 I call on Roseanna Cunningham to open this afternoon's proceedings. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is the first time to the best of my knowledge that the Scottish Parliament has had the opportunity to focus on the future of Scotland's environment and economy in one joint debate. It is an innovation that I welcome because, of course, our environment and economy are intrinsically linked. They are often seen as competing priorities for any Government, but the level of ambition set out by the First Minister in her programme for government requires fresh thinking and bold ideas. Scotland's transition to a more prosperous, low-carbon economy is already well under way. We have created jobs and backed innovative new industries while winning international respect for our ambition and leadership on climate change, the defining environmental issue of our age. The First Minister has made clear that we have an overriding moral duty to fight climate change. No-one sitting in the public gallery following this debate at home in Scotland or listening from afar should be in any doubt about the commitment of this Government or to the credit of MSPs of all parties the commitment of this Parliament. So, a moral duty. Yes, not least when we consider the threat facing the world's poorest people, those who did the least to cause climate change in the first place. We must also protect ourselves, our families, homes and communities from the threat of more extreme weather occurring more often. We also have to protect our natural environment not only for its inherent value but also because our natural capital underpins our national prosperity. Our farmers need healthy soils. Our fishermen need healthy seas. However, it is true, too, that cities offering a high quality of life through the provision of green space and active travel networks are also the most competitive in attracting the brightest and the best scientists, innovators and researchers. Ambition and innovation lie at the very heart of our programme for government. The low-carbon economy is already worth more than £10 billion to Scotland's economy and supports nearly 60,000 jobs. However, it is time to go further and faster. There are huge opportunities in the low-carbon sector, especially in terms of the technological and business innovation that will be needed to support our climate change ambitions. Our proposed new climate change bill will increase our long-term targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 90 per cent by 2050. That is a tough target. Indeed, the Committee on Climate Change advised that a 90 per cent reduction is at the very limit of feasibility, but those are challenging times. We will work with Scottish businesses to ensure that they are best placed to respond. Independent research, published by Ernst and Young, shows that the challenges that we must confront also have the potential to bring significant benefits to the Scottish economy. Indeed, analysis by the International Finance Corporation indicates that the Paris agreement will help to open up $23 trillion worth of global opportunities for climate smart investments in emerging markets between 2016 and 2030, and Scotland must be in a position to benefit from those opportunities. I mentioned earlier that the time has come to go further and faster. In short, we must accelerate our transition to a low-carbon economy. The circular economy agenda is one that is increasingly understood and embedded in Scotland. It has been recognised internationally. It is an approach where Scotland is being and seen to be creative, pushing against historic approaches with innovative and creative solutions. The Government's ambitions for the introduction of electric vehicles demonstrate our ambition and intent. With our commitment in the PFG to phase out the need for petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2032, far ahead of the UK Government's recent 2040 commitment, we have risen to the challenge. That commitment reflects our ambition to reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality and generate valuable economic opportunities. This morning, I joined the First Minister at the iconic Riverside Museum building in Glasgow to view the latest electric and low-emission vehicles and talk about the roll-out of our ambitious new plans for a network of low-emission zones. As the First Minister said, electric vehicles are the technology of today as well as tomorrow. However, there are challenges as well as opportunities. For example, how best should we provide on-street charging facilities in Scotland's densely populated cities? How best do we ensure rural motorists who face the highest petrol and diesel costs quickly benefit from the lower-running costs that electric vehicles offer? How do we ensure that electric vehicles help balance demand with supply from renewable sources of generation? Those are big questions, but the issues represent valuable opportunities, too. Our own power companies and universities are already working on solutions. Today, we have invited the brightest and the best from across Europe and around the world to come to Scotland to work with businesses and researchers, safe in the knowledge that this Government and its agencies will support them on the journey to a low-carbon future. The PFG shows that going green does not put us in the red. Harnessing our natural and human capital not only adds to our wellbeing but is integral to our nation's future economic success. Dean Lockhart is followed by Ivan McKee. It is a privilege to take part in today's debate. My remarks will be focused on the economic aspect of the programme for government. The programme, quite rightly, recognises that Scotland's economy has immense potential, that we should all be ambitious for Scotland and work towards the objectives of building a modern, dynamic, open economy—an economy that benefits everyone. We share those objectives. Where there is common ground on the economy, we will work constructively with the Government towards those objectives. However, in looking at the substance of the programme, we must remember that this is a Government that has overpromised and underdelivered in every year that it has been in power. A Government that has shown itself to be incapable of realising Scotland's economic potential, presiding over average growth of less than 1 per cent each year on average of the 10 years that you have been in power, and a Government that has failed to deliver on a number of its own key policy commitments. Take, for example, the Scottish growth scheme. Announced in the programme for government last year, the First Minister described it as a half billion pound vote of confidence in Scottish business and promised £500 million of Government guarantees and loans to help business. One year later, not a single business has received a single penny. More importantly, the type of financial assistance available has changed fundamentally. In place of Government-backed loans, it was announced in June that the scheme will now take the form of equity investments to be made by private equity funds. Instead of business receiving Government loans and guarantees, as promised by the First Minister, it will now have to sell part of its business to private equity funds if it wants any financing under this scheme. Even by SNP standards, this is a shameful sell-out of Scottish business. Now, with policy like this, it is not surprising that, after 10 years of SNP Government, the SNP economy is a low growth, low wage, low innovation and low enterprise economy. Yes, I will. I assume from the remarks that he has just made that he has nothing to say to the UK Government achieving the potential of the UK economy since he has only got a quarter of the growth that we have. Does he still believe that it is all on the head and shoulders, as he said in our local newspaper, The Stunning Observer, on the SNP Government? Or, like the Scotland office, does he think that the UK Government has a role in the Scottish economy as well? Mr Locker, do not worry because we have time in hand, so you will make it up for interventions. I could see the concern on your face. Thank you very much. We welcome the fact that Scotland avoided a recession in the first quarter of the year. However, I would ask the cabinet secretary, is he pleased that growth in Scotland over the last two years is 0.5 per cent over the last two years and that growth under your Government in the last decade has averaged less than 1 per cent? That is not a track record that you should be proud of. That is not being stronger for Scotland. For Scotland to realise its full potential to become a high-wage, high-growth, innovative and enterprise economy, we need a new direction in policy. This programme for government is not the answer. Instead, we need to create the right environment for the creation of high-wage, high-skilled jobs. To do that, the SNP must reverse its policy of making Scotland the highest tax part of the UK for those high-skilled jobs. Any suggestion—I need to make a bit of progress, thank you—any suggestion yesterday by the First Minister to further increase the tax burden in Scotland for highly skilled workers would be the wrong policy response. Concerns have already been expressed by leading organisations that further SNP tax increases would further damage the Scotland's economy. On enterprise development, we welcome the Government following our lead in establishing the south of Scotland agency and retaining separate boards for high and the other agencies and in appointing a business leader, not a minister, to chair the new strategic board. But much more needs to be done. The Scottish Government spends over £2 billion a year on skills and enterprise development. That is £100 more per person on enterprise development than the rest of the UK. However, in return, Scotland has one of the lowest rates of business creation and expansion in the UK, and the private sector in Scotland is much smaller than the UK average. We need to see a higher return on the £2 billion investment, and we look forward to debating the policy options once the strategic board is operational. However, one step that the Government can take immediately to encourage the expansion of business is to follow the Barclay recommendation to reduce the large business supplement and bring it into line with the rest of the UK. We encourage the Government to do so immediately. Can I ask the member—I appreciate him taking the intervention—what revenue-raising proposals will the Conservatives bring to the table to fund any investments that we may happen to make in terms of the Barclay recommendations? We have had this discussion before, that if you have 10 years to grow the economy and boost tax revenues, that is the real way that you can boost tax revenues and grow the economy. In the area of trade and exports, the programme for government lacks detail on how we can expand our export base. An urgent priority, given that less than 70 businesses represent 50 per cent of our exports. It also lacks ideas on how we can expand trade with our single largest market, the rest of the UK. The depreciation of sterling gives rise to a number of economic opportunities, including import substitution. Something highlighted in this debate last year by Alex Neil, but again this is yet another opportunity missed by this Government, and we see no policy initiative on that front. 10 years is more than enough time for any Government to prove whether or not it can deliver meaningful change. This is a Government that has shown time and again that it does not understand the economy and is incapable of realising Scotland's potential. After a decade of SNP mismanagement, it is time for a new direction in SNP, in economic policy, and this programme for government is not the answer. The Parliament will no doubt be aware by now of my role as parliamentary liaison officer to the cabinet secretary for the economy. Today's debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government is focused on the economy and on the environment. That linkage is not an accident, because the long-term future of Scotland's economy will be built on sector central to the protection of our environment. Not just through exploiting innovations in the renewable energy sector, but through the use of Scotland's landscape, we voted the most beautiful in the world recently by the rough guide as a magnet for the growth of our tourism sector. The quality of our food and drink process is world-renowned for the purity of its ingredients, and a major part of Scotland's exports. The transformation of our transport sector towards renewable sources of power and the ability of our creative industries to leverage on the heritage and global recognition of brand Scotland. Simply put, Scotland's environment is an engine for growth, a green engine for inclusive growth. This programme has this symbiotic relationship between the economy and the environment at its core, and it is built on an understanding that Scotland needs to be bold to leading the global race to harness the green economy in order to deliver future prosperity for this country and its people. Building the environment into the economy of the future runs like a green thread through this programme. The investment in carbon capture and storage technology through support for the ACORN project at St Fergus is picked up by this Government, showing leadership after it was abandoned by Westminster. Help for key growth sectors, advanced manufacturing, and particularly lightweight manufacturing technologies, focused on reducing carbon emissions and the creation of the new Manufacturing Institute for Scotland to begin in 2018. The introduction of a deposit return scheme, another step to us putting us in the fast lane of the circular economy, taking the lead in promoting the use of ultra-low-emission vehicles, phasing out new diesel and petrol cars and vans by 2032. Driving the innovation that will meet head-on the technological challenges of this technology shift through the establishment of an innovation fund, investing a further £60 million to deliver low-carbon energy infrastructure solutions, including battery storage and electric vehicle charging. Not only providing the infrastructure that Scotland needs for low-emission vehicles, but supporting the innovative businesses that can develop and export that technology. While Brixton may have its electric avenue, we are going to have the A9, our very own electric highway. Move over, Eddie Grant. The programme for government also takes some other significant steps to support Scotland's businesses and entrepreneurs. The addition of a Paris hub to those in London, Dublin and Berlin in the creation of a network of trade envoys to promote Scottish exports and inward investment. The establishment of Fintech Scotland to accelerate the development of the financial services technology ecosystem in Scotland. Access to capital for growing businesses through the establishment of a Scottish national investment bank. Increased commitment to government support for business research and development and the roll-out of super-pressed broadband to 100 per cent of Scotland's homes and businesses. However, like all good business and innovation initiatives, value for money is key. Hence the creation of the strategic enterprise and skills board to oversee the £2 billion that is spent annually on economic and skills development in Scotland. Ensuring focus on outcomes and support for key target sectors. The role of the entrepreneur is key to building the high-tech green economy of the future in Scotland. People who can build businesses and take risks and the role of government is to nourish and support that ecosystem. The launching of the Unlocking Ambition Challenge to invest in talented early-stage entrepreneurs is welcome. I want to recognise the inclusion in the programme for government of work on a citizen's income, because, like all good initiatives, that policy delivers in several core areas simultaneously. Citizens' income is not just a social measure providing a safety net, important as it is. If implemented correctly, it is also a huge boost to entrepreneurial activity, giving space and support to those who want a soft