 Y Llywyddyn G Packard yng nghymru efallai ond fel orbit i gynymusANF, ac mae gennych i ddod i ddifus i cysylltyniad nr 1 o Richard Lyle. Ieibsrwyddr Fawr, gyda'r gwneud gofal cofnodau sefydliadau i gael i fwyllt o'r tryn cyllideb i ngyfydiannol yn cael eu gofal i gael i gael i gael i'r diwyllteb i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gael i gaeli'r gael i m73, m74, motorway improvements project. Dwi'n gweithio'r ffordd cyflawn y project, 24 acustic barriers, o'r noys bunnys, wedi'i cread o'r m8 ac o'r a725. Ymgyrch gweithio'r pryddiad wedi'i gwneud hynny yn ysgrifennu o'r holl o'r holl ardi, yn ôl y project. O ddodd, mae rhodd o'r holl o'r holl ardi i gwneud hynny yn gweithio'r holl ardi y newid o'r holl ardi, yn dangos yr aeth yng Nghymru. Felly mae'r ddodd, ddodd y ddodd, yn eithaf i ddodd pwyllgor gyda ni'n gwneud pan ar gweithio'r of the on-going case of the noise and other impacts faced by my constituents at Burn Aker Gardens in Uningston. Can I therefore ask what assistance he can provide me with in facilitating a meeting with my constituents and the chief executive of Transport Scotland in order to work towards a positive outcome for all involved? Of course, I have had discussions with a member on this issue previously and I can confirm to him that he will have been sent a response from the chief executive of Transport Scotland agreeing to his request to meet him. Once again, I am happy to discuss the member with the member further after that meeting. It could also say to Richard Lyle and to all other members involved in this that there is no question that this has been a hugely beneficial project, but it does necessitate some disruption and some inconvenience to the local population. That is true of all major transport projects. I am very grateful to the member for the support that he is giving for this project, even while raising the issues of concern to his constituents quite rightly. As he knows and I know, this is a huge benefit to Central Scotland and to the Transport Network of Scotland, £0.5 billion of investment including for the first time motorway being established between Glasgow and Edinburgh. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to encourage economic growth. We are taking a number of actions to support long-term economic growth, including significant investments in transport, as I have just mentioned, digital connectivity and supporting investment in our cities and regions. Moreover, we are expanding funded early learning and childcare facilities to improve young children's outcomes and reduce barriers to parents participating in the economy. We have also invested more than £5 billion in the higher education sector over the past five years, with a further £1 billion allocated in 2017-18. To boost Scotland's trade, exports and international connections, we have established a board of trade and are creating permanent trade representation in Berlin and Paris to add to our innovation and investment hubs in Dublin, London and Brussels. The Fraser of Islander Institute believes that up to 80,000 jobs could be lost to Scotland in the back of a hard Brexit. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that it is simply unacceptable and that it proves that the UK Government is playing fast and loose with the future of many Scots families as the Westminster Government continues to struggle to come to terms with the EU during Brexit negotiations? First the member and the Fraser of Islander Institute underline the real risk that Brexit poses to the Scottish economy. The EU is the largest single market for Scotland's international exports, with exports worth £12.3 billion in 2015, an increase of £520 million on 2014. The research that is undertaken by the Fraser of Islander Institute estimates that, after 10 years, GDP is expected to be over 5 per cent lower than would otherwise be the case, and that is £8 billion in 2015-16 terms. It also estimates that leaving the European Union single market and customs union threatens 80,000 Scottish jobs after a decade. In fact, the BBC reported only this week that the Bank of England believes that up to 75,000 jobs could be lost in the UK financial sector alone in the event of a hard Brexit. It is no wonder that the Fraser of Islander Institute has said in its latest economic commentary that, in looking forward, the greatest cloud on the immediate horizon remains a Brexit negotiation. That is why we are using all the powers at our disposal to grow the Scottish economy. It is also why the UK Government should release, in relation to the request that was made by my colleague Mike Russell, all the analysis that they have done on the different sectors and parts of the UK in order that we can take the best possible decisions to protect the Scottish economy from the Tory's obsession with Brexit. Dean Lockhart, figures that were released last week show that the UK economy expanded by 1.5 per cent compared to growth of only 0.5 per cent for Scotland under the SNP. The SNP is clearly trying to blame Brexit for Scotland's economic underperformance, but the reality is that Scotland's economy under the SNP has been lagging behind for years, years before Brexit. Future growth under the SNP is forecast to remain low for years to come. When will the cabinet secretary start taking responsibility for delivering economic