 The next item of business is topical questions. If a member wishes to seek a supplementary, they should press the request-to-speak button during the relevant question, by entering the letters RTS in the chat function, if online. I think that questions and answers are always looked for to get as many members in as possible. At question number one, I call Daniel Johnson. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the public sector workforce reductions that is predicted by the finance secretary on Sunday. The UK Government's autumn statement is one of austerity for public services. The Chancellor chose to ignore much-needed funding for public services in his budget, other than the £10.8 million of consequentials for health. We have had two years of high inflation and because of that, public sector paydeals have exceeded our planned expenditure. We welcome the recent report from Audit Scotland on the Scottish Government's workforce challenges and recognise the challenge that it has set out. Growth in the public sector workforce is due to a range of factors and we are committed to providing high-quality public services. However, our financial position necessitates that we need to look at reforms in the way that public bodies deliver services. The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Finance will set out a further update in the draft Scottish budget 2024-25. The Deputy First Minister's comments in the media over the weekend will cause anxiety and nervousness for public servants across Scotland just as winter costs start to bite. They deserve clarity and candour from this Government. What level of detail are the Scottish Government's plans to reduce headcount? Will they be laid before Parliament in detail? What areas of focus are there going to be for those reductions, given that the NHS headcount will be protected? Finally, will the minister guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies and agree to meet trade unions as called for by the GMB? We are in this situation because of a range of factors. Clearly, the impact of inflation has been significant but we are also here because of the decisions taken by the UK Government. As the Deputy First Minister has already stated, we are committed to protecting health and we want to avoid compulsory redundancies. Of course, we are committed to engaging constructively with all other partners across the public sector to achieve those aims and ambitions. With regard to a further update, as I said in my original answer, the Deputy First Minister will provide more information as part of the Scottish budget process. In his answers, the minister's phrase, a range of factors is doing a huge amount of work. The reality is that this announcement brings into real question the Government's competence and lack of workforce planning. As the minister knows, since 2019, a civil service headcount in Devolve-deyrs has increased by almost 40 per cent, an increase of over 7,000. That is at a time when NHS headcount grew just by 11 per cent. A Scottish Government core headcount increased by 2,000. That is a third. Throughout Covid, the Government was adamant that Covid money was only being used on non-recurring items, but is that the case? Given the coincidence, was that money being used to grow headcount numbers? More importantly, is it not grossly incompetent, if not outright cruel, to create positions only to have to remove them just months later? What I would say is incompetent is the UK Government's handling of the UK economy, and what I would say is cruel is the budget decisions that they have taken. The reality is that with regard to the spending of public money during the Covid pandemic, as with every aspect of public finances, those are set out in a transparent process through the annual budget process and, of course, in the audited accounts that are published. I recognise that we are in a exceptionally challenging set of circumstances, but it is not unique to Scotland. Indeed, our colleagues in Wales are wrestling with very similar challenges, which is a reflection, yes, of broader macroeconomic factors, but also of the decisions of the UK Government. The minister is well aware that the finance committee has spent a great deal of its time on the question of public sector reform and questioning how that can happen. What principles does he believe should underpin that public sector reform? It is a very important question and we have committed to a 10-year programme of public service reform, but underpinning that, of course, is a desire to ensure that we are delivering it more efficient person-centred services and, of course, that we put prevention at the heart of it. I think that we recognise that that is a shared ambition and it is one that we are committed to working constructively with partners across the public sector to deliver. That is a woeful set of explanations from the minister. They have been warned for years by the Scottish Fiscal Commission and Audit Scotland about the black hole in the public finances, but they kept on recruiting people into the public services. They should be apologising to the people whose jobs are under threat now, not looking to blame Westminster. I think that we need a proper explanation from the minister when we are going to get it. As I set out in my original answer, there will be further information provided as part of the budget process, but we cannot escape the circumstances that we have found ourselves in over the last two years, which is exceptionally high inflation and is necessitated public sector pay deals that have put additional