 Adon will to ask the next debate. I have just informed the Parliament that I have confirmed with business managers that all the votes from yesterday will be taken at decision time today. We now move on to the next item of business, which is a Scottish Labour party debate on the economy, and I ask Jackie Baillie to open. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome every opportunity to debate the Scottish economy. scaled to my mind that nothing is more important. A strong economy and a strong society are but different sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other. However, it is an opportunity to reflect on where we are and what more we need to do to support business and the workforce in an ever-changing landscape. Nowhere is that more evident or challenging than in oedd gennyn nhw, aeth eich cynllun i'r diwyllifftod yn gyfyniadau, yn oedd ynretched i'r cyngweld, sy'n sicrhau i fynd i sgwmellol. Felly mae'n ddweud i'r Cymru, ond mae'n bwysig i fwy o'r wael, sy'n eich ffigur gwaith cyfnod i gael oedd o'r ffaseriadau. Fy ben nawr, yn ddweud o'r cyfnod o'r llwy o'r cyfrach, hwnnw i'n gwneud, oedden nhw'r dashon o casoleu. funding services to support businesses to grow employment, to contribute increased revenue to fund our public services. I believe that these are aspirations that we all share. The Scottish economy is facing an uncertain future. Over the past week, several respected organisations have cast doubt on Scotland's prospects for economic growth in the coming year. Mae'n falch, ond mae bws i gwneud wrth ymgyrchu. Desimnol i gael ei ddaug i grannu allu. Lleonidol i gael ei ddogfyniadol yng Nghymru yn gweithio ei ddodol ac mae'n ddodol i gael eich cyflym iaith. Yn ddodol i ddodol i gael eich gaf, mae'n ddodol i gael eich gaf, ac mae'n ddodol i ddodol i ddodol i gael eich gaf i gael. Mae'n ddodol i gael eich gaf a'i ddodol i gael a'r ydych chi'n i ddarparu arall yn y llyfr fan hyn yn gŵr. Mae'r cyflawni argymiannol yn cyfleoedd o'r gwirionedd i'r cyffredinol yn Gwyl-Gyfbyn i'r 1.9%, ac yn y cwmno'i'r ddangos o'r 2014, ac yn y rhaid o'r 2.7%. Rwyf wedi y cyfliw yw'r ysgeltio gweithio ar gyfer y cwmno'i cyffredinol a'r ysgeltio Allander Institute, ond we might even be on the very brink of a recession, not something any of us would want to see. A slowdown in growth underpins some of the recent increases in unemployment and drops in employment. Figures published today show that there has been a drop in employment levels in Scotland, the only area of the UK to register a fall. We must not allow that to develop into a trend. Meanwhile, construction and manufacturing, oil and gas, as you would expect, have all reported reduced activity, and business optimism has plummeted. Indeed. Cawracex, Keith Brown, for taking the intervention and also saying the interest of balance that she mentioned at the start, which she welcomed in those same figures, the 11,000 new people who have got jobs since the last figures were produced. I always welcome good news, but the thing that troubles me is that the Cabinet Secretary only wants to talk about the small things that are good and does not recognise the overall picture. Unless we recognise that overall picture, we will not intervene appropriately to stop the economy falling into recession. It is that serious. The Bank of Scotland PMI published on Monday confirmed that the private sector in Scotland contracted in May. Although the difference from April to May may indeed be slight, it is a worrying sign of overall contraction in the Scottish economy. I urge the Government to bring a sharper, more urgent focus to its efforts to grow the economy if we are to avoid some of the very legitimate concerns about a recession and unemployment increasingly becoming a reality. If they do so, they will have the full support of this side of the chamber. Of course, oil and gas are critically important sectors of our economy, an industry that we all support with highly skilled workers that often work in challenging conditions. However, there is no doubt that the oil crisis has had a devastating impact. Jackie Baillie for giving way. As she mentioned, oil and gas and labour support, we are not sure if she could clarify for Ineos, who wrote to the Labour Party yesterday, seeking to draw attention to the confusion within the Labour Party. Her colleague Claudia Beamish suggests that the Labour Party are against fossil fuels. Jackie Baillie and her other colleagues suggest that the Labour Party are in favour. When are they going to make up their minds? I think that you will find that there is no confusion on our part. I am always happy to explain in words of one syllable to Murdo Fraser precisely what the Labour Party position is. We are in favour of a balanced energy mix. We do want to move to a low-carbon economy. That is an aspiration that I hope we all share for the future. However, I have to say to you that oil and gas are important to our economy. We recognise that. I do not think that many of us in this chamber would have imagined that the price of a barrel of oil could have fallen from $115 in 2014 to $27 in January 2016. The lowest level in more than a decade. Although there has been a welcome albeit partial recovery in price, it is still less than half of previous levels and that is expected to continue for at least five years more. In the face of that, I do welcome the improvements that the industry and the workforce together have made on increasing production and reducing operating expenditure. That drive for efficiency has reduced the unit cost of production by a staggering 28 per cent. However, oil and gas UK report that further cost reduction measures will be necessary. However, let me sound a very clear note of caution here, because I have been contacted by an offshore worker on the construction side who is employed by one of the main contractors in the North Sea. He describes terms and conditions being eroded, workers being paid off, then brought back on zero-hours contracts. That can happen several times in the space of a few months. He tells me that a lot of his colleagues are walking away from the sector and are finding alternative jobs. The workload is increasing, morale is at rock bottom and when things do pick back up, there will be a skilled shortage, because many have already let their tickets expire having had, quite frankly, enough. He said, it is a sad day when zero-hours contracts seem to be gripping the industry offshore. Many are concerned about health and safety, and I fear that this loss of experience will take many years to put right. He is, of course, right. If workers are treated in this way, they will move on, their skills will be lost to the industry, and the industry bears responsibility for this and must stop those unfair practices. It is the human cost that is truly troubling. The impact on jobs is, frankly, breathtaking. Oil and gas UK reported that jobs supported by the offshore industry will have fallen by the end of this year by 120,000. That is 120,000 individual people, never mind the wider impact on their families, too. The loss of jobs touches every part of Scotland, much of it increasingly focused on the north-east. The jobs lost, in a second, are those directly employed in extraction of oil and gas, the supply chain that is extensive, and, of course, the induced jobs that are created by the sector's spending in the wider economy. The signs in the north-east are worrying. As you would expect, unemployment has risen, property sales are down, business start-ups have fallen, while in Scotland as a whole, they are actually increasing. Hotels have seen their yield per room fall by 42 per cent due to lower occupancy rates. Again, that is at a time when there are increases elsewhere. I will give way to the minister. Paul Wheelhouse, to Jackie Baillie for giving way. I just wanted to highlight that I do not decryde the scale of the challenge that we face, but I would just ask Jackie Baillie to reflect on the use of the 120,000, which is a UK-wide figure. It is not entirely—the numbers are not affecting Scotland to that extent. We can argue about whether it is 10,000, 20,000, 30,000. I think that the minister would do well to recognise the scale of the challenge. Let me acknowledge the very positive work of Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council in its efforts to support the industry and protect jobs. I also recognise the considerable efforts of Sir Ian Wood firstly in identifying what needed to change in the wood review and who has chaired, I think that it is called the north-east one group, to do everything possible to minimise the effects of the oil crisis on the industry and the local economy. Likewise, I welcome the work of the Scottish Government and, in particular, the energy task force under the stewardship of Lena Wilson of Scottish Enterprise. However, with the scale of the challenge that we face, I believe that we have a responsibility to do much, much more and to do so urgently. We have set out Labour's proposals, I hope, that some, if not all of them, will find favour with the chamber, but I am sure that there will be other suggestions that merit support. I am also conscious that some of the actions must rest with the UK Government, where they involve reserved matters such as taxation. That is not and should never be an excuse for us doing nothing. Let us use the powers that we have. Let us strain every senior to support the industry and protect jobs. Let us be honest, the industry itself equally has a responsibility to do more. In the short term, we support the calls from trade unions for an industry summit involving operators, regulators, Government at all levels and the trade unions themselves. We have made no secret that we want the Scottish Government to publish an updated oil and gas bulletin, because we need to assess the impact on the Scottish economy and, importantly, make sure that the focus is on jobs. There should be an immediate review of the Scottish Government's £12 million transition training fund to ensure that it is working effectively. Recent reports show that only 91 people had received assistance, but I see that figure being updated by the Cabinet Secretary to 100. My understanding is that one of the criteria is that someone needs to have secured another job first before they are eligible for the fund. If that is the case, I am not surprised that numbers are small. Although I welcomed John Swinney's announcement yesterday that that can be used to train teachers, we are talking about 20 vacant teaching posts, which will not, in and of itself, make a dent in the scale of the jobs that are lost. We believe that we need the energy task force to have a much sharper focus too. The Cabinet Secretary's amendment talks about the task force having helped 8,800 people and 100 companies. In a PQ that was answered yesterday, just one hour earlier than his amendment was lodged, he said that he would help 2,500 people and 100 companies. That is a significant improvement in work rate in the space of an hour, which I commend, but irrespective of which figure is right, the really important thing that is missing, irrespective of the number, is that we should not simply focus on inputs, but rather we need to know about outcomes. How many jobs have been saved? Not the number of people that you have seen, but how many jobs have been saved? How many people have the task force helped to find and sustain other employment? Those are the things that we should be measuring. Much harder to do, yes, absolutely, but those are the challenges that we should set ourselves. Look, we are faced with a potential loss of 120,000 jobs by the end of this year, and we are not even beginning to touch 10 per cent of that, never mind to help people to actually get other jobs. Let me touch briefly—I have given way loads of times and I am running out of time—let me touch briefly on some of the medium-term actions. The SNP favoured the creation of regional economic forums. We agree. Let us have one in the north-east involving trade unions, civic society as well as public and commercial interests. We have previously called for the creation of a new public body, UK oil, to help the industry with public investment in strategic infrastructure. I would hope that the Scottish Government and other parties in the Parliament join us in lobbying the UK Government for that. We need a plan for the export market, because the skills that are built up in the sector are indeed world-class and should lend themselves to new areas of exploration. Therefore, I welcome the recent Scottish Enterprise-led trip to Burma to do exactly that. I know that others in the chamber would urge us to make the transition to a low-carbon economy and move away from an over-reliance on fossil fuels. However, in the short to medium term, we need to work to secure jobs in the North Sea. However, we need a plan for transferable jobs and skills. Technology and skills transfer into other sub-sea offshore technologies, like renewable energy, requires planning and co-ordination. We think that the Scottish Government should lead in that. In the medium to long term, we support investment in decommissioning. I know that the key question is one of timing. We do not want to decommission too early, as that could be detrimental to the industry, but we should not let the opportunity pass us by. In coming to a close, this week has seen a flurry of statistics and warnings from respected economists and commentators about the state of the Scottish economy. We were a hares breath away from recession last year. It might be unavoidable this year, but please, I implore the Scottish Government, do not bury your heads in the sand. Everything is not okay. We need, quite clearly, intervention by the Government. The Fraser of Allander Institute said quite clearly that it is not new strategies that the Scottish economy needs, but clear insights and policy action. I urge all parties in this chamber to come together to take urgent action on the economy and on oil and gas. I move the motion in my name. I call on Paul Wheelhouse to open for the Government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the opportunity to update Parliament on the measures that this Government is taking to promote sustainable economic growth and to ensure that all communities in Scotland can benefit from the proceeds of this growth. The Scottish economy has been resilient over the past 12 months, despite challenging conditions. GDP grew by 1.9 per cent last year, in line with our long-term average, while wages grew at their fastest rate in real terms since before the financial crisis. Today's labour market statistics show that overall unemployment largely unchanged, actually down 4,000 on this time last year. Ernst and Young's survey and foreign direct investment also indicated that 2015 was a record year for Scotland. 119 investment projects were secured last year, more than any other part of the UK outside of London, helping to secure over 5,300 jobs across the country. The survey also highlighted that the Scottish economy has been resilient in managing to whether the oil and gas price volatility storm whilst also being able to flourish in other sectors. This month, both the Ernst and Young item club and the Fraser Valander Institute forecast that the Scottish economy will continue growing this year and next, despite the challenging economic climate that we face. However, if I may develop my points further, I will bring in Mr MacDonald. However, the report also noted that the economy faces significant external economic headwinds, in particular, following all oil prices that have presented significant challenges for the oil and gas sector. That was confirmed by the employment analysis that was published last week by Oil and Gas UK. I heard first hand the challenges that were faced by the sector earlier this month when the cabinet secretary and I met industry leaders in Aberdeen to discuss what more can be done to support the sector. The Scottish Government is working closely with the industry, the workforce, trade unions and the UK Government to secure a long-term future for the sector. In February, we established, as Jackie Baillie mentioned, a £12 million transition training fund to support individuals and to help the sector to retain talent. At the same time, the Scottish Enterprise allocated a further £12.5 million for oil and gas innovation and further business support. Just to clarify something that Jackie Baillie referred to in her opening remarks, the criteria have changed and there has been more flexibility given in terms of the need to find a permanent job before attaining the fund. Also, we have seen, since the cabinet secretary and I visited a significant change and increase, so it is dynamic. It is always growing the number of applications that I will bring in Mr MacDonald. The minister has mentioned a couple of times the estimates of jobs lost across the UK that were produced by Oil and Gas UK last week. Can he tell us, as the minister was responsible in this area, what is the Government's estimate of the number of jobs lost in Scotland as a result of the oil price downturn? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will get Mr MacDonald a more definitive figure, but I believe that it is in the region of 50,000, just slightly over 50,000, that I have been fell in Scotland. That is clearly a very significant number. I am not in any way dismissing the scale of the challenge, but I just wanted to bring to attention of Ms Baillie that 120,000 is a UK-wide figure, not a Scotland-specific figure. The energy jobs task force also continues to provide valuable support. It has engaged with approximately 8,800 individuals and over 100 employers to better help those affected to move forward into new employment, new ventures, training or education. The north-east is facing particular challenges. I acknowledge that. That is why, on top of the £125 million that we contributed to the Aberdeen city region deal, we have announced a further £254 million of support in key infrastructure to secure Aberdeen's position as one of the world's leading cities for business and industry, taking the Scottish Government total to £379 million compared to £125 million from the UK Government. The Scottish Government has taken decisive steps to support the sector and the economy of north-east Scotland. We are also pressing the UK Government to take further action to support the industry. It is crucial to incentivise investment and exploration to support what remains a vital and significant employer across Scotland and the UK, and we will continue to engage constructively with the UK Government to take the action that is needed to protect jobs. The Scottish Government is also continuing to seek to diversify the energy sector. Earlier today, I am pleased to say that I attended a multimillion-pound contract being signed between Global Energy Group and Siemens, which will enable Nigg Energy Park in Rosher to develop into a genuine multi-energy site, securing around 100 direct and indirect jobs and associated supply chain opportunities. That contract is an important milestone for the port of Nigg, which has received more than £45 million in investment since 2011 and is now well on its way to being recognised as one of Scotland's key energy ports. Our labour market has continued to grow in recent years. There are now nearly 2.6 million people in employment in Scotland close to a record high and an increase of over 140,000 since 2010. However, the labour market statistics released today illustrate that we cannot be complacent. I agree with Jackie Baillie on that and that Scotland continues to face economic headwinds. That is why one of our first actions in this Parliament will be publication of a new labour market strategy to ensure that everyone in Scotland has the skills and opportunities to gain well-paid and secure employment. We delivered more than 25,000 modern apprenticeships last year and are committed to providing 30,000 a year by 2020, helping to ensure that our young people have the skills and training that they need to get into work, with 92 per cent of modern apprenticeships completing an apprenticeship still in work six months later. We will now work with schools to inspire more young people into science, technology, engineering and mathematics to ensure that they have the skills necessary to compete in the labour market. We are ensuring that those who are made unemployed get access to the training to help them back into employment. Such pre-employment skills training is essential both for those nearest to the labour market and those who face barriers to employment. Over 50,000 training places have already been delivered through the employability fund since its launch and a further 11,650 training places will be provided this year. Once we have the powers, we will introduce a jobs grant to help young people aged 16 to 24 who have been unemployed for six months or more back into work. We are also continuing to encourage fair work and progressive workplace practices through the business pledge, promotion of the living wage and the fair work convention, measures that not only protect workers' wellbeing but can also help to improve productivity. A strong and vibrant economy is fundamental to increasing prosperity and reducing inequality, and that is why increasing the competitiveness of Scotland's economy has been an essential feature of our economic strategies since 2007. We have seen real progress. Since 2007, Scotland's productivity has grown faster than the UK as a whole. Our business base has grown with the number of registered businesses in Scotland at an all-time high, and we are attracting a record number of foreign investment projects in Scotland, so there is much to be positive about. However, we recognise that more needs to be done. That is why we are investing in our transport infrastructure, including the Queen's Free Crossing, the Aberdeen Western peripheral route, the A9 dualling, the MA extension, I am pleased to say the border's railway in recent times, and the Glasgow Tenenborough rail improvement programme. Crucially, in the digital infrastructure that our economy needs to support future productivity growth, we are supporting investment in our cities. We have committed to investing £500 million over 20 years in the Glasgow city region deal. A deal that local leaders believe is capable of delivering 29,000 jobs across the region and attracting more than £3.3 billion in private investment. We are encouraging a culture of innovation in Scotland through our network of innovation centres, our proposals for an annual innovation prize and the innovation pilot that is being taken forward by the CanDo innovation forum, which both the cabinet secretary and I attended last week, and we will continue to encourage Scottish firms to internationalise building on the good work done by SDI in recent years. That will be supported by our end-to-end review of our enterprise development and skills agencies, led by the cabinet secretary, which will ensure that they are well placed to deliver our shared ambitions on Scotland's productivity performance. This morning, the cabinet secretary published the terms of reference for the review in response to Jackie Baillie's parliamentary question on the remit of the review. The review and recommendations will focus on three main aims, achieving the Scottish Government's ambitions, a set-out in the Scottish economic strategy and national performance framework, ensuring our economic and skills intervention are shaped by users' needs and ensuring that delivery continuously reflects best practice. It is therefore important that we enter the review with an open mind to study the evidence and listen to users to focus on improved outcomes throughout and not to seek to pre-empt outcomes in any way. In closing, growing our economy in a sustainable way is vital in increasing living standards, tackling inequality and providing the funding that is required to invest in world-class public services. That Government will ensure that growing the economy and promoting inclusive growth will remain central to everything that we do, so we create a productive, competitive economy that supports sustainable, good-quality employment for those who live and work here. Through our continued focus on inclusive growth, investment, innovation and internationalisation, we will secure a strong resilient economy for all in Scotland. I move the amendment in the name of the cabinet secretary. I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to debate the future of the Scottish economy. One area in which the Labour Party is right is to identify some of the concerns that currently face the economy in Scotland. Only two weeks ago in the chamber, I highlighted some of our concerns, pointing to recent data showing how certain sectors were struggling. What is perhaps most concerning is the growing economic gap between our performance in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. As Jackie Baillie pointed out, we have today new economic data, with the employment rate in Scotland and now down below the UK average, and a warning—a start warning from the Fraser of Allander Institute, a well-respected economic body that Scotland's economy is flirting with recession. We heard on Monday that new output figures for the Scottish construction industry show that activity in the private industrial sector fell over the 12 months to March 2016, to its lowest level since 1988. The Scottish Building Federation and the Scottish Property Federation, in response, highlighted that the Scottish Government's changes to empty property rates relief for industrial property as a potential cause of the slump in output. Last year, the Scottish Conservatives warned that the changes that would bring empty industrial property within the remit of business rates for the first time would lead to a shrinkage in the supply of commercial and industrial premises available for let and halt the construction of speculative developments. It appears that those fears are already being realised. What that illustrates is how the policies of the Scottish Government can have a detrimental impact on the opportunity for Scottish economic growth and Scotland's economic performance. I highlight once again that Scotland's relative performance in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom is going backwards rather than forwards. Today's motion from Labour concentrates on the oil and gas industry and draws attention to the well-understood decline in production and jobs as a result of the fall in the oil price. I find very little in the Labour motion today with which I can disagree. It is, however, fair to say that it is not all bad news within the sector and I have some sympathy with the comments that the minister made in his opening remarks. Last week, the Bank of Scotland published the latest in its research series into oil and gas. Although the report does conclude that last year has been an exceptionally challenging one for the industry, there was some optimism in the longer term. Interestingly, many smaller firms were adapting better to changing economic situations than larger firms. A quarter of the overall firm surveyed told the bank that it had actually grown in employment numbers throughout the downturn. To highlight just one example, Merlin ERD is based in my constituency in Perth, and I have been one of the success stories in oil and gas as an award-winning drilling energy consultancy. Only yesterday, Merlin ERD announced that it had recruited four new members of staff to its team and that it has recently appointed a recruitment manager, which, at a time of so many redundancies in the sector, is certainly a vote of confidence in the future. Under the stewardship of managing director Ian Hutchison, Merlin ERD has now won the Queen's award for enterprise for international trade for two years in a row. That is good news for the company, good news for Perth and the local economy and an encouragement to the oil and gas industry more generally. Our amendment to the motion this afternoon highlights two areas in particular. The first relates to the changes that were announced in the 2016 budget by the UK Government for the fiscal arrangements for oil and gas. Those included the effective abolition of petroleum revenue tax, the reduction in the supplementary charge from 20 per cent to 10 per cent, an additional £20 million of funding for a second round of seismic surveys in 2016-17, an extension to the investment and cluster area allowances and a range of other initiatives. Those are physical changes that have been warmly welcomed by the industry. I can only imagine that the warmly welcomed support for the oil and gas sector somehow slipped Jackie Baillie's normally very generous mind when she was drafting her motion for this afternoon. I just wanted to correct that by putting it in our amendment for this afternoon's debate. I thank Mundo Fraser for giving away one thing of which I think he admitted in that list was the commitment given at the budget to consider loan guarantees. My discussions with industry players is the preeminent ask that they have, vitally important that they safeguard the infrastructure that is there. Would he join with me in the call that I made to Greg Hans, the chief secretary to the treasury, to say that there needs to be a real pace, this cannot wait two or three years, this has happened very quickly? No, my colleague Alexander Burnett will say some more about this when he is winding up. We did, with a number of colleagues, meet the chancellor last week and we discussed some of those issues. The treasury is very much aware that progress needs to be made. However, as I think the cabinet secretary has done elsewhere, the treasury has been dragging its feet. It is simply not a true characterisation of what has actually been happening. I expect that we will see some announcements very shortly. I will just quote something that we heard yesterday from Stephen Halliday, who is group president at the leading industry analyst, Wood McKenzie, who said that the United Kingdom now has one of the best and simplest tax systems in the world for the sector. In the world, cabinet secretary, so I think that we should combine in praising that. The second part of our amendment relates to one of the findings in the Bank of Scotland report, which I referred to in the chamber last week. When it comes to opportunities from diversification, 52 per cent of large companies have an interest in onshore shale gas. In doubtedly, as we have argued in the chamber many times before, there are substantial opportunities to utilise the skills base in the oil and gas sector to develop a new industry and create thousands of jobs in onshore oil and gas. However, sadly, those opportunities will not currently be found in Scotland due to the Scottish Government's moratorium. It has taken a deliberate policy position that it is holding back opportunities for diversification and holding back the sector. If the Scottish Government wants to be taken seriously on its support for oil and gas, it does need to think again on this issue and it needs to listen to the science. As I pointed out in the chamber last week, its own expert scientific report concluded that the technology exists to allow the safe extraction of such reserves subject to robust regulation being in place. We have had that report for nearly two years, Deputy Presiding Officer. I need to start acting upon it. Not, I have to say, that Labour are any better. I mentioned earlier that the Labour position when it comes to fossil fuels seems to be hopelessly confused, as Ineos pointed out in her letter to the party yesterday. Ineos state that Labour's stance on fracking implies that Scottish Labour is now against fossil fuel development in general and it implies that it is also opposed to further North Sea oil developments. Flying in the face of everything that we have heard from Jackie Baillie already this afternoon, Labour really needs to make up their minds whether they are in favour of fossil fuels, as Jackie Baillie seems to be, or against, as Claudia Beamish seems to be. Members actually passed these last minutes. Let me just close if I can, Deputy Presiding Officer, because it is not just me who thinks that the Labour Party has lost the plot, because only at the weekend, Gary Smith, Scottish Secretary of the GMB, said of Scottish Labour, that it is a party that is arrogant, does not consult with us and is completely out of touch with the concerns of many of our members. On to say is a party that seems intent on self-harming, a party that lacks discipline and a party fundamentally that does not know what it stands for. Condemned by its own comrades, Deputy Presiding Officer, I have a pleasure in moving amendment in my name. Can I remind members who have not pressed the request to speak buttons to do so now? I will call Ivan McKee to be followed by Finlay Carson. That will be Finlay Carson's first speech. Mr McKee, six minutes for their abouts, please. Their abouts means less, not more. Of course. Thank you, Presiding Officer. A key measure of the strength of business is how it responds in times of adversity, and the same is true of an economy, when global headwinds gusts, the resilient get results. Governments work with industry building on the inherent strengths of a diverse economy, taking advantage of opportunities and positioning itself for cyclical upturn. Recent years have seen challenging times for Scotland's oil and gas sector, to an impact of a dramatic fall in the price of oil driven by global political events outside the control of anyone in this chamber and the inability of the UK Government to understand never mind work with the sector to ensure that its long-term contribution to the Scottish economy is maximised. However, recent hopeful signs that this is beginning to be understood, even the highest levels in Westminster, as the next ex-prime minister of the UK, clearly stated on Sunday in the context of a different referendum, explaining why Norwe was so wealthy. He said, well, they