 Mae hyn oedd gyda'r unrhyw hwy Ao'r unrhyw ymddorol yng nghymru. Gaen dweud o bwrdd fod y cwestiwn faddy o'r gweithio bod mae'n pawb i ni peth i fywyr a'n gwneud o cwestiwn dweud ar ziwetur maes gael ac yn fanodol. Pwysig 1. Margaret McCulloch. Thank you, Presiding Officer—to ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to boost the economy in central Scotland. Cabinet Secretary, John Swinney. The Scottish Government has committed to boosting economic growth and tapping inequality across Scotland. In central Scotland, we continue to support economic growth with substantial infrastructure investment and help to businesses enabling them to grow and create employment. Businesses across central Scotland have benefited from £53 million of regional selective assistance since 2007, creating and safeguarding 7,000 jobs. Almost 2,000 employment opportunities have been created for young people through the Youth Employment Scotland Fund. A further 145 jobs have been created through £7.5 million support from the Scottish Government's generation capital grant fund. The Government will be aware of my concerns about the decline of the manufacturing base in East Kilbride and the impact that the withdrawal of Rolls Royce from the town later this year could have on the wider economy of the region. Could the Scottish Government therefore update me on their involvement with the multi-agency East Kilbride task force and explain how they and their partners are promoting the town as a destination for inward investment? First of all, I would say to Margaret McCulloch that the Government entirely supports the sentiments that she has set out of the importance of manufacturing industry for Scotland, particularly for towns like East Kilbride, which have a very strong track record in the field of manufacturing. The Government participates in the East Kilbride task force, which is run by the local authority, through our partners Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland and, through the wider input of organisations that the Government substantially funds such as South Lanarkshire College. The focus of the task force is on finding opportunities to deal with the circumstances that Margaret McCulloch raised in relation to the transfer of Rolls Royce's activities from East Kilbride to Redfordshire. The Government is also very keen to use the available devices through the work of Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International to promote East Kilbride as a destination for inward investment and to support the company base of East Kilbride to expand its activities through international business activities. Scottish Development International would be keen to support companies with growth prospects in that respect. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Tesco regarding recent closure announcements. This is a very worrying time for all those affected by the Tesco announcement to close four stores in Scotland, including the Superstore in Cercodi, with 189 employees. In the joint initiative with the leader of Fife Council, I wrote to the chief executive of Tesco offering assistance as part of efforts to reverse the situation. Scottish Government officials and Fife Council met Tesco representatives on 2 February to discuss the issues faced by the company and to express our concern about the effects the closures would have on communities, employees and their families. In addition, officials in the Scottish Government and Skills Development Scotland have been in contact with Tesco to offer support through our partnership action for continuing employment pace initiative for any employees who may be facing redundancy. I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply and also for his parliamentary response that I received yesterday. Given the fact that the recent round of Tesco closures and non-openings have accounted for 16 per cent share of the UK closures and non-openings, which is obviously disproportionate given that we have 8.5 per cent of the population share, can the cabinet secretary give a categorical assurance that there will be no successor tax to the public health supplement, which the Scottish Government was forced to abandon because it would make the retail sector, which is so important in this country, uncompetitive? The first thing to say is that the Government actively supports the retail sector in taking forward its developments. We enjoy good and constructive discussions with the Scottish retail consortium, who do a lot of very good work in advancing the interests of the retail sector in Scotland. Secondly, as a matter of record, I was not forced to abandon the public health supplement. I said that it would be in place for three years, and it came to an end when I said that it would come to an end just like I predicted it would be. As I am sure Liz Smith knows, who is an assidious follower of my every word, there are no provisions in the Government's financial plans to introduce such a supplement. In the recent times, we have seen, on one hand, a reaction against Tesco towns and in the other community coming together to save an anchor store in the Airtown Centre. Would the minister agree, however, that we all should be concerned by reports at the weekend of redundancies, potentially rising to 10,000, and that averting further job losses must be a priority in discussions with Tesco? We cannot