 Good morning. The first item of business today is general questions. We begin with question number one from Llyndd Fassebbiallani. To ask the Scottish Government in light of the potential economic impact… Llywyddyn Gwladolwyddiadol. Llywyddyn Gwladolwyddiadol. Llywyddyn Gwladolwyddiadol. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the potential economic impact on East Kilbride, what its responses to reports that HMRC has leased premises in Glasgow to progress the closure plans for East Kilbride Centre 1. The power to collect and manage taxes raised in Scotland remains reserved to the UK Parliament and that includes the decisions about HMRC office locations. The Scottish Government is clear that those powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the decisions about tax should be found on close engagement with the taxpayer community in Scotland and on consideration of best practice from elsewhere. The Scottish Government is clear that its deep concerns over HMRC's transformation programme are not least for the potential negative impacts that it would have in local communities, including East Kilbride. Linda Fabiani, the cabinet secretary, if he has in fact noted that the staff capacity of the Glasgow location is less than that of East Kilbride alone, never mind to be used for other offices such as that in Cumbernauld. Does he agree with PCS Union that with Brexit uncertainty and reports of tax avoidance the vision should be for a fully funded HMRC that can close the tax gap rather than reduce staff numbers and close local offices with the impact that it will have? I have listened very closely to what Linda Fabiani has said. She has been very strong on these matters and the Scottish Government has raised our concerns with the UK Government whilst recognising its decision making role in that. I make the point again, of course, that we had the powers over that tax administration and collection coming to the Scottish Parliament and that we would be able to create the kind of service that would be specifically tailored to Scotland's needs and would take those operational decisions in light of such issues that Linda Fabiani has raised. I will continue to take forward those concerns and raise those matters with counterparts in the UK Government. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions ministers have had regarding the future regeneration of Edinburgh's waterfront. Scottish ministers were involved with discussions with the city region partners of the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city region deal. The deal had its heads of term signing in July 2017, which included a commitment to supporting the delivery of a significant number of new homes across the region by unlocking seven strategic sites, including Edinburgh's waterfront. Scottish Government officials also meet colleagues from the council on a regular basis and have been kept up to date with plans for the Edinburgh waterfront. My officials attended a meeting yesterday, led by the chief executive of the council, where further details of their plans and aspirations to create transformational change in this area of the city were shared. Miles Briggs. Minister, for that answer, does the minister agree with me that we have an unrealised potential in Edinburgh's waterfront and that connecting communities from Cramon to Portobello would provide many regenerational, cultural and leisure opportunities? What discussions have ministers had regarding proposals for the development and relocation, for example, of the National Galleries of Scotland collection facility in Granton, a project that I believe could act as a real catalyst to help the regeneration of this section of the capital's waterfront? Would the minister commit to attend a summit that I am looking to arrange with other elected members and key stakeholders later in the year to help to take forward a vision for the future of Edinburgh's waterfront? Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On the National Gallery, I think that Mr Briggs would be better placed right into my colleague Fiona Hyslop about that. I am pleased that the City of Edinburgh Council is developing plans for the waterfront area. This work offers a significant opportunity to create transformational changes, as I have already said, and to create a sustainable neighbourhood and reconnect the city with its waterfront. I will ensure that my officials continue to work collaboratively with the council towards agreeing a vision and the outcomes for the area and to look at how the public sector collaboration could support the delivery of those outcomes. Through the city region deal, regeneration at Edinburgh waterfront will be helped by our commitment to provide housing infrastructure funding of up to £50 million of provision and predominantly private sector loans to be spent on projects that unlock housing in strategic development areas across the region, including the waterfront here in Edinburgh. We will prioritise and work with partners to support council borrowing and share the financing risk of infrastructure delivery that is required across those key sites. We also have supported the construction of a new road at Grant in Waterfront, which will allow the provision of 104 affordable new homes by Port of Leith Housing Association. That road will also allow access where approximately a further 300 affordable homes can be provided in a later phase. Through our affordable housing programme, we are currently planning to support over the next three years— Mr Stewart, you have a supplementary