 The next item of business is a debate on motion number 2099, the name of Keith Brown, on delivering future enterprise and skills support in Scotland. Phase 1 outputs from the enterprise and skills reviews. Can I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now? I call on Keith Brown to speak and move the motion. Yesterday, I published the phase 1 decisions of the enterprise and skills review. The First Minister had announced the review in this chamber five months ago to the day. Our aim was to take fresh action towards our long-term ambition, encapsulated in Scotland's economic strategy, to rank in the top quartile of OECD countries for productivity, equality, wellbeing and sustainability. This ambition is the foundation for the work of our four enterprise and skills agencies, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council, both individually and together with each other and the Scottish Government. We recognise the vital contribution that the four agencies make to creating a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through delivering inclusive and sustainable economic growth. Our long-term ambition will require our best intelligence analysis and creative ideas to achieve it. The first phase of the review has been about reaching out and offering opportunities to be involved and collecting the evidence to ensure a simpler system based on the needs of users and delivering the right outcomes for everyone. We have engaged extensively over the summer and gathered evidence in many forms, from economic advisers and academics, from individuals, businesses, further and higher education institutions, agencies and representative organisations. We have sought the views of people with experience of using those public services. In particular, I thank all members of the Ministerial Review Group for their valuable insight and support. We also looked again at Audit Scotland reports and Graham Reads report into innovation centres hot off the press. For my part, I was very encouraged by the higher level of engagement with our national ambition and the quality and the wide range of responses from individuals, businesses and organisations, with good ideas about how best to come together to achieve our ambitions. I wish to thank all those who have engaged so far. This balance of views is crucial to seeing the challenges in context and to finding the right answers. Some asked for our refreshed strategic focus, a single vision, goals and shared ownership. Others want to understand the criteria for support and a simple-to-access uncluttered service. Many respondents have conveyed a sense of being excited and energised by the process, enabling us to develop at real pace. That is not to say that we have rushed this consideration, some of our questions related to long-standing structures, so we have sought a careful balance between engaging with pace and deliberating carefully. Last month, I announced that the review will proceed in two phases. Yesterday, we announced our top-level actions and those areas where work is on-going or further at consultation is required. We want to work with others across the chamber and across Scotland, One of the major points that was made by the various business organisations on the ministerial review group was to see some political consensus to get behind what was subsequently agreed. We want to work with others across the chamber to make that transformational change in Scotland's economic performance. We also want to reinvigorate our focus and place our ambition firmly in the context of Scotland's economic strategy. We seek to create an enterprise and skills system with strong leadership, align closely behind our common purpose and meet the needs of the end users of those services. The excellent work of our agencies already do much of this work. The agencies and their staff already carry out that work on behalf of a diverse range of individuals and businesses across Scotland. As Audit Scotland noted, they have been successful in their respective roles with clear strategies and with good governance. The enterprise agencies, for example, collectively work with or assist around 11,200 businesses each year, and there are good examples of all of them working with partners to achieve a positive impact such as creating jobs. However, we have to acknowledge that, good as they are, we need to step up our performance in order to achieve our ambition. At that level of challenge that we face has been increased exponentially with the EU referendum result, creating a new context that requires fresh urgency. In the lead-up to the EU referendum, the Scottish economy continued to grow and demonstrate resilience in the face of continuing external headlines. I will do that. Willie Rennie I am intrigued about the proposals for Highlands and Islands Enterprise, but also for the south of Scotland. Will there be any changes to the functions of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and will there be a separate agency for the south of Scotland or is it just a local office? Cabinet Secretary? Willie Rennie I do intend to come on to that, but in relation to the functions, that will be part of what is considered in phase 2. In relation to the south of Scotland, it will be an agency that is established in the south of Scotland. Scotland's economy has grown modestly since the start of 2016, growing 0.4 per cent in the three months leading up to the referendum, the highest rate of quarterly growth since the start of 2015. In relation to some comments that I have seen in the newspapers from both Andrew Dunlop and David Mundell, the idea that the Tory tactic of saying that we are not as good as the rest of the UK seems to me to be a bizarre one, there are two Governments involved in the economy of Scotland. To absent yourself from being involved in the economy does not seem to be a commendation for that approach. Also to say that if, as has been said by Andrew Dunlop, the economy is not performing as well as the rest of the UK, so when the Scottish government gets these new powers, we have to improve things. Why is it not being improved up until now, when the UK Government has been exercising those powers? It seems to me to be a bizarre tactic. I have to say that I am extremely surprised that the Conservative amendment seeks to take out any reference to Brexit in the motion. We are here of Brexiteers and anti-Brexiteers, but we have not yet heard of Brexit deniers. Brexit is a huge issue in relation to those points. The Labour market, just to come back to that point, which was the one that gave rise to Andrew Dunlop's comments, has continued to perform strongly one of the lowest levels of unemployment that most of us have seen in perhaps a quarter of a century. As of August this year, employment levels were higher than they were a year ago, the unemployment rate in Scotland has fallen to 4.6 per cent, its lowest rate in eight years, and lower than the UK's rate of 4.9 per cent. It is encouraging that the underlying resilience of the Scottish economy remains strong, and there is much to be positive about it. However, over the next 18 months, the outlook for growth in Scotland and the UK has weakened following the referendum. Economic forecasters have downgraded their growth projections for 2016 and, more substantially, for 2017 to reflect the heightened risk of a reduction in economic activity as the post-referendum political process unfolds. At longer term, we also know that independent economic forecasts point to a range of possible impacts for the economy from a redefined relationship within the EU. While the path ahead, of course, is uncertain in the Scottish Government, it is clear that Scotland's relationship with the EU and our place in the single market must be protected. That is vital for Scotland's businesses and investors in ensuring that Scotland's business environment remains stable and attractive for investment. On Monday this week, I was in Ayrshire talking to a number of companies. One of them told me that their input prices, the material that is sourced, the glass that is sourced from Ireland is facing a 15 per cent increase. I do not know about other members, but I am hearing that from a number of companies around the country facing huge increases in their input costs. In this general context, the phase 1 report sets out our vision, our guiding principles and our actions under seven themes. We will strengthen the governance of our single enterprise and skills system, ensure appropriate regional approaches and take action on internationalisation, innovation, skills, digital, enterprise support and the circular economy. Evidence around governance advocated that we optimise what can be achieved by working seamlessly across the enterprise and skills system. Some of our respondents suggested a lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities that, in turn, could lead to duplication. Users have asked us to simplify service delivery and to streamline funding schemes and grants. Respondents also said that hard alignment around the national ambition might be overseen by a single board to ensure enhanced collaboration. We will provide stronger governance of the single coherent system by creating a statutory overarching board and ensure robust evaluation, develop common targets, just a second, aligned with the national performance framework and economic strategy to aid that performance. I will give you that. Daniel Johnson I agree with the minister in one sense that streamlining the system is absolutely important for businesses. It is the one overriding cry that you hear from business organisations, but beyond creation of a single board, could the minister please point to where else the streamlining is going to take place? It is far from clear for me in reading the document that there are any other steps in this that will promote the streamlining of the organisations. Indeed, there are going to be more agencies that, rather than less. That is the case, not least by creating one single overarching board. It is also true to say that, if you read the document, you will see that the issue of decluttering—if you like—a fairly cluttered landscape just now will be taken forward in phase 2. He will know from the hustings that we both shared prior to the election some of the exasperations that end users feel. That is what this is trying to address. Evidence on national and local basis noted that arrangements should respond to differing opportunities and challenges across Scotland. A one-size-fits-all approach is inflexible. Users have told us that services and funding streams might be simplified and highlighted the particular needs that are facing dispersed populations both in the Highlands and Islands and the south of Scotland. We will back our more national approach with enhanced regional skills delivery to integrated sides of the same coin. We will protect levels of service provision in the Highlands and Islands and create a new vehicle, as I have mentioned, to meet the enterprise and skills needs of the south of Scotland. I am sorry, but I have only a bit of time. I can give you a little bit extra. In which case, yes, happy to give way. I am very grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Giving Way. On his point about a single board, will strategic decisions about the Highlands and Islands still be taken in Inverness, or will they be taken by the new strategic board that he has just mentioned? Cabinet Secretary. To oversee the strategy, but also to provide that level of collaboration, which both we and the respondents to the consultation felt was not currently there, but the agency itself, Highlands and Islands, will remain in place, as stated in the phase 1 outcomes. We will also review with our local government partners the best way to work together to deliver flexible local services with better outcomes for the user. There should be scope for the Government's local government, the agencies and other partners to work flexibly with emerging city deals, for example, as well as local services and regional economic partnerships. On internationalisation, evidence identified Scotland's wide range of international assets and strengths, but it suggested that we could benefit from broader action across a wider range of activities and better co-ordination. I am quite interested that you have not touched on productivity yet, and the Scottish National Party's target of reaching the top quartile of productivity levels by 2017 has clearly not been met. Will there be a new announcement today or in the near future on what the S&P's new target for productivity will be going forward, because Scotland is currently in the third quartile of productivity? I wonder whether the member has had the chance to read the phase 1 report, which covers exactly the ground. We have seen an increase of 4 per cent in productivity in Scotland, where it has been absolutely static in the UK. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is an issue, which is what the review is seeking to address, both productivity, competitiveness and increasing exports. That is our proposal for how we help to address those issues, and internationalisation is one part of that. We will increase our pace on delivering our international trade and investment strategy, co-ordinate international activity across the public, academic and industrial sectors more strongly receive substantial responses, suggesting that sometimes that effort has been duplicated in the past, and one effort can all undermine another, unless you take, as is the case in the Republic of Ireland, very effectively, a Team Scotland approach—in their case, obviously, a Team Ireland approach. However, those issues are further considered, as I have mentioned, in phase 2, including the role, the position and the governance of SDI. Evidence around innovation also showed perceptions of complexity and asked that we simplify and streamline funding. Agencies should offer agile, fast and flexible interventions and collaborate better. For example, the CanDo forum and the Council of Economic Advisers identified those issues. We will review, streamline and simplify innovation support programmes, funding and delivery mechanisms. We will bring it to one forum, the strategic decision making on innovation, and publish the innovation action plan by the end of November. In relation to skills, a recently published labour market strategy defines the labour market outcomes that are required to support inclusive economic growth. Those will guide our approach moving forward. Evidence also suggested that skills investment plans and regional skills assessments should be built upon to better meet the needs of businesses and workers. Labour market information should be used more extensively to inform the alignment of provision with labour market demand. Some advocated our regional approach and some questioned the balance of academic and vocational skills investment. We were also encouraged to consider the needs for reskilling across a workforce, including upper-age ranges. We will align the functions of our skills agencies to better join up the way learning and skills are planned and provided for learners and for their employers. We will review investment and learning skills, including skills utilization and the learning journey into employment for young people. We will seek to support those with low skills already in the workforce and develop the skills of older workers to maximise productivity and inclusive growth. Evidence also highlighted how much our global economic competitiveness depends on the right digital approach. We will seek early improvements in services with a step change in digital skills provision at both general and specialist levels so that businesses can compete internationally. We will better communicate our infrastructure plans and continue to examine how best to accelerate and improve coverage to ensure good connectivity across all of Scotland. Evidence on enterprise support suggested that we have broadly the right strategic framework, but there could be areas for operational improvements. We will ensure that broader support is offered to more companies on innovation, productivity, digital and exporting. We will also seek to implement better targeting to increase impact and to clear entry and exit points for support. We will engage more closely with the private sector in shaping service delivery and we will also consider where the private sector might be involved in providing services. I believe that the decisions in the review will help us to achieve our strategic outcomes for Scotland, and I commend them to the chamber. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the future enterprise and skills framework in Scotland, and we also welcome the Scottish Government's phase 1 report in this area. In particular, it was good to see the report, including a number of Scottish Conservative proposals, including the establishment of a new enterprise body for the south of Scotland and the much-needed expansion of the Scottish Development International Network. After almost 10 years in power and with no new policy initiatives, it is not surprising that the SNP is now looking to the Scottish Conservatives for new ideas on the economy. It was also encouraging to see that so many organisations took part in the call for evidence, as Mr Brown said, over 300 responses to the review. There was one overarching point that was made very clear from the feedback, and that is that enterprise and skills policies should not be viewed in isolation. As CBI Scotland has highlighted and Mr Brown mentioned today, Scotland's long-term economic plan needs to involve a joined-up approach between the Scottish Government's economic strategy on the one hand and the work of the enterprise and the skills agencies on the other. That point was also made clear by Audit Scotland, which said that the enterprise bodies are performing well, but the Scottish Government needs a clearer plan for delivering its economic strategy. That feedback reflects what the Scottish Conservatives have been saying for a number of years, that the SNP's economic policy is not working for Scotland. It has become increasingly clear that the SNP's economic development strategy, based on the full rise, inclusive growth, innovation, internationalisation and investment, as reaffirmed by the cabinet secretary in his report, is not proving effective. For example, if you look at inclusive growth, the policy, there has in fact been very little growth in the Scottish economy in the past year, or indeed in the past decade. The latest GDP figures released two weeks ago showed that the Scottish economy has expanded by only 0.7 per cent in the past year, compared to 2.1 per cent in the rest of the UK. Dean Lockhart, for taking intervention. Just to refer back to the previous point I made and the point that he just made, does he recognise the responsibility in the part of the UK Government in the situation that he describes? Does he, like Andrew Dunlop and David Mundell, always want to put it to the Scottish Government for getting the role that they are meant to have the Conservatives of the UK Government in the Scottish economy? Mr Lockhart, what I would say is that the SNP has had their hands on the levers of the economy for almost a decade. You had a review of the enterprise agencies when you first came to power in 2007, and you have now had another end-to-end review. You have had enough time to establish your economic credentials, and the economic data is not very promising on your side. Increasing economic divergence compared to the rest of the UK, because of the additional powers that are requested by the SNP, will have a direct impact on the Scottish budget and the amounts that are available to spend on education, enterprise and skills agencies, and other elements of economic development. The other area that I would highlight is innovation and productivity. The SNP has failed to meet its target for Scotland to reach the top quartile of productivity levels of OECD nations by 2017, and I asked Mr Brown when a new performance target will be announced. According to Scottish Enterprise, if Scotland's productivity matched countries in the top quartile as set out in your target, Scotland's GDP would be boosted by £45 billion a year. That is an economic gain that is a multiple of any potential downside of Brexit—£45 billion a year—if you had met your target. I ask the cabinet secretary when the SNP and perhaps the minister will, in wrapping up, tell us when a new productivity target for Scotland will be announced. Given the failures in economic and business development policies, I call on the SNP to include in phase 2 of its report a detailed assessment of how it will address those on-going economic policy failures and set out specific steps to increase economic growth in Scotland and productivity in the Scottish economy. I think that you have had the chance to do the phase 1 report. I think that it is now time in the phase 2 report to have a more fundamental look at the Scottish economy and how you can boost economic performance in the Scottish economy. I turn to the detailed recommendations that are set out in the phase 1 report. We agree with a number of the recommendations. We have some concern that the proposed new board of trade may lead to further centralisation of economic policy and we will be monitoring how that will work in practice. We would also go further than some of the steps suggested by the SNP in order to meet the challenges that are faced by the Scottish economy. On enterprise policy, for example, our priorities are as follows. We need to simplify the enterprise support available for new and expanding businesses in Scotland. In the business community, there is real confusion over what form of assistance is available. In the economy committee yesterday, we heard that there is over 600 funding streams available to businesses in Scotland. That is simply a cluttered landscape that needs to be fixed. We would propose making available a one-stop digital portal with business development information broken down according to sector, regions, the size of business and different business support for exporting companies and domestic markets. That is an approach that other countries such as Singapore take and it works very effectively, so I would recommend that to the Government. Secondly, the enterprise agencies should provide more non-financial support. In many cases, what is holding back the development of small business is the lack of management capacity or experience. Again, the model in Denmark shows that the secondment of sector experts into small and emerging businesses for a short period can result in exponential benefits. Third, we would encourage the Government to designate some of the underperforming parts of Scotland as turn-around zones—this was part of our manifesto—with special tax breaks, faster planning, streamlined regulation and dedicated support for those who decide to set up in those areas. Again, this has worked in other countries and there is evidence to show that it would work in Scotland. We also need to maximise the commercialisation of innovation with our coming from our world-class universities. The work of the technology transfer offices needs to be looked at. The issue is not covered by the phase 1 report. I would recommend that it is covered by the phase 2 report because the technology transfer offices are an essential part of the transition mechanism that translates innovation from universities into the commercial market and more can be done to maximise on the research that takes place in our world-class universities. On skills development policy, there are a number of specific steps that we would suggest that the Scottish Government should look at. I was interested to see that there is very little mention of the apprenticeship levy and what the plans are in phase 1. Perhaps that will be touched on on phase 2. We need in Scotland to increase the levels of apprenticeship uptake in Scotland. Per head of population, Scotland has only one half of the number of apprenticeships compared with the rest of the UK. We also need to clarify how the apprenticeship levy will be implemented in Scotland. The Scottish Conservative approach will be to make sure that the application and destination of apprenticeship levy funds is fully transparent and that those funds will be reinvested in Scotland for apprenticeships and skills training, and they will not be absorbed or lost in general funding. We also need to address the on-going skills gap in Scotland. The recent CBI Scotland report has highlighted an increasing skills gap in the economy, and the CBI has recommended that future skills that are required in the economy should be driven by joint consultations between business and the skills agencies such as SDS. To conclude, the Scottish Conservatives will always support measures that encourage enterprise and skills development, and we agree with a number of the measures that are set out in the phase 1 report. However, given the on-going underperformance of the Scottish economy, we call on the Scottish Government to include in phase 2 of the report a detailed assessment of how it will address the on-going underperformance of the Scottish economy and set out specific and real steps to increase economic growth and productivity in the Scottish economy. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much. I now call Richard Leonard to speak to and move amendment 2 on 99 points. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be putting forward the Labour case and the Labour amendment to the Government's motion this afternoon. I want to begin a national end with the recent Audit Scotland report into Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise because it reminds us. I think that this Parliament needs to be reminded that between 2008 and 2015, the very years that our economy needed additional support, not less, the national enterprise agencies of Scotland had their budgets drastically cut. For Scottish Enterprise, it was a cut of 16 per cent in real terms. For the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the core operational budget of high was cut by 22 per cent, nearly a quarter, over that same time period, according to Audit Scotland. If we want, as I believe, we do want, indeed, as the Scottish Government itself spells out in the motion before us this afternoon, to match other advanced industrial economies in our industrial investment, in our skills training and education. If we want growth and development, not simply care and maintenance, if we demand, as I believe we must demand, transformative change in our economy and a rebalancing of our economy with a vibrant manufacturing base, then the Scottish Government needs to be bold and ambitious. Because the well-respected Fraser of Allander Institute describes the current state of the Scottish economy not as strong but, I quote, as fragile, the forecast Scottish unemployment will rise to 7 per cent next year. Production and manufacturing, as we hold this debate this afternoon, is not growing, it is contracting. Business investment, as measured by grossed fixed capital formation, fell by 4 per cent in the first quarter of 2016. That is according to the Scottish Government's own figures, and that is before Brexit. So, with an already shrinking productive base, a downturn in industrial investment, with real unemployment already at 12 per cent, with Brexit looming, this is no time for business as usual for timidity and tinkering with governance. This is not the occasion for postponing the real change that we need, quite the opposite. It is precisely the moment for getting on with the real change that we need. We need a debate, but it needs to be a fundamental debate on our whole approach to economic development, training and education. We need a discussion, but we need an honest discussion about whether the current institutional framework is capable of delivering the industrial strategy that we need. I say this to the cabinet secretary. We heard the First Minister announce to her party's conference a plan to double the number of staff pursuing inward investment to send out trade envoys from the new Scottish Board of Trade and to open up a new Scottish office in Berlin, which is, we suspect, necessary but by no means sufficient for the Brexit challenge that we face. I say this to the cabinet secretary. It is high time that we started building up our indigenous business base, especially in high-value, high-skill manufacturing industry. It is high time that we started developing the untapped potential for cooperative ownership growth in Scotland. The home of Robert Owen and the Fhenwick Weavers should set itself the noble ambition of becoming our cooperative capital once more, the Mondragon of the North. It is high time. It is high time that we started to consider the innovative role that workers' pension funds, including public sector pension funds, could play in starting to advance popular economic ownership and control. It is high time, too, that we seriously considered the case for greater public ownership of public transport of renewable energy of local government services and nationally organised services like the work programme. I would go further and say to the cabinet secretary that it is high time, as part of a coherent strategy for industry, that he started to look at new economic planning agreements and public equity stakes to stimulate the wider economy, too. I am firmly of the view that change will not come about if we simply leave it to the market. It requires government leadership. It demands a considered coherent, credible industrial policy and strategy. That policy and strategy needs to lie at the heart of the Scottish Government, not as an afterthought. It demands a long-term vision of what we want our economy to look like in 20 years' time, because the change that we need will not happen overnight, but we need to make a start now to make progress in the right direction. That is why I have to say, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I shoulder a little bit—maybe only a little bit—when the cabinet secretary says in his forward to the enterprise and skills review that we need to be, and I quote him, cost-effective. It is a phrase, of course, of which he has used before. When he was the transport minister in 2014, he described Abilio as the least expensive but most cost-effective bid to take over ScotRail. I do not think that many of Scotland's passengers facing delay upon delay, day in and day out would agree that this kind of cost-effective approach is the right one for Scotland's enterprise, education and skills agencies. I will give way of course. Cabinet Secretary. It would be useful if Richard Leonard, first of all, I thank him for taking the intervention, would acknowledge the fact that we had to franchise rail services because the Labour Party insisted in the two railways for which they were responsible that we had to franchise those. In relation to cost-effective, he also recognised, when he talks about 2007, that the manifesto on which his party stood in 2007 with John McConnell was, more money for education, everywhere else would have to cut their cloths. There were cuts coming from the Labour Party in 2007 for enterprise support. Mr Leonard. I was not around in 2007. I do not know what John McConnell's draft budget plans were, Cabinet Secretary, but what I can tell you is this. In the teeth of the economic crisis that we have been facing for the past five years, surely the right thing to do is to put more money into economic development and not take it out of economic development. We should be building up, not taking down Scottish enterprises' industrial knowledge base. We should be building up, not taking down its strategic role, whilst recognising the importance of subnational structures such as City Deal and the challenges that are now facing not just the south of Scotland, but the north-east of Scotland as well. We argue that we should be establishing proactive sector advisory groups in place of reactive task forces that bring together trade unions and employers to help to inform that industrial policy making and the real investment strategy that we need to go with it. Let me finish with this. Just as we support the Government in its call for the robust evaluation of activity and impact of our enterprise and skills support agencies, I hope that the Government will support us in our call for audit Scotland's recommendations to be adopted so that the Scottish Government itself sets out its own economic action plan, its own clear targets and timescales and is prepared to set out progress against its own stated economic priorities. That would be real progress. I hope that that is progress that we can make this afternoon. I move the Labour amendment to the Government motion in my name. I move to open debate because I have allowed extra time to all the front ventures for interventions. I regret, but it is now tight six minutes for back ventures. I can't have it both ways. I call Claire Adamson, but it is followed by Jamie Greene. I am delighted to be called to debate this motion this afternoon in relation to the skills review. I do not know whether Mr Leonard was around in 2007. I thought he was here in 2016 when this Government stepped in to save the steel manufacturing plants in an area that he represents as I do—securing those manufacturing plants, skills for the future and stepping in and being active in working towards securing an economic future for our area and Scotland. That is exactly the type of work that they have been doing and will continue to do on behalf of the people of Scotland. For one, I am a constituent, so I welcome that very much. I can just look a little bit to the area where I used to work in the IT industry and some of the challenges facing the IT industry and some of the work that the Government has been doing in this area this afternoon. As outlined in the SNP manifesto, the SNP Government has agreed to develop and implement a Scottish STEM strategy to ensure that, from the earliest stage, children are alive to the opportunities that science and technology engineering and maths can offer them. As part of that, it will introduce a new skills qualification that recognises the achievement of a wide range of vocational and other qualifications taken by young people in the senior school. The SNP Government has also agreed to examine the feasibility for the establishment of skills academies to address key skills shortages based in the widely welcomed areas such as the code clan model, which takes young people and trains them in coding from areas, not traditionally, from the IT area and through the academic world, but looks to people's aptitudes in this area and offers them training to go forward. In the programme for government, the Scottish Government has said that it will launch a consultation on the use STEM strategy and will set out actions that will take to raise the levels of STEM enthusiasm, particularly in young people, and to look at maths and numeracy skills in our schools. That is all very important because the potential economic benefits to Scotland of a strong IT and innovation economy are widely known and recognised. We know that, with the rapid pace of technology changing, it means that there is a strong understanding of the capability that we need to continue to raise as a business priority. The British Computer Society recently published research to show that the number of people required in IT and digital roles will have increased at a rate of five times faster than in other industries by 2020. That is an area where the Scottish Government has shown commitment, but it is support of code base and other organisations such that and will continue to do so. The BCS recently reacted to the Brexit situation and said that vital support is required for a science and engineering education and research ecosystem if we continue to succeed in a global economy following the vote to leave the EU. It is hugely important that we cannot ignore Brexit, we cannot pretend that Brexit is not going to happen and we cannot downplay what a devastating impact that this could have on our economy if we do not get the right deal in place for Scotland. In this research, the BCS has six asks of the Scottish Government and the UK Government on how they can ensure that the IT industry goes forward and that the IT industry is supported. One of them is to do with outstanding computing education from primary school through university level so that our economy and society is a home grown talent that needs to compete internationally. That draws me to the attention of further work that the Scottish Government has done in this area with the launch of the Barefoot Computing Science programme. It is a programme that is done in conjunction with BT and in partnership with the BCS of whom I am a member. It makes available to primary schools, resources and lesson plans in the IT area. Brendan Dick, director of BT Scotland, said that through it, yes, certainly. I have to call you first. There is a shortage across 17 local authorities in Scotland that do not have dedicated computer science teachers. Is that not a concern in terms of skills development going forward? Is that not a concern that the Government should be focusing on? I am going to say this before your response, Adamson. Interventions must be short on the pay because we are running out of time. Do not mind them, but they must be short. I am sure that the IT skill shortage is in all areas, not just in education. That is one of the reasons why we have to be working with our young people and encouraging more people to come forward to have a career in IT at any level. As Brendan Dick, director of BT Scotland, was saying, through our education engagement work, we know that primary school children enjoy computer science and that thinking skills can gain help them in other subjects. That is really important from my point of view. When we are educating and building on those areas, we want to develop skills that will be lifetime for people. I think that the analysis and the work that is done in teaching people computer programming especially gives them life skills that will be of benefit to our economy in the future, which leads me to not have time to go into the other great work that has been done in my area. I will leave it there. I am very glad that the cabinet secretary mentioned digital skills in his speech today. As many as 1 million Scots face social inequality because of digital exclusion, according to the Carnegie UK trust. The growing digital divide between those with internet access and those without is felt most acutely in Scotland's remote and rural areas, with far-reaching social and economic consequences. Mobile internet and cloud technology have changed just about everything that we do, not just making our lives easier but changing the conditions in which businesses thrive and workers succeed. In the age of digital nomads, connectivity, training and start-up support is needed in rural and urban areas alike. Cloud computing has, for some, made the need for expensive inner-city office space obsolete. Now anyone can run a global business from their laptop. That presents all of Scotland with countless new economic opportunities in emerging markets, from consumer analytics through to mobile advertising, for example, but only if our digital infrastructure, our education system and skills training keeps up with global trends. Since my election, I have had the great pleasure of meeting some great young entrepreneurs in Scotland such as the Super Jam founder Fraser Doherty. He told me that one of his biggest challenges is recruiting people with the software skills that his business needs. He recruits from across the world because there simply are not enough programmers in Scotland. The digital revolution began a long time ago, but the Scottish Government has been slow to catch on, content instead of launching glossy recruitment campaigns and telling its agencies to innovate. Yesterday's enterprise and skills review is a prime example of that. This document is full of jargon and words like streamline and step change, but fails to provide any glimpse of a strategy that will see Scotland benefit from the economic opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution. Reading the report, it seems that the Scottish Government is simply stalling for time rather than spelling out the practical steps that they need to take. This document talks about innovation, and I quote from it. We want Scotland to be a place where innovation is an intrinsic part of our culture, our society and our economy. Yet one of my constituents came to a surgery recently and told me that he is perpetually frustrated by the Government's lack of support in helping inventors, for example, in Scotland. The document talks about skills provision, but how can we raise up a workforce of tomorrow when 17 per cent of Scottish schools have no computing specialist whatsoever and 30 per cent of Scots still lack basic digital skills? My colleague referred to the lack of computing science teachers in Scotland. That is a really important matter. How can we attract new businesses? Thank you for taking the intervention, but the member not recognised that far from not recognising some of those problems, the Scottish Government has been addressing them. Indeed, the willingness to have advanced system ambassador programme, work with partners, bring other people in is all working in that area. I take on board the point that STEM subjects are important. However, a lack of computing teachers in Scotland has an immediate effect on skills available to employers. How can we attract new businesses to the rural communities when they are often the last communities to benefit from the roll-out of high-speed broadband? Audit Scotland's recent report highlighted the lack of measurable targets and clear strategies set by the Scottish Government for its agencies. The report emphasised that it is not always possible to measure how they contribute to the delivery of the Government's overall strategy. Meanwhile, the tech and start-up scenes in other small countries, such as Portugal, such as Israel and Estonia, are gathering momentum. Our amendment today calls on the Scottish Government to develop a clearer plan, and I hope that phase 2 of the review does just that. The Scottish Government's lethargy in bringing Scottish Enterprise and skills into the 21st century is a bit like watching the sand in an hourglass slip away. Every grain is a missed opportunity. 