 I call on Keith Brown to speak to and move the motion in his name. I am grateful for this opportunity today to set out for Parliament Scotland's economic strengths, resilience to the economic challenges that we undoubtedly face and the opportunities that we are creating to grow and strengthen our economy for the benefit of all in our society. Since coming to power, this Government has supported an improvement in Scotland's economic performance during a uniquely challenging economic period dominated by the global financial crisis and the UK Government's austerity programme. Since 2007, over that very difficult period, the number of registered businesses has risen by 15 per cent, business are in the expenditure is up by over 40 per cent in real terms, our international exports have increased by 41 per cent, productivity has risen by 7.5 per cent whereas it is stagnated at UK level and there are over 80,000 more people in employment. Scotland's labour market has also been remarkably resilient in the face of the challenges that we have encountered. The latest statistics published this morning show that the unemployment rate continues to fall and now stands at 4 per cent—that is our record low—with the UK at 4.6 per cent, again stagnating at the same level as previously. Our unemployment level is below both the UK as a whole and most other OECD countries. Indeed, this is only the second quarter in the past 25 years when unemployment has been this low. We also welcome the fall in unemployment announced today. However, like the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, we are concerned that Scotland has also experienced a significant rise in the number of people dropping out of the labour market altogether, with inactivity rates in Scotland one full percentage point above the rest of the UK. Can the cabinet secretary explain why inactivity levels in Scotland are increasing? I am happy to do so. He will find that much of the explanation lies in the number of students going to higher education. Of course, they, by definition, are economically active—30,000 more than there is previously and at a higher level than the rest of the UK. I am interested that the member says that the Conservatives welcome those figures. I would quote Murdo Fraser last year when he said that, in fact, two years ago, the Scottish Government must explain why unemployment rates north of the border are now significantly higher than the rest of the UK. Does that mean that the UK Government should now explain why unemployment is so much higher than Scotland? It will be interesting to see whether that is addressed when the Tories get the chance to speak. That is 4.6 per cent the same as it was last quarter. I know that it is disappointing to the Conservatives and to the Labour Party that the numbers are so low. Those encouraging numbers reflect the importance that we, as a Government, are attached to getting on with the day job of supporting our economy and creating jobs. It is the strengths that continue to make Scotland one of the most attractive locations for inward investment. The latest EY attractiveness survey shows that Scotland attracted 122 FDI projects in 2016 more than any other part of the UK outside London. It is particularly welcome that Scotland attracted more R&D projects than anywhere else in the UK and was second only again to London in securing software projects. All three of Scotland's largest cities, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, are in the UK's top 10 for numbers of FDI projects secured. Again, we wait for the congratulations to those people who have secured that investment by the other parties. The publication today of the Scottish Government's chief economist state of the economy report provides a timely analysis of the economic opportunities and challenges that the Scottish economy faces. 2016 was a challenging year for the economy, with GDP growing just 0.4 per cent over the year and contracting marginally in the final quarter. That slowed down, as is mentioned in the chief economist report, principally stemming from the continued challenges facing the oil and gas sector. That is why we are continuing to support the oil and gas sector both through the work of the energy jobs task force and by supporting innovation and ensuring that Scotland can maximise the economic opportunities that decommissioning presents. Cabinet Secretary for Giving Way, I think that we all agree in this chamber that we want to see more growth in the Scottish economy. When will the Scottish Government publish some results from its growth commission chaired by Andrew Wilson? That commission is not part of the Government, so we do not report on that to this chamber. I know that Murdo Fraser knows that, but I do not know why he failed to take the opportunity to ask the UK Government to explain why their unemployment figures are so much worse than Scotland. That is the first chance that he has had to do and failed already. The publication of the chief economist report points to the challenges that are faced by the oil and gas sector. That is why we are continuing to support it. We are also seeing encouraging signs that conditions are improving for oil and gas companies. Yesterday, surveyed by the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce oil and gas survey shows that confidence is rising among North Sea oil and gas firms and stands at its highest level since 2013. The recent Bank of Scotland PMI for May signalled growth across manufacturing and services sectors. However, it is clear that the UK itself is facing economic challenges and UK GDP growth in the first quarter of this year was lower than any other country in the EU at 0.2 per cent. Rising inflation is squeezing household incomes. Those pressures are particularly acute for families being hit by the UK Government's benefit freeze. It is also time to look again at the pay restraint that is faced by the public sector. I recognise that pay restraint has been hard for public sector workers. It has been in place at a time of UK Government-imposed austerity in order to protect jobs and public services. However, at a time of rising inflation, the Tories are failing to control inflation, failing to control debt with adding £100 billion to debt every year since they took office. That restraint is putting pressure on public pay. We will take a fresh look at next year's pay policy in order to address that issue. Of course, we must ensure that pay rises are affordable now and in the future, but we must also reflect the real-life circumstances that people face. That brings me on to the main risk facing Scotland's economy. The UK Government's continued determination to impose a hard Brexit on Scotland. I particularly like to reflect today on the significant contribution that the European structural funds and European territorial co-operation make to Scotland's economy. European structural funds programmes are worth around £828 million to Scotland over the period from 2014 to 2020. That is a significant investment at a time when public sector budgets are under pressure. To date, more than 200 projects have been approved, committing over £383 million of European structural funds across Scotland to boost SME growth, as well as to support innovation and skills and reduce poverty and social exclusion. I am pleased to have been able to make a number of announcements over the last year, including an investment in the £250 million SME holding fund, which is projected to support innovation in 500 businesses and to create 2,000 jobs. Alongside that, European territorial co-operation activities complement and strengthen the investments that are made through structural funds to support growth in jobs in Scotland and across Europe. Many organisations in Scotland benefit from working on projects with organisations from different countries to tackle common challenges and develop shared opportunities. Those include the £3.2 million award to the 4C project led by the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney to develop ocean energy technology and the £3.5 million award to allow our enterprise agencies to work alongside Invest, NI and Inter Trade Ireland to support innovation co-operation between SMEs and research institutions. Such projects demonstrate the vital role that European funding plays in supporting sustainable and inclusive growth in Scotland. That is why it is essential that the UK Government commits to replacing that funding in full following Brexit. The challenge will be, especially to the Conservatives, to guarantee that Scotland will retain the equivalent amount of money in the longer term if they are successful in dragging Scotland out of the EU—I am sorry, I have not much time left, Mr Rennie—and dragging Scotland out of the EU and the single market against the wishes of the Scottish people. I look forward to improving their MPs who are going to work in Westminster in Scotland's interests by making that commitment on behalf of their parties here and now in this debate. The funding that is provided by structural funds also complements the wider actions that we are taking to drive productivity and create opportunities for growth through investment, innovation, inclusive growth and internationalisation, as set out in Scotland's economic strategy. We are making significant investments in support businesses and drive productivity growth in Scotland. For example, we are investing billions in transforming Scotland's infrastructure, which is a key driver of long-term productivity growth with many projects that have been neglected for decades under the Conservative and Labour parties. If you do not believe me, listen to Patrick McLaughlin, the Conservative Secretary of State, previously for transport, who said that that was a very problem in Scotland for decades that there had not been the requisite investment in our transport infrastructure. If you are very quick, I will do. Today, the First Minister has written to the Prime Minister about Europe, saying that her support for her platform on the European single market did not garner support and a new proposal was urgently required to protect the economy and bring people together. Does that also apply to independence and the SNP? I know once again that I have not mentioned independence, but again Willie Rennie, who is utterly obsessed, seeks to mention it and try to hoover it into this particular debate. I did find it very interesting in the morning after the election, when Jeremy Purvis, elected by nobody, of course, but speaking on the platform said that it was time that the SNP dropped their commitment and then was immediately asked will you drop your commitment to another referendum and could not answer the question, and to ask for Christine Jardin's appalling statement on Sunday. Once again, what we have seen is that the Opposition party is utterly obsessed by independence. To get back to the economy, which is what we should do, the funding provided by structural funds also complements the wider actions that we are taking to drive productivity, as I mentioned. The investment in infrastructure includes projects such as the Queensferry crossing, the dualling of the A9, the dualling of the A96, the Aberyne western peripheral route, and of course the M8, M74 and M73 improvement project. The Scottish growth scheme will provide £500 million to support innovative SMEs with high growth potentials who struggle to obtain finance through conventional means. We are investing more than £1 billion in our universities this year alone and are supporting collaborations between universities and businesses through our innovation centres. Inclusive growth is at the heart of our actions to grow the economy as we equip our young people for the future. That is why we are increasing the number of modern apprenticeship opportunities to 30,000 per year by 2020 and are expanding funded childcare to improve young children's outcomes and reduce barriers to parents participating in the economy. We are also driving internationalisation by boosting Scotland's trade and international connections. Scotland's economic fundamentals remain strong, but we face economic challenges, in particular the damage that will be caused by the UK Government's desire to take Scotland out of the UK and the single market. I have set out today a range of actions that we are taking to grow and strengthen our economy for the future. We have to continue to invest for growth by promoting and supporting innovation, investment and internationalisation as set out in Scotland's economic strategy and I would urge the chamber to support the motion in my name. I call on Dean Lockhart to speak to and move the amendment in his name. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Government has today presented a wide-ranging motion on the economy, a subject that it was curiously silent on before the election. Nonetheless, let me start with some areas of consensus. We agree that there are opportunities for growth in Scotland's economy. We have a world-class workforce, world-class universities and world-class cities. With the right Government and the right policies here at Hothirwood, Scotland's full economic potential could be realised. We also agree that the economy in Scotland faces a number of challenges that need to be addressed. However, in response to the Government's motion, let's be clear that those challenges reach far beyond the oil and gas sector and those challenges existed well before Brexit. In fact, under the SNP, Scotland's economy has suffered below-trend growth for the past 10 years, with average growth during its time and power being merely 0.7 per cent. Last year, growth in Scotland was only 0.4 per cent, while growth for the rest of the UK was almost five times faster. It's no wonder then that Ernst and Young has described Scotland's economy as being stuck in the slow lane, with Scotland halfway to recession and with ENY also forecasting that, for every year until 2020, Scotland's economy will continue to underperform the rest of the UK. At this stage, the cabinet secretary usually intervenes to tell me that I am talking down Scotland. Let me save him the bother. I am not. I am identifying the economic challenges that we face as a country. Those challenges are evident across a range of other indicators. Innovation and productivity levels continue to lag behind OECD averages. FDI jobs declined by 47 per cent last year, despite the small increase in the number of FDI projects. Scotland's export base is too small, according to Scottish Enterprise, with only 50 companies accounting for 50 per cent of exports. According to EY, we need to diversify our sector base, as recent economic growth in Scotland has been over-reliant on public sector construction, which declined last year by 3.3 per cent according to the state of the economy report issued by the Scottish Government earlier today. Although, I have to say, the construction sector has contributed a bit longer to the Scottish economy given the delays to the Queensford crossing. Despite those challenges, there are real opportunities to improve economic performance in Scotland, but only if there is a corresponding real change in the substance and direction of economic policy in Scotland. As the cabinet secretary himself said in his chamber less than three months ago, the status quo will not deliver the economic step change necessary. We agree with that. If the Scottish Government wants to deliver the step change in the economy, it must listen to key stakeholders across Scotland who have been calling for the economic policy to change in the following areas. I would be really interested to know what your feelings are on the post-study work visa, which is stopping us from recruiting people that our universities are investing in and that come from other places in the world. That is something that I have certainly, when I have been speaking to university leaders, been a real issue. That is something that we recognise as an issue and it is something that will be involved in the Brexit negotiations going forward. Let me look at the areas of policy change that stakeholders across Scotland have been calling for. First, the Scottish Government should work closer with the UK Government to capitalise on opportunities that are available under the UK-wide industrial strategy. For example, according to the Scottish Whiskey Association, the UK industrial strategy represents an opportunity for the whisky industry to flourish as a flagship manufacturer and exporter. However, the SWA goes on to say that the industrial strategy will only serve the interests of all nations of the UK if the devolved administrations play an active role in its implementation. We agree with that. The industrial strategy can also play an active role and act as a policy framework to expand key sectors in Scotland such as life sciences and financial technology. In the area of fintech, the UK Government—let me make a bit of progress a little later—in the area of fintech, the UK Government has appointed two fintech envoys to explore how Scotland can capitalise in this critical area of the economy. With a recent report from Strathclyde Business School warning that the Scottish financial sector could face the loss of over 14,000 jobs if it fails to embrace fintech. I look forward to the cabinet secretary or the minister telling us their plans for working with the UK Government on the industrial strategy. Stakeholders in the economy are also calling for a more competitive tax system in Scotland. 