 Fy enwau'r cyfrail yw ddweud ymgyrch ymgyrchu i fyfyrdd yma cyfleu'r cyfrail. 1. Creeg Hoi O'r Gwladau Skyrn amdanoch a'r答au ar yr adnwysgfaithau Edf i'r bydd yn farch should o'i adnwysu gyda'i Cyfrailatwr. The Scottish Government does not support the building of new nuclear-efficient power stations in Scotland under current technologies. We are supportive of extending the operating lifespan of Torness if strict environment and safety criteria continue to be met. Torness has contributed a significant value to Scotland's economy over several decades, and the facility itself plays an important role for the East Lothian community, and extending its power generation will provide supply as the capacity of renewable alternatives is increased. I thank the minister for that answer, but new data shows that nuclear accounted for 16% of Scotland's electrical output in 2022, and over its lifespan, Torness power station has produced enough electricity to power every Scottish home for 29 years. When it is decommissioned, the SNP will block any further nuclear development in Scotland. European nations including Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden will all harness nuclear energy as part of their net zero journey. Why not, Scotland? Craig Hoy mentions quite a lot of countries that are continuing to use nuclear technology for fuel, but he does not mention the significant major economies of Europe that are not, such as Germany. I would also mention that one of the reasons that we are not putting any of our efforts into nuclear is because offshore wind will provide the security of supply that we need. I would also mention pump storage hydro as well, which the UK Government has not supported in any significant way. Nuclear has favourable contracts for different conditions, UK funding, regulated asset-based model, reducing risk for developers, but pump storage hydro does not have any of that as well. I would also mention that nuclear is £92.50 per megawatt hour, whereas offshore wind is £37.65 per megawatt hour. Nuclear is far too expensive, but I should also mention that the cabinet secretary is visiting Torness in the near future. We recognise that that station has made a significant contribution to Mr Hoy's region. I am grateful that the Government is now celebrating the contribution that Torness has made, but I am disappointed that it is not putting efforts into nuclear. How will the Scottish Government ensure that the baseline continues for periods of, say, up to 24 hours when there is no renewables and the water storage has fallen and turned its turbines? I recognise that Martin Whitfield has made many occasions that he is pro-nuclear energy and he does so again today. SNP remains of our position that we do not think that it is necessary to invest in nuclear for Scotland when we have got an abundance of renewable energy. I mentioned pump storage hydro. It has not been able to utilise any market mechanisms that the UK Government put in place for other technologies such as nuclear, which is a distinctive fairness given that it is able to plug any gaps in intermittent supply from offshore and onshore wind. The energy that is available from pump storage hydro is significant. 2. Rachel Hamilton The Scottish Government, whether it will provide an update on future funding for south of Scotland enterprise. Cabinet Secretary, Neil Gray. The south of Scotland enterprise has made a significant impact since its launch in 2020. Last year, the agency provided tailored advice and support to more than 1,100 enterprises. It invested £10.5 million into businesses and communities and a further £5.4 million into strategic projects. We have prioritised funding for SOCI to the extent possible, given the extremely challenging funding settlement. The 2024-25 budget allocates almost £27.4 million to the agency to support economic and community development across the region. SOCI is committed to boosting investment, accelerating opportunities and helping businesses and communities to grow and achieve their potential. We will keep working with them to support those shared ambitions. 3. Rachel Hamilton The south of Scotland enterprise was launched four years ago. Since it started, funding has been cut year on year. This year, it was cut to £34.5 million, down nearly £3 million. Next year, as the Cabinet Secretary said, it will be slashed to £24.7 million. The promise of a fair share, based on per capita of population, is equivalent to high, as in the financial memorandum, businesses have been betrayed. Will SOCI be expected to cut its operating costs, its labour costs, just to ensure that it can deliver on a budget and its five-year action plan? The funding provided in the autumn statement fell well short of what we need. Scotland needed more money for infrastructure, public services and pay deals. Instead, the autumn statement delivered a real-terms reduction in the block grant. It is a bit rich for Conservatives who are pro-asterity to then complain about their impact. Throughout the session, since it began, I am hearing commentary almost constantly when members are putting or responding to questions. I will ask all members to cease. It is a bit rich for Conservatives who are pro-asterity, a decade and a half of austerity, to then come here to complain about the impact that austerity has on services. Within the context, we have prioritised funding for the enterprise agencies to the extent that we possibly can. The budget allocates more than £307 million for enterprise agencies. If the Conservatives wish to see a change, they are more than welcome to come forward with the cuts that are elsewhere in the budget, or even better, to persuade their colleagues at Westminster to stop the cuts at source. Can the cabinet secretary provide further detail on how the Scottish Enterprise Blueprint for Economic Growth, launched on Monday, will help to deliver a more successful, fairer and greener economy? I was pleased to be at the Scottish Enterprise's launch of its new strategic focus, which has three key missions at its heart. It is about ensuring that we support the energy just transition, about making sure that we have innovation at the heart of our economy and attracting capital investment that can improve productivity. Along with Scottish Enterprise, SOCI and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, we can keep working with them to ensure that those key areas of investment are supported. The cut to South Scotland Enterprise represents some 20 per cent that is coupled with a 12.8 per cent cut to Highlands and Islands Enterprise and a 15.2 per cent to Scottish Enterprise. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what assessment has been made of the impact that we will have on headcan and critically the number of businesses that those agencies will be able to collectively support? We continue to work with all of our agency partners to ensure that the budget that they have available that we have been able to prioritise goes as far as possible to ensure that the service that they provide is well tailored to the areas that they serve and the sectors that we need to continue to support. Of course, if Labour has a proposition to change the allocation that comes to enterprise agencies, of course the Deputy First Minister and I would welcome that, but to have any credibility, they will need to come forward with what areas they need to be cut back from elsewhere in the budget. To ask the Scottish Government how its budget for 2024-25 will help to develop the offshore wind supply chain to ensure that Scotland benefits from the reported global expansion of wind energy. The budget kick starts our commitment of up to £500 million over five years to Anchor Scotland's offshore wind supply chain with investment of £67 million in the next financial year. Our strategic investment will stimulate and support crucial private investment into the Scottish supply chain to maximise the economic opportunities and benefits from Scotland's offshore wind potential. I thank the minister for her response and it's very welcome that the Scottish Government is providing the support that is needed to stimulate and support the growth of the sector, particularly relevant to my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Cincardin. With that said, the reality remains that real terms cuts to the Scottish Government's capital investment budget imposed by the UK Government risk undermining our ability to invest in our energy transition. Can the minister outline how the full capital borrowing powers of an independent Scotland could make such investment much more achievable? Growns from the Conservatives over there because Audrey Nicholl is pointing out that they are obvious. Our ability to borrow to invest is severely constrained compared to that of an independent country at just £450 million per year or £0.2 of GDP. At a time where the OECD has said that the transition to green energy will require additional investment of up to 1.5 per cent of GDP per year, that is just not enough. The Scottish Government has outlined plans to set up a dedicated building a new Scotland fund to invest up to £20 billion over the first decade of an independent Scotland and lay the foundations for the green fair net zero economy. Other nations across Europe are making significant investments in transitioning and we should be able to do that too. We all welcome the focus on offshore supply chain and the fantastic opportunities for our economy. We need to get on and realise them. The First Minister made this commitment in October last year, but my understanding is that so far only £20 million has been allocated so far. Can the First Minister confirm how the funding will be distributed, what the mechanism will be that is used and when we will see this money making a different on the ground? For example, can the First Minister highlight what ports are going to benefit from this investment? There are a number of things on Sarah Boyack's question, but there has been £87 million allocated already. I mentioned the budget figures as well, but I would also say that there is other work going on with regard to supporting the supply chain as well. As she mentioned, there is ports infrastructure and there is work on going on in the strategic investment model, which has been taken forward by the group that I chair, the joint chair in Soweck. At the moment, that is attracting £9 billion of CAPEX, which is going to be leveraging private investment along with working with the funds that I have outlined that are going to be delivered by the Scottish Government. There is a significant amount of joint working that is going on between the sector. It would not be appropriate for any kind of top-down approach of Governments saying what the industry should be doing. We are working together with them. They know what they need in order to be able to deliver on the Scotland wind and intog rounds as well, and we want to be working with them in the room at all stages of this process. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to review the consultation process for energy infrastructure projects. The power to alter the Electricity Act 1989 to change the logistics of basis for consultation processes under the act is reserved to the UK Government. However, the UK Government's transition acceleration action plan, or TAP, makes it clear that changes to the consenting regime in Scotland under the Electricity Act are necessary to accelerate the determinations process and has committed to a review. The Scottish Government supports such a review and will work with the UK Government to progress it. For offshore energy infrastructure projects, the Scottish Government is currently undertaking work to streamline the consenting regime, including reviewing the consultation processes. Tess White Minister, north-east residents affected by the SSCM, Pylon and Substation proposals have increasingly shared their concerns with me about the consultation process for this infrastructure or the new infrastructure. They feel as though it has been railroaded through, it has impacted the community's wellbeing and has caused significant distress to many. Surely there must be a better way to engage with affected residents. My question is, as