entry into the world of work or starting up their own business. Those who want to try and fail and try again the true definition of an entrepreneur. Those who want to focus on building a life in a business rather than the ridiculous dance with a benefit system that punishes those trying to get back into work with effective marginal tax rates would make additional rate taxpayers' eyes water. I welcome the focus on resolving once and for all the problem of rough sleeping on our streets, because the reality is that we cannot seriously consider ourselves to be a dynamic, successful society in which that problem remains unresolved. I am working to find common ground in my city with the business community in the third sector and local government on how best to fix that problem, and I welcome the emphasis that the programme for government places on that issue. The programme for government is focused on innovation through the green economy that has been widely praised by, among others, friends of the earth, WWF, the Simon community and Greenpeace. Scotland has no shortage of opportunity. We are blessed with natural and human resources that are at the envy of the world, and we have an industrial heritage to be proud of. However, Scotland's future economic success will be built on the technologies and entrepreneurs of the future, and the place of the environment in that future economy cannot be overstated. The Government recognises that and is determined to provide the strategy, framework and support to make it happen, to send a clear signal that Scotland is the place for innovation in digital and low-carbon technology. The programme for government beside an officer is a bold and ambitious step in that direction. Before I call the next speaker, I just said to members that, while I understand that members are focusing on the economy and the environment, that this is a continuation of an open debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government, so they are not restricted to those topics. It is just to make it plain if anyone is concerned that we are coming in to speak about something other than those two. I call Jackie Baillie to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Ms Baillie, yesterday, the First Minister started her speech reflecting on the apparent success of the SNP Government over the past 10 years. We were treated to the usual airbrushing of reality, selective memory and assertion that we have now come to know so well from the First Minister. Where were the economic achievements? Of course, there was mention of unemployment rates, and falling unemployment is always welcome, but there is absolutely no mention of rising economic inactivity. Instead, we have a programme for government that is strong on rhetoric about the importance of the economy but light on the action that is needed to secure economic growth. Rather than the partial view offered by the SNP, let me paint a more complete picture of the Scottish economy, because I know that the SNP only wants to use the most recent GDP figures for the last quarter. Crowing about growth that is a mere 0.7 per cent is a measure of the lack of ambition at the heart of this Government. It is perhaps more useful to look at long-term trends. Over the past 10 years, output per head in Scotland, a key measure of economic progress, has grown by just 1.02 per cent. For the eight years—no, I think that you should sit and listen to this—for the eight years before that, from 1999 to 2007, output per head grew by 20.4 per cent. That is 20 times more under labour than is the case for the whole of the SNP's tenure in office. I will take an intervention from Keith Brown to explain that. Can I thank Jackie Baillie not for her comments but for taking intervention and ask whether she thinks, given what she describes as the economic performance of the last 10 years, if any of that is at all attributable to the mismanagement of the economy by the Labour Party, which led us into the worst recession in history and the last words of the Labour Government, which was, there is no money left. Ms Baillie, it is for me to decide when the member sits down, but I call you now, Ms Baillie. I asked the cabinet secretary a question. He failed to answer that question, that growth under labour was 20 times more than is the case for the whole of the SNP's tenure in office. Let me respond to him, because I will take no lessons from the SNP. Remember, of course, it was that wonderful economist, Alex Salmond, who called for even more deregulation of the banks. Well, thank goodness that we did not listen to him, because it is nearly 10 years, 10 years since ambitious targets were set for Scotland's economy. We have an economic strategy that has not been refreshed despite Brexit and there is no real attempt to evaluate what works. In truth, the SNP has been content for our economy to dawdle along in the slow lane. Ministers boast about closing the productivity gap with the rest of the UK, and while movement in that direction is welcome, let us take a little closer look. Productivity actually fell back in 2016. Our productivity in Scotland and the UK is 15 per cent lower than the G7 average. Despite a target from the Scottish Government to raise us to that top quartile of productivity, we dropped to the third quartile before clawing our way back to being in the second, hardly an Oscar winning performance. It is unfortunately true to say that across a range of economic measures, Scotland's performance lags behind the rest of the UK. Indeed, it is only in 12 out of 41 quarters that Scotland's annual growth has been the same or better than the UK's. That is woeful, but it has serious implications for the amount that we receive in Barnett as part of the fiscal framework. Lower growth, lower tax revenue means a lower block grant, so growing the Scottish economy has never been more important or more urgent. I did not get that sense of urgency from the First Minister yesterday. What we were offered was a series of renouncements from a regressive retread Government. Trade envoys promised last year yet to be delivered, re-announced. Scottish growth scheme promised last year, and when we asked about this a month ago, not a single payment made, re-announced. National Manufacturing Institute promised last year yet to be delivered, re-announced, and then there is the national investment bank. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I thank you for copying Labour's idea. However, there is no detail about how it will work or where the money is coming from. Anything like the Scottish Development Bank announced and re-announced, I counted six times. I look forward to the national investment bank still being a work in progress and re-announced next year. That is a woeful performance. Let me turn to the money for research and development. I am absolutely welcome, but it plugs a gap that was created by the SNP. Leaked emails from Scottish Enterprise show that research and development budget has already been spent, and we have still got more than half the year to go. Grants will no longer be paid in advance, so if you are lucky, if you are really lucky, you might get something in May 2018. That too is a woeful performance. What impact does the programme for government have on hard-pressed workers? Insecure work in Scotland has soared under the SNP up by a third. Working poverty is at its highest level since devolution, and they should be ashamed about that. The number of people earning less than the living wage at priority for this Government has gone up and the cost of living has gone up and wages have declined. I welcome the lifting of the pay cap for public sector workers. It is just a shame that you voted against Labour's proposal to do just that earlier this year. It has been seven years since public sector workers had a wage rise, but what was missing from the First Minister's announcement is the machinery for that negotiation and whether it will be fully funded from the Scottish Government's coffers. I appreciate Jackie Baillie taking the intervention. Will Jackie Baillie take the position of the Scottish Government, which is that we will lead on lifting the pay cap, or does she take the position of Welsh Labour, which is to wait for the Tory Government to see what it does? I welcome the lifting of the pay cap. It was Labour in this Parliament that called for it, standing alongside the RCN and Unison at a time when the Government, Derek Mackay, was not listening. You were deaf. I was elected to the Scottish Parliament, not the Welsh Parliament, so the cabinet secretary, if he wished to keep shouting from a sedentary position, is really pathetic. I am sorry to interrupt again, but please do not have a debate across the chamber or not through the chair. When I look at the Scottish Government's efforts, having cut £1.5 billion from local services, it would be breathtaking if it asked local government and the NHS to fund the pay rise themselves. I take no joy in what is a fragile and failing economy, because I want Scotland to flourish and I want its people to prosper, but it is not doing so under the SNP. To understand the challenge, you need to acknowledge where we are and stop being in denial. With the SNP rhetoric triumphs over action, with the SNP re-announcements are the order of the day. Frankly, it is about time that the SNP stop behaving like an ostrich, lifts its head out of the sand and gets serious with the economy. I call Stuart Stevenson, followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. Mr Stevenson, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me start my remarks by directing through you some comments about Dean Lockhart's speech. He refers to Scotland as the most highest tax place in the UK. Of course, with a 25 per cent difference in local taxation on premises between Scotland and England, it may be as well that we remind ourselves of which is the higher, and it ain't Scotland, it's England. It's also in Scotland where we have 100,000 businesses taken out of local taxation altogether. We take different solutions in a different environment, but we certainly aren't the highest tax part of the UK. The other thing that I think he might consider talking to his colleagues at Westminster about is the plans revealed inadvertently, it seems, to exclude in particular, in my constituency, thousands of workers that are in the fish processing industry from future employment simply because of their nationality not being that of being UK citizens. If he genuinely thinks that that is a contribution to the Scottish economy shutting down factories in the north-east of Scotland and elsewhere in other industries, then I'm afraid he is deluded in the extreme. I want to talk primarily about the environment. I particularly welcome the addition of the A9 as an electric road to our existing electric road. I refer to the A719 and the electric bray, which is in the vicinity of Ayrshire. The second electric road in Scotland will be a true piece of innovation. Of course, that is connected to the ambition to basically be all electric or all renewable transport by 2032. That is a bold ambition to set, because we are not in control of everything that has to happen to make it happen. I will come back, if I may. I will come back, simply because at the moment it would be very difficult for a car to drive from Edinburgh to Inverness, however many charging points there are, because you need to stop and recharge most electric cars. I will take an intervention from Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie. I'm grateful. Perhaps the member would be so helpful to clarify. He said that the ambition was for Scotland to be wholly electric on transport by 2032. My recollection from yesterday's statement was that new cars and vans that were petrol and diesel would not be available for sale after that point. That's very different from not using them. I accept what the member says. If there was an imprecision, I'm happy, but let's be quite clear. It's a very ambitious thing for us to do, but we should not shy from ambition. When all those of us who were here in 2009 discussed the climate change bill, we did so in a cross-party consensus where every party represented in the Parliament made a contribution to the resulting 2009 climate change act. That is the sort of consensus that I hope that we will continue to sustain on subjects of climate change. It's interesting that in the United States, where the president has withdrawn from the Paris Accord, the Washington Post reports this morning that the advice that he received that caused him to do that was from a right-wing think tank that has looked at the scientific consensus that there is, that climate change exists and that it is anthropogenic in its origins, but that the very existence of the consensus demonstrates that there is a scientific conspiracy to delude the public. Anyone who believes that believes in the tooth fairy and a wide range of other things. It's quite the most disappointing thing that's happened in the world of climate change in recent years, and it reinforces the need for climate change leaders such as Scotland to continue to apply themselves to that. We're going to find it very hard in the rest of the world to compensate for the over-emissions that come from the United States, but that shouldn't stop us trying to do something. In relation to my constituency, we've heard about the ACORN project at St Fergus, a very welcome investment there. It's worth also looking at the high-wind project, which is a floating wind farm that Statoil, the Norwegian oil company, is installing off the coast of Peterhead. We're re-using engineering skills that we have here, but fundamentally, and this goes to the heart of the long-term failure of the UK Government at how you can recycle with the right proper regime the monies from the oil industry to put into renewable. Statoil is the state oil company, founded in 1972 on the back of the oil wealth of Norway, whereas in the UK, the Scottish oil resources were, frankly, flushed away in current accounts spending and not invested in the future. That is the most shameful long-run failure of the UK Government in relation to Scotland and Scotland's economy, one that we live with today and have limited opportunity to do very much about. Hurricane Harvey is a wake-up call about climate change. It has, of course, impacted the price of oil worldwide. A quarter of the United States refineries are now shut down. Pollution and disease is awash in Houston and surrounding areas. Climate change is fundamentally an issue for the whole world. Yes, most critically for the world, it is least able to respond to it in Africa and the Middle East, but for all of us, climate change is the biggest challenge. We in Scotland, I hope, will continue to have a broad consensus about the need to engage in this and support the measures. We'll continue to have vigorous debate about the detail—that's entirely proper—but I hope that we will sustain the consensus that took the Climate Change Act into legislation in 2009. High ambition then, stepping it up now, this Government has a record second to none on climate change on the environment and, indeed, on the economy. I'm pleased to be able to speak in today's debate both as my party's spokesman on jobs, employability and training, but also as a representative of the Highlands and Islands. I'd echo my colleague Dean Lockhart's comments that we can find common ground with the Scottish Government where we are more than willing to work with it to promote Scotland's economic growth. However, it is fair for opposition parties such as ours to question where we don't find common ground or where we feel that the Scottish Government is failing. Under the SNP, the skills and education sector suffered. College places have been cut. Money from the apprenticeship levy, which the Scottish Government said would go towards funding apprenticeships, has been used for other programmes. We've been contacted by one businessman—I'm going to get on, please. Government is not making it easy for businesses to be competitive whilst affording our young people employment opportunities. He warns that the way that the Scottish Government has implemented the apprenticeship levy puts