 Rwy'n credu i'r next item of business, which is topical questions, and question number one is from Liam McArthur. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Scottish Police Federation, describing some of the buildings in the police estate as being, quote, unfit for human habitation. Cabinet Secretary, Hamza Yousaf. The allocation of resources, including for the police estate, is for the Scottish Police Authority and the chief constable to determine. We are protecting the police resource budget in real terms in every year of the current Parliament, delivering a boost of £100 million by 2021. Total Scottish Government funding for the SPA in 1920 is increasing by £42.3 million, bringing the annual policing budget to more than £1.2 billion. That also includes, I should say, a 52 per cent uplift and increase to the capital budget. In relation to the on-going investment in its estate, Police Scotland will continue to ensure that, in all cases, the focus will remain on a health and safety first approach for all officers, staff and the public. In relation to the SPF's report, of course, I will look at that in great detail and raise that in my discussions with the chief constable and with the chair of the SPA tomorrow. Liam McArthur. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. The Scottish Police Federation has uncovered conditions that nobody should have to work in. Mushrooms growing in damp showrooms, rat infestations, locked fire escapes without keys, furniture salvage from skips, and victims having to give officers lifts. Officers are saying that they are the worst conditions that they have ever seen. Is the police's estate being poorly managed, or has it not had the funding that it needs to get the job done? I will say that this is an issue of legacy that predates Police Scotland, but Police Scotland has responsibility and the SPA has responsibility. As they have said, they will do to ensure that places of work for police officers are compliant with health and safety, but more than that are good environments to work for. There is no doubting that SPF's deep dives into police estate are a welcome examination and scrutiny of the estate across Scotland. I will reflect on what DCC Fiona Taylor has said, and I will quote her directly in response to the specific report that Liam McArthur mentioned. She says, and I quote, "...work was undertaken immediately to remedy a number of concerns raised by the Scottish Police Federation last week, as the safety and wellbeing of our staff is a priority for Police Scotland. A small number of officers affected by property issues raised in the noon have already been moved to temporary accommodation while improvement works are carried out. A range of options for woven police stations are being examined, following HMICS recommendations last year, and the policing estate has been built up over the last century. We acknowledge that some buildings fail to match current or future needs. We are prioritising the capital budget that we have allocated across a multitude of competing demands to achieve as much as we can as quickly as we can. That shows the commitment that Police Scotland has to the estate right across Scotland, but I understand that it is a herculean task, and of course we will continue to provide it with a budgetary support to help them with that task. Liam McArthur, I thank the cabinet secretary for that response, although it is big the question as to why it took so long for those matters to come to the attention of those who then have taken decisions. The SPF warned that the appalling conditions present, quote, "...significant legal and reputational risk for individual officers, the SPA and Police Scotland." It believes that the Housing Scotland Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act have been breached and recommended that the SPA refer itself to the Crown Office for Investigation. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that would be the right thing to do, and was Police Scotland illegally operating HMOs? I have dealt with the SPF on many occasions and have a good working relationship with them. I will leave them to have a conversation with the SPA and their colleagues at Police Scotland on the best way forward. I will raise it not only with the chief constable tomorrow, but not only with the chair of the SPA, but I will also have a conversation with the independent inspector at Gillimerey in relation to the estate since he says a role there for the independent inspector also. It is really important that I once again restate just some of the context around what we are dealing with. We know that 75 per cent of the police state is in sound condition and operates safely, with only minor deterioration, but that leaves 25 per cent of the estate that we know needs repair and refurbishment. It is worth noting again that context that 66 per cent of the Police Scotland estate predates 1980 and 33 per cent of which predates 1950. That is an issue of legacy. I have mentioned the capital uplift that we are providing. Of course, we are investing both locally and in national infrastructure as well as the refurbishment and repair function. That is not to dismiss. The exchange with Liam McArthur has been a very positive one in the sense that I think that those issues must be raised. I will continue to listen to Police Scotland. They have mentioned the capital allocation to me on a number of occasions. We responded to that with an uplift. Of course, for future spending reviews, we will continue to listen to what Police Scotland has to say in relation to that. There are four members who wish to ask us supplementary. The first is Donald Cameron, to be followed by Runa Mackay. Yesterday, I visited Oban police station, which is one of the police stations that the SPF report said should be closed immediately, and I spoke with local officers. Will the cabinet secretary join me in recognising that, despite working in such horrific conditions, they remain committed to performing at the highest levels of service? What message does he have for these officers, given that things have got so bad under this Government? Of course, in the first part of his question, I recognise the outstanding contribution of our police officers. I do not just say that by mere words. We demonstrate that by action. Police officers have received a 6.5 per cent pay increase up here in Scotland. I should say, gently to him with his party in charge in England and Wales, that has been a derisory of 2 per cent. When it comes to police officers and recognising the good work that they do, I would say that actions are much more important