13 leading business organisations across Scotland have called for the Government to abolish the large business supplement, which affects 20,000 businesses across Scotland, penalising them with higher rates than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. My colleagues will expand on that during the debate, but with that unfair tax in place, it is not surprising that the rate of shop closures in Scotland is the highest in any part of the UK. Stakeholders have also called for the Scottish Government to expand support for Scotland's exporters and boost trade with the rest of the UK. Indeed, that was one of the key findings of the economy committee's report on the economic impact of leaving the EU. In evidence provided to the economy committee, we heard that Scotland's trade comprised the following. 65 per cent of our trade is with our domestic UK market, 20 per cent with the rest of the world and 16 per cent with the EU single market, with the fastest growing markets over the past 10 years being traded with the rest of the UK and exports to the rest of the world. Reflecting those trading patterns, the committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses as follows. More needs to be done by the Scottish Government to support Scottish businesses in exporting across the world, including the emerging market. Scotland's number one trading priority must always be to keep the trading relationship with the rest of the UK open and fluid. The committee also heard evidence that Scottish business wants the fullest possible access to the EU single market, and that is exactly what the UK Government's objectives have been and will continue to be in the Brexit negotiations. He talked about a competitive tax rate, and by that he means a low tax rate. Does he not accept that that would be a risk and that public services would suffer? Our workforce would be less well educated and we would have less money for infrastructure? I do not have time to go into the lab record right now. However, you just need to look at the high streets across Scotland to see that the large business supplement is pouring businesses out of business. Therefore, local governments and central government are getting less tax revenue as a result of this misguided policy. The final key policy message for the Government comes from the most important stakeholders of all, the people of Scotland. In last week's general election, the people of Scotland were told by the First Minister, and I quote, independence is at the heart of the election. The people of Scotland listened, they thought long and hard about this and they voted, and the result was once again an overwhelming rejection of independence, with more than 63 per cent of votes being cast for parties in support of Scotland's remaining part of the UK. Therefore, it is now time for the SNP to listen to the people of Scotland and to abandon the policy that has most damaged Scotland's economy, the Scottish National Party's constant campaigning for independence, not now. Presiding Officer, it is time for the SNP to remove the uncertainty of a second independence referendum and get on with the day job. I move the amendment in my name. Presiding Officer, complacency and denial are the twin problems facing the SNP in relation to the economy. Complacency on the state of the economy and denial over a second independence referendum, which, aside from Brexit, is the biggest threat to our economy. I see the cabinet secretary laughing, but perhaps he would do well to listen, because debate after debate, the opposition parties come to the chamber to hear from the Scottish Government that there is nothing wrong with the economy, and what we are doing is simply talking Scotland down. The cabinet secretary has recently taken to hiding behind businesses, using them as some sort of human shield so that he does not have to answer for challenges in the economy. Let us be clear. We support business. We recognise their central role in growing the economy. The challenge, of course, is for the Government to provide them with the right support at the right time. This is not rocket science, Presiding Officer. Business leaders are not shy about coming forward and telling us what they want, whether it is the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, CBI Scotland or the Federation of Small Businesses. They tell us that they want involvement with the Government in setting the strategy for economic growth, investing in infrastructure and maximising the opportunities for SMEs in procurement and investing in skills. None of those should come as a surprise to us, and, yes, they also tell us that, above all, they want certainty. Yet both Governments have given them exactly the opposite. First, we have Brexit on the back of a referendum, pushed by the Tories to settle their internal divisions on the European Union, and now, after the general election, in complete disarray about the way forward. Then we have independence. Rejected by the people of Scotland in 2014—you may laugh, but I suggest that you listen—rejected, again, one week ago in the general election. Whilst the First Minister might be in denial and judging from the noise emanating from the back benches, the rest of the SNP is in denial, none of her cabinet has enough backbone to stand up to her, and the rest of us thinks that she had a calamitous election. Droffing from 50 per cent of the vote to 36 per cent is part of a pattern of decline. Losing the SNP majority in this Parliament, staggering falls in our personal popularity and, of course, declining support for independence. We have passed peak SNP and peak Nicola Sturgeon. I will take an intervention from the cabinet secretary. Just on the question of last week's election, as long as a Labour party are content to be third with the worst result that they have had since 1918, we will be content to be first. On the issue of unemployment, which has failed to mention and welcomed the figures today, the Labour Party, in fact, Jackie Baillie herself said 18 months ago that the SNP Government had the wrong priorities. Would you agree that the Scottish Government has got the right priorities given the unemployment results? Sit down a minute, Ms Baillie. There is time in hand, so I will give you a back. Do not worry about whether it is a speech or not. That is for me. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am always in your good hands. Can I say to the SNP that their priorities are entirely wrong? Anybody who can describe a loss from 50 per cent of the vote to 36 per cent as a victory, frankly, needs to look at doing their sums again? The truth is that here is the opportunity for the SNP to put the economy first, set aside the pursuit of independence, do so clearly, do so without fudging, restore business certainty. That is what our economy needs and what the country needs. The truth is that there are mixed reviews about the economy. On the one hand, we see positive statistics today on employment and unemployment, which are to be welcomed. On the other hand, the rise in economic inactivity remains a problem that the cabinet secretary simply brushes aside. There are 776,000 people of working age in this category, an increase of 12,000 in the last quarter. Overall, that is 1 per cent higher than the rest of the UK. If confirmation is needed, look to Tony Mackay of Mackay Consulting, who points to the true level of unemployment at 4.4 per cent, which is much higher than the claimant count of 2.4 per cent, or Professor Brian Ashcroft, who has pointed to real unemployment rising more than five years ago, or indeed the S2UC, who raised concerns before, that the official statistics do not show the real condition of our jobs market. I suggest that the cabinet secretary, instead of trying to invent an explanation about students, recognise that that is not good for our economy and do something about it. The statistics also show that wages are declining in real terms. With inflation rising, there is less spending power, less consumer demand and therefore an impact on business. Not surprisingly, the Scottish Retail Consortium is concerned about the future, and not for the first time we have called on the Government to bring forward a retail strategy with the sector, and I hope that the Government eventually gets round to agreeing. If you want to make a real difference to workers and increase their spending in the economy, pay them a living wage of £10 an hour, ban zero-hours contracts and provide them with the skills that businesses need for the future. In other words, invest in people to drive growth in the economy. The Government's chief economist tells us that the Scottish economy grew in 2016, and yes, it did, but only by 0.4 per cent, well down on expectations and on a downward trajectory. In fact, for the last quarter, the economy shrank by 0.2 per cent, and the fear is that we could be heading for a recession. Nobody wants to see that happen, but instead of rising to the challenge of reversing the trend and growing the economy, the SNP has been spending their time working on their rebuttal. Before the next quarter's GDP starts come out, which is soon, it has shifted how it analysed this measurement so that we do not look so bad when compared to the rest of the UK, it has just simply stripped out London. Then it is all marvellous. That is the limit of the SNP's ambition—reinterpret and spin the figures instead of focusing on growing the economy. Our economy—no, I do not have time—has lost out on money and jobs due to the SNP's mismanagement. Just look at the growth sectors that our enterprise agencies are charged with focusing on. Five out of six had not recorded any growth at all by the end of 2016, and when you compared jobs created, the rest of the UK grew jobs in those same sectors three and a half times more quickly since 2009. I see the cabinet secretary shaking his head, those are facts provided by the Government's own statisticians. That is huge potential that we are simply not tapping into. Let me touch on foreign direct investment. The EY report notes the increase in the number of projects that is welcome, but jobs created are much lower. The number of FDI jobs secured fell in 2016 by 47 per cent. Let us not forget that foreign direct investment for 2014, before the last referendum, slowed noticeably and companies delayed making decisions until they knew that it was all over. Another reason to take indiref 2 off the table if we want our economy to grow. Internationalisation, innovation investment, inclusive growth—all laudable headlines. Let me say that it takes no account of the Government strategy, no account of Brexit, no account of what it needs to do to change. Fraser of Allander Institute said that it needs to be urgently reviewed. It is simply not credible to continue as normal. Let me make one final observation. No, I think that you must. I have given you your extra time. Please move your amendment. Okay. I will move the amendment, Presiding Officer, and let me say that if the SNP wants the economy to grow, then they should not take the independence referendum off the table. I gave your time back, not recorded your microphones off. I call on Patrick Harvie. Please, Mr Harvie, to speak to and move the amendment. 6045.4, in your name, thank you. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Seven minutes is the speaking time, is that right? Yeah, thank you. Indeed, and I will give you a 30-second flexibility. I will give you time, and this has not been counted, by the way. I will give you a little bit extra time for an intervention. I feel that I must begin with an apology, because in drafting an amendment for today's debate I regret to say that I looked only at the title of the debate as it is written, and I have written an amendment that talks about the economy rather than the constitution. The unspoken, unwritten title of the debate, given the huge appetite of the political parties who would like us not to talk about independence by talking about independence all the time, I will come to it, but I hope that I can beg your indulgence and talk about the economy just a little bit, first of all. As is my normal style, I want to recognise some degree of agreement across all political parties. I think that most of the parties' amendments, although I am not able to vote either for the motion or any other amendment tonight, most of them recognise some degree of balance between opportunity and challenge in our economy. Even the Conservatives amendment talks about the need for an industrial strategy, and I think that it is good that a country, the UK, which went for so long with Government after Government taking a hands-off approach, assuming that the market would fix every problem, now has some degree of consensus that at least Government needs to have an industrial strategy. I will disagree of course with the Conservatives about what that strategy would be, just as I will disagree with the Scottish Government. Greens will continue to make the case for investment in a transition to a low-carbon economy, while both the UK and Scottish Governments remain unwilling so far to abandon their continued tax breaks and subsidies to the big polluters in our economy. As has been shown just in the last couple of months with leaked documents from the UK Government, the subsidies to oil, coal and gas companies since 2000 amount to some £6.9 billion, most of which is since 2010, when the Tory coalition was first formed. The Greens have advocated with our work on jobs in the new economy that there is far more to be gained than to be lost in the transition away from fossil fuels, but that is only going to happen if we invest in it instead of continuing to subsidise the cause of the problem. I want to agree with something in Labour's motion as well. The commitment to a real living wage of £10 an hour, of course, naturally we support it. Of course we do. It was in our 2015 election manifesto and I am very pleased to see that it has been taken up by the Labour Party now. As to the importance of Europe, the SNP mentioned the importance of structural funds and investment in infrastructure. Keith Brown gave a long list of road building projects that he is very keen on. It is a shame that he could not list any sustainable infrastructure projects because they are urgently needed. The Lib Dem motion references skills shortages. That is a real challenge in many industries but also in our public services, which are an important part of our economy in its own right and which also create the conditions that our whole economy depends on. As we have just seen recently, there has been a 96 per cent drop in the number of nurses from the rest of the EU registering to work in the UK from 1,304 in July last year to just 46 in April. The challenges that will come from skills shortages as a result of the UK Government so far insisting on abandoning and scrapping the right of free movement is a huge and long-lasting threat. The Fraser of Allander Institute commented that all of the Scottish Government's economic strategy priorities, such as internationalisation and innovation, have been turned on their head by the decision to leave the EU. The previous UK administration's approach to a hard Brexit should be abandoned, and I certainly agree with that commitment. I wonder if it means—and I hope that it does—that the Labour Party now supports staying inside the single market. The phrase that we hear so often from the Conservatives, maximum possible access to the European single market, we must question once again what that phrase means. Will a worker have maximum access to the single market if they can't decide where they wish to move for work, either to or from this country? Will a family have maximum access to the single market if they can't stay together and face, as so many already do, the threat of deportation? There are aspects of common ground and agreement across the whole political spectrum on some aspects. I would argue that there are also critically important issues that are being missed by all other parties. The argument from the Greens on growth will be a familiar one to all of you. We reject the idea that narrow metrics such as GDP represent a meaningful assessment of the health of the economy. I am particularly interested in finding out whether the Greens think that the North Sea oil and gas industry is an asset to Scotland's economy. I would say that our over-reliance on fossil fuels that we cannot afford to burn is an incredible source of vulnerability. If we want an area like the north-east to have a prospect of a brighter future, it is about investing in that transition rather than kidding people on that business, as usual, will continue. Productivity has been mentioned in the SNP amendment, and Greens agree in principle. In particular, the obsession of the UK Government with reducing public debt. If we do that without increasing productivity, all that will happen is that we increase the already much greater stock of private debt in the economy, which is already a bigger problem. However, again, we need to consider how we measure productivity. It is quite possible that the future wave of automation may increase productivity by reducing employment or by reducing the quality of employment. Who will share in the proceeds of that increased productivity while not the workers affected? In closing, on to the constitutional question that others are so keen to discuss. I need to challenge the conceit of the leave campaign that the UK can be treated as a unitary state in the Brexit process. That conceit is now being challenged and will fail. I need to challenge the idea that the UK Government has any kind of mandate for a hard Brexit. It sought it and were refused it. I challenge the idea that Scotland has consented at all to the Brexit process. It has not. Unless the UK Government changes its position, we will still be in the position that UK ministers, with the support of their new best friends among the climate deniers, creationists, misogynists and homophobes of the DUP, will negotiate a deal with the EU institutions after which every other EU member state will have its say and the outcome imposed upon us. Earlier this year, the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of seeking a section 30 order to give the people who live here their own say in their future. If the UK Government wants to change that position, the ball is very clearly in their court. As the Government, which triggered an unnecessary referendum and lost it, then triggered an unnecessary election and lost its majority, I urged it to think again. Drop its plans for an extreme hard Brexit, drop its arrogant approach to imposing a deal upon us and work collaboratively with others in every part of the islands, most particularly with those who recognise the need to protect our place inside the single market and the rights, freedoms and social protections that it gives us. I move amendment in my name. Turning away from our strong relationship with our European partners will damage our economic progress. All but a handful of MSPs agreed with that last year. Trade barriers in the form of differing regulatory systems, tariffs and workers' rights will cost jobs and growth. The Fraser of Allander Institute reckons that 80,000 jobs in Scotland could be at stake because of a hard Brexit. Most agree that turning away from our neighbours would damage us, except when it comes to England, our closest neighbour. Apparently, that will have the opposite effect. It will boost trade, boost jobs and boost growth. That is curious, considering the relative economic importance of the UK and Europe. Scotland's exports to the UK are worth four times as much of those to the EU. Scottish sales to England, Wales and Northern Ireland were about £50 billion in 2015, compared with about £12 billion to the EU internal market. That is the nonsense of the Scottish National Party position. It paraded the value of partnership to accelerate us forward, except when it comes to the UK who are apparently holding us back. That is the nonsense of their position. However, that should never be an either-or. We should be seeking to grow exports to the rest of the UK and to the rest of Europe. We must break down barriers and not build them up. There is an opportunity to turn away from our damaging hard Brexit. Theresa May called the election to get an overwhelming mandate for our Brexit plan. She failed. That is why I support calls for a cross-party Cabinet committee to prepare a new plan that can secure the maximum support possible across the UK. I was interested, because I quoted it to the minister earlier on in the letter from the First Minister to Theresa May, which said, during the election, you sought a mandate for your proposals to leave the European single market. That proposal failed to garner support. It is now clear that a new proposal is needed urgently to protect the economy and bring people together. We denied the opportunity to respond to that, because I would argue that, on 37 per cent of the vote, that equally applies to the SNP and its plans for independence. However, somehow, there is a different standard to be applied in Scotland. Of course, I will answer the question now, yes, absolutely. Cabinet Secretary. I will decide one intervention, thank you very much, but can he answer the question that his colleague said that it was very important, a newly elected MP, that she should be allowed to continue to argue for the arguments that she put before the electorate successfully to get elected? Does that apply to all MPs? The way that interventions work, when I make a point earlier on, he is supposed to reply to it, and now when I ask him to reply to it, he is supposed to have a second chance to do that too, but he does not want to answer the questions that I pose to him. We are holding the Government to account, and he should at least have the gracefulness to answer the question, so I am not going to give him the gracefulness of answering his bizarre question in response. I believe that our best interests are served. Mr Rennie, can I remind you either to refer to the cabinet secretary by name and not just by a pronoun, as that is no good for the OR? Okay, thank you very much. I will do that. I believe that our best interests are served by remaining in the EU, but close observers may have noticed that the Liberal Democrats did not win the election either. We are constructive and reasonable people who will work with others on a new plan that gets all the benefits of a close relationship with our European partners, even if it is not what I would ultimately want. That is reasonable and pragmatic. What is not reasonable and pragmatic is to use Brexit for the sole purpose of winning independence. It is the latest excuse from the SNP in its relentless independence campaign, but what is absurd is that the SNP is seeking to use Europe to get an independent referendum but cannot guarantee Europe with that independence referendum in return. We could end up not just being outside the UK but being outside of Europe too. We would certainly be isolated then and the voters are not buying it. If the election failed to endorse Theresa May's plan for Brexit, it certainly failed to endorse Nicola Sturgeon's plan for independence. The loss of big political creatures such as former leader Alex Salmond and the Westminster leader Angus Robertson requires an appropriate response. To carry on, regardless, we would be failing to understand what has just happened. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to lose one leader may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness. There is something very strange going on in Scottish politics in the SNP just now. Once upon a time, Alex Neil was a fundamentalist demanding independence without delay. Nicola Sturgeon was the gradualist. Now the roles are reversed. Nicola Sturgeon has gone from arch-gradulist to neofundamentalist in just two years, so something very strange is going on. Nicola Sturgeon's carelessness is not just harming the SNP, it is harming the economy too. Official figures show that Scotland is on the brink of a recession, while Ernst and Young report that the Scottish economy is stuck in the slow lane. The EI Scottish item club has predicted below-par GDP growth of 0.9 per cent in 2017. Half of that is expected for the UK. Our economy is set to lag behind the UK with consumer and company confidence falling. Employment in Scotland is also forecast to fall this year. In 2017, it is expected to drop by 0.1 per cent, followed by further decreases of 0.5 and 0.3 in the following two years. Consumer spending to rise by just 1 per cent in 2017 and by less than 1 per cent in 2018 through to 2020. That compares with an average annual rate of 2.3 per cent over the last five years in Scotland. Scotland is set to be behind today. Brexit affects us all, but independence and the failure of this Government to perform and deliver is hitting us too. The SNP Government should abandon its plans for independence and focus on what it was elected to do. Liberal Democrats have big plans to invest in our people through education and mental health. We have plans for a closer relationship with Europe to boost trade and jobs. We have plans that will open up and advance our country, not close it off and hold it back. Mr Reddy, I now move to the open to date speeches of six minutes or thereabouts. I call Ivan McKee to be followed by Liam Kerr. Mr McKee, please. I stand before you here today as someone who has worked at the sharp end of businesses across the globe. I have seen economies booming bust and I have witnessed the decisions of policy makers as they have impacted on people's lives. Because of that, and in my role as parliamentary liaison officer to the cabinet secretary for the economy, I know just how lucky we are to live in Scotland in one of the world's most prosperous countries. In the top 20 of OECD nations for income per head, I recognise the responsibility that we have as politicians to protect it. Scotland is lucky to have an expanding food and drink sector and a globally recognised tourism industry. We are lucky to have seen R&D investment up 41 per cent in real terms over the past nine years. We are lucky to have world-class universities and gold standard research, even a blossoming space industry. We are lucky to have lower unemployment and higher productivity growth than the rest of the UK. However, those things did not happen by chance. They have happened because this SNP Government has worked hard to ensure that Scotland's place in the world is an outward-looking international one and it has ensured that the fundamental drivers of growth have been strong over the past decade. Just given the wonderful performance of the SNP Government over the past decade, why is average growth being a mere 0.7 per cent during this 10-year decade, when long-term growth in Scotland is about 2.5 per cent? Ivan McKee On the member will know that the growth in Scotland is now, the growth of the UK is collapsing as a consequence of Brexit. That is the situation. If you look back over the two years, 2014, 15, 15 and 16, you will see that growth per head in Scotland was actually higher than that across the UK. The reason that UK growth is higher is because of immigration and significant increases in population. If you look at the forecast, as population comes down because of the Brexit policies, you will see a collapse in UK growth going forward. As the SNP Government has committed to Scotland's economic future, growing Scotland's economic base and business base is a key priority. We have cut taxes for business. The small business bonus scheme has saved 100,000 businesses over 1.2 billion in rates. While supporting Scottish businesses on the international stage, the Scottish growth scheme provides 500 million investment guarantees for companies to grow and export more. We have worked hard to make Scotland an attractive place to do business, with record foreign direct investment into Scotland, the best performance in the UK outside of London for the fifth year running. We have grown productivity, the long-term key to economic success at four times the rate of the UK. Scotland has the highest average pay anywhere in the UK outside of London in the south-east. The SNP Government is not just investing in business, we are also investing in people. One of the most highly educated workforces in Europe is investing £1 billion per year in higher education, funding research and innovation to keep our economy competitive. It is an educated population that benefits us all, but most of all I am proud that our Government values inclusive growth. That is fundamental to our advancement as a society and imperative to our economic growth. However, there is no denying that there are challenging times ahead. The biggest threat to our economy right now, of course, is Brexit. We need to do all that we can to protect our economy from the insane decision of the Tory Government to leave the European single market and implement a hard Brexit. Since then, inflation has risen, wages are squeezed and businesses are losing confidence. The pound fell again this week as the Prime Minister formed a coalition of chaos with the DWP in the aftermath of a whole unnecessary general election. The cracks are shown in our economy because of the reckless actions of the UK Government. Applications from EU nurses to work in the UK are down significantly, storing up future problems for our public services. Today is the publication of the latest unemployment statistics, and once again Scotland leads away with unemployment now down to our record beating 4 per cent, much better than the UK's performance. Particularly pleasing is Scotland's youth unemployment rate, almost 3 per cent, is points lower than that of the UK. A consequence of the Scottish Government's focus on positive destinations for our young people. The coherent focus of the Scottish Government is on what matters, getting on with the day job, focusing on further improving positive destinations for our young people, delivering highly effective and targeted interventions to save and grow key sectors, where the UK Government obsesses with doing as much damage to the economy as possible through the pursuit of chaotic Brexit—now not just hard but shambolic as well. In conclusion, those are difficult times, and uncertainty is not of our making but created in another place, driving growth rates down and inflation up across the UK. At the start of a rocky ride, at some point in reality, we will intervene in the illusion of fortress UK isolating itself from our European neighbours will be revealed as the economic legacy it is. In the meantime, the Scottish Government is focused on doing what it can, with the limited powers that we have to protect and build Scotland's economy and to make the case strongly and coherently for Scotland's future as a European trading nation that understands the benefits, membership of a single market, critical to the future success and prosperity of this country. Thank you very much, Mr McKee. I call Liam Kerr. We are followed by Julian Martin. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I confirm if I have five minutes or six minutes? Is it five minutes? Oh, it's five minutes that you have, Mr Kerr. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thought that. Two years ago, the Scottish Government set out a new economic strategy. I believe that most of us in this chamber would agree with the strategy's general assessment of Scotland's economy back then. I quote, Scotland is a wealthy and competitive economy by international standards. However, many similar sized economies perform better, not just economically, but also on measures of equality, wellbeing and sustainability. Two years on, and little progress has been made. In fact, on many indicators, Scotland's economy has fallen further. The economy is halfway towards recession. Job creation rate is 2.7 per cent against the UK rate of 9 per cent. Ernst and Young forecast a year of near stagnation and below power growth. Now, as we all know, the Scottish Government will take no lessons from anyone in this chamber, so perhaps the Scottish Government should take a lesson from itself. In particular, it could revisit page 7 of the economic strategy, which states, boosting competitiveness is key to supporting long-term economic growth. I agree. So why make Scotland uncompetitive with a high-tax, low-growth economy that acts as a drag? In the short and time allotted, I will focus on two areas. Firstly, the Scottish Government needs to reconsider the business rate system. The current system is not fair. It is a disincentive to success. In the words of Jerry Scherder, the head of rating at property consultancy, Gerald Eave, when judged against the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, fairness and transparency, it is clear that the business rate system is failing on all grounds. It has become a cumbersome, opaque albatross around the neck of businesses, stifling growth and placing too much of the burden on the shoulders of those who can least afford it. Oh, I know that the Scottish Government has introduced the small business bonus scheme. I know that because I write to Mr Mackay almost weekly at the moment on behalf of yet another business that has pleaded with me to try and get him to do something about the business rates because it made the mistake of growing too big for the exemption. A business that faces the choice when being hit by perhaps a 200 per cent rates rise of laying off a couple of staff and diminishing their offering, or even deciding that it is just not worth it in closing their doors altogether. Mr Mackay writes back to me to tell me again about the small business relief scheme, regardless of whether my constituent has any possibility of availing itself of it. Sometimes, he will tell me about capping certain industries' rates at 12.5 per cent, but even if my business can use it, it is only for one year. It is a sticking plaster solution that does not resolve the punishingly steep increases that some businesses face. Uncertainty is the nemesis of investment. A long-term solution is needed to boost business confidence in the rate system. The Federation of Small Businesses says clearly that the business rate system needs reform, and I agree. The second issue, particularly relevant to the north-east, is the land and buildings transaction tax, which Bill Corbett at McEwen Fraser legal describes as punitive. According to Retty and Co, Scotland's housing market has lost 10 per cent of sales of homes valued at more than £425,000. Aberdeen Shire and Edinburgh are disproportionately affected by the land and buildings transaction taxes. The average family home typically exceeds £325,000. Savals recently showed that property sales on properties over £400,000 in Aberdeen fell by 51 per cent. No wonder that a buyer at the higher end in Scotland pays 27 per cent more in tax than south of the border. Retired people cannot sell their large homes to downsize to something more manageable. Expanding families cannot buy larger homes because they are priced out by taxes, but it does not even maximise tax revenues. The Scottish Property Federation found that LBTT generated revenues of £481 million in 2016-17—57 million less than originally forecast. Presiding Officer, if the Scottish Government is serious about boosting economic growth, then it must design a tax system that maximises growth and revenues and does not act as a drag on growth. Businesses must have confidence in the taxation system if they are to invest, innovate and cause of economic uncertainty. The best way to do that is to shelve any plans for a second independence referendum. We have had endless referendums in elections over the last few years, and in each, the people of Scotland gave the SNP a clear message. No more. The people want the Scottish Government to focus on skills, jobs, taxation systems and stimulating Scotland's sluggish economy. The member is winding up. Vote for the Scottish Conservative amendment today and let's see them do it. I apologise to the chamber. I wasn't aware of the five-minute speeches that I am now. I called Gillian Martin, followed by Daniel Johnson and Ms Martin. The Scottish economy continues to be a magnet for the investment from abroad. 2016 was another good year for foreign direct investment in Scotland with FDI projects at a 10-year high, and I'm proud to see that Scotland's economy continues to succeed in spite of the UK Government's austerity actions and the potentially toxic decision last year to leave the EU, which we know has impacted on the outward-looking reputation of the UK across the world. The UK Government continues to put political games, Brexit, the political misjudgment of a SNAP election just last week, ahead of what's best for the people of Scotland. However, it's increasingly looking at Scotland's success in attracting foreign investment as a testament to the benefits of an altogether different approach by this Government and our agencies. I was particularly pleased to see in Ernst and Young's report that Aberdein moved from the 10th most attractive place in the UK to the 7th most attractive place between 2016 and 2017. It doubled the number of FDI projects from 2015, showing the resilience of the north-east economy in very testing times. Innovation in the north-east has long occurred in the oil and gas industry, but it was also interesting to hear evidence yesterday in the economy committee from the national grid of GEM energy UK and UK energy research centre on Scotland's leadership and reputation in renewable energy. From the roots of the oil and gas fields in the North Sea in our onshore gas plants, the north-east of Scotland has a strong and established supply chain and infrastructure to support a renewables industry. Renewables-related research and testing at our universities and growing poor infrastructure developments mean that Scotland can be at the centre of the renewables industry. As someone who lives in an area that has a very high concentration of engineering talent and resource, I am at great pains to ask the Government that we capitalise on that resource at a time when many are facing uncertainty in oil and gas as a result of the global oil price. I also urged those looking at the city region deal for Aberdein and Aberdeinshire to have procurement processes in place that favour local companies. Companies such as Primark Engineering and Primark Welding that I met the other week when I was out campaigning, have long relied on oil and gas for a great deal of their business and are really needing some assistance in how to apply for contracts out with that area. I would urge the Government to give more guidance to small and medium enterprises on how they might be able to do that, because they have transferable skills that could really benefit from some guidance. The Scottish Government energy strategy lays out a target for powering our country by 50 per cent renewables in the next 10 years. We are already ahead of the game in that respect, but it is a huge area of growth. The fossil fuel future will, I think, be diverted into manufacturing and chemicals. There will be one thing in this chamber that is not touched by a dry product of oil, and that will not change anytime soon. However, the future of light, heat and power is with renewables, and that is an area that we can really make an impact on. In 2016, Vattenfall confirmed that it will be constructing a 300 million 11 turbine wind farm off the coast of Aberdeinshire. The European offshore wind development deployment centre will be a test and demonstration facility, and the largest of its kind in Scotland. Aberdeinshire's infrastructure, port and airport and helicopter facilities make it a natural place for investment. Keith Brown mentioned about the investment in the AWPR, which is going to make it even more attractive in the next 10 years. The renewables and oil and gas industries build on Scotland's existing strengths. I also want to consider, in my last minute, how we can encourage Scotland's new businesses to seek investment and innovate. Business angel investing is one way in which that can be done. It provides support for a large number of early stage and start-up businesses. However, very few business angels in Scotland are women—about 3 per cent. Investors tend to invest in people who remind them of themselves. If the vast majority of business angels are men, the vast majority of recipients will be women—I am sorry, that is just a fact—as such, when we promote growth, we should consider who is growing and who has been invested in. In those uncertain economic times, we should be working to develop an inclusive and fair economy. One way of doing that would be by developing a women's business angel network, an idea that I have come across in my work with Women's Enterprise Scotland. One such business that has benefit from angel support is Leah Hutchins from Appointed, who is a west ambassador. She was initially supported by a Scottish Government EDGE grant, and Leah expanded her appointment booking software company to a wide variety of small businesses. She has now got 12 staff in his recruiting. If we take what Leah has done and we replicate that across a lot of other women-led businesses, we will really be able to tap into a massive resource. I am sounding like I'm going to do it— We must conclude. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We must conclude. Sorry, that was a good example to have, but you must conclude. Daniel Johnson, please, followed by Colin Beattie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, I think that it's fair to say that this debate has been we really familiar. From the SNP benches, we have had a story that all is rosy, and the only couple of things that are wrong are all the fault of other people. And from the Tory benches, well, we've had the Laffer curve again. Frankly, Presiding Officer, this debate is not good enough. Scottish economy deserves better. We need a frank and honest assessment, because, of course, the Government cannot control every aspect of the economy, but it must take responsibility for preparing the economy, and it must be honest about the opportunities and, indeed, the threats that are before us. And so it's disappointing that, in his opening remarks, Keith Brown mentioned, yes, that it's right that we should celebrate that unemployment is down, but he fails to mention that inactivity is up. And yes, he's right to celebrate that productivity, but he is completely wrong to fail to mention that it's lagging the rest of the UK, and it is disgraceful that it took him a full eight minutes to talk about anything that the Scottish Government is actually doing to improve the economy, and a further 10 minutes to talk about anything it's going to do in the future. It's not good enough. We need a frank assessment of Scotland's economy, and if you have that frank assessment, the conclusion is clear. Scotland's economy is not performing well. It is fragile, and it lags the rest of the UK. Scottish growth is a third of that of the UK. Growth has lagged the UK in every quarter, bar one, since 2014, and we are on the edge of a technical recession. So, yes, there are strengths. We have strengths in industries such as financial services and technology, but responsible government has to view our strengths and weaknesses, our opportunities and threats in the round. It is not good enough to point to Brexit and the oil price. Brexit is only a partial explanation. That is something that affects the whole of the United Kingdom, not just Scotland. It does not explain our lag, and the prices with the oil price has gone from being a one-off shock to a persistent and stubborn trend in the economy. Frankly, as the Greens have highlighted, it exposes the weaknesses and the failure of the Scottish Government to pursue a diversification strategy. I am grateful to the member for taking intervention. He raises the issue about the balance between the low-carbon economy and oil and gas in his last remark. Will he at least acknowledge in the energy strategy that we have set at a clear role for the oil and gas industry in the low-carbon transition, and we have set extremely ambitious goals for 2030 to bring 50 per cent of our energy requirements to be served by renewables? Of course, I welcome the strategy, but as much that we have seen since we got back this place this time last year is in strategy, we have seen objectives using goals but very little in the way of how an implementation steps. Indeed, I think that this motion goes very much to the character of the Scottish Government. While it is willing to trumpet good news, it ignores the bad and has vague promises that it will do something in the future. Indeed, I think that this motion is something of a tale of two Ernst and Young reports. The Scottish Government is very happy to hold up the report, titled Standing Strong in Uncertain Times, that indeed celebrates foreign direct investment but completely fails to recognise the other recently published report entitled Scotland's Stagnating Growth from the Item Club. After 10 years of the SNP, that should come as no surprise. It is selective in the presentation of its facts, meaning that they fail to be clear on the challenges. It is far too quick to blame others, which prevents them from being proactive on the issues that we need to face, and that we should be totally unsurprised at the fact that they are being vague in setting an action and reluctant to use the powers that they have. When it comes to the overarching issues that the economy faces, it is about risk and uncertainty. There is one decision that is completely within the Scottish Government's control that it could take now to de-risk the economy and that is to rule out a second independence referendum. It is ridiculous to hear speaker after speaker on the SNP to say that it is the other party that is talking about it. Maybe their televisions were off, but it was the First Minister on the 13 March who announced a second independence referendum. Maybe they are not being attentive, and maybe they should be checking the phone because I think that she was tweeting about it today. The true tragedy of this is that it is not just about headline figures, it is not just about the economy, because there are key issues around underemployment, about the ability of people to advance and gain employment and work, and about inward poverty, and a hollowing out of mid-tier, mid-wage jobs. Employment is down 20,000, but that is the only part of the UK where economic inactivity has risen. Job-to-job moves, that is people getting new opportunities throughout two thirds of the peak and below the UK average. The reality is that the promise of work is being undermined. Work should be able to provide security, provide means to provide for yourself and provide opportunity for the future. It is this Government's actions that are failing on that promise. Overarching issues are in the future. We have automation, we have increases in self-employment, and this Government's inactivity is completely failing to deal with the challenges that lie ahead. Above all else, we must rule out a second independence referendum to give certainty back and stability back, which, frankly, this Government is undermining with every step that it takes towards a second independence referendum. When we examine the current statistics surrounding Scotland's economy, we see both the strength of its foundations and the improvements that it has made in recent years. It is true that our GDP has grown at a slower rate than the UK's has a whole, in large part due to the global slowdown in the oil and gas sector, but this is counterbalanced by continued and impressive foreign direct investment, and our low unemployment rates. However, with financial uncertainty due to Brexit looming large in the near future, there is no guarantee that the situation as it stands will be spared volatility. I am sure that my colleagues across the chamber today will agree that public sector investment can strongly enhance a country's economic performance. Such investment helps to develop long-term growth, enables such as schools, transport and communications, and plays a key part in improving quality of life. Despite cuts in Scotland's capital budget, estimated to be £600 million lower in real terms in 2019-20 than it was a decade previously, the Scottish Government will be taking steps to maximise investment through a range of measures, including capital borrowing powers, revenue-funded investment through the non-profit distributing programme, rail regulatory asset-based funding and capital receipts. The planned investment over 2015-16 and 2016-17 is estimated to support over 30,000 full-time equivalent Scottish jobs in the wider economy. That comes on top of the many projects that the Scottish Government has invested in over the years prior to 2015. Many of those projects are intended to provide benefits for the whole of Scotland. The Digital Scotland's superfast broadband programme, for example, was one of the most ambitious infrastructure programmes undertaken by any Government, and it has clearly been a tremendous success. The initial target coverage of providing fibre broadband access to 85 per cent of premises by March 2016 was reached six months ahead of schedule, and we are on track to hitting the overall target of 95 per cent by the end of this year. Given that more and more of our daily lives rely on some form of internet access, having a fast and reliable connection is of more importance than ever. Closer to my constituency is the reinstatement of the border railway, which has proven an outstanding success. In the six months following its opening, the railway saw almost 700,000 passengers use the service—22 per cent more than the original forecast. At the end of last month, the report was published by the campaign for border rail, examining the advantages of extending the line via Huyg to Carlyle, and such an extension could provide innumerable benefits to those in the south of Scotland and beyond. I look forward to seeing the conclusions that arise from the Scottish Government's project review, which the report will feed into. Energy has also been an area that has benefited from investment. In 2014, the Scottish Government created an energy expert group to examine the potential for expansion of geothermal energy. As a result of that group's work, the low-carbon infrastructure transition programme invested £185,000 in four geothermal projects, and this April it was announced that the Natural Environment Research Council are to invest in geoenergy observatory in central Scotland that will focus on geothermal energy. Parents and children across Scotland have also benefited from investment in schools. In my constituency alone, the past few years have seen investment in new or rebuilt schools, such as Newbattle High and Dalkeith, and primaries in Walliford, Roslyn and Paradise and Lonehead. Beyond that, the Scottish Government has also provided £10 million to the University of Edinburgh to support construction of the Roslyn Innovation Centre at Easterbooth. All those examples are before we even consider the Scottish Government's success in housing, exceeding the target of 30,000 affordable homes by late 2015, regeneration with over £372 million directly invested in related activity up to 2015-16 and health, which has seen substantial investment in a wide range of new hospitals and care projects. However, the steps that are proposed to be taken in future years need to be carefully filtered through the prison of Brexit. The result of last week's general election has made it clear that voters across the UK have no interest in a hard Brexit, but given the present uncertainty over who will actually be involved from the UK in the negotiations and possibly even who the Prime Minister will be, we are no further forward to achieving clarity. What we do know is how a range of likely outcomes are expected to affect Scotland's economy. The EU market provides access to around 500 million people, with Scotland's exports now worth more than £11.6 billion annually. That equates to around 42 per cent of our international exports, and it is estimated that there are roughly 1,000 EU-owned companies in Scotland employing over 115,000 people. Approximately 173,000 EU citizens live in Scotland, providing a range of skills and expertise that helps to encourage productivity growth. On the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, all of those benefits will be heavily affected one way or another. And there we must conclude. No need to term the page. I call Alison Harris to be followed by Stuart McMillan, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The state of the economy is rightly considered a gauge by which to rate the success or otherwise of any Government. That being so, the Scottish Government clearly has nothing to crow about. It presides over an economy that is performing badly and by many factors is considered halfway to recession. Output down in the fourth quarter of 2016 by 0.2 per cent, compared with growth of 0.7 per cent in the rest of the UK. A flatlining economy compared to an increasing economy elsewhere in the UK. The respected Fraser Rallander Institute has said that the Scottish economy remains fragile, and Ernest and Young have said that Scotland faces a year of mere stagnation. Compared with the rest of the UK. Would she agree with me that Brexit and oil and gas industry troubles have had an impact on the Scottish economy? Or, like her colleagues, does she think that that has no role in the performance of the Scottish economy? Whilst I think that Brexit will be challenging, I think that the real threat to the Scottish economy is indeed ref 2 and higher tax. So compared to the rest of the UK, Scotland has lower employment, higher economic inactivity and lower jobs growth. This is the SNP record on the economy. They may attempt to use Brexit as a fig leaf to cover their failures, but Professor Graham Roy, director of the Fraser Rallander Institute, warns against making this linkage saying that Scotland's economic challenges and underperformance predate that vote. He continued, With any Brexit uncertainty affecting the whole UK as well, it's hard to argue that Scotland's weaker performance can be explained by the outcome of the EU referendum. Let's look at some of the real facts that are contributing to the poor growth in Scotland's economy. Failure to invest in the future. Up to 2015, the SNP have cut the number of college places by 152,000. 152,000 students that could have done much to reduce the skills gap and boost future productivity. Educational standards in schools are slipping backwards, and Scotland is falling down the PISA rankings. The figures of the Scottish Government confirm that numeracy and literacy attainment are both down on their watch. Failing our children on the most basic level of skills, the lack of which will be a drag on economic growth in years to come. Failure to innovate. Research and development funding continues to lag behind the rest of the UK. Entrepreneurial activity remains substantially below the other home nations. Scotland continues to suffer from lower productivity and we are sitting well down the rankings of innovation-driven countries. As the perception has increased that the Scottish Government is more interested in the upheaval of a second referendum than in providing the basis for a successful economy, business has taken note. Ernestine Young says that Scotland is lagging behind in attracting new companies to invest and headquarter in Scotland. China and India rank amongst the UK's top inward investors, yet they are not even in Scotland's top 10. Ernestine Young's Scotland attractiveness survey 2016 reveals that only 4 per cent of investors rank Scotland as the most attractive UK area for investment. Lloyd's Bank shows that confidence among Scottish companies is at the lowest of any home nation. To cap it all, leading investors such as Alistair Locke, chairman of the MF group, say that until the uncertainty caused by the prospect of another referendum is cleared, he will not be investing in Scotland and sadly he is not alone. As well as the political uncertainty, the additional tax burden imposed by the Scottish Government will do nothing to turn around our economy. Johnston Kerr-Michael has warned that higher taxes in Scotland could see businesses move elsewhere in the UK and Martin Bell, head of tax at BDO, highlights that difficulty in Scottish businesses is struggling in the competition to attract and retain the very best talent. The four pillars upon which the Scottish Government sets out its economic strategy are all based on very shaky foundations. Investment underutilised, innovation lagging behind, internationalisation stagnating, inclusiveness with stalled. The Scottish National Party Government needs to start listening to the expert, to businesses and most of all to the voters of Scotland who are demanding that they get back to the day job. The way to turn around Scotland's struggling economy is not only for the Government to listen and to take proposals for a second referendum off the table but also to recognise the need for keeping taxes in line with the rest of the UK so as not to deter jobs and investment. A competitive economy making Scotland a more attractive destination in which to do business by improving enterprise, innovation and skills, those are the ways to increase growth and boost the economy. I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by James Kelly. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Not only do we have the Brexit chaos and crisis and the uncertainty caused by the Tories and the EU referendum from last year and some of the aspects from that, with the 90 per cent reduction in EU nurses registering to work in the UK, the BMA stating that 42 per cent of doctors from the EU countries are considering leaving the UK and also we heard yesterday in London that that is potentially going to lose its EU clearing role facility and that is something that would cost hundreds of millions and billions of pounds every year. That highlights once again that it is Brexit and it is the EU chaos from Brexit and the crisis that has been caused by the Tories in this economic situation that not only Scotland is facing but also the rest of the UK. Just to top it all off, the Tories are now going to be marching to the beat of a DUP drum, so where is that going to lead us to in terms of the economy in the months and years ahead? Alison Harris just finished off there regarding that we should be keeping taxes in line with the UK. I am sure that other members in the chamber would probably agree with me that that is not the point of devolution, it is not the point of us having a Scottish Parliament that a Scottish Parliament, irrespective of whoever is in power, could actually do things a bit differently if they so wish. If it is brief, why didn't the SNP make the most of their powers and put taxes up for top earners to increase the Scottish budget? If Mr Kelly wants to make the poorest pay, that is something that he has to argue, but it is certainly not something that the SNP does not want to make the poorest people in Scotland actually pay, Mr Kelly. In 2017, that was a record-breaking year for foreign direct investment in Scotland, and the 2017 EY Scotland attractive to survey also shows that Scotland has retained its position as a top location in the UK outside of London for foreign direct investment. That gives that clear indication that Scotland remains established as a location of choice for investors. Today's excellent employment statistics also highlight that unemployment in Scotland is now at a 25-year low. I do not think that anybody in this chamber will be complacent. There is still a lot more work to do, which means that there is a huge lot more work to do, but the fact that Scotland attracted more R&D projects than any other UK nation in 2016— Just a wee minute, Mr McMillan. Could the conversation that Ms Bailey and the cabinet secretary are having cease? It is not very kind to Mr McMillan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Scotland attracted more R&D projects than any other UK nation in 2016 including London. In addition, Scotland was second only to London in securing the software projects. All three of Scotland's largest cities, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, are in the UK's top 10 for the number of FDI projects that are secured. As I said a few moments ago, we cannot be complacent. A point that was raised by Liam Kerr when he was talking about the taxation and business rates. In this report, Mr Kerr, it is the travel GVI report, which talks about the Conservative manifesto promises a full review of business rates with more frequent revaluations and Labour promises a review of the entire system in the longer run. That tells me that the business rates elsewhere in the islands are an absolute shambles, an absolute mess. When it comes to the economy, Mr Kerr, I think that he has to look at his own party and the failings of his own party in power as compared to anybody else. In my constituency, we have a huge opportunity in terms of tourism and growing its tourism business base, as well as the marine and renewable sector. On one day night, I held a tourism summit in the Beacon Arts Centre, a centre that has been funded partly by the Scottish Government as well as many other folk. One of the aspects of it is about bringing together many partners, many organisations and those who have that genuine interest. In order for the Scottish economy to continue to improve and to continue to prosper, we need to make sure that other areas that are sometimes considered to be not as successful are certainly one of them, but we need to have other areas stepping up to the plate. That tourism summit is one of the ways that we will improve and add to Scotland's economy. Thank you very much. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been a hectic time on the election trail and all the opponents in the chamber have traded a lot of blows in the election debate. This afternoon, I want to be helpful to the Scottish Government. I have no doubt that Keith Brown really wants to promote the Scottish economy and see that that economy grows from strength to strength. I want to make some reasonable and practical suggestions. I want to start with the second independence referendum. If I was making a speech based on narrow political advantage, I would not mention the second independence referendum. I would not call for you to scrap it, because it is quite clear as each day goes by that more and more people are becoming disillusioned by the SNP because they are sticking by a second independence referendum. Can I just ask if James Kelly realised that this is a debate on the economy, and if he can confirm that Labour's position is that the UK should stay in a single market? I will come on to the economy, and I am framing it along those lines. The reality is that the SNP is tying itself so much in knots trying to explain the election result, trying to explain why the second independence referendum should be on the table, that they are not able to concentrate on the issues that matter to people, ensuring that we have skilled workers, businesses that are growing, and people that are being paid fairly. Those are the key components of growing the Scottish economy, but they are not able to concentrate on those issues because, as a Government, they are getting distracted by the second independence referendum. Do you help or fail them? Excuse me, but I remind members that they should not be speaking to each other, they should be speaking through the chair. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Do yourself a favour and take that off the table. The other thing that would be useful to do is to make more use of the powers of the Parliament and increase the Scottish budget. I understand the argument that the SNP advances to an extent that they are a victim of austerity from Westminster, but that is not an excuse for simply passing those cuts on to local communities. It has happened in the recent budget with £170 million of cuts. If you had made full use of the powers, you would have been able to alleviate those cuts. There is good reason for doing that. I think that one of the interesting aspects of the recent election is the debate around fair pay. For example, it includes people in the Scottish public sector who have been on a pay-car for the past eight years and have seen a situation in which their wages have not been rising by as much as inflation, so they are poorer off. For example, in Scotland, we have got 467,000 people who are earning less than the living wage. That is not only a scandal, but it is not good for the economy. Surely, it is better to have money in the pockets of those workers who are in less than the living wage so that they will spend it supporting local businesses and companies in their own communities, rather than lying in the bank accounts of people who are high earners who are not going to spend that money. As well as being fair, it makes good economic sense to give workers a pay rise, and that will actually help the economy. The final point that I want to touch on is that the other reason that taxation is good for the economy is that it can be used to support skills and education. The Scottish Government has a situation in which, for example, it has reduced the number of teachers by 4,000 over the past 10 years. That can only be to the detriment of the level of education that children get in their schools. That therefore undermines the ability to produce kids going into key courses such as information technology and engineering, which are key to the economy. In all honesty, I am trying to give some good practical advice to the Government in this debate. Take under F2 off the table, increase the budget, support fair pay, support economic growth and prioritise education and skills. I think that those are good points that would help the Government. I call John Mason to be followed by Gordon Lindhurst. I think that there are a lot of positives in the Scottish economy and we should not forget those. Higher GDP per head than elsewhere in the UK outside London exports up 41 per cent from 2007 to 2015, foreign direct investment the highest outside of London. If you take just one sector, like food and drink, what a real success story that has been for Scotland with turnover now about £14.4 billion and ambitions to double that to £30 billion by 2030. Clearly, we need to be at the higher end of the food market and in other sectors as well. You look at our fish production, beef, whisky, beer, soft fruit, the list goes on. These are quality products that command a premium price and we should focus on this part of the market. Andy Wightman Thank you for taking an intervention. I wonder if Mr Mason regards farmed salmon as one of the foods at the higher end of the quality food market. John Mason I think that the buyers look at all Scottish salmon as being at the higher end of the market, but clearly there are issues in the committees that we are involved in as to how salmon are kept and that kind of thing. The SNP Government has made major investments for the economy, including the new Queensford crossing, the M74, M73M8 development near my constituency and in the field of rail, among others. Modern apprenticeships continue to be a success and are building towards 30,000 per year by 2020. The small business bonus scheme has also been a huge boost for business and I was interested in the FSB briefing that said