 cy recoilwch. Y First Minister Alta youthary Thank you hon, Men. The Scottish Government plans for viewingaina in the превenidaeth. I nearly called you the First Minister! In case, it is even better. Almost this time, but not quite.니bbi s Beth sy Sometimes viewing an Mae'r ydydd y persenwyd iddym ni'n grefio'r cychwilio'r dDEG? Mae'n cyllid ddisgwyl joiniau, a'r ydydd mae'r cychwilio'r cychwilio'r ddech gysgwilio'r cychwilio'r ddatblygu. Ilaiddo Lizaire Fournt pa'r cử i uses. Mae'r cychwilio'r ddech ac seaw erioedol gan hyn o'ch mukatedd ac iït doedd bydd that the minister is categorically indicating that there will be no change, because that is vitally important that we have that clarification and I look forward to seeing that continue. Thank you. Minister, briefly. And confirm that we have no plans to review a single person described. Kenneth Gibson. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and happy year to everyone. Can the minister confirm that when council tax benefit was devolved, the UK Tory government devolved only 90 per cent of the funding, leading the Scottish Government and local authorities with a £42 million funding gap? Does she agree that this is typical of the bad face shown by the Tories in the devolved powers that they then take every opportunity to cut Scotland's resources, regardless of the impact on the most vulnerable? Minister. I can also confirm that it is typical of the Scottish Government's efforts to continually work to mitigate Tory austerity and to invest in public services. I can confirm that when council tax benefit was abolished by the UK Government in 2013, it transferred £328 million to the Scottish budget, corresponding to 90 per cent of the projected costs of delivering council tax support in that year. However, working in partnership with local government, we responded quickly to put in place transitional arrangements to plug the resulting £40 million funding gap. Jackie Baillie. I ask the current First Minister to rule out any changes to the single person's water discount and the single person's council tax discount at question time on 8 November, but she refused to do so. Given that those two benefits operate in the same way, the legitimate concern is that the Scottish Government's proposal to remove water discounts is the thin end of the wedge and council tax discounts for single people are next. Can the minister tell me, will she rule out any cuts to single person's water discount as well as council tax discount? I repeat my answer that the Scottish Government has no plans to review the single person discount for council tax, but in relation to water charges, which is something quite different, we have consulted on amending the present single person discount for water charges. That consultation closed on 28 September 2018, and a summary of the responses were published on 19 December 2018. Having listened to feedback from customers, we intend to undertake further research, further consultation and further engagement before making any decisions on whether to amend the existing discounts. To ask the Scottish Government how the Scottish Fiscal Commission's forecast for economic growth in Scotland over the next four years compares with that for the UK as a whole. The Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts economic growth in Scotland to be faster than the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for the UK in 2018. Comparing the forecast economic growth per person will be similar in Scotland and the UK over the next four years, but overall GDP growth will be lower in Scotland as a result of slower population growth. That certainly underlines the importance of Scotland being able to develop a migration policy tailored to our needs rather than those in the UK Government. Liam Kerr. The cabinet secretary for that answer in which he failed to make clear that the SFC's forecast showed that Scottish economic growth lags the UK as a whole for the next four years. The SNP is always keen to blame their failings on the UK Government or Brexit or sometimes even the weather. Can the cabinet secretary tell us, in simple terms, if Scotland's growth rate is going to be relatively lower than the rest of the UK, how can that be due to anything other than the SNP? Of course that is very interesting, because what Liam Kerr has forgotten is that some of the quarters in the last year's Scotland's economic growth and GDP was outperforming the United Kingdom. Surely the same logic applies that our economic growth outperforming the UK is because of the SNP Government. In truth, the reality is that a large part of macro economic policy is still in the hands of the Westminster Government. We would like that to be changed. The biggest threat to the economy right now and the reason for the subdued figures in terms of forward look forecast economic growth, the main reason is Brexit. Uncertaintyn who is caused that is the Conservative Party with their gam. We are making a lot of efforts to enhance and accelerate our economic growth. Of course it is only forecast that we have referenced in terms of SFC and the OBR. As a matter of fact, the SFC forecasts are already wrong for 2018. Scotland's outperformed the economic forecast, and what's more, the SFC had to revise up the economic forecast in terms of the Scottish context. I appreciate and welcome the work of economists in forecasting economic growth. We will do everything we can to stimulate that economic growth, but the reality is that the biggest threat to it right now is Brexit mismanagement at the hands of the UK Government. Richard Lyle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For the record, can the cabinet secretary again confirm what Scotland's GDP growth was predicted to be over the past year and set out what it has actually been? Mr Lyle's question is further detailed to the point that I was making about the forecast from the SFC. We are already outperforming those forecasts. Of course there are revisions on the further estimate for the final quarter, but in December 2017, the SFC forecast that GDP would grow by 0.7 per cent in 2018, the full year growth for 2018 is not yet available, but in the first three quarters of the year, the economy has grown by 1.2 per cent. So growth that is higher than the forecast, growth for 2018 is now, and I hear Richard Lyle delighted by that news. Growth for 2018 is now forecast to be 1.4 per cent double the original SFC forecast. Rhoda Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have much Indigenous talent in Scotland that would do well to boost our economy, but financial assistance tends to be given to larger companies. Can I ask what the Scottish Government is going to do to encourage and grow our own talent and to support small and medium-sized enterprises that are more likely to stay? I appreciate the question and the point. We want to upscale businesses, scale up businesses, get more businesses, export and further diversity around that. I welcome the question, and I do not in any way think that the member was trying to imply that we should not also rely or encourage further migration to Scotland as a welcome addition to our economy. Its population is a huge issue in terms of the economic growth that we would enjoy. However, I am directing the enterprise agencies to do even more about scaling up, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as the other efforts in the economic action plan, and I take the point on board. Even though unemployment is at a record low of 3.7 per cent, there is still more that we can do. I thought that Labour members would welcome low unemployment, but surely there is more that we can do around reskilling and encouraging other people back into the workforce that might have been further removed from it than we would like. Therefore, there are efforts around gender and reskilling. Cabinet Secretary, the balance of the Scotland reserve reported in the fiscal framework out-town report in September 2018 was £192 million. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. The cabinet secretary is proposing to draw down from the Scottish reserve the maximum available sum in this current financial year. Given that the Scottish fiscal commission is forecasting a deficit of £472 million in income tax receipts in the current year, would it not be wise to top up the reserve at this stage rather than run it down? That is a very legitimate view that Jeremy Balfour puts across. If that is the formal view of the Conservatives, so be it, but not to do that would mean further reductions in public spending for Scotland's public services in the financial year 2019-20. It is a legitimate view, if that is what it was to do, to put more away in reserves for that rainy day, for reconciliation or any other matter. My judgment is that the economy needs stability right now. It needs economic stimulus. It needs the sustainability of our public services. Therefore, the budget that I have proposed relies on some of that. Transfer, there are other levers available to the Government in the event of a negative reconciliation. Of course, we would use the most recent fiscal figures to do that, but it is a choice. However, if I now follow the Conservatives on tax alone, that would mean half a billion reduction to Scotland's public services. If I was to follow that advice, it would reduce further the spending for Scotland's public services in 2019-20 by not using reserves in the fashion that I have proposed in the Scottish budget. Bruce Crawford, I wonder if the cabinet secretary agrees that it is utterly hypocritical of the Tories to take this position, given that we saw in papers today from the Office of Budget Responsibility that every single penny that is going into the national health service is mentioned by the Prime Minister, is coming from borrowing rather than a Brexit dividend. I think that the case of NHS funding in Scotland is still true to say that the UK Government has shortchanged Scotland's NHS by giving us less resource than was previously committed by some 50-odd million pounds. The UK Government's mishandling of the UK economy and Brexit negotiations has meant that economic growth has been less, and they are having to borrow more than they first thought. They actually do, or did have more in reserves in terms of the firepower that they could have used to stimulate the economy, and they chose to help hold that back. Whichever way you look at it, the Tories' economic credibility is just gone. The Tories have no economic credibility whatsoever anymore, and that is what is subduing the economic forecast for the UK, and for that matter, Scotland. Thank you very much to ask the Scottish Government what general revenue funding it plans to provide to Aberdeen City Council in 2019-20. Minister Kate Forbes. Aberdeen City Council will receive almost £336 million of general revenue funding in 2020, and using its council tax powers will also generate an additional £3.7 million to support the delivery of essential local services, which means that an extra £10.7 million is 3.2 per cent revenue funding in 2020 compared to 2018-19. In addition, Aberdeen City Council will also receive its fair share of a further £233 million following agreement on the distribution methodology with COSLA. Lewis MacDonald. The minister will know that most of the sums to which he referred come not from general revenue funding about which I asked, but from non-domestic rates. A Government spokeswoman in today's press and journal confirmed that the council this year is expected to collect over £255 million in business rates compared with a target of less than £228 million, a difference of nearly £18 million. Can the minister confirm that Aberdeen City Council will be able to retain every single penny of that additional business rate income this year, as her representative also said and told the press and journal? If so, will she apply the same principle to the next financial year? I can confirm unequivocally that local councils keep every penny of revenue raised for the non-domestic rates. Bart MacDonald. Thank you. Northfield in my constituency has 33 per cent child poverty, while Bridge of Dawn in my constituency has less than 5 per cent child poverty. When the city is looked at as a whole, the affluence of the latter masks the poverty of the former. Does the minister agree that, as well as looking at revenue-raising powers for local authorities, it's also time that we took a look at how local authority finance is calculated and how need is calculated as well? I'm afraid that I missed that question. May I repeat the question? I mentioned two communities in my constituency, Northfield and Bridge of Dawn. One has 33 per cent child poverty, one has less than 5 per cent child poverty, but when the city is looked at as a whole, the affluence masks the poverty. When looking at local government finance, as well as the debate that is taking place around revenue-raising powers for local authorities, is it not also time that we took a long hard look at how revenue for local authorities is calculated as part of the funding formula? I thank the member for that second asking of the question. Local authority funding is allocated using that needs-based formula, but the member raised a very good point about the importance of ensuring that the funding that is raised goes to the areas of greatest need. Of course, the formula itself is kept under constant review and is agreed each year with COSLA. To ensure that no local authority, including Aberdeen Council, receives less than 85 per cent of the Scottish average in our per capita basis, the Scottish Government introduced that funding floor in 2012 to ensure that there was fairness. Further supplementary from Tom Mason. I remind the chamber that I still remain at Aberdeen City Council. Despite the minister's warm words for local authorities, it would seem, according to COSLA, that the proposed settlement is insufficient and would send councils towards, I quote, a cliff edge. Conversely, between 2010 and 11 and 2019, 20 rates for businesses in Aberdeen have almost tripled from the total of £84 million to £258 million. That represents an increase of 207 per cent compared with 50 per cent increase in Glasgow, for example. Does the minister think that it is acceptable to simply shift the responsibility of his local government shortfall into hard-pressed local businesses? As the minister responsible, I ensure that this year and for the foreseeable next two years, there is a transitional cap on non-domestic rates to ensure that officers in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire do not see a significant increase in their business rates immediately but that there is a transitional phasing. However, the member knows fine well too particularly as a councillor that it is misleading to quote the general revenue grant funding alone, because the Scottish Government guarantees every local authority, including Aberdeen City, that combines general revenue grant and non-domestic rates income. All of that money is spent on public services, which matter to the people of Aberdeen, although the council of course has freedom to decide on its priorities for the coming year. 5. John Finnie Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason its draft budget proposes a reduction in financial support for bus services. Financial support for the bus industry will not be reduced next year. The draft budget maintains the same level of investment through the bus service operator grant of £54.2 million, and last year the budget included a one-off allocation of £10 million of financial transaction loan facilities, which were not used as no viable option for their use that was identified by the bus industry. This year's draft budget includes an additional £3 million of capital grant funding for the bus industry. John Finnie I thank the minister for that reply. My understanding of funding has fallen from £64.2 million to £57.2 million. The ministers are often keen to quote Professor Philip Alston in his UN report, which is very critical of the UK Government. I would like to repeat that, if I may, a section that says that transport, especially in rural areas, should be considered an essential service equivalent to water and electricity, and the Government should regulate the sector to the extent that it is necessary to ensure that people living in rural areas are adequately served. The vast majority of public transport journeys are taken by bus, but the pattern is just falling. How can you justify making a cut of £7 million to support the services that so many of our communities depend on? The member for that question. I recognise the importance of bus services, particularly perhaps in rural areas. As I said in my first answer, we have worked together with the bus industry to try to identify a use for the loan funding last year, but an attractive option did not emerge. Should a suitable option emerge in 1920, during discussions with the bus industry, we will assess the possibility of accessing financial transaction loan. It is important to say that we continue to spend over £250 million a year supporting the bus network and funding concessionary travel, and the current programme for government commits to providing stability for bus services, which was one of their requests, with funding over three years. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure inclusive growth in Ayrshire. The Scottish Government and its agencies continue to support significant levels of investment in Ayrshire in key areas such as housing, transport and skills to drive inclusive growth. The immediate priority is to press the UK Government to join us in agreeing a growth deal for Ayrshire, so that local communities can benefit from the same transformational investment that is being made in other city regions. The Ayrshire growth deal, which does indeed have inclusive growth at its heart, is crucial to the economy in Ayrshire. What more can parliamentarians and the Scottish Government do to ensure that the UK Government turns their warm words into action and sign the deal that will bring much-needed investment and jobs to our Ayrshire communities? I suppose that all of the Parliament across the parties can unite to continue to call upon the UK Government to take that forward. I have certainly done that as finance secretary with treasurer colleagues that I would meet. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Connectivity and Infrastructure has written to the Secretary of State for Scotland in December urging the UK Government to match the ambition around the Ayrshire partners to have the heads of terms agreed by 25 January. It appears that the moment that the UK Government will not be able to do that. We will continue to press it in terms of getting the agreement for the heads of terms as soon as possible. I think that all members across the chamber should continue to press the UK Government to do that as well. Ayrshire has waited too long for its growth deal, and we want to get on with it. Yesterday, it was announced that Hurston's department store, which first opened its doors in Ayr in 1896, is to be the latest casualty in the decline of our high streets and is to officially close on 7 February, resulting in excess of 80 job losses. Given that news, can I ask the cabinet secretary whether the Scottish Government is aware of the issue and whether it has been in communication with the store management to see what, if any, support can be offered to both the store and its staff at this difficult time? Can I make two points, Presiding Officer? First of all, Mr Hepburn will be involved as business minister, and PACE is involved in the situation of redundancies. That is the first point. There will be Scottish Government involvement through SDS and PACE, as I have touched upon. The second point that I want to make is that retail is under pressure right across the whole of the UK. That is part of the reason that, in the draft budget, we are proposing to give some relief around business rates in terms of what we have proposed in the poundage for business rates, because that and small business bonus and other reliefs are really important to help retail at this point in time, particularly town centres. 90 per cent of all properties will pay less than they would if they were south of the border. That is an important point around business taxation, but we are also investing in our town centres. We are proposing a £50 million town centre fund as well. Specifically, in relation to Emma Harper's question, yes, there is Government awareness involvement through our agencies. More generally speaking, I think that all of Parliament should support a Scottish budget that is trying to give us competitive non-domestic rates so that we can provide stability and stimulus for our economy and support when it is required as well. Neil Bibby, a fair work action plan that aims for inclusive economic growth, would be welcome and could help people in Ayrshire and throughout Scotland. Ministers had given a commitment to publish this document before the end of 2018. Can the cabinet secretary update us when the Scottish Government intends to publish this important document? We are continuing to engage with trade unions. Publication will be imminent. I think that it is important that we get it right. We have worked very closely with partners and I would say that publication will be imminent. I look forward to the Labour Party to welcome it, because I think that we share a lot of the principles around fair work that we want to extend right across society in Scotland. Question 7 has not been lodged. Question 8, Maureen Watt. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met north-east business leaders and what matters were discussed. The Scottish Government continues to engage with business partners across Scotland to ensure the best environment for business to thrive. Most recently, in the north-east of Scotland, the Minister for Public Finance and the Digital Economy met SCDI members in Elgin on 22 October. I met Aberdeen and Grampain Chamber of Commerce on 29 November and on 11 December the Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands chaired the tri-annual meeting of the oil and gas industry leadership group in Aberdeen. A wide range of topics were covered during those discussions, including skills, impact of technological changes, opportunities from the circular economy, population growth in Highlands and Islands, export, Brexit, innovation, investment, decommissioning, low-carbon and fintech. Maureen Watt. I thank the minister for that answer. The minister will know of Aberdeen City Council's recently published economic policy panel report, which highlights the important role played by people who come to the north-east from elsewhere and from within the EU, with a report highlighting that Brexit may impact on the flow of key skills to the north-east economy. Does the minister agree with me that Brexit poses a serious risk to businesses in Aberdeen and that the UK Government must act to protect the flow of workers with key skills to the north-east? I absolutely agree that Brexit and the inevitable harm that it will do for our economy reinforces the importance of all the steps that we are taking to support businesses. We are intensifying our preparations for all EU exit possibilities, including launching the prepare for Brexit multi-agency campaign on 1 November last year. That offers free advice and tools to support businesses to be ready for Brexit. In 2016, there were 128,000 non-UK, EU nationals living and working in Scotland. Those individuals and their families play a hugely important role in our economy, in society and are critical to many key sectors, including hospitality and agriculture. To ask the Scottish Government how its draft budget aims to help people most in need. The draft budget includes investing at least £351 million to council tax reduction schemes, £64 million in discretionary housing payments, for example, to mitigate the bedroom tax in full, £38 million in Scottish welfare fund. In addition to some of those measures, the budget also proposes £826 million to support our 50,000 affordable homes target, 35,000 of which are for social rent. A £70 million increase in the equivalent figure for 2018-19 also involves resources for our tackling child poverty delivery plan. It outlines a number of key investments in the period of 2022 in which the budget will support, including intensive employment support for parents and a new financial health check service. On the time when the total Scottish fiscal budget has seen the real terms cut by the UK Government in this decade, what additional investment has the Government been able to generate through its tax and bout, borrowing powers for Scotland's public services, to support those suffering from those on-going politically driven Tory cuts? The UK-imposed austerity has indeed imposed a real-term reduction to the total Scottish fiscal resource budget of some I have described before. Murdo Fraser knows the statistics well of £2 million between 2010-11 and 2019-20, but our decisions on tax and borrowing reduce the real terms reduction to the total Scottish fiscal budget from 6 per cent to 3.8 per cent between 2010-11 and 2019-20, generating an additional £712 million for investment in public services. I know that the cabinet secretary will be aware that COSLA gave evidence to Parliament to the local government committee on the budget this morning. The representatives said that councils have done all that they can to make efficiencies. The core is simply crumbling. When asked what services would be cut as a result, leisure and culture, sport increases and fees and charges and employability support were all mentioned. Council McGregor said in many of those areas that they will directly impact on people from more disadvantaged backgrounds. Is not it clear that, if the budget is passed in its current form, the people that James Doran's question refers to, the people who are most in need, will inevitably bear an intolerable burden of cuts to the services that they most rely on? No, the opposite is true. If the Scottish budget is not passed, the local government will have less resource in cash terms and in real terms. That is the alternative. It is that budget that allows a real-terms increase in resource and capital to Scotland's local government—£11.1 billion at stake here. If the budget is not improved, it is less resource to Scotland's local authorities. That is what Parliament will be voting for if it does not vote for this budget—less resource to Scotland's local government who votes for the budget. It is a real terms increase. Again, set in the context of the UK settlement to Scotland. If we exclude the health consequentials, which is reasonable, because we have said that it will pass on the Barnett consequentials, Scotland will have anti-shortchange the NHS, but Scotland for all other portfolios would have had a reduction. What ways the Scottish Government is proposing is a real terms increase for local government. When I am asked what are the consequences of the budget, it is a real terms increase for local government. That is even before local government uses its power around the council tax, which, if raised by 3 per cent, would generate another £80 million for local government. The cabinet secretary told the local government committee this morning that councils were going to need to find efficiencies. The reality of that is that councils are going to have to make cuts if the budget is passed in its current form. In South Lanarkshire, for example, they face making cuts of £17 million. The reality of that is cuts in jobs, cuts in services and pain being inflicted on local communities. If the cabinet secretary really wants to help those who are most in need, he needs to radically rethink his local government settlement so that we see a budget that supports local communities rather than providing cuts to local communities. I have just been asked by the Labour Party to rethink my budget. I would ask the Labour Party to think about a budget, because sources from within the Labour Party have said that they are not even going to put forward a credible plan this year or what they have as a shamble. How am I meant to take that rhetoric in any way seriously from the Labour Party? At least other parties, such as the Greens, will engage constructively. However, from the Labour Party, I will have a shamble. I will have nothing. I will have no alternative. I have noise and rhetoric. I am definitely from the Labour Party right now, with no serious suggestion. On what I described to the local government committee today—by the way described by the COSLA resource spokesperson as having excellent priorities—the Scottish Government, for those who were witnesses, said that the local government committee today said that we had excellent priorities. Those were the words from the COSLA resource spokesperson, because we are investing in the kind of things that Parliament has asked us to do, whether that is the extension of free personal care, whether that is for mental health, whether that is for education, whether that is for social care. Important priorities, more in resource, more in capital, a real-terms increase to local government. The alternative is to vote against that and local government will have less resource. That is the alternative to the budget that I have proposed to the Scottish people. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to improve productivity growth in Scotland after a report from the Scottish Fiscal Commission has highlighted that it is set to fall. The Scottish Government published its economic action plan on 24 October. The plan sets out a range of actions that we are doing to support inclusive and sustainable economic growth, including increasing productivity. In the latest—conservative members might be interested in that—in the latest 12 months, Scottish productivity has increased by 1.3 per cent compared to growth of 1.0 per cent for the UK. We recognise the impact of Brexit with the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasting slow productivity due to a period of uncertainty. That is why the economic action plan lays out several actions throughout it to address productivity. Examples include the development of the Scottish National Investment Bank and the establishment of the National Manufacturing Institute for Scotland, which will make us a global leader in advanced manufacturing, supporting productivity improvements. Regardless of the impact of the UK leaving the European Union, the Fiscal Commission is still concerned about Scotland's long-term growth, which is predicted to grow by only 1 per cent per annum when we reasonably expect that the figure should be near 2 per cent. That is a trend that they say is unlikely to end in the near future, even when isolated from other factors. Are you concerned about the trend and what actions do you feel that we need to take as a country and you need to take as a Scottish Government to ensure that that trend is turned around? I could go on at length about the detail of the economic action plan. I encourage all members to look at it online. It has a range of actions to support productivity growth in our country. Much of that is for the private sector as well, and it is not just about the public sector. Productivity growth is also about business, enterprise research and development, which is at record levels right now, or form direct investment, which is second only to London in the south-east of England. We are doing more about investment, innovation and infrastructure, but productivity around people is significant. In addition to those actions, it is the population challenge, which is also an issue for us. To address the population challenge that our economy faces, we need more migration powers and flexibility in that regard. That is why we have set out further changes in the responsibility that we propose to ensure that the population challenges are dealt with appropriately. For Scotland, that means population growth, and not turning migrants away. For the UK Government, it means a hostile environment for migrants, so I encourage Michelle Ballantyne and other Conservatives to contact their own Government to support us in having the necessary flexibility that we require to improve productivity beyond that that we have set out in the economic action plan. To ask the Scottish Government how many of the 38,000 people that Fair Start Scotland aims to support, it expects to participate in each year to 2020. The Scottish Government published statistical information in the early performance of Fair Start Scotland in November last year. It should have made a strong start, with nearly 5,000 people joining the service since April 2018. The Scottish Government continues to robustly manage individual providers to ensure that, over the length of the Fair Start Scotland service, we reach our ambition in supporting a minimum of 38,000 individuals in employment. Information in Fair Start Scotland will continue to be published on a quarterly basis, and I'm also committed to regular reporting progress on the Fair Start Scotland department. I thank the minister for that response, but he didn't answer the question. The Scottish Government has said in the first six months of the programme that, as he said, just under 5,000 people took part. To hit 38,000, the pace will need to be picked up. We need to know how many people are expected to participate and when. If I can try again at the end of this first year, how many people does he expect to have participated in Fair Start Scotland? If I could re-emphasise, we will continue to update Parliament on an on-going basis. By the end of this year, we will know precisely how many that will be, but let me say this to Brian Whittle. What I didn't hear was one shred of welcome for the fact that our programme on a voluntary basis, unlike the UK Government's programme compelling people to take part in employment programmes, is supporting 5,000 people on a personalised basis on principles of dignity and respect, supporting 5,000 people across the country into employment. That is a significant achievement, and I think that that should be welcomed by all. Do you ask the Scottish Government how a no-deal Brexit could impact on Scotland's economy? We have indicated that a hard Brexit could lead to a loss of up to 8.5 per cent of GDP in Scotland by 2030, and that is equivalent to £2,300 per individual. I thank the minister for that reply. The minister will be aware of the Fraser of Allander report from October 2018 Brexit and the Glasgow city region, when it states of the 40,000 Glasgow city region jobs related to exports, it has estimated 20,000 of those jobs within Glasgow city area. Does the minister agree that the path that the Tory Government is dragging us down will jeopardise both the 20,000 jobs in Glasgow city as well as thousands of more jobs across the country? That is completely unacceptable. The member, Sandra White, asks about the path that the Conservatives are dragging us down. I do not even think that they know what path they are dragging us down at the moment. I do not say that they are cat-handedness, and that is appalling. It is of a material impact in the economy. Those statistics are articulated by Sandra White. I would encourage the UK Government to engage constructively with others to try and find another way through this, as the Scottish Government has repeatedly set out in our compromise positions. Question 13, Alex Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the analysis by COSLA, which suggests that the 2019-20 local government settlement will result in a £237 million reduction to the core revenue budget and a decrease to the core capital budget of £17 million. Minister Keith Forbes. Despite continued UK Government cuts to Scotland's resource budget, we have continued to treat local government very fairly. The COSLA analysis fails to take into account the total funding package, which includes an additional £210 million to deliver on our commitment for the expansion of early learning and childcare entitlement and £160 million for investment in social care. That is real funding to support real day-to-day core services. To exclude it, it presents a distorted picture of the resources available to local councils. The facts are clear that, in 2019-20, the local government finance settlement of £11.1 billion will provide a cash increase of £197.5 million for local revenue services and an increase in capital funding of £207.6 million. Alex Rowley. I thank the minister for that answer. What the COSLA says is that they accept that an additional £237 million is being made available to fund the priorities that the Scottish Government is putting forward. However, as the finance secretary said at the local government committee this morning that, while you have your priorities, the local councils are having to look at what priorities they have to cut. In five, parents, pupils and teachers cannot understand why, in this current year in secondary schools, more than £2 million is being cut from the budgets. Five councils say that, as a result of the proposed budget of the finance secretary, more than £11 million will be cut next year and that schools will have to take their share of the car. How can that be seen as a growth in budget? It can be seen as a growth in budget because the analysis from SPICE is clear that the total allocation from the Scottish Government to local authorities in 2019-20 has gone up in real terms. That is real money to be spent on real day-to-day services such as schools, nurseries, support to extend free personal care, the expansion of early learning and childcare, health and social care. COSLA identified those as areas of pressure for local authorities during the budget negotiations and the Scottish Government has recognised the partnership approach and provided additional funding. It is real people that will benefit from that real investment in real day-to-day services across this country. The Scottish Government has been given an increase in its block grant from Westminster in real terms from last year to this year and yet, in its draft budget to Parliament, the Scottish Government is proposing not only an increase in the tax gap for income taxpayers earning above £27,000 between Scotland and the rest of the UK, but it is also delivering severe cuts in the core grant to local authorities throughout Scotland that will mean real cuts to the services that our constituents get. We are asked to pay more money but we are getting less in return. Why would anyone vote for this budget? That is in short contrast to the comments that were made by Graham Simpson this morning who conceded that there was more money in going to local authorities. As I said in the last answer, the analysis from SPICE is clear. The total allocation from the Scottish Government to local authorities in 2019-20 has gone up in real terms and that is against a context when our block grant will be almost £2 billion lower in real terms for 2019-20, compared with 2010-11. We have reversed a real terms cut in our budget to ensure that we protect the public services that are enjoyed by the people of Scotland across this country. John Mason I wonder if the minister could clarify for the Parliament whether either the Labour or the Conservative parties who appear to want more money for local government have suggested where that should come from and in particular have they suggested that it might come from the NHS? Are they wanting cuts to the NHS? I believe that the only suggestion that we have from the Tories is that they cut £500 million from the budget but they have not indicated where they would cut that from. Thank you and I am afraid that that concludes portfolio questions. We are going to move on to the next item of business, which is a statement by Marie Gougeon on improving animal welfare. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement and I would encourage all members who wish to ask a question to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible.