 I want to say, everyone, that the first item of business today is portfolio questions. In order to get as many people in as possible, I prefer short and succinct questions and answers where possible. Question 1, Siwaen MacMahon. To ask the Scottish Government, for what reason is the laying publishing details of the draft budget. The UK spending review will not be published until 25 November 2015. We will therefore beth boblogi chWatchsGrant gennym ni'n dechrau a'r ysgrifennigau ac yn cyfraith y ddefnyddio cysychlau a'r ddechrau. Fe gyd aeth y dyma sy'n tornau 80% o'r busgu ysgrifennigau ysgrifennigau yn defnyddio'r ddymenogel yn siaradau i gysylltu i amser i fynd tiwn i Gwyl Pwyllwy adapting i gyllustiwrd yn Farnymp. Gweithio'r dda nhw'n ei defnyddio'r awgwynt gyda'r iawn i fynd i gywdion ni'n gweithiwyr ddaslogol. Curwmpau amser i fynd i chciau wgwyng ydyn nhw Scottish Parliament at both of the last two UK spending reviews in 2007 and 2010, and Scotland is not unique in being placed in this situation. Wales and Northern Ireland faced the same problem. That is why on 21 August Jane Hutt, Arlene Foster and I wrote jointly to the chief secretary to the Treasury to express our dissatisfaction at his failure to consult with the devolved administrations before the chancellor's announcement. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that any delay in publishing the details of the draft budget will have a serious knock-on effect for our local authorities and other public service partners. I understand cause that I have already stated that. In terms of financial planning and decision making, this is not the ideal situation. It is also vital that there is sufficient time to properly scrutinise the draft budget proposals, particularly now given that the Scottish Government shall be able to set a Scottish rate of income tax for the first time. What reassurances and certainty can the cabinet secretary provide to those who deliver crucial public services such as schools, hospitals and social care, who have been kept in the dark and unable to plan their own budgets for the next year? I acknowledge that the situation is not ideal, but it is not a situation of my making. We are dependent, as I said in my first answer, on the UK Government's decisions for around 80 per cent of the Scottish budget. It would be premature and foolish for us to publish a budget before we had that information. I am pretty sure that that position would be understood by our social partners. I welcome the approach that was taken by COSLA in that respect. I thought that COSLA's response to the timetable of the likely budget was an entirely understandable and pragmatic response. In relation to parliamentary scrutiny, that is of course a matter for parliamentary committees to determine. It is not for me to determine, but, as always, as I have done throughout my tenure as France secretary, I will make myself and other ministers available to interact with parliamentary committees in any way that they choose to scrutinise the Government's budget. John Mason agrees that what this shows fundamentally is that the Westminster budget system is hopelessly out of date, lacks respect for the Scottish Parliament and the other parliaments, and needs to be seriously improved. One of the key points that I would make to Mr Mason is that it is up to Westminster to decide on its budget process. It is not a matter for me, but the one point that I would make is the fact that this demonstrates that the scrutiny that is exercised habitually in this Parliament over financial issues is significantly greater and more complex and more thorough, and I make no complaint about that. I think that it is a good thing than is the case in Westminster. The arrangements are entirely out of kilter because of that fact. I certainly hope that we can make available as much opportunities as we can for this Parliament to scrutinise the Government's budget when it is published. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the potential economic impact on the area, what discussions it is having with Havlock Europa regarding potential job losses in Fife? I share the member's concern regarding developments in Havlock Europa and the potential impact that it will have on employees, their families and on communities across Fife. I can confirm when the announcement was made that we immediately contacted the company to offer support for affected employees through our PACE initiative. Our main economic development agents in the area Scottish Enterprise met with the company on Thursday 3 September to discuss support for the business to minimise any negative impact of the job losses. I welcome the minister's response on the support that has been offered. Havlock Europa's announcement is another major blow to the Fife economy, with the recent closure of Tescos, Carcody and Tullash Russell and job losses at BiFab. I am aware that the Scottish Government has been working very closely with Fife Council on establishing a task force to deal with job losses at Tullash Russell in particular. Can the minister update us today on how many of those who have lost their jobs in Fife have managed to secure further employment or training and how much of the money that has been earmarked for the task force has been allocated? First of all, I can say that I spoke to David Ritchie, the CEO of Havlock Europa this morning, and he confirmed to me that the redundancies will take effect in October. He highlighted that the company currently has seven young people serving out their apprenticeships and that they will not be affected. In response to the general questions, I can confirm that the Fife task force, the Tullash Russell task force, has met on five occasions chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Fife