 Felly, Arm năm 11 neu rymddefnyddio eich мыslew o convertidiar ac yn y faniaf yw wneud. Rymddefnyddio yw y gweld eich methu eich rymdffyn nhw a'r adnod lli'u pryddennyngu fynd—bollach cyr o gael chefach yn amser, sai Refدي, er recognise hynny. board to support the sector's continued growth. Our development and skills agencies are actively engaging with the sector and key professional bodies to support development of the sector across Scotland, building on our established global reputation in the industry. In the programme for government, we committed funding of up to £250,000 to establish FinTech Scotland, an independent industry-led organisation backed by public, private and academic partners that will champion, nurture and grow Scotland's FinTech community. During the recent visit to Dublin by the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee, representatives from the British Irish Chamber of Commerce explained how financial services firms from the UK were already putting in place plans to move jobs to Dublin because of uncertainty with regard to the sector post Brexit. Given that the UK Government has still failed to produce a position paper on the sector for its negotiations on Brexit, does the Government believe that this is a danger to Scotland, as well as a missed opportunity that we are going to lose those jobs, but if we were still in the single market, we would be a well-placed place to attract them? I fully agree with the points made by Joan McAlpine. It is interesting that we are seeing some comments now in relation to the financial sector about passporting no longer being an option, something that was deemed by the sector to be absolutely critical to its continued ability to thrive in the context of a Brexit environment. Is the case, the UK Government should have produced a detailed proposal for the future relationship with the EU and the implications for the financial sector. We are seeing other countries in the EU quite happily being predators in relation to some of the businesses here in the UK. Of course, financial firms are already planning for the future, but in the absence of any certainty or any analysis done by the UK Government, they are having to base their arrangements on a worst-case scenario of a hard Brexit. So continued uncertainty over the UK Government's negotiating position, risk jobs and future investment in the financial services sector in Scotland and across the UK. That is not just the Scottish Government saying it. Every business organisation—I think that today it is the British chambers of commerce—every business organisation, every economic think-tank says it. The only people who do not say that are Scottish Conservatives. Dean Lockhart, based on the latest available figures, Scotland's finance and insurance trade with the rest of the UK represented 83 per cent of all of the sector's business in Scotland and was worth 20 times the value of Scotland's finance and insurance trade with the EU single market. Given that, what steps is the cabinet secretary taking to help the sector to protect in Scotland, protect and expand its market with the rest of the UK single market? Some of the things that I said in my response to Joan McAlpine's first question laid out some of the things that we are doing, but it is worth saying in relation, for example, to FISAB, the body of which I mentioned, which the First Minister jointly chairs with the industry in which Paul Wheelhouse and myself also attend. Many of those organisations are, as Dean Lockhart suggests, organisations that have a UK presence. There is a great deal being done, which is common to both areas, but there is also the question of the different perspective, the different demographic of the financial sector in Scotland. You have mentioned some of the funds that are looped after in Scotland, for example, global custody of funds. The asset management, especially the strength of that in the Scottish economy, has a different perspective from elements of the financial sector in London, but it is hugely important. It is also the second biggest one by some measures in the EU, even greater than Frankfurt. Of course, it is a case that there is substantial business. Nothing that I have said, or Paul Wheelhouse has said, suggests that we should do anything other than try to grow that business with the UK. We realise how important it is. It is not us who are looking to be isolationist and cut ourselves off from markets. We will continue to do the work that we can do to grow both our work and our business with the rest of the UK but also with the rest of the EU, which is why it is so vitally important that we stay in the single market. Trade hubs are expected to open. The Scottish Government has committed to establishing innovation investment hubs in Dublin, London, Brussels, Berlin and Paris as an integral part of wider work across the Scottish Government with its partners and businesses, in order to support trade, investment, innovation and intergovernmental relations. The newly established Berlin hub, located close to the Reichstag, is already operational and recently recruited its first member of staff from Scottish Development International. The early focus for the Berlin hub will be to identify early priorities, build networks and establish key relationships. Our operation in Brussels is in the process of transitioning into a hub from our existing presence in Brussels, where Scotland and Europa has been operating for over 25 years and the Scottish Government's EU office since 1999. That transition should be completed by summer and will include a representative of SDI. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The 2016 SNP programme for government said that opening the Berlin and Brussels trade hubs was critical to Scotland's economy when they announced way back in October 2006. The 2017 programme for government even stated that the Berlin hub would be open in 2017. The cabinet secretary has outlined some processing that is on the way to getting the hubs open, but we have not seen action. We want to see action because it is important that the hubs are open. We want to see performance targets that currently do not exist for the hubs in Berlin and Paris, which are not yet functionally operational. Can the cabinet secretary give us some more detail over the hubs? Perhaps, if she listens to the detail that I have already provided, she just said that they are not functionally operational. My first answer said that the Berlin hub is already operational. I do not know how much more explicit I can be than that, so it is already operational. It is recruiting its first member of staff. Of course, it builds on the work that is already done by our presence in Düsseldorf. It builds on the work that was done when I visited Berlin last year. In relation to Brussels, of course, it is a transition arrangement because we have existing presence in Brussels as well, so we have built on that, which is a rational thing to do. I am perfectly willing to get into a discussion—I think that it is the first time that I have had the question asked by the Conservatives certainly in terms of performance measures for these hubs. I am perfectly willing to get into that discussion, but it is the case that we have done this. Of course, we have done it in the teeth of substantial opposition from some people, but this is important in the context of Brexit. The question that is never asked by the Conservatives is what will be the impact of Brexit on the economy in Scotland. The reason why we are doing this—building on our presence not just in the EU but in Canada and other parts of the world as well—is because, in part, of the challenge posed by Brexit—a challenge that at least one Conservative should acknowledge in this chamber. Presiding Officer, this week in an attempt to pacify the hard-line Brexit years in their own party, the Prime Minister ruled out membership of the customs union. I have already raised the importance of the customs union in this chamber for musicians in Scotland and elsewhere across the UK. Will the cabinet secretary say what impacts he thinks leaving the customs union will have on Scottish businesses and Scottish trade with European Union countries? We think, for example, that being outside the customs union will create barriers to trade for businesses in Scotland and indeed across the UK. We have consistently made the case that maintaining our membership both in the single market and the customs union is essential to the prosperity of Scottish firms and the Scottish economy. In Scotland's place in Europe, people's jobs and investment, which we published last month, demonstrated that Brexit will significantly weaken our economy. We have done analysis. We have published analysis. Apparently, the UK Government has done some analysis but does not want to publish it or tell anybody about it, yet we get a lecture from the Conservative benches about transparency. We have done the work. We have published the work. It is about time that the UK Government did the same. Question 3 has been withdrawn. Question 4, Willie Rennie. To ask the Scottish Government whether the Cooper North relief road will be funded through the Tay cities deal. The Scottish Government is committed to securing a city region deal for the Tay cities as soon as possible, and we are currently considering all proposals and fully exploring all financing and funding options. A proposal to accelerate the Cooper Northern bypass project is one of those that is put forward by the Tay cities, but it is not possible at this stage for me to confirm details of which projects may or may not be included as part of the final deal. Willie Rennie. Minister for that answer, the Tay cities deal aims to create a smarter and fairer region with innovation to create sustainable growth. I was surprised that the Cooper North relief road was put forward as part of the Tay cities deal, especially when the planning permission specified that the consortium of house builders should be building that road themselves. Why is the state even considering bailing out house builders to build a bypass, and will Willie Rennie rule it out if it comes before him? First of all, he asked why we are considering it. I think that I said in my first response that we are considering it because it is the project, the proposal that has come from the relevant local partners—in this case, the local authority. That is the basis of city deals. We, neither we nor the UK Government, decide the projects that come forward. We do, of course, decide which ones to support. That is perfectly legitimate, but we do not decide. The whole virtue of city deals is that they come from local partners. I do not know if what Willie Rennie is saying is that we should rule it out. Before we have come to a city deal, before we have come to a conclusion, we should rule it out at the very early stage because I think that I am writing to concluding that Willie Rennie does not like that. I do not know whether his concerns are related to the planning application, but if that is a concern for Willie Rennie, I would make the point that nothing that we agree in a city deal in any way takes away the need for local partners, especially local authorities, to follow whatever statutory processes are involved. I think that it is also worth saying for Willie Rennie's benefit. Of course, in relation to the application that he refers to, sometimes there are other ways to fund these things if that is what is desired. We established, I think, when I was housing minister back in 2011, a housing infrastructure loan fund to help with infrastructure-related developments, so I have asked the officials to make sure that they look at all options for any proposals coming forward from local authorities, which might unlock further development. However, the city deal will be concluded when the local partners and the UK Government are ready to conclude that deal. Alexander Stewart Thank you, Presiding Officer. The taste city deal is a fantastic opportunity to bring vital investment into the area and drive economic growth. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on how talks are progressing and does he agree that this is an excellent example of benefits brought by co-operation between the UK and Scottish Government? I do sometimes wonder about that co-operation when I receive letters from—like the one that I received from the member and his colleagues this week—conservative members. We are trying to work very closely with the UK Government in relation to that. When I and Lord Duncan appeared before the Parliamentary Committee, the local government committee, that was the first time that ministers from both Governments had appeared before the Scottish Parliamentary Committee. If you look at the record from that meeting, you will see that there is a substantial degree of joint working. We are trying to do that. The idea of unraveling those deals in advance by making announcements, which the member asked me to do in the letter that he sent to me, would be disruptive to that joint working. However, yes, it is true that we value very much the fact that the local authorities and partners are the ones that come forward with proposals, and we and the UK Government jointly consider and announce at the same time which of those proposals we are able to take forward. I think that it is a very valuable process, but we should observe the interests of the different parties involved in it. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that an increasing use of automation and artificial intelligence over the next decade will increase employment opportunities in Scotland. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of emerging technologies and how they will influence the future labour market. That is why I published our labour market strategy in August 2016 and why we established the strategic labour market group to provide advice in a range of matters, including automation and artificial intelligence. In Scotland, we have record levels of employment with a highly skilled workforce. We continue to encourage people to pursue science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers through careers advice and guidance at schools and in the developing Young Workforce programme. Through the Enterprise and Skills Strategic Board, we are working to ensure that the planning commission of our annual £2 billion investment skills is better co-ordinated and responsive. We continue to support businesses to take advantage of new technologies and advance their ability to integrate with that in digital. We are investing £48 million in the national manufacturing institute for Scotland and are providing support for innovation centres such as Sciences and Datalab. Almost a quarter of jobs in Dundee could be lost to automation by 2030, according to a recent report. At 64.1 per cent, Dundee is already well below the average employment rate, the lowest city of any in the UK. An extra 10,000 jobs are needed just to put Dundee on par with the rest of Britain. Will the minister tell us how he will create those 10,000 jobs and how many new jobs his Government has created in Dundee since coming to power? I recognise the report that the member has referred to. I recognise what it has said about the potential impact of increased utilisation of automation. Of course, there are other reports that provide different assessments. I recognise that there is a lot of good happening in Dundee right now. When I am there, I am very pleased to see the investment that is happening in regeneration, particularly at the waterfront, which is driving an increase in job growth. The report that Mr Bowman referred to highlights at Dundee shows one of the strongest growth rates of private sector jobs. Just a few moments ago, we heard from the Cabinet Secretary our commitment to ensure that the Tay cities regional deal has progressed as soon as possible. We are making every effort to ensure that Dundee continues to benefit by the efforts of this Government to ensure that people in Scotland have the chance to get into the labour market. Self-drive automated vehicles are a specific technology that will have a significant impact not only on employment profiles and opportunities for industrial innovation, but also on many other areas of public policy, including planning, housing, environmental energy and regulatory policy. As a parliamentary liaison officer for the economy, I take particular interest in this area. Can I therefore ask what work the Scottish Government plans to do to prepare Scotland for this specific and rapidly approaching technological revolution? I can assure Mr McKee that I take an interest in this matter as well. The critical thing for us to do is ensure that not only do we have a workforce that is adaptable and ready and responsive to changes in our economy and our labour market, as is likely to be the case through automation, but also that we stand ready to benefit by opportunities to ensure that we are not just the consumer of new products and new innovations, but we are also an invent and producer of them as well. That is why we are taking forward developing such the national manufacturing institute. I have referred to a moment ago and that is why we have supported innovation in Scotland by increased support for our research and development grant funding, increased by a