 Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I apologise to the two members who I wasn't able to call in that short time. We now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion 212 in the name of Keith Brown, on taking Scotland forward, Scotland's economy, short-term resilience and long-term opportunities. I invite all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons. I now call on the point of order, Mr Fraser. The Prime Minister and the First Minister In the previous session of the Parliament, it was accustomed to have copies of the business bulletin available at the back of the chamber, so members could refer to them during the debate, which was useful in examining the text of the motion and the text of any amendments lodged. I note today that there are no such business bulletins available and that, upon enquiring, I have been told that they will not be available in the future. Are you able to advise why that change has been made and is it possible for it to be reconsidered? Well, I thank Mr Fraser for the point of order. I am aware from my own experience that the reason that they were removed was to move to a digital Parliament and to cut down on the amount of paper distributed in the Parliament. However, you have made a very good point, and many members prefer to work from paper. I think that we will take that on board and I will try to return to the member with some information. Thank you very much. Is the cabinet secretary going to swap seats now? I call on Keith Brown to open the Scotland's economy debate. I would like to use the debate today, if I could, to do three things. First, to reflect on the resilience of the Scottish economy and to recognise the challenges that the economy faces. Secondly, to set out the many strengths that characterise our economy. Thirdly, to outline the Scottish Government's approach to making Scotland a more productive country through innovation, investment, internationalisation and inclusive growth. The Scottish economy has been resilient over the past 12 months in the face of the most challenging external conditions in recent years. Weak global growth, low oil prices and a high exchange rate have combined to present a challenging economic environment and, in particular, for our oil and gas industry and its supply chain. Those global trends are affecting countries around the world, and of course Scotland is not immune to them. The impact of the pressures has been felt most acutely in the production sector, particularly in the north-east of Scotland, where the oil and gas sector has had to respond by restructuring and with redundancies. The north-east remains a priority for this Government, and that is why I and Paul Wheelhouse will both go to Aberdeen this week to meet representatives from across the oil and gas sector. The service sector, which accounts for nearly 80 per cent of output in Scotland, has benefited from lower energy costs. In coupled with improving household finances, that has supported growth in this sector through 2015. Similarly, the construction sector also continued to make significant contributions to growth with high levels of public infrastructure investment. As such, despite the challenging economic background that I have mentioned, Scotland's economy still grew by nearly 2 per cent last year and employment reached record levels. However, there is obviously no room for complacency. It is quite clear from what has been said in the columns of business magazines by commentators across the economic spectrum that the external environment that we are likely to face is going to remain challenging throughout 2016 and that Scotland will not be immune to those pressures. However, there are also significant opportunities in the Scottish economy. Realising those opportunities requires a commitment to collaboration and partnership towards improving productivity. At the heart of our actions will be a clear and unrelenting focus on creating a competitive and supportive business environment. I want to make clear that I will listen carefully to constructive ideas about how we can support our economic growth put forward by MSPs from across the chamber during this debate and subsequently. During the election period, I had the pleasure of attending an FSB hustings with Gordon Linter, and he mentioned at that time—I am more than willing to take an intervention if I get his exact words wrong—that, since the SNP came to power, there has been a feeling that anything is possible, and I could not agree more with that sentiment. It is in that spirit that I make this offer to take on board any suggestions. Improving our productivity performance is fundamental to our approach to growing the economy, and it sits at the heart of our economic strategy. It is about making the best use of all our resources and assets in order to improve our economic performance and, in turn, the living standards of all our citizens. Productivity has been a constant in our approach since 2007, and we have made progress most visibly by narrowing the productivity gap with the rest of the UK. However, our aspiration has to be to go further, to narrow and, ultimately, to close the gap with European neighbours such as Germany and Sweden. We have key strengths across our economy, from which to progress towards that aspiration. Our workforce is one of the most highly skilled workforces in Europe, and our universities are among the best in the world. We are home to a thriving and innovative tech startup landscape, with companies such as Sky Scanner showing the potential that exists in our universities, in our entrepreneurial base and in emerging sectors. Our business base is growing, with a number of registered businesses in Scotland now at an all-time high. I think that that is worth repeating—the number of registered businesses in Scotland now at an all-time high. It is also a very diverse sector. We have strengths across a range of different areas, including food and drink, which, like Fergus Ewing, I want to pay testament to the work done by Richard Lochhead over nine years of solid support for the food and drink sector, in tourism, in financial services, in life sciences, in energy and, of course, in creative industries. Those fundamental strengths, I think, across this chamber, are not in doubt. They are the factors that attract companies to invest and to expand in Scotland. It is also why, in 2015, we had a record year for Scotland in terms of securing inward investments, according to Ernst and Young data. I think that it was referred to this morning on the radio by Ernst and Young as akin to the UK Government talking about a northern powerhouse, where we have a Scottish powerhouse in terms of the amount of inward investment that we have managed to attract. I will do that. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Like him, I welcome the fact that that Ernst and Young report shows that the number of projects has increased, but what Ernst and Young measure is the number of projects. Is he able to tell us that the value of foreign direct investment to Scotland was higher in 2015 than it was in the previous year? The member is right to say that Ernst and Young, when they provide this survey, do not provide the information on the total value. Do you understand that point? The member made that point last year as well. He talked about 118 and 119 different projects and more than 5,000 jobs. It is a fair point that the member makes, and I have asked officials to look into how we can quantify, in the way that Ernst and Young do, exactly what the value of that is. I promise to get back to him with that information as soon as I have it. On the issue of investment, following the publication of the documents this morning relating to the £10 billion memorandum of understanding, can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Government has ruled out investment in Scottish public infrastructure and building projects by the Chinese railway group? I think that the information that has been published today, which includes the answer to 28 parliamentary questions, and a number of freedom of information inquiries as well, lays out exactly what the basis of that discussion was. It was our initial discussion that led to a memorandum of understanding. There were no areas in the way that Willie Rennie has described that were agreed. There was no financial commitment made, and I would refer Willie Rennie to the answer to the questions that have been provided in response to the parliamentary questions that are lodged. I do have a lot of progress to make if I cannot shrink them back to the member. However, it is vital, as I was saying, that we do not rest on our laurels, despite that success that I have mentioned in relation to inward investment. We have to build on those strengths to secure the improvements in productivity. Productivity, of course, has new money into the economy. If we can increase what we do in terms of productivity, if we can increase our position relative to our competitors, that is a real expansion of the economy. It is also why, of course, we have spent so much time and money in promoting public infrastructure works. If we improve our public infrastructure, and just to remind the chamber of Patrick McLaughlin's statement that there had not been sufficient investment in Scotland's transport infrastructure for decades, which presumably includes the time when he was a transport minister back in 1989, when we improve our transport infrastructure, we increase our potential to increase productivity as well. Those fundamental strengths, as I say, are not in doubt. However, a focus in addition to productivity or as part of the focus on productivity on innovation is also crucial to that approach, and that cannot be overstated. I mentioned this morning on the radio Scotland Fife, an innovative firm in the Mid Scotland Fife region that has been supplying technical textiles for worldwide markets for almost 150 years. The actions that it took encapsulated the importance of an innovative outlook. It had a very difficult time recently for the firm, and it decided to recruit additional designers, which resulted in a transformation of the product line. What it meant was to take that ability to innovate. They were much more close to the requirements of their customers, and so the business grew. That shows that, if we can invest in new design, we can increase productivity. We will continue, for our part, to invest in our innovation centres and through initiatives such as Interface, which bring businesses and academics together to collaborate and to develop new ideas and products in some of the key growth sectors of the future. We will build on that by launching an annual innovation prize and by inviting the Council of Economic Advisers and the Can Do Forum to propose specific actions to boost productivity through innovation. The forum is also taking forward three pilot projects looking at key areas of innovation. Digital businesses in Edinburgh, innovation in manufacturing in Glasgow and digital care systems in the health services of the Highlands and Islands. Internationalisation and improving export performance are also fundamental drivers of our economic success. In March, we published a trade and investment strategy, Global Scotland, and over the next year, we will be opening two new investment hubs in London and in Brussels to add to our hub already in Dublin. I will do. Neil Findlay of internationalisation. Can I confirm that the international work being done in Qatar by the previous First Minister and Mr Yousaf was in fact public-private partnerships in looking for investment in PPP projects for infrastructure in Scotland? I have no understanding of trying to attract PPP projects. That was also mentioned in relation to the