than mere words. We will continue to invest in that capital and the protection of the resource budget. It would also be helpful if we had that £125 million back in VAT that we have had to pay to the UK Government that no other force in England and Wales has had to pay. We have sent, as the Scottish Government, 15 letters to the UK Government on this without resolution. If he can give any influence to that, I suspect that it will be rather minor influence with the Westminster party. However, if he has any influence with the UK Government on that, I would say to him that it is indeed not towards what is needed in this case. My question to the cabinet secretary was to find out whether any progress had been made in getting back the £125 million that I gathered from your previous answer that that has not been the case. Will that continue to be pursued? Cabinet secretary. It is hugely important, because the UK Government conceded the principle that was unfair, but it has not conceded the fact that, as Liam Kerr shaking his head, it conceded the principle that was unfair. Therefore, it gave back for one year some of the VAT that me made sure was kept with Police Scotland. Having conceded that, it has not paid the £125 million that it took off Police Scotland nor the money that it took off the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service either. However, despite that, we will continue to invest in Police Scotland. As I said, we have increased the capital budget and protected the resource budget. There are still challenges, but that is not to take away from the SPF's report and the deep dives that it is doing. There are issues that we have to look at, examine and explore. I will meet with the chief constable and the chairs regularly and with the SPF. Of course, we have future spending reviews and those discussions will no doubt come out during those discussions. Daniel Johnson is filled by John Finnie. The cabinet secretary on a number of occasions in his answers has referred to the capital uplift in the budget this year, but it remains true that capital funding for Police Scotland is the fifth lowest on a per-employee basis of any police force in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the capital budget is just 3.5 per cent of the overall budget, whereas for the fire service, it is around 10 per cent. Does that not reflect that poor capital funding? If he rejects those benchmarks, what benchmarks is he using when reflecting on the capital funding for the police force? Daniel Johnson was saying in that committee that I was asked about the capital allocation a number of months ago. I said at that point with the conversations that I was having with my colleague on my left here, the finance secretary, that we would listen to the arguments that were put forward by Police Scotland in relation to the capital spend. I thought that that was a persuasive argument from Police Scotland in advance of the last spending review that its capital allocation did not reflect the size of organisation that it was. Therefore, I spoke to the finance secretary who equally recognised that and therefore we came forward with an uplift of 52 per cent. That is not an insignificant uplift. What I am saying to Daniel Johnson is that when it comes to the next spending review, of course, I will continue those discussions in a very constructive manner, not just with the Opposition, but with the chief constable, the chair of the SPA and the Scottish Police Federation. I would say again gently to Daniel Johnson that if we went with Labour's only proposal that came forward, there would be a 3 per cent cut to the police budget, not any uplift whatsoever. John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Will the cabinet secretary agree with me that this report shows the value of workplace inspections undertaken by staff associations and trade unions, but also a singular failure of police management? You used the term pre-date, the cabinet secretary of air meant not to be aware that Loch Boysdale police station was closed down previously as a result of a police federation inspection. The chief constable of Strath Clyde police found himself every share of quarters as a result of a series of failings to enforce a safe working place. I wonder if he will take the opportunity to say to the chief constable tomorrow and, indeed, the police authority that, inevitably, this is going to end up when someone, the chief constable, in a sheriff court, if we do not resolve the deficiencies of the police estate very soon? Cabinet Secretary. I think that before we rush to that particular stage, that particular step, I know that the chief constable enjoys a very positive and constructive relationship with the Scottish Police Federation and therefore I have no doubt of his commitment to trying to resolve this issue is best he possibly can. I certainly have confidence. The chief constable and, indeed, the chair of the SPA to work with staff associations to resolve this issue is best he possibly can. I know that he will also come to Government in relation to his ask around the capital allocation. Again, as I said, we will discuss that in future spending review discussions. I agree with John Finnie about the importance of staff associations. The Scottish Police Federation will challenge the Government on a regular basis. Every right to do that is the job to represent its members and to pursue in the interests of its members. I have no issue with that whatsoever. I enjoy the relationship that I have with Callum Steele and, indeed, Andrea, the chair of the Scottish Police Federation. I will sit down with him in relation to his latest report. He knows that my door is always an open one. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has carried out in the potential impact on businesses across Scotland of no longer using the pound. Firstly, our proposals are to keep the pound in the immediate term, and an SNP Government will take steps necessary to enable the Scottish Parliament to authorise the preparation of a Scottish currency as soon as practicable after independence. The Sustainable Growth Commission, established by the First Minister in her capacity as SNP leader, produced a detailed report on the financial, economic and regulatory requirements necessary for the transition to an independent currency. It engaged extensively with businesses in developing its recommendations. It recommended introduction of six tests to guide that transition, one of which is the financial requirements of Scottish residents and businesses. Those tests were backed by SNP conference on Saturday. Our position is clear. Until a new currency can be safely and securely established in the interests of the whole economy, the currency of an independent Scotland should continue to be the pound sterling. James Kelly I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The principal objective of the SNP Government and SNP party is to achieve an independent Scotland where the pound would be immediately replaced by a new Scottish currency. The effect that this would have on people's mortgages, savings and pensions is that they would need to be converted into a new currency from sterling at a cost of up to 30 per cent. That would have a catastrophic impact on business and the economy. Why does the cabinet secretary think that it is credible to adopt a policy of dropping the pound that will make Scottish families and businesses significantly worse off? Michael Matheson I think that having been placed as Scotland's finance secretary, I was on the growth commission, I was at the party conference that endorsed the policy at the weekend. Of course, I was in attendance and I was a co-author of the resolution that I was delighted was passed. Actually, what was passed is an economic strategy that shows the benefits of independence, how we grow our economy and deliver a fairer society. I am now delighted that even James Kelly is scenario planning for Scottish independence. I am delighted by that conversional wonder with all the most recent polls, suggesting that Scottish independence, of course, is more popular now and is gaining momentum. Incidentally, I think that it is quite healthy for parties to have that party democracy—maybe the Labour Party would benefit from that as well. We have set out, in terms of currency, the position that we continue with the pound. We have set out the test that will give a guide our decisions. It will be for an independent Scottish Parliament when the time is right, if there is that change, based on the right economic position for Scotland. Of those tests, fiscal sustainability, central bank credibility and financial requirements of Scottish residents and business, suficiency of foreign exchange and financial reserves, fit to trade and investment patterns and correlation of economic and trade cycle. Those are sensible tests that would guide such a decision. I will take no lectures or lessons from the Labour Party on fiscal credibility. They cannot even put an opposition budget together, never mind run a country. James Kelly In addition to the disastrous proposals in currency, we know the effect of the SNP cuts commission would be a decade of austerity, piling cuts on to local communities. What people and businesses want is that a Government is going to start to deal with the issues that matter rather than wasting time on promoting another independence referendum. Will the cabinet secretary discard those proposals and focus on delivering an NHS that serves patients instead of leaving them on waiting lists, an education system that gives pupils proper subject choice and a rail system that puts passengers first and gets the train running on time? It is this Government that is investing more in the NHS, more in education and more in rail than the Labour Party would have been. When we look at the small, advanced economies around the world, we see what they have that makes them so successful that we have not got. The answer is independence. It is with independence that we can grow our economy and have that fairer society. Let us talk about the day job and the current economic indicators. Record low unemployment in Scotland at 3.3 per cent outperforming the rest of the United Kingdom. GDP growth that is outperforming the rest of the United Kingdom increases in exports that is outperforming the rest of the United Kingdom. More investment in enterprise research and development productivity improvements. We are doing as much as we possibly can with the devolved powers getting on with the day job, building a stronger economy, but we could do even more with the powers and the levers of independence. That is why we seek those powers for this Parliament to get the best for our country rather than be left in the hands of the Tories, who are the biggest threat to Scotland's economy right now. Very simply, Cabinet Secretary, and for the benefit of those watching at home and those in the chamber, particularly for James Kelly, because he obviously needs to catch up, will the Cabinet Secretary confirm that the currency of the people of Scotland will use the day before an independence vote would be the same currency that we used the day after, the day after that and the day after that, namely that being the pound? Yes, Bruce Crawford. Much to the concern of the Unionist Opposition is correct. The currency will remain the pound upon independence and that will only change when an independent Scottish Parliament endorses such a change. Our policy is that we will support a change as soon as it can be done safely and securely in the interests of the country—the economic interests of the country—determined by an independent Parliament when the time is right. However, we need those powers of independence to be able to match the best-performing economies around the world, who are independent, and that is what we seek for Scotland. I have only been three days since the voter conference and already the cabinet secretary is in full retreat from the position set out at that conference, but we know that the largest export market for Scottish business, for goods and services, is the rest of the United Kingdom. What estimate has been done of the extra transaction costs that will apply to Scottish businesses if they have a different currency operating here compared to their major export market? I am afraid that Murdo Fraser, whose weekend viewing was clearly not at the SNP conference, which I was at, went through in great detail what our position was, which is what I have outlined, that we will be keeping the pound on independence. Of course, we can build our options as an independent country. We have set out the tests that we would apply to any potential change of currency. We have set out our preferred position. We have also shown, really importantly, how our economic policies would be enhanced if we had the powers of independence that would grow our economy, deliver greater fairness and empower us to make the right decisions by the people of Scotland. We will also be building those financial institutions with independence that would advise the Parliament and the Government of its time, rather than being left to the vagaries of UK economic policy, which is disastrous for the people of Scotland.