growth that Scotland deserves and stop blaming Brexit and others for this Government's economic incompetence? It is interesting that, when the previous quarters figures came out, which showed Scottish growth at four times the rate of the UK, I was not asked to take responsibility for that by the member. However, the head-in-the-sand attitude is absolutely appalling. It is not just me saying it, it is not the Fraser of Ireland Institute, which many of the members on that side would like to quote regularly. It is the Bank of England saying the same thing. It is every economic commentator. The UK has not projected the lowest growth of all the EU countries. It is simply the case that Brexit is the major threat to its economy. Perhaps he disagrees with that. That may be the case. He disagrees with every economic commentator. Perhaps, as he has said or he has not said, there is no threat at all from Brexit. He seems to be very sanguine about that. There is a huge threat from Brexit, but it would be interesting to know if he supports the call that Mike Russell has made so that we get the detailed analysis done by the UK Government to better inform our decisions on the Scottish economy. Does he support that, or does he not, I wonder? Jackie Baillie The one thing that we can agree on, Presiding Officer, is that year-on-year comparison of GDP figures shows that the Scottish economy grew by 0.5 per cent and the equivalent UK growth was 1.5 per cent. I am interested to know what the Scottish Government is doing to close the gap, but specifically, in the context of reducing capital infrastructure budgets, would the cabinet secretary consider a fiscal stimulus for the construction industry? Michael Matheson We have done exactly that in the past, as a member knows, fiscal stimulus, not least after the decision on Brexit. Decisions, though, on capital expenditure, as with those on revenue expenditure, will be for my colleague Derek Mackay to answer. Of course, he and I, not as recently as yesterday afternoon, were discussing this very issue. Of course, we want to maximise the capital investment that is in the economy. We have seen the benefits of that over many years, whether it is the Queensferry crossing, the M8 bundle or all the other infrastructure works. It really should have been done years ago by different parties in this chamber, and it has been down to the Scottish Government to bring forward. We will continue to do that to the maximum of our ability to do it, using not just the resources that are available to us, but any new means, such as the Scottish National Investment Bank, that might help us to increase capital expenditure. On that, I think that Jackie Baillie and I share the same aim. Linda Fabiani 5. To ask the Scottish Government how it promotes the carbon-free economy. Mr Paul Wheelhouse The Scottish Government undertakes a range of activities, not only to promote, but to also accelerate Scotland's transition to a low-carbon economy. To name a few, we have committed a further £60 million to support innovative low-carbon energy projects through the low-carbon infrastructure transition programme. We have committed to the Scottish energy efficiency programme, making available a minimum of £500 million over the initial four-year period from 2017-18. We have promoted low-carbon actions through greener Scotland to encourage changes in consumer behaviour that households can take. Linda Fabiani I know that the minister recognises the contribution that East Kilbride has made to the Scottish economy in the 70 years since it became Scotland's most successful new town. Does he recognise now that, in terms of Cumbernauld's rather good-as-well, I hastened hard for his fellow minister? Does he now recognise that, in terms of zero waste, in terms of recycling green transport and industrial innovation towards the circular economy, UK could easily become an exemplar of the carbon-free economy in Scotland? Will the minister undertake to meet again with members of East Kilbride taskforce to discuss East Kilbride's future in this way? I am glad that Linda Fabiani has managed to keep the peace in the chamber. I was nervous there for a while, but I certainly welcome East Kilbride's ambition to become a carbon-free model location. Linda Fabiani is quite right. We met with the taskforce and it was a very positive meeting. As I have just reinforced, the Scottish Government offers a number of policy measures on funding opportunities aimed at accelerating the transition to low-carbon growth. Those go beyond the three examples that I gave with further support for business, communities and individuals. In response to the particular request, in the first instance, if Linda Fabiani is agreeable to that, I would be happy to ask my officials to offer a meeting with representatives of East Kilbride, whether that is the local authority or other parties, to explore how sources of support from the Scottish Government and our agencies might best be utilised to support the laudable aim that East Kilbride has to be a low-carbon model. Of course, I would be happy to meet with the taskforce or others following that once that discussion is taken place. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to stimulate business growth in areas with high unemployment. The Scottish Government uses all available levers to create the economic conditions to stimulate business growth in areas with high unemployment, working closely with a wide range of partners, including the enterprise agencies, Skills Development Scotland and, of course, local authorities. We work to ensure that businesses of all sizes and sectors can access the support that they need to grow and create employment opportunities. Jenny Gilruth I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. In my constituency of Midfaith and Glenrothes, we have the highest rate of unemployment in Fife at almost 11 per cent. Can the cabinet secretary advise what the Scottish Government proposals are to create jobs and apprenticeships in areas of high unemployment to ensure that more of our young men and women get into work and stay in work? First of all, I would mention the fact that the unemployment figures are true, as Jenny Gilruth said, in different parts of the country. However, we currently have the highest employment figures on record, with 2 million, rather, 655,000 people in work in Scotland. We have higher employment rates and lower unemployment rates in the UK—we never heard that mentioned by the Conservatives, of course—with 91,000 more people in employment compared to the pre-recession peak. Youth unemployment rates continue to outperform the UK, and that comes on top of us fulfilling our commitment to reduce youth unemployment by 40 per cent four years ahead of schedule. Notwithstanding all that, those are positive figures, but we recognise that there are still many barriers to people getting into work, and we are continuing to work to improve labour market conditions, not least through expanding the range of opportunities available to young people through our apprenticeship programme. We have recently announced £96 million of investment to deliver fairer employment support services through the new Fair Start Scotland programme, in a statement that was announced to the Parliament by Jamie Hepburn. The latest employment figures last week show that the Scottish economy continues to perform well against a difficult backdrop, with a lack of clarity from the UK Government on Brexit and proposals to leave the world's biggest single market posing the single biggest threat. However, those good figures mean that we have to redouble our efforts on areas where we still have issues, and Jenny Gilruth's constituency is not far from mine. We do have some similar challenges. That is the opportunity that we have to try to address that by some of the means that I have just outlined. To ask the Scottish Government how many section 36 applications are in progress in the Caithness, Sutherland and Ross constituency. There are eight applications that are made under section 36 of the Electority Act in progress in the Caithness, Sutherland and Ross constituency. Of those four cases are currently with the Planning and Development Appeals Division, or DPEA, to administer the public local inquiry process. Gail Ross. I thank the minister for that answer. Would he agree with me that the potential in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross for renewable energy, particularly from hydro and wave technologies, is incredible, and will the Scottish Government work to ensure that any new policies on wild land will factor in the need for renewable energies that are not necessarily when generated? The Scottish Government is strongly committed to supporting the continued growth of the renewable energy sector, not just in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, but across Scotland as a key driver of economic growth. Nevertheless, we recognise that, through the planning system, we need to ensure that each application is considered on its own merits and that we take into account any potential detriment to our natural environment. Having said that, Gail Ross makes mention of wild land, and wild land is not a formal designation of such, and it is important to recognise that. It is certainly now taken into account in making determinations on planning applications. However, it is important to stress that Scottish planning policy is clear that development may be appropriate in wild land areas where impacts can be substantially overcome by sighting, design or other mitigation, and any future revisions to Scottish planning policy will be subject to consultation. However, as Gail Ross has also identified, there are a number of other technologies that have less impact on wild land, including strong support investment in hydropower, as has been mentioned, as well as wave and tidal power and offshore floating and fixed installation wind farms to enable development of our vast renewable resources, but with hopefully minimal impact on issues such as wild land. Edward Mountain Thank you, Presiding Officer. Section 36 appeals whilst free incur considerable legal costs. The Highland Council, who represent local views of finding appeals a real financial burden, will the Scottish Government help them with the extra funds, given the number of wind farms in the Highlands that are being decided under section 36 powers? Michael Matheson We believe that we resource local government well to deliver the services that are planning functions that they deliver on our behalf and on behalf of the local communities. We will obviously be prepared to listen to any particular concerns that may