have as much oil as we do and they've only got five million people. While Mr Cameron has got something else too, he's got a Government that has control of their own natural resources and knows how best to manage them for the long-term success of the sector and their national economy. Scotland's oil and gas industry is one of the many sectors that underpins the Scottish economy, but it's not by a long way our only sector, and it's not the one that I'm primarily going to focus on today. The record of the Scottish Government in working with and supporting the offshore sector or protecting its skills base will be more than adequately covered by my north-east colleagues Gillian Martin and Stuart Stevenson. What I'm going to talk today about, Presiding Officer, is attractiveness. How economies attract international business in an increasingly interconnected world. My own experience is making big decisions over many years on where businesses should invest has helped me to understand attractiveness, and Ernst and Young understand it too. The EUI attractiveness survey shows Scotland attracting more foreign direct investment projects than any part of the UK outside London last year, a 50 per cent increase on the previous year. The survey stated that Scotland has been resilient in managing to weather the oil and gas price volatility storm while also being able to flourish in other sectors. Let's have a look at some of those other sectors. The survey highlights business services, software, scientific research and food sectors offering strength and diversity for Scotland. Our food and drink sector, heritage and global brand recognition of our whisky industry, together with premium quality food brands that Scotland is recognised for going from strength to strength. Business services, a sector that I am familiar with, exporting Scottish expertise, generating income for the Scottish economy. Scientific research, underpinned by a great university sector and R&D performance, something that I shall talk about more later on. In Scottish manufacturing, described in the EUI item club update, it has been set to match or outperform its UK counterpart. The truth is that the EUI survey clearly states that Scotland's economy has proven resilient in the face of considerable challenges. That has not happened by accident. The Scottish Government is not just talking the talk, it is most definitely walking the walk. With a clear focus on internationalisation, a global Scotland trading investment strategy, a 36 per cent increase in the value of exports since 2007, a trebling of the number of export advisers, new investment hubs in London and Brussels to go with the one in Dublin, an SNP Government encouraging a culture of innovation through a network of innovation centres, the innovation prize and the work that it can do innovation forum. The sectoral manufacturing action plans working with industry to drive continuous improvement and identify growth opportunities. On a strong performance in research and development, again quoting from the EUI survey, equally poised of a Scotland's skill base is its impressive showing in R&D projects. A 44 per cent increase in real terms R&D expenditure between 2007 and 2014 compared to a 10 per cent increase in the UK over the same period. Higher education R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP highest in the UK and fourth highest in the OECD. Not just R&D, let's look at investment in infrastructure, £5 billion investment in rail improvements, £3.6 billion upgrading water in storage infrastructure, £1.4 billion upgrading the road network, £3 billion to build 50,000 more affordable homes and £400 million to deliver 100 per cent super-past broadband across the country. The SNP Government investing in businesses expanding the small business bonus scheme and lifting it at 100,000 businesses out of rates completely and investing in people increasing the number of modern apprenticeships from 15,000 to 25,000 and then to 30,000. Introducing the jobs grant to support young people and to work almost doubling the level of free childcare to 1,140 hours. Above all, the SNP Government understands that by investing in our people we can move Scotland's economy forward to realise more of its potential, focusing on building on the resilient base of our strong and varied economic sectors to take greater advantage of future opportunities. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's an enormous privilege to be delivering my maiden speech in the chamber today. As a customary on occasions like this, I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, the right honourable Alec Ferguson. First, I am sure that the whole chamber would like to join with me in congratulating him on receiving a knighthood in the Queen's Birthday honours list. Alec was first elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 and has served with distinction for 17 years, most recently as the MSP for Galloway and West Dumfries. Four of those years were spent as the Presiding Officer of this Parliament and Alec was immensely proud when his fellow MSPs elected him into that role. I wish Alec and Myrran a long and happy retirement. Presiding Officer, can we know greater honour for a Galloway Indian than to be given the opportunity to represent the place that I call home, the place where I've lived and worked all my life? I'd like to thank the voters of Galloway and West Dumfries who placed their trust in me and gave me this opportunity. As one of the last, if not the last, new-bie MSPs, I can have the last word and tell you that my constituency is the most beautiful of all. Galloway and the Solway coast is often referred to as the Scottish Riviera and stretches from Scotland's most southernly point in the Mull of Galloway to the winding Ritherniff in the east. It's as big as it is diverse. In the heart of the constituency lies Britain's largest forest park, offering spectacular views and encompassing the UK's first dark sky project, where the inky black skies allow you to explore a world far beyond our own. The Solway coast, a designated area of outstanding natural beauty, with rugged coastline, sandy beaches and hidden coves. If there was ever an area of Scotland crying out for national park status, this is it. Land o darkly rolling D, land of silvery winding Cree, kissed by Solway's foamy sea, Bonnie Galloway. Bonnie Galloway is something for everyone, whether it be Loc Ryan, the home of the only wild native oyster beds left in the UK, and I'm looking forward to supporting the first oyster festival, or lagging outdoor boasting one of Europe's longest zip wires, or a visit to one of the many historic Abbey's castles across the region. You're sure to be in awe of the natural beauty, hidden gems and historical importance of this great but often forgotten corner of Scotland. Apart from many of the many rural communities like my home village of Twinum, my constituency can boast to being home to Scotland's national book town in Wigtown and our artist's town in Cacubrie, which will hopefully soon have an art gallery of national significance, which will contain our Viking Horde, which is of international importance. Our small independent retailers in Castle Douglas punch well above their weight and buck the trend when it comes to high street decline, promoting the vibrant food and drink industry that exists in Dumfries and Galloway. I must also mention that Castle Douglas will soon host the Tour of Britain for the third time, a record only surpassed by London. Presiding Officer, let me turn to the debate in hand. As we've heard today, the Scottish economy still faces a large number of challenges, and Galloway, the backbone of our economy, is the small and medium-sized businesses. Their social impact to the wellbeing of local communities must never be underplayed. Those businesses require a different level and a different kind of support, not a one-size-fits-all approach. That's why the Scottish Conservatives have called for a south of Scotland enterprise company similar informed to the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which is a social as well as an economic remit. Such organisations would work with business, third sector organisations and local communities to identify the many problems that are unique to the south of Scotland and come up with tailored solutions to help drive the economy forward. Supporting existing businesses, upskilling our workforce, creating new jobs and improving the people's way of life. That is something that should be welcomed across the political spectrum, and I encourage the Scottish Government to look at that seriously. As with all issues raised with me, internet connectivity is currently the most pressing and most important for businesses to thrive and need to have access to high-speed broadband and a reliable mobile phone network. In 2016, it's simply unacceptable that some communities in Galloway still don't have a mobile phone signal and experience only limited access to low speed broadband, never mind high speed. On to transport. Given its strategic importance, I still question why the A75, a vital euro route linking Northern Ireland to the east of UK, has still not been dualled. Although some progress has been made, it's imperative that the next step includes a bypass for spring home and Crockettford. Let me turn to Srinrar. Only last week, a number of constituents were made redundant, maybe not significant on a national basis but very significant on a rural basis. The traditional training fund mentioned previously gives employees in the oil and gas sector the opportunity to retrain as teachers with employment guarantees. I call on the Scottish Government to offer my constituents the same level of assistance through tailored targeted support. Such schemes should not be limited to one sector or one region. I call for an enterprise zone for Srinrar with preferential business rates, accelerated planning and processes to pump prime and kickstart a town with huge potential. Since the relocation of ferry services from Srinrar to Cairnryan in 2011, the town has been crying out for support for this Government and has too often been let down. During the election, the Deputy First Minister visited and pledged £6 million for the regeneration of the East Pier. I trust that those are not empty words. I hope that we will see the benefit of this money in the very near future. Presiding Officer, the problem in Dumfries and Galloway are not unique but they are compounded by the realities of living and working in a rural region of Scotland. I am ambitious for the people of Galloway and West Dumfries, because we, Gallowayans, always are. However, we need the support that we deserve to turn those ambitions into reality. I must reprimand you for failing to mention Old Mini Gaff, where I once lived, with the river Cree at the bottom of my garden, so I have put it on the record for you. I now call Gillian Martin to be followed by Lewis MacDonald, Ms Martin. As the member for Aberdeenshire East, it is no surprise that I would like to talk about the challenges facing the economy in the north-east of Scotland. It is often the oil and gas service industries that, keenly and most immediately, feel the effects of many activity in oil and gas exploration and production sector, which we all know has been recently adversely affected by the geopolitical situation that has meant a reduction in the global oil price. Of course, the hospitality sector is also similarly affected. I welcome the investment that the Scottish Government has put into the city region deal and the additional £254 million to be invested in the north-east infrastructure. I also welcome the minister's statements today and the visits that he and Keith Brown have already made to Aberdeenshire East so soon into their tenure. Further evidence of the Scottish Government prioritising support to my area. Of course, what would make the biggest impact on the oil and gas sector is something that is outwith the Scottish Government's control and that is the adjustment to the tax system. I recognise some of the improvements that were made in the recent UK budget, but more needs to be done. In particular, action on removing the fiscal barriers for enhanced oil recovery would greatly assist oil and gas production companies investing in the North Sea and, in particular, the North Atlantic area west of Shetland. Additionally, there is a disparity between the tax rebate rates for onshore oil and gas recovery versus offshore rates, a difference of around 12.5 per cent. That does not make sense and should be, I think, revised immediately. I also point to my Westminster colleague Kelly McKayg's call for action on loan guarantees, as has been mentioned already today, for the oil and gas sector. That access to loans will boost innovation. Given that oil and gas has historically been a huge contributor to the UK Treasury, it is only right that the industry gets its assistance in a time of need in order to maintain it for the future. I urge the Conservative members to use whatever influence they have on their Westminster counterparts to take urgent action on this and get those guarantees in place as soon as possible. What is clear is that the North East must diversify as we look to the future, and that is why it has been utterly disappointing that the focus on the North East, which has been a centre for innovation in renewable energy, has had the rug pulled under it by wind-formed subsidies being removed from the UK Government, which is also having an impact on the many farmers who have invested in wind turbines, some of which are in this chamber. The job-loss figures cited in the motion are troubling, but someone that I brought up in the North East, whose family, friends and neighbours are involved in the industry, I know many have been directly affected. It is a worrying time for many who have had relative employment security for many years, but I am heartened by how many people I know who have lost their jobs and who have turned their situation around. Mae figures confirm that my constituency of Aberdeinshire has still 84.8 per cent employment, which is the third highest in Scotland behind Shetland and Orkney. That confirms what I already know about the people in the North East, which is that they are adaptable and resilient. I want to give you some local examples from my constituency. Neil Bailey was told on his 50th birthday by Hallie Burton after 25 years of service that his job was no longer there for him. Initially devastated, as you would expect, Neil quickly decided to turn us into an opportunity for a career change that he has always had in the back of his mind. He is now a support worker for adults with learning disabilities at Inspire and Inverory. There is Drew Bremner, a consultant whose phone just stopped ringing after years of constant work offers. Drew got together with his friend Lee, who had also just been made redundant from an oil and gas production company, and the two of them are set to open their drone survey business this month. The phone has already been ringing. Traditionally, the North East labour market has been tight. We have, and we still have, issues recruiting public sector workers as a result of the North East being a particularly high-wage economy for the last 40 years. I am encouraged that so many people in oil and gas are recognising that they have transferable skills and that they will be a huge asset to our public sector. In addition, their infrastructure investment is also providing jobs, and I point to the AWPR project, which is also recruiting from those affected by job losses in the oil and gas. A low oil price is not new to us. This year has been particularly difficult, making no mistake, but we have bounced back before. In the mid-to-late 90s, the industry was facing a price of $14 a barrel, and the industry has good form in adapting to cope with the highs and lows. Back then, large assets were sold by the oil and gas majors to smaller companies with smaller overheads, and personnel moved and upskilled and diversified. One thing that a lot of people do not realise is that a very large proportion of livelihoods in oil and gas is a result of contract work, and those working in the sector are very used to coming to the end of the life of one project and then moving on to another. However, we must ensure that we do not lose the skilled workforce if they move elsewhere for work. There are still huge opportunities in oil and gas, and I point to the Lagan-Tormor operation in the west of Shetland as an example of that. We are already prioritising how we can ensure that the sector retains its world-class workforce, supporting high-quality training and enabling redeployment and reskilling, but also, and most crucially, harnessing those skills for other areas that will lead to a more diverse economy in the area to take us into the future. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. As Jackie Baillie said in introducing this debate, the latest estimate of job losses that was published last week by Oil and Gas UK is that 120,000 jobs will be lost by the end of the year. As the minister has confirmed, over 50,000 of those lost jobs are here in Scotland, and many, of course, of those are in the north-east, as Gillian Martin and others have said. Many indeed people I know well. Last month's oil and gas survey from Aberdeen and Grant in chamber of commerce found that staff jobs in oil companies had fallen by 15 per cent over the previous year, and that a further 17 per cent cut is predicted for the following 12 months. Each of those percentage points represents hundreds of jobs in and around Aberdeen, as well as jobs offshore and further afield. The scale of future job losses is borne out by the Bank of Scotland research, which was cited by Murdo Fraser. That reports that nearly two-thirds of Scottish firms in the oil and gas sector have made workers redundant in the last year, and that one-third expect to make more people redundant in the next year. Although it is true that some companies have done relatively well, it is important to note that, for every one job that was created last year, a further six jobs were lost. The same report showed that 22 per cent of employers were predicting that they were going to take on employees this year as well. That is absolutely right. It is important to get balance. I think that the point that I have made retrospectively from those figures is that six times as many jobs have gone as has been created, I fear, might be reflected in what happens in the next few months. That, of course, is not simply a matter over which we have no control. It is a matter where the Government can make a difference. However, there is no consensus around the suggestion in the Government's amendment that things will look up as the negative impact of the oil price fades in 2017. For example, when the Bank of Scotland asked operators and contractors when they expected the price of Brent crude to recover to $75 to a level at which they could make profit, most companies said not before 2018, and most of the large companies that operate globally said 2020 or beyond. Lower for longer is the watchword of the oil and gas industry today. Industry is seeking to adapt to that. The workforce is deeply affected by that. It is critical that the Government takes that on board as well. The last thing that the north-east needs is complacency from the Government at any level. The first thing that we need here is for the Scottish Government to acknowledge the scale of the challenge and the responsibility for the stewardship of the Scottish economy that lies here with the Scottish ministers. I am glad that we heard today that, for the first time, a minister acknowledged that tens of thousands of jobs have been lost as a consequence of the oil price downturn. I hope that that is a sign of a change attack from the Scottish Government, and if so, it is to be welcomed. Of course, it is not only oil jobs that have been lost in the north-east or even jobs in the service industries that depend indirectly on the price of oil. Hundreds of fish processing jobs have also been lost in recent months, with a very substantial downscaling of the young seafood factory in Fraserborough, and now nearly 100 jobs are set to go after Muller Wiseman confirmed that they will close their dairy atullas in Aberdeen, a decision that also has serious implications for dairy farmers in the north-east. Both of those companies will argue that they are creating other jobs elsewhere, but more fish filleters in Grimsby or a dairy expanding in Bellshill will not compensate for the loss of jobs in north-east Scotland nor will Sainsbury's buying salmon from marine harvest in Rossife. The challenge for north-east Scotland is the same whether we are talking about employment in the energy industries, in the food and drink sector or indeed in the public sector. It is how to secure and sustain investment, jobs and growth within the region, despite being seen as remote from the largest markets and from the centres of political power. We need government at every level to meet that challenge by recognising just how serious it is and by making the policy decisions that will deliver public investment and attract private investment to the region. I welcome Aberdeen City Council's decision to call a second oil summit at the end of this month. Last year's summit allowed progress to be made towards an Aberdeen City region deal. Modest though that was, the city deal has at least acknowledged on the part of both the Scottish and UK Governments that investment in the infrastructure of the north-east is in the public interest and that public investment can help to secure private investment in the future. I hope that ministers from both Governments will be in Aberdeen on the 30th of June to consider what more they can do to bring investment into the city and region to secure future jobs. Holding jobs fairs for those who have been made redundant has happened as important but, on its own, it is not enough. We need Scottish Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland to act with the urgency and the vigor that the situation demands, and we need Scottish Government to provide the resources that match the scale of the challenge. A £12 million fund, which is open only to workers who already have a new employer to sponsor them, does not go nearly far enough. I look forward to hearing more about the increased flexibility that the minister promised earlier this afternoon. Supporting up to 20 redundant oil workers to retrain us teachers is also welcome but is also not enough, given the scale of both teacher shortages and oil and gas redundancies in the north-east. Ultimately, we need ministers to recognise that it is their job to enable service companies in the Scottish supply chain to diversify into renewable energy to compete for decommissioning work whenever that arises and to protect jobs, because future jobs and growth matter to all of Scotland and they are under real threat today. I hope that all parties will respond to that by getting behind the Labour motion later this afternoon. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I am grateful that the opportunity to contribute to that debate began by making some general comments about the state of the Scottish economy. I would like to respond to those before coming on to the specific agenda facing oil and gas. Jackie Baillie made the case that a strong economy and a strong society are two sides of the same coin. We cannot have one without the other, she said. I would agree that there is a deep connection between a strong economy and a strong society, but it is a more complex one than Jackie Baillie suggests. It is entirely possible to have a strong economy without a strong society because we have been there already. We know that to be true. There have been long periods of sustained strong economic growth that have continued to see growing social inequality. Measuring the health of our economy in GDP terms alone makes it very clear that we can see periods of sustained GDP growth and rising inequality. That has been part of the criticism of green economics for decades. It is a criticism that many economists around the world take to heart. They acknowledge that GDP has been placed on an economic pedestal that was never designed to occupy and that whether or not we believe that GDP growth on the planet of finite resources that we inhabit can last forever, it is clearly inadequate to the task of measuring a strong, secure, sustainable and lasting economy, one that underpends the strong society that I believe most of us want to see built. If we want to see a fuller picture, a more balanced and nuanced picture of the health of the Scottish economy, I urge the Scottish Government to continue to develop the national performance framework from its starting point into what I think could become a stronger replacement, a more diverse replacement, a more broad set of economic indicators. At present, it still has GDP at the pinnacle of the framework, a place that it does not deserve to occupy, a simplistic metric that distracts us from the wider aspects of whether we have in fact a healthy economy supporting a strong society. There are reasons why greens will be unable, I am afraid, to support either the motion or any of the amendments tonight. We did offer our own amendments, sadly not selected for debate, but I would like to refer to the question that Murdo Fraser put to Jackie Baillie. It is uncharacteristically fair question, I thought, from Murdo Fraser about the tension that exists between the two aspects of Labour's fossil fuel policy. Jackie Baillie said that we want to see a move toward a low-carbon economy. Within just a few seconds, oil and gas are important to the Scottish economy. Both of those statements in isolation might well be true, but I hope that, if I can put it mildly, Jackie Baillie might at least agree that there is a difficult tension between the two arguments, one that I think none of the motion or any of the amendments adequately captures. There are three aspects to the transition that is required. Firstly, we are too dependent as an economy on the operation of oil and gas extraction and the jobs that are dependent on that activity. Secondly, we are too dependent on the consumption, not just of fossil fuels, of hydrocarbon as fuels but as other aspects of our industrial reliance upon them. The derivatives are in pretty much every aspect of our daily lives. Thirdly, we are too overexposed to an industry that is profoundly overvalued. It is valued as though all its reserves will be turned into economic value. It is an overexposed industry and it is in fact a bubble. Unless we address all three of these, we will not have a transition plan worthy of the phrase. Mike Rumbles notes the comments that the member has just made about the North Sea industry, but he has not mentioned it. Does he have any comments to make about the 50,000 people throughout Scotland who have lost their jobs based on the North East? That is what we do. I am surprised that the member does not know that we have been producing work from the Scottish Greens for well over a year on the specific measures that can be taken in the short term to support people who are directly affected. Jackie Baillie was right to set out the immediate impact on many of the people who are already being directly affected, but in the face of that reality, surely the least responsible course of action is to keep kidding ourselves on that business as usual will just bounce back, throw them another tax break and everything will be fine. Everything will not be fine with that agenda. Jackie Baillie's motion ends by calling on us all to support the industry over the short, medium and long term. That is the central challenge. That is the tension that is there in the labour motion but not acknowledged explicitly. The challenge of supporting the people directly affected by the short-term impact on the industry has to be done in the context of acknowledging that that industry is not a long-term proposition. Unless we address all three of those aspects, our reliance on the jobs coming from extraction, our overexposure to the carbon bubble and Paul Wheelhouse as the distinction of being the only Scottish Government minister who has acknowledged when he was the climate change minister that the arguments around the carbon bubble are real and that the bulk of our fossil fuels cannot be used and cannot be burned around the world. That was before the Paris agreement and if he was meaning what he said then, then very clearly an even smaller proportion of the fossil fuel reserves can be used. Finally, this is the case for economic and industrial planning. Can we really kid ourselves on that the change is not upon us already? If we acknowledge that it is, can we really hope to see that readiness for that change simply emerge? When we see the future coming at us, are we really satisfied with last-minute task forces and emergency measures when we see specific jobs destroyed? I do not think that we should be satisfied with that. Surely we must plan for the profound changes that are coming upon us and to ensure that all people have the opportunity for a healthy society as well as a strong economy for the long term. Mr Stevenson, to be followed by Tabry Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer, as I'm a Mickey Adam, I shall indeed talk about the effect of the oil industry's difficulties on the north-east. I want to respond to just a couple of points before I do so. Murdo Fraser in particular should be more cautious in praising the brevity and conciseness of the UK tax code. The UK Government itself reports that from it being 759 pages in 1966 tax year, it is now 11,520 pages and indeed the legislation on which it is founded constitutes 2,413 pages. That is substantially more than many other places. I recognise Mr Fraser correctly quoted, but he needs a wider context. To Jackie Baillie, and she should listen up because this is unusual, I found her analysis more focused and more relevant to the debate than I often do, although I am of course going to disagree with some of the conclusions that she draws from it. I encourage her to live up to the improvement in her contribution that we have heard today. For my constituents in Bamsham and Bucking Coast, home to the world's biggest offshore oil support base at Peterhead, and with many of my constituents working offshore in our own waters, but also taking their expertise to the many corners of the world—to South America, to the Philippines, to the Horn of Africa—where there is oil exploration. That goes to the heart of a very important thing about the industry in the north-east and in my constituency, that we have skills that have been built up over a long time that will sustain us over the long term if we have the opportunity to do so. Being denied the opportunity to take those skills to the new renewable energy industries that we had expected, many of which would have been offshore where there would have been a particular relevance to the skills for the engineers and people who work offshore in the oil and gas industry, is a particularly hurtful blow to the future economic and personal prospects of the north-east. Now, I disagree with Patrick. He said that this is an industry without a long-term future. Could the member use the full name of other members, please, just for the OR? Thanks. I do apologise. I'm not sure what I said. Patrick Harvie, if I didn't say Mr Harvie, industry is, in fact, a long-term proposition, not as he says, a short-term proposition, Presiding Officer. It may not be as fuel. We can solve the issue of using oil and gas as fuel, but we have yet to make a big impression in the use of oil and gas as chemical feedstock. It will remain an important part of an industrial environment, even as we move away from using oil and gas as fuel. Yes, I will briefly. Patrick Harvie. The member makes a serious point to which I did acknowledge that there's a place in this argument, but does he really think that, given the impact that's happening on investment in the north-east at the moment, that if this material, hydrocarbons, was only being able to use for non-fuel chemical feedstocks and not for fuel, does he think that any of it would be economically viable as an investment? Stuart Stevenson. Mr Harvie is clearly listening to a different speech from the one that I gave, because, of course, I did not say that, but I point to the long-term future because Mr Harvie said that there was none. I suggest that there is a long-term future. A third of our oil remains, and that's only of the stocks that we find. We know that we're still finding oil in our sector. The Norwegians are finding oil, for example, in the Johann's fair drug field relatively recently. Opportunities will continue to be there. There will be opportunities for investment, and we see the successes of smaller companies that various people have referred to. However, I want to just say a word or two about fracking, which is the last part of the Conservative motion, and why it is right that we have a moratorium on the subject. I want to reference the United States experience, because it has quite a lot of it. The National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety in the United States talks about workers being regularly exposed to high levels of benzene, which is a known carcinogen. They have no longer got time, do forgive me. They also talk about exposure to silicosis, a deadly lung disease, which is an issue. The British Medical Journal talks about volatile organic compounds and diesel particulate matter that is reported by the US Environmental Protection Agency, and an academic paper published in New Solutions talks about health conditions that have become worse after shale gas development started in the area. Participants in that survey reported worsening existing conditions and new conditions, not simply in human beings but in animals and household pets. The Environmental Protection Agency itself in the United States reports that there is uncertainty about how many incidents there are, but in Colorado it can be as much as 12.2 spills for every 100 wells with all the consequences that flow from that. It identifies as reaching surface water in 9 per cent of cases but contaminating soil in 64 per cent of cases. It also identifies that not everything is known, and I accept that. That is why a moratorium is right why we should look further at the research to underpin a long-term decision. We cannot proceed with shale gas in the present circumstances. The US experience tells us that, but oil and gas in the north-east certainly needs support. More important, we need renewables to become the focus, and the UK Government is letting the people in my area in the north-east of Scotland very seriously down in that regard. Members will appreciate that. I am giving members to take interventions a little extra time and fairness to encourage interventions. That is not necessarily that people should intervene anew, Mr Scott. Cal Tavish Scott, by John Mason. Deputy Presiding Officer, you often intervened on me, but that was in a previous life a long, many years ago. Let me start, Deputy Presiding Officer, by agreeing with Stuart Stevenson that oil and gas in the North Sea and indeed West of Shetland and indeed in many other parts of the globe is not just an industry now, but it is a long-term industry. I profoundly disagree with Patrick Harvie, not least of which because he used a phrase that it was business as usual. Demonstrally, the oil and gas industry is not going through a period of business as usual because, as the minister sadly confirmed, 50,000 people have lost their jobs in Scotland alone and 120,000 across the UK. I suspect that we do not know the true scale of what is actually going on in terms of the changes in the industry on employment. It will be a long-term industry. It will be a very different industry in 10 years' time, 20 years' time or indeed 40 years' time, but I do not doubt for a minute that it will still exist, for this if no other reason. When the chairman and chief executive of the Total Company was in Shetland back in the early part of May, opening the Total Lagontormor field, he talked to an audience of oil people and indeed to the press, both national and local, about the long-term interests of his company. What he described was not just about oil and gas, and they are a very large player in worldwide terms on oil and gas in many different theatres of operation, but about becoming an energy company who, yes, would be investing very heavily in renewables, very heavily in different forms of energy over a long period of time. He is an oil executive to his fingertips. He is an absolute oil man, as you define it, but he saw the way in which the industry is changing. I suspect that he will be at the forefront of the way in which the industry will change. It is not business as usual—that is just a simplistic way to put it. It is a very different kind of industry now than it was even two years ago. I also think on a day like this that we should very briefly even reflect that just the week before we all faced the electorate, a lot of people lost their lives on a superpuma that crashed just off the coast of Norway and Bergen on the 29th of April, and just recently as 2013 four people lost their lives when a superpuma crashed off Sombola in my constituency. This is an industry that pays one heck of a heavy price—the ultimate price—to bring home a resource that we all, most of us, depend on in everyday life. There are some big changes happening. The change in all prices was rightly mentioned by the front bench of all the parties and the changes that will go on there. From 110 to as low as $29 a barrel and today around $48 a barrel, from costs of the industry being cut by 20 per cent in the North Sea, with many industry analysts saying that unless it falls by 40 per cent, the North Sea will not be internationally competitive, which can only mean one thing for the people who work across Scotland. There are 800 supplier businesses in the UK who work on oil and gas contracts, but 600 of them are in Scotland and the great majority are in the northeast of Scotland. The northeast is the oil and gas industry. I sometimes think that the rest of Scotland is somewhat isolated from that. Jackie Baillie made a series of important points about the wider economy, and I agreed with much of what she argued. However, because of the investment in construction—some of it rightly done by the Scottish Government but others because of the private sector investment in construction—a lot of what has been happening in the economy has been masked by that investment. If we were just dependent on the oil and gas sector, I suspect that what has been going on in the northeast would be even more stark in terms of the wider economic figures for the country as a whole. However, there are two points of importance in terms of the future opportunities. One was mentioned by others, and that is the west of Shetland developments. Lagan Tomor is the biggest civil engineering contract in the UK since the Olympics. The clear ridge developments that BPR is investing in are literally at this moment because some of the infrastructure is being put offshore this month—just a minute—is vitally important for that future. It will go on. The west of Shetland developments will go on because at $50 a barrel, it still looks remarkably difficult. However, as oil prices rise—and they will, that is the point that we do not know when, but as they will—some of those developments will look more attractive for the future. I should give way to Patrick Harvie. Patrick Harvie? I feel somewhat bewildered that I am standing here about to ask the same question that Murdo Fraser asked to Jackie Baillie, because I have heard Willie Rennie, for example, on many occasions, saying that the reason the Liberal Democrats do not support fracking is that they do not want to open up a new front on fossil fuels. Why are you applying that policy only onshore and not offshore? I am going to talk about the oil and gas industry. It seems to me that Mr Fraser and others have had a very lively, endless, if I may say so, debate about fracking. Patrick Harvie did not mention fracking in his speech, and I will now choose to mention it later in the debate. That is a matter totally for him. Much of it is lost on me. Can I finally deal with a couple of points about the Sloanville oil terminal and Lerwick? Lerwick is a port that will be part of the decommissioning future. That is a £40 to £60 billion industry over the next 40 years. That is not Patrick Harvie business as usual. It is the changing nature of the industry. The important point that I want to make to the Government front bench here and to my friends in the Conservative Party is that when we, the taxpayer in this country, provide tax relief for that decommissioning, those jobs remain here in Scotland or across the UK. The Brentfields, the three huge jackets that are being decommissioned from the Brentfield, will go to Teeside. I want to see some of that work in Shetland in the future and, indeed, in other parts of Scotland. However, it is vitally important that ports like Lerwick are centres of that for the future. The final point is to make sure that, on the skills agenda that Jackie Baillie and others mentioned, it is not just jobs in the north-east or in other parts of Scotland. It is also facilities like the Diving School in Loch Linney, which trains divers and has done for many, many years. It is an essential part of the skills infrastructure that we need in Scotland. Long may that be the case. Thank you very much. Mr Scott called John Mason to be followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The economy is clearly a very wide topic, and I am looking forward to being on the economy committee as the deputy convener and looking in more depth at different sectors in this coming section. The Labour motion mentions two particular reports, namely by the Bank of Scotland and Ernst and Young, and I want to focus most of my remarks on those reports. First, I thank the Bank of Scotland for its report on oil and gas and the presentation in Parliament last week, which I think was hosted by Murdo Fraser although he was speaking in debate at the same time. As I understand it, the survey covered 141 oil and gas companies. Stuart Smith spoke to the report and, in his forward, he talks about the difficult decisions still to be made on savings, jobs and investment but that there is cautious optimism for the future and that appears to be slowly returning. Positives included a quarter-firm survey that had grown through the downturn and there had been an opportunity to diversify, collaborate, invest and innovate. He went on to say, "...we do not want to downplay the impact of depressed oil prices, but the oil and gas sector is proving to be very entrepreneurial, innovative and resilient. Clearly the job losses have been severe and I hope that we are all concerned for those who have lost employment." However, the report also speaks about how the industry in order to survive has become leaner, more agile and more efficient and is set to be more competitive and sustainable for the future. In fact, there was a feeling at the briefing that you would not actually want the oil price to rise suddenly too suddenly in case the efficiency gains that have been gained were lost and inefficiency was again rewarded. I found the contrast between larger and smaller companies to be particularly interesting. 41 per cent of all companies said that they had been affected severely or quite badly by the price fall, but 67 per cent, i.e. quite a lot more of large companies, said the same thing. So it does seem that smaller companies have done better than bigger ones. On jobs, the report says that losses have run into five figures and 51 per cent of companies had cut jobs. However, the better news, as I think has been mentioned already, has been that 29 per cent managed to keep the workforce stable and 20 per cent managed to increase staff numbers. There is also clearly contrast in the costs of production between companies. One very large company was quoted as having two and a half thousand staff for 100,000 barrels per day of production, whereas a smaller one has just 50 staff for 30,000 barrels per day. That shows that the cost of production can vary dramatically from company to company and from field to field. In consequence, there is no one oil price that is agreed to be desirable for all producers. Some businesses can, in fact, operate successfully and profitably with a relatively lower oil price. It was interesting to hear, too, that exploration continues in Saudi Arabia. That being seen as a good time because costs are lower. So it seems that there can still be new fines around Scottish costs as well, and perhaps the UK Government should be doing more to encourage such exploration. Moving to the item club, which is also mentioned in Labour's motion, we have the Ernst and Young Scottish item club forecasts. I have to say that it concerns me a bit that the report is, and perhaps sometimes we in Parliament also are a little bit too focused on comparisons with the UK. It surely is not healthy for any household or country to be fixated on their neighbours, and fanatically trying to keep up with the Joneses is not good. Of course comparisons are useful and important, but let's keep them in perspective and watch what is going on in the rest of the world, too. For example, if I am reading the report correctly, US GDP growth is around 2.3 to 2.8 per cent, the eurozone 1.6 to 1.9 per cent, the UK 2.4 per cent. At 1.9 per cent for Scotland, it is maybe a bit on the low side, but it is not that far out of line with European countries. At that point, I think that there is validity in Patrick Harvie and the Greens' arguments that GDP is too narrow and indicator anyway. I was interested to see that the savings ratio in Scotland is over 6 per cent compared to UK 4 per cent. Now, would that be a good thing or a bad thing for the economy? Some would say it is bad because it is restricting spending, which might be boosted in the short term. But if one of the UK's big problems is deficit and debt, maybe actually more saving is a good thing in the long run. The report tends to question the growth in construction as proportionally high for a relatively small sector of the economy. It wonders what will happen when the fourth crossing, Egypt and the M8, M73 and M74 are all completed. That also makes me wonder where we would be if those projects had not happened, presumably when we were washed off. Public sector capital investment has given a much-needed boost to the economy at a very difficult time. The emphasis in construction is likely to benefit men more than women, so perhaps it is not surprising that women in jobs fell a bit during the course of the report. Yet we note that women in employment is still 4 per cent above pre-crisis peak, a reminder to look at the longer-term picture and not just focus on one quarter by one quarter. We have the position that the female employment rate is 71.1 per cent Scotland compared to 69 per cent in the UK. The report also states that total manufacturing exports are 5 per cent ahead of 2013, led by transport equipment 33 per cent, metals 21 per cent, food 19 per cent. By anyone's standard, those are healthy figures. In conclusion, I would not want to finish speaking in a debate on the economy without saying that it is not just about growing the economy. Major challenges, apart from growth remain, including who owns and controls the engine of the economy and who benefits from the economy doing well. In the Ernst and Young report, it is disappointing to see that they criticise the national living wage, and yet, if that puts more money in people's pockets, that can also surely boost business. Economically, we are absolutely on a knife edge with regard to the potential of Scotland re-entering a potential recession. Those are not my words. Those are the words of Liz Cameron, OBE, chief executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Much of the focus today is on the north-east and the oil and gas sectors, and rightfully so. I believe that many colleagues will speak on that matter, but I would also like to focus today on some other geographic and market sectors and bring my own thoughts to this debate. I represent the west Scotland region, and it is a part of Scotland that has seen much change in its core raison d'etro over the decades. It is a region that is home to fastline, a nuclear power station, an ocean terminal, two international airports on its doorstep and road and rail connections to the rest of the UK and beyond. Whilst Greenock imports cruise liner tourists, Aaron exports whisky. Whilst Paisley bids for city of culture, its nearest airport now connects to New York, Toronto, Dubai. My region's history defines its very face today, from the mining towns of Versa, near where I live, to the shipbuilders on the Clyde and the Cotomill south of Glasgow. It has gone from a region that is vast in the glory of building great vessels to being the semiconductor capital of the UK, to the coal centre capital, and now increasingly home to big retail parks and the shoppers that it attracts. My first job was at IBM in Greenock, just as it reached its pinnacle in laptop manufacturing, and now the place lays barren. Like many big factories, they've moved on and moved out. But the fear is still there, with Texas instruments as an example looking at its future, Polaroid and Western Bartonshire doing the same. Further down the A78, Hunterson nuclear power station will start to wind down in decommission, with huge losses to highly skilled jobs and their families, and much uncertainty on where those skills will end up. Whilst I enjoy meeting businesses in my region, such as Aaron Aramatics on the Isle of Aaron, a proper success story in North Ayrshire, they supply retail and wholesale levels. I also hear the concerns of people who are worried that they haven't seen much big business investment in our region in recent years. Of course, I welcome those who have made ground and progress and have ambitious plans. Ferguson Marine in Port Glasgow is a prime example, and of course I will work with my colleagues from across the chamber to support and nurture those businesses. There is much to celebrate, but there is much to be worried about. Cunningham North and Cunningham South is ranked 66th and 68th respectively in terms of employment rights in Scotland, on a scale of 1 to 73. Greenock is 63rd. Clydebank is 51st. There is so much more that we can do. I will turn to my opening statement on the potential recession in Scotland. Jackie Baillie and Murrow Fraser have already talked about the Fraser Valander institution downgrading its growth forecasts. I would like to elaborate more on what they said. Professor Brian Ashcroft of that institute, and I quote, said, "...the Scottish economy came within a hair's breadth of recession last year, and with little improvement recently may fail to avoid a recession