disguise the fact that the retail sector and some of the major employment that is underpinned by not just Tesco but other supermarket chains is very significant now in the Scottish economy. Therefore, the example in Cercodi, where 189 job losses may well arise from the closure of this store, is a very significant loss of employment in one particular community. The other examples in Trun, which will be known to the Presiding Officer and in Edinburgh and Grainsworth, are not as significant, but they are in their own localities, significant announcements into the bargain. The assurance that I would give Margaret McCulloch is that, on every occasion, we face these difficulties, and we face employment loss from time to time in different parts of the country. The work of the PACE service, which Mr Ewing has led and which has been a subject of debate in Parliament, is focused entirely on ensuring that we can maximise employment opportunities for individuals that are adversely affected by those decisions. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to boost the economy in the Falkirk Council area. The Scottish Government is committed to growing the Falkirk economy and creating employment opportunities by working closely with our delivery partners, including Falkirk Council. Our commitment to boosting the economy was demonstrated by our approval of Falkirk Council's 67 million Grainsworth tax incremental financing project, which is expected to lever in £413 million in private investment, creating almost 6,000 jobs and hundreds of apprenticeships. I very much welcome the initiatives that are already under way, especially the Falkirk Grainsworth TIF, which will give a major boost to and allow exciting opportunities in the industrial sector in Grainsworth. However, Grainsworth is also a residential community and has recently announced closure of Tesco Metro, as the Deputy First Minister has mentioned, and Matheson's The Bakers in the town. Residents are concerned about the reduction in footfall in the town centre. Will the cabinet secretary continue to work with Falkirk Council to ensure that there is a bright future, not just for the industrial sector in Grainsworth, but also for the 18,000 residents who require a vibrant town centre? I appreciate Mr MacDonald's point. He raises an important question about the future and the vitality of town centres, which is an important consideration of the Government, not just in the much larger towns in the locality of Falkirk, but also in the smaller towns such as Grainsworth. The town centre action plan sets out a range of actions to help town centres to remain or to become vibrant. That includes expanding fresh start rates for small businesses, increasing opportunities for town centre living and agreeing the town centre first principle as part of our wider discussions on that question. I would also say to Mr MacDonald that the Government, through its work with Falkirk Council, in the economic partnership, will be meeting this Friday and the partnership will consider its economic strategy and Grainsworth vision, which I think will help in that respect. Finally, I think that Falkirk is a very good example of a community that has faced very significant changes in its economic base, has responded to them with tremendous courage and vision. Indeed, the combination of the visitor attractions in Falkirk between the Falkirk wheel and the Kelpas and the Helix programme are an example to us all of how real creativity and vision can be taken forward to improve the economic fortunes of people in our country. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Dundee City Council, Scottish Enterprise, Fourth Ports and DCom North Sea about the opportunities in Dundee for decommissioning oil and gas facilities. Minister Fergus Ewing, we engage regularly with relevant parties as to the opportunities that decommissioning provides. In order to maximise economic recovery from oil and gas fields, it is necessary that the UK Government acts to reinstill investor confidence. It is also necessary to avoid the premature decommissioning of installations serving fields that still have a viable life of further production of oil and gas. To avoid such premature decommissioning, it is essential that the UK Government deliver in their March budget a package comprising substantial tax reduction measures along the line of the package that I outlined to Parliament on 8 January this year. It is a very interesting answer, because nobody is suggesting premature decommissioning of any facilities. Indeed, my question was not about what the UK Government was doing but about the Scottish Government in this chamber. The last time I raised the issue that the minister told me that he had published his decommissioning strategy, the minister will be aware that Dundee City Council and his SNP colleagues there are engaging on this issue. Will the minister accept my invitation to come with me to Dundee and to meet all four parties that I have suggested to see how he can help them to facilitate getting opportunities from this multi-billion-pound industrial opportunity in Scotland? It is very generous of Ms Marra to extend the invitation, but in fact I have already had the opportunity to engage with Councillor Ken Gild, with Stan Yew, with Charles Hammond of Forth Ports and also with Scottish Enterprise staff, and I have had discussions