 The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions on finance, constitution and economy, and question number one is Murdo Fraser. Thank you. To ask the Scottish Government whether full fiscal autonomy remains its policy. Cabinet Secretary John Swinney. The Scottish Government will continue to make the case for full fiscal responsibility. However, as implementation of the Parliamentary Commission's proposals has demonstrated the transition to full fiscal responsibility and agreement of the detailed fiscal framework that would require to underpin it will take a number of years to complete. The Scottish Government's immediate priority is therefore to ensure that the Smith commission agreement is implemented in full and that responsibility for employment policy, including the minimum wage, welfare, business taxation, national insurance and equality policy are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. These are the powers that this Parliament needs to further improve competitiveness, create jobs and lift people out of poverty. Murdo Fraser. I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. Why has the Scottish Government renamed its policy, full fiscal responsibility, and by what date does it wish to see this policy now implemented? Cabinet Secretary. I think that the Government's position is that it believes that the people of Scotland should be in control of their own affairs. That has never changed, whatever we call it. That is exactly what our position is. As I have indicated in my earlier answer to Mr Fraser, the Government would support full fiscal responsibility for Scotland. That would take time for that to be implemented. It would require the consent and the agreement of the United Kingdom Government. In the short term, what we will argue for and we will have some more information on this tomorrow with the publication of the Scotland Bill is exactly the extent to which the UK Government is prepared to implement the conclusions of the Smith commission. We will use the opportunity that was created by the meeting that I had with the First Minister and the Secretary of State a couple of weeks ago to advance the arguments for further powers beyond the Smith commission's conclusions. Jackie Baillie. The cabinet secretary may be aware of House of Commons research published today that shows that Scots benefited last year by almost £1,600 ahead more in public spending than in England, clearly demonstrating the benefit of the Barnett formula to Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary therefore agree that, when he achieves full fiscal autonomy, or whatever he chooses to call it, it means the end of the Barnett formula for Scotland? Jackie Baillie will be aware that the financial arrangements that Scotland operates will be changing as a consequence of the Smith commission. If she has not worked that out, I suggest that Jackie Baillie goes away and does some research. Those issues will change as a consequence of the fiscal framework that is put in place arising out of the Smith commission, which I thought the Labour Party supported. Maybe there is going to be another change of position from the Labour Party on that question. It would not surprise me if that was the case. What Jackie Baillie omitted from her question to me was the fact that, of course, with full fiscal autonomy, a range of economic powers and responsibilities also comes to strengthen the economic performance of Scotland. We demonstrated just yesterday how we used the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament to improve the economic competitiveness of Scotland through the Scottish Business Pledge. We secure and seek other ways of doing that through wider financial responsibility, and that would come with full fiscal responsibility. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we should pursue fiscal responsibility with purpose, coupled with a comprehensive economic strategy that would include the public, private and third sectors working in partnership to develop and implement a range of transformational policies that would deliver an export-based increase in growth and address inequality by increasing economic participation to that of the top five advanced economies? I think that perhaps Mr Gibson has done certainly Jackie Baillie a public service by explaining some of the opportunities that arise out of exercising these wider economic powers to strengthen the economic performance of Scotland. What Mr Gibson has set out to Parliament today is an illustration of some of the additional powers that would become available to the Scottish Parliament if we had greater financial responsibility. Of course, the Scottish Government will use every lever that we have at our disposal to strengthen the economic performance of our country within the existing settlement, but if we acquire further powers, which is the basis of the discussions that I will take forward with the UK Government, then we will have those opportunities into the bargain to strengthen the Scottish economy. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the Office for Budget Responsibility. Scottish Government officials are in regular dialogue with the Office for Budget Responsibility on a range of issues, including the production of devolved tax forecasts that the OBR publishes at each UK fiscal event. In its fiscal outlook of 2014, the OBR, when considering Scotland's new carbon tax, has said that it is forecasting methodologies where, I quote, work in progress, i.e. incomplete. In its fiscal outlook for 2015, it said on the methodologies that nothing had changed. On that basis, how confident does the Scottish Government that, in applying the remaining attributable portion of the Barnett contribution that we are not being or will be shortchanged? Mr Brody's question gets to the heart of the issue around block grant adjustment, which is an inherent part of the proposals under the Kalman commission and will feature in the Smith commission proposals. As I explained to Parliament during the passage of the budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility arrived at a particular estimate of the effect of the devolution of the land and buildings transaction or stamp duty of land tax and landfill tax to the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Government arrived at a different estimate, which was, of course, verified independently by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Those were different numbers, and they illustrate the gap, which is the danger that Mr Brody has highlighted in his question. The Government agreed—and I shared and confirmed this with Parliament—a conclusion to those discussions on the issue with the United Kingdom Government. Of course, that was for one-year settlement, and we will have to embark on those discussions for further arrangements in relation to the adjustment of the block grant to take into account the devolution of those taxes. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to meet the UK Government to discuss proposed constitutional changes. On 15 May, the First Minister and I met the Prime Minister of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State. At that meeting, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland made clear commitments that the Scotland Bill would implement the Smith commission in full. We will test that commitment when we say the Scotland Bill tomorrow. The Prime Minister also undertook to consider the Scottish Government's proposals for devolution beyond the Smith commission. We will put those proposals to the UK Government, and I will meet the Secretary of State to discuss the next steps. I very much welcome the declaration by the Scottish Government to defend both the legislation and the principles of the human rights act. With regard to that, can I ask if it will now modify its position on prisoner voting to adhere to the European Court rulings that it endors? Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government does not have the legislative competence to change the position on prisoner voting. Once the Scotland Bill delivers the Smith recommendations to transfer all powers to the Scottish Parliament in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local elections in Scotland, it will be for this Parliament to consider all the relevant franchise issues. The Scottish Government has no proposals to amend the rules on prisoner voting. Thank you very much. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the Smith agreement, supported by the devolution committee's critique of the UK Government's staff clauses, provides the right basis for both devolving welfare benefits and retaining the benefits of the Barnard formula? The Smith commission proposals are clearly supported by the Scottish Government. They give some additional responsibility to the Scottish Parliament. As Mr MacDonald well knows, because he sat through the evidence on the devolution further powers committee, that the conclusion of that committee was that the draft clauses that were put forward by the UK Government do not translate the proposals from the Smith commission in full into the necessary legislative effect. I think that it might have been helpful if Mr MacDonald and his colleagues had made that point before the election, not after the election, because I seem to remember them suggesting that the Government was somehow picking a fight where no fight needed to be picked on this question. I am glad that he has now arrived at a more sensible and considered position on this issue. We will certainly look forward to having Mr MacDonald's support as we press the United Kingdom Government to devolve in full the responsibilities that were envisaged by the Smith commission agreement last November. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to boost the economy of North Ayrshire. Scotland's economic strategy reaffirms our commitment to increasing sustainable economic growth for all of Scotland, which is essential to achieve a more productive, cohesive and fairer country. Our continued investment in infrastructure, regeneration and business support is helping to boost the economy of North Ayrshire. I thank the minister for that reply, although I would like to have some more specifics to be frank. Can he tell the chamber what the impact of Scottish Government actions to boost the North Ayrshire economy has had on employment and specifically on youth employment? I think that the work of the private sector, private companies supported by Scottish Enterprise and the Business Gateway in the Scottish Government and the local authorities has had a salutary effect. In fact, I am able to inform the member that, just in the last year, the levels of employment, the employment rate and the number of people in work has increased by 10 per cent to 70 per cent. Those are statistics, but an increase of people in jobs of 10 per cent in the member's part of Scotland shows that we are managing to achieve success, but there is much more