 Oes unrhyw ymgyrch gwaith bwysig yw ystod ystod y Jon Swinney ar y gyfer o'r ddweud o'r ddechrau'n gyffredinol y Pwg Ffianasus. Mae ydych wedi bod rhywbeth efallai'n gweithio i ddechrau'n gyffredinol, ac mae hynny yn ddweud o gweithio'n cyffredinol. Mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r gan永aneth y dysg Putg dodol yn beth fan hyn i ddiw족playg o Gwdeithus forgiveness, ac i'n cysylltoniadau assistganoiddol iawn i Ddallun Mogeneol iawn i ddechu hawddiaeth na folyg ddaeth gan y Llyframysg satisfieddau deall hyn o fydy oweithi Glywodraeth, ac gy forme cha Ditwch yn ddangos Menuol Felly learnu pan cyfoeddio am arweithio gymdeithasol yn gilydd hwnnw a'u gwneud o maenIAFF, roedd f Aufgple Law i Gyffrück Brân ndeeadd, to give down cuts to spending on business transport, local government and the environment. Looking ahead, our fiscal resource dell budget, our budget for day-to-day spending in Scotland, will decrease in real terms by almost 6 per cent for the interests of the next four years. Taken with the cuts imposed in recent years, that means that by 2019-20, the Scottish Governments total discretionary budget will be £3.9 billion – around 12.5 per cent real terms than it was in 2010-11. Although we recognise the need to ensure that public finances are on a sustainable footing, the scale of the cuts is unnecessary. The Scottish Government has consistently advocated an alternative approach that would ensure that the deficit is reduced, although also allowing for significant additional investment in public services compared to the chancellor's plans. Instead, the chancellor has continued to pursue an ideologically driven programme of austerity. There were three specific decisions in the statement on which I would like to comment today. Firstly, the decision to scrap the proposed changes to tax credits was a welcome change of direction. The proposed cuts were targeted at working families on low incomes, and would have affected around 250,000 households in Scotland. That is a victory for those who campaigned against those cuts and highlights the importance of continuing to voice opposition to UK Government policy. This Government remains steadfast and focused on defeating the tax credit cuts. However, the chancellor was clear that planned £12 billion of cuts to welfare in future years will still go ahead. Delayed cuts are still cuts. The chancellor should cease his unnecessary attack on those on benefits and protect rather than punish those who find themselves in need of financial support. The Scottish Government will continue to do all that it can to protect the most vulnerable in society from the UK's austerity programme and will continue to pressure the UK Government to reverse those cuts. Secondly, the chancellor announced welcome increases in capital spending, which will see our ability to invest in long-term infrastructure investment enhanced over the spending review period. We need, however, to see this improvement in the capital position in its proper context. By 2019-20, our capital del budget will still be lower in cash terms than it was when the Conservatives came to office 10 years previously. Thirdly, the decision to scrap the carbon capture and storage proposal that could have been taken forward at Peterhead is a short-sighted decision that undermines a global economic opportunity for Scotland. We are making the strongest fossil representations to the UK Government to reverse that decision. I will set out the Government's budget proposals to Parliament for consultation on 16 December. I now turn to provide a brief update on devolved taxation. Our forecast for devolved tax receipts for 2015-16 was considered by the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission, who endorsed them as a reasonable assessment. Revenues from land and buildings transaction tax remain on track and in line with our expectations. We forecast total LBTT revenues of £381 million in 2015-16, before allowing for forestalling losses, and we have collected around £218 million for the first seven months of the tax. The Scottish Fiscal Commission provided an assessment of devolved tax outturn against forecasts to the finance committee yesterday. That assessment supports our view that overall LBTT revenues remain in line with expectations. Revenues from Scottish landfill tax are performing well against our original forecast of £117 million. Over £37 million was declared for the first quarter of 2015-16. Revenues Scotland will publish data for the second quarter tomorrow morning. The Office for Budget Responsibility published updated forecasts for devolved taxes. Those have no bearing on our budget, our forecasts or our revenues, but I welcome the fact that those are now more closely aligned with the forecasts of the Scottish Government. I continue to discuss the fiscal framework with the UK Government with regard to those taxes that are due to be devolved under the Scotland Bill. Those discussions are focused on securing a fair and workable outcome on a financial settlement that is faithful to the recommendations made and principles articulated by the Smith commission. Smith was absolutely clear that the Barnett formula should continue as the major determinant of Scotland's spending power and that Scotland's budget should be no larger or smaller simply as a result of further devolution. The risks of an unfair fiscal framework were made clear last week by the Scottish Trade Union Congress and Professor Anton Muscatelli, the principal of Glasgow University. Professor Muscatelli warned that changes to funding methods that did not properly reflect the Smith commission's recommendations could leave Scotland worse off by hundreds of millions of pounds. Those are credible independent voices who should be listened to. We need a fiscal framework that will ensure, as the Smith commission intended, that further devolution provides the right incentives