unanticipated pressure on the public finances. We are now having to contend with a return to the austerity agenda of the UK Government, but it is even an excess of the austerity agenda that was pursued by George Osborne and, indeed, Mr Rennie's party when they were in government, too. Can the minister say anything about the OBR forecasts last week? Could the autumn statement have done more to help Scotland's finances and protect jobs? The member's right to highlight it is a grim set of forecasts, which underline, yes, as I have said before, the significant external factors, but also the mismanagement of the UK economy by the UK Government. We would want to see a public spending settlement that recognises the importance of investment and predicting jobs and supporting public service reform, but that is something that the UK Government has failed to recognise in its spending plans. I can squeeze in a brief supplementary, Stephen Kerr. The minister is giving a very bad impression of someone who has slopey shoulder syndrome, blaming everybody but themselves for the situation that we are in. Does he understand and accept that if the Government does not fully fund the council tax freeze that the First Minister announced without any consultation with anybody, then there will be dire consequences for jobs and services from local government? We have committed to fully funding the council tax freeze. That is why we are engaging constructively with our partners in COSLA, and we are committed, as I say, to delivering that. What is creating particular challenges in the context that we are in currently ahead of setting our own budget next month is the fact that we have had such a paltry, pathetic settlement from the UK Government, which is not commensurate to the challenges that we face. To ask the Scottish Government, further to the finance secretary's letter to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on 21 November, whether it will provide an update on the delivery of vessels and pieres projects, including the small vessels replacement programme and the port works at Addrossan and Gwyrwch Harbors. The Government remains committed to the funding of new vessels and port infrastructure to support our lifeline ferry services. The small vessels replacement programme is progressing well and, as Seymal has confirmed, it remains on track with the outline business case for phase 1 nearing completion before it moves into the procurement phase. That is a crucial part of the process, helping to ensure that we deliver value for money and that vessels and shoreside works align. Recent confirmation of in-year budgets does not impact on the overall delivery of key investments in these new ferries for our island communities, as first payments will not be due until contracts are awarded. The business case for Addrossan and Scope of the Gwyrwch port projects are under review to help to perform robust investment decisions. The different partners in the Addrossan project have further work to do in the process, following the pause in procurement related in the summer, as the scope of the necessary work has been extended. I have recently written to the Addrossan task force members on that work. We continue to make significant investments across our networks with working with Seymal and the operators to improve reliability and resilience of services as we progress. There has been extensive work from Seymal in the design and business case development of the small vessel replacement programme over the summer and autumn, including island community consultation. Working with Transport Scotland, the work is progressing well to the next planned stage of procurement. I thank the minister for the update. Let me probe a little bit about what on track means in the real world. The Scottish Government investment plan updates on two years ago made the category commitments that seven vessels of the small vessel replacement scheme would be, I quote, serving island communities within the next five years, i.e. by 2026. The Seymal chief executive responded by saying that we are not prepared to wait and wait and wait and see small vessels getting older and older. Of course, they also confirmed this weekend that, as we have heard in the chamber today, payments will only be made once the shipbuilding contract is signed. It seems like that whole process has been pushed back a year, because if the payment follows the contract, surely the work will only start once the contract has been signed. The obvious question is this. In light of the reprofiling, as it is being called, will our island communities see all of those vessels in service by 2026, as was originally planned, and for the sake of Scotland's shipbuilding yards, including Ferguson, Marine and Inverclyde, who on earth is going to build those ships? I remind members of the need to comply with the time allocated, both on part of the minister, in terms of ministerial reply and in terms of the supplementary question from the member. In relation to Seymal's published corporate plan of 2020-23, that would have indicated an earliest start date, but we all understand why those plans would not have been delivered. In terms of what Seymal is asking for, it wants to have progress, so do I. We are working with Seymal very closely. It is one of the first things that I did in my came-in-to-office was to visit Seymal and to understand what the plans were for the programme. In terms of the delivery of the vessels, clearly we are in the stage that Seymal thought that we would be in, which is the completion of the outline business case and design, and