total of £45 million over the next three years, and almost 70 per cent increase. Jackie Baillie Although I am sure that the minister joins with me in welcoming the opportunity presented by automation, there are understandable concerns about the potential job losses, something like 230,000 Scottish jobs that are identified by the city's outlook. What specific forward planning has the Scottish Government done beyond the list that it has read out? I think that we would be reassured if it was working with businesses specifically on this issue to mitigate the job losses, but also to create the high-skilled, highly-paid jobs for those who might be displaced. Ms Baillie can ask the cabinet secretary, but I will answer the question if she does not mind. I recognise the points that she has made. I hope that the answers are given thus far. It gives a sense of the importance in which we are attaching to this area. I have already referred to the fact that our labour market strategy explicitly recognises the challenges that automation can bring forward. That is why we have established the strategic labour market route. That includes many representatives from industry themselves. We will be willing to engage and discuss with anyone about their perspective on those matters. Of course, we also need to ensure that we have a workforce that is adaptable, flexible and ready to respond to some of the challenges and opportunities that we have ahead of us. That is the work that we take forward through a range of initiatives, such as the developing young workforce strategy that we have, such as the STEM strategy that we have laid out. We will continue that work. Stephen Hawking has said that the emergence of artificial intelligence could be, and I quote, the worst event in the history of our civilisation, were Professor Kevin Warwick of Coventry University attested network AI systems. Can it be just switched off when they go rogue? A particular problem in military applications where the AI is currently being developed? Will Tesla, car maker and space pioneer, Elon Musk, assert AI to be as big a threat to humanity as climate change or nuclear war? Those views may well be alarmist. However, can the minister explain what safeguards are being developed in relation to artificial intelligence here in Scotland? Far be it from me to disagree with Stephen Hawking, but I think that Mr Gibson is correct to say that those views may be somewhat alarmist, but I recognise that that is a particular concern. It is incumbent on us not only to consider the potential impact on the labour market but also to hear those concerns. That is something that we will do by working in conjunction with industry and academia to give us a full understanding of future technologies to ensure that we can make an informed judgment about the move towards the introduction of greater automation in the labour market and the introduction of artificial intelligence. To ask the Scottish Government what impact a hard Brexit will have on the Scottish economy. The Scottish Government published Scotland's Place in Europe, People Jobs and Investment, on 15 January. That assesses the implications for Scotland's economy if the UK exits the European Union. The analysis in that document indicates that a hard Brexit could lead to a loss of up to 8.5 per cent of GDP, or £12.7 billion in 2016 terms, in Scotland by 2030. That is equivalent to £2,300 per individual. Outside of the EU, continued membership of the European Single Market and Customs Union is the least-worse option for Scotland and the rest of the UK. As we move into the crucial second phase of the negotiations, it is time for the UK Government to start putting jobs and living standards first and to ensure that the UK position fully reflects all parts of the UK. I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply. What is the Scottish Government's reaction to Daning Street's statement, declaring that the UK is categorically leaving the customs union? On the one hand, it is the utter disrespect that shows to the devolved administrations who, by all convention, should have been involved in discussions around this before that kind of statement was made. However, being outside of the customs union will create barriers to trade for businesses across the UK, and that is why the Scottish Government has consistently made the case that maintaining our membership of both the European Single Market and the customs union is essential to the prosperity of Scottish firms and the Scottish economy. I thank Ash Denham for asking the question in the first place. It is a question that we will never hear from the Conservatives, nor from Richard Leonard, although we might hear it from Jackie Baillie on occasion. Thank you very much. That concludes our questions on economy jobs and fair work. We turn now to portfolio questions on finance and constitution. Question number one was withdrawn, so we go to question number two from Patrick Harvie. Can I ask the Scottish Government what would be involved in an EU continuity bill in the event that this Parliament does not give legislative consent to the EU withdrawal bill? All parties in this Parliament have agreed with the France and Constitutional Committee that the UK's EU withdrawal bill is incompatible with the devolution settlement in Scotland, and the committee's conclusion is that the Parliament should not give legislative consent to the bill as it is drafted. In those circumstances, the Government has a responsibility to prepare so that, on any scenario, there is a legislative framework in place for protecting Scotland's system of laws from the disruption of UK withdrawal from the EU. Michael Russell and Joe Fitzpatrick set out those plans in their letter to the Presiding Officer on 10 January. I note the Scottish