the good employers at a disadvantage in terms of business development and profitability, I'm going to get on, please. We want to see the money raised by the apprenticeship levy spent on apprenticeships, not diverted off by the Scottish Government to other programmes. While the Scottish Government's announcement of 30,000 apprenticeship places by 2020 is welcome, it's not new. Minister, the member is not taking intervention, please sit down. This is just another rehash policy being re-announced and one that will still leave us falling behind other parts of the UK. The Scottish Conservatives want to go further. We want to see the new apprenticeship levy invested in 35,000 apprenticeship places by 2021. I'll give way. It's very welcome that you've finally given me, Mr Halcro Johnston, if you're doing that. I wonder if the member could first of all reflect on the fact that it was the UK Government that introduced the levy without any prior consultation, not only with this Scottish Government but with any levy payer whatsoever. Will he also recognise that whilst he is suggesting that we, as an administration, haven't invested all the money where we said we would? We, unlike the UK Government, undertook a consultation and were implementing exactly what the consultation told us, which was not to go to 35,000 modern apprenticeship starts, was to stick with the commitment that we had made. That was what the voice of employers, including businesses, were telling us. Mr Halcro Johnston. Sorry. I'm glad that the minister admits that they're not investing money where they said that they would. We want to see 10 new skills academies across Scotland by the end of this decade, similar to the successful digital skills and coding academy code plan, and we will reverse the SNP college cuts, with an extra £60 million every year for the sector. Looking wider, we will be encouraging closer working relationships between schools, colleges and local businesses. There are some good examples of this already, one of which, Arm and Engineering, I visited earlier this week with the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee. We also need to take a wider look at how we educate and train for the future. Some of the questions that we will ask will be tough, but we owe our young people an open and honest debate before its future, which is at stake. It starts with accepting that no past should be predetermined or prefavoured. We should ask whether the university has become the default destination of choice at the expense of college, apprenticeship and other training routes, which might be more suitable for many. That when young people have chosen a path, whichever it is, does that chosen path adequately prepare for their future career or for the wider working environment? Above all, we seek an economy that provides the right opportunities for young people who can move from school to university, college, apprenticeships or other training with confidence that jobs and opportunities will be available for them once they leave. They make an investment, whether that is in financial terms or just in time. They need and deserve to see a return on that investment. As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I represent an area that is diverse as it is large. It is a region with an entrepreneurial spirit, almost unmatched in Scotland. Northsea decommissioning should provide huge opportunities for the region, and having met with Lowick Port Authority, one of the first ports in the UK to handle significant offshore decommissioning projects early in the year, I was extremely impressed with their expanded deep water infrastructure at Dalesville, where they are already decommissioning the 12,000 tonne buck and alpha. In Orkney, there has been investment in Copland's dock in Stromnes and at Hatstead in Kirkwall. Hatstead is now able to cater for some of the largest cruise liners in the world. In last year's skills assessment, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, now saved from the SNP's axe, identified IT as a sector with the largest projected employment growth in the region. Of course, there is a traditional industry such as farming and fishing, both of which are still extremely important and major employers, and are linked to the region's world-class food and drink sector, Shetland seafood, Orkney's meat and cheeses and, of course, Murray, the home of whisky. There are also important small businesses. In many ways, the bedrock of the economy and vital, if you want to see growth. Business creation has lagged behind the Scottish average in recent years. It is clear that they need support, and clear are still, in some cases at least, they are not getting it. In remote and not-so-remote communities, we still see real potential but also significant challenges. In the region, we have fewer people than the Scottish average, with no qualifications, but a lower proportion with higher-level qualifications. They have certainly been some successes, with the main sector for apprenticeships being in hospitality, construction and food and drink. It was seen that there has been a response to the local economic needs, but we still need to consider further whether there are real gaps in provision, and to what extent the long-standing southward migration for education, skills and opportunities to hold back the Highlands and Islands. There is real concern at the impact the growth in tourism of having an overstretched local infrastructure in some parts. We welcome growth, but it still causes issues. In Orkney, there has been a heated, albeit relatively one-sided debate on the introduction of a tourist tax. Like the vast majority of people locally, I am not in favour of that, but it highlights the need for investment in local infrastructure and to find out how that is paid for. The hospitality industry has spoken extensively on the shortcomings in the current business rate scheme and is disappointed by the challenges that are proposed by the Barclay review. We should aim to create a system of taxation that recognises the needs and distinct needs of the sectors across Scotland. Meanwhile, the traditional industries of farming and fishing are facing real challenges. Incomes in the rural economy have fallen over recent years, and adequate support is essential, but that support needs to be paid on time, and that is not happening. That makes it increasingly hard for local farmers to plan for the future, having a knock-on effect on the wider agricultural sector and rural economy. Our transport connections and the infrastructure are key to the region's economic growth. We now have competition on the Northern Isles air routes, but we need reliable service, one that is more reasonably priced. Communications infrastructure has also come top of our priorities. Increasingly, we find mobile and broadband connectivity becoming intertwined and should look to mobile networks to work together. I am sure that all those who represent constituents in the highlands and islands or in the region can agree that the roll-out of broadband has been too slow and that service is too unreliable and that there are still too many mobile not-spots and slow broadband in the region. In conclusion, we need a Scottish Government that is up to the challenge of addressing those issues. Unfortunately, yesterday's programme of government, however, suggested that the current Government is both out of touch and out of ideas. I call Rhoda Grant to be followed by Mark Ruskell. The programme for government has many references to digitisation, the development of infrastructure and skills, the digital first service standard where public services are delivered digitally first and foremost. Those are laudable aims, but miss the point that many of our citizens have no access to digital connectivity and have little prospect of getting those in the near future. I cannot overestimate the urgency of the need. People are being left behind, not able to access services and jobs, not being able to communicate with friends and family and certainly not enjoying the digital media that others take for granted. That is predominantly in rural areas, but many inner-city urban areas are also in the same situation. Those are the areas that are used to being left behind that face a financial divide, a divide with regard to jobs and opportunities, and they now face a digital divide. The Scottish Government has pledged superfast broadband for all by 2021. However, it will not begin this roll-out until 2018. They have been in government for 10 years and still have vast swathes of Scotland to cover, the most challenging areas of Scotland, where there are geographical challenges and market failure. Do they really believe that they will cover those areas in two short years at the end of their term in government? In the meantime, those communities are told to wait. It simply is not good enough. Communities who have procured and installed their own broadband are now being asked by the Scottish Government to evaluate their own systems to provide the assurance that their infrastructure is sustainable to fulfil the 2021 promise, rather than encouraging and assisting communities that are questioning their achievements while expecting them to deliver the Government's pledge. The Government needs to work with our digitally excluded communities now to get them connected as soon as possible, rather than promise them connection in four years' time. They are already left behind, far behind and in four years they will be even worse. Is the member aware of schedule 5, section C subsection 10 of the 1998 Scotland Act, which shows that internet access is a reserved power? Will she therefore congratulate the Scottish Government in making good the shortfall that arrives entirely from inaction at Westminster? Rhoda Grant If the Scottish Government were not assuming a responsibility for digital connectivity, it would not have been making that promise. Why make the commitment if it is not your responsibility and you are washing your hands of it? Certainly, do not make a promise that you cannot live up to it, because that is simply unfair. While setting digital as a standard in the programme for government, it does nothing to address the lack of digital connectivity. It does not address either the disaster that was the CAP Futures programme. It says nothing about when the system is going to work for crofters and farmers. It does not inspire confidence in the Scottish Government's ability to deliver full connectivity by 2021. The rural economy is dependent on connectivity, be that digital infrastructure or, indeed, road, rail and ferries. Those communities do not operate with a level playing field due to distances from market. The European Union understood that. Their policies on peripherality saw the building of causeways, bridges and roads in rural Scotland. There is a real fear that due to withdrawal from the EU, those priorities and spending will disappear. Neither of our Governments has shown commitment to creating a level playing field for our rural and remote areas. I specifically ask the Scottish Government to commit to that now. I agree with her about the point about the dangers of leaving the EU and how we replaced the money that previously came from that source, but she must recognise, through the road equivalent tariff, the investment in new ferries and new routes that there has been a substantial improvement under the Scottish Government. At least she should recognise that fact. I certainly acknowledge the implementation of the road equivalent tariff. I am really disappointed that that was removed from commercial vehicles because that was a tax on everybody who lives in an island. We need to look at the way in which we support islands rather than put extra costs on them. Outcrofting and farming communities fear that the scarce resources that will take place of cap payments will be given to the biggest and the most accessible farms rather than supporting producers and communities in rural areas that desperately need additional resources to keep working. Our rural communities depend on successful farms and crofts to sustain them and retain the population. I welcome pillar 1 cap payments being continued by both our Governments, but rural communities are also concerned about pillar 2 funding, for example, leader that supports small initiatives that provide a disproportionately large benefit to rural communities. While it is difficult at the moment to make commitments in monetary terms, we can ask that the Government be clear about the policy backdrop on the spending decisions and how they will be made going forward. We ask that they commit to breaking down barriers in investing in rural and remote communities that need most help and protecting our environment and delivering public goods. The programme for government is largely warm words and lacking in detail. Where there is detail, that is sometimes worrying. While acknowledging the good work of Highlands and Islands Enterprise in the past, the Scottish Government suggests that the new strategic board will have control of all enterprise budgets. I quote, establishing a new strategic board to co-ordinate the work of our enterprise and skills agencies to ensure the maximum impact of our £2 billion investment each year in enterprise and skills. We had a vote in the Parliament, a commitment from the Cabinet Secretary and, yes, the Scottish Government is still fixated in centralising control of enterprise and economic development. It simply does not work for rural areas, and it is the exact opposite of European policy on peripherality. We have been promised devolved powers through the Islands Bill, and still there is no detail about what those powers will be. A bill is again warm words, but no detail whatsoever on what that will mean to islanders, their daily lives and how they will be empowered. I urge the Scottish Government to be more ambitious for our rural and remote communities, to trust people to know what their communities need, what will work for them and to help them to achieve that. Thank you. I call Mark Ruskell to be followed by Mike Rumbles. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by welcoming much of what we heard yesterday from the First Minister and reaffirm the Greens' intention to contribute to the Government's programme in our usual constructively critical way? In that regard, it is slightly disappointing that the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform is not now in this debate. I mean, maybe this debate is on the telly somewhere in the Scottish Parliament, but I would have appreciated the opportunity to debate some of the points that I am going to raise with her. The need for a post-recess reset became clear in June for this Government as it became slightly bogged down in issues from teacher workloads to tail docking, and on some issues such as air quality, the Government has had to be dragged through the courts alongside the UK Government in order to raise its ambition. However, the statement yesterday showed that, when the maths in the chamber is finally balanced, the Government can open its ears to fresh thinking and is prepared in many areas to be bolder. That is to be welcomed. The First Minister talked about Scotland, where innovation culture thrives, where the inventors and manufacturers are not just the consumers, but Scotland becomes, in her words, a laboratory for the rest of the world on digital and low-carbon technology. I think that that is an exciting vision, especially for today's digital generations who daily shape the world around them with coded algorithms, a world in which the impacts of climate change can be seen right outside of the window. However, politics is often defined by tipping points, and some of them are big and some of them are small. I think that a big tipping point for Scotland would be to set a date for the end of the fossil fuel age. We should be afraid to choose a date for it, plan for it and invest in the transition now to take our society and economy to that future place. To hit reverse gear by opening up new risky fossil fuel extraction through fracking would be disastrous and send completely the wrong signal to investors. So we await the Scottish Government decision on fracking with growing expectation in the weeks to come. I'll take a brief intervention, yes. Claudia Beamish, your microphone please. Ah, there we go. Claudia, that's not the first time either. We haven't got Ms Beamish's microphone yet. Are you sure that it's not your bank card? I don't want to waste his time. You're on now, you're live. Take your chance. Right. To ask the member who I hope will get back some time, if he agrees with me that my member's bill could be a way forward to ban fracking in Scotland, depending on the Scottish Government position. Mark Ruskell. I'm happy to confirm that I've signed your member's bill, so I think it's part of a belt and braces approach to banning fracking. It's certainly an option that could be supported. Of course, the climate bill would be another way to put in a legal ban on fracking as well. If I could move on with a sense of urgency, Presiding Officer. You're making up your time, you'll be giving your time for that little... Thank you. ...polavor. The need to cool time on the fossil fuel age is the reason why I'll be making the case for a net zero carbon target for 2040 in the forthcoming climate bill. The science tells us we need it, and with a step change closure of Longannet that we've seen, we can keep our current pace of carbon cutting action until 2040 and still meet this target. We needn't feel alone either with Norway and Sweden, amongst other countries, setting similar targets. Like other countries in the Nordic arc, Scotland is blessed with the renewable resources to show global leadership and in so doing capture the intellectual property and economic advantage that will reward our future generations with well-paid, secure livelihoods. The national investment bank that was announced is a welcome new tool to build this future. It could, for example, help to de-risk the development of new low-carbon technology and then propel it to commercialisation, but it must have sufficient capital and borrowing powers and be aligned closely with the national transition plan. We also welcome the announcement of a just transition commission as the first step towards that. I hope that its membership reflects a wide spectrum that includes political, environmental, public sector and trade union representatives. Working to this zero carbon target would also provide a strong focus on transport, agriculture and housing sectors, where actions to cut emissions so far have been weak in the Government's draft climate plans. If implemented, yesterday's announcements around electric vehicles and active travel will reduce emissions from transport faster than the current climate plan, which is good but cannot be used as an excuse to dial back on action elsewhere in housing and agriculture. Government spending decisions going forward will have to be aligned with climate targets more closely, especially on national infrastructure projects. It is disappointing that we will soon enter our third cold winter since the commitment to make energy efficiency a national infrastructure priority and still without any clarity on how that will be practically delivered. Clearly, bringing homes across the country up to a sea rating in energy efficiency would bring a warm glow to 127,000 more homes every year, create thousands of jobs and save the NHS millions of pounds. Parliament needs a better way to understand not just the carbon impact of infrastructure projects but also the carbon impact that they create throughout their lifetime. While we can all marvel at the shiny Queen's Free Crossing, it begs the question about whether Fife is going to see any investment in long-awaited rail infrastructure now that we have had that bridge. The Transport Minister's pipeline of rail projects is in danger of drying up if funding for economic and technical appraisal work is not forthcoming from either council budgets, the Scottish Government or city region deals. Showrooms or electric cars will be a cold comfort to excluded communities such as Levenmouth if their rail lines remain under weeds. There can be small tipping points too, and I warnly welcome the steps that are being taken towards a deposit return scheme for Scotland, building on the momentum that is created by the plastic bag tax. Like the smoking ban, those subtle changes add up to bigger shifts and cultural changes over time. One of the best ways that the Government could embed the success of an enhanced budget for walk-in cycling would be to make 20mph the default speed limit on the streets where we live, work and play. The consultation of my bill looks set to have one of the highest responses so far on any legislation that proposes a session, and I will be delighted to share the results and insights with members and officials in the weeks ahead. This year, green members will continue to ask difficult questions that need urgent answers across the whole Government programme, while championing bold action that will secure a greener and fairer Scotland. I look forward to the work ahead. Thank you very much. I call Mike Rumbles to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. Mr Rumbles, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity today to focus on the programme for government as it affects our rural economy. It would have been good to see the minister for the rural economy in the chamber today, but he obviously has more important duties to attend to. Without doubt, the last couple of years have seen real problems for our rural economy as a result of the complete mishandling of the £500 million European funding that should have been paid out to our rural businesses on time. Last year, Richard Lockhead failed to deal with this issue adequately to say the least. It was quite obvious to all concerned that he was unable to manage his department effectively as our farm businesses continued to be denied their funding on time. In comes his successor, Fergus Ewing, full of good intentions, a white knight to the rescue. Indeed, weren't we all impressed in this chamber when, in his first speech, after taking over from Richard Lockhead, he apologised to the rural community and said, and I quote, "...this will not happen again." It was to be his number one priority to fix. It was an unacceptable situation, which was not to be repeated. Well, over one year on, and here we are again. Not only did our rural businesses not receive their funding in December, the 95 per cent figure for payments by the end of June were not reached either. It is no thanks to our minister that we are facing possible sanctions about that from the European Union. In his own defence—I better say this because he is not here to defend himself—Fergus Ewing is proud of the fact that, instead of paying out to our farm businesses their entitlement on time, he organised loans for them from the Scottish Government. Indeed, he paid those loans out ahead of the normal December round. He is very proud of that. The problem here, though, is that our farmers are so worried about the incompetence of the Scottish Government that they were very wary of those loans and the take-up of them has been absolutely dreadful. So dreadful, in fact, led up to £200 million of the £500 million of the money that should have been injected into our rural communities last December went missing because they were not paid out. That is money that our rural communities can ill afford to let go by. My point is that this money that should have gone to our farm businesses should have been available to be spent in our rural towns and villages across the country. No, Fergus Ewing's record on this, his number one priority, is quite frankly lamentable. It is as bad as his predecessor's and there can be no doubt, surely, that the minister's coat should indeed be hanging on a sugary peg. Yesterday, I listened carefully to the First Minister when she opened this debate on her programme for government. She said absolutely nothing about the problems facing our rural economy. I will say that again. She said absolutely nothing specifically about the problems facing our rural economy. It did not fill me with confidence that things for our rural communities right across Scotland are going to get any better over the next year. As soon as the result, for instance, of last year's referendum on Europe became clear to leave the European Union, I argued that the Scottish Government needed, as a matter of urgency, to engage with stakeholders to develop a new strategy for financial support to our farming sector. Indeed, it took until January this year for Fergus Ewing to indicate that he would do this when he accepted my amendment in a debate in this chamber, which called for the setting up of a group of experts to develop such a strategy. It turns out, however, that not much is being done. In the event that we leave the European Union, the Scottish Government must be ready with a bespoke system of agricultural support tailored to the needs of Scottish farming rather than simply be content to administer the common agricultural policy, a policy that is designed to aid farming across Europe. Where is the evidence that work is being done to design a bespoke system to meet the needs of Scotland? I would have thought that a nationalist administration, the SNP administration, would be first out of the blocks on this one, but no, we would just meander along as usual. When I keep raising this with Fergus Ewing, all he does is deflect my questioning by attacking the UK Government for its lack of clarity on future arrangements. While, indeed, this lack of clarity is true, it does not make up for the fact that there is a complete lack of action on Fergus Ewing's part in designing a new system that is fit for purpose for Scotland. I would say to the First Minister that, has she noticed how lacking in ambition her rural economy minister is? Is she content to witness the complete lack of forward thinking demonstrated by Fergus Ewing on the future of agricultural support in Scotland? If she is content, I can only surmise that she is ignorant of what is required. If this is the best that can be done for our rural economy, then heaven help us. Deputy Presiding Officer, I make no apologies for focusing my time in this debate on the Scottish Government's abject failures in supporting our rural economy. I could have said a lot more on the SNP's other failures, but I just don't have the time. The one thing that could be done now for a rural economy is for Fergus Ewing to actually show some forward thinking and design a bespoke system for the future of agricultural support in Scotland. How long do we have to wait? Thank you very much. I call Kenneth Gibson to be followed by Peter Chapman. I welcome the First Minister's programme for government and eagerly anticipate its implementation going forward. A programme as robust as the one announced yesterday is key if you are to drive our future in a positive direction. Despite what has obviously been a challenging backdrop, the SNP Government is surely to be commended over the longest period of uninterrupted growth since 2001. The fundamentals of our economy have proven their strength. The labour market has been increasingly resilient, with employment currently at a record high. That unemployment rate is at 3.2 per cent. The chief economist state of the economy report said that continued growth, despite headwinds, facing various sectors, will continue. Between 2007 and the SNP community office in 2015, the value of Scotland's international exports increased from £20 billion to £28.7 billion, a £49.5 per cent increase. In addition, over the last decade, productivity in Scotland increased by 7.6 per cent, a stark contrast to the 0.4 per cent increase for the UK as a whole. In light of the innovative programme that was presented yesterday, positive growth should continue. I welcome the aim of establishing a Scottish National Investment Bank, which will benefit the public purse, put public interest before private profit and grant us increased control over economic development. It will also deliver a boost to our business environment and entrepreneurial spirit. Indeed, that is essential to the good health of Scotland's economy, helping to provide our businesses the number of which is now at a record high with capital for investment. Commenting on the programme for government, Scottish Council of Development and Industry Chief Executive Mark Bevan said that Scotland faces massive challenges to the established economic consensus and we need high-level strategic action to meet them head-on. We need a relentless Government focus on the long-term future economy and a greater co-operative political response to deliver that focus. In that context, we are pleased to see the First Minister highlighting specific measures that will help such as investment in R&D and the creation of a Scottish National Investment Bank. Part of that fresh vision for the Government encourages Scotland to aspire to full participation and an increasingly digital world. Significant progress towards this goal has already been achieved as business research and development rose 41 per cent in real terms between 2007 and 2015. The additional £45 million in R&D support from enterprise agencies announced that it is expected to unlock a further £270 million of R&D expenditure. Ensuring Scotland is in a position to lead, for example, when it comes to the digital technology and innovation that holds a key to a prosperous future. Technology transforms the way we live our lives, connecting us in new and innovative ways. It creates a platform and momentum for innovation. Soon, no sector of business or individual will be immune to the far-reaching influence of artificial intelligence. Computers with ability to sense their surroundings think, learn and take action. AI sets itself apart from the automation of routine tasks. Science fiction may often portray AI in the form of robots with human-like characteristics, but that broad spectrum encompasses all manner of technologies. In line with the most recent digital strategy for Scotland, the SNP Government is looking to ensure that Scotland is recognised throughout the world as a vibrant, inclusive, open and outward-looking digital nation. Promoting healthy and open discussion surrounding our country's relationship with AI constitutes a topical part of the strategy. According to the PwC report on the economic impact of artificial intelligence on the UK economy, published in June, AI has a potential to boost Scotland's annual income by up to £16,700 million by 2030. That figure represents the equivalent of an annual £3,000 per person, although through productivity gains, new business investment and product improvement. That requires new industries to supply and service new automated solutions, thus contributing to net employment growth. AI could allow Scotland to reap numerous benefits across the board, including greater prosperity and more individual leisure time. Scotland is already well placed to benefit from the shift towards AI, thanks to its strong foundations in the technology. Start-ups in different industries such as healthcare, cybersecurity, insurance and finance are helping to propel our country forward and drive innovation. In terms of activity that stimulates economic activity while also protecting the environment, I commend the Government's continued commitment to the circular economy, one of renewed importance that seeks new ways to reduce our toll over natural resources and keeps materials flowing through the economy at as high a value as possible for as long as possible. As such, the introduction of a deposit return scheme for cans and bottles is welcome and necessary, especially considering the fact that only 40 to 72 per cent of plastic strength bottles are currently recycled, and the introduction of the scheme presents a potential reduction of £10 million to £40 million in the costs that litter pollution imposes on society. The introduction of the scheme, along with the commitment to increase the number of electric and ultra-low commission vehicles, will continue Scotland on a path to a low-carbon future. I am sure that we are all looking forward to the abolition of the sale of non-electric vehicles from fossil fuel vehicles from 2032, not being sold. Low-carbon initiatives will in turn support an employment market. 