2020 is just around the corner. I do not want to have to make the speech again over the course of this Parliament, but having read the report, I fear that I may have to do just that. Excellent. I made up some time. Thank you very much. Colin Beattie, who is followed by Colin Smith. Mr Beattie, please. In these uncertain times, it is more crucial than ever that the Scottish Government remain wholly committed to investing in and developing a strong, sustainable economy. Committed to increasing business-driven innovation and our international competitiveness while reducing inequality. For those reasons, I am pleased to see the official results of the Government's end-to-end review of the enterprise and skill bodies, which, based on the consultations that have already taken place, promises an increasingly bright future for Scotland and its people. I think that everybody in the chamber might agree with me when I say that we are fortunate, indeed, that this review was planned before the EU referendum took place. That allowed us to focus efforts not only on pre-existing challenges within enterprise and skill agencies, but specifically on the new context and emerging challenges that have resulted from the referendum. That being said, there are clear areas where we have already made great strides forward, areas where I know we will continue to progress as a result of this assessment. For example, the creation of new Scotland-wide statutory board to co-ordinate the activities of HIE and SE, including SDI, SDS and the SFC, promises to make the actions of each of those organisations more effective and efficient. In addition to the report that was released yesterday, I have read through a large portion of the responses to the Government's formal call for evidence and the learning journey workshops and interviews that were commissioned. There were many, many constructive suggestions arising from first-hand experiences with skills development Scotland and the various other agencies. Those insights will allow us to continue to build on what we already know works well. Inside those agencies will help us to achieve the step-change that is needed in Scotland's economic performance. From what I have seen before and during this evaluation, we have done a very good job identifying areas where we need to improve our performance and then, in targeting those areas, using the results of this end-to-end review, we will be able to hone those approaches to skills development that have been successful and we will be able to develop new strategies to combat developing challenges in the sector, especially those that are currently arising from Brexit. There is a clear correlation established between the amount of country that invests in research and development and the subsequent success of that country's economy. Historically, Scotland has lagged behind in the amount of private businesses that are invested in R&D. However, we have increased our expenditure in R&D by 44 per cent between 2007 and 2014, from £629 million to £905 million. That is compared with a 10 per cent increase in the UK. Scotland has already got one of the highest rates of spend on higher education research and development in the OECD. What is more, we have increased our international exports by over 17 per cent since 2010, with over £27 billion in exports every year. Total food and drink manufacturing exports increased by £3.4 billion, an increase of 63 per cent between 2002 and 2014. Those accomplishments, in addition to increases in investment and higher education, international recognition of our universities as being among the best in the world and rankings that place Scotland among the most attractive locations for inward investment in the UK. We know what we need to do on a national level as set out by the four eyes in Scotland's economic strategy—investment, innovation, inclusive growth and internationalisation. It is happening right now through the process of the review of what we can continue to improve locally on a user level, better co-ordinating enterprise and skills organisations, and we are committed to using those findings right away. In essence, we are leveraging all of our devolved powers to improve each aspect of Scotland's economy from the inside out. That includes those parts of our economy that are already outperforming international benchmarks. The Scottish Government introduced the most competitive business rate scheme in the UK, investing billions of pounds in Scotland's infrastructure, established a curriculum of excellence in our schools and expanded the level of funded child care to help those with young children to participate more fully in the labour market. They have committed to creating tens of thousands of new modern apprenticeships every year, established a new innovation forum and built the Scottish business development bank from the ground up. The actions outlined in yesterday's report promise more of the same success. The focus here is not only on economic growth, as I have been discussing earlier, but on reducing inequality hampers, the skills development of disadvantaged individuals, reducing their social mobility and undermining any further educational opportunities that they might have. Even though we have a highly skilled workforce and a long-standing reputation for innovation, international experience demonstrates that taking our country to the next level to the highest quartile also requires performing better on measures of equality and wellbeing. In a sense, the two are symbiotic. I am pleased to see that the report in phase one spent a considerable amount of effort specifically addressing the inequalities in educational outcomes. That improves employment opportunities and living standards for individuals, but also the overall skills for Scotland's workforce. The Government's report points out that we are one of the first countries in the OECD to put inclusive growth at the heart of our economic strategy, while also focusing on increased competitiveness that can only make for a stronger Scotland. However, I am deeply concerned and I see the Government agrees in the report that our long-term economic performance depends on greater success in international markets and on continuing to attract stronger investment from abroad. Obviously, that depends on us maintaining access to those markets. Access is currently being threatened. The recent events that stemming from the EU referendum put the future expansion of our budgeting international trade at considerable risk. I look forward to seeing the actions that are reported in phase one being implemented and commend those involved in producing yesterday's report on their excellent work. I refer members to my register of interests in the fact that I am a councillor in Dumfries and Galloway, where I chair the economy committee and I also chair the South of Scotland Alliance. As the cabinet secretary said in his opening speech, our enterprise and skills agencies do make an important contribution to our economy and the impact on all our constituencies. Last week alone, I met with a company of my constituency, our account managed by Scottish Enterprise. I spoke with young people on a training programme, provided by Skills Development Scotland, and I visited Dumfries and Galloway College, funded by the Scottish Funding Council. However, the more organisations I speak to, the more companies I visit, the more the need for change becomes apparent. That is why the review of our agencies is so important and is one that I very much welcome. Put simply, the current structures are not delivering the support needed for the economic success that we all want to see, no more so than in my own South Scotland region. The Government's motion talks about the economic challenges that will be caused by Brexit, and I am not a Brexit denier, so I do not disagree. However, I can tell members that the South of Scotland does not need to wait until Brexit to face major economic challenges. Those challenges are there right now. In Dumfries and Galloway, economic productivity, or GVA per hour, is just 82 per cent of the Scottish average. There are fewer people in the region's workforce with high-level qualifications than the Scottish average. Only around 20 per cent of the workforce are educated at a degree level compared to a Scottish average of 30 per cent. The proportion of people of working age in Dumfries and Galloway with no qualifications is twice the level of the highlands and islands. Youth unemployment in the region is almost always higher than the national average, and there is real evidence of growing under employment. Not surprisingly, given that the high level of part-time employment in Dumfries and Galloway is a low-wage economy, shame for the lowest paid in Scotland. The most recent O&S figures show that the gross average weekly wage of someone living in Dumfries and Galloway is £463, compared to a Scottish average of £527 and a UK average of £530. The Government has added a commitment to what it calls regional equity, but it is now called regional cohesion in its past two economic strategies. After nine years, the stark figures that I have highlighted show that the people of South Scotland do not feel a great deal of regional equity. As Audit Scotland pointed out in recent reports supporting Scotland's economic growth, there is a real disconnect between the Government's economic strategy names and the remit and direction that is given by the Government to agencies such as Scottish Enterprise or Skills Development Scotland. What needs to change? We need a clear commitment in this review that regional equity will be part of the remit of our Government agencies, and we need a performance framework that not only measures the delivery of regional equity but also the contribution that is made to it by Government agencies. As far as South Scotland is concerned, that can be partly achieved either by a stronger regional approach through existing organisations, through devolving more economic development powers and resources to local councils or through the establishment of a specific organisation in the area to tackle those challenges. As the cabinet secretary confirmed in his opening speech, phase 1 of his review proposes the latter option. The proposal that we outlined of a South of Scotland body sends a signal that the Scottish Government is now at least aware of the significant economic challenges that are facing the area, and the campaigning and lobbying that many of us in the region have done for many years is beginning to pay off. However, the question is what will the proposal mean in practice? The remit resources and capacity of Highlands and Islands Enterprise demonstrates an effective approach for delivering strategic economic development in the rural area that those of us living in the South of Scotland have looked upon with Envy for some time, not least the social development element of HIE's role. However, it is not entirely clear from the list of actions from phase 1 of the review if that is what is proposed for the South of Scotland. The actions talk about a new vehicle to meet the enterprise and skills needs of the South of Scotland, but I note that it is a vehicle that will be accountable to the new Scotland-wide statutory board, rather than a board based in the South of Scotland in contrast to HIE, which is very much directed in the Highlands and Islands. It is also not clear what the boundaries will be or what the powers of the new vehicle will actually have. Will it have powers devolved to it from Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland or simply seek to remove powers from local authorities, raising further concerns about more centralisation? It is not clear what the budget will be of this new vehicle. As Richard Leonard highlighted