 Cyfnodd yn di-gwelch. Cysiw ynghyd yn fyddwyr yn gŷt gennaeth y posibl miad. Felly, mae'n yn ei ddolfod â'r hynny. Gweld cyfwng Cysiw Llywyddhal Smylach yn ei ddwyg adaddigol y Llywyddhal Swyllach yn iawn. Mae'n ei ddydigol i gael y prydegol y mae'r lleidau prydegol ac yn cael ei ddweud. Gwasiw Llywyddhal Smylach yn iechyd i chi'n cael ei ddweud? I can advise the member. 303 such representations have been received as of 1 October. The proposal to build on the Craighouse site, one of the seven hills of Edinburgh, contravenes Scottish planning policy in relation to enabling development as any development should be the minimum necessary to prevent the loss of the asset and secure its long-term future. Given the national significance of this site, its A-listed buildings and unique wildlife and biodiversity, does the member not agree that the decision taken is of such national importance, setting as it does a dangerous precedent for other valuable sites in Scotland as to justify calling in this planning application? Will he now do so? I should firstly emphasise that the general principle under which the planning system in Scotland operates is that decisions should be taken at the most appropriate local administrative level, unless there are compelling reasons for taking them at a higher level. The impacts of this application are local to the Craighouse area of Edinburgh and do not raise issues of national importance that would merit Scottish ministers calling in the application. I will write to the member later today outlining further detail on that. I do not believe that planning applications set precedent because each case is taken on their individual merits. I would, however, remind the member that whilst the planning authority has approved this application, there are still outstanding planning obligations in section 75 agreement to be agreed. Alison Johnstone, thank you. Given that all seven local councillors objected and spoke at the planning hearing, the local MP, local MSPs and a record number of public objections were received over 1200, is it not time that this Parliament looked seriously at third party right of appeal? I will also write to Alison Johnstone, who has also been very vocal on the matter, as well as Mr Edie. It is my view, and it has been the view of Parliament taking forward planning reform that the legislation is broadly in the right place. Of course, when previously considered by Parliament, third party right of appeal was not approved, not supported and I have no immediate plans to reconsider that. However, of course, I do want greater and stronger engagement from the public in the planning process. Does the minister not agree that the problem is that the precedent is that it is building on green space and that is what we are trying to avoid in Edinburgh? There have been so many objections from all parties that I would have thought that this was a matter for habit called in. Minister? No, I would say again to Mr Buchanan that in terms of planning, one application does not set a precedent for others. Every case has to be considered with all the material considerations at hand and due process and therefore it won't set a precedent. By all means, those who have objected may not be happy with the local authority's decision, but I would emphasise again that I do not have adequate grounds in which I believe it would be appropriate to call this in. It is a matter for the local authority to determine and, as I say again, it is not completely complete in that the section 75 agreement has still to be agreed. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is in reports at the Barnett formula that we were reduced by the UK Government over time. The Scottish Government is clear that the continuation of the Barnett allocation of resources represents an integral component of the vow made by the leaders of the Conservative Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in the run-up to the referendum. We will continue to represent the best interests of the people of Scotland by holding these parties to account for the promises that were made. Jamie Hepburn. The cabinet secretary mentions the commitment made in the so-called vow. Does he therefore share my concern that, in the Westminster motion published on 22 September regarding devolution, there was no mention made of funding despite the vow? Does he agree with me that any enhanced devolution settlement must not disadvantage Scotland? The observation that Mr Hepburn makes is absolutely correct that it was an issue that caused concern that, with the vow having had such prominence during the referendum campaign, the reference to the continuation of the Barnett allocation of resources was absent from the parliamentary motion that was tabled in the House of Commons. Quite clearly, the Scottish Government works at all times to ensure that the financial arrangements that support the Scottish Parliament are maintained in the interests of the people of Scotland. That is exactly what we will do in all of our current negotiations around the implementation of the Scotland Act 2012, in which we will continue to do in the discussions around any further powers in the years to come. We all agreed on the Barnett formula, but does he accept that this is a political decision and that we have an undertaking from all the relevant political leaders in the UK? Does he also agree that, with further fiscal devolution, which we also all support, this will not be such a heated issue in England, since the Barnett principle can still be followed, but the grant to Scotland, with more fiscal devolution, will not be such a major part of public expenditure in the UK? If I can just explain to Mr Chisholm, for example, the Scotland Act 2012, the devolution of financial responsibilities that we are addressing, will result in the devolution of tax base of approximately one and a half per cent of the block grant that the Scottish Parliament currently receives on the United Kingdom balance. We will have to keep a question of scale about all those points. I think that it is important that—this is where I agree with Mr Chisholm—that the commitments that were given in advance of the referendum, which included the continuation of the Barnett