 rydym yn cael eu swyddo ymddorol a chael ei ffrindwyr ei ddylai i gyd yn Cymru. Rwy'n cael eu rhai gyda'r unig yn canol maen nhw, ac mae'n cael eu fod yn i'ch ffordd i'r tynnu i'r Fygon. Felly mae'r ddau'r newid yn ddod ag y cyffredinant yn gweithio ac mae'n cael ei ffônwyl iaith cyffredinant i'r ddau? 10 min. In light of correspondence that I received from the UK Government on Friday, I wanted to take an early opportunity to update Parliament on the Scottish Government's plans to fully mitigate the impacts of the bedroom tax on the 72,000 families across Scotland who are affected by it. The Scottish Government has been consistent in our view that the only legal way to make regular and on-going payments directly to tenants to compensate them for the loss of housing benefits suffered as a result of the bedroom tax is through discretionary housing payments administered by local authorities. We have also been clear that the cost of fully mitigating the bedroom tax would be up to £50 million a year. As members are aware, councils will receive £15 million this year from the DWP to spend on discretionary housing payments, leaving a potential shortfall of £35 million on the funding that is required to fully mitigate the bedroom tax. As members are also aware, John Swinney made this additional £35 million available in the Scottish Government's budget for this year, with the express intention of fully mitigating the impact of this tax. £20 million of this additional funding has already been allocated to councils. I can advise Parliament that the distribution of this money between councils was agreed at the COSLA leader's meeting on 25 April. This agreement allows us to target the funding as much as possible according to need. I am happy to confirm that, as a result, 12 councils already have the funds that they need to fully mitigate the bedroom tax in their local areas. The remaining 20 councils have been allocated funding up to the limit of the Westminster-imposed cap on how much each council is allowed to spend on discretionary housing payments. However, that still leaves them short of what they need to fully mitigate the bedroom tax. The remaining £15 million that the Scottish Government has set aside is intended to make up this shortfall, but it cannot be provided to local authorities until the DHP cap is lifted. That is why I wrote to Iain Duncan-Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on 31 January, asking him to lift the cap on DHPs. A move that I should say will cost the DWP absolutely nothing. On a further five occasions, I raised the issue personally with the Deputy Prime Minister at the Joint Ministerial Committee in London. I am grateful to the convener of the welfare reform committee, who wrote to the DWP in similar terms, and to a number of organisations outside this Parliament, including COSLA, who have been making the same demand of the DWP. It is fair to say that the delay in receiving a response from the UK Government has been deeply frustrating. While pressing for an answer, we have also been considering an alternative method of getting money to those who need it, but it has always been the case that DHPs are the best and the most effective means of doing so. I was therefore pleased to finally receive a positive response from David Mundell, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, on Friday, in which he stated, and I quote, "...I am aware that the Scottish Government has indicated that it would like to spend additional funds on DHPs in Scotland. I am writing to you today to offer to provide Scottish ministers with a power to set the statutory cap in Scotland. I propose to do so using section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998." It is important to stress, as I think will be obvious from the quote that I have just read out, that the UK Government has not agreed to lift the cap, but instead to transfer powers to Scottish ministers to allow us to do so. I welcome that, but it does mean that the legal process to effect the transfer of power will have to be completed before the Scottish Government can then lay an order to actually lift the cap. As members will appreciate, that two-stage process will take longer than would have been the case had the UK Government decided to lift the cap itself. It is therefore vital that we move to get the process under way and completed as soon as possible. Section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides an order-making power for the transfer of executive functions from UK ministers to Scottish ministers. In this case, it is proposed to transfer to the Scottish Government executive responsibility for the exercise of the power contained in the Child Support Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 to vary the DHP cap. The procedure for making a section 63 order is set out in the Scotland Act. Firstly, the terms of a draft order require to be agreed between the Scottish and the UK Governments. The order then requires to be laid before both parliaments for agreement, and ultimately it has to be considered and approved by the Privy Council. I have written to David Mundell to accept the UK Government's offer to transfer the power and to indicate that my officials will work with UK Government officials on the detail of the order. I can also advise Parliament that I will be meeting with David Mundell tomorrow to discuss the draft order and the timescales for agreeing its final terms for laying it before both parliaments and for having it considered by the Privy Council. I will undertake to write to MSPs as soon as I can to provide an update on the likely timescales for each stage of that process, including of course the parliamentary scrutiny stage and indeed the timescale for the completion of that process. When the section 63 order is taken effect, Scottish ministers will then be able to lay an order, varying or lifting the cap on DHPs. We will ensure that that order allows the entirety of the £50 million that is available to be utilised. We will also ensure that the order is laid as quickly as possible. Although there is, as I am sure members, will appreciate still much work to be done to ensure that this process is completed both smoothly and quickly, it is important today to stress that local authorities should now plan on the basis that all losses of housing benefit incurred by social tenants due to the bedroom tax can be fully mitigated. 35 million of the available funding has already been allocated. As I said earlier, 12 councils already have sufficient funds to fully mitigate the bedroom tax in their own areas, and those councils still with a shortfall can now plan on the basis that that shortfall will be met in full. I will shortly respond to a letter from the president of COSLA to give local authorities these reassurances in writing, and I can assure Parliament that we will start working with COSLA immediately to ensure a distribution of the remaining funds that will get the money to where it is needed in order that the bedroom tax is fully mitigated in every local authority area in Scotland. I want today to encourage local authorities to review their own discretionary housing payment procedures to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to tenants applying for a DHP. The point about encouraging and enabling tenants to apply for DHPs is a very important one. What the Scottish Government is able to do is mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax. Unfortunately, we are not yet able to legally abolish the bedroom tax. That means that tenants are still legally responsible for the rent due as a result of the reduction in their housing benefit. It is important to send a very clear message to social tenants today. If you are affected by the bedroom tax, help is available, but you must apply for this help. You must engage with your landlord and apply for a DHP as soon as possible to enable you to pay the shortfall in your rent. You should do so even if you have been refused a DHP in the past. Let me be clear today. As a result of Scottish Government action, there will be no need for anyone to fall into rent arrears or face eviction as a result of the bedroom tax. I hope that this statement has been helpful in setting out the steps that we now require to take to make good on our commitment to fully mitigate this iniquitous tax. I am proud that this Parliament has come together to protect those affected by the bedroom tax, and I want to thank those in the chamber, those on the Labour benches who have worked with us to achieve this. However, I will close with this reflection. There can surely be no better or stronger illustration of the need for this Parliament to have powers over welfare than the scandal of the bedroom tax. It simply cannot be right—it is not right—that a tax is imposed on Scotland against our will by a Westminster Government that we did not vote for, forcing the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to divert money from other devolved responsibility to mitigate its impact, and then to add insult to injury for us to have to jump through legal hoops to be able to spend the money that we have set aside. That makes no sense whatsoever. What would make sense is for this Parliament, rather than having to mitigate the bedroom tax, to instead have the power to ensure that we do not have a bedroom tax in the first place. With full powers over welfare and taxation, this Government and this Parliament will be able to make the right decisions for the people of Scotland on those vitally important matters, and that will be a much better position for all of us. The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on issues raised in her statement. I intend to only 20 minutes for questions, and then we must move on to next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press the request-to-speak button now. Can I tell members at the outset that we are extremely tight for time all afternoon, so can you keep the questions as short as possible and the answers as short as possible too? In that way, I hope to allow everybody to get in, Jackie Baillie. I thank the cabinet secretary for an advance copy of her statement. This day has indeed been a long time coming. In fact, it's been over a year since Scottish Labour called for the SNP to help people struggling with the bedroom tax, and the SNP have rejected our calls at every turn, preferring to use people's misery to boost their vote in the referendum instead of using the powers that they have now. Be in no doubt that they have those powers. We demonstrated that, but the SNP preferred to blame the Tories instead of looking at what they can do now to protect people. It took mass campaigns, petitions to the Parliament and a member's bill to force them to act. The SNP bowed to that pressure last September and announced an extra £20 million as a response to the member's bill, but it fell well short of what was required. Finally, at the budget in February, in response to Labour's persistent calls, it finally agreed to fully mitigate the bedroom tax. Every step of the way, we have pushed and pulled the SNP along. The delay is theirs. I want to know why it has taken more than a year for action to be taken by the Scottish Government. I welcome absolutely the transfer of power from the UK Government to the Scottish Government using a section 63 order. We could have done that a lot quicker. We need to be swift in implementation so that the burden of the bedroom tax is lifted from everyone in Scotland. The cabinet secretary agrees that the bedroom tax is wrong. She agrees that it should be fully mitigated. Does she therefore agree, given the underspends in some local authority areas, to cancel out any bedroom tax debt for 2013-14? Cabinet Secretary, it did not take Jackie Baillie long to shatter any sense of consensus. I have already made clear in my statement that I agree with Jackie Baillie about the importance of moving swiftly now to get those powers and to exercise them. I will undertake on behalf of the Scottish Government again to do everything in our power to do so. The fact of the matter is that the Scottish Government all along has done everything within our powers and our resources to mitigate the bedroom tax. It is not easy for John Swinney to find millions of pounds to mitigate a policy imposed by a Westminster Government. Last year, we found £20 million, and this year, John Swinney has found £35 million. Interestingly, the Labour administration and Wales last year found a grand total of £1.3 million, and so far this year has contributed nothing, as far as I am aware, to mitigating the bedroom tax. Perhaps Labour should spend more time directing its remarks to its own colleagues. In continuing to attack the Scottish Government on the bedroom tax, Labour is aiming at the wrong target. The responsibility for the bedroom tax and the consequences of the bedroom tax lie with the UK Government. We are doing what we can to mitigate it, and that should be welcome. However, mitigating a policy will never ever be as good as having the power to abolish that policy. That is why Labour's position on this, however sincere it might be, will always lack credibility for as long as it is content to leave the powers over welfare in the hands of a Tory Government at Westminster. Alex Johnson Can I take this opportunity, for no one else will, to pay tribute to the work of David Mundell MP, who has gone to such great efforts to ensure that an alternative plan was put in place should this Government have decided to take it up? His shuttled diplomacy around Scotland's local authorities and now the solution that has been placed in the hands of this Government which not only demonstrates the effectiveness of the devolved settlement but also solves the problem by devolving additional powers, something that this Government has always been keen on. And while this Government and the majority opposition party argue about the success of their various campaigns, can I just take this opportunity to ask one question that no one else has asked? What now for the tens of thousands of Scottish households assessed as overcrowded and languishing in need of rehousing on waiting lists? Will this Government concentrate efforts and resources on delivering for these people instead of simply claiming victory while ignoring the problem that we were trying to address? I look forward to meeting David Mundell tomorrow and I am certainly grateful to him for doing what Ian Duncan-Smith has failed to do over a three-month period, which is to reply to the request of the Scottish Government. Let me give David Mundell credit for that. I am not sure to this day why it has taken so long for the UK Government to decide that what it will do is pass a power to the Scottish Government to allow us to do the work to lift the cap. It would seem to me that they could have agreed to do that very, very quickly indeed. I welcome all additional powers. I welcome the transfer of the additional power to allow us to mitigate the bedroom tax, and we will use that to the full. However, the additional powers that I want are the powers that will enable us to ensure that we do not have a bedroom tax in Scotland in the first place. Full powers over welfare so that we can stop the Tory Government dismantling our welfare state and instead build one that actually fits the needs and values of people across this country. In terms of Alex Johnson's question about housing investment, this Government is investing significant sums of money in affordable housing. We are also, in the teeth of opposition from Alex Johnson and his own colleagues, abolishing the right to buy, so we can safeguard social housing for the needs of those who rely on it. We will continue to do that, but we will never ever be part of an attempt that is clearly being made by a Tory Government to penalise people for what they obviously consider to be the crime of being poor. We are on the side of people who are struggling to get out of poverty, and that is the difference between this Government and the Tory Government at Westminster. Kevin Stewart, followed by Willie Rennie. £15 million of the £50 million that is required to mitigate the bedroom tax. Does the Deputy First Minister share my concerns that the UK Government may choose to withdraw that funding at any time? Yes, I think that that is a real concern. That is something that we will continue to engage very closely with the UK Government on. It is important that they, until such times as this Parliament has full powers over welfare, which I hope will be sooner rather than later, continue to provide that support. I go back to the original point that I made. I think that it is not the best way of governing any country for policies, wrong-heddy policies to be imposed, for money then to have to be taken from other purposes to mitigate the impact of those policies. Far better that we have the ability in this Parliament to decide the kind of welfare policies we want to fund them properly rather than have this ridiculous situation where we are in the position of having to pick up the pieces of the mess that were made by Westminster. Can I thank the Deputy First Minister for an advanced copy of her statement? She will know that I have taken a close interest in this matter for some time, first to increase the DHP funds provided by the UK Government, and second of all, to lift the cap. John Swinney and I have been in regular dialogue about this matter, and I am pleased that the change has now been delivered or is about to be delivered. I have spoken to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the last few days who has told me that the order that she describes in her statement will be processed with the necessary speed so that we can get on with it. Can I tell the Deputy First Minister that I will continue to provide a constructive support in this matter? Can I thank Willie Rennie for his contribution on this issue? I know that he has tried to be helpful in getting us to the position that we are now in. I certainly welcome the comments that he reports from the Secretary of State about the commitment to a swift process, and I will be looking to pin down those commitments from David Mundell when I meet him tomorrow. I welcome Willie Rennie's offer to continue to be constructive. I regret the fact that we have a Tory Liberal Government at Westminster that is imposing this policy and necessitating our efforts to mitigate it. Nevertheless, I take Willie Rennie's contribution in good faith and will continue to ensure that we work together across this Parliament to do what we think is right, and that is to take away the impact of this iniquitous policy. On the basis that the Scottish Government's mitigation of the bedroom tax means that funds have to be diverted from other Scottish budgets to pay for Westminster mistakes, does the Deputy First Minister not think, therefore, that it is simply misleading and indeed absurd for the UK Government to claim that an independent Scotland could not meet the social protection needs of our people? The First Minister? Well, I think that that is not only ridiculous, it is completely and utterly false. The fact of the matter is that social protection payments are more affordable in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. They take up a smaller proportion of our tax revenues and of our GDP, our economy, as a whole, so we can more than afford to support a decent welfare system of our own. What we lack in Scotland and in this Parliament right now is the power to determine what that system looks like. I think that the time has long passed when we should be prepared to watch Westminster Governments dismantle the welfare state and instead take the powers to allow us to build one that is fit for purpose, one that this Parliament and this country can be proud of. The Deputy First Minister said in her statement that no-one needs to fall into renter years or face eviction due to the bedroom tax, and that is very welcome. However, the point that I think we share is to ensure that no-one affected needs to pay it at all. Can she categorically confirm that any tenant affected by the bedroom tax who applies for DHP support will automatically get it and what plans does she have to proactively make sure that such tenants do apply? Let me answer that question in a twofold way. First, Ingrid will know—and he knows as well as I do—that local authorities administer discretionary housing payments, so they require to receive, to assess and to adjudicate on the applications. Let me make absolutely unequivocally clear that the money that the Scottish Government is making available to local authorities in this year in our budget is for the purpose of ensuring that no tenant is affected by the bedroom tax, and we will expect local authorities to operate their DHPs and the money that we have made available in a way that delivers that objective. If Ingrid or any other member has concerns that that is not happening, I am sure that they will feel able and free to bring that to my attention. In terms of the second part of Ingrid's question, I made very clear in my statement, and I am grateful to him for giving me the chance to reiterate this point, because if I have a concern about this, it is people reading the newspapers and watching the television and hearing this statement think that they no longer have to think about the bedroom tax. We are not able to abolish the bedroom tax, so the legal responsibility to pay the shortfall in housing benefit lies with the tenant. The help is available as a result of the money that we are making available, but tenants must apply for that. I would hope that all MSPs will help through their own constituency networks to communicate that message. I know that local authorities and housing associations will take the time and effort to communicate that message to their tenants, and the Scottish Government will do everything that we can to make sure that message fully gets across. Christina McKelvie, followed by Michael McMahon. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome this eventual decision now to allow the Scottish Government to lift the cap. That will be very reassuring to the people I know that suffer from motor neuron disease and live in adapted homes, who were told by Lord Freud to take in a lodger or to work longer hours or risk losing their homes, as some have already had. Surely full control of welfare is the only way to protect those vulnerable people. Christina McKelvie raises an important point, because, as members are aware, a significant proportion of the households affected by the bedroom tax contained at least one person with a disability was one of the reasons—not the only reason, but one of the many reasons—that made this tax so deeply unfair, wrong and iniquitous. I believe that we need to do what we can to mitigate it. That is why I have set out the action that we are taking. Christina McKelvie is correct. It goes back to the point that Iain Gray has just raised with me. We are not able to abolish the bedroom tax. I want it to be in a position where we are not asking tenants to apply for help to enable them to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax. I want it to be in a position where we can abolish the bedroom tax. We have made it clear as a Government that, if we get those powers, we will immediately exercise them to make sure that the bedroom tax is once and for all a thing of the past. The cabinet secretary has quite rightly raised concerns about the timescale of the introduction of section 63 order. I think that the last time that was used in the Parliament was through the Rural Affairs Committee in 2008. On that timescale, it could be that we were looking to have that in front of Parliament at the earliest, November or December of this year, so that the cabinet secretary can confirm that that is the case. In the meantime, the cabinet secretary says that this is the only way in which monies can be got to those who are being affected. However, some local authorities have raised with the Welfare Reform Committee that they have ideas and schemes for providing support at this time. Audit Scotland has approved those methods. Can the cabinet secretary assure us that no local authority that has a mechanism for getting assistance to people will be prevented from doing so in order to force them to pursue the Scottish Government's preferred method of DHP? I can understand and I should share some of the concerns that Michael McMahon has articulated about timescale, which is why I put such an emphasis on that in my statement. I will come back to that point briefly in a second, but let me be very clear, assuming that we can, and that is our clear intention, get the power transferred and then be able to exercise that power timmiously in order to get the full £50 million, the £35 million of that coming from the Scottish Government to local authorities. There will be no requirement for local authorities to look at alternative schemes, any alternative scheme. I have looked very closely, as I am sure Michael McMahon has, at the examples that he is talking about. No alternative scheme works as well or is directly as getting money to tenants through discretionary housing payments. Our intention and our objective is to ensure that that is the route that we use to channel all of the available funding. In terms of the precedent that Michael McMahon has raised, I am obviously aware of the precedent in terms of use of section 63 orders. I said in my statement, and I will repeat again, I will update MSPs as soon as I can following discussions with David Mundell about what I consider to be the likely timescales for this process and every stage of the process. It has to be done as quickly as possible, and I would certainly hope that we will be in a position of having an order before Parliament earlier than the timescale that he indicated there, based on precedence, but I will be in a better position to advise MSPs of the position once I have had the discussions that I have referred to. I certainly take heart from the reported comments from the Secretary of State Willie Rennie, which suggest a willingness on the part of the UK Government to move as quickly as possible. There will certainly be a willingness on the part of the Scottish Government to move quickly. That need not be overly complicated. Let us get the power transferred and then when we have got it transferred, we can move quickly to exercise it. I welcome the announcement. However, does the Deputy First Minister consider that this new power will assist some people who have been left with no choice but to use food banks to feed themselves and their families? If not, what support is the Scottish Government able to provide? Obviously, taking away the impact of the bedroom tax is going to help a lot of people, and, as I indicated earlier on, there are more than 70,000 families affected by the bedroom tax, so they are the people who will be helped by the action that I have outlined today. It is an important point to make. The bedroom tax is but one aspect of the welfare cuts and changes that are currently being implemented by the Westminster Government. We are seeing many other changes that are having a big impact on people. Cumulatively, it is estimated that those changes will drive up to an additional 100,000 children into poverty by 2020. It is the changes as a whole that are driving the explosion in the demand for food banks. I think that it is a scandal in a country as rich as Scotland that we have so many people relying on food banks. We are, as a Government, as the member will be aware, seeking to help with the provision of food banks as much as possible. I recently made some announcement of additional funding to do that, and we will continue to do just that. However, we must get ourselves into a position in which we do not have to passively sit by while policies are implemented that can sign so many more of our children to reliance on food banks and poverty. We will only get into that position when we have responsibility for designing our own welfare system. Patrick Harvie, who is called by Ken Macintosh. Both Government and Opposition should be proud of the work that they have done in defeating the bedroom tax in the social rented sector, but the Deputy First Minister will be aware that it was introduced first in the private rented sector. Does she agree that with social rent unavailable for many people, owner occupation unaffordable for many people, the private rented sector is not just a free market choice and we should have a long-term ambition to reverse the introduction of the bedroom tax in the private rented sector as well in an independent Scotland? I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that Patrick Harvie has expressed, but I am sure that he will understand why, within the powers and resources that we have got right now, we are right to focus. I know that he agrees that we are right to focus on the bedroom tax in the social rented sector. He will be aware of the commitment of the Government to improve the provision and the quality of accommodation in the private rented sector, but nevertheless has the long-term ambition that he has asked me to share there. I certainly have a lot of sympathy with him. In the meantime, of course, we have to continue to do as much as we can to ensure that there is good quality provision of social rented accommodation in order that we do not have a situation where people, as Patrick Harvie has described, cannot afford to own property and do not want to be in the private rented sector. We will continue to be very focused on doing a range of things to achieve that ambition. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the wide disparity in the awarding of DHPs with an average award of £710 in Aberdeen compared to that of £140 in South Ayrshire, and with, I think, 45 application refusals in Stirling compared to 7,500 application refusals in Glasgow. I ask what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure the money that it is responsible for distributing through DHPs is awarded equitably and fairly. I repeat something that I said to Iain Gray, which is just a statement of fact. It is the responsibility of local authorities to administer DHPs. We do not have the power to direct exactly how they do that, but we have made very clear that the whole purpose of making this money available, the whole purpose of getting the power to increase the cap, is to enable enough money to be available in DHPs to fully mitigate the bedroom tax, and the decisions that are being made on DHP applications have to reflect that. The average award overall for DHPs in the last financial year was £357. There were more than 70,000 awards made in total. We have gone to great lengths in order to make this money available and to get the power that we need to spend it. To be fair to local authorities, they, in the main, dislike the bedroom tax and its impact as much as the Scottish Government and the Opposition dislike the bedroom tax. I know that they will want to work with us to make sure that what I have announced today has the effect that all of us want it to have. Thank you, my apologies to Sandra White and to Alex Rowley that I was not able to call them. We need to move on to next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 9, 927, in the name of Alison Johnstone, energy and climate change. Members who wish to take part in this debate should press a request to speak button now. I call on Alison Johnstone to speak to me with a motion. Ms Johnstone, you have no more than 10 minutes. It is generally agreed that our energy policy should deliver three things—a secure supply at an affordable cost and energy that is low in climate-changing carbon emissions. In the face of relentless price hikes by the big six energy companies who dominate the UK market, affordability is really important, particularly here in Scotland with our northern climate, higher energy prices and rural homes. Taking into account the impact of price falls in the United States and the fact that gas produces fewer emissions than coal when burnt, it is perhaps not surprising that there are advocates for the exploration and extraction of unconventional gas. Indeed, the Prime Minister has asserted that unconventional gas has real potential to drive down energy prices and assures us that the benefits are clear. However, the belief that unconventional gas will push prices down is a false hope. Lord Brown, chairperson of fracking company Cordrilla and key UK Government adviser understands this reality. George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been forced to understand the same, telling the House of Lords economic affairs committee that he did not want to over-promise on gas prices. The same committee also heard from industry and academics such as Bloomberg, EDF, EON and the UK Energy Research Centre that the impact on household bills is very likely to be insignificant. We can put to bed the argument that unconventional gas is going to make bills cheaper. Extracting gas onshore in the UK will be much more challenging compared with the US and, in any case, prices will still be set by the integrated European gas market. Dart, for example, will sell to SSE at market rates. Lord Stern was right when he dismissed the Prime Minister's claims of cheaper energy from shale as baseless economics. It is my view, that of my party and many others, that unconventional gas extraction is not a solution to our energy and climate challenges but a symptom of a much wider problem. Having exhausted the easier-to-extract energy sources, we are resorting to more extreme methods of energy extraction. We are digging and drilling deeper in some of the world's most stunning, pristine and remote locations, and who knows, possibly soon, in a field near your home. We know that energy companies already hold far more fossil fuel reserves than it is safe to burn. The Unburnable Carbon 2013 report calculates that between 60 to 80 per cent of coal, oil and gas reserves of publicly listed companies are unburnable if the world is to have a chance of not exceeding global warming of two degrees. The IPCC and the International Energy Agency have calculated the amount of carbon emissions that we can safely put into the atmosphere and conclude that the only way to avoid dangerous climate change is to leave a large proportion of our known oil, coal and gas in the ground. Some 30 or so miles away from this chamber, Dart Energy has submitted planning applications for the UK's first unconventional gas development to involve production rather than solely exploration. Experts at the Tyndall Centre in Manchester describe the Government's approach to unconventional gas as a bellwether of its commitment to leadership on climate change. Senior analysts at the French Bank Society General say that they are looking to what happens in the UK as the forefront of the industry in Europe. Dart Energy's development is the most advanced unconventional gas project in the UK, but here in Scotland we have the opportunity to act on the commitments and promises of leadership on climate change by simply saying no to a whole new set of fossil fuel problems and to rule unconventional gas out of bounds in Scotland. Communities around earth, Falkirk and Stirling have had long-standing concerns about their health and the health of the local environment should more coal-bed methane wells go ahead. They were absolutely astonished to find out that test drilling had been happening without their knowledge. Indeed, even the council leader claimed that he was unaware of that. Campaigners in Canombay near Dumfries continue to fight the threat to the area from the second most advanced project in Scotland. That project revealed a loophole where permission for coal-bed methane could be converted to permission for fracking without proper scrutiny. A vast area of the central belt can be licensed for unconventional gas, and oil barons from the US are highlighting a process called underground coal gasification, which involves burning coal seams under the Firth of Forth and Off Fife. I do not want energy projects that threaten the health of communities and local environments. We do not need them. We are at the tipping point of producing most of the majority of our electricity from renewable sources. Analysis from, for example, energy consultants Garad Hassan and Friends of the Earth Scotland's Power of Scotland report show that even with a growing demand on electricity, as heating switches from gas to electricity, we can power Scotland with a mix of renewables, pumped storage and smart grid. That is before we even get better at investing in energy efficiency models. There is also public support for renewables, a whopping 80 per cent according to the most recent DEC-commissioned poll. Contrast that with the growing opposition to fracking. UGov polling released yesterday revealed Scotland to be the UK nation most opposed to fracking. 