be about the volume of activity, but we have been here before. Obviously, there have been areas of the country that have had waves of investment in renewable energy around the country and borders in South of Scotland being one region that I am very familiar with. Those issues have been managed well at a local level, but, if there are particular issues, I would encourage Mr Mountain to make them known to the planning minister, Kevin Stewart, who would be able to take forward any concerns that he has. Kenneth Gibson To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to grow the economy of North Ayrshire. The Government is committed to promoting economic growth across all the communities, including those in North Ayrshire. Our substantial investment in infrastructure, regeneration and business support helps to deliver inclusive growth and economic resilience, creating and retaining jobs in communities across the area. For example, and it is just an example, the Scottish Government's modern apprenticeship programme has supported over 800 modern apprenticeships, new starts in North Ayrshire in each of the past four years. We recognise that apprenticeships, for one example, are an essential way for all employers, regardless of size and sector to develop their workforce and to contribute to business and economic growth. Kenneth Gibson I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Does he share my concern that neither North Ayrshire nor Ayrshire as a whole are keeping up with economic or income growth in Scotland and the UK such that it is? What specific steps will the Scottish Government take to narrow that growing gap and tackle unemployment, particularly in the over 40-age group? The member is entirely right to draw attention to that. Of course, we are focused on areas where there might be a lag in other communities across Scotland. As I have already stated, the Government is committed to promoting economic growth across all of our communities. I want to take cognisance of the proactive, positive steps that are already taken by North South and East Ayrshire on their plans to create a new partnership to boost the economy of Ayrshire. I think that this is a tremendous step on which other local authorities will be looking to with interest. That proposal to establish an interim Ayrshire development board and explore options to deliver a single Ayrshire economic vehicle aiming to drive change across the three areas in partnership is really an example of partnership working in action. For our part, the Scottish Government will continue to support the Ayrshire councils as they develop this approach to working with all partners. We will make sure that the agencies for which we have responsibility work with those partners. Of course, we have the on-going commitment, as we have stated many times, to explore an Ayrshire growth deal. It would be far better if we were able to have the UK Government working with us in relation to that, but, along with that, we will look at any other options that we can to improve economic performance and income growth in North Ayrshire, as the member suggests. Jamie Greene Thank you, Presiding Officer. Does the cabinet secretary not share my concern that the number of people in work in North Ayrshire has plummeted by 10 per cent since his Government came to power a decade ago? What words of comfort does he have for the people in North Ayrshire that this negative trend will reverse any time soon? Jamie Greene I think that much of the previous answers that I have given it, I think that success will undoubtedly look like something born of a partnership. That partnership that we have seen already through the initiative that is taken by the three Ayrshire councils is very promising. Not least, the commitment that I have just given the Government's agencies will work with that partnership. We have encouraged it to happen in the first place. We have also said that we will respond positively to the suggestions of those three local authorities for an Ayrshire growth deal. Once again, I would state that we would want to have the UK Government, who have refused so far to do so, to be part of that growth deal in order that we can do exactly as the member suggests and Kenneth Gibson, and that is to increase employment opportunities in that part of the country. Ash Denham To ask the Scottish Government whether it has had sight of the economic analysis that has been carried out by the Department for Exiting the European Union. I am sorry to say that the Scottish Government has not had any access to any analysis carried out by the Department for Exiting the European Union on the economic impact of leaving the EU for either the UK or the Scottish economies. Ash Denham Figures from the London School of Economics show that every single part of Scotland and the UK as a whole will be adversely affected, even in the event of a soft Brexit, with single market membership maintained. Would the cabinet secretary agree that the UK Government cannot keep their assessment of the impact of Brexit from the Scottish public and from Scottish businesses, and would he reiterate calls for the paper to be published? John Swinney Cabinet secretary, I think that the member is exactly right. The question is why do they want to not share this with the Scottish Government? We have a responsibility for