 Felly, y cwestiwn y Pnyddaeth Yng Ngorffydd 14 107 yn lle o ddefnyddiad diogelio i'w ffarring. Felly, y cwestiwn ymwhoswn yng Ngorffydd ymwhoswn, os mwy时 yn ddechrau'n dwiwr. Felly, rwy'n ddim yn ôl i ddifydd y cyfyniadol. Da, gyda'r iawn y Gw參 ddafaneu i fynd i ddraethu £500m o wahanol o gyfnodigau ymhyrch chi yn gweithio coaches yng Ngorffydd i ddweud yr oedd Fythdyngu Gwysigol a'r iawn – creu cyfnodigau. The United Kingdom Government is implementing swinging cuts to both public services and the benefits received by the most vulnerable in society. The chancellor's announcement, therefore, and his commitment to invest a further £100 billion on a new generation of nuclear weapons, clearly demonstrates that the UK Government has its priorities all wrong. The Scottish Government has set out the infrastructure priorities that we pursue through the infrastructure investment plan, covering areas such as housing, transport, energy efficiency, schools and hospitals. Those are the priorities of the people of Scotland. Alison Johnstone is, indeed, pre-emptive and wrong-headed to spend £500 billion on paving the way for new nuclear weapons while people suffer hardship through welfare cuts and are having to rely on food banks. Faslane is strategically important. It is a vital naval base that can play a much more effective role in our defence without nuclear weapons. Does the cabinet secretary agree that if the point of this money is to create jobs and improve people's lives, the UK Government's return on this particular investment will be very poor indeed? I agree with the approach and the line of argument that was advanced by Alison Johnstone. I think that there is a long-term role for Faslane as a conventional naval base. It has always formed part of the plans of this Government and of my party. At a time when public expenditure is under such pressure and when support for defence expenditure is universally, if not universally, very broadly supported in this country of ensuring that our conventional defences are effective and properly funded, the decision to invest £500 million on, essentially, as the chancellor said yesterday, the foundations of the next generation of nuclear weapons is, in this Government's view, their own decision to be made. There are a variety of other ways in which we could ensure that the expenditure of £500 million on a capital investment programme could have a much greater and more profound and more long lasting and beneficial effect on the lives of people of Scotland if it was spent in a different way. On 6 August last year, the Scottish Parliament voted with the Greens for a constitutional ban on Trident and a global ban on nuclear weapons, but George Osborne is still going ahead and Labour continues to say their anti-nuclear but pro-new weapons. Does the cabinet secretary agree that this investment does not respect the will of the Scottish people and will only undermine global disarmament efforts? Does he welcome the opportunity for Scottish Labour to finally get firmly behind unilateral disarmament? It is beyond doubt that the decision that the chancellor announced yesterday can completely ignore the question of respect to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. One of the points that was made by the Prime Minister to the First Minister immediately after the general election was the fact that he intended to govern on the basis of respect. Unfortunately, there was no respect in Mundi's announcement, no respect whatsoever, no respect for this Parliament and frankly no respect for the Westminster Parliament either. For the Westminster Parliament, it is apparently going to be having a debate and a decision about whether to proceed with the next generation of nuclear weapons. The principle of respect has been entirely ignored by the Conservative Government. As for the points that Alison Johnstone makes about the Labour Party, I shall leave the Labour Party to speak for themselves, but I think that the overwhelming majority of Labour-supporting individuals in Scotland are hostile to the new generation of trident nuclear missiles that are proposed by the United Kingdom Government, and it would be good if their voices were expressed by the Labour Party in Scotland. Sandra White Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I ask the Deputy First Minister if he agrees not just with me but with very many eminent experts that trident nuclear weapons are obsolete and play no part in the terrorism that is happening just now? To spend this type of money when we are supposed to be, according to Mr Osborne, in austerity is absolutely disgraceful and terrible for the people who are suffering just now with the cuts that are coming from Westminster. I agree with Sandra White on her point about the wrong priorities of the United Kingdom Government given the pressure on the public finances and the fact that conventional defence forces are not receiving the support that they actually require to enable them to do the job safely that we expect of them. The other point is the strategic point that Sandra White has made, which is that we live in a very troubled world. There are a whole variety of different examples of conflict around the world, and nuclear weapons are not protecting us or not contributing towards the stabilisation of those conditions. That is one of the many reasons why the Government believes that there is no place for nuclear weapons in our society. Is the cabinet secretary aware that the £500 million