 Rwy'n dechrau i gael y cymryd y cyfryd yn ymddangos, mae'r perfyllfa gweithiau. Efallai, ein bod Ymddangos David Torrance ymddangos. Felly hynny'n dechrau i'r wych gwrthwyng y Llywodraeth neu ymddangos ymddangos Ymddangos Ymddangos? Ymddangos Ymddangos Ymddangos ymddangos ymddangos ym 2015-16 erbyn cymryd 53,7 billion pwy, 1,9 billion pwy, oes i gynnydd o'r ddechrau o'r dynnod i gyfryd mewn cymryd yn ymddangos ymddangos, ymlaen i ymddangos 8 per cent o'r unig ddoctr. David Burns. I thank you, cabinet secretary, for that answer. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scotland's positive economic outlook has been unduly exposed to the threat, as Brexit could see us withdrawn from the biggest signal common market against our will? Cabinet secretary? Yes, I do believe that that is a key risk to Scotland's economy in terms of leaving the EU. Scotland exports £11.6 billion a year to the EU. That is 42 per cent of total international exports. It is increasingly clear that the hard Brexit, as is being described by some in relation to the UK Government's approach, has significant financial consequences for the UK and for Scotland. Given that the finance secretary is a conscientious and diligent soul, I assume that he will have read his Government's own Jerry's report from front to back. Can he therefore confirm that it demonstrates that Scotland's benefit from 1200 pounds more public spending per head by being part of the United Kingdom? I know that Kezia Dugdale will be well aware that Scotland also generates more per head generally than the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland has strong economic foundations in which we can grow our country to share prosperity and wealth for all our people in Scotland. The union dividend amounts to £1,600 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. 1200 pounds on higher spending is £400 per head because our economy underperforms the rest of the UK. Why does the cabinet secretary want to deprive the Scottish people of the sum of money? The cabinet secretary wants to talk about the constitution. You are obsessed with it in terms of the Conservatives. We are embarking on a bold programme through the programme for government and in due course the budget to grow our economy and build on the strong fundamentals of the Scottish economy. It is decades of Westminster rule that has left Scotland in the economic position that we have found ourselves in, made worse by the threat to remove the United Kingdom and Scotland from the European Union. In view of the record budget deficit numbers announced by the Government last week of £15 billion, how does that reconcile with the First Minister's statement yesterday that the Government will use the strength of its balance sheet to help Scottish business? Bear in mind that that budget deficit is the largest of any Western economy in Europe and even larger than the budget deficit in Greece. I am very surprised that Dean Lockhart, a Conservative spokesperson, does not understand the Scottish budget. The Scottish Government balances its books every year and it is on the basis of that, the strength of our balance sheet, that we can deliver the Scottish growth scheme. I seriously hope that the Conservatives will be converse to our scheme to unlock £0.5 billion support to grow our economy and support businesses through this difficult and turbulent time in terms of the economy. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the cabinet secretary for finance in the constitution has had with College Scotland and University Scotland regarding the forthcoming spending review. As ministers with responsibility for engagement with both sectors, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science meet regularly with representatives of Scotland's colleges and universities to discuss a wide range of issues of interest to the sector, including resourcing issues. The Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science last met College Scotland and representatives of University Scotland on 31 August. The recent reports from Audit Scotland into funding of both higher and further education show that both sectors have seen cuts in their budgets year on year. In this spending review, will the cabinet secretary simply make the promise that their budgets will be protected? I think that we have outlined in the manifesto on which we were elected water commitments to the sector, and that includes, very importantly, free education in terms of education and for colleges where maintaining full-time equivalent college places. In terms of the report also referenced, it does say that the report highlights that Scotland's college sector is financially stable overall and that colleges continue to exceed their targets for student learning opportunities. In answer to the question, more specifically, of course, myself and ministers will engage closely with the SFC to consider the financial issues and take forward the opportunities for Scotland. Over the past few months, I had one particularly enjoyable visit to the city of Glasgow at the Riverside campus, a fantastic building and evidence of this Government's commitment to capital in the sector, which I think is transformational in terms of the education system in Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution last met the Treasury and what was discussed. I spoke with the new chancellor on 21 July to discuss areas of common interest, including the need to ensure active engagement between HM Treasury and the Scottish Government on the financial implications of work undertaken in response to the EU referendum outcome. Since then, I have written to the chief secretary to the Treasury welcoming the guarantees so far provided on EU funding but making abundantly clear that the areas that have not been addressed must be revisited as a matter of urgency. I have offered to meet the chancellor in London on 21 September to discuss matters of shared interest around the economy and public finances, the impact of the EU referendum and the need to continue to make progress in implementing the detail of the Scotland Act 2016. The Scottish taxpayer will pick up 60 per cent of the cost of decommissioning the oil and gas industry through tax relief. As the Scottish people are funding those jobs, does the cabinet secretary think that it is fair that we are paying for this work to be done in Norwegian yards rather than in ports like Dundee? I am disappointed that, given the huge opportunities for the economy, the cabinet secretary did not discuss with the Treasury any fiscal incentives for decommissioning when he met them. Can he clarify for me if the Scottish Government has had any discussions with the Treasury over decommissioning tax relief? Can he make it a priority to speak to the Treasury at the next opportunity on how it can work together to keep those taxpayer-funded jobs in Scotland? I think that the member raises a very fair question and a fair analysis of how we could take advantage of the decommissioning work that could be delivered to Scotland. The member's question was very specific about what conversations and what discussions I had with HM Treasury. I have answered that accurately. However, my business and economy colleagues have had discussions with UK ministers on this very subject, so the Scottish Government has been proactive in raising those opportunities. Through Scottish Enterprise, we are working on the decommissioning action plan to try and ensure that jobs and development come to Scotland. I will be 100 per cent supportive of that and absolutely raise specific interventions with the UK Government and add to my very long list of things that the UK Government could do to stimulate the UK and Scotland's economy. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in implementing the recommendations of the commission on the future delivery of public services, chaired by Campbell Christie, calling for a prioritisation of preventative spend and an outcomes focus in delivering more effective and efficient public services. Our approach continues to be rooted in the four pillars of reform laid down by the Christie agenda. We have made substantial progress across a broad range of public services, including in early years, justice, health and social care. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. The cabinet secretary is aware that the Christie report estimates that as much as 40 per cent of all spending on public services is accounted for by interventions that could have been avoided by prioritising a preventative approach. In order to realise those savings, the report recommends integration of service provision, the empowerment of individuals and communities, receiving services, the removal of duplication and the sharing of services where possible. Can you ask what steps the Scottish Government is taking to make progress on the recommendations? That will clearly feature, as we move forward, in the programme for government and our agenda and efforts on public service reform. I think that the Government has made it clear in our approach on early years and education reform and health as well. Those are key parts of the preventative agenda and are certainly part of the next phase of reform. Truly transformational opportunities that we can build upon the successes of the last Parliament around, for example, integration joint boards in the community empowerment act, which is partly about people unlocking the potential in their own communities and being given the tools to do the job. There is a great deal of work to be done around public service reform. That is why I am delighted to be a member of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Public Service Reform. We will look at the issue. The cabinet secretary will be aware that change funds have been one of the principal means of prioritising preventative spending and encouraging innovation in public services. Does he therefore consider allocating something in the order of one per cent of the Scottish budget to change funds is adequate, given the task ahead? Will he reflect on that in the forthcoming budget? I understand why Jackie Baillie would be attracted to change funds. I think that they were successful in part, but what I would expect as finance secretary is that we use the totality of Scottish Government resources to transform our services, to rise to the challenge of the preventative approach in public service reform. I am not immediately minded to create a new plethora of change funds, but to expect public services and Government departments to focus on that and to realise how important it is to both the Government and clearly the Parliament. To ask the Scottish Government what Scotland's deficit is both as a percentage of GDP and in cash terms according to the latest year's figures. Mr Bibby will have heard me say to the Conservatives that, of course, the Scottish Government balances its books. GERS shows that North Sea revenues fell in 2015-16 as a result of challenging conditions faced by the oil and gas operations. However, that decline was more than offset by Scottish onshore revenue, which grew by £1.9 billion, including a geographical share of the North Sea. Scotland's net fiscal deficit, according to GERS estimates, in 2015-16, was 9.5 per cent of GDP or £14.8 billion. The First Minister spoke yesterday of a real battle of ideas, a sense of solidarity versus the ideology of the small state, yet the GERS study confirmed that one of the biggest deficits in Europe, the size of the state in an independent Scotland, would be a great deal smaller. Would the finance secretary therefore acknowledge the vital importance of UK fiscal transfers to Scotland and can he confirm that, according to GERS, those transfers currently amount to £9 billion, money for jobs, services and