the economy of Scotland. We are constantly reminded of that by the Tory front bench, and yet they do not want to share the figures that were commissioned paid for by taxpayers in Scotland and the rest of the UK. I wonder why they do not want us to see that analysis. Is it because the only part of the UK that thinks that there is going to be no impact from Brexit is this part of the UK just over here? They are convinced that there is no problem with Brexit. If that is the case, they should release those figures. The member is exactly right. The LSE research that she refers to highlighted that no part of Scotland will be unaffected by a hard Brexit. The Scottish Government has repeatedly called on the UK Government to publish an assessment of the impact of Brexit, and the Scottish public has a right to know the effect of leaving the EU, the effect that it will have on their communities, on their jobs and their livelihoods. Surely the Conservative Party members should back the call from Mike Russell to the UK ministers to release the analysis right away for the benefit of people of Scotland? John Swinney Thank you. That concludes questions on economy, jobs and fair work. We move to finance and the constitution. Question 1, Tom Arthur. Tom Arthur When the finance secretary last made the UK Government and what was discussed. Derek Mackay Cabinet Secretary to the Treasury on Thursday, 26 October, along with Mark Drayford, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and the Welsh Government, plus the permanent secretary of the Northern Ireland Executive. As I advised, the finance and constitution committee, the agenda for the meeting, included discussion on the prospects for the inaugural UK autumn budget, an update on Brexit, including any progress on EU programmes and guarantees, and also used the opportunity to once again call on the UK Government to reverse their planned cuts and expenditure, lift the 1 per cent pay cap for all public service workers and provide sufficient resources for pay rises across the UK, which at least match inflation. Tom Arthur Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and the Welsh Government I wonder in the course of these meetings if the UK Government was able to explain why they are reducing the railway allocation budget to Scotland by £600 million. Derek Mackay Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and the Welsh Government No, there certainly hasn't been a satisfactory explanation to that. Members in the chamber might be aware—certainly should be aware—that the UK Government wanted to change the formula that was overseen by the regulator before. That was essentially a share of investment in the railways in terms of how much of the railways was in Scotland. The UK Government have proposed to change that and thereby reduce the resources to Scotland and not give us the resources that we would require to maintain it and develop it in the fashion that we would all wish to see. I encourage all political parties to engage in that very important issue to ensure that we get a fair deal for the railways in Scotland. Murdo Fraser I understand that during his meeting with the Treasury, the finance secretary pushed for more public spending. Can he tell us what additional level of borrowing he thinks the UK Treasury should undertake? How much does borrowing cost and over what period would borrowing be repaid? I suppose to understand that, that Murdo Fraser would have to understand the financial headroom that the UK Government will have. Because of economic performance and a range of factors, the UK Government will have more flexibility than it thought it would otherwise have had. It is no longer necessary to enact the vicious cuts upon public services across the UK and in Scotland. There can be a sustainable borrowing regime that uses a current budget balance to invest in infrastructure in a sustainable way, but I hear Murdo Fraser just say how much. He has just disregarded the information that I have just given him, including the very important fiscal lever around financial flexibility from the economic performance that makes the point that the reductions that the UK Government proposes are unnecessary and ideologically driven, which does not surprise me that Murdo Fraser wants to join that club. In terms of the Scottish budget, in order to address the substantial issues that Mr Mackay is responsible for, such as giving public sector workers a real-terms pay increase, lifting children out of child poverty and ensuring a proper settlement for local government funding, does he accept that what is required is a step change in taxation from the Government and not simply tinker around the edges, as he did in last year's budget? I welcome James Kelly's point, which is essentially about using the powers of this Parliament. The First Minister and I have said that we will launch a discussion paper that sets out the context of the issue and the principles that we believe in. That discussion paper's release is now imminent. I invited all the political parties in the chamber to contribute to that in terms of tax propositions. We know where the Tories are in terms of tax cuts for the richest in society and the cuts in public expenditure that would come along with that. The Liberals and the Greens have given me propositions to consider. I got an often ice