energy infrastructure projects ramp up, will the minister commit to listen to communities about the way in which those consultations are run and work with the developers to improve them? The simple answer to that is not only will I listen, I am listening and I am working with the industry to improve them. It is important to mention that. I appreciate Tess White's support given that pre-application consultation for the community led by developers. Although it is mandatory in town and country planning system for bigger infrastructure capacity over 50 megawatts, it is not mandatory and that is something that the electricity act could be reformed to include. I would very much welcome the support of Tess White with her UK Government colleagues not only to make community engagement mandatory in cases such as the one that she mentioned, but also to make community benefits mandatory at the moment that I have been liaising with the UK Government counterparts on this issue. I am afraid that I have not had agreement on that, so I very much welcome Tess White's support in both those endeavours. Despite being at the mercy of volatile and unstable UK energy and climate change policy, how will plans to develop a green industrial strategy for Scotland bring about the investment that is needed for energy infrastructure projects? I appreciate where Colin Beattie is coming from. He raises a very important point on policy certainty, which is absolutely crucial for investment. When a UK Government flip-flops on climate change policy, we lose out to companies that otherwise would be investing in the UK and go elsewhere for that policy regime as better. I give an example of the United States Inflation Reduction Act 2018. Our global transition offers enormous economic opportunities for Scotland, and that is why we are developing a green industrial strategy that sets out how the Scottish Government will help businesses and investors to realise those opportunities and will offer a clear view of economic sectors and industries in which we have the greatest strength and most potential and what the Government will do to support them and bring the full weight of government to bear covering themes such as skills and investment and give the private sector confidence to make those decisions to invest in Scotland, if not the wider UK. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the latest expression of interest in buying Glasgow Presswick Airport. At the Economy, Fair Work Committee on 6 December, I set out the details of an expression of interest in purchasing presswick airport. Other parties have also approached Glasgow Presswick with potential interest. Due to commercial sensitivities, Mr Simpson will understand that it would not be appropriate to share further details, including the identity of an organisation behind any expression of interest at this time. However, I will endeavour to keep Parliament updated at the earliest appropriate point should a proposal be received. Graham Simpson. Can I thank the cabinet secretary for that very interesting answer? It sounds like there are two expressions of interest on the table from what he said. There have been a number over the years and there have always hit a barrier. I am just wondering if the cabinet secretary can tell us what exactly the Scottish Government is looking for in a buyer for the airport. I thank Graham Simpson for his constructive question and also acknowledge his on-going interest in this area. The Scottish Government intends to return Glasgow Presswick Airport to the private sector at the appropriate time and with the best opportunity any decision to sell must be informed by what is right for the long-term success of the business and the contribution that it makes to the local economy. The airport is not being actively marketed for sale at present, but it is understood within the aviation industry that ministers are open to considering credible purchase offers. Any potential purchaser must demonstrate how they will maintain Glasgow Presswick Airport as an operational airport and maximise its economic benefits and employment potential. We must be confident that any sale would represent good value for the taxpayer and put the business on a firm footing. As I say, I am happy to continue to laze with Mr Simpson, the committee and Parliament, as the expressions of interest progress. To ask the Scottish Government what impact its budget will have on city centre recovery and small businesses. The Scottish Government's £685 million non-domestic rates relief package will see the small business bonus scheme being maintained, continuing to be the most generous scheme of its kind across the UK. The basic property rate has been frozen at £49.8 and over 95 per cent of non-domestic properties will continue to be liable for a lower property tax rate than elsewhere across these islands. The commitment to the £1.9 billion city region and regional growth deals remains with £203 million in the forthcoming budget to support them and the work of the Scottish Cities Alliance. I thank the minister for the answer. The Scottish Retail Consortium said that the Scottish budget will cause self-inflicted economic harm and that plans for new levees were smacks of incoherent policymaking within government. All of that is on top of the SNP's failure to pass on the 75 per cent rates relief to retail businesses. Does the minister accept that the accumulative effect will stifle the economy, further hinder the retail sector, prevent city centre recovery and ultimately put additional costs on to Scottish consumers? The measure that is outlined by the member is currently subject to a consultation. We will listen to all views, including the members, and we shall await the outcome of that consultation before moving forward. However, that is another example of another Conservative MSP complaining about some of the budget proposals after the dismal budget settlement that the Scottish Government received from the Conservative UK Government. I urge the member and her colleagues to put as much pressure on their Conservative colleagues in the UK Government to recognise