80 per cent of people opposed UK Government plans to allow underground drilling without landowner permission. We really do not know how much gas is available, but we do know that production time will be measured in years and decades, not hundreds of years. What we do know for sure is that unconventional gas will require a multimillion pound investment and production will not peak for another decade, probably more, just as we are planning to decarbonise. We all know, unfortunately, that we have missed the first two of our climate targets. Even though the emissions trend is going in the right direction, it is vital that we bolster the credibility of our world-leading legislation. The third target will be reported on soon. The WF's energy report concluded that, by 2050, all of the world's energy could be provided cleanly, renewably and affordably. The report looked at barriers to transition. One of the biggest is that, globally, more money is being invested in dirty fossil fuels than in clean renewables. The WF said in its briefing for today's debate that having rightly attracted the attention of the world for its ambitious climate change act and its commitment to climate justice is critical that the Scottish Government and Parliament now fulfil the promises under the act and reap the benefits presented by the low-carbon transition. They go on to say that our commitments to meet those obligations, our international reputation for climate change, our policy to decarbonise the energy system and our 100 per cent renewables target, will seriously lack credibility if Scotland were to go down the route of facilitating or encouraging an alternative fossil fuel. With WWF and Friends of the Earth Scotland, I urge the Government to say no to unconventional gas extraction in Scotland. A ban on unconventional gas in Scotland would focus our efforts on truly renewable sources rather than scraping the bottom of the fossil fuels barrel. Many thanks. I now call on John Swinney to speak to and to move amendment 9927.3, cabinet secretary, maximum seven minutes, please. Presiding Officer, I welcome the debate that's been initiated by the Green Party today on energy and climate change and it provides an opportunity to consider the range of measures that the Scottish Government is taking to develop the very strong opportunity that we have in Scotland to produce energy. We are a country blessed with an abundance of natural resources. Our conventional oil and gas sector continues to be a tremendous asset to the Scottish economy. The sector employs more than 200,000 people in Scotland and since the 1970s, when resources were first recovered, it has provided over £300 billion in taxation revenues to Westminster. The future of the sector continues to look promising with oil and gas UK predicting a further £24 billion of oil that is still recoverable. That figure translates into a potential wholesale value of £1.5 trillion, if managed properly, which has a tremendous potential to transform local communities across Scotland. The oil and gas sector also represents a significant export and internationalisation opportunity for Scotland and at the present moment the energy minister, Fergus Ewing, is in the United States at the OTC event, which essentially brings together many organisations involved in oil and gas with a significant presence of Scottish companies that are trading around the world as a major part of our global industry. I agree with him on the importance of the oil and gas sector, but I wonder if he can enlighten us as to when he intends to bring forward his revised estimates for revenue from that sector. I would bring those forward in the coming weeks, and that is exactly what I intend to do to assist in the debate. While we recognise the importance of a vibrant industry in the North Sea, the Scottish Government is actively working towards the transition to a low-carbon economy. In that respect, I agree entirely with the general thrust of Alison Johnstone's speech about the importance of ensuring that we develop the opportunities that exist to secure the gains and the opportunities of a low-carbon economy. The Government has worked tirelessly within a stable policy framework to promote and to develop a renewables industry. In Scotland, a strategy that is now bearing considerable fruit by any measure, Scotland's renewable energy sector is going from strength to strength. We know that we have an estimated 25 per cent of Europe's offshore wind potential, 25 per cent of Europe's tidal energy potential and 10 per cent of Europe's capacity for wave power. We are determined, as a Government, to ensure that we capture that opportunity and we have set a framework to achieve that by establishing stretching targets to meet at least 30 per cent of Scotland's overall energy demand from renewable sources by 2020, including the target to meet the equivalent of 100 per cent of gross annual electricity demand from renewables by 2020, with an interim target of 50 per cent by 2015. By any measure, the Government has put in place a clear, robust, consistent policy framework that enables us to achieve those objectives. Claudia Beamish, cabinet secretary. In view of recent announcements by electricity companies about the offshore sector for renewables, does the cabinet secretary share with me any concerns about how this very important future can be driven forward in achieving a low carbon economy? I certainly do not think that the uncertainty that has been created by the electricity market reform process undertaken by the United Kingdom Government has helped investors to make their decisions about the offshore sector. I certainly do not think that that has helped, but we now have some clarity in that respect. Obviously, the Scottish Government is heavily engaged in ensuring that we secure those opportunities. Members will ask why the transition to the low-carbon economy is important. It is absolutely vital, because it is central to our efforts to tackle climate change. Scotland's climate change legislation commits us to world-leading targets of at least 42 per cent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050. We are more than halfway to meeting our 2020 target of a 42 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The Committee on Climate Change recently reported that good progress has been made in Scotland in reducing emissions across the economy and, more specifically, in energy. That is very good news, but we recognise that we have to do more. Tougher decisions and major transformational changes still lie ahead, and everybody will need to be on board for Scotland's transition to a low-carbon society to enable us to achieve those objectives. I turn to the issues in relation to unconventional gas. To date, we have strongly endorsed the robust regulation of any techniques associated with unconventional oil and gas, and we are pleased that our environmental regulator, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, published guidance on shale gas and coal bed methane in December 2012. The Scottish Government has consistently worked with the principal regulators to ensure that an appropriate and robust regulatory framework is in place. That is essential to protect our communities and environment, both now and for the future. While it may be possible to prove that extraction is safe, it simply won't be possible to prove that burning the fuel extracted is safe. Does the cabinet secretary accept that there are more fossil fuels than we can burn? The key point to Alison Johnstone is that all that has to be considered in our framework to reduce climate change targets. I have just finished commentary in my speech about the importance about realising our climate change targets. Any action that is taken in relation to the development of energy resources must, in the first hand, be compatible with the robust regulatory framework that we have put in place in relation to the regulation of all those areas. Secondly, it must also enable us to secure the necessary progress that is required on our climate change targets into the bargain. The Government continues to keep the regulatory framework under review. For example, we have recognised that there is a significant amount of scientific evidence available on unconventionals. To ensure that that information is assessed effectively, the Scottish Government has convened an independent expert scientific panel to review that evidence. Of course, that will be instrumental in informing any further decisions that the Government takes, which will, of course, have a bearing on Scottish planning policy, which is currently under review and which will be the subject of conclusions by the planning minister in due course along with the national planning framework, which has attracted interest from parliamentary committees. The Government has in place robust arrangements to ensure that those issues are dealt with effectively and satisfactorily, and that we also fulfil our obligations, which this Parliament passed, to ensure that we have world-leading legislation on climate change reduction and emissions reduction under the climate change legislation, and that, more important, we fulfil that legislation. Thank you very much. I should advise the chamber that there is no extra time available this afternoon, so interventions should be contained within speeches. A colony in Grey to speak to in the move amendment 9927.15, Mr Gray. I want to start too by congratulating Alison Johnstone for bringing this debate forward, because it is an important and current policy issue, which I think until now we have largely debated only in committee. However, while we welcome the Greens' debate, we cannot support their motion. Firstly, it conflates co-bed methane extraction and hydraulic fracturing, not the same thing. It calls those new methods of extraction, and they are not. They both have a long history, and fracking is common offshore day by day. Secondly—surely. As for Johnstone, in areas where unconventional gas extraction occurs, 40 per cent of co-bed methane extraction in 40 per cent of cases leads to hydraulic fracturing. However, there are two different processes, as Ms Johnstone pointed out, when she complained about the fact that one can move easily to the other in terms of the regulatory framework. Secondly, while the UK Government rates incentive in England seems to me a rather blunt instrument, we should be careful not to dismiss the idea of community benefit where onshore extraction ever to proceed. After all, we accept the idea that there should be community benefit from onshore wind and opencast coal mining, so perhaps we should not dismiss it out of hand in this case. Primarily, though, we cannot support the motion's core proposal of an outright ban. Of course, we do, as the Green motion says, have to meet our targets under the Climate Change Act, and our own amendment makes that clear. However, we have to take the public with us, and that means being able to demonstrate how we will secure our energy supply as we transition to a balanced but decarbonised energy economy. In a recent briefing in the Parliament, Professor Lunn from Strathclyde University demonstrated that even if all of the renewables targets that Mr Swinney referred to are met by 2020, then there will still be a 13 gigawatt hour gap in energy production. Central to those figures is the loss of base load generation and the fact that 40 per cent of energy consumption is currently gas-fired heating. Gukenzi has closed Peterhead, two-thirds mothbald, Longannet, perhaps at the mercy of new EU directives. The replacement of Tornes and Hunterson is currently vetoed by ministers. Commercial carbon capture seems further away than we had hoped, and it is not clear where our future base load is coming from. Meanwhile, investment in offshore wind projects is at best delayed for whatever reason, and we have seen significant withdrawals from marine power projects too. We urgently need a hard-headed, realistic, comprehensive plan for how we transition to a decarbonised energy market while still protecting security of energy supplies, including but not only electricity generation. Having closed down the, to my mind, eminently sensible option of another generation of no-carbon nuclear power, we are in no position to shut down another potential energy source, especially when we do not even yet have the scientific evidence for what reserves there are available. We should, in our view, proceed with great caution, hence our consistent support for stronger planning guidelines for shale gas extraction, nor should we allow ourselves to be taken in by the idea that shale gas is a panacea that will cut energy costs. Alison Johnstone's motion is absolutely right about that. That is one reason why we cannot support the Tory motion this afternoon. Cutting energy bills needs reform of the market and action on excessive profits by the big six companies. Final minute. Nor should we forget that shale gas is an industrial feedstock, as well as an energy source. It is not so long since the whole of this Parliament supported a deal that kept the Ineos plant in Grangemouth open, a deal that is exactly about using shale gas as raw material in a manufacturing enterprise of economic significance to this country, a fact that was made very clear to us when we saw the impact that temporary closure had had on GDP figures for the relevant quarter. As for the Government's motion, it founds on planning policy that we have not yet seen, and in our view it refuses to face up to the fact that it continues to miss all of those world-beating climate change targets. However, with regard to the crux of the debate, how to proceed, our position is very similar to the Government's. So if, by some curious and unexpected twist of parliamentary arithmetic, their amendment survives in our fall, we will support it in the final vote. However, we do prefer our own amendment and will prefer it in the first instance tonight, and I therefore move that amendment in my name. I thank the Scottish Greens for giving us the opportunity this afternoon to debate the extraction of unconventional gas throughout Scotland. I commend Alan Johnson on at least being consistent on the issue, although, in my view, consistently wrong. Like Ian Gray, I fear that she has misrepresented key aspects of the debate. First, the green motion refers to significant public opposition to new methods of fossil fuel extraction such as fracking and coal-bed methane. Certainly there are those in the environmental movement who have been doing their best to whip up such opposition, going round the country peddling their pseudoscience and their hysterical scare stories about earthquakes exploding taps and all the rest. When we look at public opinion, we see that not everyone, at least, is buying this nonsense. According to the latest DEC public opinion tracker that was published just last week, more people support shale gas extraction than the POSIT and the numbers are growing. We should remember that there is nothing new about fracking for shale gas and extracting coal-seam gas in Scotland. Back in the 1960s, in Lanarkshire and recently in the 1980s, within the boundaries of the city of Glasgow, fracking has taken place. As Ian Gray said, fracking takes place at the moment in the North Sea with none of the apocalyptic side effects that some in the environmental movement have predicted. I believe that there are four key advantages to exploiting our unconventional gas reserves. The first is in relation to security of supply. We have gone from being a nation that is a net exporter of gas to being an importer. As we have to develop more and more renewable sources of energy, particularly those such as wind, which have an intermittent output, our reliance on gas will actually increase over the medium term. The question is not whether we will require gas because it is beyond doubt that we will be increasingly reliant upon it over the coming decades. The question is where will that gas come from? Will it be produced domestically or will it be important? I certainly do not want to see us in future decades reliant on Mr Putin's rusha for our gas supplies. For that reason alone, it makes sense to develop a domestic source of gas to provide for our energy needs. Secondly, there is a question of impact on energy bills. It is well known that in the United States the development of a shale gas industry has dramatically cut energy costs and led to a re-industrialisation of the US economy as a result. I do not think that anyone reasonably predicts a similar impact here in the UK, but increasing the domestic supply of gas is bound to have a beneficial impact on energy prices as we increase the supply. Thirdly, there is the issue of carbon emissions. The US has saved millions of tonnes of carbon by shifting away from burning coal towards burning gas. Gas is certainly a fossil fuel but cleaner than coal, and as we develop low-carbon alternatives, there must be a better option at least in the medium term. Unfortunately, there is the economic opportunity that is presented. There is a potential for tens of thousands of jobs to be created in a new industry of real benefit to Scotland and one that is complementary to the development of more renewables. Ian Gray reminded us that last year there was a consensus across all Scottish political parties that the Ineos plant in Grangemouth should be saved. I am delighted that it was, with the Scottish and UK Governments working together as hundreds of jobs being safeguarded in central Scotland. The Ineos plant depends upon shale gas as its raw material, shipping that gas in a fleet of Chinese-built tankers across the Atlantic from Pennsylvania. It is not surprising that Ineos and themselves are keen to see a domestic supply of shale gas as a feeder product, and on every level that must make sense. I do not recall the Green Party in the course of the last year distancing themselves from that political consensus around the Ineos plant and calling for it to be shut down. However, if they have any consistency of opinion, that is what they should be doing. For by opposing unconventional gas, they are opposing those many jobs in the Falkirk area. I believe that unconventional gas presents a tremendous opportunity for Scotland, always provided that the appropriate environmental safeguards are put in place, and I look forward to seeing the Scottish Government's proposals following its expert review panel. I struggle to understand the lack of enthusiasm from the Scottish Government, a Government that falls over itself to promote the offshore oil and gas industry, but when it comes to the same industry onshore, it seems strangely reluctant to be supportive. However, like Ian Gray, I have a lot of sympathy for the Government amendment, and should our own amendment fall, I would be prepared to support it. The UK Government has brought forward incentives for the exploitation of unconventional gas, and it is right to do so, recognising the opportunities that are presented. I hope that the Scottish Government will follow suit and see that as a new industry, which can be of great benefit to Scotland for future generations. I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. We turn to the open debate. We are very tight for time speeches of a maximum of four minutes. Rob Gibson will be followed by Margaret McDougall. Scotland has a rich diversity of energy sources, including a very successful oil and gas sector and growing expertise in renewables, including wind, wave and tidal, as it says in the SNP amendment. The background to SNP thinking goes back decades to the early days of oil and gas extraction in the 1970s and 80s. We viewed the North Sea oil wealth as a source of investment in the industries of the future, including energy conservation and alternative energy, as the late Stephen Maxwell reminded us in his book, Arguing for Independence, which was published in 2012. Stephen went on to point out how Scotland and Norway are similarly blessed or cursed depending on your outlook. Both have huge hydrocarbon deposits and have huge renewable potential. The SNP, from the early days of North Sea oil extraction, talked about slower extraction and legacy potential. The Norwegians practised it while we could only look on with envy during the long thatcher years and blares continuation of that extractive mentality. All that time, Norway insisted on a big stake for stat oil to balance what was called the greed of the seven sisters of big oil. Norway also insisted on a slower rate of extraction with tighter environmental and safety laws. The recent helicopter accident rate contrasts sharply between the UK and Norwegian sectors, as an example. The SNP in those pre-evolution days was thinking what independence could bring for energy policy when the Green Party was only being formed. Fast forward to Scotland today and agreement between our two parties that independence is essential is a given. It is increasingly possible to decarbonise our energy needs and to manage our wealth for a fairer Scandinavian style of social democracy that is light years from the UK attitude of successive governments. Jason Anderson, head of the EU climate and energy policy group at WWF Europe, hailed Scotland as a forward thinking nation in the vanguard of the renewable revolution and with the most ambitious climate change laws. The SNP proposes a list of green gains from independence, as Richard Lochhead set out last week. The debate today on a wish to decarbonise our energy sources should have that trajectory in full focus. The Green Party should not ignore that hydrocarbon development has given us a huge skillspace in Aberdeen's worldwide success story. It is up to us to channel that expertise on to the full range of renewable development in the service of not only Scotland but through interconnectors to our neighbours for electricity across Europe and in the service of the planet to tackle the scourge of climate change. We can enshrine environmental protection in a written constitution. We can turn our leading renewables production record of near 50 per cent elitist output to reach 100 per cent by 2020 with unswerving focus on the delivery of on and offshore clean power. Through the certain knowledge that a Scottish Government, in charge of all of our policies, will ensure that business investment has security. Under the UK Governments, they have had an extractive mentality from the 1970s to this day. Recall the dash for gas, their nuclear obsession and a total lack of legacy planning to turn one-off oil wealth into the fund for future generations that our people need. Recently, a poll for DEC showed that 50 per cent of Tories preferred wind farms to fracking in their backyard. Many more people across Scotland want the same. As stated in Labour's amendment today, Scotland needs a robust and balanced energy policy that strives to meet our energy needs with our climate change and carbon reduction targets. I do not agree with the Greens' motion today that unconventional gas extraction should be banned outright, nor do I agree with the approach taken by the Westminster Government, who seems to have embraced shale gas with open arms and at times flaunted proper regulation in the rush to do so. Currently, the scale of impact on health, on the climate and the local environment of fracking is as yet unknown, and it would be foolhardy to welcome the industry until we better understand the implications. With that in mind, our approach to fracking should be cautious and based on scientific evidence. It is an industry that could be damaging to our climate change targets, so I am calling on the Scottish Government today to bring forward robust national guidelines, including planning for all forms of unconventional gas extraction before the industry is allowed to continue in Scotland. I see no reason to rush into fracking because expansion of the shale gas industry is unlikely to assist us in our attempts to meet carbon reduction targets, create jobs, and order down energy costs to assist the estimated 900,000 people who currently suffer from fuel poverty. It could be argued that shale gas extraction has driven down the cost of energy within the United States, but the same is unlikely to occur here. According to a report carried out by the United States Energy Information Administration, compared with North America, the shale geology of the UK is considerably more complex, while drilling and completion costs for shale wells are substantially higher. Friends of the earth also point to the fact that the industry is unlikely to create significant jobs growth within Scotland, with Dart Energy's earth project only likely to create 20 jobs. While fracking might well increase our energy security, I would argue that a better way to do that would be through promotion of a diverse energy supply, including a strong renewable sector, with a drive towards community ownership. That would also help to meet our climate change and carbon reduction targets. However, the renewable sector in Scotland could be at threat from separation. Scotland currently receives around a third of all renewable subsidies in the UK, despite representing only 10 per cent of the consumer base. If we were to separate, that cost would fall to Scottish consumers, invariably putting energy costs up, forcing even more people into fuel poverty. Finally, in terms of community ownership, Scottish Labour has always advocated community ownership as a vehicle for empowering local communities, tackling social justice and delivering economic growth. Community ownership and renewables would not only help Scotland to meet renewable targets but also create green jobs while tackling fuel poverty. In conclusion, there is no reason to rush into fracking in Scotland. At this stage, it would seem to provide very limited gain for what could be a disaster for the environment, to our health and to our climate change targets. Fracking should be halted until robust national guidelines, including planning, are in place to make sure that it is in line with our Scottish energy policy. Instead, we should be looking to secure an affordable, diverse energy supply that, above all, tackles the scourge of fuel poverty. I welcome the Scottish Government's precautionary approach to hydraulic fracturing and unconventional gas extraction. I therefore have some sympathy with Alison Johnstone's motion, but only some. I am proud of Scotland's world-leading climate change legislation, because it strikes a sensible balance between the need to reduce our CO2 emissions and the need to maintain our economy. That requires a long-term approach, and I am pleased that we are on course to meet our long-term targets. Unfortunately, the Green Party focus too much on short-term figures, denying the reality of economic difficulties that may face us in any given year, denying the effect that poor economic performance would have on the poorest people in our society, denying the effects on jobs and unemployment, and the increase in poverty that Green Party policies would bring. I was disappointed, for instance, in a recent debate to hear Patrick Harvie dismiss the opportunity presented by carbon capture and storage, an opportunity that offers possibilities of not just decarbonising our own energy supply but helping to do so for many of our neighbouring sources. No, I am not taking interventions, I am short of time. Sorry, another occasion, Mr Harvie. In developing world-leading renewable technologies, in acquiring that expertise, Scotland is the opportunity not just of reducing our own carbon emissions but of helping the rest of the world to do so, too. If we are going to help to save the planet, we will have to do so on the basis of good science and good sense. We will have to do so on the basis of a reasonable and a rational approach. That is why I am glad that the Scottish Government has set up the expert scientific panel to advise it on unconventional gas, whilst at the same time taking steps to strengthen planning and environmental protection. It is also why I am dismayed at the effects of the UK Government's energy market reform. It is why I am disappointed that the UK Government is delaying and implementing the recommendations of off-gems project transmitt, which offers at least a partial solution to the disproportionate transmission charging regime. It is why I am disappointed that they are failure to invest in upgrading the grid, not least in providing interconnectors to Scotland's islands, which could generate 5 per cent of the UK's electricity requirement by 2030. There is another way of achieving the end that Alison Johnstone and I would both wish to see meeting our climate change targets. That is by advancing our very significant renewable energy opportunity. That has the advantage of improving and not diminishing our economic performance, of creating jobs and not destroying them, of reducing energy prices over time and not increasing them. Unfortunately, the UK Government has been hindering and not helping to meet that objective. That is why Alison Johnstone and I agree that we will make much more progress on the issue and many others after independence. To anyone on the EET committee, that is a very familiar topic, but there we are used to seeing Murdo Fraser curb his great enthusiasm so as to retain convener-like composure. I have to say, for his sake and for everybody else's sake, I am glad that he has had the chance to let loose today. His UK Government's headlong rush into peppering rural England with unconventional gas sites is quite remarkable, not just in contrast with the more cautious and evidence-based approach of the Scottish Government but also because it comes from a party who, in past manifestos, used to hold local opposition to be so sacrosanct that they proposed a moratorium on onshore wind farms. Take the plans, roll on a few years and we can easily foresee the point where the well-to-do villagers are marching instead against gas wells and where wind farm protests are last decade. This is not the big-sky country of the US with 100 miles between homes, no communities in between. Every drilling site has someone for a neighbour. There may be, there probably will be, communities who would welcome unconventional gas. Doubtless, there are communities who would on balance welcome a large-scale return to open-cast coal mining for all the environmental difficulties it would cause. However, if those communities exist today with their arms outstretched for shale gas, I do not see them. The updating of planning policy will strengthen the hand of those communities, whichever their view, and is to be enthusiastically welcomed. However, for me, the debate's motion is very narrowly and perhaps a little excessively focused on one aspect of fossil fuel extraction, when, in truth, I think the instinct of the proposer is to object to it in all its aspects. We live in a nation that is committed to reductions in fossil fuel use and a world that should be. For some it's an inconvenient truth, but for us it's a legislative reality. Recently, I participated in an event in the Science Festival, where an audience member asked us on the panel about what a Scottish energy mix in the 2020s would be. All of us, including Dr David Tocke, renewables expert consultant to European Greens, agreed for the need to use gas as a step-down fuel, to some surprise from the questioner. Per unit, as we've heard, releases less carbon than coal, with CCS even less, and while Scotland will generate enough renewable electricity to meet our annual demand by 2020, gas is needed for the peaks and troughs because it can be dialed up and dialed down more flexibly than nuclear or any other competitor. In heating, gas will continue to be with us for some time to come. Both of those have to be taken into account in our emissions trajectory, our world-leading emissions trajectory, and they are. Against that, that must be held the danger of drawing investment away from renewables, as nuclear has unquestionably done south of the border. The carbon costs of extraction, which are higher, the more unconventional your method, and indeed the question of safety in an industry where competing claims have left doubts that, thus far, have not reassured those who would see fracking next door. There should be two lenses for considering unconventional gas. Firstly, the right of individuals to live in communities that are clean and safe, but communities that are really in control of their own future—a principle that I hold to whether the community is local, national or supranational—and secondly, the need for us as a society to reduce overall carbon emissions. Those should be the evidence tests not just for unconventional gas, but for all energy. That includes renewables. A field where I think most welcome or tremendous progress is one where most would welcome and want us to further encourage projects where communities are not just the neighbours, but also the principal initiators, owners and benefactors of the energy generated from their surroundings. We now turn to closing speeches. Thank you. I am pleased to close today's debate for the Scottish Conservatives. A number of members have rightly referred to the importance of energy security, as our amendment does, and I want to emphasise the importance of energy security, not least in the light of some of the political events involving Russia in the last few months. We cannot ignore the fact that 10 years ago the UK was a net exporter of gas, but now we have to import billions of cubic tonnes of gas each year to meet demand. As Murdoff Fraser pointed out, much of that comes from Pennsylvania to Grangemouth, and I am sure they would like a more local supply. A chief executive of Centrica, Sam Raidlaw, recently said that, by 2020, we will be reliant on imports to meet 70 per cent of the country's gas needs. When it comes to security of supply, there is a pressing need for some solutions. The Scottish Conservatives have consistently argued that our energy supply must come from as diverse a range of sources as possible, and that remains our position. I was pleased last week to host a briefing in Parliament on the excellent work that is being done on nuclear fusion research at the Cullum Centre for Fusion Energy, a potential energy source in the medium-long term that could be transformational. Given our view that energy should come from a broad range of sources, we therefore believe that it would simply not be responsible or sensible to ignore the potential of shale gas extraction and a coal-bed methane as well. Rather, we should seek to exploit our unconventional gas reserves as our nations have done with much success in a sensible manner and the one that ensures the appropriate environmental safeguards are in place. A number of the concerns about unconventional gas extraction are based on worries about risks that are similar to those associated with conventional coal mining and oil and gas exploration and which are covered by regulations in these sectors. I understand that, because of the more intense nature of shale gas extraction process, it is associated with more negative impacts than conventional drilling, but issues such as water contamination risks associated with hydraulic fracking can be covered by regulations from SEPA and minimised by proper well-integrated design. The UK Government has rightly shown support for the industry and the Scottish Government should seek to emulate the efforts of the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil in terms of streamlining legislation in that area. I am also aware that the fifth report of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee suggested that offshore shale gas might potentially dwarf onshore gas. Although it is not economically viable at present, I hope that the UK Government might, at some stage in the future, consider using tax breaks to incentivise this exploration. In terms of the climate change angle, we would also recognise that burning shale gas in the USA has also displaced significant amounts of coal burning and resulted in a fall in CO2 emissions by around 450 million tonnes in five years. To conclude, Presiding Officer, we cannot support calls to burn unconventional gas extraction as there is too much potential from the resources to help to boost our economy and increase the security of our future energy supply. We recognise that shale gas is still at an exploratory stage in the UK, while there are opportunities for coal bed methane, known as coal seam gas in Australia, where advances have been made, especially in Queensland and New South Wales. We look to the Scottish Government to work as constructively with companies in this field, as it does with those in the conventional oil and gas sector, and I support the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser. I thank Alison Johnson for bringing this debate to the chamber today, which is a very important debate in the context of our energy security and where we are going for our future. Scottish Labour has grave concerns about fuel poverty, and the stark choices that too many people here in Scotland are facing about whether to heat their homes or eat properly. This afternoon's debate on wealth and income inequality gave a chance for further exploration of those areas as well, and Scottish Labour argues for a way forward with a moral economy. However, there is evidence that even if coal bed methane extraction was to proceed in Scotland, as we have heard from others today, it would not bring down energy prices because there would never be the critical mass that has been in the States. Friends of the Earth have argued that rather than being plentiful, cheap and clean, unconventional gas in Scotland can only ever be an, I quote, scarce, expensive and dirty, and there has certainly been some controversy over whether or not exploitation will have an impact on energy prices. Deutsche Bank, among others, remains sceptical about the economic impact of environmental gas extraction here. Rather, as stated in our motion, it will not drive down energy prices for hard-pressed consumers, rendering a price freeze and reform of the energy market urgent. It has been valuable to have briefings from WWF Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland, and the Royal Society for Protection of Birds today. There has been much evidence and research about the environmental and health concerns from other countries. Some of it is conflicting, but there are certainly causes for concern. The on-going scientific evidence by the expert panel will be watched carefully and scrutinised by many beyond Scottish Government. It is a difficult time of uncertainty for communities that might be affected, though there are at present no applications for the fracking process itself. Scottish Labour has consistently called for the Scottish Government to introduce robust guidelines, which has been acknowledged will happen today. It is also essential that the strategic environmental impact assessment process being called for by friends of the earth Scotland is in place. I was involved as a community activist during the 1990s in relation to guidelines for open-cast mining, where we managed to get better distances between communities and excavation. I am keenly aware of the importance of ensuring that guidelines are right from the start before any application can be considered. My colleague Claire Baker and I have questioned ministers on the Scottish Government's policy towards distances. I particularly want to explore the relationship between operations, residential and water protected areas. The Minister for Local Government and Planning has assured me in a written answer that this will be part of the Scottish planning policy in June. I hope that the minimum distances that need to be respected are there in robust guidelines. We should surely be adopting the precautionary principle for a range of reasons. As the chamber has heard on many occasions, Scotland has well-leading climate legislation, but it is vital that it is met with action. While it could be used as a transition fuel, there are still many question marks over this whole process. We in the Scottish Labour Party support renewables, as in our motion, and energy efficiency going hand in hand. The pathway to community renewables is often a rocky one. Coincidentally, I will be hosting a MOOC or massively open online courses workshop tonight to support communities in taking this forward. The cabinet secretary argued for transformational change. In the shift, let's be sure that Scotland gets it right and is fair to our communities and for our future. Presiding Officer, this has been a good debate. It has not been a debate of agreement because there has clearly been legitimate policy differences across the Parliamentary chamber, but it has been a debate that has been expressed with courtesy and respect, perhaps with the exception of Mr Fraser's bombast. If it allows him to relieve himself of the burdens of convenership, we all quite understand that these things have to happen every so often. However, I think that there has been an honest exchange of views within the chamber. Ranging across a range of different points of view, with the Green Party making it pretty clear that it does not support any of the forms of onshore or on-gas development that has been talked about. The Conservatives are encouraging, well not quite to happen everywhere, but certainly a more enthusiastic response. Although I thought that Mr McGregor was somewhat more measured than his summing up that Mr Fraser had been in his opening, and the Labour Party calling for the Government to bring forward more guidance on those issues. There is more guidance on its way in terms of the Scottish planning policy, but I want to reiterate what I said earlier on. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency published its guidance on shale gas and coal bed methane in December 2012. For the benefit of Margaret MacDougall, it is important to reiterate the fact that that guidance has been put in place. In addition to that, I will, I guess. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking that intervention. I welcome the more cautious approach of the Scottish Government to unconventionals, and I also welcome the fact that the planning policy has been tightened up. However, for my constituents in Canonby and in Freeson Galloway, the planning policy does not apply retrospectively. There have been some concerns raised about links between some members of the expert panel and the industry. I wonder what reassurances he could give to my constituents in both those regards. Cabinet secretary, what I can say is that the expert panel has been selected on the basis of the scientific expertise that the individuals have to offer, and the Government will consider carefully the material that is forthcoming. Of course, as an indication that relates to the point that Joe McAlpine has just raised with me about planning policy, in the draft planning policy, the Scottish planning policy, in relation to unconventional oil and gas development, the Government introduced buffer zones between potential developments and communities, indicating very clearly the Government's determination to listen to the views of communities and to ensure environmental protection is put in place. That merited the following response from the head of campaigns, a friend of the air Scotland, who said that it is a firm step in the right direction. We welcome the Government's recognition that buffer zones are necessary, and the director of WWF Scotland said that we welcome this commitment. A pretty broad endorsement of the direction that the Government is taking in an evidence-based, clearly evidence-led process to determine the contents of our policy framework. Of course, that will come back to Parliament for consideration in due course. Marco Biagi raised the issue of community involvement in many aspects of renewable energy development. I want to make the point that I agree entirely with the aspirations that Mr Biagi has set out here. Local benefits must be at the heart of our vision for renewable energy in Scotland. We have put that issue centre stage in the development with the objective of achieving a target of at least 500 megawatts of community and locally-owned renewables by 2020. That is to provide a clear structure to the realisation of community benefit arising out of renewable energy. The Government has set out a very clear and measured approach to the handling of what is a sensible set of issues. I want to reassure Parliament that we will do so on the basis of clear guidance, on the basis of a considered assessment of all the evidence, and with our environmental regulators acting as they always act very clearly and implicitly in the interests of the people of Scotland and in the protection of the important natural environment that surrounds us all. Those considerations will be at the heart of all the steps that the Government takes to advance those issues as we bring forward the Scottish planning policy and consider other contributions that we make to the debate as we assess all the relevant issues on an important issue to the people of Scotland. Many thanks. I now call on Alison Johnstone to wind up the debate. Maximum eight minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer. Fracking and other forms of extreme energy such as cold bed methane and underground coal gasification have dominated the public debates on energy over the last year. Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, was arrested and subsequently acquitted for taking part in a day of action against fracking at Balcom in West Sussex. I thank all members for their contributions this afternoon. The cabinet secretary makes it clear that the Government is taking an evidence-based approach and that planning policy will be strengthened with a buffer zone to protect local communities, but as I suggested earlier, while we can make it as safe as possible to extract those gases, it simply will not be possible to make it safe to burn those gases. I welcome the fact that the Government is giving this issue serious consideration. Ian Gray, either mistakenly or misgivelessly, suggested that we were conflating different types of unconventional gas extraction. I want to reassure him that we are not conflating hydraulic fracturing with coal bed methane. He then went on to conflate nuclear power with clean energy. Murdo Fraser suggested that those who were expressing concerns about some of the health impacts suggested that it was merely pseudo-science. I would politely suggest that the greenest Government ever is merely pseudo-politicking. I would like to point out also that this week, in a confirmed case from just two weeks ago, a fracking company in Texas were ordered to pay $3 million in compensation to a family who suffered chronic nosebleeds, irregular heartbeat, muscle spasms and even open sores as a result of the drilling chemicals. This is not an area that we should consider with great concern. I agree entirely with Rob Gibson's comments on using Scotland's skilled energy workers. There are many opportunities in the renewables industry. We are providing over 11,000 jobs and I will work with anyone who wants to see those numbers increase. Margaret MacDougall advocates community ownership, but it is highly unlikely that unconventional gas will lend itself to such a model. Mike McKenzie accused the Greens of short-termism. Frankly, I find that absolutely astonishing. It is short-termism that encourages you to think that extracting unconventional gas is any sort of an answer to our climate and energy challenges. It is long-termism when you think about investing in every single home in Scotland in terms of insulation. If we properly skilled our builders and workmen and enabled them to treat all the hard-to-treat homes and tenements in buildings in this country, that would provide another jobs revolution. I understand the differences between fracking and coal bed methane extraction. Fracking involves pumping millions of tonnes of water down a well under high pressure. Coal bed methane extraction involves pumping massive quantities of water out of coal beds to lower the pressure and to extract gas over a large area. There are inevitably escapes into the atmosphere. Those fugitive emissions are important to consider. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, especially over the 20-year timescale in which we must tackle climate change. Mr Johnson, could you address your microphone, please? Mr Johnson, is your card in? I was just going to say that the synergy of the two operations is one that you could actually do side by side. Could we not take the water that you are bringing up one well and pump it down the other? Thank you for your intervention, Mr Johnson. The first couple of studies to measure rather than estimate methane emissions at unconventional gas sites in the United States are damming. They report data that is an order of magnitude greater than the US Government estimates. If those findings are replicated, it means unconventional gas is significantly more damaging than estimated and its usefulness as a lower carbon bridging fuel is under severe threat. The vast quantities of contaminated water that need to be treated and the large number of wells that will be needed should the development at earth proceed all risk contamination. Toxic B-tech chemicals, benzene, toalene, ethyl benzene and xylene are all naturally occurring in coal beds and are harmful to human health if they get into the soil or into our water courses. The Friends of the Earth Scotland briefing for today describes numerous pollution incidents. Jamie McGregor touched on energy security, which was another theme running through the debate. We do import gas, which costs money, and of course the profits go elsewhere. By far the largest chunk comes from Norway and the Netherlands and Belgian pipelines, and other imports are liquefied natural gas from Qatar and elsewhere. However, real energy security comes from reducing and ending our dependence on gas. We know that significant unconventional gas will not come on stream for another decade, whereas the renewable industry in Scotland is already well past fledgling. The planned offshore turbines will be bolstering our power sector before unconventional gas. The 20 or so jobs on offer at Dart Energy's site in earth do not compare at all to the 11,000 people already employed in Scotland's renewable sector that have been mentioned by many colleagues in this debate. As I have said, when it comes to community benefits, renewables win hands down. It is an adaptable model. It is one that lends itself to community involvement and community ownership in a way that nuclear power or unconventional gas simply cannot or will not do. The cheapest power station is the one that we do not have to build. As well as supporting the renewable sector, there is a transformation in energy efficiency waiting for our homes if we would only invest in it. There are buildings and businesses to support. About 40 per cent of our gas is used in domestic properties to heat and cook, so there is so much more that we can do if only we would give proper time and consideration to energy efficiency. I do not know if people think that it is a dull topic or if they feel that they have debated it once too often, but as far as I am concerned, it is a topic that we cannot debate enough. Bringing Scotland's leaky homes up to good quality and rolling out district heating schemes will lower fuel costs. That way, that is how we lower our reliance on gas. There are many other opportunities to, whether we look at waste from anaerobic digesters or other emerging technologies, but we do not have to rely on unconventional gas to fuel or to power Scotland. I really do hope that the Government, as the earth development proposal rolls forward, will give it due consideration and realise that it is entirely incompatible with your own climate change targets and turn that proposal and any future proposal down. Thank you. Many thanks. That concludes the debate on energy and climate change, and it is now time to move on to the next item of business. I will allow a few seconds for members to change places, but once again I have to say that we are very tight for time in this next debate as well, so if members could bear that in mind when making their contributions. I now call on Patrick Harvie to speak to and move the motion. Mr Harvie, 10 minutes, please. For me, Green politics begins with the recognition that the ecological crisis we are facing and the social crisis we are facing both stem from the same broken economic system. Our choice of two topics today seeks to reflect that balance. In proposing a motion on wealth and pay inequality, we do so at a time of increasing global debate about that subject. Over recent years, we have had those debates informed by the likes of the spirit level by Wilkinson and Pickett, by the work of the First Minister's favourite Nobel laureate, Joe Stiglitz, as well more recently as Thomas Piketty. In Scotland, the work of organisations like Oxfam, Carnegie Foundation, The Read Foundation and the S2UC have also helped to develop the idea of an economy that measures more than simply how much economic growth is being generated, but how fairly is it being shared. Just this week, we have seen work from the Roundtree Foundation, from SCVO and, indeed, research published by the Sunday Herald at the weekend, which furthered this debate as well in the Scottish context. It is going to be difficult to have this debate without the referendum context creeping in as well. Obviously, members on both sides of that debate will have their view. There will be those who say that the Scottish Government can and must do more now. Others will say that we need the full powers of independence. The motion deliberately does not seek to get into that. Members on all sides know the green position and know some of the reasons why I will be voting yes. However, our purpose with this debate today is to seek agreement on the objective goal of reducing inequality in wealth and income, so that whichever decision the Scottish people make, none of us can walk away from that. The Labour and SNP amendments neither seek to remove most of the commitments in the motion on progressive and redistributive taxation, decent wages instead of subsidised poverty pay and the need to address high pay as well as low pay. I am glad that neither of the two large parties are seeking to remove most of that. Very often, the debate on inequality focuses on safety net policies, benefits, minimum wage and living wage. Let us recognise that safety nets can all too easily develop holes. The creation of a legal minimum wage was a really important step. The advancement of a living wage is a better one, but employers will still find ways to exploit people tactics such as zero-hour contracts or the outsourcing of low-wage work to other companies to allow them to claim the public credit for paying the living wage to their own direct employees while still exploiting the labour of people in poverty. Even this Parliament, Presiding Officer, has been in that position despite the clear political will of the majority of its members. The welfare system is supposed to be another safety net, but it is time to recognise just what the UK's welfare state has come to. It not only allows poverty to continue, it takes people living with the stress of that poverty and heaps further stress upon them. It can be demeaning, humiliating and patronising, and all too often it seems to be designed that way. It goes deeper than specific measures like the vicious bedroom tax that we discussed earlier today. It is about the values as well. For years, divisive rhetoric has been used—benefit cheats, scroungers versus strivers and that old-fair at hard-working families. That divisive rhetoric is used by political and media voices alike to undermine the human empathy that a welfare state depends on, presenting the false notion that there are those who contribute and those who only take. The reality is that we all depend on a successful welfare state—every single one of us—and apart from the horrors and tax dodgers among the super-rich, we all contribute as well. That is not just about whether a welfare system is run by an independent Scotland, by a devolved Scottish Government or by the UK Government. It is about the urgent need to win again from first principles—the argument for a welfare state—a society in which we are all looked after and where all people's dignity matters. We need more than just a safety net agenda. We cannot close the gap between rich and poor without addressing both sides of that gap—high pay as well as low pay. Pay levels matter not just at the top and bottom, but across the whole population. We remain at a very low-wage economy by EU standards, with half of working Scots earning less than £21,000 a year. Progressive taxation also has to be part of the picture, both in relation to income and wealth taxes as well, but also the structure of the economy, especially in a period of low growth, as many expect over the coming years and perhaps decades. We risk seeing wages stagnate while investment by the richest continues to pay back for them. If that happens, we will continue to see wealth accumulated in the hands of those who are already wealthiest. We will never achieve either the fairer, more equal, healthier and happier society that we should be seeking, or, if we do not close the gap between rich and poor, nor will we achieve the political consent that is needed for a welfare system that deserves the name, one that is focused on human welfare instead of bullying people into low-wage work. Does the member acknowledge that the spend on welfare is almost £200 billion out of a budget of about £670, and that it is far more than anything else that we spend money on? It is far more important than more or less anything else that we spend money on to ensure that human dignity is protected and that all people have the ability to live with dignity. I want to welcome the Labour amendment. I want the Scottish Government to show some bullishness on the issue of how we can use procurement law in relation to living wage and a host of other issues, and to be willing, if necessary, to test the boundaries of EU law. They have rightly shown that bullishness in the case of alcohol pricing. I think that they should show the same in this area as well. As for the Conservative amendment, I was not really surprised that the Conservatives put in an amendment that I did not agree with very much, but let us just pick apart a few aspects—making work pay. That prompts the question of who is work and how much should it pay. Let us remember that the UK Government, the Tory-led UK Government, actually opposed the cap on bankers' bonuses at the EU level. The idea that poor people must be made to work harder by paying them less and rich people must be made to work harder by paying them more is one that still seems to hold sway in the UK Government. How about those who cannot work either because of disability or because work is not available or because work of a decent sort cannot fit in with their other commitments such as caring for children or relatives? It comes back to that divisive rhetoric about hard-working families. We should be committed to building an economy that provides for all people, every single one of us, to live with dignity. The Tory motion also mentions tax allowances, the changes there. Let us be very clear that the changes to tax allowances have been regressive. The greatest percentage net change in household incomes has gone to the wealthiest, while 3 million of the poorest households gained nothing from that policy. Gavin Brown and I and others on very high incomes, as all members of this chamber are on very high incomes, we are paying less tax as a result of that policy. David Cameron has even bragged that people on incomes as a high as £100,000 a year are paying less because of that policy. He also cites in his amendment the increase to minimum wage levels. I wish that the minimum wage levels had been increased as far as a living wage, but let us just recognise that £6.50 is what the over 20-year-old minimum wage is being increased to. That is more than £1 an hour below the living wage. That is not the minimum wage, because for 18 and 20-year-olds it is £5.13. For 16 and 17-year-olds it is £3.79 and for apprentices it is £2.73. Let us just recognise that the increase there is pretty paltry. As for the Government amendment, I will not be supporting that either, partly because it deletes the proposal merely to investigate the idea of wage ratios. I also want to say this. There is more that we can do now to tackle wealth and income inequality in the devolved context. It is, however, arguable that we can only do so properly with the powers over tax and benefits. However, as I made clear earlier, this debate remains relevant whatever the outcome of the referendum. It is the wider question, one of political direction, not just constitutional choices that we are seeking to raise today. Underneath all of that, there is a question of values. I have a degree of optimism that the obsession with super-wealth is giving way to a wider cultural acceptance that it is sustainable quality of life that should be the aspiration for individuals in a modern society. Whatever we can do to promote and push forward that transition to a society that does not fetishise vast wealth, we should do. I hope that this motion helps to do that. I move it today. There is not a lot of what I would disagree with what Patrick Harvie has said in his opening remarks. I think that it is something that we are all concerned about in this chamber, about the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and that is certainly something that concerns the Scottish Government very much. That is why our economic strategy and national performance framework include cohesion and solidarity targets designed to increase equality and to reduce the disparities between different sections of our society. There is no doubt that Scotland is a prosperous nation, rich in natural and human resources, yet far too many people and communities are trapped in poverty and prevented from realising their full potential. I find it utterly depressing that our first detailed analysis of UK Government data on wealth and assets in Scotland, which was published today, shows that 30 per cent of all households in Scotland have almost no wealth, meaning that they do not own property, do not have a private pension or savings, or own items such as cars and household goods. The report also shows that those households simply do not have the income needed to gain the wealth and security that so many of us take for granted. Based on current evidence and past performance, I do not believe that the UK Government will take the actions necessary to break the cycle of deprivation. The reality is that, over the years, the Westminster system has failed to properly address the deep social inequalities that exist in Scottish society with generation after generation feeling the impact. I do believe that Scotland needs to have full control of all economic levers to tackle and reverse those inequalities. Only independence would give the Scottish Parliament the power that it needs to pursue a fairer economic model. Clearly, income tax is important in all of this. What changes would her Government make to income tax where we would become independent? I think that there has been lots of evidence shown, and the Institute of Fiscal Studies has also said that one way to define a tax system is based on principle and start out in the best way to do it is a new state to have a fairer system. We have a UK tax system with 10,000 pages of rules and regulations. We have a UK tax system with more than 1,000 exemptions, so we would create a system that was fairer, that allowed us to sustain public severities and encourage economic growth. I am grateful for the minister for giving an intervention and we would all have a lot in common. To what extent do you believe that cutting corporation tax and giving breaks to the Amazons and Starbucks of this world is going to help to reduce inequality? I think that it does, because what it will do is make us competitors of getting the jobs into Scotland—over 27,000 additional jobs in Scotland—and we support the living wage and have a living wage policy. We would also make sure that the corporation taxes paid their taxes, and that is another thing that we would do in an independent Scotland. We would tackle tax avoidance and come down heavy in those companies that do not pay, so that is another way of doing it in a new system. In the meantime, we are doing what we can to tackle within the limited powers that we have to tackle this huge inequality, because, if we make no mistake about it, we accept that there is a huge inequality. That includes the actions that are set out in our child poverty strategy and maximum household incomes, improving children's wellbeing and life chances, and ensuring that each and every one of us can live in a sustainable home and community. It is simply unacceptable that, in a wealthy nation such as ours, we know that a third of our children are not getting the start in life that they deserve. Particularly in a nation like Scotland, when the latest analysis shows that, if Scotland were an independent country, we would be the 14th wealthiest in the OECD. At this time, when the UK Government's austerity programme is placing households under increasing financial pressure—and we all know that they are under increasing financial pressure—we are defending and extending certain core services, rights and benefits through the social wage, free personal care for the elderly, abolishing tuition fees, ending bridge tolls, abolishing prescription charges, free eye examinations, freezing council tax, concessionary bus travel, increasing the provision of free nursery education, free school meals for primaries 1 to 3 from January 2015. We also take the issue of low pay very seriously. I am sorry, I have given two interventions already. We have introduced the living wage across the sectors of the public service that we are directly responsible for. We are encouraging the living wage throughout the public sector. We have taken direct action to raise the minimum rates of pay for those parts of the public sector under our responsibility, with a minimum pay uplift of £300 a year for those earning less than £21,000. We are funding the poverty alliance pilot to encourage employers and private organisations to become accredited as living wage employers. The measures that the Scottish Government is taking go far beyond any measures that the UK Government is putting in place for the lower paid. We have not got a Labour Government and we are not likely to get one either the way they are behaving. In addition, the Deputy First Minister announced proposed amendments to stage 3 of the procurement reform bill, which Patrick Harvie alluded to in his statement, to make explicit that the guidance about bidder selection will address remuneration and pay on the living wage and make no mistake about it. This Scottish Government is committed to supporting and promoting the Scottish living wage. Local authorities and contractors are well aware of what is expected of them as regards the living wage. We are doing everything and still in negotiation with the EU on looking at if there is anything further that we can do in the procurement bill, but we are very clear on it. We support the living wage and we have done it by action in what we have done across the Scottish Government and the public services and the funding that we are giving to the poverty alliance. However, every effort that we are taking has been hindered by the impact of the UK Government welfare reforms. It is clear, and Patrick Harvie is absolutely right. Ministers, in our last 20 seconds. The welfare system is broken and cannot work for Scotland, so I hear him in my last 20 minutes. My final 20 seconds—sorry, I thought I had another 20 minutes. I will simply say that I believe that we can only properly address poverty and inequality when the Parliament does full control over all its resources, and that includes taxation and benefits. Then we can properly address inequality and wealth in Scotland. I move the amendment in my name. I start by welcoming the opportunity to debate wealth and income inequality and thank Patrick Harvie for bringing the subject to the chamber, but also to welcome very much the approach that he has taken because Labour will be supporting the motion at decision time because he has made the debate about political will and doing what is right and not about constitutional change, and I respect him for doing that. I share the aspiration expressed in the motion for a fair and successful society, and I also recognise that, in order to do so, we need progressive policies that make work pay and seek to redistribute wealth. Labour is a party founded on the principle of sharing wealth to create a more equal society. It is very much at the heart of all that we do. We are putting in place bold policies to tackle inequality. We have proposals for a progressive system of taxation so that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden. We have a freeze on energy prices because we recognise that struggling families should not have to choose between heating and eating, and we are supporting a living wage because we need to make work pay. It is interesting that none of those progressive policies are supported by the Tories, as you would expect, but they are not supported either by the SNP. Yet we know the costs of rising and wages are declining. A recent Joseph Rowntree report on minimum income standards tells us that a basket of essential goods has risen by a staggering 25 per cent in the space of five years, and, increasingly, people in and out of work are not making ends meet. I am told that many of the people now appearing at food banks are those who are not just unemployed, but those who are in low-paid jobs, struggling to cope before their wages come in. Again, the SNP's only answer, evidenced by the minister today, is irrespective of the question that you asked them, is that independence will cure all ills. I really say to you that it is genuinely disappointing that the minister is not prepared to do anything now, but I suppose you could say that it is consistent and so totally and completely lacking in ambition for people in communities across Scotland. It is interesting that, like the First Minister, she does not want a Labour Government. She suggested, or indeed the First Minister suggested, at the last election that they vote. Liberal, I am sure that Willie Rennie was grateful for that, but what is it about the SNP that you actually do not want to see positive change not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom? No, we have always heard enough from you. No, there is no guarantee that changing the constitution delivers the kind of progressive change that will deliver a fairer society. It takes political will to do that. Nothing progressive about the SNP's proposals, because remember that this is the party that wants to cut corporation tax by 3 per cent more than even George Osborne wants to do it, that refuses to commit to a 50 per cent top rate of income tax and that seems much more interested in protecting big businesses, bankers and the most wealthy, and where they have the opportunity to help some of the lowest-paid in society they are found wanting. Next week, Presiding Officer, is stage 3 of the procurement bill, setting out important principles for how we spend £10 billion in public contracts each year. Here is the opportunity to do something about the living wage and zero-hours contracts. Here is the opportunity to positively improve the income of 400,000 low-paid workers, 64 per cent of them who are women, but so far they have set their face against improving the lot of the low-paid, and the SNP is very good at talking, but they are less good when it comes to taking action. I will give way to the minister if she will tell us now whether she will change the procurement bill at stage 3 to include the living wage. Jackie Baill is well aware that we are doing everything that we legally can, and we support as a Government the living wage. That did not sound like a yes to me, so she is setting her face again against this. I noticed that the minister's amendment removes the final sentence of the Greens motion, and there are rather gentle requests for the Government to investigate wage ratios. I admit to being surprised, because when Ken Macintosh brought that up at stage 2 of the procurement bill, Nicola Sturgeon said, I wholeheartedly endorse many, if not all of his comments. A mere few weeks ago, why has it now changed? Why has it removed from the motion? Low wages are not good for individuals, they are not good for society, they are not good for the economy. We are caught between two Governments with the wrong priorities. The Tories are not progressive, the SNP pretend to be, but they offer nothing to change the lives of the people of Scotland. Gavin Brown, to speak to and move amendment 9926.4. Mr Brown, five minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will start by moving the amendment in my name, and it will probably have come to know as no surprise to the Green Party that we weren't going to support their motion and that our amendment is of a completely different flavour to their original motion. We do not agree, as you may guess, with the thrust of what Patrick Harvey has said and what he is attempting to do, but I will say this for the Green Party. They are very clear about what they want to achieve and they are equally clear about how they would achieve it. They would bring in a completely different tax system, there would be a large increase in most taxes in order to pay for it, and, at least in that sense, the Green Party position stacks up. We simply disagree with it for political reasons. The point that I would make to Mr Harvey, where I take issue with his speech, though, he categorised the welfare system in the UK as designed to bully and demean, and he did not say those particular words. He did repeat, I think, in spirit what the Scottish Government has said, that the welfare system is being dismantled by the coalition Government. He did not specifically say that, but I do believe that he alluded to that. However, he has to accept—I think that everybody in the chamber has to accept—the basic facts about what is spent on the welfare system in the UK. I put the statistics to him, which is almost £200 billion, out of about £670 billion. It is important, Deputy Presiding Officer, but it is the largest single item of expenditure by the UK Government. Sure, of course. Annabelle Ewing. I thank member for giving way. Could he clarify, then, what is the spend on pensions? As the member probably knows, somewhere in the region about 46 per cent of the figure I gave of tuna million is related to pensions, which leaves you with well over £100 billion on other welfare measures. Still, considerably more than just about any other department in the UK. If other parties are unhappy with the expenditure on welfare, it is incumbent upon them to suggest how they would pay for it, given that it has grown far more than any other department. I name-check Mr Harvie, so I feel out to give it to him. I am grateful, very briefly. I will point out to him that the figure of £100 million that he has arrived at now is not exactly eye-watering. It is what we would spend on about one mile of urban motorway in Scotland. It was £100 billion. Mr Harvie must have misheard me. It is over 50 per cent of the original £200 billion from my initial answer, so it is substantially more than one mile of motorway. Even the Green Party, with its liking of denouncing motorways, can realise that it is substantially more than that. That is why we are disappointed with the Scottish Government's position here, because it is suggesting that it would do things completely differently where we are to be independent. From what we have seen on paper, we know that that is not true. There are no plans at all to change income tax from the Scottish Government. Mr Swinney has been at pains to reiterate that point. So he is making no changes to the tax system other than his pledge for corporation tax. As we found out last week, most of welfare would remain the same. The largest changes to the welfare programmes would remain the same, nor a single SNP member last week was able to contradict that. With the SNP having had a choice, with the have had the levers and the powers, they have gone for universal benefits almost all of the time. If changing inequality was the most important thing to the Scottish Government, we have not gone for universal benefits on just about every policy measure that they brought in. There was a large list of them from the minister. All of them were universal, helping everybody, as opposed to those whom they claim to want to help. My final minute, I want to put on the record some of the conclusions of a report by David Bell and David Iser of the Stirling Management School, who did a study in inequality in Scotland. It is worth putting on the record some of the comments that were made in that paper. They accept and point out that gross income inequality is relatively high in the UK, although wealth inequality is less. They point out that most of the growth though happened between 1975 and 1990 and that, since the mid-90s, there has been virtually no increase in net income inequality. At the same time, the Nordic countries that many on the left want to replicate have seen their inequality increase at a far faster rate than the United Kingdom. It is worth putting those points on the record, so we accept that there are issues, but the facts are often not put there on the table for the other side. I am happy to leave it there. We now move to open debate. We are very tight for time. I call Willie Rennie to be followed by John McAlpine up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I too am frustrated about the pockets of poverty that exist in our country. I think that I am too impatient. I want to make that change. I want everybody to have a chance to get on in life. That is not a monopoly of those on the SNP benches about who cares about those issues. That is why we must focus on the solutions rather than just the words. I admire the strong socialist rhetoric from the Greens from Patrick Harvie today. I have to say that I am rather puzzled by the timid solution. Often from Patrick Harvie, we hear about bashing the rich, condemning the establishment, railing against inequality. I would have expected something a bit more than what we have in the motion. Perhaps the nationalisation of all the major industries to control wages and end to all bonuses for bankers turning the living wage into the minimum wage, price controls, nationalisation of housing or even just one socialist policy. Something that may just begin to match Patrick Harvie's powerful rhetoric, but no. What we have in the motion is a call for a proposal to conduct an investigation into the possibility of introducing at some point in the future a wage-racial policy. Now, do not get me wrong. I have no problem with an investigation. I am sympathetic to the proposal. I just would have expected something a bit more radical than this. Substance in the motion does not match the rhetoric from the speech, but what was fascinating is that the Scottish Government cannot even bring itself to support this. I would suggest a proposal that the Government often uses the same kind of rhetoric as Patrick Harvie. It is a proposal that it cannot bring itself to support. Again, the rhetoric does not even match the timid proposal from the green benches. Contrast this with the action taken by the UK Government. National minimum wage increases to a new £6.50 hourly rate, which delivers an extra £355 a year for a full-time worker. A commitment from Vince Cable to support future rises to, as indicated by the low-pay commission. A big increase in tax thresholds will deliver £700 back in the pockets of those on low and middle income. It is not high incomes on low and middle incomes. It is going up to £10,500 next year, and Liberal Democrats want that to go up to £12,500 so that no one on the minimum wage pays any income tax at all. After last week's debate on the very subject, both the SNP benches and the Labour benches voted against that proposal. Now we know where they stand on cutting tax on low and middle incomes. Our tax cut has benefited over 2 million Scots and taken over 200,000 out of tax altogether. We have expanded childcare with tax allowances as well as a big expansion of childcare, giving children hope that they can reach their potential. We have also taken action to tackle tax avoidance, including 40 changes to tax law since 2010, to close down avoidance loopholes. We are working with the G20 and the OECD in taking forward a 15-point action plan to counter base erosion and profit shifting. We have limited the pay of the highest earners in the public sector and stopped massive increases in bankers' bonuses at RBS. Our delivery is far more radical than an investigation about a possibility. A number of people in the chamber today will have had the privilege of attending the memorial a couple of weeks ago to the late Margo MacDonald MSP. During the tributes to Margo, her maiden speech in the House of Commons was quoted when she was elected to Westminster. She used her maiden speech as a traditional to praise her predecessor, who was a Labour MP. She quoted his maiden speech from the 1940s, in which she condemned the poverty that his constituents were living in. She made the observation that, in 1973, her constituents in government were still experiencing levels of poverty, poor housing and deprivation. It is 41 years since Margo won that by-election in government, and we know that today 870,000 people in Scotland still live in poverty, despite the fact that, for the last 33 years, Scotland has given more per head to London than it has got back. Clearly, there is something wrong with the system. We are talking about the success of Westminster Governments of both Labour and Tory, who have failed to address the inequalities that she identified in her maiden speech and her predecessor identified in his maiden speech. Shortly after Margo was elected, of course, we saw Margaret Thatcher's assent to power, and that began to sharpen. Most people understand that that began to sharpen levels of inequality, particularly between the richest and the poorest, who have never been rectified. Through years and years of Labour Government, under Tony Blair and Gordon Bowen, they were not addressed. I had intended in this speech to go on and talk about how this Parliament had addressed some of the inequalities that Margo had identified back in the 1970s in terms of the universal benefits introduced by both Labour and the SNP, but, having listened to Jackie Baillie's speech, I just could not let it go. I thought that it was the most partisan speech. It is so misleading. We had years of Labour Government at Westminster and here in Holyrood. Did you talk about household incomes? Under Labour household incomes, households experienced a 60 per cent rise in council tax. No, I am not taking an intervention. You failed to introduce a living wage. You allowed 600,000 people earning less than 16,000 pounds a year to pay description charges. It was a Labour Government in Westminster under Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, that allowed further deregulation of the energy market. They saw a whopping rise in fuel bills, so I do not think that we need to take any lectures from Labour on eradicating poverty, because they had their chance. I wanted to finish off by saying that the motion by Patrick Harvie said that he deliberately did not mention independence. I can understand why he wanted to achieve a consensus. However, the substance of the motion talks about benefits and income inequality. Those are things that can only be changed if we have those powers here in this Parliament. It is impossible to ignore independence in this debate. We now know through the child poverty action group that another 100,000 children will be in poverty by 2020 if we continue with the European Union and the Westminster Government. That is why Scotland must be independent if we are going to reduce inequality and reverse the mistakes of the past. I think that most people would accept that we live in an ill-divided world. We only need to reflect back on the terrible tragedy in Bangladesh when thousands lost their lives working in virtually slave conditions on low wages to produce goods that many of us are quite happy to buy cheaply. We know that there are many grieving families in Bhopal that have not had justice for their loved ones who lost their lives in dreadful conditions there. Barack Obama has called income equality one of the defining challenges of our times. It is not just across the world that we see these ill-defined problems. We have it here as well in this country, and many speakers have alluded to that. Yes, it is really dead easy to point the finger of blame at others and say that it is all their fault. It is right to point to some of the failures of the last Labour Government at Westminster who probably did not do enough to curb the greed and the excesses of the bankers, but at the same time we should give due recognition to what Gordon Brown did with the introduction of working family tax credits and pensioner tax credits that helped many of the poorest families in this country. Let us get a balance of what we are talking about. It is right to talk about the failures of the Tory coalition at Westminster and its failures. Are we going to say that the whole way that we approach politics in this Scottish Parliament is simply about defining the failures of others? Will we refuse to look at what we can do to make a difference? As Jackie Baillie has pointed out, there are things that can be done by the Scottish Government at the present time. We do not, as Margaret Burgess and others have said, need to have independence to make a difference to the lives of many ordinary families in this country. We can do something with the procurement bill, as has been said many times, but there are other things that could be done by the Scottish Government. We can certainly do more to help the poor in this country and maybe look at restoring some of the poverty budgets that have been cut by the Scottish Government, but what about tackling the excesses at the top that are directly under the control of the Scottish Government? What about doing something about the money paid to the top executives in Scottish Water, where the chief executive in 1112 can have a salary of £240,000, or the hundreds of thousands of pounds earned by the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, something that can be done by the Scottish Government, or any of the health boards, or any of the other public organisations that the Scottish Government funds? The Labour Party should be working with the Scottish Government to say how can we help to control some of the excesses of the chief executive and others in local authorities that are earning obscene amounts of money compared to what the lowest paid are earning? So there is a lot that we can do and it diminishes each and every one of us. If all we can do is say that the fault lies with somebody else and there is nothing that we can do here, there is plenty that we can do in this Parliament, there is plenty that the Scottish Government can currently do and we can start by curbing the excesses, yes, in the private sector that are obscene, but let's do something about the excesses in the public sector that are all within your control at the moment. Many thanks. Now Colin, join Mason to be followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have to say that I'm broadly supportive of this motion and I certainly do agree that we need to introduce rules and have the right rules and legislation both to tax income and wealth and or to limit incomes. I was particularly interested in the Conservative and the proposed Lib Dem amendments. They both positively refer to the UK Government, but there the similarity completely ends. The Lib Dems left the entire green motion in place with all the talk of taxation and limiting incomes, while, by contrast, the Conservatives wiped out virtually the whole motion. I have to say I'm pleased that the Government amendment leaves so much in, specifically we have the bit about progressive and redistributive wealth and income taxes, absolutely right. I think we agree that income tax can be used to redistribute income, but we should not forget also that taxes such as inheritance tax are necessary to help redistribute wealth. However, all of those taxes and laws have their limitations. People do find ways of increasing their income, for example by moving to other countries or at least getting part of their pay there using overseas tax havens, and of course there's the old argument that our businesses will not attract the best people if we do not offer competitive salaries. However, that latter argument has been somewhat undermined by the fact that the UK already overpays people in comparable companies compared to other countries, and paying high salaries clearly did not ensure that the banks were run well. I think that one of the challenges that we face in this issue is attitudes. How do we change attitudes? I do not believe that we are going to fully deal with inequality unless we can make progress in changing attitudes, and especially we need to change the acceptability of greed. Greed is a bad thing and we need to challenge it, but laws and regulations are not very good at changing people inside. We do seem to have become a more greedy society and there seems to be less of a moral sense in some people that if we've been fortunate and have done well, we have a duty not to take an unfair share of the cake or at least to give a chunk of it back to the wider society. I would want to argue that faith is something to say in here, although I accept that there are people in the churches who have not always limited their incomes or given away as much as they could have. Jesus commended a poor woman who had very little but gave it all away, whereas richer people gave away ostentatious amounts but kept even more for themselves and their own comfort. I would argue today that part of the answer to this problem is to change people's internal attitudes. That can be tackled in a range of ways but certainly includes families and schools in the upbringing and education of children. Does television advertising encourage children to want more? If we are going to take control of broadcasting at some stage, that is something that we will have to look at. As Hugh Henry has correctly said in his previous speech, the public sector is a factor in all this and we could set an example. I agree that we should not be too interfering in local government, but in Glasgow, for example, successive chief executives pay has gone up much faster than staff in general. Whether that be the responsibility of Scottish local government, Scottish Parliament or Scottish Government, it certainly is a Scottish issue. However, I am willing to accept that Glasgow is competing with UK cities and we are not entirely masters of our own destiny. That applies to both public and private sectors, but at least we have to try. If we make an attempt to narrow the gap between top and bottom, that would be a start, and I certainly do not see the present UK Government even attempting to do that. Many thanks. I call Alex Rowley to be followed by more in what up to four minutes, very tight for time, and less would be more, please. I recently met a group of home care workers working in care homes in the private sector, and as the discussion went on, I realised that many of them had two things in common. First, they were absolutely dedicated to caring for the people that were in the care homes that they worked in, and secondly, the majority of them were earning the minimum wage. It strikes me that, in terms of how we put value on people's employment in this country, that people who are caring for others, and anybody who has had a member of their family in a care home, would say that people who are caring for others are worth much more than the minimum wage. However, I remember, as council leader in Fife, that a couple of years ago last year, in fact, the Scottish Government did a deal with COSLA where the Scottish Government agreed with COSLA that care homes would be paid a 2.5 per cent increase, and indeed the Scottish Government had to put some of the money into that. Also as a leader in Fife, I was forever being lobbied by the care home owners who were consistently telling me that the cost of introducing the living wage would mean that they would go out of business. I sometimes wonder whether the Scottish Government reluctans to look at including the living wage within the procurement bill has more to do with the lobbying and potential costs than it does to do with the EU. The second point that I want to make is the report that came out today from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which argues that the GARP began before children started school and widened as they got older. It also points out that the study found that in early secondary school, only 28 per cent of children from poorer families were performing well in numeracy compared with 56 per cent of those from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is something that educationalists and social workers have been saying for years, that they could identify in the early years those children that are less likely to succeed in the education system and therefore less likely to succeed throughout their life and therefore more likely to be living on low incomes and living in deprivation and poverty. That cycle of deprivation we see continuing and continuing within Scotland. If we are to address that, we have to focus our policies and focus them on the early years. The Scottish Government a few years ago talked about a change fund for early years. In Fife Council's case, Fife Council made £7.8 million available for that change fund. The Scottish Government made not a penny available. The NHS was to be a partner within that. The NHS made not a penny available. If we are serious about tackling the early years and getting in there and doing the work that Fife Council is doing right now, it needs money to be directed and resourced into those early years so that we improve the life opportunities so that when children are starting a school, they are starting a school where they are level playing field and if we continue to invest, that needs a radical shift in policy. It needs a policy that recognises that in the poorer areas those schools are underperforming and there is much more that we can actually do there. I have seen that in Fife. I have seen a priority, but what that requires is political will and it means the courage of your convictions to put the resources where they will make the biggest difference. The Scottish Government has failed to do that and should consider their policies if we are serious about tackling inequality. I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I agree with many of the contributions that have already been made. A few weeks ago, while tidying up a pile of books, I happened again across the spirit level, as others have mentioned, and I started to reread it. I think that the propositions and analyses that were put forward by the authors of the book, together with the concept of the human kind index, are very much worth exploring further and working towards. We cannot ignore the fact that, within rich countries, life expectancy is determined by the size of the income gap. For example, Japan has a narrow gap benefiting the nation with the highest life expectancy. Japan and Scandinavia have lower crime rates and better income equality, whereas the United Kingdom and the UK have a wide income gap and thus higher crime rates. Those findings have been confirmed over many years by Carol Craig and others and their work at the Centre of Confidence and Well-being. I am grateful to the member for giving way, but does she appreciate that one of the key arguments contained within the spirit level and the whole debate that it started is about wage differentials? Can she explain why the SNP is supporting an amendment in Margaret Burgess's name, which takes out the one and only call that is in there to investigate that very issue? I think that if we are going to make any significant difference in inequality, we have to have all the tools that you cannot just tinker about at the exit. Presiding Officer, if I need an extra incentive to campaign with all my might for independence, which of course I do not, it was a revelation a few weeks ago that the five richest families in the UK are worth more than £28.2 billion compared to the lowest 20 per cent or £12.6 million people who are worth £28.1 billion. Across the world, also according to Oxford, Oxfam research, the richest 85 people share a combined wealth of £1 trillion and that equates to that shared by the world's £3.5 billion poorest. Of course, in Scotland, we are not immune to this inequality, with a Sunday Herald reporting that the richest 10 per cent of households in Scotland have 900 times the accumulated wealth of the poorest 10 per cent. That is why the politicians and lawmakers on those benches want full power and responsibility over our economy to start redressing the balanced because evidence tells us that under both the last Labour Government and the Tory Lib Dem Government, inequality is increasing in the UK as a whole. I am old enough to remember in previous periods of recession when London had a cold, Scotland got the flu, but with this Parliament and the SNP Scottish Government, we have been able to use our limited powers to mitigate some of the effects, but still it is the poorest who suffer as we see with the rise of food banks. Why is it that, under Westminster, tax avoidance and evasion is given a light-touch approach, while welfare recipients are attacked with the harshest of penalties? Why are welfare budgets capped and budgets for trident and arms allowed to run out of control? Why are company directors allowed to scratch each other's back by offering small cliques, absurd sums and fees, and their chief executives' huge sums on an ever-ending spiral upward, which the public sector has to compete with? Having listened to Hugh Henry, we are obviously going to see Government salaries in councils start to come down in those that they control. Examples worldwide show that less inequality leads to a stronger economy and a society more comfortable with itself. With Westminster records, we cannot wait for these parties' opposite to do anything different. The say of socialists that sooner or later they will run out of other people's money, and when you hear some of the speeches that have been made in this chamber today, you realise that some of us may live long enough to see that point proven once again. The fact is that the left-wing consensus in this Parliament offers Scotland nothing, except dishonesty. When we hear the continuing repeating of the line that the gap between rich and poor is somehow increasing in Scotland today, we hear something that the facts simply do not bear out. I aspire to a different approach. I believe that what we need in this country is smaller Government, less regulation, lower taxation and a rebalancing between the public and private sectors. People should keep more of the money there, particularly those who are at the average and below average end of the wage scales. That is why I am proud of the record of this UK Government between the Conservatives and our Liberal Democrat colleagues, who have done so much to take the low-paid out-of-tax, in some cases altogether. It is vital that we understand what Scotland needs for its long-term prosperity. We should make sure that people keep more of the money they earn. We should make sure that we do not make the mistake that was highlighted by Margaret Burgess herself in her opening remarks, where she said that property ownership was one of the key measures of wealth. That is the housing minister who is at the moment taking away the right for individual tenants to buy their own homes—a hypocrisy, if ever there was one. A separate Scotland, as it describes, seems to be in the business of seizing wealth and property, exploiting that money for the benefit of what it saw as its priorities rather than the priorities of the people, creating what can only be described as a client economy, not an economy of independence but one of dependence and nothing else. We are told again that the welfare system is broken and cannot work for Scotland, but why is there no formal proposal for change? Why is there no budget for change? The truth is that this Government has no intention of changing anything, and the more we ask, the more we are disappointed about where this will go. Surely, if we are to talk in this chamber about the redistribution of wealth, it is at least as important that we talk about the creation of wealth. That is why we, on this side of the chamber, will continue to work and aspire towards full employment, to taking the low-paid out-of-tax altogether, to giving the low-paid the opportunity to own property and to acquire or accrue wealth over time. We believe that those who can work should work and should do so rather than rely on the tax paid by their neighbours for their livelihood. Those on higher incomes already pay a higher proportion of total income tax revenue than they did under the previous Labour Government. The acute labour shortages that we see in the Scottish economy today in some areas show us that wages can be driven up in that economic environment, and those lessons need to be learned and applied elsewhere. We know that price fixing and wage fixing, as attempted by previous Governments in the 1970s in particular, the lesson is that those have a disastrous and negative effect. I believe in liberal economic theory, I believe that we here in Scotland should apply it, and I believe that the Green Party's approach is authoritarian socialist dogma of the worst possible kind. I think that it's been a very interesting debate this afternoon, with