communities right here in Scotland? No, there is no such transfers. Neil Bibby has got it wrong again. Those are estimates of expenditure. It is not the balance sheet of an independent Scotland, and the Unionist parties do not seem to get that. UK economic policy has failed, but there were positives in the GERS report as well, such as onshore revenues growth, improvements on GDP growth, record rising employment and improved productivity. As I have said before, Scotland generally generates more revenues per head than the rest of the United Kingdom. In terms of output per head, it is higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, with the exception of London and the south-east. Why is it that a nation that is blessed with such assets and wealth cannot be allowed to share that prosperity, unlike Norway, a very comparable nation to Scotland that is not in deficit but in surplus? What is the difference? We have a choice. What do we do as a Government and as a Parliament to invest in the economy and secure Scotland's political position in terms of EU membership, grow our economy and support businesses to help to deliver that growth? That is exactly what this Government is doing. To ask the Scottish Government what impact its spending plans for 2016-17 will have on Glasgow and Renfrewshire. The Scottish Government will continue to support the Glasgow and Renfrewshire area through a wide range of programmes. The 2016 local government settlement funding package was firmly focused on the delivery of joint priorities to deliver sustainable economic growth, protect front-line services and support the most vulnerable within our communities. Those shared priorities will improve outcomes for local people. We are also investing in local infrastructure. For example, three schools are currently in construction in the area as part of the national schools for the future programme and are due to open next year. There is also further investment to motorways, subways, hospitals and health centres. Yesterday, the First Minister said that her Government's priority was jobs and economic growth. The cabinet secretary's predecessor, John Swinney, scrapped the Glasgow rail link project. The leader of Renfrewshire council, the leader of Glasgow city council and local businesses have now pressed the Scottish Government to get on and implement that project. That will create 15,000 construction jobs and 30,000 permanent jobs. The First Minister, the transport minister and the finance secretary all represent Glasgow and Renfrewshire. Why will they not stand up and deliver for those cities and communities? I have news for Anna Sarwar. We have signed. I was a signatory to the city deal proposal. Following that discussion about releasing more than £1 billion for that partnership, it was then left to the local authorities to take forward their proposals. Yes, there are checks and balances in place, and you would expect that to be the case. I am just coming to that, which might surprise you that I have written when I was transport minister on 3 February 2015 to the leader of the council to outline our support for the city deal package and, specifically, in relation to Garrow, I said this. We stand ready to work with you to deliver improved surface access to Glasgow airport in the overall city deal. However, I want to make it very clear that the Scottish Government will not be responsible for any additional costs resulting from decisions taken by or investments made by the Clyde Valley partners. With £1 billion to get on with those projects, I turn to the Labour Party and say what is stopping you to get on with the project. If you want to deliver, Garrow, do it with giving you the resources. I would hate to think that the Labour Party was simply indulging in an artificial game of grievance before the council elections. Knowing fine well, having been given the resources with the checks and balances in place, the only people stopping Garrow is the Labour Party in the west of Scotland. Jamie Greene To further ask the Scottish Government what effect the spiralling cost of the Edinburgh Glasgow improvement programme will have on its plans for Glasgow and Renfrewshire, and if the Government could today update the Parliament on the total cost of the project and if it expected to rise further? I think that that helps to make the point that the Conservatives might want to understand that Network Rail is not directly responsible or accountable to the Scottish Government in the way that we would like. If we had devolution of Network Rail to the Scottish Government, maybe they would be able to deliver projects in the way that the Scottish Government delivers major infrastructure projects. It is the case that the proposal for the rail link will make a transformative difference to the rail service in that part of the country, and we would expect it to be delivered to our specifications, but I am afraid that the issues with Network Rail simply suggest that we should have greater control over that operation rather than leave it to the UK Government, who have failed to contain the cost of that organisation. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking in light of the recent GARS figures to ensure that Scotland's deficit does not increase further. The Scottish Government is focused on actions to support Scotland's economic resilience and growth in keeping with the priorities that are set out in our economic strategy. We are taking action to facilitate investment, improve innovation, support inclusive growth and encourage Scottish businesses to internationalise, but the biggest risk to Scotland's economic prosperity is being taken out of the EU. We are taking action to support Scotland's economic resilience, which is why we announced a £100 million capital acceleration programme to provide immediate support to the economy. We will continue to explore all possible means to protect Scotland's place in Europe, in line with the way that people voted here, which is vital for jobs, investment and long-term prosperity. Grim Simpson. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The GARS figures show that Scotland's public spending deficit stood at just under £15 billion in the past financial year. That is 9.5 per cent share of GDP, more than double the 4 per cent figure for the UK as a whole. If anything shows that independence should be off the table for a generation, that report was it. However, yesterday, the SNP left the threat of another referendum hanging over the country that has already rejected it, with all the uncertainty that brings. The Government's answer to set up a growth commission. The best thing that the minister could do would be to take the independence referendum off the table. Will he do that? If not, why not? Cabinet secretary. Presiding Officer, here we go again. The Conservatives obsessed with the Constitution. And what's worse? And what's worse? And what's worse? We're back to the Scotland's two wee and two poor to be an independent nation. We're back to that tired old argument. The reality is that GERS isn't a verdict on independence. It's an indictment on Westminster control of this country's economy. However, let me turn with the limited time left, Presiding Officer, to what we can do about growing our economy. Let's see if the Conservatives will support those actions. Primarily, we could try and secure Scotland's place in the single market. At the Prime Minister's questions today, the Prime Minister couldn't even say whether he supported in or out. We are investing in infrastructure, maximising exports, backing innovation, embarking on house building, accelerating planning, increasing small business bonus, boosting education and childcare, releasing our renewables potential, investing capital stimulus and, of course, half a million pounds in the Scottish gross scheme. That's what we're doing to support Scotland's economy. Can I ask the Scottish Government what steps it's taking to support the Murray economy? We have committed to supporting sustainable economic growth across Murray. We are investing substantial amounts in road and education infrastructure and are ensuring that businesses continue to benefit from support from our enterprise agencies. That helps to create jobs and to stimulate growth in the area. Richard Lochhead The cabinet secretary will be aware that a threat hangs over the Murray economy as a result of the MODZ's stage review that has led to questions over the future of the Kenloss barracks. Indeed, yesterday's meeting of the Murray economic partnership heard that more than 1,000 full-time equivalent jobs in Murray are dependent on the barracks. Does he agree that any threat to Kenloss barracks amounts to a breach of faith by the UK Government, especially after the closure of RAF Kenloss? Will he now demand and support the community from the UK Government that there is a full consultation prior to any decision being taken over the barracks future? That consultation was originally promised but then changed her mind. We also call from the UK Government to deliver the utmost transparency as to what options are on the table at the moment and to share those with the local community. Richard Lochhead is right to describe this as not just a threat but a huge threat to the local economy of Murray. For my part, I have spoken with Mark Lancaster some weeks ago, who is the minister responsible in the UK Government, and made the request of him that, in relation to the defence review, the defence estate review, when it impacts on Scotland, for example, in relation to the Murray local economy or in relation to Fort George, a shared premises of the Scottish Government or even the Edinburgh Castle and other premises, there should be discussion between the two Governments and that has not taken place. In fact, that has been refused by the UK Government, who have nevertheless had discussions with local partners in Murray but not with the Scottish Government. In addition to that, the First Minister has written to the Secretary of State for Defence asking that he meets with me immediately to discuss those issues. In the case of Murray, 830 jobs are at least at risk, so I will continue to take those steps and support the work of Richard Lochhead and others in taking the steps that they are taking. What I will not do is support the statement that I have heard was said on social media by a Conservative MSP who said, the battle is over, the base is being saved, lay down your arms. The one step that we will not take in relation to Murray's future is a step back, and we will continue to support Richard Lochhead and those that wish to support him in defending those jobs. Douglas Ross Thank you. I will focus my question on actual events rather than speculation, which has been generated by the SNP. There are no concerns that are more serious than the threat over the lost base, but that speculation has come from a tweet by the local SNP MP and nothing further. The cabinet secretary mentioned in his first response about the roads policy and the roads budget. Can he confirm to the chamber today that the Scottish Government fully supports the campaign by the Murray economic partnership and its chair, Councillor John Cow, to have the A95 improved? Given the importance of this route to the vibrant whisky industry and the local economy, does he agree with me that opportunities for widening the carriageways should be considered as Transport Scotland develops its maintenance programme? In relation to roads and Murray, what we have done is what no previous Government, Conservative or otherwise have done, which is to commit to the £3 billion upgrading of the A96, the main arterial route from Inverness to Aberdeen, which is hugely important for that area. We have also provided substantial support to the local economy, to