jackie Baillie that Roseanna Cunningham has taken forward that consultation. She will look at the submissions to it. No decisions will be taken, but I am sure that the chamber will be updated in due course. John Scott Thank you, Presiding Officer. While I welcome the increase in the budget for education, particularly in nurseries of £175 million, will the cabinet secretary ensure that support intended for capital investment in infrastructure will be reasonably and fairly distributed between the public and private sector providers, particularly in South Ayrshire? Will the Deputy First Minister and Education Secretary take forward this very exciting programme, the commitment and arrangements that we have with local government is a partnership approach. It is a multi-year settlement. It has been agreed with them in a formula, in a fashion that represents a partnership approach. The actual resources that we are putting in are substantial to meet that commitment around early learning and childcare. Of course, we want to work with the private sector and partnership nurseries as well. We are taking that forward in a very constructive fashion, but we are putting our money where our mouths are in terms of investing in early years, investing in childcare and ensuring that entitlement that will be so welcomed across the country is being delivered in accordance with the plan that the Deputy First Minister has set out. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary and members, for their contributions. That concludes our budget statement this afternoon. We are going to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion 15118, in the name of Graham Day on behalf of the bureau. I call on Graham Day to move the motion. Thank you very much. No one seems to wish to speak against the motion. The question is, sorry, that motion 15118 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of motion 15119, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the bureau, on the stage 1 timetable of a bill. Could I ask Graham Day to move the motion? Thank you very much. Again, no one seems to speak against it. The question is that motion 15119 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 15120, on the designation of a lead committee. Could I ask Graham Day to move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. That one will be taken at decision time, to which we now come. So the only question today is that motion 15120, in the name of Graham Day, on the designation of a lead committee, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We are going to move on to members' business shortly, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, on remembering the Korean War. We will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change this.