letter from the Labour party outlining what it says that it believes in, or certainly what Alex Rowley says that it believes in, because we only have an interim leader in the Labour party at the moment. However, I look forward to when the Labour party will have a leader in place. Maybe they will be able to engage in the budget discussions in a mature and responsible manner that has been absent so far in terms of the budget discussions in Scotland. However, I think that our discussion paper will raise the tone and raise the level of debate in terms of how we fund our public services. I look forward to that engagement in the chamber. Mr Mackay might tell us what he believes in once the First Minister tells him what he believes in. To ask the Scottish Government how the budget will address the impact of reductions in local government finances to the services in Lothian and across the country. Mr Finlay, at least I have a leader that I can believe in, which is more to be said than the Labour party has had for some considerable time. In answer to his question, the 2018-9 budget will continue to treat local government fairly despite the cuts to the Scottish budget from the UK Government. The overall increase in spending power to support local authority services this year amounts to an increase of more than £383 million, or 3.7 per cent, compared to 2016-17. When Mr Mackay was a council leader, I believed in cutting the school week to save money. Now council leaders are having to look at eye-watering cuts to essential services, the essential services that civilise our communities. How can we address the appalling health inequalities and other inequalities in our community when jobs will be lost, education, social work, environmental services, libraries and youth work will all be cut all because of decisions being made by someone who used to be a council leader and who should know better? It is unfortunate that Neil Finlay wants to personalise that. When I was a council leader, I was able to invest in schools, invest in new-build, invest in refurbishment, target support in the early years, expand free school meals universally across the area and ensure that there was great support and improved attainment. I am proud of my record as a council leader, but I am proud of my record as a finance secretary that has taken a number of actions, including delivering—not just talking about, but delivering the pupil equity fund to specifically target attainment in schools across the country and delivered a fair settlement to local government, which I have described as an increase to resources to local government services. Of course, I will work constructively with COSLA going forward. Indeed, I will meet them later today when we engage in a mature and responsible discussion around financial matters—something that seems alien to Neil Finlay. To ask the Scottish Government how many local authorities chose not to use their power to increase council tax to fund local services. It may be a surprise to some Labour members, but it was eight Labour councils who chose not to increase the council tax at all to freeze it. One could assume that the local government settlement was so satisfactory that it did not need to use those powers in an election year, but I would argue that it should. Of course, it is a matter for them, but all local authorities should use their local tax-raising powers responsibly, but it remains the case that it was only Labour authorities who chose to freeze the council tax at the same time as telling anyone who would listen that they did not have the resources to do the job when it was clear that it was a very satisfactory and fair arrangement for local government across the country. Gordon Lindhurst Perhaps the cabinet secretary would answer this question. Does he agree that Edinburgh leisure, which provides affordable leisure facilities on behalf of Edinburgh Council, could be devastated by the twin effects of a cut to its budget of several hundreds of thousands next year, as well as a potentially enormous bill for business rates if the Scottish Government takes on that aspect of the Barclay review recommendations? Gordon Lindhurst will be well aware that many people welcomed my actions on Barclay. We went beyond Barclay in terms of a number of the recommendations. Yes, there are some that require further consideration. That is one issue in which further engagement is certainly on-going in terms of the allios. I will give that further consideration as we approach the budget and the end-of-year implementation plan that I have previously announced. In terms specifically of Edinburgh, the issue around allios is approximately £50 million, but I will double-check that. It is less than £50 million in terms of the relief that is given in that particular sector. However, just to put that figure into some context, the overall settlement for Edinburgh saw in terms of support for local services and the tax changes that we made available amounted to an increase of nearly 4 per cent. That was more than £30 million of an increase for the city in terms of local services, so I will put that figure into context. However, I will continue to engage on the Barclay recommendations and conclude the matter before the end of the year. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to review the operation of the Scottish Futures Trust to help to improve transparency. There are no current plans to review the operation of the Scottish Futures Trust. SFT, like all Scottish Government non-departmental public bodies, has in place appropriate accountability and corporate governance arrangements to ensure effective stewardship of public funds. I am very disappointed to hear that, because it is clear that some of the profits made are considerable, and I would have thought that we across this chamber shared a desire to secure best value. However, my Westminster colleagues still increasingly moved amendments to bring transparency to the tax relief arrangements of contractors involved in PPP-PFI contracts, yet the SNP failed to support them. Some companies could be making even greater profits due to UK changes to co-operation tax. Why is the SNP against greater transparency from the UK Government, but also against greater transparency in their own backyard? I think that that is really incredible from Jackie Baillie, who, of course, supported Labour's PFI over the years, to which our model is far superior in terms of transparency, accountability, value for money and the contribution that is made to the infrastructure of Scotland. Audit Scotland will continue to do their work in terms of their work programme. There have been previous reports to parliamentary committees that have said that the level of information has been satisfactory, but I am happy to continue to engage with members in terms of the on-going operation of SFD. Can I ask the cabinet secretary how the interest rates are compared under the NPD scheme, compared to those under PFI? Interest rates are lower under NPD compared to PFI. The total all-in interest rate costs across the NPD and the hub is less than 5 per cent. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with UK ministers regarding the Borderlands growth deal that has been announced by the UK Government. In his statement to Parliament on 5 October, the cabinet secretary for economy, jobs and fair work confirmed that we were looking at the borderlands in this inclusive growth deal. Mr Brown has said that we will be entered into detailed discussions with local authorities to explore a deal to support their aspirations. He did call on the UK Government to work with us to support inclusive economic growth for all of Scotland through a coherent and planned programme. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, and I am pleased to hear that the Scottish Government is collaborating with the UK Government on this deal. On 8 April 2016, while visiting Stranraer, John Swinney took the opportunity to announce five key pledges for significant investment in the south of Scotland, including a multimillion pound investment in the Stranraer waterfront redevelopment and improved journey times by road, which constituents took as a commitment to upgrades to the crucial A75 and A77. With the Borderlands growth deal now moving forward, what additional funding will the Scottish Government commit to the people of Dumfries and Galloway to ensure that those pledges are fulfilled? I would advise Finlay Carson that the end figure is generally agreed at the end. I say that to be constructive, that we enter into dialogue with the local authorities, with the UK Government. I think that hopefully sometimes we are business and other partners as well to arrive at the best possible deal, especially those other interests and other contributors to any city deal or, in this case, local arrangements. We will engage in that constructively. We make resources available once we have arrived at a deal, and I can more accurately answer the question once we know what the contributions may be and the shape of that deal crystallises. Having been involved in the Borderlands initiative from its inception in my previous role as chair of Dumfries and Galloway Council's economy committee, I am pleased that the Scottish and UK Government are now taking an interest in the Borderlands. The finance secretary will by now have received proposals from the five Borderlands councils for that growth deal. Will he give a commitment that those proposals will be considered for funding as part of the development of his draft budget this December? Will he urge the UK Government to ensure that the proposals will be considered by them as part of their November budget, so that we can see real investment in the Borderlands sooner rather than later? I thought that it was a bit childish from Colin Smyth about who created the initiative. I was involved previously as a junior minister, so I know that the SNP has always been involved and interested in that. I say to be constructive that we are engaged in the discussions, we want them to progress where we are being positive and constructive around them and hopefully it will lead to appropriate investment and co-operation in the area. That may well feature, it can feature as early as partners would like, but you have to arrive at the deal to be able to know what economic contribution there may be. Of course I would consider it in this year's budget if a deal could be included in time, but that is for all parties to agree that, but yes, I hope that it can be progressed in a satisfactory fashion. To ask the Scottish Government how many businesses in Glasgow receive support from the small business bonus