the local council in order to support their roads building infrastructure. However, the member says that let's talk about actual events. If it is the case that he has not tweeted that the battle has been won, and in fact that Murray defends—I want to talk about Murray defends what their job is here—if he is saying that the battle has been won, if that is not an actual event, and he has not said that, perhaps he could tell the chamber if he has said that, how does he think that representing the interests of Westminster and his colleagues down there is better than representing the interests of the people of Murray? On a point of order, if Mr Brown would like to check my social media history, I'm sure he'll come back to the chamber to correct the statement that he's now made twice. Thank you, Mr Ross. I don't believe that's a point of order, but you've made a point. Question 2, Ben Macpherson. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to encourage employers to pay the living wage and provide secure employment. The member will be aware that the majority of powers over employment remain with the UK Parliament. However, with the powers that we have available, we have developed a distinctive approach to fair work, which, among other objectives, will help to promote secure employment. Building on the publication of the fair work framework, a recently published labour market strategy sets out an approach where fair work is central to improving the lives of individuals and their families. That strategy includes a range of actions, including the work that the Scottish Government continues to undertake with the poverty alliance to increase the number of living wage-accredited employers in Scotland, which now stands at over £585. Ben Macpherson. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. I wondered if the cabinet secretary agreed to work with me on those issues, specifically with regard to the Edinburgh festival. For example, by working with relevant parties to encourage more large venues to pay the living wage and to provide more secure employment. I certainly would commit to doing that. I would also acknowledge the huge economic impact that the Edinburgh festival has, and again a very successful year for the festival and associated other festivals and the fringe. Certainly my officials and I are always happy to meet employers who are paying the living wage, and especially those larger employers through whom living wage accreditation would benefit a greater number of employees. I suggest that the member could usefully get in touch with the Scottish living wage accreditation initiative through the poverty alliance, with the Scottish Government supporting to promote the living wage, and they will be able to bring their invaluable experience of working with a wide range of employers to those discussions. Richard Leonard. In light of that last answer, does the cabinet secretary consider that when there are over 360,000 private sector employers in Scotland that a target of just 1,000 accredited living wage employers by this time next year is ambitious enough? I would never suggest that we are limited to that number, but I think that it is right that we do have to start, and we have made a start where the UK Government has not done this and many other Governments have not done this. I do not know whether what Richard Leonard is describing as a council of despair does not bother trying in the first place. We are trying, and we are having major success. Together, we are lifting the number of people in Scotland paid, which is already one of the highest in the UK—perhaps the second highest in the UK. I am happy to check that. We are having success in relation to that. Of course, it is not just the companies that sign up for the living wage, but it is the impact that they have on other people and the influence that they have. We will continue with their activity, and I would hope that we would have the support of Richard Leonard and his colleagues in that activity. Patrick Harvie. I welcome the measures that have been taken to promote the living wage. Given yesterday's announcement that the Scottish Government intends to provide a programme of loans and guarantees to businesses, can we have a guarantee that that facility will only be available to businesses that pay the real living wage? I think that all businesses, or the vast majority of businesses in the Scottish economy, are well aware of the Scottish Government's approach to the living wage and to inclusive growth. Those companies that we engage with through, as Patrick Harvie mentioned, the Scottish growth scheme, which could be a substantial benefit to companies and employment in Scotland, will also be well aware of our preference and our drive to try to drive up the number of those employees in Scotland to receive the living wage, not just because it is right that they should do so, but also because it helps the economy in general. There is more disposable income with those that have to spend all their income to survive if they are paid the living wage. Neil Findlay One of the ways in which we can advance the living wage is becoming living wage employers ourselves, and I commend the cabinet secretary for doing so, but maybe the cabinet secretary could assist Mr McPherson, who asked the question and encourage him to become a living wage employer. I am sure that Neil Findlay can be encouraging in that regard as well. It is down to all of us who want to see the number of people employed in the living wage to encourage others. I do not know the individual circumstances, but maybe all the employees of MSPs are paid the living wage, but not all are accredited to it. That is perfectly possible, but, of course, like Neil Findlay, I would like to encourage as many people as possible to pay the living wage and to go further and to get accredited for having done so. I am not going to let Mr McPherson back in, although he does want to speak again. 