 De exhibitions will continue to support NHS 5 to make the improvements, but I will write to her about the case that she highlights. The general question time. We are now moving to First Minister's question 1. Kezia Dugdale To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. First Minister Engagements to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland The official figures published yesterday confirmed the SNP Government's most recent oil revenue estimates for next year are more than 10 times greater than those of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Will the First Minister now commit to publishing a revised oil and gas bulletin? Yes, as John Swinney has just said a few moments ago, we will take the time to analyse the fiscal changes announced by the chancellor in the budget yesterday. When we have done that, as soon as it is feasible, we will publish an updated oil and gas bulletin. I think that it is worth pointing out that when the Scottish Government was projecting an oil price of $110 a barrel, the OBR was projecting an oil price of $100 a barrel and the UK Government's Department of Energy and Climate Change was projecting an oil price of upwards of $120 a barrel. I think that it is fair to say that everybody's projections about oil were wrong, but I think that the most revealing thing about Labour is how they gleefully pounce on anything they can describe as bad news and steadfastly ignore anything that is good news about Scotland's economic prospects. The fact is that the projected decline in oil revenues over the next few years is dwarfed in every single one of those years by the projected growth in our onshore non-oil revenues. In other words, our revenues as a country are increasing, our public finances are improving, and I know that that does not suit Labour's narrative, but it happens to be a fact. I am pleased that the First Minister has finally run out of excuses and will publish a new oil and gas bulletin. This is not some dry statistical exercise. This is about the SNP's key general election demand for full fiscal autonomy within the UK, a plan that would scrap the stability of higher public spending through Barnett for the austerity max of relying on oil revenues. Oil revenues that are projected by the SNP's current oil and gas bulletin. The new OBR figures show something quite extraordinary. They show that even the SNP's most pessimistic scenario for oil and gas revenues are £10 billion more than the OBR's latest forecast. On the SNP's preferred scenario, the difference is almost £30 billion. That is nearly the whole Scottish Government budget. When the SNP Government published their March 2013 oil and gas bulletin, it did so just five days after the GERS figures for that year, so it should not take too long this time, either. Can the First Minister confirm that the new oil and gas projections will be published before we meet again here next week? I have just confirmed, as John Swinney has just confirmed, that we will publish the updated oil and gas bulletin as soon as possible. I say to Kezia Dugdale, who takes great glee in declining oil revenues. If we look to the year 2019-20, we will see oil revenues projected to decrease by £3 billion compared to 2013-14. In that same year, our onshore non-oil revenues will increase by £15 billion. Our revenues are growing, our public finances are improving, and that does not suit Labour, but it is good news for Scotland. On the wider question, we have yet again the two faces of Labour. In England today, Labour is telling people that Westminster cuts are extreme and that it is going to take us back to the 1930s levels of public spending. In Scotland, Labour is trying to tell people that Westminster is the saviour of our public spending. Is it any wonder that nobody believes a word Labour says any more? The only cuts on the horizon are the cuts that are proposed by the Tories and voted for by Labour. The only alternative to austerity in Scotland is the SNP. The First Minister talks about two faces. She was in England this week telling people to vote green who want to shut down the oil and gas industry. I take no glee in those figures and numbers, because we are talking about thousands of jobs and I find that utterly disrespectful. The SNP's plans for full fiscal autonomy rests on an oil price of $110 a barrel, yet the OBR has revised down its predictions for the oil price. It now projects an oil price next year of more than $40 a barrel lower than the SNP. That makes the case for a Scottish office for budget responsibility even stronger than it was previously. To be frank, the Scottish Government's figures simply cannot be trusted. Will the First Minister support Scottish Labour's call for an impartial and independent Scottish financial watchdog? As Labour knows, we have one and this Government is taking steps to put that on a statutory footing. I would have thought that that is something that Labour would have welcomed. Yet again, Kezia Dugdale steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the estimated growth in our onshore revenues. That is before we have the additional economic and fiscal powers that would allow us to grow our economy even faster. That is the whole point about not letting