Chinese discussions that we had. Again, the forum was no part of those discussions that I was not involved in in discussions that it referred to by the member in relation to Qatar. Our enterprise agencies are working all the time with companies to grasp those opportunities. Four years ago, Scottish Development International helped 1,400 companies to internationalise. Last year, that figure was more than £2,500. As the First Minister announced last week, we want to build on that success. One way of doing that will be to carry out an end-to-end review of the roles, responsibilities and relationships of our enterprise development and skills agency. That review will consider how best to deliver and enhance the agency's services and functions to meet new client expectations and deliver on Government ambitions around productivity. I will lead that review and will set out more detail to Parliament in due course. Scotland's economic strategy also set out the importance of manufacturing and our ambitions for the economy. In February, we published a new manufacturing action plan in conjunction with our enterprise agencies to further develop a joint focus that will help to boost a sector that is responsible for half of Scotland's international exports and more than half of our R&D investment. We will continue to invest in our physical and digital infrastructure, and Fergus Ewing will say more about that when he sums up at the end of the debate. Those will not only provide an immediate boost to the economy during construction, but they provide tangible assets that underpin future productivity growth. Our digital superfast broadband programme is on track to deliver 95 per cent coverage by the end of 2017, and additional public investment will help to achieve our ambition for 100 per cent superfast broadband coverage by 2021. Our strategy also makes clear that improving Scotland's economic performance requires action to tackle inequalities. High levels of inequality can undermine our economic performance, whereas actions to improve our economic performance can reduce inequalities, and they can and should be mutually supportive. Our approach to business includes a greater focus on inclusive growth and fair work, and it is also characterised by a spirit of collaboration. We have brought Government, trade unions and businesses together to encourage progressive workplace practices and to improve productivity, including some noticeable successes in relation to the work done by my colleague Fergus Ewing in relation to steel, and in relation to shipbuilding at Ferguson's. Everson shows that firms that, for example, pay the living wage, provide job security and career progression, as well as invest in skills and training, tend to outperform their peers, and that is why we should encourage that. That is also why we will continue to promote fair work and progressive workplace practices through the business pledge, as well as the promotion of the living wage and the fair work convention. We can see progress over 500 living wage accredited companies, and the second highest proportion of employees paid the living wage or more in the UK at 80.5 per cent. Given the importance of the labour market to our ambitions, one of our first actions in this Parliament will be the publication of a new labour market strategy to ensure that our support is tailored to meet economic conditions. As well as responsible business, a focus on education and skills are fundamental to securing inclusive growth. We will maintain the number of full-time college places and continue to focus on the skills and training to help young people into work. We will also provide 30,000 new apprenticeships a year by 2020 and will work with schools to inspire more young people into STEM subjects. Once we have the powers, we will introduce a jobs grant to help young people aged 16 to 24 who will be unemployed for six months or more back into work. I have already talked about infrastructure and investment, perhaps that is to be expected, given my previous portfolio. The Queensferry crossing is, of course, the most visible investment of the last Parliament. Although it is not as visible, the most important investment we will make during this Parliament will be through a transformational increase in childcare provision. By the end of the Parliament, we will almost double available free early learning and childcare to 1,140 hours a year. That will ensure that young children in Scotland get a high quality start to their education. It will also ensure that families with young children can continue to participate in the labour market and, in turn, underpin future economic growth. Our plans for childcare also directly support our ambitions for raising educational achievement and closing gaps in attainment. The attainment Scotland fund was established to address that challenge and the ambition that we are showing in education and early years lays the foundations for our economy, driving long-term improvements in productivity and opportunity. Scotland's economy has shown resilience against recent prevailing economic conditions, and we continue to face global headwinds. I am not denying that. I recognise the challenges that we face, but we will maintain a clear and unrelenting focus on creating a competitive and supportive business environment in order to achieve our ambitions. My appointment as a dedicated cabinet secretary for the economy should send a clear signal of this Government's focus on stimulating growth, protecting and creating jobs and promoting Scotland as a great place to do business. We will continue to focus on improving productivity and prosperity through innovation, investment, internationalisation and tackling inequality. I support the motion in my name. I welcome Keith Brown to his new role as cabinet secretary for economy, jobs and fair work. He had an early victory in his brief in his team beat