and increases the accountability of the Scottish Parliament, linking the Scottish Government's budget to Scottish economic performance. Scotland should retain the rewards of her success in the same way that we must bear the risks into the bargain. It is absolutely essential that the fiscal framework allows us to pursue our own distinct policies that meet the needs and wishes of the people of Scotland and do not tie us to UK Government policies. We aim to complete this work as soon as possible in order to give respective parliaments time for due consideration of both the fiscal framework and the Scotland Bill. Without a framework that is fair to the people of Scotland, I have been clear that the Scottish Government will not recommend that Parliament approves the Scotland Bill. I would like to conclude by updating Parliament on our engagement with the Office of National Statistics about the impact of recent updates to EU accounting guidance on the Government's infrastructure programme. I advised Parliament on 9 September that the Scottish Futures Trust had submitted proposals for revised arrangements for the hub model to the ONS. I am today able to advise Parliament that the ONS has offered the view that the proposed model would be classified to the private sector. That means that I am able today to advise relevant local authorities and health boards that they can proceed to contract award with hub projects under the revised model. Confirmation of a private sector classification from the ONS means that Scottish Government support for those projects can be drawn from long-term resource-dell budgets as intended. The revised arrangements for the hub programme will maintain the current balance of public good with projects taken forward by special purpose companies that own 60 per cent by the existing hub private partners, 20 per cent by a charity, 10 per cent by SFT and 10 per cent by the procuring authority. More widely in the NPD programme, it has become clear that a rapid reversal of the ONS's public classification of the Abery Western peripheral route project under the revised Eurostat rules will not be possible. I have asked SFT to continue to review options for the potential amendment of the AWPR project and potentially other NPD projects in light of the Office for National Statistics welcome decision on the revised hub model. The Scottish Government also continues to discuss the budgeting implications with Her Majesty's Treasury, including for our capital spending plans, and I intend to reflect the outcomes of those discussions in the budget in December. That will have no impact on the delivery of the project itself. It is on time and it is on budget. The Scottish Government has always prioritised public infrastructure projects as a critical tool for growing our economic recovery. I am therefore delighted to be able to confirm that the 10 school and 2 health centre projects in the hub programme will now proceed. That is around £330 million of capital investment in our children's education, our NHS and Scotland's economy. Those 12 projects will make an enormous difference in their communities, both in terms of the immediate boost provided by the jobs that their construction will bring, but also through the long-term health and education benefits that those projects will provide to local communities and to local people. Presiding Officer, while the Scottish Government welcomes the Chancellor's U-turn in relation to tax credits, we will continue to argue for the Chancellor to abandon his policy of austerity and make the case for greater emphasis on public sector investment. We remain committed to investing in our infrastructure and public services, and the ONS decision on the hub programme allows us to continue on that track by moving forward with projects previously on hold. When we set out our plans for the Scottish budget next month, we will be driven by our principles of establishing a system that is fair and progressive and creating a sustainable economy that ensures opportunities for all within Scotland. The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. Members wish to ask a question also. The Deputy First Minister should press the request, but now, Jackie Baillie. Let me start by welcoming the dramatic U-turn from the Tories on tax credits. Labour campaigned long and hard to reverse cuts to tax credits, but the Chancellor will, however, still be making cuts that affect some of the poorest in our society. Both Labour and the SNP are anti-austerity. There is no doubt that this is a difficult budget settlement, and there are tough choices ahead. I want to focus on how we deal with some of those choices and protect people from austerity, which is an ambition that I believe is shared. We have new powers now from the Scotland Act 2012, and there will be substantial new powers coming in the future. Scottish Labour has set out some of the choices that we would make with air passenger duty, a top rate of income tax and all progressive measures. I am disappointed that the Deputy First Minister looks like he is only setting out plans for one year. Surely if we are serious about the sustainability of the nation's finances and using our new powers, we should have a full Scottish comprehensive spending review. He knows the numbers for the next three years, so why can't he tell us the outline plans? Surely he should take the opportunity to consider how the new powers can be used to protect people from austerity. Finally, the Deputy First Minister is no shrinking violent. I expect him to stay the course in the negotiations on the fiscal framework to secure a good deal for Scotland. First of all, I welcome Jackie Baillie's remarks on the question of a difficult budget settlement. It is perhaps the start of an acceptance by the Labour Party that some of the choices that have to be made on those questions are difficult, and I look forward to that being reflected in the dialogue that we have around the budget settlement. I assure Jackie Baillie that I intend to set out a range of plans for future years in the budget, so she will not be disappointed by my perspective on the issues that we face over the course of the spending review. On the use of the new powers, I hear what she says about air passenger duty and the top rate of tax. I suppose that the decision of the chancellor liberates the Labour Party from having to explain how they were going to spend the air passenger duty money twice, which was a little local difficulty that they managed to get themselves into. Of course, the new powers are there to be used, and we, on this side, have our own views about how those powers can be used effectively, and we will set those out in due course. On the final point that Jackie Baillie raised on the fiscal framework, I rather take from her remarks today and also from her remarks at the weekend that Jackie Baillie is in what I would describe as supportive mode on the fiscal framework. That is what I am cheerfully telling myself that she is. Maybe that is my one moment of optimism this week. I hope that the Labour Party engages seriously on the substantial questions that are at stake in the fiscal framework, because regardless of the political leadership of the Government, the issues that are involved in the fiscal framework affect every single one of us and every one of the individuals that we represent. The stronger view that can be expressed on this Parliament and the more cohesive view that can be expressed in this Parliament, the better in advancing those issues. I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance copy of his statement, although I thought that he might have had a more cheerful disposition today. For years, he has been calling for more money for capital spending, and the Chancellor has delivered a 14 per cent increase. Following the Chancellor's decision not to proceed with the cuts to tax credits, thanks to the intervention of my colleague Ruth Davidson, among others, the Deputy First Minister no longer has to find the money from his budget to fulfil his colleague Alex Neil's rash promise to make up any difference. The Deputy First Minister makes reference to welfare spending. Can he just confirm that the devolution of extensive welfare powers in the Scotland Bill will give this Parliament the option to take a different approach to welfare in future if it wishes and if it can find the money? Secondly, as he now has his long-awaited increase in capital spending, when will the Deputy First Minister be in a position to publish his list of shovel-ready projects that can now be pushed ahead? First of all, on the question of capital expenditure, Murdo Fraser tells me that I have got this tremendous uplift in capital expenditure. When the Conservatives came to office in 2010-11, the capital budget in cash terms was £3,293 million. By the end of the decade, 10 years after the dark years of Conservative Government, the capital budget in Scotland will be £3.187 billion. Even after 10 dark, long, weary and cold years in cash terms, the budget does not even recover to where it was in 2010-11. If we put inflation into account, it will be £600 million less than when the Conservatives came to office. It should be no surprise to Mr Fraser that I am not in a more cheerful disposition today, although I am trying my best to cheer him up. On the question of welfare spending, yes, there will be the choices and the options available to the Parliament to take a different course in relation to welfare expenditure, and, of course, this Government is already doing that. We are taking a different approach on council tax benefit and council tax reduction. We are taking a different approach in relation to the mitigation of the bedroom tax. We are taking a different approach in relation to the Scottish welfare fund. There is ample evidence of this administration taking action to take a different course on welfare where the opportunities arise for us to do so, and that will remain our position in the years to come. Before I ask other members to ask a question, I point out that time is very limited. The longer you take, the less time one of your colleagues is going to get. Indeed, one of your own colleagues will probably drop off the list. If you take more than one question, you are to blame for your colleague. John Mason followed by Willie Rennie. The Deputy First Minister mentioned the carbon capture and storage proposal that is being scrapped. I wonder whether he could expand on that and explain the impact on Scotland. This is a missed opportunity. When this Government came to office, the possibility of a carbon capture and storage proposition at Peterhead was very much on the agenda. It then shifted from Peterhead to Longanett and then it did not go forward at Longanett, and it went back to Peterhead and now it is going nowhere. This is innovative technology. Anyone who has heard Professor Stuart Hazeldine on the radio this morning, I thought very powerfully about the missed opportunity to take a significant step forward in technology development and to make a significant contribution towards our ambitions on climate change, which would not be significant just for Scotland or the United Kingdom, but could be significant globally into the bargain. That is why we are making the strongest possible representations, not just because this is a lost economic opportunity in the north-east of Scotland, but because it is a major opportunity where Scotland could be exporting technology right across the world and helping to address a major issue that affects all jurisdictions around the world. Will Willie Rennie fall by Christine Grahame? I thank the finance secretary for an advanced copy of his statement and can urge him when he is considering his budget to think about the mental health issue that I raised earlier on today at FMQs, but also the A9 possibility of accelerating the programme for the dualling of the A9 with his extra capital expenditure. The question that I have is, despite his claims about land and buildings transaction tax, he is falling behind his forecast. The OBR have revised down their projections to not just for this year, but for future years as well. Can he tell me what projections he has got? Does he agree with the OBR and does he think that the decline is going to continue? First of all, on Mr Rennie's point about mental health, I recognise the issues. Obviously, Mr Rennie had the opportunity to question the First Minister about the issue today. She has made clear the attention that the Government will pay to that particular issue. On the A9, I know that Mr Rennie will be pleased to welcome the work that is going on at Concrete already, which is the first part of the A9 dualling proposition that has been taken forward by the Government. On his final point on the estimates that the forecast has been made by the OBR, I welcomed what the OBR said yesterday of revising its forecast into line with the Scottish Government's forecast. Mr Rennie is correct to say that it has reduced its forecast. It is absolutely right to reduce its forecast, because I thought that its forecast was way off beam in terms of the preparation that it undertook. I set that out to Parliament. I cannot remember if Mr Rennie was critical of me about that estimate. I might be accusing Mr Brown of something that he did not do, but I am pretty sure that he was probably critical of me about it. It looks as if my position has been closer to the position that will eventually transpire. We will set out at the budget in December our future forecasts in relation to land and buildings transaction tax, and, obviously, they will be available to be scrutinised by the Fiscal Commission and by Parliament. I note that, over a decade, the Tories will have cut our budget for public services by a cumulative 12.5 per cent, a substantial cut in anyone's books. Can the cabinet secretary advise how he sees this might impact on the policing budget, particularly when there will undoubtedly be increased demands on our police due to heightened security? Clearly, the importance of maintaining an effective police force that can address all the requirements that we have as a country, where that is in relation to local policing, but ultimately everything is local policing when you think about it. Also, some of the more sophisticated work that we were involved in last week in an extensive discussion about cyber resilience. I set out the Government's cyber resilience strategy, which has been heavily influenced by the contribution of Police Scotland. It is important that we ensure that the police service is appropriately resourced, and those considerations will be part of the discussions that I take forward with the Justice Secretary in formulating the budget that will be shared with Parliament on 16 December. The UK Government reduced spending overall. In England, it increased investment in the NHS and allowed for further revenues to be raised for social care. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, if he passes on cuts to local government, the consequence could be reduction in social care budgets? What will he do in his budget and with the new powers that are coming through the Scotland bill to make sure that our councils can pay for social care? The first point in addressing Jenny Marra's question is to acknowledge the fact. I think that that has now been quite broadly understood within Scotland. The budget that we face involves a real-terms reduction in the resources that are available to us over the course of the spending review, and it is a serious reduction on top of very serious reductions that have taken place over the course of the past five years. That cannot be escaped. My point in response to Jackie Bailey is that, in her question, there was the acknowledgement of the challenge and the difficulty that lies at the heart of the budget settlement. I also accept that we operate an integrated health and social care system whereby the contribution that is made on social care can have an effect on the delivery of healthcare, and the delivery of healthcare can have an effect on social care into the bargain. That is why we took the decisions to integrate health and social care and why we are advancing with such speed to ensure that the gains and the benefits of creating that integrated service are felt by members of the public and that the services that are delivered are sustainable. Those questions will be at the heart of the discussions that I take forward on the budget issues and the discussions that I will take forward with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with whom I am in regular discussion. Stuart McMillan, followed by Ian Gray. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would be grateful if the Deputy First Minister could confirm that as a result of the hub projects that he has announced today that the multimillion pounds Inverclyde continuing care centre project will now proceed. I am able to give that confirmation, Presiding Officer. The Inverclyde care home is one of the projects that will be given the green light as a consequence of the announcement that I make to reactivate the hub programmes, which are a consequence of the decision that we have received from the Office for National Statistics. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yesterday's statement set out some details of expected income from the apprenticeship levy. Previous parliamentary answers on Westminster indicate that when it is spent, the consequentials will flow to the Scottish bloc. There could be almost £1 billion in consequentials over four years. Will the cabinet secretary give a guarantee today not just to me but to those companies who will pay the levy that he will use to expand the Scottish Government apprenticeship programme? I hear what Ian Gray says. Some of the information that he surmises from the announcements yesterday may well turn out to be correct in relation to the revenue that is raised, but I have to say to him that we are at a very early stage in discussions about the implementation of the apprenticeship levy, even a very early stage in the design of the apprenticeship levy with the United Kingdom Government. I do not feel as if I am in a position to have any detailed information that I can share with Mr Gray today. It is a subject of great frustration for ministers in this administration. The fair work secretary had a discussion with her counterpart in the United Kingdom Government this morning on the question. In the fair work secretary, we will update Parliament on the progress that we make on some very detailed questions that underpin the question that Mr Gray has asked. Deputy First Minister, Lanarkshire Labour's councillors are engaged in a bit of a pathetic protest outside today. Does he agree with the assessment of Spice, who said that local Government has been given a good deal by the Scottish Government and will continue to be given a good deal by the Scottish Government and that the council tax freeze is overfunded? Can he tell us if councils south of the border have such a good deal? It is always nice to welcome guests to Parliament. The point that I would make to Christina McKelvie is that the work that was undertaken by Spice over the course of the past few weeks demonstrated that the council tax freeze that the Government has put in place has been fully funded, in fact, suggested that it had been overfunded by the Government given the level of inflation that has been prevalent within Scotland over the years. Compared to local authorities in England, local authorities in Scotland have been given very substantial financial support and advantage compared to local authorities south of the border. As I indicated in my answer to Jenny Marra, I will continue my discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to work in a spirit of partnership to navigate our way through those challenging financial times. The NHS south of the border sees a real-terms growth rate of 3.6 per cent in the next financial year. Is the cabinet secretary going to give a similar commitment to Scotland next year? What the Government will do will be to fulfil our commitment to pass on to the health service in Scotland, the Barnett consequentials that arise from the comprehensive spending review. That was our commitment. That is what we have delivered and that is what we will continue to deliver. The Institute for Fiscal Studies highlighted at the UK general election that the SNP and Tory spending plans would have equal cuts where, as Labour plans, would have resulted in an increase in public spending. Is it not there for the case that the SNP spending plans—as I said, the Institute for Fiscal Studies—would also have meant cuts to the budget hitting our front-line services such as local government and the NHS the hardest? I am not quite sure what conclusions Siobhan McMahon could deduce from the analysis that she has highlighted that would suggest that the SNP was in any way taking a position of that sort. I would encourage Siobhan McMahon to reflect on the outcome of the election where analysis of that type did not work out in a convincing way for the Labour Party in Scotland. The SNP and the Scottish Government have argued that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I argued that just in a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day—has significant flexibility in taking a different course to the austerity agenda that he has taken. He could have invested while still repairing the debt and the deficit and moving the public finances into a sustainable position. He could have allocated an extra £150 billion to public expenditure and I wish he had taken that course of action. The cancellation of the carbon capture project is, of course, very regrettable, but if that project does not go ahead it does leave in tatters the idea that energy policy in Scotland or the UK can be predicated on continued electricity generation from fossil fuels. Is not it time to commit to a time scale to phase out fossil fuel electricity generation and commit instead to the infrastructure projects that are produced by the low-carbon infrastructure task force—the kind of projects that would help to build the low-carbon economy that, year on year, we have been failing to do in Scotland? I think that Mr Harvie has got to take into account the fact that very strong progress has been made by the Scottish Government in expanding the proportion of our energy that is generated from renewable means. We have made very significant progress and we have made very significant progress also in reducing our carbon emissions over the period that we have been addressing this issue. Nobody can dispute the volume of progress that the Government has made. Our task will be made a bit easier if we had some degree of consistency and order in energy policy from the United Kingdom Government, which has caused mayhem in the renewable energy sector and has abruptly halted the carbon capture and storage programme. We are prepared, as Professor Hazeldane said this morning, to commit us to unsustainable levels of subsidy to the Hinkley Point nuclear power station as just one example of the folly of their energy policy. Although we are making good progress here in Scotland and we will continue to endeavour to do so, and by following some of the examples that Mr Harvie has raised, we cannot disguise the fact that our challenge is made greater by the foolishness of UK energy policy and the damage that has been created for the people of Scotland. I apologise to the two members that I couldn't call.