Finance, Constitution and Economy
Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions. In order to get as many people in as possible, I would be grateful for short and succinct questions and answers.
Economy (Central Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to boost the economy in Central Scotland. (S4O-04001)
The Scottish Government is committed to boosting economic growth and tackling inequality across Scotland. In Central Scotland, we continue to support economic growth with substantial infrastructure investment and help for businesses, enabling them to grow and create employment. Businesses across Central Scotland have benefited from £53 million of regional selective assistance since 2007, creating and safeguarding 7,000 jobs. Almost 2,000 employment opportunities have been created for young people through the youth employment Scotland fund, and a further 145 jobs have been created through £7.5 million of support from the Scottish Government’s regeneration capital grant fund.
The Government will be aware of my concerns about the decline of the manufacturing base in East Kilbride and about the impact that the withdrawal of Rolls Royce from the town later this year could have on the wider economy of the region. Could the minister therefore update me on the Scottish Government’s involvement with the multi-agency East Kilbride task force and explain how it and its partners are promoting the town as a destination for inward investment?
I assure Margaret McCulloch that the Government entirely supports the sentiments that she has expressed about the importance of manufacturing industry for Scotland and particularly for towns such as East Kilbride that have a strong track record in the field of manufacturing. The Government participates in the East Kilbride task force, which is run by the local authority, through our partners Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland, and through the wider input of organisations that the Government substantially funds, such as South Lanarkshire College.
The focus of the task force is on finding opportunities to deal with the circumstances that Margaret McCulloch raised in relation to the transfer of Rolls Royce’s activities from East Kilbride to Renfrewshire. The Government is also keen to use devices available through the work of Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International to promote East Kilbride as a destination for inward investment and to support the company base of East Kilbride to expand those companies’ international business activities, and Scottish Development International would be keen to support companies with growth prospects in that respect.
Tesco (Closures)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Tesco regarding recent closure announcements. (S4O-04002)
This is a worrying time for all those affected by the Tesco announcement about the closure of four stores in Scotland, including the superstore in Kirkcaldy, with 189 employees. In a joint initiative with the leader of Fife Council, I wrote to the chief executive of Tesco offering assistance as part of efforts to reverse the situation. Scottish Government officials and Fife Council met Tesco representatives on 2 February to discuss the issues faced by the company and to express our concern about the effects that the closures would have on communities, employees and their families. In addition, officials in the Scottish Government and Skills Development Scotland have been in contact with Tesco to offer support through our partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—initiative for any employees who may be facing redundancy.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and for his written response to my parliamentary question, which I received yesterday. The recent round of Tesco closures and non-openings accounts for a 16 per cent share of the United Kingdom closures and non-openings, which is obviously disproportionate, as we have 8.5 per cent of the population share. Given that, can the cabinet secretary give a categorical assurance that there will be no successor tax to the public health supplement, which the Scottish Government was forced to abandon because it would make the retail sector, which is so important in this country, uncompetitive?
The first thing to say is that the Government actively supports the retail sector in taking forward its developments. We enjoy good and constructive discussions with the Scottish Retail Consortium, which does a lot of good work in advancing the interests of the retail sector in Scotland. Secondly, as a matter of record, I was not forced to abandon the public health supplement. I said that it would be in place for three years and it was in place for three years, and it came to an end when I said that it would come to an end, just as I predicted.
As I am sure that Liz Smith is aware, as she is an assiduous follower of my every word, there are no provisions in the Government’s financial plans to introduce such a supplement.
I call Margaret McCulloch, another assiduous follower.
In recent times, we have seen, on one hand, a reaction against Tesco towns and, on the other, a community coming together to save an anchor store in their town centre. However, does the minister agree that we should all be concerned about reports at the weekend about redundancies potentially rising to 10,000, and that averting further job losses must be a priority in discussions with Tesco?
We cannot disguise the fact that the retail sector and the major employment that is underpinned by Tesco and other supermarket chains is significant in the Scottish economy. In Kirkcaldy, 189 job losses may well arise from the closure of the store there, which represents a significant loss of employment in one particular community. The job losses in Troon, which will be known to the Presiding Officer, and in Edinburgh and Grangemouth are not as great but they are significant in their localities.
I give Margaret McCulloch the assurance that, on every occasion on which we have faced difficulties around employment loss in different parts of the country, as we do from time to time, the work of the PACE service, which Mr Ewing has led and which has been the subject of debate in Parliament, has been focused entirely on ensuring that we can maximise the employment opportunities for individuals who are adversely affected by the decisions.
Economy (Falkirk)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to boost the economy in the Falkirk Council area. (S4O-04003)
The Scottish Government is committed to growing the Falkirk economy and creating employment opportunities by working closely with our delivery partners, including Falkirk Council.
Our commitment to boosting the economy was demonstrated by our approval of Falkirk Council’s £67 million Grangemouth tax incremental financing project, which is expected to lever in £413 million in private investment, creating almost 6,000 jobs and hundreds of apprenticeships.
I welcome the initiatives that are already under way, especially the Grangemouth TIF, which will give a major boost to, and allow exciting opportunities in, the industrial sector in Grangemouth. However, Grangemouth is also a residential community and, with the recently announced closure of the Tesco metro and Mathieson’s Bakery in the town, residents are concerned about the reduction in footfall in the town centre. Will the cabinet secretary continue to work with Falkirk Council to ensure that there is a bright future not only for the industrial sector in Grangemouth but also for the 18,000 residents, who require a vibrant town centre?
I appreciate the point that Mr MacDonald raises. He raises an important question about the future and the vitality of town centres, which is an important consideration for the Government in respect of not only the much larger towns in the locality, such as Falkirk, but the smaller towns, such as Grangemouth.
The town centre action plan sets out a range of actions to help town centres to remain or become vibrant. Those include expanding fresh start rates relief for small businesses, increasing opportunities for town-centre living and agreeing the town centre first principle as part of our wider discussions on this question.
I would also say to Mr MacDonald that the Government works with Falkirk Council in the economic partnership, which will meet this Friday to consider its economic strategy and vision for Grangemouth, which will help in this respect.
Finally, I want to say that Falkirk is a good example of a community that has faced significant changes in its economic base and has responded to them with tremendous courage and vision. Indeed, the combination of visitor attractions in Falkirk—the Kelpies, the Falkirk wheel and the Helix programme—is an example to us all of how real creativity and vision can be used to improve the economic fortunes of the people of our country.
Decommissioning Oil and Gas Facilities (Dundee)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Dundee City Council, Scottish Enterprise, Forth Ports and Decom North Sea about the opportunities in Dundee for decommissioning oil and gas facilities. (S4O-04004)
We engage regularly with relevant parties on the opportunities that decommissioning provides. However, to maximise economic recovery from oil and gas fields, it is necessary that the United Kingdom Government acts to reinstil investor confidence.
It is also necessary to avoid the premature decommissioning of installations that serve fields that still have a viable life of further oil and gas production. To avoid such premature decommissioning, it is essential that the UK Government delivers in its March budget a package comprising substantial tax reduction measures along the lines of the package that I outlined to Parliament on 8 January this year.
That is an interesting answer, because nobody is suggesting the premature decommissioning of any facilities. Indeed, my question was not about what the UK Government was doing but about the Scottish Government.
The last time that I raised the issue, the minister told me that he had published his decommissioning strategy. He will be aware that Dundee City Council and his Scottish National Party colleagues there are engaging on the issue. Will he accept my invitation to come with me to Dundee to meet all four of the parties that I suggested in my question to determine how he can help to facilitate their really getting opportunities from that multibillion pound industrial opportunity in Scotland?
It is generous of Ms Marra to extend the invitation, but I have already had the opportunity to engage with Councillor Ken Guild, Stan Ure, Charles Hammond of Forth Ports and Scottish Enterprise staff and to have discussions with them.
We published in October 2014 the strategy “Decommissioning in the North Sea: Review of Decommissioning Capacity”. It is plain that there are significant opportunities, as has been stated, but if Jenny Marra seriously believes that there is no risk of premature decommissioning of North Sea installations, I am afraid that she is sadly mistaken, because that is precisely the risk that Oil & Gas UK has been warning the UK Government about.
Unless there is an appropriate and substantial tax reduction, a substantial number of the more than 400 existing installations in the North Sea face precisely that fate because of their ageing nature and the relatively small but still economically viable deposits of oil and gas that remain. I am hopeful that the UK Government will heed the more informed voice of Oil & Gas UK and other commentators in that regard when it makes its budget announcement in March.
Fiscal Regime (Oil and Gas)
I have a great fear of premature decommissioning.
To ask the Scottish Government, in the light of the financial impact on the industry in Scotland, what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the oil and gas fiscal regime. (S4O-04005)
I attended, as I always do, the UK Government PILOT meeting on 13 January. It was chaired by Matt Hancock, who is the current UK minister with responsibility for oil and gas. At that meeting, I summarised the Scottish Government proposals that were set out in Parliament on 8 January. I commend them to the UK Government and to our colleagues who represent the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in the Scottish Parliament.
Following the introduction of an exploration tax credit in Norway, the number of exploration wells being drilled increased substantially. Will the minister advise us whether the UK Government has indicated whether it will follow Norway’s example and introduce an exploration tax credit to boost our oil and gas industry and protect jobs?
The UK Government has not shared with us its tax proposals in the budget. To be fair to the UK Government, at the PILOT meeting the Treasury civil servant indicated that consideration is being given to introducing measures that might encourage exploration. The question is whether they will be sufficient.
Kevin Stewart pointed to Norway. In 2005, it introduced an exploration tax credit of 78 per cent. Since then, drilling has increased fourfold and the Norwegians have discovered two enormous fields, including the Johan Sverdrup field. The arithmetic is simple: exploration companies can do four drillings in the Norwegian North Sea for the cost of one exploration drilling in the UK sector. That cannot be right and that is why we have called on the UK Government to adopt the Norwegian model.
On financial impact, the Scottish Government statistics that were released today on public sector revenues show that for the last quarter of 2014, there was a 55 per cent drop in Scotland’s revenue share of North Sea oil. That was before the price of oil dropped below $50 a barrel. Can the minister advise how much that means in money terms to the Scottish budget, and does he agree that the Barnett bonus is in this case clearly preferable to full fiscal autonomy, so that we are not exposed to there being billions of pounds less revenue for public services due to the drop in oil prices?
No. However, I can inform Parliament that as per the proposals that I announced on 8 January, and according to the analysis that was carried out by Professor Alex Kemp of the University of Aberdeen, who is possibly the most respected academic commentator on this topic in the UK, an investment allowance could support between 14,000 and 26,000 jobs a year across the UK—
That was not my question.
—and the reduction in the supplementary charge could support up to 5,600 jobs per annum across the UK. Those are the realities of the matter. [Interruption.] We are having a running commentary from Labour members that is as relevant as Jackie Baillie’s question was. The answer is this—[Interruption.]
Order.
The amount of tax revenue in the future will be substantially determined by whether the tax measures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces in March are sufficient to restore investor confidence. Maximised recovery can happen only if there is investment, and investor confidence will happen only if the tax reductions are sufficient to do that and to show that the UK has learned the lessons of the several tax hikes that were delivered by Labour in 2002 and 2005, and by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in 2011.
Will the minister publish a new “Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin” with updated revenue projections?
Until such time as we know what the tax measures are going to be, it is impossible to speculate on what the revenues will be, because it is impossible to know what the investment will be. I have conducted between 10 and 15 private visits to operators in the past several weeks, mostly in Aberdeen. At one of those visits, one operator outlined precisely, to the nearest million pounds, the reduced investment—it is between £500 million and £1 billion—in the UK continental shelf as a direct result of the hike to the supplementary charge in 2011. That is why we must wait and see what the tax deal is before we speculate about what the tax revenue might be.
Economy (West Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve the economy in the West Scotland region. (S4O-04006)
The Scottish Government is committed to supporting sustainable economic growth across Scotland, including in West Scotland, through infrastructure investment and through ensuring effective business support.
West Scotland businesses benefit from business support that is delivered by our enterprise agencies and local authorities. In the past year, there have been 17 regional selective assistance awards, which have been worth more than £8.5 million and which have created or safeguarded 1,109 jobs. More than 350 jobs will be created through the recent awards from the Scottish Government’s regeneration capital grant fund.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. He will be aware that the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism recently rejected Renfrewshire Council’s proposal that an additional enterprise area theme based around creative and cultural industries be established, and that Paisley town centre be identified as the first enterprise zone with that theme. An enterprise zone in Paisley town centre would build on the existing creative and cultural strengths of Paisley and would be a welcome boost to the area in creating jobs. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary whether he will reconsider his Government’s decision to reject the council’s proposal—a proposal that would help to revitalise Paisley town centre and the local economy.
Neil Bibby will be aware that the Government set out its proposals on enterprise areas some years ago. We set out that we would develop a limited number of enterprise areas and that we would also take forward other inventive mechanisms to encourage investment, including the tax incremental finance project that I discussed with Mr MacDonald a few moments ago. The Government has responded to aspirations in communities in a range of ways in order to deliver a stronger economic future.
The logic is that we cannot have enterprise areas in every part of the country because if we do, they will lose their value in trying to tackle particular issues. I can say to Neil Bibby that one of the enterprise areas is in Ayrshire. It is focused on the life sciences sector and is bringing great rewards to the Ayrshire economy, which is a very severely challenged economy.
The final point that I will make is that, of course, right across the country we provide direct support, principally through measures including the small business bonus scheme, which will substantially help companies in areas in Renfrewshire. It is estimated that 2,475 business premises are paying either zero or reduced rates under the Government’s small business bonus scheme, which is directly beneficial to the local economy in Renfrewshire.
I ask everyone again for brief questions and answers, please.
Funding (Projects)
To ask the Scottish Government how it allocates money from the budget to capital grant funding for projects. (S4O-04007)
The spending review establishes the overarching spending priorities for the Government, while the infrastructure investment plan sets out priorities for investment and the long-term strategy for the development of public works in Scotland. The annual draft budget statement gives effect to those strategic spending plans and reflects progress as measured by the Scotland performs framework and the on-going process of debate, engagement and consultation on key areas of Government policy. The draft budget is then subject to a number of months of consultation and scrutiny.
Individual portfolios, public bodies, local authorities and other spending bodies are best placed to determine project-by-project capital grant allocations within the strategic framework.
Will the cabinet secretary examine how capital grant funding commitments could bridge spending review periods? That would allow match funding to be introduced in projects such as the University of the West of Scotland’s Lanarkshire campus in Hamilton. If progress could be made on that project, it would bring undoubted benefits, not only to the area itself, but also to the Lanarkshire economy and the wider Scottish economy.
There is in what Mr Kelly says a substantial point about long-term planning for capital projects, with which I have absolutely no disagreement at all.
The issue is this: for the period in which we are now, the Government has financial data that will provide us with clarity about our capital and resource budgets until March 2016. We have been able to offer a longer-term period of certainty because we have had financial information about the current period since the commencement of the financial year 2011-12. So, by and large, we have had about three years of programme funding to enable us to undertake such funding activity.
On the capital programme, what I said to Mr Kelly in my original answer was that the priorities of the infrastructure investment plan structure our decisions about what projects will be supported. That, essentially, pre-commits spending reviews through recognising that some projects take longer than one year to build; they almost always do.
Where we can set out longer-term financial projections, the Government will do so, but I hope that Mr Kelly understands that my ability to do that at this moment is restricted by the fact that I do not have any sight of our financial allocations beyond March 2016.
Will the finance secretary clarify the capital funding for the Anderson high school in Lerwick, which has been subject to uncertainty that has been caused by the change, from last September, to European Union rules with regard to the Scottish Futures Trust? Is he in a position to outline to me—possibly not today but at some point in the near future—when the timescale for funding on that project will be clarified, given that financial closure was due to be completed in the next couple of months?
I am very happy to brief Mr Scott on all the issues with which we are wrestling. His command of that matter is substantial already, but if he wishes to learn more about it, I will be delighted to share ever more detail with him.
We are trying to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. There has been a change to the European statistical accounts, which flows through into the United Kingdom’s accounts and then into the budgeting commitments that the Scottish Government is able to make.
I categorically assure Mr Scott that the resources are in place to support Anderson high school. The issue that we have to address is how the statistical analysis is concluded, and that work is under way. I have already shared with Parliament information on the work that we are undertaking, and I commit to updating Parliament on the question in due course. If Mr Scott would welcome further information, I would be delighted to provide it for him.
Feed-in Tariff
To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding the feed-in tariff for hydroelectricity schemes. (S4O-04008)
Since June 2013, I and my officials have raised our concerns that the feed-in tariff scheme for hydro power is defective. We have done so on seven separate occasions, but the UK Government has refused to agree to make amendments to the scheme.
I thank the minister for that response, although obviously not for its content. Is there a risk that, if amendments are not made, Scottish industry will lose out?
Yes, there is. We have a proud record of hydro schemes, with 1.5GW of capacity, which is nearly 90 per cent of total UK hydro capacity. Since 2007, we have consented to 19 hydro applications and to a further two pumped-storage hydro applications. The investment is worth more than £13.8 million to Scotland.
The flaw in the FIT mechanism has led to industry expressing to the UK Government its concerns that there is a real risk that, after the delivery of a glut of hydro developments in order to beat the next degression—it will possibly be a reduction of 20 per cent—there will be a massive curtailment of further investment. That is the worry. I have been unable to persuade the UK Government to amend the scheme, although we have had courteous discussions and it understands the problem. I am hopeful that a planned review in 2015 will, however, let sense prevail and will correct what I believe is not a political issue but a technical defect.
Tourism VAT
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the cut tourism VAT campaign. (S4O-04009)
VAT is a reserved matter, but the Scottish Government recognises the case made by the cut tourism VAT campaign and has long highlighted the current disparity in the high VAT rates that are levied by the United Kingdom Government when compared with the rates of our European competitors. Tourism remains a vital part of Scotland’s economy, and the Government is committed to driving growth in the sector, including by minimising factors that have a negative effect on Scottish tourism competitiveness.
Can the minister advise me of any evidence from elsewhere in Europe that might support the growing clamour from all sectors of the industry, not to mention 100 plus members of Parliament, for the UK Government to act in the best interests of tourism across these islands and cut the VAT rate to allow the industry to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the continent?
Yes, I can share such evidence, as it happens. Of the 28 European Union countries, 25 enjoy reduced tourism VAT, with Lithuania amending its rates this year. In fact, only Denmark and Slovenia have higher VAT rates than the UK, where the rate is 20 per cent. In particular, Ireland reduced VAT on tourism from 13.5 to 9 per cent in May 2011. That was supposed to be temporary, but it remains in place now because of the benefits that Ireland has enjoyed as a result.
Opencast Mining
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress since the most recent meeting of the opencast mining task force. (S4O-04010)
The group has made progress on both its main objectives, which are securing re-employment and progressing restoration work. The Scottish Government has urged the United Kingdom Government to give positive consideration to a proposal from industry that would enable further progress on restoration.
Will the minister update us on efforts to deliver a scheme that will extend the rebate from the carbon levy, which currently applies only to slurry, to coal mine restoration?