work to be done. We will do that working with Mr Gibson, who strongly advocates the economic success for his part of Scotland. Question 5, in the name of Joan McAlpine, has not been lodged for understandable reasons. To ask the Scottish Government what social economic benefits would arise from providing interconnectors to our islands? Huge benefits. First, they can meet up to 5 per cent of Great Britain's electricity demand by 2030. Second, the development of the projects themselves and the associated infrastructure would bring jobs and investment to the regions. For example, Viking Energy has estimated that direct annual income to Shetland, associated with the project, would be £30.8 million. I have written to the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, to highlight the strategic importance of the workstream for Scotland and the continued participation of her department in the Scottish island renewables delivery forum. I thank the minister for that answer, and I wonder if he agrees with me that, in addition to the social economic benefits, the significant renewable energy generation capacity in Scotland's islands can help to keep the UK's lights on and help to make its climate change targets, and that the supply chain will produce significant numbers of well-paid jobs and careers not only in our islands but across Scotland and, indeed, the rest of the UK. Well, I think that that is not an overstatement. To put it differently, without continued expansion of renewable energy output in Scotland, the UK will have great difficulty in meeting its climate change targets. In fact, some may argue that it would be impossible for them so to do. Although we need a balanced mix of electricity generation supply, we believe that the harnessing of the island's potential and renewables is essential. Indeed, the islands are, generally speaking, the best place, for example, wind energy, and the home of marine energy, wave and tidal power. All in all, I am very hopeful that the constructive work that took place with Ed Davies will continue with Amber Rudd, and we are totally committed to working in a constructive fashion to deliver a solution that will release the enormous potential of our islands. Thank you very much, and I very much thank the minister for his comments and for taking this step of contacting Amber Rudd, particularly in relation to the continuing work of the island working group. Could he perhaps update Parliament on where discussions are at with the UK Government and the European Union about an interconnector reflecting the R&D nature of the work that is being carried out by EMEC in my constituency? I cannot and should not speak for the UK Government, but I can say that, prior to the general election, there was a reasonable modus operandi of working. In fact, the renewables island delivery group was the only, so far as I am aware, subject-related working group between the Scottish and the UK Governments. Getting around the table with Ed Davies and his officials and ours and others was a very useful and constructive way to do business. I have therefore suggested to Amber Rudd that that modus operandi is continued. We pursue that in a non-partisan way, as I think Mr MacArthur is aware. We do so because of the enormous price for the peoples that Mr MacArthur represents, as well as those represented by Mr Scott and Dr Allen on the western and northern isles of Scotland. I believe that the Prime Minister himself gave an undertaking in a letter to Angus Campbell that the delivery of the island's potential would take place. Therefore, we look forward to seeing the implementation of that Prime Ministerial pledge. To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to publish the next oil and gas analytical bulletin. We are analysing the fiscal changes that the Chancellor of the Sheik announced in the budget in collaboration with stakeholders in the industry and assessing the impact that the reforms will have on future investment and production and in turn tax revenues. When the analysis is complete, we will publish an updated oil and gas analytical bulletin. The analytical bulletin was described as part of a series and was previously published every few months. Can the cabinet secretary tell me why it has not been published for over a year? For the simple reason of the answer that I just gave Mr Brown, there have been significant changes in the tax arrangements around the North Sea. As a consequence, the Government is considering those in consultation with stakeholders to determine the effect of those changes. I think that I would be the first to accept that those were significant changes that the Chancellor made in the budget in March and that they will take some time to assess as to the effect given their significance and what we hope to be beneficial effect on the North Sea regime, which we will discuss with stakeholders. As I have indicated, when that material is complete, we will publish an updated bulletin. Many companies in the oil industry have already assessed the impact of the changes made in the last budget, but it is a year since we had the last oil and gas bulletin. It is now some two months since the budget and, indeed, Nicola Sturgeon is First Minister, her own commitment to publish. When are we going to see this revised oil and gas bulletin? The updated bulletin will be published when the Government has completed the analytical work that we are undertaking. The point that I made to Mr Brown is that we have to acknowledge the significance of the changes that have been made by the UK Government. Jackie Baillie says that companies have analysed them. There are many companies that we are talking to who are considering their investment plans as a consequence of the changes to the regime. We need to undertake that work properly to ensure that we can provide Parliament with a clear and substantiated analysis, which will be published when this work is complete. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support East Lothian councils' efforts to promote the area as a tourist destination. The Scottish Government is supportive of all areas of Scotland working to achieve the industry-led ambition for Scotland to be a first choice tourism destination. East Lothian's stunning assets are extensively marketed and supported by Visit Scotland in a variety of ways, including featuring in the brilliant moments marketing campaign and financial support for events such as the Scottish Open. One of the countless compelling reasons for visiting East Lothian is John Muir's birthplace in Dunbar, and the John Muir Way, opened by the former First Minister not so long ago. Last week, I hosted in Parliament a delegation from the Muir Association of Martinez, California, John Muir's home in America. They are keen to seek opportunities to publicise the John Muir Way in the United States and, otherwise, working with the National Parks Administration, to increase tourism between Muir-related sites in Scotland and America. Can the Scottish Government provide any support for such a project? I think that Iain Gray is quite right to promote the attractions of John Muir, his links to Scotland, the founder of national parks in the world in Yosemite and the USA, and elsewhere. The history and achievements of John Muir were celebrated, as Mr Gray mentioned last year, and were supported by the Scottish Government working in partnership with Lohow Council and others. We are happy to continue how best to continue that work, and I undertake to write to VisitScotland, to raise Mr Gray's point, and to revert to him after I've done so. To ask the Scottish Government what planning and modelling it has carried out regarding the future of the taxation system for local government. Cabinet Secretary, John Swinney. The Scottish Government jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has established the commissioner on local tax reform to identify and examine fairer systems of local taxation as alternatives to the council tax. That work is due to report in the autumn, and I note that the commission has recently issued and promoted a call for evidence. Council tax has now been frozen in Scotland for eight years in a row. A five council consultation found that 71 per cent of residents would support a halt on the council tax freeze in order that extra money raised could be spent on vital local services. However, support for that increase falls to 36 per cent if a Scottish Government were to impose a £4.6 million penalty on five council for doing so. Will the Scottish Government consider removing the penalty if five council takes a decision to increase the council tax this year? I think that Jane Baxter would rather answer her own question to be honest, because what Ms Baxter's question contained was the fact that the Scottish Government essentially compensates local authorities for not increasing the council tax. We provide local authorities with £70 million across the country to enable them to freeze the council tax. That £70 million was set at 3 per cent of the collectible amount back in 2007. Of course, inflation has varied from year to year, and clearly it is very significantly below the 3 per cent that we are now compensating local authorities for in respect of their agreement not to increase the council tax. I think that the proper financial support has been given to local authorities to support the freeze in the council tax. However, I think that Jane Baxter also has to remember that members of the public, the individuals paying the council tax, have benefitted from having at least one bill that has not gone up in a time of extreme pressure on household finances, particularly for public sector workers who have had their pay constrained inevitably by the financial pressures with which we have wrestled. The council tax freeze is properly funded by Government, and it is also a contribution to managing the household budgets of hard-pressed families the length and breadth of the country. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its proposals and discussions for a widening of the powers suggested by the Smith commission. At our meeting on 15 May, the Prime Minister undertook to consider Scottish Government proposals for devolution beyond the Smith commission. We will put those proposals to the UK Government, and I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss the next steps. Bill Kidd. I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply. Can I ask if there has been consideration when implementing new tax-raising powers of the necessity to vary the Barnett formula on a timescale agreed between the Scottish and Westminster Governments rather than in the arbitrary manner proposed by some unionist politicians? There is an explicit recommendation of the Smith commission that a fiscal framework has to be put in place to deal with the financial implications of the changes to the powers that are envisaged by the Smith commission proposals. That fiscal framework is now the subject of discussion between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government. I have made it clear to the UK Government that a legislative consent motion on the Scotland bill cannot be considered by this Parliament until such time as we have a clearly acceptable fiscal framework. For that to be possible, agreement will have to be reached that the fiscal framework is in the interests of the Scottish and United Kingdom interests as part of that negotiation. That is what I will be pursuing as I take forward the interests of the Parliament and of Scotland in this process. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has a timescale for the procurement of evidence and engagement in civic consultation in relation to the further powers it is seeking in addition to the Smith commission proposals. The Scottish Government will set out proposals for devolution beyond the Smith commission to the UK Government, and I will meet the Secretary of State to discuss the next steps. The Scottish Government is clear that the process that follows and any timetable for action should allow for full engagement with the people of Scotland. Annabelle Goldie? I thank the cabinet secretary for his response. When I asked him about this issue on the 14th of May in this chamber, he replied in relation to seeking evidence and engaging in civic consultation that would be advantageous and beneficial. Is it possible to give the chamber any indication of what sort of timescale or structure he has in mind? What I would say to Ms Goldie is that in the course of the Smith commission proposals there was a Smith commission process. There was an extensive amount of information supplied by members of the public and by a variety of stakeholders across Scotland. The Smith commission did its level best to consider all those issues but, clearly, it was not possible to do in the very limited timescale available to us full justice to all that material. However, the Scottish Government has been considering that material for some time since last November. We have had various discussions with interested parties and, of course, the election debate itself discussed a number of those questions as part of that process. We feel that we have a broad cross-section of opinion that enables us to inform the further proposals that we will make to the United Kingdom Government. However, I do accept that there is a necessity for further consultation once those proposals are to hand. That is exactly what the Scottish Government will pursue in the light of our discussions with the UK Government. To ask the Scottish Government what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy's position is on reclassifying Scottish futures trust debt as public borrowing and how much she expects the total to be. The Scottish Futures Trust does not hold itself any public sector borrowing at risk of reclassification. Borrowing associated with the NPD programme is contained within the special purpose vehicle set up for the individual NPD and hub projects. As I have previously advised Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust are working to resolve the current classification issue without the need to call on any contingency arrangements. I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply, although I hope that he recognises the worry that all members of this Parliament and Scotland will fear about the potential ramifications of reclassifying substantial sums of debt running to the hundreds of millions, if not the billions. Can I ask the cabinet secretary whether or not he believes that additional borrowing will come out of the borrowing powers that are coming our way in the Scottish Parliament, whether he is asking the Treasury for additional borrowing powers, or whether he believes that the Treasury should absorb or write off all of this debt? The first thing that I would say to Mr McIntosh is that, in the last part of my answer, I said that the Government and the Scottish Futures Trust were working to resolve the current classification issue without the need to call on any contingency arrangements, and that, without a doubt, is my preferred position in that respect, and that is what I am working to secure. I clearly acknowledge the parliamentary interest on this question. That is why I reported in full to Parliament on this question when I had sufficient information available to me to enable a comprehensive explanation to be given to Parliament of the issues with which we are wrestling. Clearly, the matters are still under discussion between the Scottish Government, the Scottish Futures Trust and the Office for National Statistics, and I expect that process will take some time yet to conclude. I have made some contingency arrangements with Her Majesty's Treasury for the handling of any potential implications, and I stress potential implications because I am trying to avoid any implications whatsoever in the course of the last financial year 2014-15. We expect to have a resolution to the issue to enable us to properly take steps to resolve any outstanding questions for the current financial year or later years, but I stress that the Government is working with all its energy to resolve the issue without the need to call on any contingency arrangements. The Scottish Futures Trust has helped to provide advice with the list of the eight capital projects that are delayed as a result of the reclassification of debt, but I have learnt that there are more projects delayed, like our lady in St Patrick's High School. Can the