various points raised across the chamber. I'd like to reflect on some of those points, if I may, Presiding Officer. I'd like to start with some of the remarks that the Minister herself made. Margaret Marrard just said to the chamber that we're doing what we can to tackle inequality now with the available resources. I've sat in this Parliament for three years now, Presiding Officer, and I can say to the minister that I believe that to be completely untrue. It is evidenced today by a lot of the reports that have come out. Today, we were reflecting on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, which talked about the attainment gap between the poorest households and the richest households. The children of the poorest households are not doing as well at school. That gap isn't a small gap, it is a very wide gap, and the progress that this Government has made with full control over education over the last eight years has been absolutely minuscule. I heard of a school in my region that 40 per cent of the pupils in S1 had a reading and writing age of primary 2. That in a developed nation and a developed economy is absolutely disgraceful, and it's something that we should be spending every minute in this Parliament but looking at. Alex Rowley, my colleague, made a very powerful speech this afternoon touching on a number of things. He talked about numeracy that is just not up to scratch, literacy and numeracy, two big problems in our education system and our poorest children not succeeding and not getting the support that we need. I sat in the education committee with Joan McAlpine, who also spoke this afternoon. We had a panel of educationalists in front of us, and she put the question to those educationalists, and she said, what more powers would we need to improve education in this country? And every one of those single 4 panellists said to her, we don't need more powers, we just need the political will and the ideas to do it. I would say that. I don't have time this afternoon for interventions. We need action from the SNP. They're taking out literary support and Dundee. They're taking out the early years practitioners that work in the poorest schools, supporting literacy and numeracy. They're taking them out to cover the 600 hours childcare pledge, and Derek Mackay and Margaret Burgess know that that is the case. The minister talked about taking every opportunity to negotiate with the EU on the living wage. Again, minister, I would say that that is completely untrue. This Government is prepared to take its fight on minimal alcohol pricing to the EU and see it right through, but you're not prepared. Alex Rowley again pinpointed perhaps a reason, the lobbying and the cost of that commitment to the living wage, that actually you're not prepared, despite advice from the commission office and the EU, spokespeople to say that actually it is, we could put it in the procurement bill and the rules allow it. But this government is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is and support that living wage and it is just wrong for the minister to suggest that they are. And I would also turn to our pledge on cutting corporation tax. Final 25 seconds. It is the only tax pledge in the white paper. They talk about poverty, but there are no pledges on tax policy for anyone but business. How about income tax? How about tax credits? How about personal allowance? Any tax pledges or even ideas for working people, not one? On my final point, energy bills dropped £100 by under Ed Miliband as energy minister and John McAlpine was clearly not in the chamber that day, the day the minister, Fergus Ewing, reacted to Labour proposals for an energy price fees. That regulation was not enough, but the SMP should be taking action. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I can't say that it's been the most consensual debates we've had in this chamber, but what I would say is that there is certainly consensus. I'm not going to include our Tory colleagues in this in terms of the gap that is there between the rich and the poor and that we have to do something about it to tackle it. I'll take on a couple of the points that was made. I think I would refer to what John McAlpine said when she said and like her, you know, I'm amazed when I listen to some of the things that we're hearing from the Labour party. They're suggesting there as if they have never had an opportunity within UK or within the Scottish Parliament to do something about it. The income gap and the wealth gap is widening and that has happened under consecutive—no, I'm not taking an intervention at this point, at this point, and the gap is widening and has continued to widen under success of Westminster Governments. They are not dealing with it properly. I want to say a bit about the mention of the minimum wage. The reason why we have a minimum wage and a living wage is because the minimum wage was set too low and successive—the minimum wage was set too low and successive Westminster Governments haven't kept up in line with inflation, which is something that the Scottish Government and an independent Scotland would do. That's why we've got people that are not—a minimum wage that people can't live off, which is a disgrace. That's a Westminster policy. They're responsible for that. I'll say it again and I'll say it as clearly as I can. This Scottish Government is absolutely committed to the living wage and promoting the living wage, and we have set that example. We have legal advice, which has been published, telling us that we can't put it in the face and make it mandatory in the procurement bill, but the Deputy First Minister has made it absolutely crystal clear what our intention is in terms of the living wage and how that will be addressed in stage 3 amendments. There will be no doubt among local authorities and those procuring for public contracts what the position of the Scottish Government is in a living wage. I absolutely refute everything that Alec Rowley said and that has suggested that we were doing it because we've been lobbied in some way. That is simply not true and we support a living wage. We will also maintain the minimum wage and increase it in line with inflation, as we would do with tax credits and other social security benefits, which has not happened in the past. There was some criticism from the Conservative benches about our position in terms of tax, that we have nothing laid out in tax. Unfortunately, I have got six minutes at the moment, but I will refer the member. There is a whole section in the white paper in Scotland's future about how we will our position in terms of a tax system in Scotland. We set out very early priorities, which focus on fairness and economic growth. We are absolutely committed to building—I'll give one to one—as I was talking about— What changes would be made to income tax as early priorities? If Gavin Brown is wanting me to say what the rate will be set at, that will be for future Scottish Governments. What I will say is that we are committed to building a tax system that stimulates the economy, builds social cohesion, sustains Scotland's public services, and, as I said earlier, the Institute of Fiscal Studies says that a new nation, a new state designing a new system can only be better. We can make savings in that, and we can certainly do something about the tax avoidance that is currently happening, and we will deal with that as well. Full fiscal responsibility would allow key decisions and taxations. I have got two minutes left. I think that that is enormous, Mr Smith. Just sit down, please. I've got two minutes left, and I've given way in both times during the debate, more than any other member gave in their speaking. The current UK tax system is complex, costly, and independence would allow us to design a simpler and cheaper system. We heard a lot from Willie Rennie and from his Conservative colleagues about the tax credits and what they are doing in terms of low pay and tax, but the UK Treasury's analysis shows that households will be worse off as a result of changes to taxation, benefits and public spending that are implemented by the UK Government, and that is its own analysis. The average household will be the equivalent of £757 worse off in 2015-16 as a result of cuts to public services, benefit reforms and tax changes already announced by the UK Government due to being implemented. On the same basis, households at the very bottom income quintile will suffer cuts equivalent to £814 a year. All that we are hearing from the UK Government is what they are doing. They are giving it in one way and it has gone in the other way and the poorer are becoming worse off, and that is their own analysis is showing that. I would finish by saying that, yes, I would agree that wealth-read redistribution alone is not enough to introduce inequality, but Scotland's future sets out a broad approach to tackling inequality. There is a political will from this party and this government to do that. We want to help people to move into sustained work and support people to develop skills and the progress that will help all that will help to support better solidarity and cohesion in Scotland. At that point, I would say what I said earlier on, that the only independence will help us to build a fairer and more prosperous Scotland where we will finally eradicate inequality and poverty. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would like to thank members for their contributions. Apparently, I am an authoritarian socialist and also not radical enough for a Liberal Democrat. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. I would like to begin by giving credit where credit is due. Margaret Burgess, in her opening remarks, gave, for example, a staunch defence of universal services, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. She talked about the national performance framework, and the Scottish Government's national performance framework does make steps in the direction of a broader measure of economic success than simply growth. Not as much as I would like, but steps in the right direction, and I welcome that. She said very clearly that she believes that the Westminster system has failed and won't deliver in the future. However, when challenged by Gavin Brown to say what income tax changes the SNP would implement, she didn't have specifics to offer. As she said, and she's repeated again at the end of our closing speech, only independence can deliver the change that we need. No. If we have the political will and we don't have independence, we can only do little. However, if we have independence and don't have the political will, we can do nothing. We need to have both, and I implore colleagues who support independence as I do, to recognise that it is not the only thing that we need. Also, when challenged by John Finnie on co-operation tax cuts and the taxpayers' bungs for tax dodgers like Amazon, I'm afraid it would be polite to say that the minister struggled. Willie Rennie did ask for something more radical. I'm happy to send him a copy of the Green Party manifesto. We can read all about the citizens' income, about a shorter working week, about land value tax, about community and public ownership, but this debate wasn't intended to be about the Green Party's manifesto. It was intended to try and seek some agreement on the principle. I'm sorry that he doesn't care to join that agreement. I regret that, but it frees me up to say that if I'm being timid, at least I'm not simply saying, please let me join up with the Tories and I'll try and give a hard right government a kind of face. John Mason pointed out that the Tory amendment is the only one that sought to delete all of the motion, and every aspect of the argument about inequality is quite right. He also made a really important argument about greed, quite rightly. It was a faith-based argument, from his perspective, that's honest, of course, but I would politely point out that religion and Christianity in particular can be advanced by him to make a good point about greed or by David Cameron to defend his government and its dismal record. Gavin Brown, I'd like to apologise to Gavin Brown for mishearing him. Millions instead of billions, it is no small error indeed. Perhaps instead of only having a more sustainable transport policy, we might also need to put up with an end to tax avoidance and the cancellation of tried and renewal. I guess I could live with those things, though, if that's what it takes to fund a welfare state that's worthy of the name. As for Jackie Baillie. Jackie Baillie talked very sincerely about what labour values mean to her. She said that sharing wealth is what labour is all about. That's what's at the core of everything they do. I welcome that intent, and I don't doubt the sincerity of it for a moment. But just as I want my fellow independence supporters to accept that independence in itself doesn't give guarantees, I also want Jackie Baillie to acknowledge that nor does a Labour Government, nor does a Labour Government, let's remember those 13 years of Labour Government where we saw the same continuation of corporation tax cuts that had been begun by its predecessor. There's been very little interruption in that downward graph of corporation tax cuts during Tory, Labour and coalition governments at UK level. Let's remember the words of Mr Mandelson in talking about being extremely comfortable with people becoming immensely wealthy. New Labour in 13 years of government sought accommodation with the neoliberal model. It did not seek its defeat, and I think that's the most important point to remember. So we need the political will. We need the political will whether you seek to change the UK Government or change the constitution. Neither in itself gives a guarantee of success. Last year, I hear from behind me, I heckled that there's no guarantee in much of what we do in life. Absolutely. This debate should be one about opening up the possibilities, giving ourselves the chance to make progress toward a fairer and more equal society. None of us should imagine, or seek to pretend, that our policy on the constitution or a change of government gives that guarantee. Last year, the Green and Independent debate was about the legacy of the Thatcher Government. The timing was controversial, but apart from the Conservative defence of that Government, there was an acknowledgement amongst most of the chamber about the damaging effects of that legacy. However, the fiercest critics in the world of the Thatcher Government must acknowledge that it had a deep, profound and lasting impact. What is needed now is nothing less—a political transformation every bit as dramatic, every bit as deep and every bit as lasting—those who want to change the UK Government or those who want to leave the UK, amongst whom I have empathy with both objectives. However, whichever objective we share, my fear is—my concern is—that it's the tribal hostility between us that could threaten our ability to deliver the kind of political transformation that our country needs when September 19 comes around. When September 19 comes around, we're going to have to accept the result. Those who campaign to stay in the union, if Scotland votes yes, we're going to have to accept that we have the responsibility to take up the challenge that the Scottish people will have given us and try to achieve that political transformation. Those who are campaigning for a yes vote, if Scotland votes no, we're still going to have to accept that our responsibility is to achieve as great a political progress as we can within the limits that the Scottish people will have chosen to endorse. You need to wind up, Mr Harvey. Can I, in closing, thank once again all members for their contribution to this debate? Perhaps it's only a debate that we can properly have after September 19, but I'm grateful for people having at least engaged with it beforehand. That includes a debate on wealth and income equality. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 9941, in the name of Joffus Patrick. On behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme, any member who wishes to speak against motion should replace the request-speak button now, and I call on Joffus Patrick to move motion 9941. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I will now put the question of chamber. The question is that motion 9941, in the name of Joffus Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 9942, in the name of Joffus Patrick. On behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a stage 2 timetable for the House and Scotland Bill, any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-speak button now, and I call on Joffus Patrick to move motion 9942. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I will now put it in most of the chamber. The question is that motion 9942, in the name of Joffus Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of free parliamentary bureau motions. I would ask Joffus Patrick to move motion 9942 on approval of an SSI, motion 9944 on parliamentary recess dates, and motion 9945 on the office of the clerk. The question is that motion will be put a decision time to which we now come. There are 11 questions to be put as a result of today's business, so you need to pay attention. I remind members that, in relation to the debate on energy and climate change, if the amendment in the name of John Swinney is agreed, the amendments in the name of Ian Gray and Murdo Fraser Fault. The first question, then, is amendment 9927.3 in the name of John Swinney, which seeks to amend motion 9927 in the name of Alison Johnson on energy and climate change be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9927.3 in the name of John Swinney is as follows. Yes, 65. No, 16. There were 37 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The amendments in the name of Ian Gray and Murdo Fraser Fault. The next question is at motion 9927 in the name of Alison Johnson as amended on energy and climate change be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment on motion 9927 in the name of Alison Johnson as amended is as follows. Yes, 114. No, there were no abstentions. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed to. The next question is at amendment 9927.3 in the name of Margaret Burgess, which seeks to amend motion 9926 in the name of Patrick Harvie on wealth and income inequality be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9926.3 in the name of Margaret Burgess is as follows. Yes, 60. No, 58. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at amendment 9926.1 in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend motion 9926 in the name of Patrick Harvie on wealth and income inequality be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9926.1 in the name of Jackie Baillie is as follows. Yes, 43. No, 75. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at amendment 9926.4 in the name of Gavin Brown, which seeks to amend motion 9926 in the name of Patrick Harvie on wealth and income inequality be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 9926.4 in the name of Gavin Brown is as follows. Yes, 16. No, 101. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion 9926 in the name of Patrick Harvie as amended on wealth and income inequality be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 9926 in the name of Patrick Harvie is as follows. Yes, 64. No, 54. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion 9943 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on approval of an SSI be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion 9944 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on parliamentary recess states be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion 9945 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on the office of the cleric be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave in the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.