question on that, so you will have time to expand on that. I will take the supplementary question from Ben Macpherson. I am improving Edinburgh's waterfront as an issue that I have been working on since elected. I want to ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to the significant potential for regeneration of Edinburgh's waterfront, particularly in terms of delivering more affordable housing. What consideration has the Scottish Government given to overcoming any barriers to investment in order to encourage and enable development, particularly in the Granton and Westerhaven areas? I have already mentioned the new road and the 104 affordable homes by Port of Leith Housing Association and the ability to allow for an additional 300 affordable homes in a later phase. Through our affordable housing supply programme, we are currently planning to support over the next few years a project with the Link Housing Association and two further projects for the Port of Leith Housing Association, which will provide up to 538 affordable homes in the area and receive around £22 million of Scottish Government grant. That is a suite of proposals and a number of budgetary things that will ensure that the waterfront develops as envisaged by Mr McPherson and others. The Government is doing a great deal to help to support the vision for Edinburgh's waterfront. To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the two sisters food group regarding its consultation on closing its factory in Camberslang. I have written to the chief executive of a two sisters food group to make clear our desire to work with him and his team to ensure a sustainable future for production in the Camberslang area. The Scottish Government's main economic development agency, Scottish Enterprise, is exploring options with the company to help to achieve the same. While our primary focus is on identifying actions that can protect employment at the site, given the consultation that is now under way, we have also offered support to employees that may be affected through our partnership action for continuous employment initiative. The local pace team is meeting with the management of the two sisters food group on 5 March. Clare Haughey. I thank the minister for that answer. Since the announcement of the factory's proposed closure earlier this month, I have been working with relevant stakeholders to ensure the long-term viability of the site. I have met with senior management, the workers trade unions and neighbouring local businesses to ensure that I am doing all that I possibly can to support the 450 jobs at the plant. Indeed, the local community has set up a campaign to save this business, demonstrating just how important this issue is locally. Those potential job losses would be devastating for the local economy, not only on campus land but also in surrounding areas. Will the minister give me, the workers and the community the assurance that this Government will leave no stone unturned in finding a positive resolution for the plant? First, I commend Clare Haughey for her involvement in trying to support the workforce and, indeed, the company in securing a long-term future for the site. I can absolutely give assurance to Clare Haughey that the Scottish Government is committed to working with the company, the trade unions, the workforce and the local authority to provide every support possible to help to ensure a productive future for the campus land site and its workforce. I am happy to continue to work with Clare Haughey, who I know is showing great interest in contacting me directly to see what help we can provide, but I am keen to work with all local stakeholders and elected members to make that happen. To ask the Scottish Government when it will take forward the Ayrshire growth deal, given that it has not yet received UK Government support. The Scottish Government is committed to growth deals covering all of Scotland. As I have previously made clear, and this includes the Ayrshers, we have also committed £5.3 million to the HALO project in Kilmarnock. I have also recognised the hard work done by all three local authorities that have gone into preparing proposals for the Ayrshire growth deal and welcomed the steps towards creating a regional economic partnership to steer the region towards greater inclusive growth. In line with the commitment that we have made to 100 per cent of coverage of Scotland with growth deals, we want the UK Government to join us in this common purpose. I last met with the Secretary of State on 1 February to discuss the issue, and we have agreed to meet again shortly to explore how best to make further progress. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. For more than 18 months, the people of Ayrshire have waited for the UK Government to take forward the growth deal. However, despite heavy hints, winks and suggestions dating back over a year, we appear to be no further forward in relation to our commencement date, meaning that Ayrshire is likely to fall full behind other more prosperous parts of Scotland with deals already in place. Does the cabinet secretary agree that even a truncated deal involving the three Ayrshire local authorities in the Scottish Government would allow at least some investment priority projects to begin and possibly encourage the UK Government to finally get its finger out and invest in Ayrshire? How will I share the member's frustration about the length of time taking to come to a conclusion on that? In my substantive answer, I said that we are committed to growth deals across the whole