with them. We have also published a strategy in October 2014, decommissioning in the North Sea review of decommissioning capacity, and it is plain that there are significant opportunities, as has been stated, but if Jenny Marra seriously believes that there is no risk of premature decommissioning of installations of the North Sea, then I am afraid that she is sadly mistaken because that is precisely the risk that oil and gas UK have been warning the UK Government about and a very substantial number of the existing over 400 installations in the North Sea because of their ageing nature and the relatively small deposits of oil and gas remaining, but still economically viable, face precisely that fate unless there is an appropriate and substantial tax reduction measure. I am hopeful that the UK Government will heed the more informed voice of oil and gas UK and other commentators in this regard when they make their budget announcement in March. I have a great fear of premature decommissioning. In that light, I would like to ask the Scottish Government, in light of the financial impact in the industry in Scotland, what discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding the oil and gas fiscal regime. I attended the UK Government pilot meeting, as I always do, on 13 January. It was chaired by Matt Hancock, the current UK minister with responsibility for oil and gas. At that meeting, I summarised the Scottish Government proposals that were set out in this chamber on 8 January, and I endorsed them to the UK Government and our colleagues representing the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in this chamber. I thank the minister for his answer. Following the introduction of an exploration tax credit in Norway, the number of exploration wells drilled increased substantially. Can the minister advise us if the UK Government has indicated whether or not they will follow Norway's example and introduce an exploration tax credit to boost our oil and gas industry and to protect jobs? I can tell Mr Stewart that the UK Government has not shared with us its tax proposals in the budget. To be fair to the UK Government, at said pilot meeting, it has indicated, and the Treasury's civil servants indicated, that consideration has been given to introducing some measures that may encourage exploration. The question will be whether they are sufficient. Mr Stewart points to Norway that they introduced measures in 2005, an exploration tax credit of 78 per cent. Since then, drilling has increased fourfold, and they have discovered two enormous fields, including the Johann Sferdrop field. Finally, the arrysma-take is simple. Exploration companies can do four drillings in the Norwegian North Sea for the cost of one exploration drilling in the UK sector. That cannot be right, and that is why we have called on the UK to adopt the Norwegian model. On financial impact, the Scottish Government statistics released today on public sector revenues shows that, for the last quarter of 2014, there was a 55 per cent drop in Scotland's revenue share of North Sea oil, and that was before the price of oil dropped below $50 a barrel. Can the minister advise how much that means in money terms to the Scottish budget? Does he agree that the Barnett bonus, in this case, is clearly preferable to full fiscal autonomy so that we are not exposed to billions of pounds less revenue for public services due to the drop in oil? No. However, I can inform the House that, per the proposals that I announced in the 28 January and, according to the analysis carried out by Professor Alex Kemp of Aberdeen University, possibly the most respected academic commentator in the UK, an investment allowance could support between 14,000 and 26,000 jobs a year. The reduction in the supplementary charge could support up to 5,600 jobs per annum across the UK. Those are the realities of the matter. We are having a running commentary, Presiding Officer, which is as relevant as the question was, because the answer is this—and I will conclude with this—that the amount of tax revenue in future will be substantially by determined by whether the tax measures that the chancellor introduced in March will be sufficient to reinstill investor confidence. Investor recovery can only happen if there is investment, and investor confidence will only happen if the tax reductions are sufficient to do that and show that the UK has learnt the lessons of the several tax hikes delivered by that party in 2002 and 2005 and those parties in 2011. Will the minister publish a new oil and gas analytical bulletin with updated revenue projections? Minister, until such time as we know what the tax measures are going to be, it is impossible to speculate on what the revenues will be because it is impossible to know what the investment will be. Let me inform the member of one of the many visits between 10 and 15 private visits to operators that I have conducted in Aberdeen or mostly Aberdeen in the past several weeks. One of them outlined precisely to the nearest million pounds the amount of reduced investment in the UK—between £500 and £1 billion—one company, the precise amount of reduced investment in the UK continental shelf as a direct result of the hike to the supplementary charge in 2011. That is why we must wait and see what the tax deal is before we speculate about what the tax revenue can possibly be. Question 6, Neil Bibby. As the Scottish Government what action it has taken to improve the economy in the west Scotland region? The Scottish Government has committed to supporting sustainable economic growth across Scotland, including in the west of Scotland, with infrastructure support and ensuring effective business support. In the past year, there were 17 regional selective assistance awards worth more than £8.5 million in creating or safeguarding 1,109 jobs. Over 350 jobs will be created through the recent awards from the Scottish Government's regeneration capital grant fund. Neil Bibby. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The cabinet secretary will be aware that the minister for business recently rejected Renfrewshire Council's proposal for an additional enterprise area based around creative and cultural industries to be established and for Paisley town centre to be identified as the first enterprise zone in the steam. An enterprise zone in Paisley town centre would build on the existing creative and cultural strengths Paisley already has and be a welcome boost to the area in terms of creating jobs. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary if he will reconsider his Government's decision to reject the council's proposal, which would help revitalise Paisley town centre and the local economy. Mr Bibby will be aware that the Government set out its proposals on enterprise areas some years ago. We set out that we would take forward a limited number of enterprise areas. We would also take forward other inventive mechanisms to encourage investment like the tax incremental finance issue that I discussed with Mr McDonnell just a few moments ago. There are a range of different ways in which the Government has responded to the aspirations within local communities to deliver a stronger economic future. The logic of all of that is that we cannot have enterprise areas in every part of the country because, if we do have that, they will lose the value of trying to tackle particular issues. If I say to Mr Bibby that one of the enterprise areas is down in Ayrshire, focused on the life sciences sector, bringing great rewards to the Ayrshire economy, which is a very strongly challenged economy within Scotland. The final point is that, right across the country, we provide direct support principally through measures such as the small business bonus scheme, which will be substantially helping companies in the areas in Renfrewshire. There are estimated 2,475 business premises that are either paying zero or reduced rates under the Government's small business bonus scheme, which is directly beneficial to the local economy in Renfrewshire. Many thanks and please could I ask everyone just for brief questions and answers again. Question 7, James Kelly. To ask the Scottish Government how it allocates money from the budget to capital grant funding for projects. The spending review establishes the overarching spending priorities for the Government, while the infrastructure investment plan sets out priorities for investment in the long-term strategy for the development of public works in Scotland. The annual draft budget statement gives effect to those strategic spending plans and reflects progress as measured by the Scotland performs framework and the on-going process of debate, engagement and consultation on key areas of government policy. The draft budget is then subject to a number of months of consultation and scrutiny. Individual portfolios, public bodies, local authorities and other spending bodies are best placed to determine project-by-project capital grant allocations within the strategic framework. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to examine how capital grant funding commitments could bridge spending review periods? That would allow match funding to be introduced in projects such as the University of the West of Scotland Lanarkshire campus in Hamilton. If progress could be made on that project it would bring undoubted benefits not only to the area itself but also to the Lanarkshire economy and the wider Scotland economy. There is a substantial point in what Mr Kerley says, which is about long-term planning on capital projects, with which I have absolutely no disagreement at all. If I take, for example, the period that we are in just now, the Government has financial data that will provide us with clarity about our capital and resource budgets until March 2016. We have been able to offer a longer time period of certainty because we have had financial information about this current period since the commencement of the financial year in 2011-12. We have, by and large, had about three years of programme funding to enable us to undertake such activity. On the capital programme, what I said to Mr Kerley in my initial answer was that the priorities of the infrastructure investment plan structure our decisions about the projects that will be supported, and that essentially pre-commits spending reviews recognise that some projects take longer than just one year to build, invariably they almost always will do. Where we can set out longer-term financial projections, the Government will do so. I hope that Mr Kerley understands that my ability to do that at this moment is restricted by the fact that I do not have any further sight on our financial allocations beyond March 2016. I ask the Cabinet Secretary, the finance secretary, to clarify the capital funding for the Anson High School in Lerwick, which has been subject to the uncertainty caused by the change to EU rules from last September with regard to the Scottish Futures Trust. Is he in a position to outline not possibly today but to me at some point in the near future when the timescale for funding will be clarified on that project, given that financial closure was due to be completed in the next couple of months? I am very happy to brief Mr Scott on all of the issues with which we are wrestling on this question. His command of it is substantial already, but if he wishes to learn more about it, I am delighted to share ever more of the detail with him. We are trying to resolve this issue as quickly as we possibly can do. There has been a change to the European statistical accounts and that flows through into the United Kingdom's accounts and it has a flow through into the budgeting commitments that the Government is able to make. One thing that I would say to Mr Scott is that I absolutely categorically assure him that the resources are in place to support the Anson High School. The issue that we have to address is how the statistical analysis is concluded. That work is under way. I have already shared that information with Parliament of the work that we are undertaking. I commit to updating Parliament on this question in due course. If Mr Scott would welcome further information, I would be delighted to provide that for you. To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has made to the UK Government regarding the feed-in tariff for hydroelectricity schemes. Since June 2013, I and my officials have raised our concerns that the feed-in tariff scheme for hydro power is defective. I have done so on seven separate occasions, but the UK Government have refused to agree to make amendments to the scheme. I thank the minister for that response, but obviously not for what he has just said about it. Is there a risk that if amendments are not made that the Scottish industry will actually lose out as a result? Well, yes, there is. We have a proud record of hydro schemes with 1.5 gigawatts of capacity, nearly 90 per cent of total UK hydro capacity. We have consented since 2007 19 hydro applications and a further two pumped storage hydro applications. The investment is worth more than £13.8 million to Scotland. However, the flaw in the feed-in tariff mechanism has led to industry expressing to the UK Government its concerns that after a glut of hydro developments in order to beat the next cut, next digression reduction of 20 per cent possibly, there will then be the real risk of a massive curtailment of further investment after the glut of applications are delivered. That is the worry. I have been unable to persuade the UK Government to amend the scheme, although we have had courteous discussions and they understand the problem. I am hopeful that a planned review in 2015 will, however, let sense prevail and correct what I believe, Presiding Officer, is not a political issue but a technical defect. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the cut tourism VAT campaign. VAT is a reserve matter that the Scottish Government recognises. The case made by the cut tourism VAT campaign has long highlighted the current disparity in the high VAT rates levied by the UK Government when compared to the rates of our European competitors. Tourism continues to remain a vital part of Scotland's economy and this Government is committed to driving growth in the sector, including by minimising factors that have a negative effect on Scottish tourism competitiveness. I wonder if you can advise me of any evidence from elsewhere in Europe that might support the growing clamour from all sectors of the industry, not to mention 100 plus MPs, for the UK Government to act in the best interests of tourism across these islands and cut the VAT rate to allow the industry to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the continent. I can, as it happens, share such evidence. In 25 of the 28 EU countries, they enjoy reduced tourism VAT with Lithuania amending its rates this year. In fact, only Denmark and Slovenia have higher VAT rates than the UK, where the rate is 20 per cent. Ireland, in particular, has reduced VAT on tourism from 13.5 per cent to 9 per cent. That was supposed to be temporary in May 11 but, in fact, it remains in place now because of the benefits that Ireland has enjoyed as a result of cutting VAT on tourism. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress since the most recent meeting of the open-cast mining task force. The group has made progress on both main objectives of securing re-employment and progressing restoration work. The Scottish Government has urged the UK Government to give positive consideration to a proposal from industry that would enable further progress on restoration. Can I thank the minister for his answer? Can I ask his efforts to deliver a scheme that will extend the rebate of carbon tax levy, which currently extends only to slurry, to also apply to coal mine restoration? Yes. I have been working closely with Ian Coburn of Hargreaves, the author of the proposals. I understand that he has had constructive discussions with HM Treasury. I have had telephone discussions with both Matt Hancock and David Mundell and, Presiding Officer, at a fortuitous and