scheme. The most recent statistics published just yesterday estimate that almost 10,000 properties in Glasgow are benefiting this year from the small business bonus scheme. That is an increase of 2 per cent from last year. I thank the cabinet secretary for her reply. I perhaps should declare that my own office benefits from the scheme and does not pay rates, but the saving is not myself but for the Parliament. Would the cabinet secretary accept that for many small businesses, this is a huge advantage, because they feel that they are struggling often to compete with big businesses and they are very much hoping that the cabinet secretary will continue the small business bonus scheme in the future? Yes, I do envisage continuing. I should say on behalf of a number of members—I suspect that John Mason is right—that a number of members' constituency offices are beneficiaries of the scheme, but more than 100,000 properties in Scotland are in a similar boat. I think that it has been very well received. I think that it has been a lifeline for our town centres. There is a range of things that we have been able to do on business rates that have made a difference, but I know that SBBS is very valued. A review that will be carried out will ensure that we maximise the economic and social benefits of the scheme. To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to encourage growth in the retail sector. The Scottish Government recognises the value of a successful and vibrant retail sector in response to the recognised challenges to high-street retailers caused by the growth in e-commerce, the impact of austerity and inflationary pressures. We encourage growth by providing various mechanisms of support for the sector, including a highly competitive non-domestic rates package, with the average rateable value of retail units having reduced at the 2017 revaluation by more than 1 per cent. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Footfall in Scotland dropped in September by the biggest amount in more than a year exceeding the UK rate. Does the minister accept that any rise in the basic rate of income tax would further hurt businesses taking money out of the pockets of Scottish consumers and their ability to spend that in Scotland's shops? I would say that the discussion paper that I will launch imminently will put tax issues into context. Of course, there is a relationship between tax and spend, as well as how you choose to spend resources that the Government may also be able to raise. However, in terms of business rates, we have taken a number of action, including lowering the poundage, increasing support for small business bonus, changing the thresholds to lift more people out of the large business supplement. Of course, the Barclay recommendations, the growth accelerator and no rates liability in total occupation. All those interventions are very helpful in supporting the retail sector. In addition to that, there is the town centre action plan and other interventions that have supported retail. However, if we are going to debate tax, we should do it in an informed way, and that is why I think that it would be very helpful if all parties contribute in a mature fashion to the debate, so that we make the right decisions and decisions that are right for all parts of Scotland, including business. As the Scottish Government will provide an update of the progress that is being made by the Scottish Growth Fund. Work has been undertaken to develop and design the scheme, working with financial institutions and our enterprise agencies, and there are currently two distinct products under the Scottish Growth scheme. The £200 million Scottish European Growth Co-investment programme, launched on 16 June this year, aimed at companies seeking equity investment of £2 million or above, and the new and additional funding to the SME holding fund under the scheme to support equity funding up to £2 million. Work is progressing with a number of companies seeking to access investment support under the European programmes. At this stage, six companies have been referred to the European investment fund to be considered for investment from the EIF, accredited venture capital fund managers, with five engaging and direct discussions with investors. The finance secretary for his response, when the scheme was launched more than a year ago, we were told that support would be, quote, largely in the form of guarantees and loans. No loans or guarantees have been paid out. Why should businesses have any confidence in the scheme if, 14 months after it was announced, it is still not doing what it said on the tin? I would need to correct Liam McArthur on terms of that. The announcement in the PFG described what we were launching. It was launched earlier this year. There has been engagement with European opportunities and there has also been specific engagement with banks. Yes, that was partly around the guarantees element to ensure that we get the right products. There is a £500 million commitment over that three-year period, and I am convinced that we will fulfil our commitment, but we are doing it in a fashion that best supports economic growth through a range of tools at our disposal. We will continue to design it in such a way that, in the fullness of time, it gives businesses the support that they say to us that they need.