cabinet secretary tell me exactly how many more capital projects are delayed and will the Scottish Futures Trust cover the cost of that delay beyond the original eight? We have to be very careful about our terminology here because there are eight projects that are affected by particular issues, and six schools and two healthcare projects. Clearly, there is a pipeline of projects that will be affected by the discussions that we are currently having with the Office for National Statistics. We are endeavouring to resolve those discussions as quickly and as timidly as we possibly can do, and all energy is being expended to ensure that that is undertaken as quickly as possible. When I am in a position to provide Parliament with further information on how that matter is being resolved, I will, of course, support the Parliament in Codon. To ask the Scottish Government what issues it needs to address in the light of the devolution of additional tax-raising powers. As I have indicated already, the negotiation of Scotland's updated fiscal framework is one of my highest priorities in the months ahead. I will continue to make clear to the UK Government that an acceptable fiscal framework is essential to allow the Scottish Government to recommend that Parliament consents to the new Scotland bill. The interim report of the devolution of further powers committee highlighted the need for greater clarity and key components of important issues in relation to the need for shared information to support negotiations. I look forward to working constructively with the UK Government to make rapid progress on those issues. Does he have any concerns over the fact that there is a lack of statutory involvement in the audit process from the Auditor General of Scotland in dealing with HMRC and the reporting process? We covered some of the ground at the Public Audit Committee this morning when we were looking at some of the reporting and scrutiny arrangements. It is important that, where there is to be some form of shared institutional basis for acting that will have an effect on the spending power of the Scottish Government, there is the ability to exercise appropriate scrutiny arrangements around all of those questions. Some of those questions are not for me to resolve. They are for the Auditor General and others to resolve to ensure that they are satisfied that the proper and full audit arrangements can be put in place to satisfy the necessary reporting requirements and standards of Parliament. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with stakeholders regarding boosting the economy of Edinburgh and the south-east of Scotland. Minister Ferguson. Ministers meet stakeholders regularly across a range of portfolio interests to discuss boosting the economy of Scotland. Can I specifically ask about the city deal for the south-east of Scotland? My understanding is that there are key issues in relation to housing skills and investment in infrastructure that the local authorities are pursuing under the leadership of the City of Edinburgh Council. What support does the Scottish Government offer that process? Does the minister acknowledge the importance of the project, given that the similar Glasgow city deal expects to generate 15,000 construction jobs during their city deal project with the prospect of 28,000 permanent jobs once construction is completed? What are the key offers that the Scottish Government is making to the partners as they pull the city deal together? The six leaders of Edinburgh and the south-east of Scotland city region wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Innovation on 1 April this year outlining plans to develop an ambitious city deal for the region. The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and City has responded positively welcoming the approach on 22 April. Preliminary discussions with Scottish Government and Scottish Futures Trust officials have also taken place. The Scottish Government adopts a very positive approach towards those matters, which are not being handled by myself, but which could unleash huge benefits to Edinburgh and the environs. It is reasonable to say, as Sarah Boyack knows, that there has been massive investment in those areas, including in the fourth replacement crossing, the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement programme, the Royal hospital for sick children, NHS Lothian redevelopment of Royal Edinburgh hospital campus, the national centre for Scottish national blood transfusion services and three schools. There has been massive investment in Edinburgh, quite rightly so, and that will continue, so we take a positive approach towards those matters. Ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to assist the economy in the west of Scotland. Many actions in economic developments, including supporting businesses, helping young people, investing in infrastructure and working with others. However, we always want to see what more we can do. I thank the minister for his answer. He will be aware of the recent announcements of DBA, Aparel and Manpower in Inverclyde, who are proposing to transfer some jobs overseas and also RBS and Pound stretcher, who are proposing to close some of their operations within Inverclyde. Can I ask the minister what the Scottish Government can do to try to stop companies moving jobs overseas and to secure more investment into Inverclyde? Will the minister agree to meet me and the new Inverclyde MP to discuss the matter? Yes, I am happy to meet both. We do, when