Council. It brings together all partners to support economic growth to respond to the serious challenges that Clare Baker rightly identifies. An initial £6 million of financial support has been announced and the task force to answer the question about allocation has agreed indicative allocations for four strands, for supporting the workforce £1.5 million, supporting business growth of £2 million, community regeneration of £1.25 million and business infrastructure investment of £2.25 million. It is too early to say how many employees will have found work, but I can say that PACE statistics overall in Scotland state that 72 per cent of people who are made redundant find work or other positive opportunities within six months. To ask the Scottish Government when it will take a decision on setting the Scottish rate of income tax. The Scottish Government will propose a Scottish rate of income tax as part of its budget setting process for 2016-17. I am considering the implications for the Scottish Government's budget timetable, presented by the announcement that the UK spending review will not report until late November. The Sunday Times reported, of all tax experts, that many Scottish firms are offering jobs to people in other parts of the UK who are concerned that they cannot make assurances about tax rates. Can that evidence influence an earlier decision to be made? I think that people understand that tax decisions are taken at the appropriate time within the budget cycle of administrations. I think that it would be for all the reasons that I rehearsed with Siobhan McMahon a moment ago that 80 per cent of our budget comes from the UK Government's block grant. Equally, there are decisions that complement that in relation to taxes under our control, which people would expect to be viewed in the round as part of the budget process. We cannot compartmentalise those decisions. There is an interrelationship between the tax that we raise and the block grant that we receive from the UK Government. It is eminently sensible that we undertake that process as a joint exercise as part of the budget setting process, and that is exactly what the Government intends to do. The Scottish Government's stated ambition is to make Scotland the most competitive part of the United Kingdom as a place to do business. Would the cabinet secretary agree that setting an income tax rate for Scotland higher than the rest of the UK would be incompatible with that ambition? The Government will take a decision on the rate of income tax that is applied in Scotland based on a range of different considerations. Part of that discussion will be about the competitiveness of Scotland as a place to do business. I would say to Mr Fraser that there are a whole range of different factors that influence and affect competitive risk. I would argue that the way that we are able to integrate the economic development, learning and development support that is undertaken by the Scottish Government and our organisations works in a complementary way to ensure that we are in a attractive place to invest, which is evidenced by the foreign direct investment assessment that is made by Ernst and Young, which regularly shows Scotland to be one of the key attractive destinations for foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom, only behind London and the south-east. There are a whole variety of factors that go into that, but the Government will be mindful of all those questions when we come to our conclusions on the rate of income tax that we apply. Question 4, Dr Elaine Murray. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government how it is addressing the concerns raised by the Office for National Statistics regarding the transition to the European system of accounts 2010 and whether local authorities will be fully compensated for any additional costs for their programmes. Presiding Officer, I provided updates to Parliament on 2 February and 31 July regarding the ONS review of the Aberdein Western peripheral route. The ONS concluded that the AWPR should be classified to the public sector under the new euro stat rules and guidance that took effect in September of last year. I instructed the Scottish Futures Trust to engage with the ONS to clarify the interpretation of the rules that underpin their decision and consider the scope for making contractual changes to the project that could secure the ONS agreement that reclassification to the private sector would be appropriate. I am grateful to the ONS for prioritising that work. They have now advised that as a result of the SFT's further engagement on the substance of their July decision, there are a number of points that they wish to refer to euro stat for further consideration. That reflects the complexity of the issues with which we are dealing. It will not therefore be possible for the SFT to submit proposals for revisions to the AWPR contract until euro stat have had the opportunity to respond to the points of clarification that have been raised with them, which is likely to take several weeks. I have previously advised Parliament that, although the ONS was undertaking its review, there would be some delays in reaching financial close on a number of projects within the hub programme because of the need to reflect on the ONS's findings. In April, I authorised the SFT to take forward initial changes to the hub model aimed at reinforcing a private sector classification for recognising that further changes might be needed after the ONS had reported that this work is proceeding well. SFT has submitted proposals to the ONS and it is likely that it will be in a position to respond by late October or November. I have given careful consideration to whether, in the interim, hub projects that are currently in the pipeline should be advised that they can reach financial close in advance of the ONS responding. In doing so, I recognise and share the concerns of project partners and other stakeholders. The Government remains committed to the hub programme. However, I must also take into account the risks that could arise as a result of taking projects to financial close in advance of the ONS reaching a conclusion. As a result, I do not expect it to be possible for those projects to reach financial close over the coming weeks. SFT will engage closely with project partners to consider the implications for them, and I will keep the position under close review. I hear what you are saying, but I do not take any particular comfort for it in particular with regard to projects in my area in Dumfries and Galloway Council, which have contractors waiting to sign contracts through the Scottish Futures Trust, through the schools of the future programme, for example. On one of those projects, it was supposed to start on the autumn of this year. Can you provide any comfort to local authorities regarding when the current problems may be resolved? What will happen if the delays create additional costs to local authorities that have not been budgeted for in their original calculations? I hope that Dr Murray will understand that the decisions that we are having to consider are a consequence of a process of changes to the budgeting system, which have arisen whilst those projects have been under way. Many of those projects have been under development for some time. Some of them have reached financial close. A whole range of SFT projects have reached financial close—Inverness College, City of Glasgow College, the M8 improvements—a whole variety of different projects have all reached financial close and have taken their course. However, we now have a new assessment of the rules that have emerged from the ONS, and we have to comply with those rules. As I indicated in my substantive answer, we are now seeking clarification from the ONS on some of those points. Such as the complexity, we are seeking guidance from Eurostat, who supervise those issues across all European jurisdictions. Of course, there are other European jurisdictions who are similarly affected by the decisions with which we are wrestling. I assure Dr Murray and any project partner that the Government is doing everything that it possibly can to resolve those issues as timurously as we can to enable us to reap the benefits of the significant impact on the Scottish economic benefit that comes from having a strong pipeline of construction projects in Scotland. My understanding is that both the Sick Children's Hospital in Edinburgh and the Lothian health bundle reached financial close between September last year and the ONS ruling. I am wondering whether both of those projects will be delayed. I also wonder what will be the financial implications if, in fact, agreement cannot be reached with the ONS and Eurostat with reference to those and indeed other projects. I say to Mr Chisholm that on the Sick Children's Hospital that has reached financial close and it is proceeding as a project and I expect that the ONS will come to review the classification of the Sick Children's Hospital as part of their forward work programme. In relation to the Lothian health centre bundle, that has not reached financial close so clearly it is affected by the circumstances that I have outlined to Parliament today. What the Government is trying to do through the work of the Scottish Futures Trust, and this is occupying a significant amount of the time and the focus of SFT, is to resolve those issues, to enable us to pursue the pipeline of projects and to do that as quickly as we possibly can. Many thanks. Question 5, Rod Campbell. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy has had with the UK Government regarding the devolution of welfare parts. I and other ministers and Scottish Government officials have regular discussions with the UK Government about the devolution of social security. I met with the chief secretary to the Treasury on Friday to discuss a range of issues to do with the wider transfer of powers. Like this Parliament, we have made clear that we do not believe that the Scotland Bill implements the Smith commission recommendations in full and that improvements should be made to those clauses at the report stage in the House of Commons. Does the cabinet secretary agree with the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's reported remarks that the full implementation of the Smith commission's welfare proposals are being held back by the, quote, dogmatism and resistance of Ian Duncan's mis-department for work and pensions, which seem determined for there to be a blanket imposition of welfare cuts across the entire UK? I certainly acknowledge that it is essential for the successful devolution of welfare powers for there to be co-operation from the Department of Work and Pensions. There are a whole range of different information requests that the Scottish Government has made to the Department of Work and Pensions over a sustained period of time to assist us in the implementation of the powers and responsibilities that they are legislated for, which we are still awaiting that information to be returned to us. I encourage the DWP to actively co-operate with us in providing the information to exercise those responsibilities. That is crucial, because that will enable us to take different and distinctive decisions on welfare compared with those of the United Kingdom, and that is what people would expect from a process of devolution. The cabinet secretary will know that, in addition to co-operation between Governments, the process of welfare devolution will also require co-operation between parliaments. Does he agree that the model of a joint committee on welfare devolution is the right way to go forward, and one that is accountable both to this Parliament and elsewhere on completion of the current Scotland Act? Issues of parliamentary scrutiny are not really the business of ministers. It is up to Parliament to decide what it considers to be the most appropriate arrangements to take forward. What ministers in this administration certainly are prepared to do is to be held fully accountable to Parliament for the actions that we take in exercising our responsibilities, and we will do that in all circumstances. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to review business rates. The Scottish Government is keeping the business rates framework under close and active review ahead of the 2017 revaluation, building on our 20-point action plan to deliver improvements for rate payers. Scotland already delivers the most competitive business tax environment in the UK. We are funding around £598 million of rates relief this year, including the small business bonus scheme, which alone is estimated to reduce or remove business rates bills for over two in every five rateable premises. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. I said to him that many in the retail and hospitality sectors, based in towns like Cercodi, Cowdenbeath, Dunfermwyn, Allawa and Perth, tell me that the business rates are a major challenge to remaining in the town centre. If he is serious about town centre renewal, will he agree to look at business rates for town centres? I think that Jeane Baxter should look at the volume of businesses in town centres that are actually benefiting from the existing rates relief regimes that are taken forward by the Scottish Government. If I could cite one example, one of the suggestions that was made to me about the recovery from the Broxburn area, from the closure of the Vion factory, was the removal of business rates for companies in Broxburn high street. When I investigated that, I found that there was only one business in the high street in Broxburn that was paying business rates, because all the rest were getting business rates relief. I think that there is extensive support for town centres as a consequence of the reduction of business rates that the Government puts forward. I have never, to be honest, found the Labour Party particularly supportive of the small business bonus scheme. It has never been immediately obvious to me that it was something that they valued, but if there is a change of heart going on there, then it is, of course, welcome. I can assure her that there are extensive benefits from the business rates regime that the Government takes forward that benefit small companies the length and breadth of the country. Question 7, Ken Leighton. Do you ask the Scottish Government whether the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy will provide an update on what the cost will be of the recent ruling by the Office for National Statistics regarding the use of private finance for public projects? My earlier answer to Elaine Murray went through a significant amount of the detail on this question, and I would not propose to repeat it here. I reiterate to Parliament that the Office for National Statistics conclusions will have no impact on the timetable or the cost of the AWPR project itself. More generally, as noted in my earlier response, the Government and the Scottish Futures Trust will engage closely with project partners to consider the implications for them of the latest developments. An issue for you, Presiding Officer, although I am very grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for the Detail Dancer who gave to my colleague Elaine Murray's question earlier, the amount of detail that was given in that answer perhaps requires a parliamentary statement rather than just a parliamentary question. Certainly, there are questions, wider questions, about the scrutiny and accountability of the Scottish Futures Trust. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy will be aware, in my constituency, that crook for primary school and barhead primary school in the other part of the authority will now be delayed because of this decision. The Eastwood health centre, although it is going ahead, will have to have its contract renegotiated. Can the Cabinet Secretary promise the local authority that, having encouraged them to go down the route of private finance through the Scottish Futures Trust, will he promise them that there will be no additional cost to the local authority as a result of this ruling? First of all, on the question of the procedural points that Mr Macintosh raises, in my parliamentary question that I answered on 31 July, I indicated that I would come back to Parliament with a parliamentary statement once the session had returned and once I had the sufficient detail to hand. I do not have all the detail to hand that would inform that statement, but in order to give a substantial response to a question that has been properly lodged in Parliament, I gave the volume of detail, which I thought was appropriate to that answer. I remain central to my plans to come back to Parliament with a statement once the further detail is to hand, and I will do that. In relation to the points that Mr Macintosh has raised on particular projects, as I indicated, we will remain close to individual projects to discuss the implications of this ruling. We want to resolve those issues as quickly and as timidly as we possibly can do, and we will work with individual bodies to ensure that that is the case. Many thanks, question 8, Gil Paterson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to increase tourism in greater Glasgow and Clyde valley area. We work with VisitScotland and Industry to increase tourism throughout the country, including greater Glasgow and Clyde valley area. Thank you very much for that answer. The minister may be aware that a group in Clyde bank in my constituency is endeavouring to be in contact with the honours of the QE2 to discuss the famous Clyde by built ships return to its home. Can I ask the minister if the ship was to become available? Would the Government provide assistance to the group in bringing the QE to back to Scotland and, more particularly, to Clyde? Yes, I know that Mr Paterson and other MSPs in the Labour Party, for example, have pursued this matter. I am pleased to say that representatives from the Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, VisitScotland and Scottish Development International already sit on an officer working group, which is chaired by Inverclyde Council to examine the possibility of bringing the QE to back to Clyde. Western Bartonshire Council, I should say, is also represented. The group is investigating the availability of the liner, only once it has been ascertained and its condition has been taken into account. Could a feasibility study be undertaken for potential alternative uses? To ask the Scottish Government what cumulative loss to the block grant has resulted from the UK Government's policy on tuition fees in higher education. The Scottish Government believes that access to education should be based on the ability of a student to learn and not pay. Although it is clear that UK Government policy decisions that result in reductions in spending in England impact the Scottish budget as a whole, the processes in place for calculating the Scottish block do not allow us to identify the direct impact of changes in one specific policy area. However, with a reduction in teaching grants spend in England of more than £3 billion in real-terms since 2011-12, the overall impact on the Scottish block grant has obviously been significant. For illustrative purposes, a population share of £3 billion would represent £298 million. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Does he agree with me that this shows that there is a range of policy areas in England and Wales where a policy decision is taken, even if it is one that Scotland is opposed to, such as tuition fees, can have a material effect and impact on Scotland's finances? That is absolutely the case. One more recent example, although we do not have all the details, but I suspect that it will turn out like this, is that the United Kingdom Government's proposals for an apprenticeship levy will shift the burden of payment for apprenticeships from the public purse to individual companies. As a consequence of that, the relevant budget in the UK will be reduced and there will then be a consequential effect on the Scottish budget. That is one other reason why it would be folly for me to bring forward a budget before I see the outcome of the UK spending review in November. All of those factors are relevant and Linda Fabiani makes a substantial point in that respect. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy last met the Scottish Futures Trust and what issues were discussed. I met the Scottish Futures Trust yesterday to receive an update on their engagement with the Office for National Statistics. I acknowledged the cabinet secretary's answers on this issue this afternoon. He will be aware that pupils and staff at St Fergus primary school in Paisley are currently waiting on the Scottish Futures Trust to deliver on its commitment to fund 50 per cent of a new school building. Both the council and I want to see a new school in place as soon as possible. I therefore ask Mr Smith to put on the record when it is expected that the Scottish Futures Trust will meet its commitment to a new St Fergus school. Given that St Fergus primary school is in the most deprived community in the whole of Scotland, could the Scottish Government not provide £2.5 million from other capital sources for this vital project? In relation to Mr Bibby's point, the answer is that the Scottish Futures Trust will proceed with those issues as quickly as we can resolve the wider classification issues with the Office for National Statistics and now with Eurostat. In relation to his second point, obviously, there is a substantial allocation of capital expenditure made available by the Government each year to local authorities. It totals in excess of £570 million, if my memory serves me right, in the current financial year. Obviously, local authorities are in a position to take forward capital projects that they choose to take forward. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what are the implications of a curtailed timetable for consideration of the Scottish budget. Despite the implications of the 25th November UK spending review date being a full five weeks later than the equivalent 2010 publication, the Scottish Government and the National Assembly in Northern Andham Wales were given no advance notice of the chancellor's intentions. Over the coming weeks, I will continue to press the UK Government for early engagement on the content of the spending review and will consult the finance committee to agree a mutually acceptable timetable for this year's Scottish budget process, which balances the need for the Government to develop robust and credible budget proposals and for Parliament to have adequate opportunity to scrutinise them. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. As has already been noted by Siobhan McMahon in this session, the curtailed timetable for publication in the budget puts pressure on financial planners at local council level. That is compounded in areas such as South Lanarkshire by the cumulative effect of three years cuts of £80 million from Mr Swinney's budget. If he will be getting out of Edinburgh to meet councils and see at first hand the impact of previous allocations in order that he can be better informed in terms of his financial planning and ensure a fair allocation for South Lanarkshire. If Mr Kelly would care to peruse the Government website, he will see that I get out of Edinburgh quite a lot. I was in Loch Boisdale on Saturday in Government business. I was in Ullipool the other week there. I was in Oban. I will be in Coatbridge in a couple of weeks' time—no, I will be in Coatbridge the week after. So there is a whole variety— I need to pull the attention. It is in South Lanarkshire, not that terrible long ago. I am very happy to get out and about and to understand the issues that affect local authorities. I had a very productive meeting with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities just last week on issues in connection with the Government's budget. Deputy Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government how many small and medium-sized enterprises it expects to help through the proposed growth fund. We expect a very significant number of small businesses to be helped. Mary Fee. I thank the minister for that very short and precise answer. Can the minister tell me if the growth fund will include micro-businesses and what allocation of funds will be set aside for micro-businesses? What I can assure the member is that the fund is intended for small businesses and, of course, micro-businesses are small businesses. The fund will provide micro-credit finance up to £25,000 in loans of up to £100,000 and equity investment of up to £2 million. It will support public and private sector partners to deliver the fund, generating a minimum of £100 million into the SME finance market over the next three years. I think that that is a very good thing. I look forward to working with all members to make sure that we get the maximum possible benefit that they are from. To ask the Scottish Government what discussion is the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and the Economy has had with Murray Council and Elgin High School parent council regarding delays to the replacement of Elgin High School. The Scottish Futures Trust, on behalf of ministers, has engaged closely with Murray Council and other project partners to ensure that all possible steps are taken to progress the delivery of Elgin High School. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response and the explanation given to the three previous questions on this issue. I was not to know they were to be asked. The new Elgin High School enjoys cross-party support on Murray Council and the need for replacement was identified 13 years ago with the school now well past its serviceable life. The uncertainty has consequences on the agreed budget with the contractor and on maintenance costs of the current building. When does the cabinet secretary think that this project could start and what support will he give should the council face higher costs? I have indicated to Mary Scanlon and other members of Parliament that the Government will remain close to individual projects as we try to resolve the issues that affect all of those projects. I should point out, of course, that many of those projects are not straightforward. Elgin High School was supposed to reach financial close in March 2014. It was put back to June 2014 because the school role had to be increased and there was a school estate review in Murray Council, which has extended the timescale. Obviously, had the school proceeded when it was given financial authorisation or commitment of resources in September 2012, we might not be facing the issues that we are facing today in relation to this school. I have had a letter from the leader of Murray Council and other political leaders in Murray. I have also had a letter from the chair of the parent council, which I welcome and to which they will be responded, setting out the details that I have shared with Mary Scanlon in Parliament today. That is very much question 14, Christina McKelvie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government how the Scottish economy is performing when measured against those of EU member states. Scotland's economic growth last year was more than twice the EU average growth rate and Scotland is outperforming the EU on a number of labour market indicators. Christina McKelvie. Thank you, Deputy First Minister, for that answer. Today in the European Commission, the president of the European Commission, John Claude Eunger, gave his State of the Union address. He talked about the collective responsibility of all European member states, not just in a moral sense but in an economic sense. He highlighted the fact that Greece and Italy in Hungary should not take the burden of the crisis that faces all European member states right now. He also announced a £1.8 billion emergency fund to help African countries to help stabilise and to fight people smugglers. Will the cabinet secretary, Deputy First Minister, tell us what action Scotland will take in ensuring that our economic growth is Europe's economic growth and that it helps to address some of the crisis and the challenges that are currently facing all member states? Clearly, the developments that we can take forward in the Scottish economy and the way in which we can include opportunities for everyone who lives and works in Scotland to contribute to our economic wellbeing will be the most significant contribution that we can make to the European growth agenda. Thank you so much. Question 15, Annabelle Goldie. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the economic benefits of Her Majesty's naval base, Clyde, being designated the UK submarine centre of specialisation with a projected increase of 1,500 jobs by 2022. It is not possible for the Scottish Government to undertake a meaningful assessment of the decision to bring the new astute class submarine fleet into service at HMNB Clyde until the UK Government sets out a detailed timetable and breakdown if they are all navy personnel and others, including any dependents who are expected to transfer to Scotland. While we support investment in conventional defence capabilities, we are sceptical about the UK Government's projections for future personnel numbers at Faslane, given the previous promises of a major uplift in the number of army personnel based in Scotland and investment in the defence estate, such as the promise new barracks at Newton have not materialised. I know that Mr Swinney and character is not instinctively either chirlish or acrid, so I hope he can bring himself to share the predictably very positive local reaction to the proposal to upgrade Faslane, which is a vital economic driver in the local Nubartonshire economy. It is an order that maximum benefit can be derived from the £500 million investment by the UK Government. Will the Scottish Government engage in discussion with the Ministry of Defence and with the two local councils, West Nubartonshire and Agail and Bute, to ensure that road infrastructure and public transport are adequate to meet increased demands and that training and job opportunities for young people at Faslane are maximised? Mr Swinney. I'm glad that Ms Goldie thinks that she knows me so well. Some of my colleagues are disputing her assessment of me. They obviously spend more time with me. I've made her position clear and Ms Goldie knows it well. We are perfectly happy to support investment and convention on defence capabilities, but we need the detail to be spelled out. To do that, we need the MOD to set out the information. We'll look at it and we'll consider it. I've never found the MOD particularly open with the information to be blunt in all this great spirit of intergovernmental working. They're never terribly open about things, so if Ms Goldie, in the channels that she can work out with the Conservative Government, can open up the MOD to dialogue, then I'll be happy to talk back. Many thanks. Question 16, Kenny MacAskill. To ask the Scottish Government what its plans are for the social responsibility levy. Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government position has always been that we will not introduce the social responsibility levy during the lifetime of the public health supplement and until the economic circumstances are correct. The public health supplement has now concluded and the Government will consider in due course if there is a case to apply social responsibility levy for which legislative provision currently exists. Given the significant shift in drink-pinking patterns from the on-to-the-off sale trade, with 72 per cent now provided by the off-sale trade as opposed to 49 per cent in 1994, will the Scottish Government ensure the actions target where the major source of the problem of abuse of alcohol lies? Mr MacAskill marshals, the significant pieces of evidence in relation to this argument he has a long standing and much respected reputation for confronting these issues and for leading policy discussion on the question of alcohol abuse and the consequent knock-on behaviour that arises from that. I can assure him that the evidence that he is cited today and the points that are raised as a consequence will be part of the Government's consideration of how to take forward this issue. Bob Dorris, question 17. As to the Scottish Government, what assessment is made to mitigate the economic impact of the UK Government's austerity measures in Glasgow? The Scottish Government is taking a range of actions to support people in Glasgow against the UK Government's austerity agenda. We have supported more than 16,000 households in Glasgow in 2014-15, providing crisis grants and community care grants. Working in partnership with local authorities and local government, 24,000 discretionary housing payments were made in Glasgow last year. In March 2015, more than 97,000 households in Glasgow were benefiting from council tax reduction, worth an estimated £1.3 million per week. I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer. The economic impact on young people under 21, who may soon be no longer to be able to claim housing benefit under UK Government austerity plans, will be devastating for many vulnerable young people and may lead to increased homelessness and vulnerability. Has the Scottish Government examined or will it examine the economic impact of this in Glasgow for my constituents and what scope is there to use the housing element of universal credit, a new power coming to this Parliament to mitigate such effects where possible in the face of significant austerity? Clarell, the Government will look to take all measures that it can to mitigate the impact of welfare reform on individuals in Scotland. There are some very serious implications of welfare reform and the Government must be mindful of exercising its responsibilities. However, it is important that I express cautionary note to Parliament that, in my estimation, it will be impossible for the Government to mitigate all the effects of the austerity measures, but the Government will act as it has done over the course of the last few years to do all that we can to support the most vulnerable in our society. That concludes Portfolio Questions. We now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 14167, in the name of Ken Macintosh, on housing and wellbeing in Scotland. I invite all members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.