of Scotland, and that perhaps provides part of the answer to the member's question in relation to the Scottish Government's intent. However, we have a preference to work in partnership with the UK Government, not least because that expands the amount of work and resources that can go into any particular deal. We want to maximise the investment and opportunities for Ayrshire. I will remind the Secretary of State when we meet that progress on the deal cannot be delayed forever, and we will all need to move much more quickly to ensure that Ayrshire can capitalise on the opportunities that are presented by its growth deal proposals. Jamie Greene I notice that there is no line in the Scottish budget that passed yesterday for the Ayrshire growth deal. Perhaps I could offer the cabinet secretary the opportunity to update Parliament today how much, in financial terms, his Government is committing to the Ayrshire growth deal. You will find that there is a provision within the budget for growth deals, but it is also true to say that I have made explicit, as have other members of the Government, that we are committed to the growth deal. If we had that same commitment from the UK Government, however much is being talked about, it is essentially more than the £0 that is currently being proposed by the UK Government. We will take forward this deal, and we hope that the UK Government will take it forward as well. However, until it does that, we cannot make any progress. We have been committed to every growth deal so far, and I have just said that this Government is committed to a growth deal in every part of Scotland. Bruce Crawford To ask the Scottish Government where we will provide an update on the progress regarding the Stirling-Clackmannanshire city region deal. Again, the Scottish Government remains fully committed to a city region deal for Stirling-Clackmannanshire, and we have been leading engagement with the city region partners and the UK Government throughout the process. We remain engaged in discussion with the UK Government and the city region partners to agree and deliver the best possible deal for the region, and we are working to conclude these negotiations and to reach ahead of terms agreement as soon as possible. Bruce Crawford I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could confirm what the additional amount of money that he committed in the city region deals as a result of the successful passing of the budget yesterday, not supported by either the Tories or the Labour Party. Can the cabinet secretary also confirm what progress has been made in regard to the very generous offer of the UK Government to gift land at MOD4 if it becomes redundant in future? Can he also confirm, or otherwise, the helpfulness of the local Tory Conservative MPs in a process that has been meant to be partnership? Can I say first of all the scale of Government investment in the deal, and the projects that are included within it will, of course, be subject to negotiation between Governments and also the city region partners? I think that there is around £120 million of provision made for city deals generally by the finance secretary in the budget, but we do not yet have an understanding of the UK Government's contribution to the deal. And also, in relation to the particular point, I have to say to the member that, yes, he is right to say that an explicit commitment was given by the UK Government, by Lord Duncan, that MOD land would be transferred at no cost additional to the city deal and decontaminated. I have to say to the member that I do not think that that commitment still holds, and perhaps he and other members with their interests in this might want to question the UK Government whether it intends to see through that commitment, both in terms of the Stirling deal and also in terms of the Tay cities deal. However, the Scottish Government's contribution for our part will be genuinely additional, and it will also be wholly new capital investment that would not be happening without the city region deal. We have incidentally committed over a billion pounds on city deals for Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness and Edinburgh. We are the biggest contributors towards city deals. We want to see a successful deal here, and I only wish that some of the local Conservative members, MSPs and MPs, have taken the constructive approach that we have seen in relation to other city deals. Instead of the sniping and the undermining of this process, which is doing the damage both to Stirling and Clubmanager in terms of seeing through the city deal, it should get behind the people of Stirling and Clubmanager and get behind this deal. I welcome the cabinet secretary's growing support for repurposing the MOD site for social housing, which is desperately needed in Stirling, but I ask him about Clubmanager. Clubmanager was added relatively late on in the city deal process. How will the Scottish Government ensure that both communities in the Stirling area and in the Clubmanager area benefit from the city deal? I think that Mark Russel makes a good point. How we have helped is not least, first of all, by providing unusually, for the first time, additional support to the council, given both the council size and the fact that it came to the deal later on. Additional support through SFT and through Scottish Government officials to help them formulate their proposals, and good progress has been made with the proposals coming from Clubmanager Council. I only wish, incidentally, that the UK Government, when it has mentioned this