the extraordinary pressures as a result of those UK policies on Scotland and our budget so that we can address some of those concerns. Scotland's small businesses are facing higher energy costs, labour shortages due to Brexit, plus the impact of inflation on goods and services due to the UK Tory Government mismanagement of the economy. Given the paltry consequentials received by the Scottish Government that severely limits its ability to repair some of its damage, what continued calls is a minister making to the UK Government to provide further much-needed support? Will Gordon MacDonald raise an important issue? Of course, the latest data from the Business Insights and Condition Survey shows that the main concerns for businesses for December 2023 were energy prices, reserved issues to the UK Government, fallen demands, influenced by policies at the UK Government level, inflation of goods and services, influenced by Tory economic mismanagement at UK level. The Scottish Government is raising those issues with the UK Government and other issues such as calling the UK Government to help with the costs by introducing a VAT reduction for business energy bills and for also changes. We made the skilled worker visa provision and also a reduction of VAT for the tourism and hospitality sector and a number of other issues where the UK can step in and help the Scottish business community. I hope that it will do that sooner rather than later. To ask the Scottish Government what measures in its proposed budget will support economic growth in North Ayrshire. Our proposed budget includes a range of measures to support economic growth in North Ayrshire and the three missions of equality, opportunity and community. That includes continued rates relief for businesses as all part of a national package worth £685 million for £24.25. The region also benefits from our increased investment in digital connectivity across Scotland from £93 million to £140 million. Such measures will benefit North Ayrshire economy, and added to our continued support of the Ayrshire growth deal in this, we are investing £103 million to transform the economy of the wider region. Ruth McGuire, I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. A recent report by the TUC has shown among other things that the UK is the only G7 economy where real household income per head has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. They describe this as a damming indictment on the Conservatives economic record and say that their failure to deliver decent growth in living standards over the last 13 years has left millions exposed to skyrocketing bills and is pushing many into debt. Low growth, high inequality, Westminster inflicted cost crisis. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that Scotland could do so much better for our citizens with full fiscal autonomy as an independent nation once again? Yes, I absolutely agree with Ruth McGuire's assessment. Today's rising inflation will exacerbate the UK cost crisis challenge being faced by businesses and households. The Scottish Government is limited in its ability to unleash Scotland's economic potential. Too much decision-making regards our economy. It still rests at Westminster and we remain locked into the UK Government policy making decisions that the Resolution Foundation has given the UK stagnant wages and doubled the productivity gap with France and Germany since 2008. Inequality levels that make a typical household income £8,300 worse off and an economy that is 2.5 per cent smaller than it would have been within the EU. That is why Scotland's economy has experienced faster earnings growth than the rest of the UK in 2023 and 4 per cent greater GDP growth per person and doubled the UK's annual productivity growth since 2007. Ruth McGuire is right. For us to truly reach our economic potential, match the growth, productivity and wider economic performance of our European neighbours, we need to take our place as an independent nation within the EU. Brian Whittle Can the cabinet secretary explain how his Government's decision to slash funding for Scotland's economic development agencies in this budget will benefit economic growth across Ayrshire? Does he subscribe to the view of his Scottish green colleagues that economic growth is something to be avoided? I support this Government's continued economic growth and we support our enterprise agencies in the role that they play to deliver that. It is quite rich for a Conservative member who supports austerity being afflicted upon Scotland and the rest of the UK to then come here and complain about its impacts. If he is really serious about seeing enterprise budgets increased, he needs to talk to his Westminster colleagues to ensure that our settlement is a fair one and isn't a real-terms cut to our budget. We move on to the next portfolio, which is finance and parliamentary business. At question number one, I call Willie Coffey. Willie Coffey, thank you to ask the Scottish Government what its provisional revenue allocation is for local authorities for 2024-25. Minister, Joe FitzPatrick. Despite a real-terms reduction in the Scottish Government's block grant, the Scottish Government has provided local government with record revenue funding in 2024-25 and the local government settlements share of the discretionary Scottish budget has also increased. Together with the funding provided to support a council tax freeze, councils will receive almost £13.4 billion of revenue funding next year. Figures independently reported by SPICE clearly show a 5 per cent increase on last year's provisional budget, one of the largest increases seen over the last decade. Yet COSLA and others regularly challenged the figures and claim that they do not include additional obligations that arise and do not include additional cash that is given to the councils during the course of any given year. Can the minister assure Parliament that the figures in the provisional budget statement are accurate and based on like for like budgets in previous years? Can he suggest any further mechanism that might allow the Government and all of our