Government's openness to the possibility that agreement can be reached on changes to the EU withdrawal bill. However, unlikely that prospect seems to be to me. Michael Russell, the minister responsible, has told the finance and constitution committee that a continuity bill has already been drafted and given to the Presiding Officer. It is clearly not possible for that to be published until the Presiding Officer has made a ruling. Surely, if we are to take seriously Mr Russell's commitment to maximum scrutiny, the Scottish Government is in a position to publish now at least a discussion paper on what the contents of such a bill would be, given that we are not going to be in a position to have any kind of meaningful public consultation on such a huge and far-reaching piece of legislation. I am sure that Mr Harvey will understand that the Government has to follow the arrangements that are put in place by Parliament for the proper consideration of bills by the Presiding Officer, and that is exactly what we have done in this circumstance. To help Mr Harvey in relation to the contents of the bill, I think that Mr Russell has set out very clearly in his committee appearances the provisions that would be necessary in a continuity bill, as I set out in my original answer, to provide a framework in place to protect the system of laws from disruption as a consequence of UK withdrawal from the European Union. We will consider the point that Mr Harvey has raised about any dialogue. Mr Russell has made clear to the committee that the Government wants to have the maximum scrutiny of the bill that is possible in the circumstances that prevail. However, we will have to consider that point in the context of the wider discussions that we have with the United Kingdom Government around the amendment to the EU withdrawal bill. I thank Patrick Harvey for bringing this matter to the attention of the chamber. I think that it is an exceptionally important one. Given that the United Kingdom Government has repeatedly committed to amend the European Union withdrawal bill to meet the concerns of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, concerns that the Scottish Conservatives have shared, and given that negotiations between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved administrations on the matter are proceeding and are making progress, does the cabinet secretary not agree with me that introducing a continuity bill into this Parliament at the moment would be unnecessary, premature and unwise? I encourage Mr Tomkins to reflect on the circumstances and scenario that I put to Parliament in my original answer to Mr Harvey. I said that, as things currently stand and Mr Tomkins is a signatory to this, the French and Constitution Committee have indicated that they could not give legislative consent to the EU withdrawal bill. I am party to the negotiations with the United Kingdom Government on the amendments to the bill and I have to say that I have a less optimistic assessment of where we are than Mr Tomkins has given to Parliament today. Mr Tomkins will know that I am very familiar with negotiations with the United Kingdom Government and I am very familiar with coming to agreements on those points and I am far from optimistic about where we are placed. In those circumstances, I think that the Government of Scotland has a duty to make the arrangements that we have made. We are not doing anything prematurely, we are doing things to ensure that we can protect a framework of stability around the legislation within Scotland if we are unable to give legislative consent to the bill and, as things stand just now, the Scottish Government remains unable to give legislative consent to the EU withdrawal bill. Bruce Crawford I am also grateful to Patrick Harvie for raising this question today. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would agree with me that the ball is currently in the court of the United Kingdom Government to respond in the way that the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government, and the Conservative Party and the Labour Party want it to respond. That is a clear issue to be resolved. Either you believe in the devolution settlement or you do not believe in the devolution settlement, and it is time that the UK Government expresses in a proper way that it believes in the settlement and where it stands. The very sharp issue that we confront is whether the EU withdrawal bill will be compatible with the devolved settlement. That is the hard test that has got to be resolved by the negotiations in which we are currently involved. That view has been expressed very powerfully in the House of Lords by Lord Hope, who I think has given a very clear assessment of the legislative difficulties that this Parliament would face in signing up to the EU withdrawal bill as it is currently constituted and has given to the United Kingdom Government a very clear direction as to what amendment has to be made to make the EU withdrawal bill compatible with the devolved settlement. I agree with Mr Crawford that that is the sharp issue that the UK Government has got to resolve. However much we may wish to get to a point of agreement, we cannot get to a point of agreement that jeopardises the integrity of the devolved settlement, which was legislated for in 1998 and subsequently amended and which has served this country well. Question 3, Liam Kerr. To ask the Scottish Government how much financial assistance has been granted to Scottish businesses and in what form, loan, guarantee, equity or other, under the Scottish growth scheme. Cabinet Secretary, Derek Mackay. Under the Scottish growth scheme, Scottish Enterprise continues to assist companies looking to secure investment from the Scottish European Growth Co-Investment programme. In the meantime, a total of £25.7 million in equity funding has been agreed and invested in 28 companies under the new and additional resources provided to the existing SME holding fund. We expect to utilise further European structural funds to expand and enhance the SME holding fund under the Scottish growth scheme in 2018. That will support microfinance, debt and equity investment. Liam Kerr. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for the answer. When the SNP Government unveiled the Scottish growth scheme 18 months ago, it was hailed as a £500 million vote of confidence in the Scottish economy to be made up of loans and guarantees. The scheme is now in the form of equity that is sold by business and only a fraction of the £500 million assistance that has been made available to business in Scotland. Can the cabinet secretary confirm when the balance of £500 million will be made available? That commitment and fairness will be spent over and supported over a number of years. I think that some of the deals will take time to conclude because some of it requires investor collaboration as well. It is not simply a case of people applying for a £500 million worth of support, although the commitment is absolutely still there. What we have been able to do, though, is to be quite adept and adapt some of the support around what is required around commercial financing. I have worked with the banks on this as well and the British Business Bank to ensure that what we can provide is additionality rather than substitute finance. In that regard, we have worked with other partners and the enterprise agency to ensure that there is a range of support so that we can absolutely deliver on that financial commitment. It will be a variety of measures from equity, loans and guarantees. I suppose that we had first envisaged more use of guarantees, but there seems to be more interest around other areas. That said, of course, we are progressing the plans around the Scottish National Investment Bank and other new measures to be able to support business. My colleague Keith Brown and his ministerial colleagues will enjoy the 64 per cent uplift in the economy portfolio in terms of spending and use of financial transactions as well. I say again that some of those deals will take some time to crystallise that there are other investors involved, but the support is there and we will work very hard to promote the range of schemes under that umbrella so that we can support our commercial and business community. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities regarding how the 2018-19 budget can contribute to tackling child poverty. I meet all members of the cabinet regularly to discuss how best to use the budget to deliver the Scottish Government's priorities of tackling inequalities and creating a more prosperous and fairer Scotland. The draft budget sets out a number of measures to tackle child poverty, including establishing a £50 million tackling child poverty fund, £8 million to fund the baby box, investment of £233 million towards providing expanded childcare and supporting local authorities, including the attainment Scotland fund, as well as the commitment around attainment of over £750 million, or further housing investment, as well. The first delivery plan, under the Child Poverty Scotland act, will be published in April and will set out a range of actions in this parliamentary term to make progress towards ambitious targets to reduce child poverty. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. Is the cabinet secretary aware that findings from the child poverty action group in Scotland tell us that raising child benefit by £5 a week would lift 30,000 children out of poverty, something that Scottish Labour supports? Since the Scottish Government has not included plans to specifically do this in the 2018-19 budget, how will the Scottish Government lift 30,000 children out of poverty? I thought that I was already able, in the first answer, to set out some of the actions that were taken. Further to that, there is another £100 million of welfare mitigation. I hear the point that is made around top-ups to child benefit. We have asked the Poverty and Inequality Commission to provide advice on this and the sustainability and suitability of using that power. As it stands right now, it is estimated to cost around £1.25 million every year. As we understand it, only £3 a every 10 would go to households in poverty if those proposals were implemented. That is exactly why we have asked for more information for that to be explored. I do not think that, with any credibility, a member of the Labour Party can talk about when on terms of budget, when you realise that the revenue-raising powers do not actually raise the revenue that is suggested. To ask the Scottish Government how many people in North Ayrshire will see their income tax rise increase in 2018-19. Scottish income tax data and forecasts are not produced for local authority areas. Overall, however, 70 per cent of Scottish taxpayers will pay less income tax in 2018-19 than they did this year for a given income. Nobody earning less than £33,000 will pay more than income tax next year. Jamie Greene In the absence of any answer, perhaps I can help the cabinet secretary out. Analysis of his tax plans showed that up to 24,000 hard-working people in North Ayrshire will see their income tax rise this year. Contrary to what the First Minister said last week, those are far from Scotland's richest and wealthiest. In fact, many will be deeply disappointed by that. Given that local SNP constituency members were elected in 2016 on a specific manifesto promise not to increase income tax, does the cabinet secretary and his colleagues owe people an apology for breaking that promise? We will be investing more in public