we have the opportunity, use every practical lever to persuade companies not to relocate jobs from Scotland if we have the opportunity, so to do. I am aware of recent announcements, which Mr McMillan has brought to our attention and which we are aware of in the enterprise network. Those have obviously caused a great deal of hardship to those people whose jobs are affected. However, we are delivering the most competitive business tax regime with 1,001 business premises in Inverclyde, paying zero or reduced rates. Just this morning, I was delighted to hear Mark Harvie of Ernst and Young describing that, for the third successive year, Scotland has been the most successful part of the UK, outwith London, in securing inward investment—80 projects, manufacturing projects from 15 to 31, more scientific research projects than at any time in the past decade. I cannot name them all because time does not permit, but I know that one of those projects is concentric, concentrics in Gwric, with 500 jobs. There are many others, so whilst there are challenges and problems, there are also opportunities, and we are grabbing them with both hands. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the economy of Levenmouth in Fife. The Scottish Government is committed to boosting economic growth and tackling inequality in Scotland. Across Levenmouth, we continue to support economic growth with investments in infrastructure, in regeneration and in business support. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. As he knows the closure of Tullish Russell, the recent closures on Leven high street and the uncertainty surrounding BiFab is putting significant challenges on the Levenmouth economy. This afternoon, the Levenmouth rail campaign is holding a conference to put together a business case for the infrastructure. Does the cabinet secretary share my view that supporting the Levenmouth economy is not just about the reactive measures that have happened recently, but it is also about investment in future growth? Will he work with the infrastructure minister to see whether we can achieve and improve transport links for the area to support the economy in the future? I agree with Clare Baker's points. It is for those reasons that we set up the task force, which brings together, jointly with Fife Council, to look at the wider range of economic issues that are facing the Fife economy. Clare Baker has quite rightly talked about the issues around Tullish Russell, Sphere and Turret and BiFab in the central Fife area, but, of course, there are issues around Longanett in West Fife and other questions with which we are wrestling. We will certainly look positively at proposals that come forward. I have been very pleased with the progress that we have made with the task force and the infrastructure secretary who is here. I have already discussed a number of those infrastructure projects that may be of significance in the Fife economy and will be happy to engage in those questions. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to ensure that an office is cut under the diverse economy. We use all available levers to create the economic conditions to enable the economy of the north-east to thrive, working closely with a wide range of partners, including the enterprise agencies, Skills Development Scotland and local councils. We work to ensure that businesses of all sizes and sectors can access the support that they need to grow. I thank the minister for his answer. I was partly thinking about the traditional sector, such as the fishing industry and the food industry. Does the Minister agree with me that attracting the next generation of skippers to the fishing industry is important to biodiversity and that every opportunity to support training and development should be taken? Yes, of course I do. Fishing is part of Scotland's traditions and cultures and nowhere more so than in the north-east of Scotland. Therefore, we are determined to continue to work with the fishing industry to restore the identity and status of fishing as an occupation of choice for young people in our coastal communities. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Highlands and Islands Enterprise regarding whether Wave Energy Scotland should be located in Orrany. The Scottish Government has tasked that Highlands and Islands Enterprise with establishing and operating Wave Energy Scotland. The location of Wave Energy Scotland is therefore a matter for them. I thank the minister for his response. He will be aware of the investment initiatives and activity taking place in France, Sweden, Australia, Ireland and elsewhere, while Wes has the potential to be part of a UK response to drive the industry through the difficulties that it experienced. It is clearly not going to be enough. Can the minister please advise on what other initiatives are under consideration? Will he agree to meet with myself, Councillor James Stock and other local stakeholders when he is in Orrny next week to discuss how the islands I represent can remain at the forefront of what is happening in the Wave Energy sector? I am very happy to meet with Liam McArthur. I am not quite sure where, but I certainly will be in his constituency at the convention next week. If there is an opportunity to meet there, I most certainly will. I think that we have a shared objective in all those matters. Thank you, minister. That concludes questions. Before we turn to the next item of business, I will allow a few seconds for members to change places.