Westminster continue to control our finances but taking more control ourselves. In terms of how people in England should vote, is it any wonder that people are disillusioned with Labour? Here is what Ed Ball's shadow chancellor had to say just this morning. There is nothing from George Osborne's budget yesterday that he would reverse if he became chancellor. Nothing in the budget of a right-wing Tory chancellor that a new Labour chancellor would choose to reverse. Really? Let me tell you, there is plenty that I would choose to reverse. Starting with the austerity cuts that are going to be deeper than anything that we have seen. Ed Ball's has just made our case for us. The only alternative to austerity in Scotland is the SNP. Kezia Dugdale said last week that the First Minister had to correct the official report when she did not tell the truth about how the SNP voted on a quos 30 vote. I am happy to correct the record myself too, because last week I said that scrapping Barnett would cost Scotland £6.5 billion in spending cuts. I was wrong. The oil projections from the OBR confirm that the cost would now in fact be £7.6 billion. That is a Barnett bombshell. It would mean billions of pounds worth of cuts. Let us hear Mr Dugdale order. The First Minister is laughing about cuts to our schools and our NHS. She is laughing about cuts to thousands of jobs in Scotland. Scots appreciate straight talking. What we cannot stand is when our Government tries to cover up the truth about the impact of its policies. When will the First Minister do the decent thing and admit the SNP's plans to scrap Barnett would be devastating for Scotland? Let me tell Kezia Dugdale what will come as a bombshell to people across Scotland today, and that is news that Labour will not reverse any of the Tory cuts that were announced in the budget yesterday. Here is something else that might come as a bombshell to people in Scotland. Hearing yesterday, Rachel Reeves, one of the shadow cabinet of the Labour Party, said that Labour no longer stands for people out of work. Those will be the things that come as bombshells to people across Scotland. Let me, for the purposes of the record, confirm that the SNP did not vote for the Labour cuts put forward in their motion just over a week ago. The only cuts on the horizon for Scotland are the £30 billion cuts that Labour voted for a few weeks ago. Cuts proposed by the Tories, cuts that we now know this morning will not be reversed by Labour. The only alternative to Tory Labour austerity cuts in Scotland is the SNP. Yesterday, the chancellor delivered a £1.3 billion tax cut for the North Sea. The plan was widely welcomed across the oil industry. It was welcomed by Sir Ian Wood. It was welcomed by all of Scotland's leading business associations. However, there was at least one voice of dissent. According to the source, what stood out in yesterday's whole budget was, and I quote, the huge tax breaks for the fossil fuel dinosaurs, which will drag us back from the cusp of a green energy revolution. Can I ask the First Minister what she makes of such analysis? As the Deputy First Minister said yesterday, and as I will say again today, we welcome the moves that the chancellor took in the budget yesterday to support the North Sea oil and gas sector. They are precisely the moves that this Government has been calling for for some time. However, before Ruth Davidson gets too carried away, she would do well to remember that on the supplementary charge, all the chancellor was actually doing was reversing the tax hike that he imposed on the sector in 2011, undoing his own damage in other words. However, we welcome those moves. We wish they had been taken a lot sooner. I asked the First Minister specifically about so-called fossil fuel dinosaurs. The reason I asked that is because the criticism of the chancellor's oil industry boost came from the Green Party in England. That is the very same Green Party in England that Nicola Sturgeon wants people to vote for. In fact, on Monday she said, and I'll quote this, if I was living in England, I would probably be looking at voting green. About four minutes ago, the First Minister talked of the two faces of Labour, so let's see if we can get her story straight. When she's in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has just said that she calls on London to deliver tax breaks to keep the drilling going. But when she's in London, she urges people to vote for a party that says that we should stop the drilling altogether and give hundreds of thousands of North Sea oil workers the sack. What kind of politics is that? What kind of judgment is that? Can I ask why a First Minister of Scotland is telling people in England to vote for a party that would kill Scotland's oil industry? The First Minister— Dairy meat. For the benefit of Ruth Davidson and, indeed, for anybody else across this chamber, I'm Nicola Sturgeon, I live in Scotland, I'm voting SNP, and I encourage everybody else to vote SNP in Scotland. Nobody in England votes Tory because the Tories are imposing austerity cuts in Scotland and the sooner we get rid of them, the better. To ask the First Minister what the implications are for Scotland of the UK budget. Despite the fact that Scotland