21,000 jobs are supported directly by the low-carbon renewable energy economy in Scotland, representing 9.1 per cent of UK employment in the sector, reinforcing the overall importance of building on those industries. Unsurprisingly, Brexit presents a significant yet unavoidable risk to business. In Scotland, with investment sensitive to changing market signals and the yet unclear structure, it also represents the greatest source of uncertainty for our economy, particularly beyond 2018, as negotiations progress. Although those challenges must and will be addressed, within them lies significant opportunities not only in terms of improving our economy and environment, but across the board. The combination of positive progress by this Government and the refreshing, ambitious content of the new programme that I outlined yesterday reinforces the faith that I have in the Scottish Government to seize and build on those opportunities. Following the snap general election, we faced a Tory Government to Westminster, propped up by the DUP in Scotland, subject to continuing budget cuts, subjecting us to continued budget cuts, while Tory MSPs demand lower taxes, a doubling of the house-building programme, despite Brexit exacerbating skill shortages, and more money for every portfolio, as no doubt we will witness at budget time. As was made clear earlier today, when Dean Lockhart was caught out by the finance secretary and made no apology for the £2.9 billion that the Tory Government has cut from Scotland's budget, they have no answers. With Labour's next leader likely to be a former MP who voted on the 13 January 2015 in the House of Commons for £30,000 million of budget cuts, it is clear that an anti-austerity progressive economic strategy will be advanced only by this SNP Government. I now call Peter Chapman to be followed by Graeme Dey. I refer members to my register of interests relating to farming. At the end of our summer term, the First Minister promised a bold and radical relaunch. My goodness, it was badly needed. As out of 13 bills promised in the 2016 programme for government, only three were passed. In comparison, the 2011 Government had passed nine bills in its first year. I realise that this is a poor, poor Government. Only a year in, but it has no energy, it has no vision, it lacks talent and it is failing Scotland. Let's talk about farming. Somebody needs to, as it wasn't mentioned once in the First Minister's 35-minute speech yesterday. We were assured by the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing, and I hoped that he would be here today, that lessons had been learned and there must be no repeat of the unacceptable carp payments problem of 2015-16. Yet, here we are in September and 481 farmers still await basic payment scheme payments due last December. Now we in Scotland only paid 90 per cent of BPS payments by the end of June deadline, yet England and Wales managed 99 per cent. Our problems are all due to a 178 million programme that is of poor quality, incomplete, not capable of doing the job and which may not fully work until 2018. If there is any doubt that payments will be delayed again this year, a loan scheme must be put in place at once. Farming incomes across Scotland have plummeted and we cannot have another year of payment delays. Average incomes have fallen by 75 per cent in the last five years and by 48 per cent in the last year alone. There is a completely unsustainable average of just £12,600 per farming business. That is after receiving carp payments. That means that we are leaving many farming families in despair and unable to pay their bills. With that in mind, what does the Scottish Government plan in its revision of the Scottish Rural Development programme? I will tell you that it is cut in funding by tens of millions of pounds. Less favoured area scheme is being cut by 40 million pounds and the environment and climate change schemes are being cut by 42 million pounds. That only backs up claims that the SNP has turned it back on the farming community and why it did not feature once in the programme for government. When it comes to the future of the fishing industry in Scotland, not a mention either, not a mention of fishing. The farming businesses receive that support, but it is the money that is spent in our villages and towns and our filling stations and the corner shops that this lack of finance affects the whole of the rural economy. Mr Chapman. That is absolutely correct. Farmers are the best in the world for paying out money. We spend money even if we do not have it sometimes, but that is absolutely correct. Anyone who comes into the rural economy and into the farming business is immediately spent in the local economy, and that is what keeps many local economies going. We forget that at our peril. We have only done one. No, not now. When it comes to fishing, not a mention either. In any enthusiasm—we see no enthusiasm from the SNP regarding the opportunities that leaving the EU may bring—the SNP continually shouts that the Westminster Government is planning a so-called power grab, yet we have been absolutely clear that after Brexit, Holyrood will have more power. When will the SNP start to work positively and support the process of getting the best possible deal and stop using this process as a means of berating and criticising the Westminster Government? I will. I thank Peter Chapman for taking intervention. Given that he just said that after this process has been gone through, the troubling thought will be, we will have more powers, can he tell us what one of those powers will be? Mr Chapman. I am not in the heart of the Westminster Government. Listen, you have been assured on every occasion that there will be at least the same amount of powers if not more. I am just standing here now saying that there will be more powers to the Scottish Government. That is tactics. That spoiling tactic means that they are making a good deal for the whole of the UK, which is much more difficult. Instead of being positive about the sea of opportunity for the fishing industry after Brexit, Fergus Ewing's announcement of plans that Scottish trollers would suffer a quote-a-cut if a certain percentage of their fish were not landed in the UK is completely the wrong approach. We all want to see the maximum amount of fish landed and processed here. However, the Scottish Government should not be trying to micromanage and browbeat our fishermen but should be helping processors increase capacity and market more effectively, thus making landing here more attractive. At present, Scottish pelagic fishermen have no option but to land some of their catch in Norway as there is not enough capacity here. Norway not only has more pelagic fish processing capacity, but it also has income guarantee schemes in place and they generally pay higher prices. Clare Adamson, if how much Norway relies on the free movement of people to actually have the workers to process that fish? I wonder if the member is aware of how much Norway relies on the free movement of people to actually provide the workers to process that fish in Norway? Mr Chapman, we are in the same position as we are as far as needing EU workers into this country. We have said that EU workers in this country are absolutely welcome to be here and EU workers who are here are welcome to stay and we have no problem with that whatsoever. Fergus Ewing should start working with the industry instead of trying to bully them. Now, at a more local level, nearly 30 per cent of the case work that my office has received in the last six months have been health and social-related issues. Constituents in my area are suffering from both physical health and mental health waiting times. Getting to GP facilities in rural areas has often been difficult, but with lack of staff and practice closure, it has become a nearly impossible task for some people in the north-east. Presiding Officer, this SNP Government is failing Scotland, neglecting key industries such as fishing and farming and needs to raise its game. If this SNP Government cannot give the lead the direction and the good government Scotland needs, then we in the Conservative benches will highlight that and hold them to account at every opportunity. That is our promise and that is exactly what we will do. I call Graeme Dates. We are followed by Pauline McNeill. I viewed yesterday's programme for government announcement from a couple of perspectives. Firstly, as a constituency MSP, looking at how the proposals contained within it would impact the everyday life of my constituents and secondly, as convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, considering, among other things, the work-streams that would generate for that committee. I was left enthused in both regards. Time will not permit me to explore the potential impacts of the wider measures on my Angus South constituency. This afternoon is a session looking specifically at economy and environment, so I want to focus my contribution on the environmental aspect of the programme for government. The response from the Opposition benches to the statement, Mark Ruskell, perhaps, has been depressingly predictable. Does we bits we like, but we are mostly going to spend our time knocking the content and the record of the Government? I accept that I am likely, from those same quarters, to be accused in turn of taking a glass three quarters full of you. Let us look at what those of an unbiased and informed perspective had to say about the environmental element of what was announced. Eric Solhine, head of UN Environment, great leadership and commitments on climate, emissions, clean air, pollution, circular economy and plastic waste from Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland to phase out petrol and diesel vehicles and another breath of fresh air. Friends of the Earth Scotland, the greenest programme for government in the history of the Scottish Parliament. Greenpeace, this is what real leadership looks like. WF Scotland, the benefits of today's announcement will continue to be felt across Scotland for generations to come. Despite repeated pleas, the cabinet secretary has so far failed to show the leadership to commit funding to deal with coastal erosion at Montrose, just outside Graham Day's constituency, which will lead to flooding. Will he push for the Scottish Government to change that stance and deal with the environmental problem on our doorstep? Because coastal erosion is caused largely by climate change, that is what all those measures are designed to tackle. There is a bigger picture issue here. Let us look at the detail of the measures that have attracted such a positive response from those who are possessing an objective perspective. Direct early-stage support for the ACON project is in Fergus. Both welcome and necessary, given the reliance that is placed on carbon capture and storage in the draft climate plan. That is also my money, yes, but a measure that hopefully will give the UK Government the push needed to get things moving again. The commitment to deliver low-emission zones in our four largest cities by 2020 and all other air quality management areas where necessary by 2023. Both matters of importance are highlighted in the environment committee's work. I also welcome the creation of a research programme on blue carbon and options for deep-sea national marine reserves. The commitment of £500,000 to begin addressing litter sinks around our coast and develop policy to address marine plastics. On land reform, I am looking forward to the exploration by the land commission of ownership of land by charitable trusts, land banking and how common good assets are used and where that might lead us. Then there is a big ticket stuff, which is the introduction of a deposit return scheme. An issue championed by my colleague Richard Lochhead and progressed on behalf of the committee by a subgroup headed by our former deputy convener, Maurice Golden. The extensive scoping work carried out by the subgroup highlighted both the challenges as well as the undoubted potential of our DRS scheme. I very much welcome the modelling that has currently been undertaken by the Government to determine the type of scheme that is likely to work best for Scotland. That is not just as simple as committing to the principle and charging ahead. If we look at the kind of plastic bottles that are likely to be captured by a DRS scheme, current collection rates across the UK, the rate across the UK is about 60 per cent. However, that is variable with Wales, for example, hitting 75 per cent. The performance levels of DRS schemes are not reduced elsewhere and vary from 50 per cent to 90 per cent. It is right that the Government takes the next few months to identify the scheme best suited to our circumstances and how any pinch points can be addressed. There is resistance out there, but many—in fact, the vast majority of the legitimate concerns, for example, in relation to smaller retails—can be addressed by drawing on practical applications from other places, not least of all of Stonia. Of course, the other major announcement concerned the commitment to phase out new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2032. Sitting alongside that, extending the green bus fund and massively expanding the number of electric charging points in rural, urban and domestic settings. The Scottish green bus fund has so far assisted with the purchase of 315 low-carbon emissions buses across Scotland. 25 of those operate within my constituency. Across Angus South, we are also seeing new charging points, all other than Cymru, Cymru, Cymru, Arbroath and Montefaith. However, the move away from environmentally damaging forms of transport will only deliver in full if we have low emissions vehicles powered from a grid increasingly supplied by Queen green energy. We have a couple of hurdles to overcome in that regard, neither of this Government's making. Yesterday, during the opening speeches, Willie Rennie claimed that offshore renewable energy, with its enormous potential to contribute, was lagging behind. He is right, certainly in terms of wind, but let's look at why. Renewable energy generation is at an all-time high, and the Scottish National Party Government sought to build on that by consenting four offshore wind farms in the first of, fourth and tain, massive infrastructure projects with enormous economic and environmental potential. Only one of those has attracted contract for difference backing. The UK Government has to step up here when the next round of CFD comes forward. That is not a political point, but a fact. Just as we need Westminster to do its bit, we also need elements of Scotland's environmental lobby not only to tackle climate change but to walk the walk. Even if all four of those wind farms had subsidy to match consent, there still would not be a single turbine being built, let alone installed, because a member organisation of stock climate chaos, the RSPB, is continuing its efforts to wreck those projects. Will he listen? I hope that he will join me, because we both have a constituency interest in the first of, fourth and tain areas, in urging the UK Government and the RSPB to get behind them and clear the way for the environmental and economic benefit that they will provide Scotland. Housing must be much higher up the agenda of this Parliament. The period since the financial crash has meant that more people are struggling to get on the housing ladder, that the social sector has shrunk dramatically and that has resulted in a tripling of the private sector. The term generation rent describes the current story on housing. Essentially, it means that many are trapped into the private sector, not through choice and the lack of housing supply are pushing up rents. Housing should be regarded as central to the health and welfare of every individual and it should be a right to live in a warm home with an affordable rent or mortgage. It must be a central area of action for this programme for government. The housebuilding industry believes that housing should be treated as a national infrastructure project and I agree with that. It should have a level of priority and a serious role in creating jobs and skills. We need a new strategy on homelessness. Statistics from Glasgow City Mission and Bethany Trust show that rough sleeping is on the rise in the past two years. I welcome what the First Minister said yesterday that the Government will set out clear and national objectives to eradicate rough sleeping, but it must be a priority for this Government. Homeless applications by those with mental health problems and disability are on the rise, but housing increasingly signifies the divisions in society of inequality of the have and the have nots. We are in a crisis now with a severe housing shortage of social housing, we have rising rents and while wages have been flatlining over the last decade and not to mention the huge barrier to home ownership, we can begin to see the problem. Can there seriously now be any question as to whether housing should be a cabinet post and not a junior post in this Government? The First Minister herself must show to the housing sector that she understands and cares about housing as a policy area and an essential part of her Government's program. I thank Pauline McNeill for taking the intervention and I hope and believe that many of us do share that commitment that housing should be a priority. As a member, I welcome the resource planning assumptions that I have announced with the cabinet secretary Angela Constance that amount to £1.75 billion over the resource planning period to build houses across Scotland. I have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in welcoming the resource allocation and the ambition to build 50,000 houses, but I will come to that. I genuinely think that when it was a cabinet position in the last Government, and I think that it should be about time that it was brought back into the cabinet to demonstrate how important the area of housing is. However, I want to sit out why I think that housing policy needs to shift up the agenda. It was one of the many reasons that housing has been more prominent recently is the tragedy of the Grenfell tower fire. It has opened our eyes up to the fact that it is the poorest people who end up in the least safe housing and that they have the least access to challenged bad decisions made by those landlords who put profit over safety. Making housing affordable must be a priority to take people out of poverty. Housing costs push many into poverty. 