in the coming months." He pointed out that, even though the service sector registered growth of 0.3% in the final quarter of last year, UK services grew three times faster. It said that financial services were especially weak. It said manufacturing growth can only be described as weak. It's not just the oil and gas sector facing a rocky road. Many sectors are teetering on the brink. Whilst I absolutely accept and appreciate that they're often international, external and uncontrollable factors that have influenced the state of our economy, I believe that there are some immediate and practical things that the Scottish Government can do to help business in Scotland across all sectors. The first is non-domestic rates. I welcome the continued commitment to help small businesses with rate relief. The high street is struggling, and we collectively must do all we can to help it. However, many medium and large-sized businesses are deeply concerned about the hike in the large business supplement, from 1.3p to 2.6p. The doubling of this rate will provide a burden of £60 million in Scottish business. Modernising the structure of business rates should take into account all stakeholders involved, such as the Federation of Small Business and the Scottish Retail Consortium. It should not see big business as a cash cow on business rates. There must be a fine balance between the need for that revenue but the needs of the businesses to grow and invest. The second is on income tax. This one is really simple for the Scottish Conservatives. For Scotland to remain competitive, then we should pay no more income tax than the rest of the UK. In summary, we will support moves that attract investment in growth in our country, but we should not demonise big business in the process. A broad mix of small, medium and large businesses is essential, and we as a Parliament must keep our eye on the ball if we are to avoid recession. Just as we focus today on the necessary actions we must take on the oil and gas sector, we must equally come up with practical, bold and immediate measures to encourage growth across all sectors. When we go back to our varied constituencies, we should not be complacent when we see the relics of industry on our doorstep. We should come back here with ideas. I call Jenny Marra to be followed by Ash Denham. The First Minister is my first speech this Parliament. I would like to take the opportunity to welcome you to your position and to all the newly elected members across the chamber. I hope that you enjoy it and feel the deep privilege of representing your constituents as deeply as I do. I would also like to congratulate Finlay Carson on his maiden speech this afternoon. I am going to use my speaking time today to talk about the decommissioning industry of oil and gas, which is of particular interest and relevance to my home city of Dundee. Just three months ago, the Douglas Westwood industry report told us that nearly 150 oil platforms are expected to be scrapped over the next 10 years. Of specific interest to me and what should be of critical interest to this chamber and this Government, is the analysis that, I quote, of all the decommissioning over the next 25 years, more than half is likely to take place between 2019 and 2026. As my colleague Jackie Baillie said in her opening remarks, we do not want to decommission too early—that is the last thing that we want—but we do not want to miss the opportunity for Scottish jobs and Scottish workers. If we are not ready for the opportunities of decommissioning, it is clear that those opportunities will literally sail past us, as many are at the moment. Let us be realistic about this. The bulk of this work will really take off in 2019, and that is what the industry experts tell us. That is less than three years from now. Given the lead-in times that companies need to select the correct decommissioning programme and facilities, are we anywhere near ready to seize those opportunities for Scottish workers? Perhaps we are further north, as Tavish Scott said in his closing remarks today, but we are not in my home city of Dundee. I have been making the case now, as my colleagues from the last Parliament will know, for a few years on the opportunities of decommissioning in Dundee and that the Scottish Government should be assisting our city to become a hub for decommissioning work. We have a deep water port. We have a spacious key side for deconstruction. We have free industrial land for all the spin-off capacity. We have a research base in our universities for decommissioning. We have a very good college for training programmes for young workers. We have a strong engineering base. We still have a proud thirst for industrial jobs. We have a shortage of work. We have a chronic shortage of work. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and eye-watering youth unemployment, but what we do not have is any assistance from the Scottish Government to bring decommissioning jobs to Dundee. Other parties in the chamber, including the Government Benches, started to agree with my campaign for decommissioning jobs in Dundee during the recent election campaign, but we have still to see any action or any money spent at all. I welcome the money that has been spent in Aberdeen and Lerwick, but not one penny of Scottish Government money is coming to industrial development in our city to support the potential for this industry. With the dates that are proffered by the Douglas Westwood report, I want the cabinet secretary to say today in his closing remarks if they are committed to assisting Dundee to become a decommissioning hub, because they simply cannot wait any longer. Fourth ports, who own the port of Dundee, made £10 million investment in our port earlier this year. Although that is very welcome, anyone looking at this industry will know that this amount of money does not go nearly far enough to prepare a port for such large-scale industry. Indeed, I understand that that sum is being used to repair an existing key site, but the key thing about this £10 million investment was that Fourth Port's chief executive Charles Hammond explicitly called on the Scottish Government that day when he announced the investment to make public money investment in our port. Oil platforms are sailing past unemployed workers in Dundee. Sailing all the way down to Hartlepool, where local development agencies had the foresight to secure those jobs for their people. So where is the Scottish Government's industrial investment in Dundee? As yet, Dundee City Council has still not put together its application for a city deal. I understand that they were kicking around ideas at a recent stakeholders meeting, but with no focus or mention on decommissioning whatsoever. Cabinet Secretary, the people in Dundee need you today to commit to the following, that you will instruct Scottish Enterprise and industry experts to prepare and publish an emergency scoping report on what is possible for decommissioning in Dundee. This is a simple ask that should have been done a long time ago anyway, but given the timescales of these opportunities and the dire need for jobs in my city, the cabinet secretary has a moral and political obligation to the people that I represent to make this commitment this afternoon. Very tight speeches of up to six minutes from now on, please. Ash Denham to be followed by Alex Johnson. Scotland's economy does indeed face challenges, and not least because Scotland sits within the overall wider context of on-going UK austerity. That notion that cutting spending is necessary to boost growth or expansionary fiscal contraction still has authority in the UK, and that means that most Britons just do not realise the extent to which we have now diverged from the thinking on this issue in the rest of the western world. Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics, noted that, since the global turn to austerity in 2010, every country that introduced significant austerity has seen its economy suffer, with the depth of the suffering closely related to the harshness of the austerity. He goes on to state that this Australian ideology that dominated elite discourse five years ago has collapsed to the point where hardly anyone still believes it, hardly anyone that is except the UK Government and most of the British media. Apologies, I have to make progress. Austerity does not work if you want to grow the economy, so why are we still suffering it? After the crash in 2008, it became obvious that monetary policy was not going to be enough to fight the downturn. In those conditions, the correct response is fiscal expansion, Government spending to create jobs and put money into consumers' pockets. As Cain's wrote in 37, the boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the treasury, but what actually happened was a focus on slashing deficits, mainly with spending cuts. Even though history and practice suggested that cutting spending in a depressed economy without the ability to offset by reducing interest rates would hasten decline, the Austerian ideology, championed by people like Alasina from Harvard and others, was embraced by the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the UK Government. Alasina's research was later found out to be flawed and all the economic research that allegedly supported that austerity push has now mainly been discredited. That has led the IMF, an architect and indeed site manager of neoliberalism to publish an article this week in their in-house magazine that, near liberalism, has been oversold and that austerity should be ended. The article noted that short-run costs of lower output and welfare and higher unemployment have been underplayed and that the desirability of simply living with high debt and allowing debt ratios to decline organically through growth is underappreciated. Austerity is self-defeating and debt limits by themselves are meaningless. The UK Government's own targets require further cuts. On top of the £12 billion cut that was announced in the 2015 spending review, George Osborne has announced a further as yet unallocated £3.5 billion cut to departmental spending. In Scotland, our discretionary budget will be £3.3 billion lower in real terms than it was in 2011. It should also be noted that, in Westminster, Labour has acquiesced on this austerity narrative, voting with the Tories in 2015, to accept. Jackie Baillie—I am indeed grateful to the member for taking an intervention. Does she perhaps recall that she was not in the Parliament then, but that her Government, the SNP Government, just literally before the election, had an opportunity in their budget to end austerity? Can she perhaps explain why they choose not to do so? Ash Denham I think that, in talking about the wider context, we need to talk about what Westminster is doing, as they have clearly more levers in this department than the Scottish Government do. The Labour Party will, of course, recall that they accepted the £30 billion worth of cuts that the Tories put forward. George Osborne said that these cuts will make Britain fit for the future, but it does beg the question fit for whom. Almost certainly not fit for Scotland. Why? Because the UK Government attempted to cut £7 billion just recently from the Scottish budget this year. In my view, austerity has been embraced so profoundly because the primary purpose of it is to provide the necessary cover to massively shrink Government spending. As David Cameron said in 2013, to make the state leaner not just now but permanently. The overriding goal is a permanent and irreversible reduction to our public goods, services and social security. If the Conservatives in this chamber want to do something useful for the Scottish economy, they should urge their colleagues in London to ditch this damaging austerity mantra in favour of investment in things like R&D, innovation and education. The UK Government controls the key taxation levers affecting the oil and gas sector, so it must take the action needed to protect businesses and jobs. In Scotland, with the powers that we have, we plan to take a different approach. Our economic strategy will be to maximise our investment in infrastructure, in skills, to drive innovation, boost exports and promote more inclusive growth wherever we can. We plan a can-do innovation forum to develop a range of actions as part of a sustained national programme to boost productivity through innovation. We will prioritise infrastructure investment over the next parliamentary session. 20 billion—sorry, I am in my last half a minute—will be invested into a major infrastructure programme designed to help to build Scotland's future. Our infrastructure plans will support around 30,000 full-time equivalent jobs in the wider economy, with projects the length and breadth of the country, including road, rail, ferries and early years childcare and schools and health facilities. In my constituency, investment is under way at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary site, with 230 million going to the new royal hospital for sick children and the Department of Clinical Neurosciences. The intellectual case for austerity is bankrupt, and it is time for the UK Government to catch up with the thinking on this matter in the rest of Europe. Alex Johnson, to be followed by Gordon MacDonald. There are, Deputy Presiding Officer, many new faces and new voices in this Parliament, and we have heard another one of them today, Finn Carson's opening speech. The first speech in this Parliament was an excellent one, surely we are getting to the end of the list, we will see. But one of the things that those of us who are familiar with this Parliament will be well aware of was the habit that John Swinney had when he was the economy minister in the last Parliament. As we all know, over the last years, since the recession of 2008, Scotland has done rather well. The economic figures were very encouraging, yet, as time went on, month by month, some months Scotland would do better than the rest of the UK, other months the rest of the UK would do better than Scotland. Of course, John Swinney in the months when Scotland had done better than the rest of the UK would stand up and take credit for this advancement. Meanwhile, the following month, when the figures were the other way around, he would stand up and blame the UK Government or George Osborne for all the problems Scotland faced. The truth was that Scotland and the rest of the UK were perhaps slightly out of culture, but year on year we were achieving the same things. The problem that we face now is that we are no longer aligned. Scotland and the rest of the UK have begun to diverge, and the figures are demonstrating that each month as they are published. I would suggest that one of the reasons for that is that the Scottish Government now has more power to encourage different approaches within the Scottish economy and that it is enforcing the wrong policies and beginning to reap the dividend of that failure. However, yes, very briefly. I thank Alex Johnson for taking the intervention. Would he accept the areas of policy in which the UK Government could be described as taking the wrong decisions, for example, £35 billion being thrown at the nuclear power industry and not backing Scotland's renewables industry? Alex Johnson? Perhaps it would have been beneficial to the Scottish economy if we had been building a nuclear power station as well, but that decision, I suggest, is one that should have been taken some time ago. Let me address the Government's amendment today. I think that on a day when the Labour Party has brought a very well-reasoned motion to Parliament and the Conservatives will support it, the Scottish Government has made the mistake of bringing forward an amendment that is, I am afraid, simply over-optimistic. In a week when the oil price has fallen by 6 per cent, and I have checked the figures just before I stood up to speak, it is irresponsible of the Government to take this over-optimistic approach. We must, at this moment, be working hard to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. That is why, as we look specifically at the oil industry, there are a number of things that we must deal with. The UK Government has taken the actions that it promised in relation to taxation, but the Scottish Government has not taken the opportunity that it could have taken to ensure that the economy in the north-east in particular is resilient enough to stand situations like the one that we are in today. Decisions made over taxation have resulted in further pressure on the north-east housing market. If you have seen the unemployment figures that were made available in the past few days and are surprised to discover that Aberdeen constituencies still have the lowest unemployment rates anywhere in Scotland, you must remember that that is because many of the people losing their jobs cannot afford to stay in the north-east once that job is gone. As a result, they leave, and that is why we have serious problems with housing, not least of which the Government's own land and