3. Elaine Smith Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government how the Fair Work framework fits into the recently published labour market strategy. The Scottish Government shares the vision set out with the Fair Work convention in its framework through the labour market strategy. We have been clearing our endorsement of the framework and we have set out our commitment to continue to work with the convention to build on the principles that have established. Fair Work is central to our ambitions. We believe that a strong labour market is built in fairness, which will drive inclusive, sustainable economic growth. To achieve that, it is essential that we continue to support the convention in promoting the framework and engaging employers in discussions on how we can work together to champion fairer, better workplaces. Presiding Officer, I thank the minister for his response. I am sure that the minister is aware that Scotland now has the worst gender pay gap in the UK. Given that the Fair Work convention is set up in part to tackle issues such as this, what will the Scottish Government do to ensure that employers close the gap, implement the framework and end what is being called a penalty on motherhood here in Scotland? That is a very reasonable question to ask. The first thing that I would reflect on is that we have seen improvements in the gender pay gap here in Scotland. I readily concede that that has not gone far enough. Of course, the first thing that we are doing through the labour market strategy is that we are committing £0.5 million to support the convention in taking forward its work. I recognise that there is more that we can do in other of the commitments in the labour market strategies to take forward a woman returners project, which I think can also help in that regard. However, I certainly think that it is incumbent on us all to work as an administration through our agencies and with employers to reach out and make sure that we are doing better in that regard. Question 4, Lewis MacDonald. To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to publish guidance on the implementation of the apprenticeship levy. Minister Jamie Hepburn. Since the announcement of the apprenticeship levy by the UK Government, this Government has been working with employers to develop a response about support skills development and drive economic growth. Over the summer, we consulted with employers and other interested parties to consider the impact of the levy and to explore opportunities for continuing to expand and enhance our successful modern apprenticeship programme in Scotland. The consultation closed in 26 August and we bring forward plans as soon as possible from that consultation. Lewis MacDonald. I am sure that if the minister has read responses such as those from the oil and gas skills body of Peto or from Aberdeen and Grant in chamber of commerce, he will know that they believe that that apprenticeship levy should be fully committed to training and skills. They are very urgently looking for some assurance to that effect. Does he accept that many employers are already planning their training programmes for the next financial year and have started to do that and cannot do that efficiently and effectively until they know what money is coming back into their business from the training apprenticeship levy? I certainly accept that this has been an issue for business, for employers. I would hope that Mr MacDonald would recognise that the implementation of the levy has not been in our hands. It has been a levy that has been taken forward by the UK Government. I, of course, we still seek clarity on the funding that we will secure as a result of this levy. That has not been forthcoming yet from the UK Government. We have engaged in the consultation process. My clear commitment is to move forward as swiftly as possible. Because he does make the fair point that employers are trying to take forward plans and they are looking for that degree of reassurance, my clear commitment is to work on the basis of the consultation that we have undertaken and implement its findings as quickly as possible. I agree with Lewis MacDonald's point and ask the minister to reflect on the evidence that was given to the education committee this morning, in which standard life, among others, made clear that they would see the principle that the apprentice levy monies come back to Scotland but go back into skills and training. Does he agree with that principle? Will he make sure that that happens? I reiterate the point that I have made. I have been spending my summer engaging with a range of organisations, including private sector employers, local government and others, on how we respond to the introduction of the levy by the UK Government. I reiterate the point that we have not got final clarity on the funding that we will receive. We have undertaken a consultation and it is incumbent on me to drive forward the analysis of that consultation and to put in place a framework arising thereof. To ask the Scottish Government what action it and its agencies are taking to promote Eurocentral and Newhouse as a place for business and innovation. We are committed to promoting Scotland as an attractive place for business and innovation. For example, our £500 million investment in the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvement project will bring safer roads, less congestion and a better quality of life for road users. Those improvements will help to promote sustainable economic growth by improving access to facilities and employment areas such as Eurocentral and Newhouse for communities and businesses in central Scotland and beyond. I thank the minister for that answer. I note with interest that Eurocentral site is nearly 80 per cent of capacity for occupation by business. I therefore ask what further action the Scottish Government can undertake to ensure continued economic growth in this area of my constituency? We will certainly welcome the news of that success and want to support that continued sustainable economic growth in the area. Businesses in the area continue to benefit from the support of Scottish Enterprise and from regional selective assistance grants, worth £1 million this financial year. Through our regeneration capital grant fund, we are investing in enterprise workspaces at Newhouse. In addition, on 1 April this year, we designated Biocity as the sixth site as part of the life sciences enterprise area. We believe that that could see employment boosted by another 180 new jobs by 2020 as the location develops further as a more significant centre for life sciences. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making on implementing the recommendations in the commission for developing Scotland's Young Workforce final report. I have taken forward the development of the Young Workforce agenda. We are growing vocational provision for young people in the senior phase of their education, including a significant expansion of modern foundation apprenticeships. In addition, we have established 16 regional DEW employer groups across the country. It created new national standards for work placements in careers education, invested in the early arms production of careers advice, seen over. 300 businesses take up the new investors in young people accolade and refocused activity across our youth employment apprenticeship programmes on young people who need the most support. I agree with the minister's drive on this matter, but he will be aware that the budget for 15, 16 and first subsequent years has now been, as he described, mainstreamed into other budgets. In other words, there is no specific budget for this area that it had in the first couple of years. Given that he has clear targets in the remaining years of this programme to expand activity, how is he hoping to meet those targets that are certainly demanding? Is he also aware of the recent city and guild skills report that shows that some young people in Scotland are not aware of available career paths? Would he agree that that is exactly the kind of issue that Sir Ian Wood's report raised and needs to address? Certainly, on the latter point, I would agree absolutely. I think that what we are trying to achieve in driving forward this entire agenda is a culture shift within the education sector that allows for greater engagement in an appropriate fashion for industry to be involved in opening up horizons for young people. I certainly think that, from the evidence that I have seen, that work is on-going, but it is beginning to bear fruit. That is why it is important that we mainstream it and make it a core part of the purpose of our school environment. Work continues and I think that it will continue to bear fruit going forward. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support the establishment of Orkney as a centre for excellence or a living laboratory in relation to energy storage and transformation. The Scottish Government welcomes and supports the wide range of activity under way to harness Orkney's renewable energy resources and to help to overcome some of the impact of grid constraints in advance of seeing a vital investment in connecting islands to the grid. A great example of our support is the Surf and Turf project, which is being assisted by £1.175 million in funding under our local energy challenge fund. The project will produce hydrogen from both onshore wind and marine energy from generation in the island of Edith, which will then be used, can be stored, transported and converted back into electricity for use in buildings and berth ferries at Kirkwall harbour. As with many other projects that we are supporting in Orkney, Surf and Turf involves working with a range of partners on a significant level of local expertise. In that case, that includes the European Marine Energy Centre, or EMEC, and Community Energy Scotland. The project has been the catalyst for further investment of €5 million in Orkney by the European Commission in support of the big-hit hydrogen project. In February 2014, the Scottish Government provided a £3 million grant to EMEC to address the problem of grid constraints at its tidal site. The investment enabled EMEC to carry out initial scoping work and then purchase an electrolyser to convert power generated at the tidal site to hydrogen fuel. Scotland's wave and tidal energy resource is almost unparalleled. It represents a quarter of Europe's tidal stream and 10 per cent of its wave energy potential. A large part of Scotland's wave and tidal energy is available in the northern and western Isles and along the west coast. Those are areas that offer considerable challenges when it comes to feeding this energy back into the main grid. Programmes such as Local Energy Scotland allow communities to produce large amounts of renewable energy to use that energy locally. What progress has been made by the Scottish Government to help communities to make the most of their renewable energy capabilities? I will try to be brief, Presiding Officer. Certainly, we are very pleased with progress on community energy roll-outs. We have achieved 508 megawatts of community and locally-owned renewable energy capacity by 2015, which achieved our target five years early, and we are delighted with that. However, the member, Marie Todd, is absolutely right to highlight some of the key constraints, including the grid. I was pleased to meet her and renewables operators in Orkney last week. We heard clearly that the importance of the investment in connecting the islands to the mainland to allow local projects such as those that are delivered by communities in Orkney to access the market and, obviously, maximise the economic opportunity for the islands. Thank you. The next item of business