earlier in his opening statement, the combined spender of Scottish Enterprise and HIE has been decreasing in real terms in recent years. The Scottish Enterprise budget in 2015-16 was £280 million to deliver economic development across 4.8 million people, an average of £58 per person. The final out-turn budget for Highlands and Islands Enterprise was £96 million to deliver across a population of roughly £450,000, an average of £213 per person. Will the new vehicle for the South of Scotland have a budget akin to Highlands and Islands Enterprise or one similar to Scottish Enterprise? How will the new vehicle fit with the emerging borderlands initiative that brings together Scottish Borders Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council and the councils across the north of England that was launched by the Scottish Government in 2013? Will the new vehicle take into account the significant work that has been done to develop an alternative nuts to proposal for European funding, which will not happen now as a result of Brexit, but the arguments are still strong and are still there. I appreciate the cabinet secretary's like to tell me that this will all come up in the wash, which is phase 2. I hope that when someone up today, the minister will outline in more detail the process that will be followed to develop the emergent actions from phase 1 and, crucially, what exactly are the timescales that are there for the completion of this work. The clock is ticking when it comes to economic challenges being faced by my constituents. I hope that we won't have to wait too long for an economic strategy that long-last delivers real regional equity for the people of South Scotland. Willie Rennie, followed by Ivan McKee. I think that we can all agree, probably bar a few Conservatives who now wish to deny it, that the exit from the European Union will have a significant impact on our economy, which is essential that we have robust enterprise structures to support and meet that challenge. I think that we need to make sure that we face off the immediate challenges that we are facing over Brexit, the first of which has been the change in the value of the pound, which is having a direct impact on our economy—some positive aspects, but some serious negative impacts, too. However, we also need to think about the longer investment decisions that are about to be made by companies right across the country, which, again, is why we need robust structures to support and advise those companies as they attempt to address those challenges. The motion today addresses and mentions equality and wellbeing. I recall Colin Beattie talking about inequality, but, again, the rhetoric does not really match with the action that I have raised on a number of occasions. My concerns about the receipt of government grants for companies such as Amazon, which pay below the living wage. Although there is some oblique reference in the report yesterday, there is no direct proposal that would lead to the refusal of grants to companies such as Amazon for paying below the living wage. I hope that that comes in the later report, because the last time I raised it in the chamber with the First Minister, she said that she would take firm action. The firm action was that she sent Rosanna Cunningham off to see Amazon to have a cup of tea. That cup of tea resulted in recruiting lots of more workers at Amazon, which was also paid below the living wage. I do not think that we should send Rosanna Cunningham to Amazon any more if that is the action that we are going to receive. Threats of cups of tea with Rosanna Cunningham are clearly not enough for Amazon to take firmer action. However, I would like to see the Government institute a rule that says that it will not pay regional selective assistance or Government enterprise grants to companies that do not pay the proper living wage as advocated by the Government. That would then match rhetoric with action. The second area—the minister will forgive me for being sceptical about that—was part of it away when he talked about reviewing the functions of the various agencies in the next report. He said that Highlands and Islands Enterprise will remain. He said that there will be a new agency, he called it, not just a vehicle, but an agency for the south of Scotland, but then proceeded to say that we are not actually sure what they are going to do. We are going to review the functions in the next report. Forgive me for being sceptical, because we know that this Government's track record wants to regionalise education governance. We know that it wants to change the health boards. We have seen what it has done with the police and I suspect that it wants to do exactly the same with the enterprise agencies. Colin Smyth has already alerted us to the fact that the new south of Scotland vehicle or agency will be directly accountable to the national agency. The tendency here from this Government is to hoover up powers into the centre, not to recognise local need and variation, but to control things from the centre. That is the tendency. I suspect that if the alarm bells were not raised at an earlier stage, we would now be seeing the end of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Thank goodness that somebody had the gumption to raise concerns about the Government's proposals on that, because it would have been a backward step if it had abolished Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I want to see the Government come forward with serious proposals in the next stage of its report to properly devolve powers right down into these agencies. I do not want to see Highlands and Islands Enterprise remaining with the same powers. I wanted to have more powers. I want the south of Scotland to have real, meaningful enterprise powers. It is ironic that, nine years after the Government abolished support for the south of Scotland, it is trying to create a virtue out of recreating something that it only abolished a few years ago, certainly. Keith Brown I thank Willie Rennie for taking intervention. I wonder if he would like to comment on the track record of the Liberal Democrats when they were in control in Scotland and they did not create the agencies or the additional powers that he is talking about. Massive ringfence to expenditure, which local government could spend, seems that he is saying one thing now, but he did not say that back in the day. Willie Rennie Just because this Government removed ringfencing from local government, it does not absolve it of all responsibility and action of centralising it ever since. That seems to be the argument from this Government. This party has a very strong record. We have in fact advocated that we should be creating regional development banks in local areas to make sure that we can drive local economies at a local basis, working properly in partnership with local councils. I am afraid that this Government cannot wipe away its record of the last few years. It cannot simply try to create a virtue of something that it abolished only a few years ago. However, if it does want to praise the record of the Liberal Democrats, perhaps it could praise the work of Danny Alexander, who led the way on creating the city deals in places such as Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness. They scoff, but the reality was that Danny Alexander was the leader, the pioneer in creating those city deals. He drove it forward against a rather reluctant SNP Government's wishes. At the time, they were just dragged to the table rather than being active participants in it. I now want to see those city deals being meaningful as city deals, because that is the way that we can drive real change in the cities across Scotland. Ivan McKee to be followed by Jeremy Balfour. Presiding Officer, the success of Scotland's economy and hence our ability to fund high-quality public services now and in the future will depend on the ability of our businesses to survive and thrive both at home and in export markets around the world. Government undoubtedly has a key role to play in supporting that success. The market on its own can only do so much. Getting the form and focus of that Government's support right is critical to economic success, to inclusive growth and to fostering innovation and entrepreneurialism, and to enabling us to build the kind of society that we all want to see. I therefore welcome the Government's review of enterprise agencies, considering how best to align the various organisations that currently occupy that space to ensure the most effective, efficient and flexible support for business growth. It is important that we do not set our sights too low. I have spoken in this chamber in the past about ambition, the ambition of our young people, of our communities and our national ambition for this country. Scotland has many inherent strengths in our natural resources and our human talent that many countries can only dream of. In so many sectors, we are extremely well placed to deliver now and in the economies of the future. The task of Government through its agencies is to support Scotland's businesses to deliver on that potential, to realise that ambition, and by setting a national target of achieving top-quart out OECD states in productivity, equality, wellbeing and sustainability, the Scottish Government shares those ambitions. I welcome the fact that the review process has been broad and wide-ranging, taking evidence from more than 300 businesses, organisations and individuals. I welcome that the review is proceeding in phases, allowing the structure to take shape, built on a solid foundation, following dialogue with business. The business world changes a constant, contains improvement of the structures and processes that we use to deliver and perform as crucial to on-going success in an ever-changing world. I also welcome the flexibility of recognising the different strengths and support needs of different parts of the country, of the need to align national and local government support and private sector talents. The creation of an agency focused on the south of Scotland is an important step in that direction. It is, however, also right that an overarching strategic view is maintained at a national level to leverage scale and coordinate progress both at home and internationally. Scotland has many sectors that can deliver on a world stage, renewables, offshore, whisky, life sciences, tourism, creative industries, financial services, premium food—all with the potential to deliver significant export growth for Scotland. An exporting is crucial for Scotland. Exploring and exploiting global markets is essential, but often challenging. The role of government agencies is probably even more important here than elsewhere. For small and medium-sized businesses, making the leap to international markets can be daunting. Soft support, practical advice and opening doors can make all the difference. Phase 2 of the review must have a clear perspective on how best to deliver that. Join on international success stories and leveraging all the skills and talents that we have as a nation. Breaking down barriers and building collaboration. Utilising all the levers at our disposal, including existing export businesses, cultural links, political visits, the global scot network, the great international work of our universities and colleges, and the soft power of brand Scotland to maximise international trade opportunities. The creation of the recently announced board of trade will be a key component of that work, but it also has to be recognised that that needs to be about working with businesses at all levels, making the global connections that exist already available to support all export growth initiatives and not just focusing on a few large companies. A coherent structure of interlocking metrics feeding into the national performance framework will be critical to ensure the success of business support and economic development. Few nations are as advanced as Scotland in the use of performance framework methodology, but in comparison with the best in class for the business world, it is still in the early stages of development. That presents a great opportunity to try further on-going improvements in performance. Phase 2 of the review will ensure that data and evaluation functions are developed to support robust evaluation of activity and impact. Finally, the present array of business support available is confusing and it is desperate. It is good that the review highlights that this is an area that is right for improvement and outlines steps to enable progress. Businesses are too busy doing what they do best, building and growing to take the time to shop around the wide variety of services that are currently on offer. I absolutely agree that the landscape for public support for businesses is very unclear, but the Government has had 10 years to get this right. How much longer does the SNP Government need to get business support right for the country? Ivan McKee. As I said earlier, my speech is an evolving situation and we need to be continually changing, developing and reviewing what is in front of us. You will see when phase 2 comes forward that more significant steps will be made forward in that regard. The simplification of the framework and support system, enabling the principle of no-wrong door, will be key to ensuring future effectiveness and enabling inclusive growth. That is a country with great potential. We can be a world-beater in so many sectors when we need to get this review right. To co-ordinate and leverage the many opportunities that we have a nation, to build on the solid foundations