mine in the Scottish Cup final 10 days ago. He tells me that he was at the game, I was not. He was at the game, I am assured by him, he was not one of those celebrating on the picture that I am scanning the television coverage very carefully to see whether that was the case or not. I also welcome Jackie Baillie to her new role on Labour's front bench. Jackie has long been one of my favourite Labour MSPs, as she well knows. Of course, it seems that I am not the only Tory who is an admirer of Jackie Baillie if the results in her Dumbarton constituency are anything to go by the recent election. Who knew that Trident would be so popular? Now, when I raised the state of Scotland's economy in last week's debate, I was accused by the Deputy First Minister of emulating my namesake private Fraser from Dad's army. I am sure that other members will be as disappointed as I was at this mischaracterisation of my normal, cheerful, optimistic demeanor. But we simply cannot pretend that everything is rosy in the garden when there are so many issues with the Scottish economy as it stands. Economically, we are absolutely on a knife edge with regard to the potential of Scotland re-entering a potential recession. Not my words, Presiding Officer, but those of Liz Cameron, chief executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, speaking on 27 April this year. If the Scottish Government does not wish to listen to Opposition parties expressing concern about the state of the economy, then at least it needs to listen to highly respected business leaders. Yes, of course. I note that the Conservative amendment deletes all reference to the oil and gas industry and renewables, and the difficulties that those industries are experiencing. Is that embarrassment on the behalf of the Tories for the way they have treated the industry over years and in particular denied oil and gas engineers the opportunity to move across to renewables where we would have considerable amount to offer? I have to say to Mr Stevenson that if he had attended the number of events that I have done with the oil and gas industry over the past few weeks, the continual reframe that I hear from people on oil and gas is why the transferable skills that are used in the North Sea are not allowed to be used onshore in Scotland because of his parties dithering on their moratorium on fracking. If he is interested in oil and gas and supporting the jobs, he needs to get on with it. The outlook on GDP is concerning. GDP growth is behind the rest of the UK, having previously been higher. Unemployment in Scotland is substantially higher than the rest of the UK, and the gap is widening. Retail sales are declining, and business confidence is low. There is no point pretending that there are not issues that need to be addressed. The Scottish Government will point to the latest figures in foreign direct investment, and I looked at the Ernst and Young report that came out last week with great interest. I welcome the fact that a number of projects increased substantially in 2015 compared to 2014. It cannot, of course, escape anyone's notice, that we saw a decline in the years running up to 2014, and a sudden spring back after 2014 was over. What event in 2014 could possibly have led to this loss of confidence and the deterrence of international investors? As I pointed out earlier in my intervention, the figures in the EUI report are only part of the story, because they only publish the number of projects. They do not publish the total value of those projects individually or cumulatively, so we cannot assess the total level of foreign direct investment. I welcome the commitment—I will finish this point, and I will give way. I welcome the commitment, given by the new economic secretary, that he will ask EUI to look again at the issue and see whether we can be better informed on what exactly is going on with inward investment. I will give way to Mr Ewing. I thank you for giving way. Since those new projects—190 new projects—are just being set up and started, it is far too early to be able to say exactly what value they are going to be to the Scottish economy, because they are just being made. However, the measure of criteria that is set by our development agencies is that 5,385 jobs were secured or created by those projects. Therefore, in terms of job creation, which I would have thought is an important criteria for us all, there are undoubted and considerable value to the Scottish economy. I agree with Mr Ewing that the number of jobs created is important, but we need to know at what level those jobs are, what the salary scales are. Surely it is not beyond the width of civil servants or even E&Y to collect those information. I welcome the more emollient approach from his colleague, Mr Brown, which indicates that he is at least prepared to look at those issues. The difference that we now have looking at the economy going forward compared to debates like that in the past is that, in future, the Scottish Government will have substantial additional powers over tax that it can utilise to influence our economic performance. It is essential that it gets this right, because if we set tax rates too high and we send out a message that Scotland is an uncompetitive place within the United Kingdom in which to invest, set up or grow a business, we risk driving away the very entrepreneurs and wealth creators that we need to attract. We will end up with less money coming in for public services as a result. There is a salutary lesson for the Scottish Government in the setting of rates for the domestic lands and buildings transaction tax by the previous finance secretary. My predecessor is Conservative finance spokesman Gavin Brown continually warned John Swinney that he was setting the rates too high on the most expensive properties and the consequence of that would be a slowdown in the housing market of the upper ends and