allocation of resources, are maintained without question. That is the view that I take in relation to the discussions that I am having about the block grant adjustment in relation to the Scotland Act 2012 and what will underpin the Government's attitude towards any further devolution in the years to come. Given that the main adjustment to the amounts received under Barnett will be consequent upon this Parliament being given increased powers to raise income tax, what will the Scottish Government's priorities be in relation to income tax? Will it be to lower tax rates or to increase tax rates? I will happily set out to Parliament next Thursday the first tax rates that will ever have been set by a France minister in Scotland when I set land and buildings transaction tax and landfill tax. That is, of course, the appropriate moment for Parliament to be told about the tax rates. Obviously, parliamentary announcements will be made on the levels of income tax that will be set in Scotland at the appropriate budget opportunities in relation to the devolution of responsibilities that come from the Scotland Act 2012. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Dumfries and Galloway Council regarding its role in the proposed national resilience centre in Dumfries. On 14 August, I visited Dumfries to launch the new national centre for resilience. That will largely operate on a network basis but will have a physical presence at the Crichton centre from where it will be co-ordinated. The leader of Dumfries and Galloway Council, other elected members and officials of the council and representatives of other partner organisations joined me to welcome this exciting new initiative. What I announced was the concept, which has been warmly welcomed by the resilience community. The centre will be up and running in 2015-16 and we are continuing to work with key partners, such as Dumfries and Galloway Council, to enable the centre to develop a work programme that will help emergency responders and others to increase resilience and preparedness at national and community level. I thank the minister for his response but he will be aware that Dumfries and Galloway Council are keen to meet with him and his officials to discuss how they can take this forward. The process for establishing the centre has been described as a four stage process and I wonder if the minister can advise which stage the process is now at and what timeline he anticipates for the launch of the centre for research and resilience in Scotland. Thank you to Dr Murray for her interest in the subject. I know that it is important for her constituents. On the next steps, we are in discussion with partners and stakeholders on the project management arrangements for the centre and the initial project meetings will take place later this month, so hopefully we will get some progress in the course of the month. Separately, the Scottish funding council clearly is looking at the research opportunities and is taking consultation on how that will progress. I am happy to be informed of that through Mr Russell and other colleagues as that progresses. However, we hope to have this up and running as early as possible in 2015-16, depending on the nature of human resource issues and an appointment of key personnel. It is an exciting opportunity for Dumfries and I think that Dumfries has a very important role to play in the future of resilience in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK treasure and the implications for Scotland's budget from 2016-17 to 2020-21 of the UK Government efforts to reduce its debt of £1.57 trillion, as it will be at the end of 2016. It is estimated that the Scottish Government's resource deal budget could be lower by around £4 billion in 2018-19 than when the current UK Government came to office in 2010-11 as a result of the £25 billion of cuts that were projected by the chancellor in the March budget. That would represent a potential real-time reduction to Scotland's resource deal budget of approximately 15 per cent over that period. The Scottish Government has financial information from the UK Government up to the financial year 2015-16, but it does not have any detail of financial information for thereafter. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The IFS report produced a day after the referendum indicated that the UK Government plan had been that public sector debt should fall as a share of national income. The report, however, showed that the latest forecast from the Government's own OBR suggests that the target will be missed, and the latest forecast for UK public finances imply further deep cuts to public service spending of £37.6 billion between 2015-16 to 2018-19, which, on top of £8.7 billion, has already been set out for 2015-16. The information that Mr Brody raises is important information about the future of public expenditure in the United Kingdom and the effects that it will have in Scotland. Clearly, the messages that we have heard over the course of the last couple of weeks from the Shadow Chancellor and the Chancellor indicate that a prolonged period of public expenditure reductions and austerity will be implicit whether there is a Conservative or Labour Government elected after the 2015 United Kingdom general election, and accordingly that will apply very significant difficulties and challenges for public expenditure and public services in Scotland. Question 6, in the name of George Adam, has been withdrawn for perfectly understandable reasons. To ask the Scottish Government whether it monitors how the educational outcomes for looked-after children in kinship care placements compares with those of children in residential or foster care. Generally, tariff scores for children in kinship care, that is with friends or relatives, are higher than those in residential care, but lower than those in foster care. However, I should say that the data is subject to large fluctuations due to the very small numbers of children in those categories. Can I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer? I certainly know that the data of samples are small and subject to those fluctuations, but there does appear to be a significant difference. For example, on educational outcomes between looked-after children at home and those who live away from home, can the cabinet secretary give me an assurance that looked-after children can have access to the same learning support services, no matter where they may be looked after? There has been a keen focus on improving the outcomes for looked-after children, which have been far too low for far too long. We are seeing some significant advances in the work done with looked-after children, and that is producing far better outcomes for them. However, none of us in this chamber will rest until those outcomes are as good as for other children. It is important that we continue to support and resource a variety of schemes, including some very innovative schemes in Glasgow that are actually making a difference to looked-after children. 