laid by phase 1 of this review and move forward to refocus the enterprise agencies to deliver ambitious targets for Scotland's businesses, its economy and its people. Jeremy Balfour, followed by James Dornan. I start by agreeing with the words of the cabinet secretary Keith Brown in his forward to the report where he said that we can be justifiably proud of our enterprise and skill agencies, Scottish Enterprise, Highland and Islands Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and Scottish Funding Council in helping Scottish businesses to thrive and grow. The achievement is even more impressive when, according to Audit Scotland, the enterprise agencies' poorly defined objectives have limited their effectiveness. Audit Scotland state the report recognises that economic growth is complex and concludes that this Scottish Government needs to be clear on how its economic strategy will be implemented. The Scottish economy has been suffering from a sturgeon slowdown, lagging the UK for the last six and a half years. Despite a shallower recession in Scotland, the recovery has been weaker than the UK, and economic growth has been lagging behind the UK since 2009. Keith Brown I thank Jeremy Balfour for taking intervention on the sturgeon slowdown slogan that he has developed. Does he recognise as his former colleague Gavin Brown did in the chamber when he said that most of the major levers in relation to the Scottish economy are wielded by the Westminster Government or does he not? Jeremy Balfour I think that we simply have to look at the way that the economy is affected by yet again more talk about Scottish independence and the total uncertainty that it gives to business and to other sectors within the economy. Growth has been mainly driven here in Scotland by constructing historically a volatile sector over services that have been picking up more recently. That contrast with the rest of the UK economy, which has experienced broader growth across different sectors of the economy. Economic growth is not evenly spread, sadly, across this country. The north-east of Scotland has grown at over a double rate of the east Scotland, and jobs growth has been stalling in Scotland under the SNP for over a decade. Scotland now lags behind every other UK region on job creation. Data on economic growth and scale shortage pre-Brexit is shockingly bad for Scotland, and the SNP simply cannot hide behind the Brexit decision that more than 1 million Scots voted for. A failure to invest in school leaves Scotland lagging behind in apprenticeships and business development. Scotland has consistently lagged behind England on apprenticeship starts, and this has happened under the SNP Government. In every year in which the SNP has been in government, Scotland has fewer numbers of apprenticeships than in England. There is a significant skills gap in Scotland. Let me give an example of this. I visited a business development site here in Edinburgh recently that is looking to build. It had been lying empty for 18 months. I thought that perhaps it was due to the council's slowness or perhaps due to other factors. When talking to the developer, the only reason that the development had not started earlier was because there was a lack of apprentices coming out of colleges here in Scotland. We simply could not find local people to do local jobs. What does the Government do? It cuts college places yet again, which means that fewer people are coming out of Scotland with those skills. Business confidence is lower here in Scotland than the rest of the UK. We need to deal with those issues quickly. Scotland's economy is suffering from a chronic skills shortage that the SNP has neglected to deal with. The SNP Government needs to stop the blame game and stop blaming Westminster. Yet again, the minister said that in his intervention, and participate in a smooth and orderly exit from the EU that is in the interests not of the few but of the whole of Scotland. We need to create an environment where business is confident to invest and grow and ensure that we have a workforce equipped with the right skill to set out the most for the new opportunities that will phase us in the years ahead. I am very happy to support the amendment in my colleague's name. Now, we move to the last of the open speeches, James Dornan. Presiding Officer, just before I move on to what I would like to say, every speech that we had yesterday from the Conservative benches mentioned independence. It seems that there is a theme running through everything that they say. They are either coming over or they are terrified. Independence, I agree, is coming, but let's concentrate on the day job for the time being lads. As convener of the education and skills committee, I would like to take a moment to speak in the efforts that the committee has done to address the issues of skills so far this term. The committee has done some initial early work on the skills sector. We have rightly started by hearing from people with practical experience of training in various disciplines. Members have visited still and community enterprise in the summer. The visit has highlighted the massive difference training in a discipline that can make to someone's life who has previously been unemployed and struggled to find work. Trainees told us that they had felt that they were treated with respect and, importantly, that their confidence had increased through the programmes at the enterprise. It was clear that attendance at SCE provided these young men with much more than qualifications. They gave them a life structure. Without that structure, alcohol abuse, crime and imprisonment were mentioned as lightly ways in which their life chances would be reduced. I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of the committee, to record the committee's thanks to the trainees and the enterprise staff for such a useful and insightful visit. The committee has also heard from businesses such as Standard Life and their apprenticeship schemes in the STUC, SEDI and Skills Development Scotland. That session highlighted frustrations from businesses of the lack of information at a UK level on how the apprenticeship levy will function and practice an uncertainty on how all that detail will be ironed out before its introduction in six months' time. The panel had a clear view that the levy should not bring about any great change in existing approaches in Scotland, such as success stories like developing Scotland's young workforce. Instead, new money should be concentrated on the existing programmes that are working effectively. Daniel Johnson I wonder whether the member would also agree with me that one of the other comments made of that was that the importance of making sure that the apprenticeship system, the skills system became as focused on reskilling as it was in skilling. I know that it sits in that report, but would he agree with me that there needs to be a lot more detail in the phase 2 report on that point? James Dornham I would agree with you, and I think that I might be coming on to that later on about the importance of reskilling. Although there are many existing programmes that are working well, Scotland must continue to make new efforts in helping young people to thrive in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, as my colleague Claire Adamson talked about earlier on. STEM education and training is vital for a future economy, but Scotland must equip our young children with the education that is necessary to face environmental and economic challenges in the future. Research suggests that 65 per cent of children in preschool today will work in jobs or careers that do not yet exist. Times are changing and our education must change to help to face problems and sustainable resources and to continue economic prosperity. I know that the Scottish Government is clear that we will develop and implement a Scottish STEM strategy to ensure that, from the earliest age, children are engaged to the opportunities that science, technology, engineering and maths can offer them, providing quality education is vital to implementing those changes in order to help Scotland to flourish. We will also roll out a programme of school STEM clusters and develop a Scottish STEM ambassador network so that by 2020 every Scottish school is working with a STEM partner from the private, public or third sector. That will enable students to have a first-hand look at the work that is needed to utilise advanced technology for Scotland's benefit. Modern apprenticeships support young people into their careers while meeting industry skill needs. The Scottish Government's 2016-17 budget supported the continued expansion of modern apprenticeships from 25,000 to 30,000 apprenticeships. It is clear that more needs to be done to improve wider representation of modern apprenticeships, but progress has been made. In 2015-16, there was an increase of females participating in the programme from the previous year by 41 per cent. There was also an increase of stats with some form of disability. The proportion of modern apprenticeships' stats among those reporting of disability was up by 3.5 per cent in 2014. In addition, there was an increase in minority ethnic groups participating as well. MA stats among black ethnic minority groups showed a slight increase. Those statistics, although they are still pretty poor and still need a lot of work to be done on them, show that the efforts are producing gradual change. However, we must continue providing those programmes to help young people to pursue their future careers. However, there is a recognition that much more should be done. I know that the UK Government's apprenticeship levy is an area of concern for the Government. The Government of the Committee to Work with Employers to develop a distinctly Scottish approach, as I spoke about earlier on this, cannot cut across the good work that Scotland is already doing. The committee had also heard from businesses—I am sorry, I have already said that—but I have a need to be flexible on how we train our youngsters. There are a number of examples of that, but the one that I would like to select is one in my constituency of the Newlands junior college. The college assists young people who are disengaged from education to make a successor to their lives and contribute to society. It operates in the premise that mainstream schools do not always offer the best learning environment for many young people and do not always inspire or motivate pupils to meet their personal needs. The college is specifically designed with young people in mind, providing a specialist service for a very specific group of students and provides intensive and individual support with the focus on the vocational curriculum that provides a different experience that can re-engage students and set them on the road. Jim McCall, the well-known Glasgow entrepreneur, devised the concept of the college and has made a considerable financial contribution through applied blores. The college embodies a constructive partnership between the private and public sector for many young people who are facing long-term exclusions from school. Personal development with the college lists a certificated two-year course and is provided through Skillforce Scotland to develop personal and life schools where mentoring and personal support are key. I think that everyone in this chamber would want Scotland to rank in that top quartile. I do not think that there is any argument about that. Scotland is served by a vibrant enterprise and skills sector that will greatly assist the Scottish economy to navigate through the uncertainty of Brexit. However, I have to touch on further to my question to the minister earlier on about the concern that I have about the potential long-term skills shortage if college and university staff are barred from working in Scotland because of the insane behaviour of the Westminster Government over Brexit. If that impacts on the education system, it can only have a long-term detrimental effect to what it is that we are trying to achieve. The Scottish Government's review is a sensible evaluation that is evidence-based but inclusive and will ensure that productivity will be woven with the aspirations of our citizens, preferring them to the future economic and technological challenges that lie ahead of Scotland. That is why I spoke with the minister. We move now to the closing speeches. I begin by referring members to my register of interests. I am a shareholder and non-salary director of a small retail business in Edinburgh. Indeed, it is my experience of that that convinces me of the importance and urgency of the review into enterprise and skills agencies. Running shops for the last eight years before coming into this place has taught me three important lessons that are relevant to the debate today. First is about change. The retail sector, like many sectors, has been undergoing fundamental change. Online shopping is not an optional extra. Every retail business has to do it, and our shops certainly had to adapt building technology into how we do business. Whether technology, Brexit or economic shops, such as the collapse in the oil price, our enterprise and skill system needs to prepare and enable change. We need to make sure that technological change and automation is creating more jobs than it makes obsolete. Second is about innovation. We cannot limit the scope of innovation just to new businesses or high-tech startups. I agree with the Government's assessment that all businesses have to be digital. Indeed, in my business, we had to move online, but we also needed to get