stakeholders to reach agreement on the figures used in future provisional budget announcements? I absolutely confirm that the local government settlement has increased by £795.7 million equivalent to 6 per cent cash terms increase or 4.3 per cent in real terms. The figures that the Scottish Government uses are as required by the written agreement between the Scottish Government and the Finance and Public Administration Committee. We have compared the 2020-24-25 draft budget with the 2023-24 draft budget. That provides the most accurate like for like comparison of available funding at this stage in the budgetary cycle, adopting any other approach that would go against the agreement with the Finance Committee and the Parliament and potentially be misleading to Parliament. In relation to the revenue allocations for local authorities, what has happened to the new fiscal framework between local and central Government, which the Accounts Commission said would be delivered by September 2023, and which was supposed to include multi-year settlements? There has been a huge amount on-going to achieve agreement around the fiscal framework going on between the Scottish Government and our partners in COSLA. Clearly, it has proven to be more complex than was expected. Everyone is of the view that it is more important that we get this right. It is a really important step forward. We absolutely accept the aspirations to get this agreement in place as soon as possible. I think that that will be not just to the benefit of the Scottish Government and local government, but it will also be to the benefit of this Parliament. We are all working really hard, but it is really important that we get this right. It is obviously a partnership that we are taking forward between the Scottish Government and COSLA. There is no one side that can drive this forward at pace. We need to work out how best we can achieve a fiscal framework that works for everyone, including this Parliament. Local authorities across Scotland are struggling to meet the needs of citizens within the current financial setup. The Accounts Commission highlights that the total budget gap in local authorities has risen to £725 million for the next financial year, which has almost doubled that of the year before. Does the Scottish Government consider that that is in line with good governance practice? I think that one of the important things from the recent report from the Accounts Commission was their assertion that no Scottish local authority was at risk of effectively going bust as we have bankrupted, as we have seen down south. That shows a real difference in the way that this Scottish Government has treated our local government partners compared to the way local government has been treated south of the border. Clearly, that is a difficult settlement for all of us in Scotland. The autumn statement did not provide the resources that Scotland requires, so the Deputy First Minister had to make difficult decisions in setting the draft budget, and I absolutely appreciate that local government colleagues across Scotland will have to make difficult decisions in setting their budgets, too. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work that it is undertaking to deliver on its commitments to participatory and to deliver to democracy. The Scottish Government's vision for public participation is that people can be involved in decisions that affect them, making Scotland a more inclusive, sustainable and successful place. Officials have been progressing the work to deliver that by identifying the skills and resources that are required to provide effective support for public participation across Government. I anticipate that, by February, I will be able to provide further information on how we will be able to take that forward. I thank the minister for that answer. Can I ask the minister what role he sees citizens' assemblies playing in the future of Scotland's democratic process? Citizens' assemblies are best used for complex issues of national significance, and they remain a priority of the Government. We remain committed to high-quality participation. However, in many instances, it is better approached through smaller-scale methods, for example, lived experience panels. At present, much of our public participation work is delivered through the smaller-scale methods that will focus on establishing the skills and resources to raise the overall standard of participation. If the citizens' assembly recommends the abolition of the council tax, will the Government back it? As I said, we are listening to the various panels that we have currently, and what we hear from Mr Rennie is already jumping the gun and making decisions of the citizens' assemblies themselves. The whole point of that participation, Presiding Officer, is to have the public to have their say, and we take advice from there. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding the potential future devolution of vehicle excise duty. We have made a number of attempts to engage the UK Government on motoring tax reform without any meaningful response. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition wrote to the UK Government in October last year, setting out the actions that it needs to take to accelerate the transition to net zero and calling on it to take a comprehensive approach to reforming motoring taxation to help to deliver our climate change ambitions. If the UK Government is not willing to take the actions that are needed, then, of course, it should devolve powers so that this Government can. A recent RAC survey of potholes across the UK estimated that there are at least 1 million UK-wide, yet the UK Government collected around 7.3 billion in 2022-23 in vehicle excise duty, better known as road tax, money that is completely swallowed up by the treasury. Does the minister agree with me that it would be far fairer if Scotland collected its own road tax, used it appropriately, for example ring fencing it, and some of it being used in those 2022-23 figures, if it would provide Scotland with 700 million per annum, not simply to plug potholes but maintain the