that it reckoned that one-fifth of businesses would close without the small business bonus scheme. The Government and the party are business friendly. We are aiming to get the balance right between the Conservatives who crush ordinary people and between Labour who traditionally have owned everything and run everything at a loss. However, the UK is far from perfect and one point that I think is worth raising is that the UK is far too centralised a country. Some people would say that London is the driver of the economy, but others have clearly said that it is a black hole that is sucking out of the rest of the country. I was a bit surprised that Jackie Baillie did not seem to acknowledge that point in her statement when she was criticising some of the figures that we are looking at. It depends how you look at it. However, I find it interesting that the SNP can be accused of centralisation when Labour and the Conservatives over many decades have failed to tackle this problem of London centralisation. On the economy committee, we have been doing a lot of interesting work recently. On Monday, a group of us visited Fife, where we saw St Andrews University at Gardbridge, which is involved in district heating system. It reminds us that universities are a huge part of our economy, a very successful part of our economy. They were pointing out that their investments in district heating were having both a positive impact on climate change and protecting them from volatile gas and oil prices. We also went to Methil and saw the 7 megawatt wind turbine, which I think at the time was the largest in the world. Scotland was at the forefront of this technology but did not take advantage and others have profited. I note what the Institute of Physics says that physics-based industries contribute £15 billion annually to the economy. Thirdly, we visited the hydrogen house, which is a wind turbine producing electricity that provides for eight buildings—including East Fife football club—and produces hydrogen for the local bin lorries. The experiments that they are doing that are really at cutting edge, they are finding that hybrid technology, diesel and hydrogen are probably the best way ahead rather than pure hydrogen. Some of those things are not commercially viable at this point, but they are an indication of what Scotland can be doing and where the Scottish economy can be going. On the economy committee, we have been looking at the gender pay gap and hopefully we will be publishing our report fairly soon. That is not just so that women are treated more fairly—which is good in itself, obviously—but because the evidence is that the economy loses out if we are not using our workforce to its full potential. Scotland's economy can do better if we have more women in leadership positions and if more women are represented in sectors like STEM. On to Brexit. Brexit has already led to a weaker pound and we have inflation going up, probably linked to that now at 2.9 per cent. The delivering of the Conservative party has certainly not helped. I agree that a weak pound can give temporary boost to exports. However, in the longer term, a weak currency basically reflects a weak economy, which is the UK economy. Brexit could also lead to skills shortage, as others have said. There is already a real shortage of workers in some sectors, and both the economy and WREC committees have heard of businesses that are highly dependent on EU workers, including agriculture, food prices, the universities and the NHS. Those are key concerns for Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer, today's debate takes place in the chamber of the most powerful Parliament of its kind in the world, a Parliament in which we can now scrutinise the use of extensive economic levers that the Scottish Government has at its disposal in order to positively influence the Scottish economy. Sadly, what we have seen in recent months and years is an economy in Scotland that has been flagging in relation to the wider United Kingdom. We have already heard from other speakers this afternoon, and I shan't repeat figures that show that Scotland's economy has been underperforming. It has been underperforming not just relative to the UK economy in general, but in comparison to regions in England such as the Northern powerhouse. How do we turn this around and use the levers that we have to encourage growth in Scotland? There is much that the Scottish Government could be getting on with that will ensure that Scotland sends a positive message to the rest of the world that we are open for business. However, it is how we approach the challenge of the coming years that will determine our success. I think that it was Lyndon B Johnson who said, yesterday is not ours to recover, but tomorrow is ours to win or lose, and I will take the intervention now. Ivan McKee. Thank you for taking the intervention. The member mentioned that he believed that this was the most powerful non-state Parliament in the world. Can you ask him if you look at Canada or Australia, where the state parliaments have power over regional immigration policy? Does he believe that this Parliament should have power over regional immigration policy? Gordon Lindhurst. No. Going back to where I was, Deputy Presiding Officer, Scotland can win in the world if it seeks out positive trading relationships with partners across the globe. In the coming months and years ahead, we will no doubt continue to maintain good trade links with our European partners, for whom good relations are equally important. At the same time, the rest of the world offers significant growth potential. If we can sell brand Scotland to these places, there are few limits to our growth potential. Projected growth in the euro area this year, for instance, is expected to sit at 1.5 per cent. Emerging and developing market growth is projected at 4.6 per cent, but in China the rate is expected to be 6.2 per cent and in India at 7.6 per cent. However, only 0.7 per cent of our exports go to China and 0.3 per cent to India. With neither country having a trade agreement with the EU or, by extension, the UK, the growth potential arising from building deeper relationships with these countries could be significant for Scotland. Earlier this year, the economy committee heard evidence about the impact of leaving the EU, including the potential for greater trade beyond Europe. Scotland Food and Drink Ltd, for example, gave evidence that there is potential for us in premium markets and tapping into consumers' desire for quality, authenticity and provenance. I fully agree with that statement. We have a lot to be proud of in this country, and we have a global reach that is the envy of many. However, we have to harness that potential, and the Government needs to play its part in making sure that Scottish businesses have the help that they need to increase their exports. May I suggest first that we need to ensure that we play a positive role in trade negotiations rather than a negative one that only focuses on risk? We cannot at this stage. We can do ourselves a favour to use a phrase of my colleague earlier on in the debate and be positive about leaving the EU and the opportunities that arise. The UK is intending to bring back power to negotiate its own trade deals, and those can be ones in which our interests are not watered down or held up for years on end due to negotiation as a consequence of a complex block of 28 different countries seeking to further their own interests. Scotland will be able to have a much greater input into those deals and ensuring that our voice is heard will be of paramount importance. Secondly, the Scottish Government and its agencies must do more to encourage that growth in exports. Larger companies can manage complexities, but others cannot. We must improve on our current situation. I will conclude by saying, Deputy Presiding Officer, that Scotland has always been an outward-looking country. I believe that by embracing an outward-looking approach, there are many opportunities for growth presented by the circumstances that we now face. The last of the open debate speakers is Clare Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This afternoon's debate has been varied and wondered—certainly not just about Scotland's economy. I want to touch on some of the issues that were raised in the chamber this afternoon. Gillian Martin challenged Mr Lockhart about the post-study work visa, and he said that that would be something to do with Brexit negotiations. If there was anything that was not to do with Brexit negotiations, is the post-study work visa as it applies to non-EU students. We have supported that. It was introduced by Labour. We supported the post-study work visa, because it brought such advantages to Scotland's universities and snatched away by a Tory Government. If Mr Lockhart could speak to the principles of Scotland's universities, explain to them why Oxford and Cambridge universities merit a special arrangement, but our universities do not when it is so damaging to our economy that that has been taken away. I want to touch on one of the other issues that was raised this afternoon in an intervention by Mr Wheelhouse about our transition to a low-carbon economy. Mr Johnson said that he welcomes strategies, but he does not see any benefits of them. He needs to open his eyes a bit more, because only this week Scotland met its emission reduction targets six years early. Emissions down by 46 per cent. Our economy is working towards a low-carbon economy. What a great advantage for Scotland in the world in our standards. Mr Harvey, sorry, I am tight for time. I am not going to take interventions this afternoon. Scotland's economy is something that we should all be proud of. The oil and gas sector is starting to recover and show growth signs. The labour market has remained resilient despite the pressures on it. It continues to be the most attractive part of the UK outside London for foreign direct investment. In the five years since 2010, Scotland's GDP growth is in line with the UK average, and Scotland's GDP per head growth is above the UK average when London is excluded. I also want to look at some of the particular sectors and particularly in interest as a member of the British Computer Society, but I am not taking interventions. If we look to IS Scotland, the body of the software industry in Scotland, it does a survey every year of the companies in Scotland. The most recent survey from 2016 shows that it is very positive about the way forward for software in Scotland. It also shows that there is now an increase in the uptake of modern apprenticeships in the IT sector, which is a fantastic route into the IT industry, not through the more traditional routes of hire or further education. Those are to be very welcomed. I want to thank DataLab for providing the briefing that they have for today's debate. DataLab has been working with companies and showing the value of big data and the internet of things and the positive benefits that those could bring to the Scottish economy. It reminded me that I had recently visited census, one of our centres of excellence and a place that works on the information of things as a centre of excellence in Scotland. The cabinet secretary mentioned that. It is so important that we continue to invest in those areas because Scotland is world-leading in some of the IT areas, in financial tech, it is moving forward as it is combating very much talking about the life sciences and the innovations that are happening in his area, too. We should be very proud of the important benefits to Scotland that those economies bring. One of the things that I am particularly interested in in Mr McKee's presentation was that he talked about the productivity level in Scotland. That is so important and touched on by many people this afternoon. Higher productivity means that we have fewer of the low-value types of employment that seem to be so favoured by the UK Government. An economy that has productivity is better, which means that people are being paid better. We have less zero-hours contracts and it should also declare an interest as a real wage living employer. We also support the real living wage in Scotland, not the pretend one that was introduced by the Tory Government, which does not meet the needs of a modern economy. I want to finish by asking colleagues on the benches to speak to their colleagues about the post-study work visa. I might be speaking to them about VAT, too, because Les Cameron today, the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, is calling on the UK Government to look at the inflationary help that could be given by a reduction of VAT. Perhaps they might also ask me whether they could return the money picked from the pockets of our police and fire service when they do so. We now move to the closing speeches. It is disappointing to note that not all of those who contributed are in the chamber, and I call on Willie Rennie up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There have been several revelations this afternoon in the debate. James Kelly wants to be helpful to the SNP, and John Mason has been to fife and is raving about it, and so he should, too. John Mason followed that revelation with the other comments from the other speakers, too. A lot of positives about the Scottish economy is what he said. Gillian Martin said that it was a success and a magnet. Claire Adamson has just said that it is world-leading. Stuart McMillan talked about Scotland being record-breaking. Colin Beattie did admit weaknesses but blamed someone else. John Mason again said that Scotland was the best in the UK as long as we ignored a large part of the UK. Paul Wheelhouse blamed the oil industry, the very industry that was the white paper and the independence case was based upon. He claims all those things. It is quite right for the SNP members to be cheery. Of course, that is their job, but we also need to point out that there are some weaknesses within the economy in Scotland, too, even if they choose to ignore them. The FSB's most recent quarterly business confidence index, the quarter one from 2017, published in April, suggested that confidence in Scotland was still in negative territory, minus 9.6, and behind the UK average of plus 20. According to the Institute of Physics, Scotland currently spends around 1.4 per cent of GDP on research and development compared with the UK average of 1.68 per cent and spends around 0.6 per cent of GDP on business R&D compared with the UK average of 1.11 per cent. Those are long-standing problems, but the SNP Government is hardly making any difference in moving in the right direction on those areas. If Scotland wants to be the high technology, high productivity, high prosperity economy in the future, then it must tackle the stubborn performance that is lagged behind the rest of the UK and many other modern economies for far too long. If it were not for the funding from the UK research councils, we would be even further behind. A renewed plan to boost research and development is essential with more tax breaks and incentives for companies to invest in R&D. We need long-term plans to build a strong economy based on investing in the best asset that we have, the people who live and work here. I want to make common cause with Clare Adamson on a point that she made about Scottish universities and the post-study work visa. Scottish universities have seen a 60 per cent drop in Indian students since 2012, risking £800 million that overseas students contribute to the Scottish economy. The Scottish Government should be able to sponsor new post-study work visas. Those will support Scottish universities to be the best in the world. We should guarantee the rights of EU citizens in this country. The guarantee extends to the rights of EU staff and students in our universities. St Andrew's University, which John Mason had visited, has a large proportion of its student numbers and staff members and grant volumes of cash coming from the European Union. That is incredibly important and is something that we should seek to protect. A transformative additional investment in education and a step change in mental health would help people to achieve their potential. It would enable businesses to find the skills that they need. The performance of Scottish education, as we all know, has dropped down the international rankings. To get it back up to the best in the world again, we need to invest. We say that a modest penny on income tax would invest £500 million in nurseries, schools and colleges. Others may have other ideas, but colleges have lost 152,000 places, especially for older people and women. Lifelong learning should be a priority again. It is abandoned by the Government. It should be a priority again and give people the skills and retraining that they need for work. Schools are struggling with the OECD report, a cause for great concern. In reading, science and maths, we are falling behind other competitors in the past 10 years. The pupil equity fund is six years late and falls short of