better at using and manipulating data. We moved all our systems including our accounting systems on to the cloud, so we had complete integration between our web store, our till points and our back office. Skilling up existing businesses is just as important as new tech and startups. That leads me to my third point, which is about skills. Innovation demands that companies and employees reskill to react to the shifts that might occur in their sector. As we moved in our business and our systems online, our staff had to become adept at managing stock online as efficiently as they were at managing the stock on the shop shelves. As technology changes, our skills system needs to be as much about reskilling people who are already in the workforce as it is about skilling up school leavers as they enter the workplace for the first time. To that end, I welcome the details of the report, which are about focusing on productivity. I welcome the comments that we have to move to a situation where the skills system is as much about reskilling existing people in the workforce as it is about new skills, and I certainly welcome the points about technology. However, as I reflect on the document that is looking at innovation skills, I think that we needed to see more from this stage 1 document. We needed a clear strategy that could be implemented, but instead I feel that we are left with a review that has the potential to complicate rather than simplify. There is a lack of clear metrics for success, with little clue in terms of funding. There is no timetable for delivery. There are certainly more questions that it raises than it answers, and it is a review that, while admitting that it is only half finished and that there will be a stage 2, sets out to start implementation before we have the stage 2 document. Ultimately, that review does not point to strategic vision and a way to achieve it, rather I feel that it is something of a muddled half fix with the promise of more reviews. Indeed, I think that there has been much discussion in the debate this afternoon about the board of trade, which is the overarching board—the single answer to simplification. However, let us just look at what the implication of that board will be. It will oversee a budget of £2.16 billion. It is the combination of the first, second, third and fifth largest agencies of the Scottish Government by funding. It easily makes it in the top 10 of the largest quangos in the UK and has clear questions for democratic accountability. It certainly has questions about resource. A body of this size, scope and magnitude, we have to ask where is the money coming forward to resource it and to staff it. I think that Tavish Scott was quite right to ask the questions—I notice that he is no longer in the chamber—about its relationship with Government. Who will this board report to? Will they be setting the budgets for the agencies for which they are responsible? Will they have the power of appointment of all the agencies that fall beneath them? Indeed, simplification is important—the report highlights. However, so far in the report, all we understand is that the only answer to that simplification is the superquango. I regret, in some ways, that the Liberal Democrat amendment was not taken, because I think that the language of the superquango is useful in this debate. Unfortunately, we are going to have to wait until phase 2, as Colin Smith pointed out, the wash where we will get the detail. However, frankly, those details are important, because matters such as the purpose and scope of the bodies such as the South of Scotland agency and SDI will all ultimately come out of the detail of the superquango that will be created. I think that Jamie Greene, Jeremy Balfour and Willie Rennie were all right to point to the fact that we have little on the way of metrics and we have little on the way of timetable, and whether it is about the steps that we need to take in order to implement it, as Jamie Greene pointed out, or actually the goals in terms of how we will things such as enforcement of equity, pursuing things like the living wage through the companies that are helped by our agencies, such as Amazon. We really have no answers at the moment. There are three things you need from any strategy. You need metrics. Just a review of them is simply insufficient. We need to understand the resource behind this. We do not understand the funding that lies behind this review, and we have no timetable. Without those three things, frankly, we have no strategy, and this is against a context in which we know that there has been a 12 per cent cut in enterprise agencies under this SNP Scottish Government. I know what the Government is going to say. They are going to say, don't be so hasty. Just wait. All the answers will come in the phase 2 document, but that is not good enough. Frankly, we do not even know precisely the nature of that phase 2. Is it a final report or is it merely a consultation for further work? Is it a series of hints and a save-the-date card? The Government is right about one thing. We need a step change. That is the only way to achieve the top-quartile ambitions that they set out. In order to do that, we need a clear strategy that sets out clear goals. Today, in place of objectives and clarity of purpose, we have more questions. Instead of principles for the co-ordinating agencies, we have the creation of one large super board with several new agencies beneath it. Instead of a timetable, we simply have a request that we wait until we see what is reported in the new year. We need change, we need innovation, we need skills, but right now I do not think that we have the plan in front of us that tells us how we are going to do that. Yesterday, I closed the debate for this party, which was principally brought to discuss the fairer Scotland action plan. It is a good document. 100 pages, carefully sectioned headings, detailed methodology, five ambitions by 2030, 50 points to be actioned by the end of this term and measurements of success. I was looking forward to the Enterprise and Skills review, having examined, commended and noted the very clear recommendations in the Audit Scotland report into the Enterprise agencies. Yesterday, I got this, 17 pages of more padding than the NFL game that I was at at the weekend. It is just not good enough. It is not good enough that, despite Audit Scotland pointing out that the full range of public support for business is not known, and, thus, there is a risk of duplication and inefficiency. The Enterprise agencies themselves gave up on trying to establish what all the funding streams in the public support were. There is no action point that states that anyone has been tasked to do that. Daniel Johnson asked, where is the streamlining? I hope that it is in the second report. We will return to that theme. Despite the economic strategy stating that progress will be measured through the national performance framework, Audit Scotland pointing out the contribution of the Enterprise agencies to the national performance framework is not measured. Again, no acknowledgement of this in the paper, nor any solution. Jamie Greene said that the report is heavy on words but light on substance. Audit Scotland said that agencies must have measurable targets, but phase 1 does not. Willie Rennie said that there is no direct recommendation. I hope that it is in the second report. There is a theme emerging. It is just not good enough. The paper trumpets that the Scottish economy grew 0.7 per cent in the last year. That figure is 2.1 per cent for the rest of the UK. Keith Brown trumpets the unemployment rate of 4.6 per cent, but ignores that the number of female unemployment claimants has risen in Scotland but fallen throughout the UK. That the number of women aged 18 to 24 in work across the UK has increased by 2.8 per cent while falling 4.2 per cent in Scotland. Job growth has stalled for a decade. Scotland's employment rate remains lower than the UK's. It is not good enough if it is very quick, sir. Keith Brown. I just wonder whether Liam Kerr would take the opportunity to answer the question that his colleagues have failed to answer. Does he attribute any responsibility that is the litany of woe that he is describing to the UK Government, which the Tories have said holds a major leavers to the Scottish economy? Liam Kerr. It is, of course, the easy answer to always blame Westminster. The same question was put at the opening of the debate, and the same answer will be given. You have the leavers of power, you have the Government, you do something about it. Then—don't worry, Mr Hepburn, I'm coming to you—this paper proudly talks of beating the target of modern apprenticeships, but, as Jeremy Balfour fails to mention, in every year that the SNP has been in government, Scotland has had fewer numbers of apprenticeships start per 100,000 of working-age population than England. This is a Scotland where 5 per cent of the workforce is deemed to have a skill shortage, where a CBI survey shows 32 per cent of firms in Scotland expect to have difficulty recruiting apprenticeships. Talking of apprenticeships, I hope that we will hear from Mr Hepburn later on, as will James Dornan, who badly needs to get up to speed. As this Parliament knows, the apprenticeship levy comes in next year. The Scottish Government's consultation closed on 26 August, with business already saying that it has left this too late. I asked a written question of Jamie Hepburn on 11 October. When will you tell business in Scotland what you are doing with the apprenticeship levy? Yesterday, I got my answer. A report of the findings will be published shortly and will inform our response in Scotland, which we will look to provide as quickly as we can. Business cannot work with that, Mr Hepburn. That is happening. Scotland needs action and it needs it now. I do not have time, I am afraid. I look forward to you telling business what this Government is going to do in your closing. It is not good enough, but it is not all bad. We are pleased that this report will set up a south of Scotland agency. We are pleased at the Scottish Development International expansion. We are pleased at the flexible childcare proposals. All things, of course, we called for in our manifesto. We can help you further. Make sure that the funds raised from business will be transparent for the apprenticeship levy, and we will be reinvested in Scotland for apprenticeships and training, not lost in the general budget. Reinstate a significant number of college places that you have cut. Pull back from making Scotland the highest tax part of the UK. As Dean called for, when he called for specifics in the second report, have the enterprise agencies provide more non-financial support and designate some of the underperforming parts of Scotland as turnaround zones. It is clear that a robust, effective and modern enterprise and skills programme is needed in Scotland, and we welcome the steps that this Government is taking towards this goal. However, the theme coming out of today's debate has to be that it is not good enough. As speaker after speaker after speaker clamoured to say what is happening in this phase 2, where are the targets, when are we going to have these things brought in? Even Ivan McKee admits that all the significant stuff is going to be in phase 2. Building a strong economy, growing the jobs market, providing more apprenticeship places and linking the worlds of work and academia with strong and measurable aims and desired outcomes must be at the heart of any review of enterprise and skills in Scotland, or else it is simply more bluff and bluster. From a Government that is so out of ideas, so short of policy initiatives, it is stealing ours. Keith Brown, around nine minutes please cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just to say I think in relation to the last contribution that we had in relation to the apprenticeship levy, I don't know if the members actually aware that the UK Government, when it decided upon the apprenticeship levy, didn't tell the Scottish Government, didn't tell the business community, gave no warning to anybody, could answer no questions on it once it was introduced for many months, so perhaps it should look to his own situation. It's also worth saying, since Scotland, all of our apprentices are employed, unlike the situation south of the border. It's worth bearing those points in mind, but I should say that the closing remarks, as ever the very helpful civil service, had suggested some notes. One was to thank everybody for the positive contribution, so perhaps we'll dispense with that for the time being. I'll try to go through some of the points that were raised by the speakers of ICANN. Daniel Johnson started off relatively constructive, and there's a great deal in what he initially had to say, which I would agree with, not least his point about reskilling. We're just as important about upskilling or skills being put forward in the first place. As I say, he made a number of reasonable points. I hope that some of the points, although he seems to suggest that he knows the statement that I'm going to make before I make it, will be answered in phase 2. I should say that the idea of phase 2 is not just one that has been put forward by myself, but has been done so through the ministerial review group and enjoys general support. There are good reasons for that. James Dornan highlighted the importance of education in skills and the absolute necessity for freedom of movement, not least among EU nationals. He's absolutely right in relation to that. I have to say that perhaps Jeremy Balfour's