has paid more per person in taxes than the rest of the UK in every year, for the past 34 years, our annual discretionary spending power has been cut by nearly £2.8 billion in real terms since the start of the spending review. Contrast, the £30 million of consequentials that was announced yesterday with that cut and with the £12 billion cumulative cut to day-to-day spending expected over the next four years, compared to 2014-15, and the disproportionate impact that this will have on those in the lowest incomes, and then you can begin to fully understand the implications of the UK budget on Scotland. Mr Gibbs. I thank the First Minister for her reply, but can the First Minister tell us in more detail how the cuts imposed by the Tories and now backed by Labour will impact on the delivery of public services, public sector employment and the Scottish Government's ability to invest in infrastructure and support for the most vulnerable in our society? Given that only last week the Institute of Fiscal Studies indicated that the cuts could mean up to 900,000 public sector jobs lost across the UK over the next four years. The First Minister is absolutely right to flag up the impact of these cuts coming as they do on top of the billions of cuts already taken from our budget. It was interesting to note people on the Labour bench who are laughing as Kenny Gibson was talking about the real impact on public services and individuals of those cuts. One of the worst things that I thought from the budget yesterday when you look at the analysis is the disproportionate impact of Tory cuts on the poorest in our society. The combined impact of Tory tax, welfare and public spending changes will reduce the income of an average household by 1.5 per cent, but they will reduce the income of the poorest 20 per cent by 2.2 per cent. The disproportionate impact is on the poor, and that says all that needs to be said about the priorities of the Tories. Lewis MacDonald We have heard that there are very different views about the importance of the oil and gas industry going forward, as indeed we heard in the debate on that subject in this Parliament last week. Can the First Minister then tell us, does she welcome the plans announced in the budget for the oil and gas authority to fund seismic surveys in marginal fields in order to sustain production and jobs? Does she agree that public investment in oil and gas is critical to sustaining a key economic sector? Would she welcome further such public investment in supporting the oil and gas industry in Scotland and across the UK? The First Minister Yes, this Government has been calling repeatedly for a reduction in the supplementary charge, calling for an investment allowance and calling for support for exploration. It is for all of these reasons that I support the measures announced in the budget yesterday, and I want to see continued public and government support for our North Sea oil and gas sector. Jim Hew? Thank you. In the budget yesterday, the UK Government announced £1.25 billion of extra spending for mental health services as part of its commitment to parity of esteem between physical and mental health. Will the First Minister commit to spending the consequential funding that the Scottish Government receives from that money—some £125 million—on mental health services? I think that £26 million out of the total £30 million announced yesterday came from changes in health in England, in particular mental health. I want to see that money in Scotland directed to our health service. The Scottish Government will look carefully at what the priorities for that should be. Mental health is and always will be a priority for this Government, and we will make a more detailed announcement in due course. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed himself to the city deals for Aberdeen and for Inverness. Will the First Minister commit the Scottish Government to working hand in hand with the UK Government to ensure that those deals are a success and that it has the effect of bringing economic growth to areas that are currently depressed as a result of low oil prices? Yes, I will give that commitment. I have already made very clear that the Scottish Government will work with Aberdeen in Inverness, and I would like to see in due course other cities to progress city deals. Of course, that is the Government that has committed £500 million to the Glasgow city deal to help to make it a success. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle racial discrimination. First Minister, there is absolutely no place for racism or indeed for any kind of discrimination in a civilised society. The Scottish Government is strongly committed to equality, including race equality, and this is reflected in our key strategies and in our continued support for organisations that promote race equality, tackle racial discrimination and challenge racism. Over £8 million from the equality budget for 2012-15 has supported activity to promote race equality and address racial discrimination through a range of projects at both local and national level. It is part of the work to shift attitudes and provide a strong message about the kind of Scotland we all want to live in. We launched the latest