the equivalent fund in England. That pupil premium in England has closed the attainment gap by five percentage points. We need to invest in nursery education too, the best educational investment that we can make. The signs are that the SNP Government is struggling to roll out that nursery education programme. The annual survey for the nursery sector has indicated that only half of the private and state nurseries plan to offer the places that are needed in order to achieve that expansion. We also want a focus on mental health, because mental health is critically important for a healthy workforce. We want a new mental health services in every GP practice, the ANE department, police, division and school, and a new five-point plan to offer mental health support for young mothers. That is the Liberal Democrat plan to invest in people, to attract the best to our country, to generate growth and opportunity through those people. We have a plan to invest in education and mental health with that modest increase in taxation for nursery schools and colleges, a plan for mental health in all sectors of the health service. A damaging hard Brexit must be avoided by Theresa May now too. Her plan was rejected at the ballot box and she needs to revisit what she plans to do and a new cross-party approach is required. However, the real threat to the Scottish economy comes from the SNP with its plans for another divisive independence referendum. Public opinion has swung away from the SNP and its plans for that referendum. The biggest shift in public opinion away from the SNP ever deserves more than that. That is why the SNP should respond to that and cancel the referendum right now. I call Andy Wightman up to six minutes, please. The last time I think I spoke and we spoke in a debate on the economy was on 19 April this year, the day after the Prime Minister then called a general election. Although this is a debate on the economy, it is not surprising perhaps that other parties have chosen to use this to raise questions about the constitution. The result, in fact, of the Tories' decision to have a general election is now even greater chaos. Following the 2015 general election when the Tories, including some members present, stood on a manifesto that promised that voters in the UK could vote Conservative and not only preserve the UK's place in the single market but strengthen and expand that single market. The reality is that it is the Conservatives that have made much of the constitution to deflect from their own disastrous actions, first in calling a referendum on the EU and secondly the chaos that the country now faces in the wake of the general election. Our amendment focuses solely on the economy, because that is what the motion is about. As members know and as my colleague Patrick Harvie indicated at the beginning, Greens take a very different view on matters to do with the economy. As highlighted in comments that I made back in April, our party has won part of an international movement that has developed green economics over decades and which recognises that endless growth is not possible on a finite planet. Green economics also recognises that the climate crisis is leading to growing instability, unrest and economic decline. We also recognise that, in order to keep within the Paris climate targets, we need to keep in the ground the majority of the hydrocarbons that other parties in the chamber often tout as being part of Scotland's economic future. I would be happy to take an intervention. Mike Rumbles I am very keen to know whether the Greens consider the North Sea oil and gas industry an asset to the Scottish economy or not. Andy Wightman The North Sea oil and gas industry clearly has been an asset to the Scottish economy in the past, but they are not part of the future. The faster we can transition away from a hydrocarbon economy to renewable economy, the better. We have also heard explanations about why GDP or grostomatic product figures as they are in the United Kingdom and in Scotland. It is worth highlighting that the majority of the GDP growth that we have seen across the UK is in private consumption. In March 2015, private debts stood at over £1.5 trillion. Much of the so-called growth that others welcome is in fact more debt to people buying things that they do not need with money that they do not have. Liam Kerr and others talked about non-domestic rates. I agree that we need reform in non-domestic rates. We need reform in a whole suite of taxes relating to land and property. I look forward, as I am sure that Liam Kerr and other members do, to the Barclay review reporting soon on the question. I hope that it questions why, for example, over 90 per cent of land in Scotland has not paid any rates in 50 years. I hope that it questions, among other things, the small business bonus scheme. Back in April, I talked about some of its failings, including a small business in East Lothian. It is very happy that it is now paying no rates under the small business bonus scheme because of the increase in the threshold. However, the empty shop next door, the rent for that, is being increased in the recognition of the fact that the occupier will no longer need to pay rates, so that occupier will be no better off as a consequence and the tax breaks have been capitalised into rent. We will soon publish research showing the losses running into tens of millions of pounds to councils across Scotland, particularly in Edinburgh, by the rent-seeking behaviour of landlords who are increasingly using property for short-term lets and as a consequence of the thresholds that have been set with the small business bonus scheme, paying absolutely no tax towards the City of Edinburgh Council and other councils who provide the essential services on which their business is based. If we are interested in investment in a sustainable economy and if the Government is interested in that, the cabinet secretary would not have been so enthusiastic in his opening remarks to reel off a list of the A96 and the A9 and the M8 and big bridges, which are supposedly part of that sustainable economy. However, we agree with much of the Government's economic strategy, including much of the good work that is done on renewables. John Mason mentioned some of the interesting and fascinating work that has been done across the country that we visited just on Monday. Its economic strategy is fundamentally misconceived by having at its core the notion of sustainable economic growth. An economy is not judged by growth. It is judged by how well the people of Scotland are housed. It is judged by how much savings and investments are being made in sustainable technologies. It is judged by the state of the natural environment, the air, the water, the soils and the seas. It is judged by the health of the population. A healthy society is a society in which we should be able to reduce spending on the national health service, not increase it. It is judged by the strength of our democracy, particularly local democracy. The Scottish Green Party has done a lot since its establishment in 1990 to argue that we need a very different economic model. We can begin that within devolved powers, but we cannot fully realise the transformation without fundamental change in how the UK economy is run from the financialisation of the housing market, its isolationist approach to Europe, to the rise in public and private debt. The Green amendment highlights the challenges that the Scottish economy faces, and I commend it to members. I call Richard Leonard. It is all very well for the cabinet secretary in his opening speech today to declare that our labour market is resilient. He should have a look again at the extent of low pay of underemployment of zero-hours contracts in Scotland. It is true that, year on year, zero-hours contracts are down slightly, but more than 50,000 workers in Scotland are still on them. It is true that the living wage is slightly up in Scotland, but the fact remains that one in five workers in Scotland are paid below the living wage. Many of them are low-paid women workers in social care, in contract catering and cleaning, and in retail. They are on poverty pay. It is no good saying that the plight of the working poor is statistically worse in parts of England or Wales. It is no good saying that an additional two or three per cent of the working poor are surviving in abject poverty in Bridgend than they are in Coatbridge. There is no crumb of comfort for the people that I represent across Central Scotland in that. Ivan McKee spoke of limited powers. The cabinet secretary chastised his speakers for not having, in his words, original thought. Here is an original thought. Why do you use the powers that you have? The powers that you have over industrial policy, manufacturing policy, as James Kelly said, are taxation policy, planning policy, housing policy, education policy, skills policy, training policy to start planning the economy. Once again in the debate, we have witnessed complacency rising from the SNP benches and self-congratulation rising from this motion. A lack of understanding about what is going on out there in the real world. Sometimes I wonder if it is a willful lack of understanding or the inevitable consequence of a chauffeur-driven lifestyle, or maybe it is simply that it is not the political priority of nationalism. The cabinet secretary can rhyme off EY attractiveness surveys, but what matters out there in the real world is that wages are being squeezed harder than ever, whilst prices are rising. We wake up to headlines that price inflation is now running at 2.9 per cent, actually real inflation including housing costs, the retail price index now stands at 3.7 per cent, which is why in our amendment we demand a living wage for all, and why I note the cabinet secretary in his opening remarks acknowledged the need to remove the cap on public sector pay. On productivity, my message to the Government is that people are not commodities or units of production, they are not simply wage earners, they are human beings. Scottish productivity may have grown, but if it is as a result of cuts in hours, especially in offshore oil and gas and in manufacturing, it represents a pyrrhic victory. I want to say a word or two about investment, which is featured in the Government motion. On 11 April this year, just a few days into the start of the new financial year, an email was sent out to the staff of Scottish Enterprise from Kerry Sharp, the director of the Scottish Investment Bank, in which she warned. I want to quote her at length because this is what is happening out there in the real world as well. She said, We have insufficient budget to meet anticipated demand for everything that we are being asked to consider under enhanced SIB. New investments, the level of follow-on expected, support for FDI, we therefore need to prioritise our funding and people resource, which will ultimately mean us investing in some companies and not others, even when they might be strong investment propositions. As funding this year is more constrained than to date, we will continue to support the pipeline of new investment opportunities, but she says that this may be at a reduced rate than last year. So the head of the Scottish Government's key agency for industrial investment finds it necessary to warn operational staff in the Scottish Government's key agency for economic development that this Government's provision in the teeth of Brexit and in the face of an investment gap that is growing is not to increase, but it is to cut funding. This is a damning indictment of a Government that claims to be stronger for Scotland. I cannot close without reflecting on two lessons from last week's election. The first is, and I hope that the SNP from top to bottom understands this, is that people are saying right across Scotland— Excuse me, could we stop—sorry, Mr Leonard, could we stop the private conversations across these two benches, please? Thank you. The first lesson from last week is that people are saying that they have already given an answer to the question of whether we want a separate Scottish state or not, and the answer is a resounding no. The Government now needs to remove the threat of that second divisive referendum. The second lesson from last week is that nearly 13 million people voted Labour on a manifesto pledging an extension of public ownership, an end once and for all to the economics of austerity, a shift in power in the direction of working people, a new generation of young people, older people, working people, not just voting for a party but voting for an idea. It is a platform upon which we can build so that we have an economy working for the people rather than people simply working for the economy, an economy with different priorities, providing people with hope, a vision for a better society, not just a narrow vision of a better Scotland, but the grander vision of a better society for all, underpinned by an economy that is run for the many and not the few. I call Marta Fraser up to seven minutes, please, Mr Fraser. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It has been a wide-ranging debate with the inevitable party and constitutional battle lines being drawn. The background to it is the overall performance of the Scottish economy, an issue that we have discussed in this chamber on numerous previous occasions. As we have heard this again during this debate in the latest quarter, the output of the Scottish economy contracted while it grew and grew strongly across the UK. Over the past 12 months, the economy flatlined in Scotland while it grew at 1.9 per cent across the UK. Although the unemployment rate in Scotland is lower than the UK as a whole and we welcome that progress for the benefit of the cabinet secretary, the employment rate is lower and economic activity is higher, as Dean Lockhart reminded us. We are simply not doing as well as we should, and we are still waiting for the Scottish Government's explanation for this state of affairs. The finance secretary, who is not here today, previously blamed that it is all on Brexit, and yet surely any Brexit impact would be the same across the whole United Kingdom and not specifically look at Scotland. There are surely other issues at stake, and we did not hear much about that this afternoon from the Scottish National Party. Of course, I will give way. Keith Brown I thank Murdo Fraser for taking intervention. It is not my statement or Derek Mackay's statement, but the OECD and the IMF say that the major risk for the UK economy is the uncertainty surrounding the exit from the EU that could have damaged foreign and domestic investment. Murdo Fraser I thank the cabinet secretary for that point, but that does not answer my point. Why is it that Scotland alone is seeing a downturn in the economy that is not affecting other parts of the United Kingdom? If it was only down to Brexit, we would see that impact across the whole UK. We know that the Scottish Government does not like criticism from these benches or from other Opposition benches, so let us look at what some others are saying. We know that the Scottish National Party feels that it does not have many friends in the media. I am not going to quote this afternoon from the Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph. I thought that I would quote this afternoon, Deputy Presiding Officer, from the SNP's House Journal, The National. I have a favourite read of mine, The National. It said this in an article last month that it said this. Since Nicola Sturgeon took over, I am sorry to say, Scottish economic policy has become a bit of a shambles. She herself appears ignorant of and indifferent to economics. The man who might have looked after these things for her, John Swinney, unwisely shifted himself into the quagmire of Scottish education, whereas he is in danger of sinking. The Scottish economic shop is being minded by two men, Derek Mackay and Keith Brown, for whom the term clueless would be a compliment, while factually claiming that the economy is resilient, they have in fact exposed its fragility. Those are cruel and unkind words. I would never use them myself. I am merely quoting directly from Michael Frye, the well-known yes supporter of the SNP, writing in The National just the other month. That is what their friends say about them, Deputy Presiding Officer. Are they surprised that they get criticism from the other benches? We agree with the Scottish Government that there are a number of strengths to the Scottish economy. There are key sectors such as energy, such as tourism, such as higher education, where we continue to perform well although there are challenges. The Scottish Government has set out its four priorities—investment, innovation, internationalisation and inclusiveness. In all of those, we have a mixed picture. When it comes to investment, we are still doing relatively well in relation to foreign direct investment, although figures are lower than they have been previously. We are down 9 per cent on last year. We continue to struggle to