the move into procurement. In relation to the delivery of those vessels, we are delivering the funding for the overall vessel programme that we said we would do between 2021 and 2026. The small vessel replacement programme will commence the building in 2026 with the delivery in those following two years, which is the current plan and which was set out by Seymal. The funding has been promised, but the delivery of the vessels is what people are interested in. When will the vessels be sailing around their communities? It sounds like we are talking at least 2028, and I am sure that that will come as a huge disappointment to our island communities. Of course, the harbour improvements, which are also much needed, include our Drossan and Gwruch upgrades. We were told that the Drossan harbour redevelopment would be finished construction by spring or summer 2026. I quite like an update on whether that is still on track and on-plan. However, all of that contradicts comments made in the letter to the finance committee by Shona Robison that the reprofile will, I quote, push out timescales of future improvements. My next question is this. What future improvements will be pushed out or delayed in other parlants? Are those harbour redevelopment plans also going to be delayed, or are they apparently on track as well? The vessels will be delivered from 2026 as planned. There will be important alignment between overall vessel procurement and shoreside investments, which include harbour side investments, because that includes the fact that we want to move to electric ferries in terms of our desire to improve the system. In relation to a Drossan, there is a lot of detail in the questions that we are asked. He will know, as I have outlined in the chamber, that the improvement works will need to be extended from the original investment proposal, the replacement or strengthening of the wind and pier at Drossan and the Irish berth, which in certain wind conditions ferries used to manoeuvre out of the harbour, has expanded that piece of work, both north of the Ayrshire Council and the Peel Ports. The partners in that process are delivering on-going work to make sure that we have the robust investment decision that we can make in order to have that investment. I thank the minister for being aware of my support for the workforce of Ferguson's and the yard itself, and how vital the small vessel replacement programme is with regard to Ferguson's, particularly with the history of the three hybrid ferries. In addition to what has been said so far, can the minister provide an assurance at the announcement of the programme, while that will happen early in the next financial year, and the minister will be aware of the correspondence sent from local MP Ronny Cymru, Councillor Elizabeth Robertson and myself, to the cabinet secretary for all being economy, fair work and energy. Will she agree to meet with three of us to discuss the small vessel replacement programme? Clearly, Stuart McMillan wants to advocate for his constituents in the Ferguson marine yard, which he continues to do. Clearly, in terms of that yard, it has to focus on winning future work and getting itself into the state that it can win future work. In relation to Ferguson marine, the lead minister is the cabinet secretary Neil Gray, who understands and has been in correspondence with the member. Clearly, our focus in Ferguson marine has to be to secure the two new ferries, make sure that we have the future for the yard and to serve the island communities. There are opportunities quite clearly in relation to procurement of the new small vessel replacements in terms of the needs of islanders and the needs of the local economy that he represents. I understand that relationship. We are considering future vessel contracts from public agencies on a case-by-case basis. I understand that the cabinet secretary for wellbeing, economy, fair work and energy had an invitation to meet with him. I hear that there is an extension to meet with me. I would need to reflect on what stage we are in terms of the purment as to whether that might be appropriate. I am waiting six years for the Scottish Government to agree terms with Peele whilst ministers refuse to agree to the calls to bring the port back into public ownership to make progress. There is now a real concern that the Scottish Government is going to lose out to train permanently. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure urgent consideration of a business case for the essential works at Ardrossan harbour, and why has this work been left so late? Clearly, the issue of public ownership is a different one, necessarily, to the progress of the different partners in delivering the works that will be required for Ardrossan. In relation to my responsibility, since I have been in post, I have wanted to make sure that we have the most robust business case that we can. For example, North Ayrshire Council has been liaising with the Isle of Arranfair committee and appointed consultants to provide a report. That will not be available until late November, so we could not deliver in terms of that business case as of now. However, that is what partnership working is about. There is more than one partner involved in this, and we have been working with them and also Peele ports. I am looking at the extension of the need for the Winton pier and the Irish berth, which would not have been in the original proposals that she had reflected on. We will now move on to the next item of business after a short pause to allow front-bench teams to change positions, should they wish.