investment from the UK Government into Faslane is also for jetties and ship lifts to accommodate additional submarines? That is a decision that flows from something that Gordon Brown did to consolidate all the UK submarine fleet at Faslane. Surely with the SNP's plans to make Faslane home to the Scottish Navy, whatever size that would be, this would be a welcome investment in infrastructure, and therefore does he agree with his own words when he said that he would use the money to invest in conventional defence or Nicola Sturgeon's when she said that it would be education? So Deputy First Minister, who should we believe? Deputy First Minister? I might have known that Gordon Brown would be responsible for all of this. He seems to be responsible for everything disastrous that has happened around about us in over many years. I can also say to Jackie Baillie that it says at all that Jackie Baillie is coming here as the cheerleader for this announcement that was made by the Conservative Government on Monday. It is just continuing, of course, the role that Jackie Baillie has occupied for some years as the cheerleader for the Conservatives within Parliament. It is nice that, after the summer break, some things are back to normal within 11 minutes of Parliament reconvening that we have had that confirmed. Jackie Baillie knows the priorities of this Government. The priorities of this Government are to invest in our housing infrastructure to create homes for our people, in the transport infrastructure to connect our communities to the energy efficiency needs of our population, to reduce energy costs, to invest in our schools and hospitals, and to ensure that we meet the needs and the expectations of the people of Scotland at every turn. Thank you. Given the population of Argyll and Bute is projected to decline sharply over the next few years, a subject that we debated recently in this Parliament, does the minister accept that many people in Argyll and Bute are delighted with the Chancellor's announcement yesterday, which will help to create and secure many thousands of valuable jobs, as well as the very many construction jobs that will be created. The new infrastructure will allow the number of staff base there to rise to 8,200 by 2022. Isn't that a good thing? Mr MacGregor is utterly out of touch with the people of Argyll and Bute. Having spent a good proportion of the summer in Argyll and Bute, both on my personal holidays and also on Government business, the things the people of Argyll and Bute were raising with me were about digital connectivity. Wouldn't it be better if we spent £500 million on digital connectivity or on ferry infrastructure or on improving the rest and be thankful for which Mr Russell has championed so effectively? Perhaps those are the priorities of the people of Argyll and Bute and not wasting money on the next generation of nuclear missiles in our society. To ask the Scottish Government what information it has on how many people in Scotland died between December 2011 and February 2014, shortly after a work capability assessment found them fit for work. The Scottish Government does not hold information on the number of deaths in Scotland relating to the UK Government's work capability assessment. However, today, I have written to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asking for a breakdown of the figures in Scotland. Clearly, if there is any causality between the assessment and anyone taking their own life, that would be a very disturbing and very serious situation and one that would be intolerable. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is time that Ian Duncan-Smith adhered to the so-called respect agenda between Governments and comes to the welfare reform committee of this Parliament to answer the many questions that we have on the sanctions regime, cuts to tax credits, cuts to disability payments and, shockingly, the deaths of those found to fit for work by his Government? I absolutely agree. In fact, the lack of respect not just from Ian Duncan-Smith but from other ministers in his department and indeed the UK Government generally cuts entirely and undermines their claim to treat this Parliament and the people of Scotland with respect. I would have thought that it would be highly appropriate for the Secretary of State to come and explain the reasons for his policies to the welfare committee of the Parliament, because I am absolutely sure that if I listened to some of the evidence received by the committee, it would hopefully persuade him to change course completely. Clare Adamson. Thank the cabinet secretary again for his answer. Does he share my concern about the recent announcement by Ian Duncan-Smith that it is likely to be cuts to disability payments for 43 per cent of those currently in receipt of ESA with his current plans? Clare Adamson. I think that he's generally accepted that if you take the welfare cuts in totality, then the people who have suffered the most are families and disabled people. Indeed, if you look at the impact in Scotland generally, the UK Government's package of welfare cuts will reduce welfare spending by just under £2.5 billion in the year 2015-16 alone. By any standard, that is a major attack on the living standards of the most vulnerable members of our community. Question 3, Sarah Boyack. Ms Boyack. Apologies, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the National Museum of Scotland regarding the on-going pay dispute. Cabinet Secretary, Fiona Hyslop. National Museum of Scotland held talks with ACAS and unions on 21 August. National Museum of Scotland has kept the Scottish Government informed of the outcome of these talks and the impact of the industrial action in the following week. NMS, as an employer, is keen to maintain dialogue through ACAS with a view to resolving the pay dispute, and I would strongly encourage this course of action. Sarah Boyack. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Is she not concerned that the dispute has been running for over 18 months now and that the NMS only agreed to call on ACAS on the eve of the strike last week? Surely intervention should have taken place far earlier than that because there is now a huge turnover of staff in this department who are on a two-tier wage salary, and surely that is totally unacceptable to the Scottish Government? She is right to say that this issue has a long history. The new contracts for new employees were implanted almost five years ago. It took a further, I think, three years for the PCS to take up the issue on industrial action. In terms of trying to resolve this, there have been proposals put forward to tackle some of the low pay issues. I want to make clear that NMS complies with the Government's pay policy and implements the living wage. I would encourage both NMS and, indeed, the unions to engage with ACAS. I think that it was unfortunate with talk scheduled with ACAS that there was industrial action. It has to be taken seriously. I have asked NMS to take it seriously. I also hope that the proposals that have been put forward constructively are engaged with, and I do not think that the PCS members are yet aware of what those offers might be. My understanding on talking to some of the staff on the pick-at-line last week is that some of their low-paid members have been asked to donate some of their salary to other low-paid members. How can that be acceptable? If affordability is the issue, how can the cabinet secretary think that it is acceptable for the Government to spend £150,000 on a commercially viable profit-making enterprise such as T in the park, rather than sorting out this long-term debilitating, reputational damaging dispute? In order to introduce a new weekend allowance for staff, it would cost £1.2 million over the next spending review. I would point out that, over the last spending review, which took place at the time of the changes back in 2010-11, despite that, there has been no request from any member of this Parliament to implementers to have a change that would provide £1.2 million that would be required to do what the PCS has been asking for. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for agreeing to meet with me to discuss the on-going dispute at the National Museums of Scotland. However, the mood of the workforce that I met on the pick-at-line last week is steadfast in its opposition to a two-tier workforce that has been imposed by the management without appropriate consultation. Therefore, can I ask the cabinet secretary if she will take further steps to encourage parties to come to a resolution that ensures fairness in the workplace and brings to an end a dispute that is damaging the reputation of the National Museums of Scotland and has gone on for far too long? The member will be aware that I have met with PCS, FTA and Prospect and also with the National Museums. Indeed, a number of the issues that were raised with me by the unions has been dealt with, including the Scottish living wage for NMS enterprises who weren't part of the pay policy of the Government, but now have the living wage. I'm also addressing the issue around no compulsory redundancies that have been addressed, but I do think that the issue of low pay is one that is very important for all areas. Indeed, when you consider that in terms of the fixed costs, including staffing for NMS, that bill is 76 per cent of the grant in aid. In terms of the reductions of the Scottish Government's budgets, it has been very difficult for many cultural organisations to meet the responsibilities, including providing uplift where required under the pay policy despite pay freezes. We must resolve that. I want that resolved, but I think that the best way of doing that is to bring together and continue the on-going ACAS discussions. Why is it okay for the Cabinet Secretary to find £150,000 for tea in the park, but nothing to settle this two-year long dispute? Could you answer that directly, please? I think that there are many jobs dependent on a successful on-going tea in the park. I think that in terms of £150,000 for that event to ensure its viability, many people across this country would think that that is the right decision, and I have said that to me. In order to address the issue that he has addressed on our number of times, and indeed Jimmy Dee has asked to meet me, and indeed, when I personally addressed that with the unions, we would have to find £394,000 a year to address and increase and provide an additional allowance. There are proposals on the table to address the issue of low pay in that sector. I hope that every employer, whether it is public sector, charity, as is the case with the National Museum or others, would be seeking to resolve that. However, it is a real task. There is an offer that has been provided to PCS. I would encourage them to get round the table to discuss with ACAS and to address it. The next item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on the Scottish Government's programme for...