deal at all in Parliament, had mentioned the word Clubmanager twice. It said that it would, but it has never mentioned Clubmanager. Clubmanager is a very vital part of the deal, just as Stirling is, and I reassure the member that the Scottish Government, for our part, will do what we can to assist in the redevelopment of Clubmanager and Stirling. We will take both parts of the city region deal together. I am very pleased that both Clubmanager and Stirling have agreed to work together on the deal. Dean Lockhart, I remind the cabinet secretary and Bruce Crawford for that matter. The budget passed yesterday is based on extra real-terms funding coming from the UK Government to the Scottish Government. When will the cabinet secretary stop playing politics, show leadership and start spending some of that extra funding for the benefit of the people of Stirling and Clubmanager? Once again, Dean Lockhart misunderstands the process. These city deals are agreed by all the parties, and we announce when all the parties are agreed and satisfied with the proposals. However, what people in Stirling and Clubmanager will be very well aware of is that he and his colleagues demanded that we put in the budget city deal provision for deals like this, and they voted against that budget yesterday, including those resources. People will not forget the actions of the Conservatives, MSPs and MPs. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding safeguarding the value of Scottish university staff pensions. The Scottish Government officials are closely monitoring development, and I have sought updates from stakeholders on the issue, including from the UK Government. I encourage both sides to engage in further talks to find a resolution to the issue. I thank the minister for that response and express solidarity in the need of the Scottish Green Party with constituents at the Scottish Association of Marine Science in Oben today, and indeed all members of the EU across the country out in strike. I am sure that they will also welcome the support of the NUS. The EU has stated that changes to the pension scheme could see members lose up to £200,000. I appreciate that there is no direct role for the Scottish Government, but has the minister discussed the issue with the university's UK and will she encourage Scottish university principals to get back to meaningful talks to resolve the dispute, please? As the member points out, this is not a Government-funded pension scheme, so there is no direct locus for the Scottish Government as autonomous institutions such as universities and their staff pay in conditions or matters for the universities. However, the Scottish Government is monitoring the situation very closely and engaging with the relevant stakeholders. Indeed, I had a meeting with UCU officials on Tuesday, which they deemed to be a very constructive meeting, to discuss their concerns about the lack of discussions. I would encourage, as I said in my original answer, both sides to get back to the negotiating table and engage in further talks. That is the right thing for the UCU and its members, and it is the right thing for students. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what it is doing to improve support for pupils with additional support needs. We want all children and young people to get the support that they need to reach their full potential. We continue to support education authorities in meeting their duties under the Additional Support for Learning Act to identify, provide for and review the additional support needs of their pupils. We have empowered children through the extension of their rights under the Additional Support for Learning Act. This landmark extension of rights is supported by a new children's service, funded by the Scottish Government. We have also published further guidance on a children's learning code of practice on supporting children with health care needs in schools and on complaints to Scottish ministers. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Despite the number of pupils identified with the SNP as increasing by 47 per cent since 2012, we know that resources are dwindling. The number of additional support for learning teachers has fallen by 12 per cent since 2012, and latest figures show that local authority spending has dropped by £459 per pupil since 2012, representing an 11 per cent cut. Based on those figures and the feeling among teachers that not enough time is being devoted to ASN training, does the cabinet secretary truly believe that adequate support is being provided? As a matter of fact, the number of staff supporting pupils with additional support needs increased between 2015 and 2016, the latest figures for which are available, and we will get the figures for 2017 shortly. This is a matter for local authorities to determine the amount of resources that they put in place to support the special needs of young people, but they have statutory obligations that they are obliged to meet. It is a bit rich. The day after the Conservatives argued for less public expenditure, tax cuts for the rich and less investment in the budget and voted against the budget to raise the question of extra spending with me in relation to this particular issue. That concludes general questions. Before we move on to First Minister's questions, I am sure that members will wish to join me in welcoming to our gallery Mr Ondre and Twan, President of the Parliament of Wallonia. I can also ask members to join me in welcoming Anne Jones, Deputy Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales.