This conversation is in many ways a continuation of the themes Ben and Lisa have just explored. A handful of chefs with a whole range of different experiences will now join us on stage to reflect upon what it means to be a parent in our industry. From their various perspectives as chefs, restaurant owners and managers. Tatiana Leval, Suzanne Baugh, Matt Orlando and Nicholas Eckstitt will discuss how parenting is really everyone's issue. Moderated by the talented editor-in-chief of Munchies Denmark, Lars Hineskopf, they'll talk about situations they have encountered during their careers and the ways their restaurants have tried to nourish a supportive environment and foster a better culture. Please put your hands together. Thank you, everyone. You want to sit there, Winston? My name is Lars. I work for a food website called Munchies, which means that I spent my evenings hanging out in restaurants or playing Legos with my six-year-old son, or trying to do both at the same time. As a parent, I'm lucky enough to live in this great socialist wonderland that is Denmark where there's an idea that work and life should be balanced. And that's really easy to say when you don't have to worry about that 7 a.m. delivery to your restaurant or the 1 a.m. deep clean in the kitchen. So I'm really thrilled that we have a panel here today for amazing people who know exactly what it's like balancing those two most precious things in life or trying to work out how to balance. Trying to balance. Yeah, those two most precious things in life, which are children and restaurants. If we talk about a gap between where we are now with the industry and where we'd like to be, I think this is a conversation that we can't avoid. And as we also talked about yesterday, part of that conversation is challenging this idea that this is somehow a women's issue. This is a parent's issue. It's an issue for everybody in the restaurant, for colleagues, for owners. And there's not going to be a great four-point plan at the end showing us the route to how we're going to get there. But we're going to try to do this in the spirit of the symposium so far, which seems to be about honesty and openness. And as Wade mentioned yesterday, which is really refreshing to talk about how we are imperfect as parents, that's really, really good to remind ourselves because parenting is essentially just essentially just one big guilt trip. And it's I think it's really important if we can sort of get everything out on the table, maybe we can take this conversation further. So we're going to hear from these four amazing people a little bit. We're hoping that this conversation will hopefully spark some opinions and some questions from you guys. So we'll try to leave a little bit of time at the end for everybody to chip in. But to start off, I know you know these guys really well, but we'll get the panel to introduce themselves. Is that? Oh, I'll start with me. OK. My name is Niklas Ekstedt. I'm a Swedish chef. I run my restaurants in Stockholm City. I'm a dad of two boys. One is with me now. And I try to balance my life between being a family father and running the restaurant. And as you mentioned a little bit, I mean, Sweden and Denmark are very equal in that sense. We are both in the La La Land of socialist government and amazing benefits of being a dad. But it's it's also puts even more pressure on us as being a father because socially it's not accepted not to help out at the house with your with your kids in Sweden. Almost all dads take time off parental leave when their kids is around one one and a half years old. And we have to be at school.   And yeah, so that's Swedish. Hi, everyone. I'm Suzanne Barr, a Jamaican, a Canadian American hailing from North America. Happy to be here and to see you all here. I have attempted with all to keep a balance and it's been a very difficult struggle. But I think being a woman, we have those balances. That's what we constantly do. That's what we do best. We keep a balance. So in my restaurants that I am currently working with and my restaurant that I currently I passed in the past had Saturday, I met, you know, my son being in the restaurant with me every day. Going on like on the line with me was always utterly very important for him to see myself in that position. I'm Tatiana. I'm French. I have restaurants in Paris that I run with my sister. I have a two year old daughter. She has a seven months old baby. So we run a very family business. Our babies are with us a lot. Our staff has basically seen them grow and taken lots of care of them. And it's been really, really essential to our finding our balance and making things OK for us in that matter. My name is Matt Orlando. I have a restaurant about 100 meters from here. And I am the newest addition to this group. I have a daughter. She turns one on Wednesday and I'll just be completely frank. Before we start this conversation, I am far from finding balance in this. And that's why I'm really excited to talk about it, because you have all these emotions inside you. And this is a I just want to just roll over me right now. It is an emotional roller coaster and maybe just to start with you, Matt, remember you're telling me this, maybe you were in that early station parenting haze, but you wanted to go back and work like early stage, within hours of your beautiful daughter being born. Yes, this is one of those just surreal. When I think about it, it's a surreal situation that I can't believe even happened. I was my wife, Yulia and my daughter over there. But Yulia went into labor and we went to the hospital and gave birth.  And I just need to go to the restaurant for a few hours. And and she was like, OK, let me. But I'm my wife being the most amazing, beautiful, understanding, supportive person was like, OK, I'll call my parents to come and hang out. And then and I was like, OK, cool. And then some time went by and it just kind of. And like hit me like a ton of bricks.  And and I actually sent Christian a text message saying, hey, I'm really not going to be able to be there tonight. I'm really sorry. But Yuli just gave birth and he just his response was what? I had. Yeah, that's fine. I don't even I don't even know why we're having this conversation right now. But it just it goes to show you as chefs, we are so just consumed by what we do that you and when something new, like having a daughter comes into your life, you only know one way to act.  And it's it was it's like I said, I'm still searching for the holy grail of having a restaurant, having a daughter, having a wife. I mean, like I said, I'm I'm the luckiest guy on the planet for for Yulia. And I just I'm so thankful for that. And that just maybe sometimes she's too forgiving. And, you know, it's just it's really difficult. And and it's emotionally and guilt driven. And also, it's an amazing thing for Sonia to know when she grows up that she means more to you than Christian Puglisi. Absolutely. Oh, I finished it. That's awesome. Yeah, we were showing some really sort of sappy pictures before of a wonderful kids in in kitchens and and elsewhere. And there was one of you's to send where miles is in a sling while you're chopping onions. So what's going on? Could you maybe just I know you were talking about you wanted to take a longer break before you went back into the restaurant. You were back in there within five, six weeks. Yeah. Could you just talk us through how that whole process was for you? Yeah, definitely. You know, in Canada, very much like here and it's a socialist country. So you have the option to actually, you know, take time off if you're either self-employed or if you are not self-employed if you work for a company.  I just knew that I was going to have this baby. And then maybe take some time off and then go back to work.   And I said, okay, what's going on? And he's just like, well, I know what's been happening. He's like, I need to meet with you and Johnny because you guys are having a baby. And I was like at a red light. What?  And then also like, what are you saying? And as I continued to drive to the restaurant, I pulled up and my husband's out and he's like, okay, so you're ready for tonight. It's opening night. I'm like, yeah, I just talked to the doctor and he's just told me that we're having a baby and this fucking, you know, we got so much to do. And he's like, wait, what did you just say? And it changed my life. So the same night that I found out that I was having a baby was the same night that I found out that I opened my restaurant. It was the same night I found out I was having a baby. So I had two babies at the same moment and it just kind of opened up a whole new life for me. And, you know, culturally, as women of color and black people, we have our children with us at all times. That's what my grandmother did. That's what my mother did. That's what I do. My son is always on me. So when I returned to the kitchen, I knew where else was he going to be with me on the line. I had a very small kitchen. I had three chefs next to me and in between service, in between tickets coming through, I was off the line breastfeeding, then I was back on the line. And that's what we do. That's what we do as women. We create those possibilities, those realities, because we don't have any other choices. We have, we choose to do what feels right and what felt right for me was exactly what I did. And what I do every day and I don't ever regret one moment and I'll open up a restaurant any time. Anybody out here wants to open a restaurant? Let's go. But it's a it's a wonderful, wonderful thing. Speaking about opening restaurants, my Swedish wife helped me do a bit of Google before I got here. And she pointed out that because because Eckstad has been interviewed both for Swedish mama magazine and also for Swedish papa magazine. So. Oh, God, a bit of an authority on the subject. I don't know how I became a role model for dads and moms. But but in those interviews, you talk a lot about how having a child changed your perspective and outlook on the industries from sort of seeing it from a gastronomic point of view, so more human. Yeah, definitely.  I don't know if some, you know, a lot of people who've probably been with two kids, it's not being off. It's it's a lot of time and it's time consuming to be home with kids. It's like it's actually nice to go back to work, you know.  It's it's difficult. So it's not it's, you know, the restaurant business is pretty easy compared to parenthood, actually. It's like so, yeah. So, I mean, I don't know. But, you know, I've always been kind of very soft going in the kitchen and I have a very like very I very good temper. So I never scream and and actually it's I I'm almost like chefs and cooks in Sweden know that I treat my kitchen a little differently than other other like top restaurants. So it's it's good and bad because the bad part of it that everyone that applies for a job for me, either pregnant or have two kids at home. So it's so I'm so and but the good thing with it is that I get a lot of attention of the way that I run the restaurant. So all dads get to take a year off with their kids. Well, we're lucky that, you know, it's the government's pace for it, but it's it's socially accepted and it's kitchen very accepted in the kitchen so everyone can return. So actually I have right now as we speak, I have three head chefs. So two head chefs that run the restaurant and then one that's at home and then they roll and and all of them have small children. So it's it works and it's it's a system that that, you know, I think I have a great restaurant, but of course it wouldn't be easier if I wouldn't have had this approach towards life. But it's it works, you know, and then on the other hand and then did that room and kind of spread and like how I treat my stuff when they with their kids and how I am with my kids that they are very hands on the help out in the kitchen. And it's very like like that. So and that's why a lot of newspapers and magazines interview me in in these subjects. And that's probably why I'm why I'm sitting here now. But but it's also changed your gastronomy because, you know, it's like with having a family, it's kind of like you need to cook at home as well. You know what I mean? Like everyone knows how you change your perspective as a chef because when you don't have a family and you work at a top restaurant, you never eat at home.  You you don't have you don't have a kitchen. I mean, when I before I had a family, I had I didn't even have milk in my refrigerator. I don't know why I had a refrigerator. It was just like so suddenly kind of changes you because you need to cook for the family. And that and and you know, kids are difficult eaters. They are they are your most difficult critics. And so that changes you cannot figure out how to cook at home as well. So yeah, it changes. It changes in many different perspectives.  That turned out pretty good. How scary was it to face up to sort of family life? And well, it it worked out really well. My daughter's turning two.  I have a team in the kitchen that's been with us since the beginning. And I was actually having a conversation. I think with you saying that I took almost four months, which is huge for France. And I was talking to someone Danish and and was like, that's not a lot at all. But I was I was for me and for France, it's a lot. And I'm very proud to be able to have done that. And I live right by the restaurant. So I go there every I went there every day with the baby. And so did my sister when she had her. So we got to get some time off. It's still in the middle of how we're trying to run things now. We just opened a new restaurant. So it was new problematics of like scheduling and and working around everyone's schedule. The teams, the families we had for a month are our wonderful husbands roaming around the restaurant on weekends with the strollers. Just wondering what to do when they could come in to eat. And and thanks to them and the team. We got to see our daughters because they were like in the restaurant all the time. But yeah, one of one thing that happened was that at some point, one of the new members of the staff was a bit surprised that our babies were always in our feet. And like suddenly spoke up and said, well, what about what about our families?  And I felt like I was I was some I was being attacked. My family was being attacked. And then I gave it some thought and I was thinking, yeah, well, what about his family? And now I think the next step is what about their families? The younger ones, the ones who don't have one yet. And and how are they going to be able to do that with less responsibility or an or a less flexibility? Now, this is this also sounds very good. Like we found some balance in life here. But if you sort of rewind to when you started out in this career, when you guys were young cooks or you could have been in front of a house, like would it ever pass through your mind that you could have a child?  I mean, we actually talked more about not having kids. And I don't think we ever formally had a conversation about having a kid.  But she came to me and she, I'm a avid collector of rare new balances. And she came to me and she gave me a little, a little pair of new balances in a box like this big. And my brother just had a kid. I was like, oh, this is so cool. These are for Jacks. This is so cool. And she looks at me, she goes, nope. These are not for Jacks. And I, it was the first dose of this emotion because I had not at one point, I just looked at her and it felt like exactly what was supposed to be happening. I didn't regret it or I didn't question it. I didn't, it just kind of was, it just, she said it to me and it was like, it was almost like this certain piece kind of fell over me. And you know, there's so many things you think you're look, you're, it seems like before you have kids and you, everyone who has kids can attest to this, it feels like you're constantly looking for something to satisfy you and whether that's traveling and doing this and doing that. And you're always searching for that thing. And then when you have a kid, all of a sudden that desire goes away because that's what I think instinctually you've been looking for it that you didn't have. And, but along with that comes this, obviously great responsibility. And I think that is the most emotionally the most challenging part of kind of, I think the position that I'm in is I think everyone here is in that works in the industry that has kids, is that you've, you're so attached to your restaurant and you put everything into it, your soul, your heart and you really put yourself out there. And then it's so hard to let that go a little bit and guilt is a huge part of this. And you're sitting there breaking down a beef back and all of a sudden you're thinking to yourself, what am I doing here? Like my daughter's at home and it's, and you're just like, how do, how do I fix this? And then of course that goes away and it comes in waves and I don't, I'm far from having the answer to that and I am, I'm still really searching for that and but there's this, for me also I have this, I really love to be in the kitchen and I also, I knew, I know how it was when I was a young cook and you really look up to the person that you work for and I felt, I feel, I felt and I still do feel guilty when I leave at 10 30 at night instead of staying till the end for the clean down and talking about the next day. I have, I still feel guilty about that. I don't wanna feel guilty about that. I feel bad about even feeling guilty about that but I'm not gonna lie, I feel guilty about it. And I had an amazing conversation with Max who is about to become the first head chef at a mass in October and he and I talk a lot mostly about kind of personal stuff and emotions and stuff like that because he's a really interesting, smart individual and we had a conversation about six months ago and I was telling him about this, like, you know, I was trying to tell him, you know, I'm gonna try to start leaving an hour or two early every night because I feel you're taking your, you can do that.  And I really like to get that reassertion from you. If you put your hand on your heart and be honest for you guys, have there been that moment when somebody came into your kitchen and said, whether that's front of house or cook said, I'm about to have a child and your first initial thought was, oh, for fuck's sake. Yeah, of course, every time. I mean, it's in your mind or it's not on your tongue, right?  Of course, it puts you as an employer. It makes, I mean, to be honest, I mean, it makes your life more difficult when you have a lot of employees with kids because they're unpredictable, you know, they're unpredictable. You don't know if they're gonna show up or not because they have the responsibility at home. If their kids have like vomiting or chicken pox or anything, of course they need to stay at home and it's hard in our industry because it's not like you work at a desk and someone can do it the day afterwards. You know, the guests are there, they need to be fed and the miss and plus need to be made. So it's like, it's either now or never. I mean, so I find it really, really difficult but it's a challenge and we have other challenges. How do we change that story for the next person who thinks having children is the end of their career in the cook? Well, at Saturday dinette, I actually sought out for mothers because I wanted to be able to bring them into an environment that was nurturing. So I worked with an organization in Canada called the Massey Center and I worked, we were currently working on a program and I have been working on a program called the Dinettes Program and it's to employ young women between the ages of 18 and 29 and because I feel that the future of kitchens and the future of this industry has to look at women and our position and mothers and our positions and yes, I'm scared that someone comes into my kitchen and tells me that they are about to have a kid but I'm like, okay, bring your kid to the kitchen. So, you know, I'm making all attempts if and when I open up another restaurant to be able to find a space where I can have the kids I have in-house daycare. That's a reality. Why can't we create that reality? Where you come on, you come into a restaurant and you feel that vibe when children are around. The children aren't a nuisance. Children are the future. We look at the children to see what's gonna happen and so I feel like if I can bring a child into a space, a mother into a space and give them training and in confidence and education, then I feel like they're gonna lead and they're gonna continue to lead and they're gonna raise the next man because I'm a mother that's raising a young man.  I'm raising a man and I'm a female black chef cooking in North America and it's my utmost love and desire to be able to show him the way because the way is coming from the root which is us as leaders and as mothers and I solely feel that when I employ these young ladies into my kitchen and I invite any young woman to challenge an asset of their employers and then of their staff and their peers to support them as well for employment opportunities because that's really what's gonna see the future of hospitality. That's gonna see the future of culinary arts and graduating from universities and colleges and such and programs that really nurture that and understand that and support that. I wanted to open it up to the audience now to see if you guys have any opinions and stories that you want to share. So we're gonna pass some microphones out. It's really important that you hang on to the microphone and wait until you got it and then state your name and keep hold of the microphone. So we have somebody over here in the front. I have an 18-year-old and a 14-year-old so I've raised kids in the restaurant industry my entire career. I'm curious and I've worked under chefs. I'm a pastry chef so I never owned my own space but I've worked under chefs that at the time didn't have kids but were for some reason or another they had no business understanding what I was trying to do but allowed me especially my daughter to pretty much be raised not to the extent of Susanna Myles but they would let Maggie Donovan come in and hang out in the restaurant while I prepped all day. So my daughter, she's the youngest was pretty much raised in the restaurant while I was there. Since then, I mean this is years ago, she's 14. Two chefs in particular that I worked under have come back to me since we're still friends, we talk a lot, they both have kids now and they have said to me like we had no idea what you were trying to juggle and the culture of their restaurants have changed remarkably since they've had kids and I'm just curious, some of you just had kids so maybe you don't see the results yet but I'm kind of curious, of course, parenthood changes you as a person, I'm curious how it's changed you as chefs. Do you want to know, Tatiana? Well it's quite recent actually. But it has changed, I think we've just started to give it more thought as to how we can make things easier because what I remember is while I was working for others, I did not see how it would have been possible to have a child before I had my own place. I don't see any of my former chefs letting me come to work with my baby. I'm not saying that it would be possible for us to do that, we work in really small spaces but we have been giving it a lot of thought. Most of our staff is under 25 so they're still really young but I think that it's really put things into perspective and we've been really thinking of how we can give people more freedom in their work and they're organizing their day if they had a child and if they had to juggle with daycare and nightcare because it's also our realities, nightcare as well. Things like that, just like practicalities, how we can make things practically okay for them. I also think that we should push governments and politicians way harder to make it easier for restaurant employees. We do put a lot of pressure on chefs and employers but the amount of tax, the VAT here is 25% of Denmark, right? One fourth of everything that you've paid this week going to restaurants around town goes straight into the government's pockets and they should pay nightcare, make it beneficial for people who work night because the city is not only run during the day, it's run during night as well so we need to socially make it easier for people. Got any other questions or comments out there? Hello, so my name is Kasper, I'm a local Dain.  I want... I didn't start out as a chef. I worked in the film industry for 15 years as an executive producer. I've been a chef for 13 years and I always thought if I ever have kids, I'm an older mom, I have my son at 38 and I'm 42 now and I always thought how much of what I've done in my life do I want my kids to be a part of because I come from two working class parents that had really hard jobs and the first entrepreneur I ever met was my father and I couldn't be more proud of what my dad gave to me and so if I can give that gift to my son, by all means, as long as he's happy, as long as he's creating and doing the thing that inspires him the most, passion is gonna drive him and if it's becoming a chef then that's what it's gonna be. Well said. Any other guys that had that moment like then, were you not used to where you thought I'm just gonna become a stand-up comedian instead? Is this too rough or? I definitely have not had that moment. For me, I don't, I personally, I don't like to, and I don't want this to come out bad, Dan, it's not like being a stand-up comedian is running away from anything but I don't want to run away from anything. I want to hit it head-on and like how can I figure out the situation I'm in and having a kid has really changed the way I think. It's forced me to really evaluate my day. That's kind of where I'm at right now. How do I reduce my, be more efficient so I can have that extra hour and a half in the morning with her and come home earlier and just be efficient and feel like I had a good day at work. So as a chef, from a chef's standpoint, that's how having a kid has affected me and, but no, I couldn't imagine being anything other than a chef and having a kid. I can't wait to show my kid this business. I love this industry to the bottom. It saved my life, you know, it showed me so much respect, work ethics, food, it made, you know, it's made me a possibility for me to travel the world. Yeah. We gotta be proud as well. This is a beautiful industry. I mean, being in food today is so much fun compared to it was 20 years ago when I started. We've done a lot of change and we're heading the right way, I think. So, yeah. Yeah. This is somebody else who missed. We've got somebody up here on the right, front of the stage. Just hang on the mic. Yes. Thank you. Hi, my name's Jared. I just wanted to, it's not really a question. I just wanted to share a story in relation to this. I, quite a few years ago, I was a sous chef at a very reputable restaurant in Australia and I was on a trajectory to become its head chef and this all happened the same time I found out I was going to have a kid. And essentially, I made a decision that these unrelenting hours weren't gonna allow me to have a family that would survive. And I wasn't in a position like someone like you, Matt, who owns the place and can make a decision to step out and give someone control. I had no control over the matter. So a week after my son was born, I resigned from that position and I just kind of wanted to fill some people who are thinking about having a kid and grappling with that idea that my career couldn't have ended up better than where I am now. And it's a difficult decision to make, but if you talk to the right people and get the support you need, seriously, I've never looked back and it still can work out okay. So yeah, that's it. What do you do now, sorry? I'm a chef still. I'm a head chef in a restaurant and it's a long story, but I couldn't be happier than the position I'm in right now and I've never been an introductory alman since making that decision. Yeah, that's it. So if we sort of look beyond the political level, we can't introduce Scandinavian socialists everywhere. Well, we can eventually. What is not without a struggle and a fight? It's terribly overhyped. I mean, how can we foster a better culture in the kitchen that will make people stay and commit to these careers? Listening, listening to your staff. I think that's the first step and there's so many things that this symposium is trying to address. So many issues and so many things everyone wants to talk about and there is a culture, there's a culture of hard work and commitment and work ethic in the kitchen and that is gonna be a hard culture to change. So if we are going to be in the kitchen or be in the dining room and work hard, I think what we need to address is the environment in which we're doing that and how do we make an environment that people wanna be there in and make an environment that caters to someone having a kid and I don't have that answer. I can barely figure it out for myself right now, but I'm looking for it and I'm having conversations for the last two days with this crew up here has really kind of opened my eyes to possibilities that I've never thought of before and I think it's about how do we share this with each other and how do we share our experiences to kind of gain knowledge, to make decisions and also not feel guilty about stuff you're doing. I think being on this panel and being a part of this conversation has so much to do with the community and being able to find that community where you feel that you can actually share some of these things because we were in the back talking in preparation for this and what came out of our talk in the back for me was that the three of us had a moment of wanting to shut our doors and you actually shut your doors of your restaurant when you knew you were gonna have a child and when you gave birth and that you came home with that baby and you're like, how can I do this? And I have been in Canada for five years and my son is three and when that happened for me, I felt so alone. I felt like I couldn't talk to anyone because I had to look a certain way. I had a good rest. We were a busy restaurant and I was in that position where I had a team. They looked to me for everything but I was so scared. I was so freaked out. I was so alone. I didn't know who to go to but I did then find that I could go to a community and I started to surround myself with people that were not necessarily in the industry but people that would just listen and finding people to talk to and that you trust that are gonna hear you and that you're gonna be able to do that for them if they need that support because it's a real testament of our strengths and our weaknesses as humans and then as now chefs and restaurateurs and artists and all the things that we do. And I think that it's, like you said, we're still just trying to figure it out. What I do a lot in the restaurant is that I rest the space for someone. So if they wanna take off for a year or two years, they're always welcome back. So letting them know that they're always welcome back to the position they had when they leave, I think it's a great way to letting people relax and being able to think like, well, I can get back to this job if I want to. And I think also if you have a partner, it's great to take turns. Both of you don't need to do the career at the same time.  So that's how we've been balancing it a lot. On that note of inspiration, I would like you all to thank the panel for the talk. Thank you very much.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jasper's casebreaks.com, coming out to a 2015 Panini National Treasures Collegiate Multisport. It's the last random number block break from that case. That's how it works. Big thanks to this group for making it happen. There are the numbers right there. Let's go. Let's roll it. Let's randomize names and numbers. 3 and a 1, 4 times each. 1, 2, 3 and a 1, 4 times. Nick O, down to E, K. 3 and a 1, 4 times for the numbers. 1, 2, 3 and 4. We got 1, down to 3. Alright, so Nick with 1, Travis with 7, Michael with 5, Eric with 9, Diane with 0, Nick with 8, Danny with 4, Travis with 6, Eric with 2 and 3. Now 0 gets any and all redemptions, including one-of-one redemptions, but as is the risk with old product like this, Diane, unfortunately the redemptions in here are expired, but you can still contact Panini to see if they can get something back for you. We're going to pause the video to see if there's any trades, and we'll come back and do that final box. Be right back. Alright, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. No deals are done here. So the list remains the same. Good luck, everybody. Remember we made that squiggly mark on here so we all know it's from the same case. Thanks, everyone, for making this happen. I appreciate it. A little snap of the NT box right there, classic. What treasures we have in here. A couple base cards on the bottom. All number styles, so here we go, out of 99. Magic Johnson, 19 out of 99. So if you're not familiar with the number lock, we go by that digit right there, so that'll go to Eric and the number 9. 225, Mario Edwards Jr., also going to Eric. From Eric to Derek, 6 out of 99, going to Travis, number 6.  That'll be for Eric and the number 9. Got a triple Relic, but no randomizers because it's a number block. It's 93 out of 99. This LSU trio, Aeronola, Alex Bregman and Andrew Stevenson. It'll be for Eric and the number 3. Speaking of Alex Bregman, there he is. Colossal RPA, 24 out of 25. This LSU, purple and gold. That will be for Danny and the number 4. Oh, here's a nice one coming. Don't see this guy's auto too often. All right, so there you go, Danny. It's Craig Biggio to 25. 20 out of 25 in his Seton Hall gear. What's a Seton Hall? And that'll be for number 0. That's for Diane. All right, next is Trey Waynes to 25. 17 out of 25. Rookie Autograph. And that'll be for Travis and the number 7. Ooh, and a plate, patch and auto. An on-plate auto. It's an LSU basketball player. It is Jordan Mickey. One of one. It's going to go to Nick and the number 1. And all aboard the Big Hit Express. Woo-hoo! Two-color passion auto, Blake Trehan. 65 out of 99. It's going to go to Michael and the number 5. We've got a relic and then a book. We've got out of 25. Jeremy Hill. A lot of LSU in this box. 18 out of 25. Nick Ozer. Where's Justin Clement? There you go. Nick, number 8. And the last one here is Miles Turner. 34 out of 99. Nice. It's not bad at all. I just got an extension with the Pacers. Danny with the number 4. Not bad. There you go, gang. I'm Joe for Jazky's casebreaks.com. Thanks for watching. Thanks for breaking with us. It's time for the next one. Bye-bye.


As a Purdue student, Dave Ricks took classes in Lily Hall of Life Sciences. Today, the Industrial Management grad leads Eli Lilly and company. I'm Dave Ricks, Chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly. Lilly is a global pharmaceutical company and so my role is to oversee the development, discovery of drugs and global shipment and production of those to patients around the world. I started out in engineering, ended up graduating from Cranard with an Industrial Management, Industrial Engineering degree. I remember many of my professors, but maybe the most pronounced one was a professor in Cranard who taught finance here for many, many years. She had a very interesting classroom style and I do remember early in that class she would cold call frequently on students. I think I had slunk into the back of the class in an early morning and instantly was awoken with my name and a request to talk about a case we were doing. She kept you on your toes, but I learned a lot from her. She was a great professor here. The giant leap for me was being offered and accepting the role of COV, LaLilien Company, Fortune 200 company, the biggest private employer in Indiana and a company with a proud, proud history. I still sort of wake up and pinch myself at that. Well, the footprints I hope to leave, because I'm early in my position here with Purdue will be two. One is the people we hire and who will carry forward my organization, Lilly, into the future. I'm proud to say that there's more Purdue grads at Lilly than any other school we hire from, almost three times as many as the next school. We hire some good people, but if we can equip our company with great talent from this university for the future, I'll feel very good about that. That will be a footprint. The other is we've set up a research collaboration with Purdue to help us unlock nature's secrets and create better medicines for patients in the future. It stretches across many schools here, and it's something I was proud to initiate early in my tenure as CEO, and I hope to see products come out of that before I leave this job. Thanks to Purdue, I learned the lesson of hard work. I think that's what sticks out the most. Most people get into Purdue are pretty successful.  And so Purdue really taught me that key lesson. Everything worthwhile takes a lot of hard work.


The most important thing to have, I believe, in this kind of journey is to have a goal, a sense of purpose of what is it that you want to achieve and what is it that you, a most compelling purpose, and this is the important source of energy. You need powerful energy, you need unrelenting perseverance, you need unwavering determination. Having clarity in the vision and having the conviction in the vision for the future is the key ingredient and driven by the opportunity to build an institution that would have future resilience. And this is what we want to do. We've heard in the first session how building is what you want to do for the future. Of course, as a career central banker for more than three decades, I'm fiercely passionate about the business and build the emotional resilience to persevere. Some of the work that we do may take years, especially in the area of collaboration with other parts of the world, whether it's the Asian region or the Middle East in Islamic finance or with the world at large, and sometimes these results have yet to emerge. The transformation of our bank involved changing the way of living in the bank of the 2,700 staff workforce that we had to become strategically aligned to the objectives. When we sat around in a retreat, more than 100 of us, to discuss what is the mandate of the bank, what is it that we want to achieve, so many suggestions were put forward, and at the end of two days everyone thought, how are we ever going to put it all together? Well, what you see on the screen is a mind map that I drew, bringing all the ideas together to say that this is what we are going to work towards achieving, and everyone needed to be aligned to it, whether you were doing supervision or whether you were doing managing reserves or whether you were managing the economy. Everyone had to know what they could contribute to these outcomes. Then we applied technology so that we would be highly connected within the organization and with the external world around us. This was also a massive change. Then we adopted a different approach to managing talent. Some of them who didn't have the inclination for the new environment had to leave. The governance process was changed, and that governance process affected me significantly in that decision making was no longer by a single decision maker. A major decisions were made by committees, the Monetary Policy Committee. Previously the governor just called a few people, or there could be a meeting, an ad hoc meeting, and they would discuss whether interest rates should be raised or reduced. Well, we changed that. There's a specific Monetary Policy Committee, then there is a financial stability committee, and so on. The decision making process became more collegial. For me, I always was and still am a good listener. I used to listen to everybody's views, and I encouraged diversity in the group. Of course we changed our approach to working. Every important piece of work had a cross-functional team. It was no longer by specific departments. Everyone who used to work in silos, breaking that silo mentality, was very challenging. But there's tremendous collaboration across the organisation now, and it's enhanced our decision making process, the output, the quality of our output.


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