business taxation system has resulted in enormous pressure being put on more expensive homes. Remember, those more expensive homes that exist in the north-east are a symptom of housing shortage, not a symptom of some form of wealth that the Government feels it should tax. At the same time, failures in provision in the north-east mean that our schools have unfilled teaching posts. Many of our healthcare facilities have unfilled posts, too. The services that are being provided are simply not up to the population that we have. Finally, I would like to talk briefly about the Aberdeen city region deal. When it was announced and the shared funding was published, the Scottish Government went scrambling around looking for other things previously announced or projects that could include and add the value to so that it could claim that it was putting more money into that north-east than the UK Government. That is why we have commitments on things such as the east coast main line at Montrose, the grade-separated junction at Lawrence Kirk and other promises. However, even in the past week, we have found that the Scottish Government now tells us that those spending commitments will only be fulfilled as part of a 10-year programme. A promise that simply is not being kept. I want to see this Government and this minister bring forward the spending commitments on a timescale that aligns with the expectations of the people that he promised it to only a few short months ago. Thank you, Mr Johnson. We now move to the last of the closing speeches. I would appreciate brevity, Mr Macdonald, up to six minutes. City standing strong is one of the opening comments in the Ernest and Young Scottish item club report. It continues, Scotland's three largest cities, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, are crucial to the overall health of the economy, accounting for over 35 per cent of total employment and 40 per cent of business services employment. I want to focus on Edinburgh. The strength of Edinburgh's economy lies in its well-educated population, with over 42 per cent of working-age residents educated to the degree level or above a figure higher than any other UK city outside of London. That highly skilled workforce helped Edinburgh to attract 33 major foreign direct investment projects, ensuring that Scotland attracted more of those investment projects than any other part of the UK outside of London. Edinburgh's strength lies in its financial services, life sciences, technology and tourism. The Ernest and Young report in its city focus on Edinburgh highlights that Edinburgh's financial services remain critical and that employment in Edinburgh is growing outpace both Scotland and the UK. The council report, Capital Facts, highlights that Edinburgh is the UK's second-largest financial centre and a major European centre for asset management and asset servicing. More than 90 per cent of all Scottish fund managers are based in the Lothian area. Edinburgh's life science research is among the best in the world, combining world-leading academic researchers, cutting-edge companies and science parks that encourage close collaboration. I recently attended an award ceremony where a local company, Albu Bayer Science, a company that has the good sense to employ my youngest son, was awarded the Queen's award for enterprise in the category of outstanding achievement in international trade. Then there is the technology and software sector, where Edinburgh is home to some of Europe's leading tech companies, including Sky Scanner, Amazon, Microsoft and Rockstar North. The value of this sector has grown by 58 per cent since 2010. Tourism is also key to Edinburgh's economic success. Last year, Edinburgh Airport had its busiest ever year with 11 million passengers, 4 million tourists visited the city injecting £1.2 billion into the local economy, hotel occupancy levels are at nearly 82 per cent, hitting 92 per cent during the festival and occupancy levels are still increasing year on year. Despite new hotel openings, we are also seeing revenue per room increasing. This improving employment situation in Edinburgh is resulting in a reduction of people claiming benefits and a population increase of around 100 people per week as people are attracted to the area to gain employment. New businesses are taking advantage of this buoyant part of the economy, with more than 1,900 new businesses recorded over the three months to April 2016. That is a 16 per cent increase on the number of new businesses that started over the same period last year. In order to house the new workers that are attracted to Edinburgh, the NHPC has highlighted that there has been a 52 per cent increase in new build starts for residential dwellings between 2014 and 2015, supporting many jobs in the traditional trades and apprenticeships during the construction phase. Last week, I visited the traditional building skills and materials event held in St Andrew's Square. A range of trades were being demonstrated by apprentices based at Edinburgh College. 19 per cent of buildings in our cities were built over 100 years ago, and many are in need of repair or renovation. There is now a need for stone masons and plasterers, and we need to encourage small businesses who work in this area to take on new apprentices if we want to preserve those buildings for future generations. There is no doubt that the downturn of oil and gas has had an impact on Scotland's economy. However, as I have highlighted, much of our economy is doing well, and that is despite Scotland getting little benefit from the £330 billion from oil and gas that has been paid to the UK Exchequer since 1975. It is maybe about time that we have some of that money back to invest in our country's future, while we are in a situation in which we need to support jobs so that oil and gas gets back on its feet again. We now move to closing speeches. I call Alexander Burnett. Alexander Burnett, six minutes please, Mr Burnett. Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to make a declaration of my registral interests. I own and manage property, including commercial lettings. As MSP for Aberdeenshire West, I am already well aware of the many challenges that we have heard today that Scotland's oil and gas sector has faced in recent months and the impact that this is having on local and national economies. Price volatility has changed the landscape of the sector as prices fell by 70 per cent, hitting a low of $27. Inevitably, that has led to job losses and decreased investment, particularly in the north-east. On the international level, many oil analysts see no significant upswing in crude oil prices without OPEX intervention and unlikely outcome at this stage. However, the outlook is not unrelentingly bleak. Britain's oil and gas industry's annual activity survey recently showed output up by nearly 10 per cent, the best exploration hit rate for 10 years and a significant fall in extraction costs. It is a challenge for both the Scottish and UK Governments to ensure that the industry is nurtured through these hard times. Within the last week, reports by the Bank of Scotland and PWC show that significant job losses are still to be expected and that there is a two-year window for action. More positively, the reports found that firms are forming new partnerships, seeking new international opportunities and diversifying into new markets. Both reports show that sustainable growth is on the horizon and that it is encouraging to see the sector progressing. At the oil and gas UK conference yesterday, I met a range of stakeholders. It was clear that the UK Government has made the UK continental shelf the most fiskally competitive in the world. I heard from Stephen Halliday, group president at Wood MacKenzie that the UK now has one of the best and simplest tax systems. It was the speech after the cabinet secretary, so I am not quite sure how he missed it, but we have still seen greater progress in cost reduction and we still need to see greater collaboration. I believe that Andy Samuel, the chief executive for the oil and gas authority, is best placed to bring company leaders together. If a fiscal regime is acknowledged by the industry as working and the regulatory regime of the OGA making progress, there is a third branch that needs action. With the right support, small and medium-sized enterprises that exist in the supply chain can grow from the 2.5 per cent of global share that they currently enjoy to over 10 per cent of a global market worth £100 billion. That is a sector over twice the size of the aerospace industry and one that would continue beyond the life cycle of the North Sea. After my maiden speech, Stuart Stevenson spoke that we would have little overlap, so I am pleased on only my second contribution to a founder common cause. We have already seen an unprecedented level of support for the industry from this Conservative Government over the last two budgets. Last week I met with a chancellor and, in particular, we discussed treasury-backed loans. I am pleased to say that he was receptive to calls to expand the UK loan guarantees scheme that would help to secure new investment in oil and gas infrastructure. That, I hope, will satisfy Gillian Martin in her calls for conversations with Westminster. Whilst the UK Government has shown its support, local companies are facing a different challenge. Scotland should not be the highest tax part of the UK and we welcome the Scottish Government's decision to review business rates. I have heard a number of comments from the Conservatives about cutting taxes. Can you explain why it would be the case that we would oppose a cut in the highest air passenger duty tax in the world? Do you not think that that would benefit the economy, including in the north-east? On that point, Alexander Burnett was also raised with a chancellor and he pointed out that the cut in APD is actually very insignificant in terms of the overall cost of a flight and is not seen as a particularly effective reduction. Back to business rates, this affects businesses all over, as my colleague Jamie Greene pointed out, quoting from the Fraser of Allander report that said that Scotland was flirting with recession. Regardless of the outcome of this review, we urge the Government to freeze business rates until the recommendations are implemented. Additionally, we remain committed to doubling the business rates incentivisation scheme so that local authorities are allowed to keep all of the additional revenue raised from the tax. As we heard from Finlay Carson in his excellent maiden speech, fine constituencies such as Galloway and West Dumfries have much to gain from the scheme, but I would give a note of caution regarding any zip wire photo opportunities. Business rates have been this Scottish Government's cash cow, but I have now heard of people considering pulling down buildings to avoid business rates that are too punitive. That would see a return to the days of window and roof taxes, where people destroyed capital assets, unable to meet poorly thought taxation measures, and it is a route that Scotland's balance sheet can ill afford. Returning to the amendment, with the current moratorium preventing onshore gas production, we find ourselves in a position where companies cannot invest into the long-term future of the industry. Scotland is currently missing out on a jobs boom and the opportunity to get energy bills down. Elsewhere in the debate, we heard from Ivan McKee the importance of training, the extremely knowledgeable Lewis MacDonald on the importance of investment in north-east infrastructure. Patrick Harvey is always ideologically honest but somewhat separated from the reality facing the sector in the north-east. Tavish Scott is on the dangers of the industry and the ultimate price that is sometimes tragically paid. John Mason, on the sensible recognition of cost reductions, and Jenny Marra, an excellent maiden speech, are highlighting the importance of decommissioning. My apologies. We also heard from Ash Denham, Alex Johnson. Could you come to a close, please, Mr MacDonald, before you say anything else? Whatever I've used. Saving you for yourself. Whatever I've used, Scotland's economy, and in particular oil and gas, face challenges. Whether attracting investment, maintaining staff numbers or adapting to a slump in prices, I urge the Scottish Government to do all it can to support and sustain this important sector, and that is why I'm supporting the amendment put down by Murdo Fraser. I call on Keith Brown. Eight minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by saying that there's been a lot more consensus perhaps in the debate than we might have expected. Of course, there are points of disagreements, but generally consensual and constructive. I would highlight Finlay Carson's inaugural speech. I don't know whether it's the case that he plagiarised various tourist brochures—I'm sure he didn't—but I'm sure that the tourist organisations in his constituency were very keen on the first part of his speech for the way that he described, in very glowing terms, his constituency. I should also say that the points that were made by other Conservatives—Murdo Fraser, Alexander Burnett—should, I think, be responded to. First of all, on loan guarantees, which we have been calling for for some time. It is good to see the Conservatives catching up at last with the idea of how important loan guarantees might be to the industry. If they had been talking to the industry previously, they would have understood the importance of loan guarantees for maintaining and improving the infrastructure for the vitality of some of the smaller and medium-sized players. It's not enough to mention it in a budget and to forget it for months. The industry will tell you this if you speak to them. There has to be pace behind that. Let's get on and do it. Stop talking about it and let's crack on and do that. I have to say that if Alexander Burnett wants to go to Aberdeen airport until the APD will have a negligible effect on air operations and be interested to see what the response he would get from the airport, there is no question that the APD being cut is now the highest tax of its type in the world. It is not environmental tax, so I think that everyone has passed that to pretend by now, and it is vitally important to economic recovery. It just stuns me as to why the Conservatives do not want to support that. Alexander Burnett, I am a subject of APD. If Aberdeen is that concerned about small changes in prices, do you think that it might should consider its car parking duties? Keith Brown I have had no representations from the airport on their car parking duties. I have had many representations on the beneficial effects of a cut in the APD. In relation to Alex Johnson's point about the north-east, I did hear from the Conservative benches—in fact, I think that the member is here—that the claim that £250 million is going to the city deal was from the UK Government, utterly false. It is not. £125 million in the Scottish Government is from the UK Government. We asked the UK Government to make a bigger city deal. It refused to do it, so we announced a further £254 million of investment. We also said that Alex Johnson kind of infers that this was a change to what we said. We said that at the same time that it will have the same lifetime as the city deal, the 10-year deal. That does not mean that it will take 10 years necessarily to do that. What I said in relation to the Lonskirk overpass is that it is important to recognise that that may include a public inquiry, and nobody can predict how long a public inquiry will take. I will take the intervention from Alex Johnson. Alex Johnson I was simply going to say, Minister, that it is not the case that the money is not invested until you have found it and spent it. At the moment, we do not know when that is going to happen. Keith Brown First of all, we have made the commitment to that and to the Montrose junctions. We have to go through the processes first of all before you can build it, and that is statutory processes. If I was to say that I would do it in two years, I would be accused of not allowing the public to have their full say on these developments, so of course we have to do that. I regret the fact that the Liberal Democrat amendment was not taken. It makes some very important points, especially about decommissioning. I have to say that it made much more constructively than the rant that we heard from Jenny Marra about the Scottish Government. Had it been the case that the amendment had come forward from Lib Dems, I would have felt happy to support that. It is very important to say that, of course, decommissioning represents a huge opportunity, and the point that is being made by Tavish Scott about making sure that we maximise what we can get from that is very important. It cannot be premature, and certainly from the discussions that Paul Wheelhouse and myself had with the trade unions, they are very keen on that as well. However, there is a huge dividend, not least because of the obligations