network? I agree with the sentiment of Christine Graham's point that it would enable the Scottish Government to deliver on the priorities here in Scotland if we had the share of vehicle excise duty and were able to make those decisions here. Whether that be in addressing some of the issues that Christine Graham has alluded to or whether it is to help reduce car travel by 20 per cent by 2030, which, of course, is our ambition and to be able to fund more sustainable travel and infrastructure that the people's needs here in Scotland, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the potential impact of the reduction in the funding allocation for Scottish universities in its proposed budget on graduate skills development and employability. Our block grant funding for the budget derived from UK Government spending decisions has fallen by 1.2 per cent in real terms since 2022-23. Against the challenging fiscal environment, tough decisions have had to be made. I have had a number of discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills about funding for her portfolio, as I do for every portfolio. While that is the most challenging budget to be delivered under devolution, the 2024-25 budget still allocates nearly £2 billion to universities and colleges, supporting their delivery of high-quality education training and research. We will now work with the Scottish funding council and the sector on how to use the available budget to best effect in line with our priorities. The Scottish Government has committed up to £90 million in 2024-25 towards employability. That underlines our commitment to the no-one-left-behind approach in supporting those who need it most together with local government partners. The Scottish Government is set to provide guidance to the Scottish funding council in budget allocation for the 2024-25 academic year, based on the real terms cut of more than £141 million to the Scottish funding council in the financial settlement for higher education in the 2024-25 fiscal year. In light of that, alongside the shocking admission by the finance secretary that more than 1,200 places will no longer be available to Scottish students, can the cabinet secretary confirm that there will be no additional budget cuts to university teaching grants in the current academic year as a consequence of the December budget, and can he provide information on what alternative routes for success will be made available to school leavers in Scotland? Let's just remind ourselves, shall we, of the origins of the 1,200 places that Sharon Dowey refers to. Of course, those 1,200 places were funded with UK Government Covid monies, which then stopped, despite our efforts to make the UK Government continue with those Covid monies. They did not, despite that, the Scottish Government continued to fund those places for two years on a temporary basis, with a clear understanding that that was not a sustainable position. Let's hear the cabinet secretary. Perhaps if Sharon Dowey spent as much effort lobbying her UK Government partners in government to be able to lobby on behalf of the funding settlement here in Scotland, then perhaps putting a bit more effort into that instead of coming here complaining about the impact of her Government's cut to Scottish Government budgets, then perhaps we would get a little bit further. Perhaps that is just too much effort for Sharon Dowey to do that. Yesterday, the Deputy First Minister was unable to tell MSPs how many university places for Scottish students would have to be cut to meet her £28.5 million reduction in university funding that was announced in our budget. University of Scotland said that this means one of two things, either far fewer students or far less money per student. The University of Scotland is clear that it is up to the SNP Government to decide. Which is it, Deputy First Minister? As I said at the committee yesterday, it will be for the Scottish Funding Council to work with universities around the number of places. Aside from the 1,200 places, which I have been really clear of the funding source for that and the reasons that we cannot continue to fund those 1,200 places, we will work with the SFC to identify the remaining savings required, which amount to less than 2 per cent of the budget. Those places will be agreed with the Scottish Funding Council, but in a really tough settlement £2 billion for HE and FE has been delivered. It is a tough settlement, but if Michael Marra or anyone else in this chamber believes that more funding should go into higher education, then Michael Marra can come forward and suggest where that money should come from elsewhere in the budget in order to put more money into higher education. I look forward to hearing from Michael Marra what those spending priorities should be as part of the budget process going forward. To ask the Scottish Government what its responses to the recommendations outlined in the final report of the economy 2013 inquiry, ending stagnation and UN economic strategy for Britain, as they relate to public finances in Scotland, including those relating to taxes and local government investment. Minister Tom Arthur. We welcome this report in particular. I agree with the assessment of the UK economy as a stagnation nation, characterised by low growth and high inequality. This combination has led to a fall in UK living standards relative to peer economies. The report also recognises the poor record of the UK on public investment relative to OECD countries and the need to provide sustained investment. That is a key reason why Scotland needs full powers to drive economic growth, powers that independence would transfer to this Parliament so that we are no longer held back by the UK Government's anti-growth policies. Using the powers that we have, we will continue our efforts to grow the economy in Scotland, reduce inequality and invest in public services according to this country to deliver a wellbeing economy. The Tories have imposed the highest tax level on record, meanwhile income inequality in the UK is higher than any other comparable European economy. The report calls for better, not