320,000 Scots were in work poverty before housing costs, and that rises by another £100,000 if you take that after housing costs. The poverty rate for young adults was higher in 2014 than any other age group. Young people are overrepresented in the least wealthy households, and the average level of debt for young people has almost doubled and has done so twice as fast as other age groups. The Institute of Fiscal Studies analysis has shown that wealth has been significantly distributed away from young people and that that has been driven by a reduction in home ownership. That essentially means that the baby boomer generation is 50 per cent more likely to own their own homes at age 30 than the millennials. Higher levels of deposit and low wage growth have meant that it is far harder to get a mortgage. It is this age group at the age 16 to 29 that needs a more radical Government policy to prevent further intergenerational inequality. Poor are young people who do not have the bank of mum and dad must be helped. The help-to-buy scheme is due to end in 2019, and I asked the Government this afternoon if and when we can have a commitment that that important scheme will continue beyond that date. I think that it is important to give confidence to prospective young people, in fact to any families and the industry itself in knowing that there will be help to buy. However, the help-to-buy scheme must also help those on the lowest wages, and it might be worth having a review of the scheme itself to ensure that it does that. According to the Scottish household survey, social housing tenure is down to 23 per cent of the total tenure that it previously was 32 per cent. According to Shelter, almost half a billion pounds a year of Government money goes to private landlords in housing benefit. It is quite a staggering figure. It is a large state subsidy, and we should demand high standards for tenants in the private sector. As has been said before, that should include a C rating for energy efficiency to match the social sector. I am sorry, but I must ask you to conclude there, Ms McNeill. I call Gail Ross. We follow by Edwin Mountain. Next week, my constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, has the honour of hosting a fantastic group of young people from Sunnyside primary school in Easterhouse Glasgow, a group that calls themselves the ocean defenders. This group of dedicated children have made it their mission to raise money and awareness of marine issues and have been supporting the work of organisations based in Ullipill and Westeros. Next week, they will have the opportunity to come to the area, experience the incredible environment, spend time with their peers from rural schools and learn more about the nature and habitats of that particular part of Scotland. Those children have decided their own path for their learning and development, and that path leads to the spectacular beauty of the west coast. They have built new relationships, not only with each other and with their new friends in Westeros, but also with their surroundings. Today, children from all across Scotland, and in particular the ocean defenders in Sunnyside primary, are learning, experiencing and developing all because of the fantastic opportunities that they have to access and research their natural world. The chamber won't be surprised to hear that I welcome the announcements from the Scottish Government on the plans for the environment and the low-carbon economy. That has been described by Friends of the Earth as the greenest programme for government in the history of the Scottish Parliament, and it needed to be. We already have some world-beating aspirations. Scotland has one of the most ambitious targets in Europe to reduce food waste. Scotland has targets to recycle 70 per cent of all household waste by 2025. Scotland's first separate air quality strategy was published in 2015. Our target for renewable energy in Scotland is to generate the equivalent of 100 per cent of gross electricity by an 11 per cent of heat consumption by 2020. Last year, we reached our emissions target six years earlier than planned, but we all agree that we can do more. More to encourage Scotland's youth to be active and responsible citizens towards the world that we live in and so much more to preserve our beautiful nation for generations to come. As members before me, I would like to draw attention to just a few of the policies that are contained in the programme for government, and how I believe that they are vital to ensure that our environment is enriched and protected now and in the future. The Scottish Government has announced a plan to develop a deposit return scheme for bottles and cans. According to the WWF, four out of five members of the public support this, and deposit return systems are already working well in other countries that present similar challenges. Canada, Australia, America, Estonia, Germany and Norway, among others. Alongside that, a complete change in public behaviour is also needed to curb littering. Although I appreciate that we have come a long way in terms of recycling in Scotland in the lifetime of this Parliament, and as I said previously, we have laudable targets, littering particularly of drinks containers remains a worrying issue. Starting now, we will be bringing up generations of children who will see returning drinks containers as a normal, everyday occurrence. Speaking of culture change, not only from an education point of view but also from a health and wellbeing point of view, we need to do more to move towards active journeys. The announcement yesterday that the Scottish Government plans to double investment in walking and cycling to £80 million a year will go a long way to cutting carbon emissions and shows real investment in a low-carbon economy. Another aim is that of decarbonising our transport sector by 2032. In my constituency, journeys can be extremely lengthy and active travel is just not practical in some cases. Here is an example. Now that I am reading it back, I am not sure if it is a very good example, but I will say it anyway. When my constituents in Laid need to do their weekly shopping—not that many people do their weekly shopping on a bicycle—but a round trip is just under six hours, travelling over 200 miles. On that note, the Scottish Government's commitment to ultra-low-emission vehicles in this programme is also to be welcomed. Rural drivers will be concerned at the move away from diesel transport, particularly those in rural communities such as Eurone. Is the Scottish Government committed to having adequate numbers of charging points by 2032? If so, what is the projected cost of that, and where is the money coming from? I am glad that Liam Kerr brought that point up. As he knows, I am not a member of the Scottish Government, so I cannot price that for him, but I am getting on to where we are going with charging points if he would let me continue. As an economic opportunity, AGM batteries Ltd runs the UK's largest lithium-ion cell manufacturing plant, and they are based in Tharjal, in my constituency. Infrastructure will need to be put in place on routes all over the country to allow that to become a reality, and I relish the opportunity alongside all of my colleagues, cross-party and the chamber, of working with the communities in my constituency to ensure that they have equitable access to ultra-low-emissions infrastructure. The A9, which runs from Perth to Scrabster, is due to be an electric highway, and I suggest that the NC500 should be next. Future generations of Scots deserve to live in a clean, healthy, beautiful country, a country to be proud of and which has an active and vital role to play in combat and climate change, which is all too real. These policies announced yesterday recognised the vital importance of our natural environment and a low-carbon economy, not only to our nation in the future but to our children of today. I welcome them wholeheartedly and look forward to seeing how they will be embedded in either legislation or national plans and in time become a part of normal life. I am sorry, I forgot to say at the start that I am also a PLO to the First Minister. Thank you. Save yourself at the last gasp. Coll Edward Mountain followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you Presiding Officer and to save myself at the first gasp. I am going to refer members to my register of interests. The Scottish legislative list looks a little more extensive this year than last year's rather slim pickings. What is clear, though, is that there is not much for the rural economy and I am saddened by this lack of vision. This is especially surprising as last year, when it came to rural issues, it was probably not one that the Government or indeed Mr Ewing, who sadly isn't here, will want to remember. In fact, it is not like the year before that they wouldn't have wanted to remember or the year before that. I believe that this Government has missed an opportunity to bring forward ideas to help the farming industry to start to come forward to the terms of Brexit. Perhaps that is not surprising as the ideas that they have come forward with, such as the beef efficiency scheme, has fallen flat, with almost 20 per cent of beef producers who have originally signed up to it, walking away from it, saying that it has turned out to be an administrative nightmare. If this Government cannot come up with ideas for farmers in the agricultural sector, perhaps it should encourage those farmers and the agriculture sector to take a lead on improvement themselves, as they do in places such as Canada. At least, this would mean that the Government would be absolved from being blamed for the poorly delivered and poorly conceived schemes that they have designed themselves. Now, as there are no new ideas for legislation, for rural issues in the Government programme, perhaps I can offer some tips on what they should be doing. Again, I just reiterate that it is sad that Mr Ewing isn't here because these perhaps are directed slightly at him. Firstly, if you continually say, we are sorry and we are fixing it, for goodness sake, make sure that you do fix it. You might be sorry for your farm payment fiasgo, but you surely have not fixed it. I apologise, Presiding Officer. Gently recovers. It still rumbles on. Frankly, it is clear that we would have been better off to buy an off-the-shelf computer to run the Scottish farm payment scheme instead of investing £178 million in a failed system that costs a significant sum more to run each year than the off-the-peg system was projected to. Secondly, if you believe, as I do, that Scotland's fishermen are a vital part of our economy, I suggest that you might like to do less to alienate them. They want to revive their industry and see taking back control from the EU as a way of doing this. Looking at the SNP's programme for government, I see little to give them confident. It seems that this Government is set on antagonising them. Plagic fishermen are rightly incensed at suggestions of plans to reduce their quota in Scottish trawlers if they do not land at least 55 per cent of their catch in Scotland. That is not an open market. It is more like a restricted market that could cost our fishermen and the economy dear, as they would be prohibited from selling their fish at the best advantage. I want to push on. I feel that you are going to come back to me at a later stage, but we will see. When it comes to the fishing industry, what happened to the inshore fisheries bill? A promise delayed or a promise undelivered? I want to mention what I perceive are two huge missed opportunities, both to do with connecting and enhancing communications. I did hope that this programme for government might bring forward a plan to accelerate delivery of broadband to all before 2021. That would have been welcomed by all, but nothing, silence, frankly, a bit like broadband in rural areas. I will take an intervention. Is the member aware that broadband in large parts of digital is actually the responsibility of the UK Government, but its failure to act has meant that the Scottish Government is going even further to deliver access for Scotland? Edward Mountain Thank you, Presiding Officer. Of course, if it is happening on your watch and you are not going to deliver it, you will of course try and slope shoulders. However, there is scope to accelerate delivery, and bringing the rail out forward and giving it to the rural economy will bruise it in where it desperately needs. During the summer, I have met constituents and businesses from Tung to Portree, from Kinlop Burby to Granton, all who bemoan the lack of broadband. Let me share a specific example with you. A business that employs 140 people at peak time and ships 640 lorry loads of produce all over the UK has such poor broadband that they have to go to Inverness to email their shipping notes and check their orders for the next day. They are hamstrung by the lack of high-speed broadband. Let me be clear that more connectivity will be clearly delivering for Scotland and ensuring that businesses grow. More jobs, more income, more growth, and without dutch, without doubt, cross-party support. Stuart Simpson, you are in your last minute, Mr Mountain, so it is up to you. Noting that the UK Government has legislated for a broadband speed of 10 megabits per second, will it congratulate the Scottish Government on its 30 megabits per second programme that we are undertaking to deliver broadband to every inhabited premise in Scotland? Briefly, Mr Mountain. Of course, it will congratulate anyone when they deliver it. It is delivery that counts. Not delivered yet. Presiding Officer, as you are suggesting, my time is nearly up. When it comes to rural issues, I believe that this 10-year-old Government has little ambition. They know that they have lost confidence for those who live in the rural areas. They lack