of the original licence holders in the North Sea to pay for decommissioning. A lot of money will go into that. There is a huge benefit, and Tavish Scott is quite right to say that we should make sure that we access that benefit. In relation to Jackie Baillie, I have to say that it was a torture expression on her face when I asked her to welcome the 11,000 people who had found jobs in the last month that said it all. It is important that we take a balanced approach. I have said—and you can ask the people in the industry who have spoken to you—that I have acknowledged at every point the challenges that we have. The figures that we mentioned by the various reports, I accept those figures and accept that there are challenges in relation to both the oil and gas industry and to the wider economy. It is also my responsibility to point out where things are going well. It is very important that we— I will very briefly. Jackie Baillie might have escaped his attention, but I welcomed much of the activity of the Scottish Government. I think that we are faced with a report that says today that Scotland's economy is on the brink of recession and simply listing past achievements does not do anything to resolve that problem. Keith Brown. I take from that that Jackie Baillie is obviously unhappy about the 11,000 people who had jobs in the course of the last month. I also say that that was not the 10 of her speech, but the 10 of her speech was to point out everything negative that she could. We have to accept their challenges, but we undermine rather than enhance our economic prospects if we do not acknowledge and tackle, of course, the challenges, but we also have to acknowledge and tackle the things that we are doing right. If we want to do more of that, that seems to me to be self-evident. We have to not lose sight of the fact that the economy is built on strong foundations, with nearly 2 per cent growth in the last year. The same reports that have been mentioned predict growth for this year, for next year and the year afterwards. That is what they predict, the reports that have been mentioned, but there is no question that there are difficult times. We have, for example, had a record year for inward investment. Again, it is not something that Jackie Baillie felt able to welcome. Startling performance in terms of inward investment, not only in terms of projects that have been built on previous ones, but also in terms of new projects, around 119 of those, and a record for Scotland. Some real genuine achievements in relation to that, also a record number of registered companies in Scotland. A fantastic achievement, also in terms of youth unemployment, mentioned by a couple of members. There are real challenges here, over 13 per cent. We acknowledge that. One of the lowest rates in the whole of Europe, CloudBic Technologies, a US technology company, also announced last week planning to establish its European headquarters in Glasgow, planning to create 125 jobs in the city. We have heard from Paul Wheelhouse about the announcement today in Nick Bay. We also had the BP announcement about 500 new jobs, temporary jobs, but new jobs. The point was made, I think, from the Conservative benches about Alexander Burnett, about the productivity being high, I think, for 15 years. No, I have given me a number of times already, I am sorry. We have had that bonus and also the recovery in the price, such as it is, from £27 up to £50 a barrel. As was pointed out, I think that it was by Gillian Martin previously that it had gone down to $14 a barrel, so we have seen an improvement. We all know how price-sensitive the industry is. We do believe that we have done a number of key things, which are right. We should never say that is all we can do. We have to listen, and I will listen to the points that Jackie Baillie made in terms of not in our motion but in our subsequent press release, not least in relation to the proposal in terms of further support for the infrastructure in the north-east. We have also considered that, and we are happy to work with others to make sure that the UK Government does those things as quickly as it should. We have to build on the success, and we have to, of course, address the challenges that we have. As we raised in the previous debate on delivering our labour market strategy, focusing on skills, of course that is very important. The point was made, I think, again by Gillian Martin, that although some of those jobs have been lost, the skills have been kept in the local economy. Some of those skills have gone elsewhere, but they are still in the industry again, which is very important for the upturn. Growing our economy is vital in increasing living standards, and in turn, of course, it is very important for this Parliament to generate the tax revenues that can be reinvested in the economy, our infrastructure and in our public services. Those links are more important than ever in view of the new powers over taxation that have been devolved to the Parliament. It is a question that there are challenges, but there are also things that we are doing extremely well at, and we have to have that balance. The Government will ensure that growing the economy and promoting inclusive growth will remain central to everything that we do, and that is for the support for the amendment in my name. I now call Richard Leonard to close the debate. Deputy Presiding Officer, in the front room of the Rail Maritime and Transport Union Office in Crown Street in Aberdeen is a model. Built by craftspeople, by metal workers, it is a model of the Piper Alpha platform. It serves as a reminder that however we divide at the end of this debate, we must all unite around a singular determination that never again will a compromise to health and safety, resulting in such a tragic loss of human life still being felt by widows, orphans and survivors across the country, never again will that happen. There have been some excellent contributions to the debate, and there has been a degree of consensus on a shared agenda, and I particularly want to pay tribute to Finlay Carson, who was making his first speech. When we are discussing oil and gas, we are discussing a natural and a national asset, a common treasury, which incidentally should never, never have been left entirely in the hands of private corporations whose fiduciary duty and whose first duty is to make profits pure and simple. As contribution, after contribution this afternoon has shown, this debate is not simply about the oil and gas industry, it is about the very future of the Scottish economy, and that is why we tabled that motion. If this Parliament is to speak for the people, which I believe it must, it must be a voice for the voiceless, including those oil and gas workers living in fear of the future. If this Parliament is to speak for the people on the big economic issues of the day, rising unemployment, the political choice of austerity and to Ash Denham, it is the choice that has been taken here as well as in Whitehall, the issue as well of inequality, including the unequal distribution of power in our economy, we need as a Parliament to listen to the oil and gas industry and to the oil and gas industry trade unions, and frankly not the air of complacency about the government's stance this afternoon. We must listen to the scaling speed of these job cuts in this one sector of our industrial base alone. 84,000 jobs lost in 2015, 40,000 more to go this year, as we have heard this afternoon, 50,000 of those in Scotland. Yet the Government says that we should take an interest in innovation prizes and business pledges. One of my colleagues checked into this, and out of over 300,000 registered businesses in Scotland, only 272 have signed the business pledge. Exploration is at its lowest level for 45 years, just 13 exploration wealth this year between six and ten forecasts for next year. Listen to Deirdre Meekie, the head of oil and gas UK, who warned just last week, and I quote, we are an industry at the edge of a chasm. If we have a duty as a Parliament to listen to this evidence, we have a duty placed upon us to speak up and act as well. If something is not working as it should, like the transition training fund is not working, it is the duty of this Parliament to say so. If the energy jobs task force is not yet preventing any redundancies and is not yet creating any new jobs in transferable sectors such as offshore renewable energy or oil rig decommissioning and does not appear to be successful in its mission, and I quote, to retain and grow the talents and skills in the industry, it is the duty of this Parliament to say so. If compared to the Norwegian sector, which has the distinct advantage, the major advantage of common ownership in the operation of their oil fields, if the Norwegian sector is able to deliver collaboration, a degree of co-operation and standardised technology to cut costs, why can't we do it here? Despite the best efforts of the energy jobs task force, offshore operators are instructing offshore contractors this afternoon to slash the terms and conditions of employment by 25 per cent to cut their costs and keep their profits up, then we need to say as a Parliament that enough is enough. The oil and gas workers, the ordinary men and women, the drillers, the engineering construction workers, the caterers, the servicehands, the maritime crews, they are saying to us in this Parliament that they want the right to work in place of fear, and that's what's important to us, and that's why we say to the Cabinet Secretary that we need a new approach. I was hearing this week when I met the oil unions in Aberdeen that their members are facing an added injustice. They said to me that many offshore oil and gas workers haven't been made redundant, they have been reclassified as ad-hoc workers, some of them termed long-term ad-hoc workers, which is another way of describing them as zero-hours contract workers. We also know that there is much bogus self-employment onshore and offshore in the industry, so many workers who should be entitled to it are not even receiving basic redundancy payments. Let me turn to decommissioning. Of course, where there is genuine exhaustion, wells should be closed and rigs decommissioned. It's happening with Shell in the Alpha, Bravo and Delta fields already. They already have OGA authorisation. Delta is completely decommissioned already, and as we debate this motion, there are workers on board, Alpha and Bravo platforms working towards their complete decommissioning as well, but let me say this. First of all, we want decommissioning to be carried out in a planned way in facilities that are based here by workers who are based here and not overseas, and if that's in Dundee, as Jenny Marra suggests, then we need to consider that seriously. The second thing that I want to say is this. We fear that wells will be closed and assets written off prematurely because extraction is deemed to be an inverted commas uneconomic by the operators. There are 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent still to be recovered. Those are common assets that should not be written off. Presiding Officer, we need determination in this Parliament, a renewed determination, to say to these working people and the communities of the north-east of Scotland that we are on your side, that now more than ever we want to invest in your future, that you have a future. No-one is claiming that the Scottish Government can single-handedly save the industry, but we do at least expect it to have an ambitious but credible strategy for retaining jobs and skills, a strategy for skills and technology transfer and a decommissioning strategy in co-operation with the OGA. If I can give one example of what I mean just this week, it is my understanding that the contract to supply jackets for the SSE offshore Beatrice wind farm project have been placed. I am delighted to understand that the contract to construct 26 jackets have been awarded to burnt island fabricators in Fife, but I am outraged that twice as many as that have been placed in yards overseas. That simply is not good enough, and this afternoon we call on the Scottish Government to take this matter up urgently. We want to anchor the oil and gas supply chain in the north-east. We want to support diversification by proper planning and intervention by government so that we join together an industrial strategy for decommissioning rigs and fields with new investment in subsea offshore renewable energy and the full use of our existing skills, technology and engineering based. Let's this afternoon give people hope for the future. That is what this Parliament should be about, that we will not relinquish control to market forces, that in a part of the economy, where yes, there are powerful global corporate forces at work, there can also be powerful democratic forces at work too. I hope that, at least, we can unite around that idea and act to restore the confidence of people in politics. I move the Labour motion. Oh, there we go. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary Keith Brown, yesterday answered a parliamentary question S5W-00367 and stated that 2,500 individuals and 100 employers were helped by the energy jobs task force. His amendment lodged about one hour later, said that it was 8,800 individuals and 100 employers. Now, in response to question S5W-00369, answered by Jamie Hepburn today, the number is back to 2,500. I would ask, Presiding Officer, that the cabinet secretary perhaps is invited to reflect on this discrepancy and come back to Parliament to correct the record. I thank Ms Billy for the notification of the point of order. I do not believe that it is a point of order. However, the cabinet minister will have heard your point and will be in a position to reflect on it if he chooses to do so. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 475, in the name of Josephus Patrick. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request-to-speak button now, and I call on Josephus Patrick to move motion 475. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 475 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next item of business is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion 466. I ask Josephus Patrick to move a foresaid 466 on committee meetings. The question on this motion will be put at the decision time to which we now come. As I said earlier, we will call all the votes from yesterday, from Tuesday 24, 14 June, first, and then call the votes from today's business. There are seven questions to be put today. In regard to the debate on the contribution of colleges and universities to Scotland's success on Tuesday 14 June, I wish to remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Liz Smith is agreed, the amendment in the name of Ian Gray falls. The first question is that amendment 431.1, in the name of Liz Smith, which seeks to amend motion 431, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, on the contribution of colleges and universities to Scotland's success be agreed, are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Members may press their buttons now. The result of the vote is as follows. Yes, 29. No, 95. There were no abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 431.2, in the name of Ian Gray, which seeks to amend motion 431, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Parliament will therefore vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 431.2 is as follows. Yes, 33. No, 91. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 431, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Parliament will vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 431 is as follows. Yes, 95. No, 29. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. We now turn to the questions arising from today's business, and I would also remind members that there is a preemption on the First Amendment. That is, if we agree the amendment in the name of Keith Brown, the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser will fall. The next question is that amendment 448.3, in the name of Keith Brown, which seeks to amend motion 448, in the name of Jackie Bailey, on the economy, be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 448.3, in the name of Keith Brown, is as follows. Yes, 66. No, 58. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser therefore falls. The next question is therefore that motion 448, in the name of Jackie Bailey, as amended, be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. Parliament will move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 448, in the name of Jackie Bailey, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 66. No, 58. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. There is one final question, and that is that motion 466, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on committee meetings be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time, and we will now move to members' business. Members' business is from Claire Hockey. I will ask for a few minutes before we start.