I have been working closely with Ian Cockburn of Hargreaves, the author of the proposals, who I understand has had constructive discussions with HM Treasury, and I have had telephone discussions with Matt Hancock and David Mundell. At a fortuitous and accidental encounter with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Granton High Street on Saturday, where coincidentally we both happened to be campaigning in connection with another event, I took the opportunity to lobby him on the matter.
I believe that there is an element of cross-party support from parties across the chamber—not the Green Party, which is absent, but possibly all other parties. I very much believe that the proposal offers the real possibility of making very substantial progress on tackling the restoration problem of the opencast mines that have been coaled out in Scotland.
I welcome the progress that is being made, and I support the principle of the Cockburn plan. I am delighted that last month Fife Council put a paper through its executive. I have lodged a motion—
Could you come to the question, please?
—to get a debate in this place. Will the minister support that motion and support having a debate here on how we move forward?
I believe that ministers are not allowed to support or sign motions, so for that reason only I will not support it.
Seriously, however, Alex Rowley makes the point well. There is cross-party support for the proposal, which would allow almost all of the restoration tasks that Scotland faces to be done. It would involve extending the exemption for slurry to restoration coal. It has considerable support within the industry and comes at a time when the coal price has fallen further, which has led to serious questions as to whether there will be further redundancies in the sector unless the proposal is enacted.
I am working with David Mundell, Matt Hancock, Danny Alexander, Alex Rowley and Murdo Fraser, who is not here, to see whether there can be a cross-party approach so that the proposal can be implemented swiftly. Otherwise, I fear that time may well be agin us.
Leuchars (Royal Air Force)
To ask the Scottish Government how it will assist businesses in Leuchars following the departure of the RAF. (S4O-04011)
The Scottish Government disagreed strongly with the United Kingdom Government’s decision to reduce the number of RAF bases in Scotland from three to one and with its decision to end the role of Leuchars as an RAF main operating base. This Government, together with its partners, including Fife Council, is working to assist businesses across Fife with investment and support to help them thrive.
The minister may be aware that some businesses in Leuchars are experiencing very significant drops in trade following the departure of two RAF squadrons last year and before the arrival of the Army later this year. It is my understanding that, despite requests, the UK Government has not been forthcoming in providing any financial assistance to date. Will the minister agree to come to Leuchars to discuss matters with the business community?
Yes. I received an invitation from Roderick Campbell, which I am happy to accept, and earlier today I had the opportunity to have a discussion with the deputy leader of Fife Council, Councillor Lesley Laird. I look forward to meeting and discussing the matters with her colleagues, on a cross-party, non-partisan basis.
The Ministry of Defence has a responsibility to communities when it pulls out of them, and I hope that it will discharge those responsibilities. People believe that the MOD has a very clear moral responsibility, which it must obtemper, and I will continue to work with Roderick Campbell and colleagues across other parties in the chamber to persuade it to do so. We will do everything that we can to assist businesses and individuals that may be affected by the decisions that the MOD has taken.
Smith Commission (Income Tax)
To ask the Scottish Government how the income tax powers recommended by the Smith commission can be implemented. (S4O-04012)
The Smith commission recommendations on income tax powers and the United Kingdom Government’s response make it clear that income tax will be a shared tax that will continue to apply on a UK-wide basis. As such, the implementation of the Smith commission’s recommendations on income tax powers is largely a matter for the UK Government.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that without full control over Scotland’s finances, and with only the limited powers that are on offer, this Parliament will always have difficulty in trying to make the type of life-changing decisions needed for the betterment of the people of Scotland?
There is a substantive point that relates to the fact that some of the measures that Parliament may wish to take forward require changes to the United Kingdom tax and benefit system to enable them to have real value for the families affected. Earlier today, I happened to have a conversation with some external stakeholders about childcare, and some of the proposals that they made would require those changes to happen. That illustrates the point that Mr Adam makes: it is only when we have the full and combined integration of those responsibilities that we can take some of the transformative decisions that our country requires.