speech, having been in this panel for nine years, is one of the most truly depressing speeches that I have heard in that nine years. An absolute litany of depressing, talking Scotland down, his statement that the economic situation that Scotland finds itself has got nothing to do with Brexit is an appalling abdication of responsibility for the Conservative. The greatest self-harm act in terms of our economy that we have seen from any Government from Westminster is an absolutely appalling contribution. In relation to Ivan McKee's point, at least he talked in complete contrast to the likes of Jeremy Balfour about ambition and about the strengths that we currently have within Scotland. Of course, it's necessary that we have to recognise what we have to do better, but we should also recognise the strengths that we have in order that we can build upon them. In relation to Willie Rennie, I was a council leader when we had a Liberal Democrat administration here. I remember time after time being told by the Liberal Democrats what we had to spend our money on in local government. It was not a paradise of decentralised powers in the government, so perhaps the Lib Dems should practice what they preach. The idea that the city deals are a Lib Dem invention is not one city deal that is put in place by the Lib Dems during those eight years when they had the chance to do it, so perhaps you should look to your record first of all. Sit down, please, Mr Rennie. It's quite clear that the cabinet secretary is not giving way. In relation to Colin Smyth's point, once again a number of very good points, I think, are made by Colin Smyth. Having made those very good points, many of them in relation to what is obviously a dearly held view in relation to a separate agency in the south of Scotland, he mentioned some of the challenges that are there. I appreciate and understand and accept that the Scottish Government has to take some responsibility for that, and we are trying to address some of those challenges. He must accept, as the Tories will not accept, that the UK Government holds the majority of the major levers in the economy and has been in, whether a Conservative Government now or a Labour Government previously have been in power for a lot longer than this Parliament, and in addition to that, local authorities—he is a member of a local authority—has to have a responsibility as well, so there will be more credibility in saying what has been said if there was an acknowledgement of the different actors that are actually involved in local economies. I think that a very good speech by Colin Beattie once again talking about some of the strengths in the system, which I think is very important to do. Jamie Greene, I agree with many of his points in relation to the need for digital inclusion. I do not think that the digital divide is growing. I think that there is a digital divide, and we are doing what we can to try to address that, not least in relation to infrastructure, but there is a really ambitious plan in seeking to try to deal with that. I do agree with him how important it is. We have done a great deal of work in my view in terms of roads, railways and so on, but the digital highway is very important to people as well. It is sometimes even more crucial. I will say in relation to the points that were made by Claire Adamson when she challenged Richard Leonard's point that he was not here in 2007. Richard Leonard spent a lot of his time talking about the track record of this Government going back to 2007, so he cannot on the one hand say that I am unaware of the fact that the Labour party wanted to have deeper cuts than Margaret Thatcher and at the same time try to criticise the SNP for that point. Richard Leonard? What was being asked was what was in the mind of Jack McConnell in the lead-up to the election of 2007. A question that I clearly could not answer. Nobody could answer the question of what was in the mind of Jack McConnell. I did not actually ask that question. I made the point that what was said by the Labour party in advance of the 2007 election was that every other area, apart from education, would have to cut its cloth, would have to face cuts. At least acknowledge the track record of your own party at the same time that you want to criticise others. Richard Leonard also mentioned unemployment. I cannot remember a time under the Labour Government when we have had unemployment as low as it currently is in Scotland. Perhaps there has been a time, but he could maybe advise me of that. Not in recent years I can remember 4.6 per cent. Of course it is not the answer, it is not the final position. We have people in terms of structural unemployment for which we have to do more. I accept that point whether it is people with disabilities, people that are furthest from the jobs market. We have to do more, but at least recognise the success. 4.6 per cent unemployment is something that is worth shouting about, not tumpeting perhaps, but certainly shouting about. Just to come on in to Dean Lockhart's points, he made the point about productivity. He cannot have any credibility in asking any of those questions if it is your position that seems to be the position of the Conservative Party generally, that there is no role in the Scottish economy for the UK Government. At least in the last Parliament, some more aware Conservative members, like Gavin Brown said, the major levers, the major influence in the Scottish economy was the UK Government. It retained most of the levers. What we have here, in addition to Brexit deniers, are people that are trying to say that there is no role, there is no responsibility for the Conservative Government in relation to the economy of Scotland. It is not a credible role. Perhaps he will accept now that the UK Government has some responsibility in relation to this. Dean Lockhart. I would highlight Mr Brown in your own paper published yesterday. You say that Scotland remains a mid-ranking nation when it comes to innovation performance. The SNP has had 10 years to get this right. You are an innovation denier. When is the SNP going to fix the productivity gap? Once again, the Conservatives are refusing to acknowledge the fact that the UK Government has a role in the Scottish economy. He cannot have any credibility in his economic issues if he will not even acknowledge the fact that the Government that you support has a major role to play in the Scottish economy. Deniers of the fact that the UK Government actually has a role. Brexit deniers seeking to take out of the motion before us any reference to Brexit. We heard it in spades from Jeremy Balfour, where he said that there is no impact from Brexit, the decision on Brexit, on the current of the Scottish economy. There is no way that you can have any credibility if you do not acknowledge the fact. I can tell you about companies that are letting people go just now. I can tell you about companies where there are individuals looking for the future elsewhere in Scotland. I can tell you about companies that are changing investment plans because of the vote on the EU referendum. I can tell you that people are very uncertain about their situation here in Scotland because the UK Government refuses to confirm their status as EU citizens here in Scotland. According to the Conservatives, there is no impact from the vote on the European referendum. That leaves you with virtually no credibility in tackling those issues if you cannot acknowledge that fact in the first place. We have also heard mentioned by both Dean Lockhart and others about Scotland's GDP. Scotland's GDP overhead is 2.1 per cent above its pre-recession peak. 2.1 per seven is not good enough, we would like to see it higher. The UK's is 1.2 per cent. It would have been good had you acknowledged that, had you shown a bit of even handiness, a bit of balance and a bit of knowledge and self-awareness about the failures of the Conservative Government. The proposals that we have seek to build on the agency's success. The success that we have had so far, which is not good enough, which is why we review those agencies to ensure that the system is focused on a shared purpose with user-led services. A number of questions were raised about phase 2, which I am happy to answer. The review itself, phase 2, will begin on 1 November and run until the spring next year. It will build on and develop the inputs and relationships that are established in the first phase to ensure that we find the best way of implementing our key decisions from phase 1. I also hope to be supported in that task by the ministerial review group that is set up in phase 1. I thank the members for their help. I look forward to continuing to work with them. There is no time, Mr Rennie. From phase 2, I aim to propose a single-aligned delivery plan for the full implementation of each decision. I anticipate that some actions will be prioritised to be delivered quickly, whilst more complex changes will take longer to full implementation. That seems fairly straightforward to be. The final phase 2 recommendations are likely to set out a programme of work to be undertaken over the lifetime of this Parliament. Achieving our ambitions will require a strong, enduring focus and concentrated alignment of services behind our goal, and I look forward to working with other partners and possibly even some other parties across Scotland to achieve that. That concludes the debate on delivering future enterprise and skills support in Scotland. Phase 1, outputs from the enterprise and skills review. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is consideration of motion 2106 in the name of Edward Mountain on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee on report on the Memorandum of Understanding of Ofcom. I call on Edward Mountain to speak to and move the motion. The draft Ofcom Memorandum of Understanding sets out a proposed new relationship to be entered into by the Scottish and UK Governments, the Scottish Parliament and the Office of Communications. It is delivered as a result of the Smith's commission agreement, which states that there will be a formal consultative role for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in setting Ofcom's strategic priorities with respect to their activities in Scotland. The Memorandum of Understanding contains a number of commitments in addition to this consultative role. Those include a requirement for Ofcom to appear before the Parliament and for Ofcom to prepare there and lay their report and accounts in front of the Parliament. The Scottish Government will also have powers on consultation with the Secretary of State to appoint a member of the Ofcom board. Ofcom will also consult with the Scottish Government in relation to the board of points to MG Alba and appointments to communications consumer panel. At its meeting on 28 September, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee agreed to produce a report recommending to the Scottish Parliament that it gives its approval to the Memorandum. I would urge the members to support the motion in my name on behalf of the committee, noting its report at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of a legislative consent motion. I would ask Fiona Hyslop to speak to and move motion 1869 on the cultural property armed conflicts bill. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 2017, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 2117. Thank you. No one has asked to speak against the motion. I will put the question to the chamber. The question is that we agree motion 2017. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of four Parliamentary Bureau motions. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move on block motions 2018, 2019, 2124 and 2123 on the approval of SSIs. Thank you. The questions will be put at decision time, to which we now come. The first question is that amendment 2099.1, in the name of Dean Lockhart, which seeks to amend motion 2099, in the name of Keith Brown, on delivering future enterprise and skills support in Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 2099.1, in the name of Dean Lockhart, is as follows. Yes, 30, no, 95. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 2099.3, in the name of Richard Leonard, which seeks to amend motion 2099, in the name of Keith Brown, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 2099, in the name of Richard Leonard, is as follows. Yes, 27, no, 98. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 2099, in the name of Keith Brown, on delivering future enterprise and skills support in Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. The Parliament moved a vote, and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 2099, in the name of Keith Brown, is as follows. Yes, 84, no, 35. There were six abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 2106, in the name of Edward Mountain, on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee on report on the memorandum of understanding of OFCOM, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next question is that motion 1869, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the cultural property armed conflicts bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I propose to ask a single question on parliamentary business bureau motions 2018, 2019, 2124 and 2123. If any member objects to a single question being put, please say so now. No member is objected. The therefore question is that motions 2018, 2019, 2124 and 2123, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time. I will now allow the short pause when we move to members' business.