just higher taxes. Yesterday, we discussed the visitor levy, a common form of income generation in Europe. Does the minister agree that, while most tax rates in Scotland continue to pay less income tax than the rest of the UK, we remain hamstrung to the majority of the UK tax policy and from fully delivering a fairer tax system and reducing income inequality? I agree and I think that there are two fundamental issues here. One is the number of fiscal powers that are reserved to the UK Government, meaning that we are exceptionally limited. Secondly, the way in which the UK Government conducts fiscal policy beyond the catastrophe and mishandling of the many budget, we still have a cycle of fiscal events that seeks more to serve political purposes than sound management of the public finances. For example, we still have to find out what our final budget position is for this year through supplementary estimates. In regards to the financial position next year, we are awaiting a budget on 6 March, where, potentially or potentially not, the rabbits may be pulled out of the hat. That is not a way to govern public finances, and it stands in stark contrast to the approach that we have in the Scottish Parliament. We are operating within those restrictions. Collectively, we see a budget introduced and scrutinised long in advance to the start of the financial year. There is much that the UK Government and indeed the UK Parliament could learn from the way we do things in this chamber. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the allocation of funding for the development of a national funding framework for adult and child hospices in Scotland. Cabinet secretary, I held discussions with cabinet secretaries and ministers on the run-up to setting an extremely challenging budget that will deliver funding of more than £19.5 billion for NHS recovery health and social care. Despite the investment, the system is under extreme pressure as a result of the on-going impacts of Covid, Brexit inflation and of course UK Government spending decisions. It remains for integration joint boards to plan and resource hospice care using the integrated budget under their control. We value highly the vital support that hospices provide to people and continue to work on developing a national guidance framework. I do not praise the cabinet secretary very often, so she should maybe enjoy this moment, but during her time as health secretary it was very welcome that we did see the development of a five-year funding framework for child hospices in Scotland. That has come to an end, but the hospice sector is reporting this year that they have been destabilised by rising staffing costs, especially from agenda for change NHS pay awards. Cabinet secretary, if for future budget discussions the Scottish Government will agree to ensuring that a sustainable funding model for hospices has an in-built mechanism in which future NHS pay awards recognise the factor and knock-on effects on pay pressures for the hospice sector and will she agree to meet with them to discuss this further? First of all, can I recognise Miles Briggs' long-term interest and work on this matter and his role in the cross-party group, including palliative care? This is a complex area, I know that Miles Briggs is aware of. Some of the pay issues that he described are complex in relation to whether they relate to commission services, for example, and we need to work through those carefully. I know that the hospice and health and social care partnership leaders welcomed the honest and frank discussion with the Minister for Public Health and Women's Health convened in December and that health and social care partnership chief officers have already followed through their own discussions. The minister and her officials will continue to work with chief officers and independent hospices to support that longer-term sustainable planning and commissioning for the sector. I know that the minister has also written to everyone who is involved in the round table to stress that she is keen to build on the dialogue opened and will continue to work on this through the draft national guidance framework. I would expect that some of the issues around pay should be resolved as part of that. I am very happy to suggest to the minister to have a further meeting with Miles Briggs to discuss this further and I will keep a close eye on developments taking place. I thank Miles Briggs for tabling the question because I think that this is a question that goes beyond to the year-to-year budget settlements. Indeed, I think that it goes beyond even a five-year basis because this is going to be something that, as we face demographic change, there are going to be increasing pressures. Of course, hospices are only partially funded by the state. I just ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on this point and the need that we need a genuine long-term solution to reflect the changing need that we will have on the hospice sector and end-of-life care in general. Much, as I said to Miles Briggs, Daniel Johnson, I have a lot of sympathy for the point that he makes. Some of the issues are complex but, ultimately, the national guidance framework that the minister for public health and women's health has been taking forward is the right place to try to resolve those matters. Some of them relate to pay and some of them relate to commission services and how that sits within the wider health and social care landscape. As I said to Miles Briggs, I will keep a very close interest in the development of the framework. It is the minister who leads on that matter. Again, I will draw to her attention the fact that Daniel Johnson has raised these very important matters here today. Question 7, Bill Kidd. To ask the Scottish Government what analysis is undertaken of the potential impact on Scotland's exchequer and public finances of the measures referred to in the speech by the First Minister on 8 January. The speech set out measures for effective industrial policy in independent Scotland, including a programme of targeted investment through the Building a New Scotland fund. Modelling shows that a fund of an equivalent scale to the proposed Building a New Scotland fund would have both a short-term demand effect and a longer-term supply effect by increasing long-term productive capacity and providing a sustained boost to the economy. The speech also highlighted that Scotland lacks macroeconomic powers, including migration, but for economic modelling suggesting that, with higher levels of migration, a growing labour force would have a positive economic impact. Bill Kidd. Thank you very much for that reply. In that speech, the First Minister referenced the Resolution Foundation report, which stated that if the UK had the average income and levels of inequality of similar countries, then the typical household would be £8,300 better off. If we use the same analysis for countries that are similar to Scotland, households here could be £10,000 better off. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the figures serve as a start reminder of the failure of Westminster governance and that only through the full powers of independence in Scotland's true potential be realised? The speech served as a stark reminder of the economic sags nation that the UK is in. For far too many people, the UK economy has stopped working. It is characterised by low growth, high inequality and poor productivity, which are the key drivers of living standards. No one is saying that an independent Scotland could achieve transformation overnight. Whether we succeed or not will be down to our decisions as a country. However, the success of countries similar to Scotland such as Denmark, Ireland and Norway surely demonstrates the potential prize of independence in improving our economic performance. I ask the Scottish Government how its fiscal policies support the development and growth of the rural economy. Scotland's land-based and marine sectors are vital to our economy. That is why the Scottish budget has allocated over £700 million to agricultural support and related services, along with the £97.9 million across Scottish Forestry and Land Scotland and £93 million across Marine Scotland in support for fisheries and aquaculture. Scotland's non-domestic rates relief package includes rural rates relief and the UK's most generous small business rates relief. The hospitality sector in the islands will get 100 per cent relief for hospitality capt at 110,000 per rate per year. Of course, it has to be said that the UK Government has failed to meet previous EU funding levels, has cut capital funding and has not provided certainty regarding any post-2025 rural funding. The budget has slashed vitally important portfolios, including support for bus services and rail services. In cash terms, the agricultural and forestry budget has been cut by £32 million and £34 million respectively. It has also been recently reported that no homes have been secured through the funding for the rural affordable homes for key workers fund. Does the cabinet secretary not realise that these decisions are actively undermining the growth and development of rural economies because those fiscal policies do not make rural Scotland a viable place to live and work? The UK Government's real-terms cuts to the Scottish budget has consequences for our budgets, consequences for all parts of our budget. That is the reality of the difficult decisions that we have had to make. 10 per cent reduction in capital budgets affects the infrastructure investment in rural Scotland as well as urban Scotland, so Tory MSPs cannot pitch up here with their list of asks when their Government has slashed the budget to Scotland's public services. We will continue to invest in Scotland's rural economy. We will invest in rural housing and we will make sure that we work with partners to deliver on the priorities for rural Scotland, but that is no thanks to the UK Government's funding settlement. Scottish Farmer headline in December last year read that upland farms are facing a cut of 37 per cent support payments as direct payments are being phased out with new schemes failing to bridge the gap. That was in relation to farmers in England and Wales, not Scotland, a UK Government choice. With over half of Scotland's agricultural land dedicated to upland sheep farming and mixed beef and sheep cattle farming, I am with the cabinet secretary Mary Gougeon confirming in committee today that LFA payments will be maintained in the current funding cycle. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the treatment of farmers in England is definitive proof that the development, growth and prosperity of our rural economy, is best served by the SNP-led Government and its commitment to active farming, food production, direct payments and even more so in independent Scotland? I think that Jim Fairlie has utterly exposed the hypocrisy of the Tories in this Parliament and in the UK Government. The chancellering from a sedentary position shows that he has done that very effectively indeed. I cannot agree with Jim Fairlie more. Of course, as I said in my final point to Brian Whittle, the UK Government has failed to meet previous EU funding levels despite all the promises that were promised during the Brexit debate. It is capital funding and it has not provided any certainty whatsoever around post-2025 rural funding. It should get its act together before coming here and demanding any action from this Government. It should be getting on the phone to its own Government colleagues before coming and complaining here. Before I draw this session to a close, can I just remind members to reflect on where they are? I may even have witnessed the spectacle of a member who was out of receipt and still commenting on proceedings. It is simply not acceptable. We have a great privilege in representing the people of Scotland in this chamber, and I ask all members to remember that at all times. We are going to move on to the next item of business. Portfolio questions now concluded. I will come back to your question as soon as I possibly can, Mr Carlaw. We are now going to move on to the next item of business. I will allow a moment or two for front benches to organise themselves.