8. Alex Johnson To ask the Scottish Government what preparations it has made to deal with any Ebola outbreak. Minister Michael Matheson The Scottish Government has been working closely with Health Protection Scotland to minimise the risk of an outbreak of Ebola virus in Scotland, and I have met experts from Health Protection Scotland to discuss those issues. NHS Scotland has already well-established effective protocols for dealing with highly infectious diseases, but updated and revised professional guidance for healthcare workers has been issued in light of the outbreak. In particular, GP practitioners and front-line healthcare workers have been advised that they must be extra vigilant when dealing with patients who have recently travelled to affected areas. Scottish Government officials continue to take part in weekly UK teleconferences to monitor the outbreak and the level of preparedness. Scottish Government officials are also directly involved with regular international teleconferences to ensure that we have the most up-to-date information. The level of risk posed to Scotland by Ebola continues to be very low, but we are not complacent and will respond accordingly if the risk increases. Alex Johnson I thank the minister for his answer. I understand that this week the news from outbreaks in Nigeria is actually good and that the level of infection may be falling. However, has the Government made any specific assessment of danger attached to the movement that exists between Nigeria and the north-east of Scotland related to the oil and gas industry, and are there any specific preparations for changing the status should there be any risk identified? Michael Matheson The member makes a good point. There has been some progress made in some of the affected countries. However, there are other countries where the risk continues to increase. Therefore, we must be very vigilant in how we continue to deal with this matter. I can inform the member that Health Protection Scotland has been engaging with the oil industry in the north-east of Scotland, particularly to look at potential risk of workers who are operating within the west coast of Africa and have been discussing with them a range of measures that they should consider taking forward in order to make sure that their personnel are properly protected, but equally that they also have appropriate measures in place to ensure that those individuals when they return to Scotland have the appropriate support if necessary, should they find themselves unwell when they return. Neil Findlay To ask the Scottish Government when working in the new Dumfries hospital, we'll commence. Alex Neil Presiding Officer, construction of the replacement for the Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary is planned to commence in spring 2015. Precurement work and development of the business case are on-going. A major milestone was reached recently as the NHS Dumfries and Galloway announced a preferred bidder for the project. Neil Findlay On this project and the Aberdeen bypass and the new Dundee Museum, we see companies who have been up to their necks in blacklist and securing public contracts without taking any remedial action to own up, apologise or pay up to the victims. Given the assurances we were given during the passage of the Public Procurement Bill, why is that still happening? Will the new guidance have any impact? Alex Neil The Scottish Government's opposition to blacklisting was made clear in guidance issued in November 2013, which was developed in partnership with a number of trade unions. That gave public bodies new pre-qualification questions, as well as a new contract clause to allow the contracts of those who blacklist to be terminated. The contractual provisions within the project agreement in relation to the hospital, currently drafted for non-profit distribution procurement, which has been used for the new hospital, state that all bidders must fully comply with all prevailing legislation in relation to procurement and employment matters in force at the award of the contract, including those provisions that relate to blacklisting. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary is aware that many of my constituents in the west of my constituency, particularly Stranraer, are very concerned that, as the development of the Dumfries hospital takes place, further rundown of services currently available through Stranraer hospital might continue. Will he give me an assurance that he will work with the local health board to ensure that the range of services currently available in Stranraer continue to be available as the new hospital takes place? I just emphasise that services are not being rundown in Stranraer. I recognise the particular challenges around the accident and emergency unit. There is a provision for six and a half full-time equivalent accident and emergency consultants. Two have recently been recruited and we are hoping to recruit more people to those positions. I am fully aware of the challenges of attracting doctors to come and live and work in the Stranraer area. I am looking at a number of options, along with the health board, to try to make it more attractive to get people with those qualifications and skills into the Stranraer area to work specifically in the local hospital in Stranraer, which is an excellent facility. Thank you. That ends General Question Time. We now move to First Minister's Questions.