attract migrants to Scotland compared to other parts of the United Kingdom. Educationally, our standards are falling against international competitors. Are productivity levels lag behind other economies? The Scottish Government has trumpeted that it is in its motion. The recent increase in productivity compared to the rest of the UK, but, according to the Fraser of Allander Institute, it is driven by a reduction in the number of hours' work, not an increase in output per hour. The reality is that we are in the fourth quartile of innovation-driven countries behind those, such as Norway, Ireland and Sweden, while the UK is a whole ranks above them. Our entrepreneurial activity rate is 5.5 per cent, and the UK's is 8.6 per cent. Our rate has decreased in Scotland 19 per cent from the previous year, as against a rise of 18 per cent for the UK. What do we need to do to get it better? First of all, when we accept this, we have to get Brexit right. We have to have the maximum possible access to the single market for UK business. That is the very clear position of the 13 Scottish Conservative MPs now in the House of Commons who are there to speak up for Scotland and articulate our interests. What is not in the interests of Scotland is to have a differentiated deal for Scotland. No, thank you, compared to the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK is by far our biggest market for goods and services, worth four times as much as the EU. To pursue our relationship with the EU, at the expense of our relationship with the rest of the UK, we will be cutting off our nose despite our face. That is not a road that we should go down. We must keep Scotland competitive, as Alison Harris said, and not have a situation where taxes in Scotland are higher than they are in the rest of the UK. The business community has warned the impact that that will have if we go down that particular route. No, thank you, I have no time. If you are trying to attract the brightest and best to come and work in Scotland, where they have to pay more income tax, where they have to pay more to buy a house because of the LBTT rates, where businesses with larger premises are paying a business supplement at a double the rate of those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that is not going to make Scotland competitive. I was interested to hear Gillian Martin's call for lower taxes, which the SNP would make up their mind, to the higher taxes in Scotland or are they calling for lower taxes, as Gillian Martin was. Above all, what we need to see is that the Scottish Government ruled out a second independence referendum. That was the clearest possible message from last week's general election. Up and down Scotland, people turned against the SNP, which lost 21 seats, lost half a million votes and saw their vote share fall to just 36 per cent. People across Scotland sending Nicola Sturgeon the clearest possible message. They do not want a second independence referendum. It is this uncertainty that is hampering the ability of the Scottish economy to succeed. My friend Liam Kerr, in a Churchillian turn of phrase, said that uncertainty is a nemesis of investment. He is absolutely right, Deputy Presiding Officer. Let's reject the second independence referendum and get the Scottish economy back on track. I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been made during the debate and to further highlight the underlying strengths of Scotland's economy, because let's face it, none of the Opposition parties will do that. I will start by emphasising that Scotland's economy is fundamentally strong. We have advantages and resources in Scotland that few nations can match. We have one of the most highly educated workforces in Europe, a long-standing reputation for innovation and an internationally recognised brand. In the conservative and labour denial of the fact that inactivity includes the vastly increased number of people going to higher education, isn't it an attack on the very idea of higher education? We are world leaders in key industries of the future, such as life sciences, financial services and financial technology, creative industries and sustainable tourism. It is important not to diminish those strengths. I agree that we have to acknowledge what the challenges are in the Scottish economy. Much of that has been mentioned during the course of this debate, but we also have to reckon on the strengths and build on the strengths that we have. They are part of the reason that EY, attracting the surveys, continues to demonstrate that Scotland is the number one location outside of London for foreign direct investment projects into the UK. We face challenges, not least from the on-going pressures facing the oil and gas industry. Willie Rennie was completely wrong to say that Paul Whitey should blame the oil and gas industry, but that is Willie Rennie for you. We have had the potentially disastrous impacts of a hard Brexit. Scotland's economy continues to grow in 2016 by 0.4 per cent, but the slight contraction in the final quarter of 2016 emphasises that, of course, there is no room for complacency. Indeed, today's state of the economy report shows that approximately two thirds of the slowing in growth between 2014 and 2016 in Scotland can be attributed to impacts in the oil and gas sector. That is why we continue to provide support to the oil and gas sector directly through measures such as the energy jobs task force, transition training fund and decommission challenging fund. That is also why we continue to invest for sustainable and inclusive growth more broadly in our economy. I mentioned a number of the major infrastructure projects. I could also mention the Borders Rail, which John Mason mentioned. Of course, the huge investment will be £3.25 billion in the electrification of the Edinburgh to Glasgow railway, and the huge investment that we made around the country in Scotland's national cyclone network. Building on those examples, I think that we should also mention helping small businesses to grow through our small business bonus scheme, which removes the business rates burden entirely from 100,000 premises. In relation to some of the points that have been made, first of all in relation to the Conservatives, there has been no mention until the very end from Murdo Fraser of record low unemployment in Scotland. Of course, that used to be the key criteria on which the Tories judged the performance of the Scottish Government in relation to the economy. It no longer is because it does not suit, so they move on to something else. Inactivity is their preferred one today. I have mentioned the reasons why that is in many ways a good response, because that tells us that we have more students going into higher education. It is exactly at the point that when Scottish unemployment levels drop below the UK, the Tories thought that we better not mention that any more. We will stay away from that. There has been virtually no mention of Brexit. Alison Harris's response to denying the impact of Brexit in relation to the Scottish and UK's economy beggars belief. I have mentioned and quoted the figures from the OECD when they say that that is the major effect, the major threat facing the UK economy. The major risk of the UK economy is the uncertainty surrounding the exit from the EU that could hamper foreign and direct investment. We also saw the IOD survey immediately after the election. The shambles that is the UK Government just now immediately afterwards, the hung parliament, a 34 per cent negative swing in the institute of director's survey in terms of business confidence, not a mention apart from the one that I mentioned from the Tories about the impact on Brexit. They are determined to deny the fact that Brexit is a real and present danger to the Scottish economy. Of course, we do not actually know what the Tory position on Brexit is, because we have a roundabout roof. We had no Brexit. We had soft Brexit. We had hard Brexit. We have something now apparently called open Brexit, but that only lasted for 24 hours before she was told by Theresa May that she will get behind whatever Brexit that we want to give you. Of course, that Brexit is a shexit, because it is the shambles. It is an absolute disaster. You have no idea what you are doing. You do not even know within a week of going into those discussions with 27 countries lined up ready to negotiate. You have not got a clue what you are going to say to them. That is a danger to the Scottish economy. Labour bizarrely argued that we should not be lasing with business, and then said that we should be lasing with business. Of course, the fearless class warrior that Richard Leonard was too scared to even take an intervention, and he knew that the reason for that was because James Kelly could not answer the question, what is Labour's position on the single market? Nobody knows, as John McDonald's position says, we will not stay in the single market. That seems to be confirmation that they want to come out of the single market. We already know that they do not support freedom of movement, and that is a disastrous and wrong-headed approach from the Labour Party. It was mentioned by Jackie Baillie about Scotland's economic strategy that we have to change Scotland's economic strategy. It has changed since the last days when the Labour Party was in government, when Labour's economic strategy was a short and snappy thing. There were only five words in it, which was that there is no money left. That is what the Labour Party is left with. I will give a way to Jackie Baillie. I think that people would all agree that Scotland's economic strategy contains many of the things that we would put in it. There has been common agreement about the direction of travel, but, faced with Brexit, your own previous head of policy said that the strategy has been turned on its head. Why will you not review it? Keith Brown? In addition to the economic strategy that we had of there is no money left, we then have Richard Leonard complaining that there is an insufficient budget. He complains that, why do you think that there might be an insufficient budget? Do you draw any connection at all with the disastrous management of the economy from the Labour Party, and that is why we have had the seven years of austerity from the Conservatives? Labour started it and you have passed it on to the Conservatives. Willie Rennie obviously forgot what the debate was about when he spoke. He made no mention of the economy at all and the obsession that those parties have with independence. He got himself into a complete and comic fanko when he failed to rescue his hapless new MP, Christine Jordan. Christine Jordan says that it is only the Liberal Democrats that are allowed to continue to promote the policies that they stood on in the election. Nobody else is allowed to do it, not very liberal and not very democratic. It is also true to say that he totally— I will give way to Willie Rennie. Willie Rennie is not afraid to take interventions after all. He mentioned clear and present danger, but the one clear and present danger that he has not addressed this afternoon is independence. Is he going to give us an answer about independence? Is he for it or is he against it? For those who were not here during the debate, that was all that Willie Rennie talked about in his opening speech. That is why he forgot to mention the Scottish economy. The biggest threat to the Scottish economy is not what Willie Rennie says. It is a hard Brexit. Many Conservatives raised the Fraser of Allander issue. They did not mention the fact that Fraser of Allander says that Brexit will cost us 80,000 jobs over a decade. It will cost us billions of pounds, and it will cost 2,000 pounds to every employer. None of them mentioned that. There is no concern on the Conservative benches for people working in this country. It is also the case that he never refused to answer the point of whether he would replace funds left when the EU structural funds are no longer applicable subsequently. They were asked that direct question and they failed to answer it as well. As I said earlier, it is essential that the UK Government commits to replacing that funding in full following Brexit. Scotland did not vote for a hard Brexit. In fact, we did not vote for a Brexit at all, and the Scottish Government will continue to meet the case for single market membership. However, whatever happens over the coming months, the Scottish Government will continue to actively promote and defend the Scottish economy. I have set out today that Scotland's economic fundamentals remain strong, that we are an attractive place for investment and that there are opportunities here for growth. The outlook for 2017 is finally balanced and challenges remain in relation to the oil and gas sector and, of course, the prospect of a hard Brexit. However, we have demonstrated that the Scottish economy is well placed to meet those challenges. However, we have to continue to invest for sustainable and inclusive growth by promoting and supporting innovation. The Tory record is £1.8 trillion of debt, £100 billion of new debt for every year that it has been in office. It has now got 2.9 per cent unemployment, a massive balance of trade deficit. That is what the Tory record is on the economy. The SNP's record, because the SNP has been getting on with the day job, many people across Scotland—I will just repeat that for them—because the SNP Government has been getting on with the day job, Scots across Scotland can get on with their day job. I support the motion. That concludes our debate on Scotland's economy. The next item of business is consideration of the Scottish Parliament's recovery body motion 5575 on membership of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit. I call Andy Wightman on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary recovery body to move motion 5575. The next item of business is consideration of three Scottish SPCB motions on appointment of trustees to the Scottish Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. I call Dave Stewart on behalf of the SPCB to move motions 6002 to 6004. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 6082, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I would ask anyone who wishes to speak against the motion to say so now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. Formally moved. No one has asked to speak against the motion. The question, therefore, is that we agree motion 6082. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 6007 on establishment of a private bill committee. Again, I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion on behalf of the Bureau. On the first question, I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Dean Lockhart is agreed, then all the other amendments would fall. The question is that amendment 6045.1 in the name of Dean Lockhart, which seeks to amend motion 6045 in the name of Keith Brown and Scotland's economy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Dean Lockhart is, yes, 27, no, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. The next question is that the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie is also preemptive if it agreed the amendment in the name of Patrick Harvie and Willie Rennie would fall. The question is that amendment 6045.3 in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Keith Brown, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie is, yes, 18, no, 100. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. We turn now to Patrick Harvie's amendment, which also preempts the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie. The question is that amendment 6045.4 in the name of Patrick Harvie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Keith Brown, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Patrick Harvie is, yes, 6, no, 112. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. The next question is that amendment 6045.2 in the name of Willie Rennie, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Keith Brown, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie is, yes, 22, no, 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. The next question is that motion 6045 in the name of Keith Brown on Scotland's economy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 6045 in the name of Keith Brown is, yes, 62, no, 56. There were no abstentions. The motion is, therefore, agreed. The next question is that motion 5575 in the name of Andy Wightman on the membership of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I propose to ask a single question on the three motions relating to the appointment of trustees to the Scottish parliamentary contributory pension fund. If any member objects, please say so now. The question is that motions 6002 to 6004 in the name of David Stewart be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 6007 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on the establishment of a private bill committee be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time.