the drive to bring forward the delivery of policies for farmers, fishermen and business. I believe that this Government is holding back rural Scotland. Let me be clear. No business that showed this lack of vision and drive would survive. When time gets hard, it is time not to be timid, it is time to be visionary and show leadership. I don't see leadership. Thank you. You must now conclude. I see a Government that has withdrawn into what it believes is common and zoned for central issues. I call Stuart McMillan, followed by Richard Leonard. I warmly welcome the programme for government. There is lots in it that the chamber can unite and support, as was evident in some of the contributions from yesterday. From the welcome of the introduction of Frank's Law, the new drug-deriving offence, which, contrary to Ruth Davidson's false claims yesterday, I had raised the issue with the Scottish Government in the first instance in June of 2016. To the removal of the 1 per cent pay cap for public sector workers, the introduction of the investment bank, the deposit return scheme and the Sandwich and Products Initiative to deal with period poverty, to name just six examples. The programme is bursting with proposals and ideas that will help to shape our country for the future. Those six examples also provide real differences to our country, our communities, our environment and our individual constituencies. I want to touch on just a few of the examples from yesterday, which will help our communities and our constituents. The drug-deriving offence is one that I am pleased to see. The Government came under some criticism earlier in the year about the lack of it as an offence, but it was clear that, whilst the UK Government had provided a focus on drug-deriving offences, the Scottish Government had actually focused on attacking and tackling drink-deriving offences. The introduction of the new offence will certainly go some way to making our roads safer, and I am sure that many of our constituents will be pleased that the offence is to be introduced. Next, I will touch on the deposit and return scheme. In 1995, when I was studying in Germany, the scheme was already in operation in terms of glass bottles. I know that similar schemes took place in some of the Scandinavian countries, but I am delighted that this scheme is now going to happen here in Scotland. Certainly, it will have environmental and economic benefits, and its reach will enter into many areas of our economy. Clearly, our important wildlife environment will benefit, and the wildlife tourism market will certainly be a beneficiary, but so too will marine tourism. Marine tourism is already a growing economy, and it is encouraging more people to participate in our waters. Our coastline is already renowned for its beauty, and it is also a magnet for people who are taking part in marine-based activities. If our coastline becomes even cleaner, that might encourage even more people to take part in outdoor activities, including marine-based activities. The economic effect of the policy will bring greater economic rewards than just the main environmental rewards, although they are extremely important. I am sure that he agrees with me that one of the economic benefits will be the possibilities for the circular economy of remanufacturing the plastic and bringing new jobs to often fragile rural communities, but communities across Scotland. I do not disagree with that. I think that that is an opportunity. When members consider the economic benefits of the environmental proposals in the programme, I am sure that more members in the chamber can see the ambition to make Scotland a greener and more economically sustainable nation. Putting Scotland at the forefront of a low-carbon future is vital for our economic opportunity and potential. The usual politicking has taken place in the debate yesterday and some of it today, which is to be expected. Dean Lockhart stated in his contribution earlier on that he stated that the low-growth and low-wage economy, but certainly regarding the low-wage aspect, Mr Lockhart, who has left the chamber, realised that employment law rests with his colleagues in Westminster. Therefore, his colleagues in the Scotland office might want to raise that issue and his concerns with his Government colleagues. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance indicated in the questions earlier on that, depending on parliamentary approval, there will be a statement on the Barclay review next week. The review has been helpful in the economic debate, and I certainly look forward to the statement next Tuesday, if we all agree on it to take place. I know that businesses locally, both in the marine tourism and also in the nursery provision sectors, have raised issues with me in recent months, and I have had some correspondence with the cabinet secretary on that now. However, listening to the continual negativity from the Tories but equally depressing and inevitability of their comments—however, I think that even the Tories need to listen to some of the comments made by others about the programme for government. By Madeline Cuff, the deputy editor of Business Green stated, genuinely blown away by the scale of ambition here. Hugh Aitkin, the CBI Scotland director, overall the First Minister's focus on the economy will be welcomed by business. Amos the challenges of Brexit, it is more important than ever to concentrate on building a competitive, pro-enterprise business environment that not only delivers more jobs and greater prosperity but is more resilient and represents an increasingly attractive destination for investment. Not even the Tories could attempt to claim that the CBI Scotland are SNP flag waivers. The programme for government is a big ambition and it will deliver a better Scotland. The elephant of the room, however, is the utter shambles of the Brexit process led by the haplists and hopeless in Whitehall. The early signs of the Brexit negotiations are not good and the Tories are in complete denial about the mess that their Government is presiding over. The reports today about the leak document affecting EU workers once again highlights the UKip wing of the Tories, which is firmly in charge at the moment, and Peter Chapman's comments regarding the fishing industry. I can certainly indicate that. I welcome the programme for government. I know that my constituency of Greenberg Clyde will benefit, and I am sure that many of my constituents will be delighted with the programme. I know that, certainly, the programme is bursting with ambition and the idea is to make Scotland a cleaner, fairer and better country going forward. The Scottish Labour Party publishes its industrial strategy in the first week of recess and the SNP First Minister then makes a speech in the last week of recess in which she borrows much of the Labour Party's language, a bit of our analysis and some but not all of the Labour Party's solutions. It turns up again a few days later in yesterday's programme for government, but there were some important differences. In her speech last week, the First Minister spoke of growing employee-owned businesses, including, I hope, workers cooperatives. That was not mentioned yesterday. She spoke last week as well of a new partnership between government and the public sector and business. That was also missing yesterday. Of course, supporting business research and development, including the Scottish Enterprise Budget for Business R&D, which, as I exposed just two weeks ago, was being so overrun with claims and so underfunded with cash that the senior manager for innovation and enterprise at Scottish Enterprise was forced to send an internal memo in which she said and I quote, the practice of making upfront payments must cease, holding back payments on new smart R&D until the next financial year was necessary. So we welcome the decision to increase the budget for this item from £22 million a year to £37 million a year, but I am bound to ask how much of that additional £15 million is already committed and is the practice of upfront awards especially critical for our small and medium-sized enterprises still off the table or is it back on the table? When the south of Scotland interim board is established, where will its budget come from? Is there to be additional money or is it simply a case of cutting resources from already existing and stretched Scottish Enterprise budgets? What of the Scottish National Investment Bank? Of course, we welcome this outline proposal. It is, after all, a straight lift from the Scottish Labour Party's industrial strategy, but how will the bank be governed? Will it have a board of 50 per cent women and 50 per cent men? What about the role of trade unions in its work? If there is to be a just transition commission, where will the trade union and community voice be on that? Because, while we support unreservedly action to tackle climate change, we cannot leave workers or entire communities behind, which is why we have repeatedly argued that we need a little bit more economic planning and a little bit less market in the climate change plan of this Government. On the broader front, of course we welcome a debate about taxation. Of course we welcome the lifting of the public sector pay cap. This has been a long-standing demand of the entire trade union movement, including Labour in this Parliament. I will take an intervention. I wonder if Richard Leonard could tell us why the Labour Party in Wales does not support lifting the public sector pay cap. I know that the Labour Party does want to acknowledge the fact that it is in Government and Wales on its islands, but perhaps it will give us the rationale behind that. Richard Leonard. I am a Labour member of the Scottish Parliament here to hold to account the Scottish SNP Government. It is an answer government that appears to be in office, but not in power. It has failed to tackle the deep and underlying problems that we face. So listen to 260,000 children in Scotland, 40,000 more than last year and now living in poverty. No wonder the educational attainment gap is getting worse. The number of people working but still considered to be living in poverty is at its worst point since devolution. Last winter, half of our pensioners lived in fuel poverty. We have a Government that has failed to tackle our housing crisis and failed to tackle our national shame of health inequality. The huge cuts year on year to local government with the impact on local services has, of course, simply made that inequality worse. Deputy Presiding Officer, this Government has also failed to tackle the crisis in social care and presided over worsening mental health services, especially for our young people. They have failed to meet their own treatment time guarantees and discharge targets and now we face an impending crisis in doctor surgeries right across the country. How on earth can we hope to tackle these issues of fundamental importance if the SNP won't even acknowledge they exist, let alone try to solve them? Their flagship policy and education, a de facto Tory bill, will take more power from local government, something opposed by teachers and parents alike. It is a programme for government that is not radical but reactionary. It shows that only Labour can deliver the investment and the ideas to deliver real change, the real and radical change that is needed. Only Labour will properly redistribute income to ensure that we look after the many, not the few. Only Labour will properly invest in our economy and create the work that people need. Only Labour offers hope for a new society. Only Labour has a plan for our public services and public sector workers. Only Labour has a plan for our pensioners. Only Labour has a plan for our sick who are fed up of waiting to be seen. Only Labour can deliver the real and radical change that the people of Scotland need. It is time to end the decade of complacency. I call Clare Adamson to be followed by Donald Cameron. If the front bench should behave itself a little, I call Clare Adamson to be followed by Donald Cameron. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We live in a very uncertain world. Our economy is dependent on our workforce, but it seems that our world is less tolerant, less caring and less just. The announcement from the United States that the DACA programme introduced by President Obama, giving rights and legal status to Mexicans who have lived their whole lives in the United States, is to be scrapped, is one of the most retrograde steps of a democratic government in years, and yet we seem to fare no better in the UK. If Guardian reports today are to be believed, there is an indication that there will be a register of non-UK workers. Indeed, when we live in a country where the United Nations has described austerity as being full of systematic violations of the rights of people with disabilities, the United Nations Committee and the rights of persons with disability have called the UK Government out for creating human catastrophe. As already highlighted yesterday by my colleague Christina McKelvie, we must wonder what the future holds following Brexit and with the path that we seem to be taking at the moment. I want to reflect not so much on the high-line economy and climate change issues that were raised today, but on some of the words of the First Minister yesterday, at its heart the ambition to make our country the best place in the world in which to grow up and be educated, the best place to live, work in, visit and do business, the best place in which to be cared for in times of sickness, need or vulnerability, and the best place in which to grow old. I cannot think that there is a person in this chamber on any benches who cannot agree to those aspirations and ambitions for our country. While we talk of the issues of economy and climate change, I want to talk a little bit about the wellbeing of our citizens and why we need things like climate change, not least of which to improve the health of our nation and reduce things such as pulmonary and phasema pulmonary fibrosis that can lead to transplants. On reflecting on the First Minister's words, I want to talk about an experience that I had this summer. I attended the opening ceremony of the British transplant games in North Lanarkshire. The games have been in existence for 30 years, and the first transplant Olympics took place in Potsmouth in 1978. Since the early beginnings, the competitors are known affectionately as blooming miracles. 