Crown Estate (Devolution)
To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made in devolving the powers of the Crown Estate. (S4O-04013)
The Smith commission recommendations are clear that responsibility for management of the Crown Estate’s economic assets out to 200 nautical miles in Scotland should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Once the Crown Estate has been devolved, we plan to develop a new framework for the management of those assets and the associated income.
We are continuing discussions with the Crown Estate and the UK Government to ensure that the draft clauses on the Crown Estate properly implement the Smith commission recommendations. In parallel, we will bring together stakeholders in the early stage of the development of a new framework for the management of Crown Estate assets in Scotland.
Coastal communities have asked whether the proceeds of offshore renewables and of associated cables and pipelines at more than 12 miles offshore will attract revenues for their use. Is it the cabinet secretary’s intention to ensure that coastal communities will be able to access revenue from the proceeds of offshore renewables, including those relating to items at more than 12 miles offshore?
The Smith commission recommendations will enable us to ensure that island and coastal local authorities receive 100 per cent of net revenues generated from Scottish territorial waters adjacent to their coast. The arrangements for distributing income generated from the Crown Estate rights more than 12 miles offshore will be developed in Scotland by Parliament, with input from stakeholders, once the powers are devolved.
I can assure Mr Gibson that there will be full and extensive consultation with coastal communities in that process.
Please be brief, Ms Scanlon.
Some tenant farmers on the Crown Estate in Moray are concerned that their voices will not be heard during the consultation process moving towards more devolution of powers from the Crown Estate. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that within Moray the rural portfolio, the tenant farmers and local stakeholders will be involved in the process?
Mary Scanlon makes an important point. The debate about the Crown Estate often considers only the offshore activities, and there are, of course, many onshore interests of the Crown Estate. It is essential that every one of those interested parties has the opportunity to participate in the consultation. I give her an assurance that that will be the case.
Fife Council (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government what additional funding it has allocated to Fife Council to protect services. (S4O-04014)
The Scottish Government is providing Fife Council with a total revenue funding allocation of £683.1 million in 2015-16, which represents a like-with-like increase of over £3.5 million compared with the council’s funding for the current year. In addition, Fife Council will receive a capital grant allocation of £42.1 million next year, which represents an increase of £3.8 million compared with this year.
Has the leader of Fife Council signed up to an agreement to protect teacher numbers through additional funding that will be made available by the Scottish Government?
The Government has made it clear to local authority leaders that we require their response to the proposals that we set out in the budget in Parliament earlier this month by this coming Friday. I look forward to receiving confirmation to that effect from local authorities around the country.
Economy (Inverness and Nairn)
To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to boost the economy around Inverness and Nairn. (S4O-04015)
The Scottish Government has invested heavily in health, education and connectivity in the Highlands and Islands. Specific examples include the £30 million design contract for the A96 Inverness to Aberdeen dualling programme, including the Nairn bypass, and the £30 million investment by Highlands and Islands Enterprise in Inverness campus. That investment complements work being taken forward across the region to deliver sustainable economic growth.
Does the cabinet secretary share my view that transport infrastructure projects are vital drivers in stimulating the local economy? I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to dualling the A96 between Inverness and Nairn, but I believe that it is crucial that rail on the neighbouring Inverness to Aberdeen line is dualled as well. Does the cabinet secretary agree?
A number of developments are under way to support the upgrade of the Inverness to Aberdeen rail link, which is an important connection that will form part of the Government’s investment programme. We announced £170 million of investment in March 2014 in the Inverness to Aberdeen railway, which will fund improvements to increase the number of trains, improve signalling, lay infrastructure for new stations and enhance timetable services.
Thank you. That ends question time.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that you were not in the chair for question time, but I seek your advice regarding who determines whether a question is irrelevant and whether it is the Presiding Officers or, indeed, the ministers. During question time we heard from Fergus Ewing, who determined that a supplementary question was not relevant. That was not ruled as being out of order by Deputy Presiding Officer John Scott.
As Mrs Scanlon knows, because I have said it many times before, I am not responsible for the answers that come from ministers or anybody else.