phase of the One Scotland campaign, Scotland Believes in Equality in November, and that included a specific focus on race. In addition, we are working towards producing, with our race equality partners and Scotland's minority ethnic communities, a framework for race equality for Scotland by spring of 2016. I thank the First Minister for all of that work that is being done and direct her to article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for the enjoyment of the rights of freedoms set forth in European Convention on Human Rights shall be secured without discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or status. Given that this is the highest of standards of anti-discriminatory policy in the EU, does the First Minister join with me in condemning the disgusting and downright discriminatory words of David Coburn MAP, director to minister for Europe and external affairs, Humza Yousaf, and reassert that there is no place in Scotland or Europe for sexist, racist or homophobic discrimination? I know that I will speak on behalf of the entire chamber when I condemned the utterly reprehensible comments of David Coburn. The Scottish Parliament yesterday stood in solidarity with her friend and colleague, Humza Yousaf, and voted unanimously to censure Mr Coburn. My clear view is that he is simply not fit to represent the people of Scotland in the European Parliament or anywhere else. I also take the opportunity to condemn unreservedly the vile homophobic abuse that is being directed at Ruth Davidson on Twitter last night and this morning. The individual in question in that case has been identified and suspended from membership of the SNP pending full disciplinary process. To ask the First Minister in light of the new analysis by Professor Brian Ashcroft regarding fiscal autonomy, whether the two Scottish Government reports entitled benefits of improved economic performance are based on the continuation of the Barnett formula? The modelling does not simulate the continuation of the Barnett formula. The Scottish Government analysis illustrates how being able to retain the benefits of improved economic performance in Scotland would allow us to invest in Scotland's public services and, in turn, further improve our country's economic potential. I thank the First Minister for her response, but I respectfully point out to her that this is not a very good week for the Scottish Government when it comes to forecasting oil or indeed analysing the economy. Professor Ashcroft has described this analysis as fanciful and lacking in economic rigour. Her Government has been caught red-handed fiddling the figures in order to try to make her economic policy add up. In both analytical reports on the economy, published within six days of each other, I believe that the SNP do assume the continuation of Barnett at the same time as demanding full fiscal autonomy. She knows that you just cannot have both. With the SNP, we will see not just tutorial austerity, we will see £7.6 billion of a deficit, so the SNP will deliver austerity max. The First Minister will update the analysis to correct her finance secretary's mistake so that we can all see the true state of the nation's finances. Just because Jackie Baillie thinks that something is the case, does not actually make it the case. As we know from past experience, the Barnett formula is not part of the modelling framework. What the framework and the modelling does is look at how, if we pursued particular policies and then benefited and boosted economic performance, we could grow the revenues of Scotland. I think that that is something that should be of interest to all parties. I, in response to Kezia Dugdale earlier on, said that our on-shore revenues over the next few years are estimated to grow by the time we get to 2019-20. There will be £15 billion higher than there are now. That is without us having the powers to pursue policies that will grow our economy faster. Imagine how much better we could do if we did not allow Westminster to control all of our finances and instead took greater control ourselves. I would say finally to Jackie Baillie the same as I said to Kezia Dugdale. The only cuts facing Scotland at the moment are the cuts proposed by the Tories that we know from ed balls this morning, Labour will not reverse. That is shameful and I think that the people of Scotland will draw their own conclusions. Kevin Stewart Does the First Minister agree with me that the real threat to Scotland's economy is the austerity agenda of both the Labour and the Tory parties, whose only disagreement is not on whether to keep cutting our vital public services, but how deep they should actually go? I think that Kevin Stewart absolutely puts his finger on it. The only argument, the only difference between the glued together Labour and Tory parties is how deep the cuts should be. If you are a voter in Scotland and you want a clear and principled alternative to austerity, the only one and offer is the one coming from the SNP. That is the reality. I know that Labour does not like it, but they will keep hearing it all the way for it to May 7. Alex Johnson In the past 20 minutes, the First Minister has praised the effect of a growing private sector and its impact on the Scottish economy. She has also, at another point, demanded vast increases in the public sector. Could she explain which economic theory she actually believes in? The First Minister I believe in investing in our public sector to protect the public services that people across Scotland rely on. I agree, and Labour used to agree with that as well, if we use public funding to invest in infrastructure, innovation and skills, then we will grow the economy faster. That is the basic premise at the heart of my argument. Alex Johnson is looking confused about it, but perhaps that is why he is a member of a party that has missed its own borrowing projections by £150 billion over this Parliament. Annabelle Goldie To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's position is on confidentiality clauses for staff leaving NHS jobs. The Scottish Government has made it clear that we expect there to be a presumption against the use of confidentiality clauses. They should be used only if there are clear and transparent reasons for doing so. That is why last year, NHS boards were instructed to remove confidentiality clauses altogether from standard settlement agreements. Furthermore, we have increased transparency. Every NHS board is now required to notify the Scottish Government of any settlement agreement to resolve a dispute if it is intended that that agreement contains a confidentiality clause. Annabelle Goldie Since February of last year, eight health boards have used those restraints. Greater Glasgow and Clyde alone has imposed them on 36 departing staff members. NHS gagging orders are less to do with keeping sensitive information private, and much more to do with stopping embarrassing information becoming public. They are on the third employee who is leaving and they fail the public interest. Those gagging orders are charters. They are charters for the inept, the incompetent and the bully. Does the First Minister agree that this practice is in serious need of urgent review? The Scottish Government did review and took action. That is why there is now a presumption against using confidentiality clauses. They used to be included in standard settlement agreements. They are now no longer included. There will be some, as the RCN and the BMA have both previously recognised, and there will be some circumstances in which there are reasonable grounds for using such clauses. In those circumstances, we have insisted that boards notify the Scottish Government of them. We have acted and taken action that I think is appropriate. One other point is very important to make absolutely clear. It is not possible, even with a confidentiality clause, to gag people who have concerns about patient safety or malpractice within a health board. Any agreement that sought to prevent staff from raising concerns about patient safety or malpractice would actually be illegal under the Public Interest Disclosure Act making such agreement unenforcable. I agree very much with where Annabelle Goldie is coming from on that, but I think that she should acknowledge the very clear action that the Scottish Government has taken. Richard Simpson. First Minister, the fact that it was announced last year that there would be no more gagging clauses, and we now see that there are 40 in the last year, clearly has to be a matter of public concern, in order to be certain that those clauses are not being misused to cover up harassment, bullying or any issues that might possibly impinge on patient safety directly or indirectly, and to ensure that the whistleblowers helpline, which our Government also set up some two years after England—the national confidential alert line, as it is properly known—are also being followed up fully, will she consider setting up an all-party parliamentary oversight committee to give the public absolute confidence that those clauses are only being used in appropriate circumstances? I would argue that Richard Simpson and indeed Annabelle Goldie are raising important issues and I want to acknowledge that and respond appropriately to them, but I would argue that mechanism already exists. As I said in response to Annabelle Goldie, the Scottish Government must now be notified of any use of any confidentiality clauses to allow those clauses to be better scrutinised. In May of this year, we will be giving the first full year of this information to the Public Audit Committee of this Parliament, allowing the cross-party Public Audit Committee of this Parliament to scrutinise that information and to make any comment and recommendation that it sees fit. I think that that is appropriate. We have said very clearly that there is a presumption against those clauses. Secondly, where those clauses are used, because a health board and the member of staff in question thinks that they are appropriate, we must be notified to allow scrutiny. Thirdly, and lastly, it would be illegal to use one of those clauses to gag a member of staff who had legitimate concerns about patient safety. I think that taking all of that into account, the chamber should be assured that appropriate action has been and is being taken. Thank you. That ends First Minister's question time. We are now moved to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.