services. We will be turning a Tory real-terms cut to resource budgets into growth, including for the health service. Jamie Greene is one of those politicians who consistently demands more money to be spent in his region, but also wants to raise less at the exact same time. Incidentally, the median salary in North Ayrshire is £23,352, which will show that, just like the rest of the country, a majority of Scottish taxpayers will pay less, not more, under the tax plans that I have put forward. Of course, some of the tax changes that we have made will invest in local government. Since North Ayrshire has been mentioned, it will benefit from the deal with the Greens to the tune of a overall nationwide to local government £170 million, and North Ayrshire's figure is £4.2 million extra, opposed by Jamie Greene. Ivan McKee. I was going to ask the cabinet secretary how many people in my constituency of Glasgow Proven will see their income tax reduced as a consequence of his budget, but clearly we don't have that data available at constituency level. However, I do expect that there will be far more winners than losers. Does the cabinet secretary agree that injecting cash into lower-income households will have a far greater impact on the economic multiplier effect as a consequence of those households having a higher propensity to consume, thus helping to grow the Scottish economy? Yes, I agree with that. SFC has provided evidence around that, as well as the modelling that we produced for the discussion paper last year. That is correct. Incidentally, the issue around data is not Scottish Governments doing, but it is HMRC that collects income tax in Scotland. If we want to see data enhancements, it will be for them to provide that either constituency or local authority analysis. James Kelly. Recent figures from the end-child poverty coalition report reveal that, in North Ayrshire, nearly 30 per cent of children are living in poverty. That figure has been as high as 36 per cent in the urban west ward. Does the cabinet secretary agree that those figures are unacceptable, rather than running off a list of excuses as to why she cannot take action on child benefit? She should not be seriously looking at how to use the powers of the Parliament in order to alleviate those concerning figures. I do not think that those levels of poverty are acceptable, which is why we are taking a range of actions to tackle that. We could do even more if we had welfare powers that we do not have. Labour was not particularly supportive in getting it over the decades that it had the opportunity to do so. Specifically, in relation to Labour's propositions, I say again that the alternative budget that is put forward by the Labour Party is totally incredible. It does not stack up, it does not raise revenue and it calls on us to use powers and mechanisms that are not currently in place. Let us unite around tackling poverty, but let us do it in an incredible way, which is exactly what this Government proposes to do. Question 6, Alex Cole-Hamilton. Do you ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent Guardian ICM survey, which suggests that 69 per cent of people in Scotland support a referendum on the final terms of Brexit? The Guardian ICM survey provides further evidence that most voters in Scotland want to remain in the European Union. The Scottish Government recognises the arguments in favour of a second EU referendum, although it is not currently government policy. The Scottish Government believes that it is vital that devolved administrations are involved in the negotiations by the United Kingdom with the European Union to ensure the interests of Scotland are protected. Alex Cole-Hamilton. I am grateful for that answer. For 18 months, I have heard this Government demand that a democratic will of nearly 70 per cent of the people of this country be recognised in the conduct of Brexit negotiations. Yet this Government is completely silent in representing the views of nearly 70 per cent of Scots who now support a referendum on the final terms of a Brexit deal. Does the cabinet secretary accept that for every day that goes by when his Government refuses to join calls for a referendum on the final deal, a day is lost in the efforts to offer the British people the opportunity to reverse one of the most calamitous decisions in the history of these islands? John Swinney. I agree with Mr Cole-Hamilton about the calamitous nature of the EU exit decision. What the Scottish Government is doing is working very hard to try to ensure that we are able to influence the decisions taken by the United Kingdom Government in this respect in their negotiating position. There are two important dimensions to that. The first has been the evidence and arguments that the Scottish Government has marshaled to support continued membership of the single market and the customs union. In my opinion, an answerable case has been made by the Scottish Government, which has been cast aside by the illogical decisions of the United Kingdom Government. Secondly, we have been trying to ensure that the UK Government fulfills the commitments that it made in the establishment of the joint ministerial committee on European negotiations and that the devolved Administrations would be actively involved in the negotiations of the UK position. That has not happened and indeed today UK ministers will be meeting to try to arrive at a final UK position and the devolved Administrations, not just the Scottish Government but the devolved Administrations as a whole, have not been involved in that process. If the UK Government wants to be taken seriously about the conduct of those negotiations, they should respect the agreements that they have signed up to themselves and ensure that the devolved Administrations are fully involved.