 The first item of business afternoon is portfolio questions on the financial constitution and the economy. At the outset, I just remind Parliament that, in order to get as many people in as possible, I will needs a short and succinct question and answers to match please. Question number one. Margaret McCullough. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact would be on Scotland's economy of the cysyllty yn addysg hwn inni gwahanol i gênale. Os yn Creamer, y L Natürlich,marge McEuloch sy'n 27 auger應is. Felly rydw i'n fwy o fyddy i'n llyfr o'r Yngrif rund wrapogaeth Cymru has Orthpan. Y nifer 10 yráu gyng Goodbye Siam, innes o'iなる rydych yn Yngrif nesaf i G�fecer yn mae wychelach launches i очwgen o gydotu 5 lambda ei glasםau. Y gwaith ble i fy ngwellad hyn ar ymydd eisiau, Rumania eisteddf Just Heir Ben instrumental for those who serve and the local economy's concerned. We are fully committed to working with all interested parties at local national and UK-level, including the trade unions to in order to mitigate the impact of HMRC off its closures in Scotland'. Y Currents Minister for Gender Power i wy headset consens. That will be a response to the Scottish Deputy First Minister's correspondence with me about the impact of the planned HMRC closure in my region. Can the cabinet secretary tell me what assistance and whatستans plan sy'n cael ei wneud. The Scottish Government has to provide to trade unions and community leaders to help to build a case for the retention of HMRC's offices in the central belt and for the continuation of employment for all tax office workers in Cumbinald and East Kilbride. Cabinet Secretary. Presiding Officer, I signal my willingness today to, as I indicated in my earlier answer, to work with all relevant parties to make that case. We have been in touch with the United Kingdom Government on those issues. We have raised issues with the UK Government and particularly with HMRC to make the case for the maintenance of the expertise that is contained within these facilities. That would be essential in marshalling the arguments that will be necessary to put in place a credible proposition that would encourage HMRC to take a different approach. To ask the cabinet secretary if he is aware that the announced closure date of the HMRC operation in East Kilbride is dependent upon the lease negotiations for the building. The building, having been disposed of by Gordon Brown to a subsidiary of a company whose financial arrangements enable it to avoid paying UK corporation tax. Will he impress upon the relevant UK minister the importance of maintaining the East Kilbride operation and that negotiation with the Guernsey-based mate play group must be robust? I think that the cabinet secretary highlights some of the practical and detailed issues that will be challenging in addressing some of those issues. However, I reiterate the points that I made in my earlier answer. The Government will be willing to work with all interested parties to marshal a strong case to preserve these facilities and this employment. It is vital that the specialist skills that are available in these centres are able to be deployed to undertake the very important work of tax collection and to the management of those resources for the utilisation to support public services in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support the Aberdeen economy. The downturn in the oil and gas sector globally highlights the challenges that the region faces, but there are also significant opportunities for the future. On 1 February, the Scottish Government announced further support to the oil and gas sector, including a new £12 million transition training fund and £12.5 million for oil and gas, innovation and further business support. The Scottish Government believes that Aberdeen and the Northeast are central to driving future growth and prosperity in Scotland, and that is why we recently committed to investing £125 million through a city region deal agreement that will be matched by the UK Government. The Scottish Government believes that to achieve a more significant step change in the economy of the Northeast, more can be done, and that is why we also announced a further £254 million of additional Scottish Government investment to help cement Aberdeen as one of the world's leading cities for investment and business. That funding is paving the way for massive investment in innovation, digital connectivity and infrastructure across the region. I thank the minister for his answer, and I welcome the near half billion pound of investment that he has highlighted on top of the close to a billion pounds being invested in the AWPR and the improvements to Aberdeen to Inverness rail line. Does he share my disappointment that the sum total that the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom have so far been able to cough up is £125 million for the city deal and £20 million to support oil and gas industry, which amounts to £145 million? Does he agree with me that the chancellor needs to make meaningful changes in his March budget to support the industry and the wider economy of the city? Yes, we did seek that the UK Government make a greater contribution, and that was not successful. The second part of his question is absolutely imperative that George Osborne in the spring budget uses that opportunity to announce a substantial package of tax measures. It is not because that is the major issue of facing operators at the moment, it is survival. However, if the chancellor does provide a substantial package of tax reduction measures, that will be the loudest, clearest signal of a boost of confidence in this key sector and absolutely central to giving the industry a second wind, as one of the leaders that I met on Monday put it. The minister acknowledged that the bid for the Aberdeen city deal contains projects to the value of more than £1 billion in devolved areas that the Scottish Government has yet to agree to support. Does he accept that it is in these devolved areas that the city deal falls so far short of what was hoped for? Will he therefore indicate the Government's intention to bring forward funding for these projects at the earliest possible date? I am afraid to say that I do not agree with that presentation of the facts. Indeed, I was able for myself to see some of the investment taking place in Aberdeen in the north-east on Sunday and Monday during a visit to Aberdeen. I was able to see the Inveramsey bridge near incompletion. I was able to discuss the western peripheral road going ahead on budget from memory £754 million. I was able to meet Sir Ian Wood and discuss the opportunity north-east and discuss the exciting opportunities, not only in oil and gas but in food and drink and in life sciences. I was able to learn about the investment of the Scottish Government in other areas such as health and housing. I think that Mr McDonald's characterisation of the position is unnecessarily chirlish, as well as being inaccurate. Audre, please. Minister, can I just point out that, if you turn away from your microphone, then the chamber cannot hear you. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made on how the reductions in the local government budget settlement could impact on the economy and inequality. The Scottish Government funding proposals for the coming financial year deliver a strong but challenging financial settlement for local government, taking into account the addition of £250 million to support the integration of health and social care. Next year's reduction in local authority overall estimated expenditure is less than 1 per cent. I believe that such a reduction should have minimal impact on the economy or inequality, as Scotland's council should be able to address those challenges from a healthy base, as local government funding has been rising in Scotland in recent years, with core funding protected and new money provided for additional responsibilities. The Scottish Government has added to the Tory cuts and has squeezed local councils further. Glasgow City Council is facing a real-time cut of 64 million. I have already had several elderly minority ethnic constituents and minority organisations raise their concerns of the tripling of the cost of their day centres, subject to and subsequent job losses are also expected in the area. Does the minister agree with me that, as resources are cut for special services, the Government should assess the impact these cuts have on minority ethnic staff and services and also include equality impact assessment to be carried out in all of those before any further job cuts or services are lost in that field? The Government's budget is subjected to assessment for equality considerations as part of the budget process. I published the equality assessment along with the budget document that I did in December. I maintained my on-going dialogue with the equality budget action group, which is always a fruitful and thoughtful contribution to the budget process. I warmly thank its members for the contribution that they make to that assessment. Any specific decisions that are made on programmes are a matter for Glasgow City Council to determine the equality's impact of their decisions. They have duties that they have to fulfil, and I am certain that Glasgow City Council will attend to those duties as part of their decision-making process. Can the cabinet secretary tell us how much more the City of Edinburgh Council has received in funding for the current financial year over and above what the funding formula would allocate? What are the level of reserves available to Edinburgh? Can he tell us how the local government's settlement in Scotland compares to the cuts being imposed in councils south of the border? The Government has taken two decisions that are material to the City of Edinburgh Council's funding. One, of course, was negotiated with our dear late colleague, Margot MacDonald, in the very early years of the Administration, where Margot MacDonald made the case for a capital city supplement, which, in 2015-16, generated £3.9 million for the City of Edinburgh beyond the allocations that should have been the case. The reading will also be aware of the application of the additional funding flow that I applied earlier on this Parliament, which in the current financial year generates £13.7 million more for the City of Edinburgh Council than the funding formula would generate. In the most recently available statistics, the City of Edinburgh Council had general reserves totaling £123 million, and, of course, the Parliament has considered the comparative strength of local authority funding in Scotland, compared with the significant reductions that have taken place in authorities south of the border, which creates a strong platform for local authorities in Scotland to undertake their financial planning, which has been part of the long-term commitment of the Administration. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact on Scotland's future budgets would be of not adopting the index deduction per capital method as a block grant adjustment mechanism in the fiscal framework. The independent academics such as Professor Anton Muscatelli have estimated that the proposals that would take forward the levels deduction mechanism would reduce the budget of the Scottish Parliament by up to £7 billion over a 10-year period. Any mechanism that would systematically reduce the Scottish Government budget simply as a result of devolution and, before the Scottish Government makes any policy choices, is unacceptable and will not be agreed by the Scottish Government. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. I agree that the failure of the UK Government to agree to fairness and no detriment in delivering the fiscal framework will be a breach of faith regarding the vow made to the Scottish people pre-referendum. Show the Prime Minister's promise to deliver the Smith commission proposals to be false, and as we approach another referendum this time on Europe, that the words of the Prime Minister cannot be trusted. We are at a very key moment in the fiscal framework discussions, and, as the First Minister set out yesterday, the key issue in resolving the question of the block grant adjustment is the interpretation of the no detriment principle. I am absolutely confident in my mind that the Smith commission, when it made its recommendations in relation to the powers that were to be devolved, was not volunteering for a systemic reduction in the Scottish block of expenditure as a consequence of the devolution of the powers. What it was agreeing to was the devolution of the powers on essentially a no better off, no worse off principle. When it came to the exercising of those powers, there is a different matter, where there is clearly a risk that has to be accepted by the Scottish Government, and we are prepared to accept that risk. However, the no detriment principle is absolutely central to the discussion, and it hinges on the question of whether we should be better off or worse off as a consequence of the devolution of those powers. If we adopt a mechanism other than index deduction per capita, then that is what will happen, and that is why it is unacceptable to the Scottish Government. A brief supplementary please, Leslie Brennan. Can I just ask, will the minister just give us the assurance, he gives us an absolute assurance that the Scottish Government will remain at the table until our agreement, fair to all, is secured? The Scottish Government is committed to those negotiations. I have now taken part in nine meetings of the Joint Exchequer Committee. I don't think that anybody could question the amount of time, energy and commitment that I have put in to try to resolve those questions, but what is clear is that we have a very difficult discussion to have to resolve the differences of interpretation that we have on the no detriment principle. I am committed to continuing those discussions to get to an outcome that is fair to the people of Scotland and fair to the people of the United Kingdom, which the no detriment principle is, because neither Scotland nor the rest of the United Kingdom is better off or worse off as a consequence of the devolution of the powers on the mechanism that I have advanced. However, what the Scottish Government will not sign up to is a mechanism that is damaging to the interests of the people of Scotland, which was not intended by the Smith commission. Question 5, Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made in finding an agreement on the fiscal framework. Presiding Officer, I met the Chief Secretary to Treasury on Monday for the ninth time with the intention of agreeing a fiscal framework for Scotland, which meets the Smith commission recommendations. Any agreement must be true to Smith and be fair to Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It has not yet been possible to reach such an agreement, but both the chief secretary and I are committed to continuing to do so. We will continue to meet with a view to reach the agreement shortly. Stuart McMillan. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response, and I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could highlight what the process would be if no deal could be reached before the solution of Parliament. For instance, could the discussion reconvene after the parliamentary elections in May? Presiding Officer, the objective of the Government is to secure agreement on the fiscal framework. I think that we will be welcomed across the board, providing, of course, the agreement is acceptable to the Scottish Parliament. That would enable a much wider discussion and debate around issues in connection with the exercising of the Smith powers, which, of course, the Government wishes to be able to do. I have written to the convener of the Devolution Further Powers Committee, who had asked me to ensure that a fiscal framework agreement was available by the end of this week to enable the committee to properly consider its contents before taking evidence from myself the week after the parliamentary recess next week. I have now written to Mr Crawford asking for the committee to identify what further flexibility it may have to enable discussions to continue, to enable Parliament to have the proper opportunity that I wish Parliament to have to fully scrutinise the contents of the fiscal framework. Surely it is clear to everyone, except the UK Government, that population increases are a relevant factor when analysing the growth of tax receipts. Is it not therefore essential to focus on the growth of the UK tax base per capita in order to be true to the no detriment principle, to treat England and the rest of the UK on an equal footing and to avoid a situation where money is withdrawn from Scotland simply because the English population is growing at a faster rate than ours? I agree unreservedly with the point that Mr Chisholm has made. It is a cogent and well articulated point. Mr Chisholm will also be aware from his extensive experience on those issues that the issue of population difference is already factored into the Barnett formula, so Scotland already carries risks in relation to the comparative growth in our population with the rest of the UK as part of the Barnett formula. However, the analysis that Mr Chisholm has presented to Parliament is absolutely accurate, and I agree with it in its entirety. To ask what discussions the cabinet secretary has had with Fife Council regarding its budget for 2016. Cabinet Secretary, I have not so far had direct discussions with Fife Council about its 2016 budget, but I have had a series of meetings with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities of which Fife Council is a member. I have also written to the leader of Fife Council setting at the details of the 2016-17 local government for an settlement, and I have indicated to Councillor Ross that when I am in Fife for the meeting of the Talys Russell task force next week, I will also see him to discuss those issues. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Thanks to the choices made in the Scottish Government's budget, Fife Council now face an additional cut of £17 million on top of the £21 million already anticipated this year. To make up for those cuts, two thirds of people responding to Fife Council's budget consultation said that they would be willing to pay a rising council tax to protect local services, yet yesterday the leader of Fife Council, David Ross, has been forced to accept the Scottish Government's budget settlement thanks to the sanctions that Fife Council would face if it went along with the wishes of Fifers. The result is going to be job losses, cuts to third sector projects and cuts to our schools. Cabinet secretary, tell me how slashing council budgets fits in with a commitment to local democracy and to fighting austerity. The local government finance settlement, when we take into account the investments that have been made in the integration of health and social care, which all of us accept, is an integral part of local authority services, once that is taken into account, it represents a 1 per cent reduction in local authority revenue. We need to get a sense of perspective about some of the language that has been used on this particular issue. Second point is that when we look at the contents of the issues about which I have been concerned in the local government settlement, the integration of health and social care, the payment of the living wage to social care workers, the protection of the teaching numbers of teachers to protect the pupil-teacher ratio and the freezing of the council tax, I think that those are all material issues that matter to local residents in the delivery of their public services. I have been anxious to ensure that we secure a local authority settlement that protects all of those items. I appreciate the fact that 32 local authorities have now indicated their willingness to accept the Government's local authority settlement, which enables us now to proceed to the implementation of the local authority settlement. I think that it is surprising that the Labour Party seems to be taking exception to an investment of £250 million in social care, to the payment of the living wage to members of staff in the social care sector, to ensuring that there is a council tax freeze. I thought that the Labour Party supported the existence of a council tax freeze. Many of its authorities were elected in 2012 on a commitment to freeze the council tax, and I would have thought that maintaining the teaching population would have been critical to improving attainment within our schools, so I am at a loss to understand why the Labour Party cannot support the approach that the Government has taken. To ask the Scottish Government what the target is for access to superfast broadband in East Lothian by 2018 and what their expects to achieve. The digital Scotland superfast broadband programme aims to deliver fibre broadband to at least 95 per cent of all homes and businesses in East Lothian by the end of 2017 and is on track to deliver that target. Commercial coverage alone would only have delivered fibre broadband to around 67 per cent of homes and businesses. The fact of the matter is that nearly half of residents in East Lothian do not have access to superfast broadband, and just 57 per cent of premises in the county have that access. It seems extremely unlikely that the target that the cabinet secretary has just described will be achieved by the end of next year. Indeed, East Lothian is one of the worst figures in Scotland better really than only the very remote local authorities like Orkney, Shetland and the Highlands. Will, therefore, the cabinet secretary take some action to prioritise getting East Lothian up to speed so that it can achieve the target that he has just recommitted himself to? I will look in detail at the points that Mr Gray makes, and I may well raise them with BT when I see them at 4 o'clock this afternoon. I want to reassure Mr Gray on a number of points. The first is that the commitment to at least 95 per cent of all homes and businesses in East Lothian having access to superfast broadband is a contractual commitment with BT, so it has to be fulfilled. I assure Mr Gray that it will be fulfilled in terms of the contractual obligations. In terms of progress towards that, we have already surpassed the target of 85 per cent coverage by the end of 2015. That target was met in June 2015, so the completion of the programme is absolutely practical. Beyond that, there are, of course, Mr Gray's constituency will have a range of different properties and homes that will not be covered by the 95 per cent assurance. Given the commitment that the Government is focusing increasingly on ensuring that those individuals are not disadvantaged by not being part of the core programme just now and that we are looking at the different technological and programme solutions that can ensure that broadband is available to all households and businesses as extensive as we can in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the expected impact of its draft budget 2016-17 on public services. Within a challenging financial settlement, the Government continues to provide the resources that are necessary to protect and reform our public services, ensuring that public resources better meet the needs of the people of Scotland. The budget will increase the national health service budget by £500 million to around £13 billion, invest £250 million in the radical reform of health and social care, protect front-line police resource budget and deliver a pay rise for around 50,000 of Scotland's lowest-paid workers. Our budget will equip the country for the future and lay the foundations for the reforms that we will define in the next session of Parliament. In my region, West Scotland, Renfrewshire Council has seen its budget cut by £13.5 million, North Ayrshire by £13.3 million and Unverclyde by £8.8 million. Can the cabinet secretary take this opportunity to explain to my constituents why he is implementing savage cuts to local authorities, which will have an impact in education provision, environmental services and recreational facilities and will result in further job losses and under pressure local authorities right across West Scotland? The comments that Mary Fee made are misplaced in two respects. First, a 1 per cent reduction in local authority expenditure is, in my opinion, a stretch of the vocabulary to describe that as savage. What is savage? What is savage is a 27 per cent reduction in local authority expenditure south of the border. That is what savage is. That is the first point. The second is that Mary Fee's comments did not take into account the investment of £250 million in the reform of health and social care. I have not been able to catch up with all the shouting and muttering that has gone on to my left-hand side. Every time I have mentioned the £250 million investment in the reform of health and social care, there has been muttering and moaning about it from my left-hand side. That is precisely what the Labour Party called for. It called for it a week before the budget debate that we should invest in health and social care, and I have done exactly that to integrate those services to make sure that we can meet the needs of individuals, provide additional health and social care packages and pay the living wage to social care workers. I would have thought that the Labour Party might have supported that. Given that, in recent weeks, Labour MSPs have suggested spending additional resources on building more homes, the NHS, climate change, local government and so on. Has the cabinet secretary braided with any detail as to how the additional penny and tax that the Labour Party proposes to raise will be allocated to meeting its stated commitments, now totalling £5 billion? The only way that I could rationalise that is to say that the Labour Party intends to spend the penny several times over. Question 9, Annette Milne. Thank you. Do you ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans to reform local government funding? Cabinet Secretary, please. We will bring forward plans for the reform of the present council tax, reflecting the principles of the commission on local tax reforms report. Entering into consultation with local government about the possible future assignation of a proportion of income tax receipts thereby giving local authorities an incentive to boost economic growth in their areas and launch a review of the non-domestic rate system in Scotland before the end of this current parliamentary term. There is increasing concern that north-east households, which already pay the highest council tax levels in Scotland, will be hit by new higher bans proposed under the commission on local tax reform. Any change to the banding system, such as the introduction of two new top rate bans, could see council tax in Aberdeen increase from £2,461 a year to around £3,960. So far, Aberdeen, which currently has the worst local authority funding settlement in the country, could soon see even higher council tax rates in Scotland than the rest of Scotland. Are the cabinet secretary and his Government willing to see north-east taxpayers disproportionately affected in this way? Cabinet secretary. The Government will take forward a considered analysis of the commission on local tax reforms report, and we will formulate our proposals accordingly within the context of that report and the issues that it raises. As Dr Milne will be aware, the Government has put in place specific funding that is designed to address some of the comparative position of funding in Aberdeen city with other authorities in Scotland. The position on funding is a product of the local Government distribution formula, which is jointly agreed between the Government and local authorities within Scotland. However, we have taken exceptional action to strengthen local authority funding in the north-east of Scotland, and we will pay particular attention to the issues and considerations of the economic situation of the north-east of Scotland in any review that we undertake. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact would be of raising the Scottish rate of income tax to 11 per cent. Following the UK spending review in November, a Majesty's revenue customs updated its forecast for the direct effects of illustrative tax changes. If forecasts are a one-pence increase in the Scottish rate of income tax, allowing for potential behavioural responses to such a change, we would have raised £475 million for the tax year 2016-17. HMRC will review this forecast following the UK Government's budget in March. Given that the Opposition policy includes a £100 rebay or payment or benefit, we do not have any detail as to what that would be. What does the cabinet secretary suggest would be the likely administration cost to local government to administer such a scheme for low income earners to get that £100 payment or benefit or whatever it is? The first point to make is the acceptance that there is a need to put in place some form of mitigation demonstrates my point that this is a tax change that will have a detrimental effect on the incomes of low-income households. That is the principal consideration that I have given to the issue that persuaded me not to raise the Scottish rate of income tax beyond 10 pence. The second point is that, if I marsaled this evidence to the finance committee back in January, if there was to be some form of rebay put in place, there would have to be the legislative and operational basis for so doing. I set out to the committee the fact that I do not believe that it is within the legislative competence of this Parliament to legislate for such a rebate, and I do not think that the practical issues are in place to enable it to be undertaken. As for the costs of it, well, we are several weeks into several—are we several? No, it was just last week, actually. My goodness, it does not time fly, but we are enjoying ourselves. Just last week, the Labour Party set out their proposals. We are no further forward in understanding the detail of how they would propose to deliver that rebate or the cost of the administration of that rebate. However, I simply say for comparative purposes that the cost of ensuring that council tax reduction and housing benefit are paid to individuals in Scotland costs £41.1 million. That is, I think, a very illustrative number as to the cost of a rebate scheme of this type. Kezia Dugdale. The IPPR, the University of Stirling and, in particular, David Iser, and the Resolution Foundation understand the policy finance secretary. The Resolution Foundation in particular said that the lowest four deciles in Scotland—40 per cent of the lowest-paid Scots—would have no net consequence of this policy. Does he think that they are wrong? That is based on the heroic assumption that it is possible to make this rebate to be paid. I simply asked last week for the Labour Party to set out the detail of how that rebate would be paid. If they want to be taken seriously, set out the detail, not just imagine, not just hope that it might be able to be done, tell us the detail and we will explore it and examine it. However, the Labour Party published a proposal that said that the cost of administration would be £1 million. I think that the Parliament and the public are entitled to understand the assumptions underpinning that number, given that it costs £41 million to administer housing benefit and council reduction, which are comparable types of schemes to the one that is not even touching the same number of cases. There are potentially 800,000 cases in the Labour Party rebate, and the council tax reduction and housing benefit only deal with half a million cases. Before the leader of the Labour Party asked me questions on this point, a little bit of detail would be nice. Raising the Scottish rate of income tax will take money out of the pockets of hardworking families across all income scales. Has the Scottish Government done any assessment of the impact on Scottish economic growth of that spending power being lost to the economy? As part of the consideration that I gave to the Scottish rate of income tax, I looked at various questions around behavioural response informed by some of the analysis undertaken by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Some of that is illustrative on the point that Mr Fraser raises, but a much wider economic impact assessment would cover further ground on the issues that he has raised. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy considers that the draft budget for 2016-17 provides advocate resources for general practice. In the draft budget for 2016-17, the Scottish Government has increased GP and primary care funding to £780.1 million, which includes £45 million investment in the primary care development fund. That will provide significant additional resource for general practice. The Scottish Government is also working to transform primary care, including developing new ways of working with multidisciplinary teams, reducing bureaucracy and working constructively with the GP workforce to ensure that services are fit for the future and meet the needs of the people of Scotland. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The analysis by the Royal College of General Practitioners in Scotland shows that, under the current draft budget plans, the proportion of the budget devoted directly to general practice in Scotland is set to reduce further. I have received several representations from my constituents, some of whom are practicing GPs, who have asked that the Scottish Government reassess the budget and ensure that an additional 0.5 per cent is available for general practice in order to begin the move towards an 11 per cent share of the overall NHS budget. Will the cabinet secretary therefore give an undertaking to consider the issues raised by my constituents and work with colleagues in order to identify an appropriate way forward? I recognise the importance of the issues raised by Siobhan McMahon in relation to general practice. We engage actively with the Royal College of General Practice around those questions. I know that those issues have been aired in public, and I will certainly reflect on the issues that have been raised by the Royal College as part of the finalisation of the budget process. Question 12 has not been lodged. The explanation has been provided. I turn to question 13. How many jobs in Scotland it estimates have been lost as a result of the downturn in the oil and gas industry? The number of redundancies or job consultations announced by oil and gas companies in Scotland has reached almost 10,000. The industry body oil and gas UK estimates that the total employment supported by the sector across the UK has fallen by around 65,000 jobs. We continue to monitor the impact that low oil prices are having on the industry and its wider supply chain, and that will be discussed at the next energy jobs task force meeting, which takes place in March. The task force that has helped to support more than 2,500 individuals and 100 employers through the current downturn and will continue to support the industry to improve collaboration, co-operation and innovation. Last week, we also announced a £12 million transition training fund that will augment the work of the task force and will offer grants to individuals to support their redeployment through retraining or further education. I thank the minister. Has he read this week's state of the industry report from the trade union offshore co-ordination group, which notes that insufficient up-to-date economic and labour market data are available to paint an accurate picture of the impact that the falling oil price has had on the Scottish economy and reflects recent increases in claiming count unemployment of as much as 80 per cent year-on-year in the north-east? Will he now undertake at his hand to address the serious undercounting of the number of workers who have lost their jobs in order to allow Government agencies to provide adequate support and to allow trade unions to do their job and protect their members? I discussed on Monday of this week with Graeme Smith many of those issues, and this morning I wrote to the newly formed offshore co-ordinating group to seek a meeting to discuss those issues with them. Those are extremely important issues, and we are entirely agreed about that. Therefore, we are determined to continue to do everything practical within our power to assist those individuals who need assistance. Of course, some of them may not seek employment or may find employment on their own efforts, but those who need it will get it. That is why, Presiding Officer, the First Minister last Monday announced in Aberdeen the £12 million transition training fund and why I was in Aberdeen this Monday to discuss with three different meetings, with Sir Ian Wood, with the industry leadership group and with a meeting of senior representatives from the service companies and why, incidentally, I was in Fort William yesterday discussing with the underwater diving centre in Fort William, which I believe is the best-quality diving centre in the world, how this training fund can be best deployed. I think that Mr McDonald and myself have similar objectives, and I am happy to continue to work with him to achieve them. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to ask the minister what discussions are having with the oil and gas sector and the wider supply chain to ensure that the appropriate skills will be retained in the event of a recovery, hopefully in the not-too-distant future. Mr Robertson has identified an absolute key point. If we lose skills, if we lose teams of experts in fields such as drilling, subsea exploration and divers, then, when we emerge from the cycle, as most experts predict, will of course happen, then we will not have the skills that we require to serve an industry that has an excellent future as well as a proud past achievement. That is precisely why we have set up this £12 million transition training fund package and my job, working with my colleagues in the Scottish Government, Aberdeen City Council, Oil and Gas, UK Opportunity North East and the industry as a whole, is to ensure that this money is used to maximum effect as quickly as possible to help the people that Mr Robertson has identified require support for the future of the industry. I raise a point of order understanding orders rule 7.2.3. Under that rule you may stop a member speaking if they depart from the subject of a debate. I seek your advice in relation to what you may judge in terms of 7.2.3, the subject of the debate that we are about to start. The debate is entitled Scotland's future prosperity, while the terms of the motion are very substantially more narrowly drawn to refer only to education. Can you advise me whether the motion that constitutes the title of the debate and the terms of the motion stand equally in determining what you may consider to be the subject of the debate? In particular, not because I envisage this will be what will happen for future reference, would it be in order for someone to make a speech that referred to Scotland's future prosperity but made no reference to education? It is, of course, a very important debate on education that we are about to have, and I do not intend to diminish the importance of that subject. Many thanks. Order, please. The member is correct that I can stop a member speaking if they depart from the subject of the debate. In fact, most members in the chamber will know that on occasion in members' debates I have been known to do so. However, the subject of the debate is determined by the terms of the motion and the amendments and not the title of the motion. I judge whether a contribution is relevant in each case. In this case that Mr Stevenson asks about, I would advise the member to refer to education in his contribution, given the terms of the motion and the amendments. We now turn to the next