accidental encounter with the chief secretary to the Treasury in Granton High Street on Saturday, where we both coincidentally happened to be campaigning in connection with another event. I took the opportunity to lobby the chief secretary to the Treasury on this matter. I also understand that there is an element of cross-party support in the chamber, or I believe that to be the case, from parties across the chamber, not the Green Party who are absent, but I think all other parties possibly. I very much believe that this proposal offers the real possibility of making a very substantial progress on tackling the restoration problem of our opencast mines that have been cold out in Scotland. I welcome the progress that has been made and I am also a supporter of the principle with the Coburn plan, and I am delighted at Fife Council last month to put a paper through their executive. I have put in a motion to try and get a debate in this place. Would he support that motion and support that we have a debate in here in terms of how we move forward? I believe that ministers are not allowed to support or sign motions, and for that reason only I would not be supporting it. I think that Mr Rowley makes the point well that there is a cross-party support for this. The proposal that has been put would allow almost all of the restoration task facing Scotland to be done. It would involve extending the exemption for slurry to restoration coal. It has considerable support within the industry, and it comes at a time when the coal price has fallen further, leading to serious questions as to whether there will be further redundancies in the sector unless the proposal is enacted. I am working with David Mundell, Matt Hancock, Danny Alexander, Alex Rowley and Murdo Fraser, who is not here, to see whether there can be a cross-party approach and that that will be implemented swiftly. Otherwise, I fear that time may well be again. Question 11, Rod Campbell. To ask the Scottish Government how it will assist businesses in Lucas following the departure of the RAF. The Scottish Government strongly disagreed with the UK Government's decision to reduce the number of RAF bases in Scotland from three to one and with the decision therefore to end Lucas Row as an RAF main operating base. This Government, together with its partners, including Fife Council, is working to assist businesses across Fife with investment and support to help them thrive. The minister for that answer, the minister may be aware that some businesses in Lucas are experiencing very significant drops in trade following the departure of two RAF squadrons last year and before the arrival of the army later this year. To date, it is my understanding that the UK Government, despite requests, has not been forthcoming in providing any financial assistance. Will the minister now agree to come to Lucas to discuss matters with the business community? Yes, I received an invitation from Rod Campbell and I am most happy to accept it. I also had the opportunity to have a discussion with the deputy leader of Fife Council, Lesley Laird, Councillor Lesley Laird, earlier today. I look forward to meeting and discussing the matters with her colleagues as well in a cross-party, non-partisan basis. I do think that the MOD does have a responsibility to communities when it pulls out of them. I hope that it will discharge those responsibilities. I think that people feel that there is a very clear moral responsibility and one that they must ob-temper. I will continue to work with Mr Campbell and colleagues across other parties in this chamber to persuade them so to do so, but to do everything that we can to assist businesses and individuals who may be affected by the decisions that the MOD has taken. To ask the Scottish Government how income tax powers recommended by the Smith commission can be implemented. The Smith commission recommendations on income tax powers and the UK Government's response make it clear that income tax will be a shared tax that will continue to apply on a UK-wide basis. As such, the implementation of the Smith commission's recommendations on income tax powers is largely a matter for the UK Government. The Scottish Government will act co-operatively to implement those changes. Cabinet Secretary for his answer, does he agree with me that without full control over Scotland's finances, this Parliament will always have difficulties trying to make the type of life-changing decisions needed for the betterment of the people of Scotland and with the limited powers that are currently on offer? There is a substantive point that relates to the fact that some of the measures that Parliament might wish to take forward. I happen to have a conversation with some external stakeholders earlier today about the issue of childcare, where some of the proposals that they were advancing would require changes to the United Kingdom tax and benefits system to enable them to have real value for the families that would be affected by those proposals. That illustrates the point that Mr Adam makes. It is only when we have the full and combined integration of the responsibilities that we can take some of the transformative decisions that our country requires. Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made in devolving the powers of the Crown Estate. The Smith commission's recommendations are clear that the responsibility for management of the Crown Estate's economic assets out to 200 nautical miles in Scotland should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Once the Crown Estate has been devolved, we plan to develop a new framework for the management of those assets and the associated income. We are continuing discussions with the Crown Estate and the UK Government to ensure that the draft clauses on the Crown Estate properly implement the Smith commission's recommendations. Parla will bring together stakeholders in the early stage of the development of a new framework for the management of Crown Estate assets in Scotland. I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer. Coastal communities have asked if proceeds of offshore renewables of associated cables and pipelines at more than 12 miles offshore will attract revenues for their use. Is it the cabinet secretary's intention to make sure that coastal communities will be able to access revenue from the proceeds of offshore renewables, including those items, at more than 12 miles offshore? The Smith commission's recommendations will enable us to make sure that island and coastal local authorities receive 100 per cent of net revenues generated from Scottish territorial waters adjacent to their coast. The arrangements for distributing income generated from the Crown Estate rights at more than 12 miles offshore will be developed in Scotland by Parliament with input from stakeholders once the powers are devolved. I can assure Mr Gibson that they will be full and extensive consultation with coastal communities in that process. Briefly, as you can, please. I just briefly say that some tenant farmers in the Crown Estate and Murray are concerned that their voices will not be heard during the consultation process moving towards more devolved powers for the Crown Estate. If we will ensure within Murray that the rural portfolio, the tenant farmers and all local stakeholders will be involved in the process going forward. I think that Mr Scanlon makes an important point that the debate about the Crown Estate is often just considered about the offshore activities. Of course, there are many onshore interests of the Crown Estate and it is essential that every one of those interested parties has the opportunity to participate in the consultation. I give an assurance that that will be the case. To ask the Scottish Government what additional funding has allocated to Fife Council to protect services. The Scottish Government has provided Fife Council with a total revenue funding allocation of £683.1 million in 2015-16, which represents a like-with-like increase of over £3.5 million compared to its funding for the current year. In addition, Fife Council will receive a capital grant allocation of £42.1 million next year, which represents an increase of £3.8 million compared to this year. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. Can I ask the cabinet secretary if the leader of Fife Council has signed up to agreement to protect teacher numbers through additional funding that will be made available by the Scottish Government? The Government has made clear to local authority leaders that we require their response to our proposals that were set out in the budget in Parliament earlier this month. By this coming Friday, I look forward to receiving confirmation to that effect from local authorities around the country. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to boost the economy around Inverness and Nern. The Scottish Government has invested heavily in health, education and connectivity in the Highlands and Islands. Specific examples include the £30 million design contract for the A96 Inverness to Aberdeen dualling programme, including the Nern bypass, and the £30 million investment by Hans-Anne's Enterprise in Inverness campus. The investment complements work that has been taken forward across the region to deliver sustainable economic growth. Does the cabinet secretary share my view that infrastructural transport projects are vital drivers in stimulating the local economy? I welcome the Scottish Government commitment to dual later in N96 between Inverness and Nern. However, it is crucial that rail on neighbouring Inverness to Aberdeen line is dualed as well. Does the cabinet secretary agree? There are a number of developments under way to support the upgrade of the Inverness to Aberdeen rail link. It is an important connection that will form part of the Government's investment programme. We announced £170 million of investment in March 2014 in the Inverness to Aberdeen railway. That will fund improvements to increase the number of trains, to improve signalling, to lay infrastructure for new stations and to enhance timetable services. I appreciate that you are not in the chair for questions. I seek your advice regarding who determines whether a question is irrelevant, whether it is the Presiding Officers or indeed the ministers. This afternoon, we have heard from Fergus Ewing who determined that a supplementary question was not relevant. That was not ruled as being out of order by Deputy Presiding Officer John Scott. As Mrs Kerlin knows because we have said many times before, I am not responsible for the answers that come from ministers or anybody else. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 1-2-3-2-5 in the name of Jenny Marra on protecting Scotland's communities.