17 cities across the UK have hosted the event with North Lanarkshire hosting this summer. The games are intended to show the benefits of transplantation, encouraging transplants patients to regain fitness while increasing public awareness of the need for more people to join the NHS organ donation register, and they also seek to thank and celebrate donor families and the gift of life. The events included children's walks, soft tennis for adults, darts and fishing, quite an eclectic group of sports. I want to pay tribute to the range and number of teams that took part. Children's teams, city teams, all-erps and perts from Dublin and Belfast to Cornwall, hospital teams, when they included some of the main clinical support workers who look after patients from Stoke-Mantable, from Barts in London to the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Glasgow. Charity teams from the Anthony Nolan Trust, teams that included donors of bone marrow and also of organs, but the loudest cheer and the one that left not a dry eye in the house was for the donor families, without whom many people in the room would not have been there. I pay particular tribute to a school friend of mine, Karen Casey. Karen received a donated kidney and has been a tireless campaigner for organ donation and its cause. Fundraising for these events by producing jewellery of donation angels in recognition of the transplant games, but Karen was the person who first brought to me the case for soft opt-out organ and tissue donation. I am delighted that the programme for government includes such a bill. It will increase the number of cases where organ and tissue donation is authorised, but it will also ensure that safeguards will be there to minimise the risk of a person becoming a donor if they have not wished to donate. The second biggest cheer on that evening was when our Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport confirmed the Government's intention to legislate in this area and increased the already 45 per cent of Scottish citizens who are registered. When we talk about the economy, climate change and the programme for government, it has to be about the wealth and wellbeing of all our citizens, about ensuring that our disabled or sick people are in a position to be able to work, that they are not being constrained because pip cuts mean that they lose their mobility cars and can no longer work and contribute to our economy. The programme, I believe, will reinstill tolerance, reinstill caring and reinstill justice in Scotland, and it is one that I will be immensely proud to support. Like many others, recess gave me the opportunity to travel the length and breadth of the region that I represent and meet constituents across the Highlands and Islands, as well as local businesses and community organisations, to discuss the issues and concerns that they have. What was apparent from speaking to a range of people was that they are genuinely frustrated with the SNP's lack of focus on day-to-day issues over the last 12 months. So like many, I hope that this programme for government will see a much greater focus on those everyday issues that concern our constituents. We can only wait and see. I am also pleased to find myself in a new role covering the environment brief and I look forward to working with the Cabinet Secretary and others so that we can meet the varying environmental challenges ahead. It is with that in mind that I broadly welcome the fact that issues affecting the environment and climate change are at the forefront of the Government's legislative agenda for the coming year. There are areas of common ground, perhaps in this area more than in others. On climate change, I have long been aware of the need to ensure that we deliver a groundbreaking and ambitious climate change plan. After all, this plan will not only lay out the ambitions of this Parliament's approach to tackling climate change but will be the foundation for every Parliament up until 2032. However, the draft plan has disappointed some with groups such as WWF Scotland noting that the draft plan failed to provide a credible route to achieving our climate change targets. It is therefore vital that we get it right. I am delighted that the First Minister found inspiration from the Scottish Conservatives in her statement yesterday. This spring, my colleague Maurice Golden published our approach to meeting our global climate change commitments, and it is clear that some of our aspirations that we put forward, such as the need to expand the number of electrical vehicle charging points and the desire to provide transition support to convert buses and taxis to renewable vehicles, have in some way or other been adopted in the programme for government. However, our plan went further. We proposed incentivising the ownership of electric vehicles through measures such as Freetown Centre parking and the use of bus and taxi lanes. I am intrigued by the electrified A9, a road that I know and love. I have almost run out of fuel on that road many times. I look forward to almost running out of electricity on it in the future. The First Minister likes to be bold and radical, and while there was an extensive list of policy commitments, many of which we will look at further, there was a lack of clarity on how those will be delivered, how much they will cost and what targets the Scottish Government has set. One target that we know is that the Government has followed the commitment by the UK Government to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in vans. The date given is 2032. However, given their Cleaner Air for Scotland document from 2015 announced that their target would be 50 per cent of all petrol and diesel fuel vehicles in cities that would be phased out by 2030, that new target smacks of a hastily revised figure in a bid for political one-upmanship. It seems quite clear that the Scottish Government has taken inspiration from the lead of the UK Government here. On the deposit return scheme, we also read with interest the Government's proposals to design and implement a deposit return scheme. However, again, we need to see the detail of their proposals for such a scheme before we can offer any commitment. Whilst we have always recognised the need to be radical in our approach to reduce waste and litter, and we all want to promote recycling, we also need to be mindful that deposit return scheme proposals do not hamper small business. I have to note the comments of the FSB, who say that they are sorely disappointed that the Government has committed to this when it promised a full public consultation and detailed impact assessment. We must also bear in mind the burden that may be placed on local authorities and, more importantly, on individuals. On warmer homes, the Scottish Conservatives welcome the commitment to introduce a warm homes bill into Parliament, although that is not a new announcement, as it was included in last year's programme. We on these benches have been consistent in our calls not just for new housing but to improve the conditions of our existing stock. We want to see fuel poverty eliminated as well as contributing to our carbon reduction obligations. With all that said, it is again disappointing that there was little detail in the programme for government on what a warm homes bill would entail. We are concerned at the fact that there are no plans to improve energy efficiency in homes in the programme, as others in the chamber have noted. Yesterday, Ruth Davidson reiterated our call to introduce a new target to ensure that every home is energy efficiency rated C or above by the end of the next decade. Today, I again call on the Government to commit to that in its warm homes bill. On emissions, the Government programme includes a raft of measures that seeks to reduce transport emissions, which would be welcome to work not for the fact that the Government has cut their budget for transport emissions mitigation by almost 15 per cent. The Government promises to invest more money into walking and cycling schemes. Again, we will be eager to look at that more closely, because we know that, despite increased investment, there has only been a 0.2 per cent increase in everyday bike journeys in the past decade and that everyday cycle use sits at 2.2 per cent only. As I said when I first entered Parliament, I will not oppose things just for the sake of it. The Scottish Conservatives made that commitment too, but we also committed to holding the SNP to account. An inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this programme for government is that, notwithstanding the good intentions behind some of this policy platform, there is a paucity of new ideas and vision. All the glossy brochures in the world, all the talk of boldness, cannot hide the fact that this is a Government that is tired, a Government whose sites have lowered and a Government whose ambition has diminished. Thank you. Our final speaker this afternoon is Keith Brown, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have had an outline of the programme for government from the First Minister yesterday and also from a colleague today, Roseanna Cunningham. Rather than repeat that, I will try to address some of the points. Comments are made by members, although I think that it is worth bearing in mind that statement by Roseanna Cunningham that there is, at the root of this, around $23 trillion worth of climate smart global opportunities in terms of the economy around climate change and the environment, so we should bear that in mind. Given that high ambition, it was disappointing to hear from Dean Lockhart at the start of the debate. It seems to me that Tory economic policy now is reduced to trying to claim credit for things that other Administrations have implemented. The South of Scotland enterprise agency has apparently had a Tory idea in government for 18 years and did nothing about it. The SNP came in and we delivered it, but the Tories want to try to claim credit for that. It is also true to say, and I hear Murdo Fraser shouting, I should say, and I hate to disappoint Murdo Fraser, but I know that his preference is for spending money on trams in Edinburgh rather than dualling the A9. When we talk about electric A9, it is not going to involve trams murder. I am sorry about that, but that is not part of our plans, even if that is your preference in terms of investment. Murdo Fraser, I will give way to Murdo Fraser. Murdo Fraser, I am very grateful to Keith Brown for giving way. Can you tell us by what year will the Scottish Government have completed as many miles of dual carriageway on the A9 as a previous Conservative Government did? Murdo Fraser rankles at the fact that this Government is committed to dualling the entire A9 between Perth and Inverness by 2025, something that the Tories in 18 years never committed to do, but we all do that. Since we have raised the issue of expenditure on infrastructure, which is extremely important for the economy, we have seen the opening of the Queensferry crossing, but you would not know that, not a single comment from the Conservatives about the Queensferry crossing, £1.3 billion of expenditure in relation to that. Of course, it is not a mention of the border's rail, except that, as far as, of course, the Tories might try and claim credit for that. They were going to do it 30 years ago, so it is really their idea in the first place, perhaps. Or any mention of the improvements that we have seen in the school estate, nor, indeed, in terms of the housing of 30,000 houses in the last Parliament. Those things are absolutely vital for the economy. Jackie Baillie told me to sit down and listen to this. That was her comment. I would not dream of saying the same thing to her, but she should, of course, have some recognition of the fact that, when she talks about the living wage and low wage employers, it was her party that specifically stopped this Parliament from having the power in setting a living wage. At least a bit of humility in relation to that. Not at this stage. I will come back to that. It is also true to say that Stuart Stamson mentioned quite rightly, of course, the point that North Sea oil should have been a huge bonus in Scotland and the UK, but instead, and in contrast to Norway, where it has approaching £1 trillion worth of investment to underpin its economy, what we have got is £1.9 trillion of debt under this Conservative Government in the UK. That is why the economy, the finances of the UK Government are in such a dire strait, and they should at least have acknowledged that. Not to mention, of course, there was talk about taking time to do things. When are the UK Government going to appoint their UK oil and gas ambassador, promised by David Cameron with some urgency in 2016, no mention of that from the Tories? I think that Mike Rumbles had an extremely long rant about Fergus Ewing, but, like many others, I also failed to acknowledge in relation to connectivity, in fact I cannot say if Mike Rumbles mentioned connectivity, mentioned by a number of people who simply do not seem to understand the role of the UK Government. I could mention Jamie Greene previously, Dean Lockhart, making statements that clearly show that they are unaware of the role of the UK Government in terms of connectivity. Yes, I will take an intervention from Jamie Greene. Isn't it the case that the UK Government asked the Scottish Government to administer those contracts and gave it a whole big chunk of money to do it? It is your Government's failure to deliver the people of Scotland with good broadband. Is the reality of the situation? Shouldn't you be apologising for that? I think that even a cursory glance of the way that the Poultry Money apportioned to try and achieve that, given the fact that the £4 billion that the UK Government took in in a previous licensing round for mobile contracts, the Poultry Money apportioned to that, having to be made up by the Scottish Government and Fergus Ewing to try and achieve more, as we heard during the debate, than the UK Government promises in terms of bandwidth, perhaps a bit of humility and a bit of research from Jamie Greene, who I acknowledge is the only Conservative member to have tweeted something positive about the Queensferry crossing, so I would thank him for that. He must have done that. I am sorry that I am approaching my last minute. I am sorry, Jackie Baillie. I would have taken it, but I cannot approach my last minute. Of course, we saw the statement from Peter Chapman, who assured us that we should just accept an assurance that the UK Government has told us that we are going to get massive new powers after Brexit. Then, when asked, he couldn't mention a single power that we would achieve after Brexit, not a single power. Interestingly, I heard from Mr Halcro Johnston about this as well, all the concerns of his constituents. It would appear that not a single Tory MSP has had a concern expressed throughout Brexit by the constituents. They expressed no concern at any of those debates on the economy about Brexit. They expressed not to know that the UK Government has a role in the Scottish economy, which, by extension, must mean that the UK Government has no Scottish economic policy. That is a damning indictment of the negligence of the UK Government in relation to Scotland. I think that the important point in relation to this debate is the opportunities that Rosanna Cunning might land at the start—$23 trillion worth of investment. We have to now focus on making sure that Scotland leads the way in relation to that. We have to seize those new opportunities. It meets some of the obstacles that we have, of course, the Brexit-imposed problems that we have from the UK Government. The blinkered approach of the Scottish Tories who do not even recognise that Brexit is a problem, even though every single economist will tell you that and their constituents, if they talk to them, will tell you that as well, not least in relation to Mr Halcro Johnston, the hotels in his constituency. He has told me about the concerns that he has about losing employees because of Brexit, but apparently he has not told you that. At least acknowledge the problem, then he might be taken with a bit more credibility in relation to an economic policy. We have a clear lack of an economic policy. There is a programme for government, which is cleaner, which is greener, which is seeking to achieve more equality in Scotland and to achieve a more prosperous Scotland. Those are things that you would think that we could all get behind. I would hope that we would have that in the rest of the debate on this motion. Thank you, cabinet secretary. The debate on the Scottish Governance programme for government will continue tomorrow. I would encourage our members to be present for the closing speeches at the end of the day. The next item of business is consideration of four business motions. Motion 7, 5, 1, 0, setting out a business programme and motion 7, 3, 7, 9, 7, 3, 8, 0 and 7, 3, 8, 1 on stage 1 timetables for three bills. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against any of those motions to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the four motions. I move formally. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motions. The question is therefore that motions 7, 5, 1, 0, 7, 3, 7, 9, 7, 3, 8, 0 and 7, 3, 8, 1 be agreed. Are we agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. The next item of business is consideration of a parliamentary bureau motion. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the bureau to move motion 7, 3, 8, 2 on the approval of an SSI. Moved. There is one question that we put now that we have come to decision time. The question is that motion 7, 3, 8, 2 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on approval of an SSI be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed and we will move on now to members' business in the name of Christine Grahame. We will just take a few moments for members to change seats.