a decline in the tax revenues. Mr Swinney refused to listen and carried on regardless. The effect of that stubbornness is now plain for all to see. For Mr Brown's warnings, echoed by many in the industry, have been proven entirely true, because while the housing market at the lower end has grown in activity, for larger properties, more than £0.5 million, outside hot spots such as the centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh, there has been a virtual stagnation in the market. I have taken two interventions already to make some progress. Just ask any property agent or lawyer and they will confirm that this is the case. The net result, confirmed by the Scottish Government's own figures, is that domestic LBTT has raised more than £30 million less than John Swinney originally budgeted for. If the new finance secretary wants a quick win, he needs to look again at the evidence on the impact of LBTT rates on the housing market. Even a minor tweak can end the stagnation and bring in much more needed tax revenue and, at the same time, help to rejuvenate the market at the top end and drive the economy as a result. I say that it is not simply because I am in the process of trying to move house myself. The other substantial lever that the Scottish Government holds is in relation to business rates. Those have been increased by some 42 per cent over the past nine years of SNP government. In its most recent budget, the former finance secretary went even further, doubling the supplement for large businesses and for the first time charging rates on empty industrial properties. Both measures are going entirely in the wrong direction in a second and sending out measures that Scotland is in an expensive place to do business. I will give way to Mr Ewing. Mr Fraser mentions 42 per cent, but the information that I have had and is published annually in the Scottish Government's local finance statistics is that the rise has been 30 per cent in Scotland as opposed to 31 per cent in England. When is he going to get his facts right? The 42 per cent comes from the following leading figures in business, Brian Bucking, chief executive of Scottish engineering, Liz Cameron, Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Mark Crotall, chief executive of the Scottish Tourism Alliance, David Melhush of the Scottish Property Federation, David Lonsail of the Scottish Retail Consortium. Maybe all those people are wrong, Mr Ewing, but they have all combined to express concern at the level of business rates and the doubling of the large business supplement. As Scottish engineering put it, I quote, the imposition of an additional levy on business rates is a burden that an already struggling manufacturing and engineering sector can ill afford. It does not just affect the large businesses, the threshold is a £35,000 of rateable value, which will affect even many modest retail units. The changes to empty property relief now mean that industrial properties are no longer exempt, and as many involved in the property business have said, all that will do is dry up the supply of the very empty properties that expanding businesses and inward investors need to move into. It is a misguided policy that will have serious negative unintended consequences for the Scottish economy. It is not just in relation to taxation that we need to see a change of direction. Successfully, economies need a well-educated workforce. We in this party consistently opposed the cut of 152,000 college places by the SNP. The part-time courses need to be accessed for those who are already in work, looking to upskill, or those such as women with children who have taken time out of the employment market and are now looking to return and need to access them. I need to say much more about education, infrastructure, broadband and productivity. Other colleagues will cover that in the course of the debate. Let me just close by saying that there are great strengths to the Scottish economy. We acknowledge that, but we are simply not performing as well as we should be, and our fear is that the performance gap is widening between ourselves and the rest of the Etude kingdom. We will be a constructive opposition, supporting good ideas to improve our economic performance, but we will not hold back from criticising a Scottish Government that makes the wrong choices and sends out the wrong signals about Scotland as an attractive place to live, work and do business. I have a pleasure in moving the amendment in my name. I now call Jackie Baillie to speak to and move amendment 212.3. Seven minutes, please, Ms Baillie. Presiding Officer, I welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate about the economy, because, for me, the foundation of a strong society is a strong economy. I share an ambition with many across the chamber to grow the economy, but to do so in a sustainable way so that everyone benefits. As many economists have pointed out, an inclusive economy, with everyone having a stake in its success, is likely to be a more healthy and growing economy. The Scottish Government is very fond of congratulating itself. I suspect that all Governments are prone to doing just that, but it should be careful to avoid complacency. This is not year zero. The Scottish Government has been in power for nine years, and the economy is not in a good state. Mention is made of the 2015 inward investment figures, but little time has been spent on growth, productivity, employment or indeed unemployment figures. All of those points are taken together to a weak economy with no immediate prospect of improvement. That is reflected in the lack of business confidence in survey after survey. It is critically important for us to understand that as a starting point if we are going to secure positive change in the economy. I know that the Scottish Government is always keen to compare itself to the rest of the United Kingdom, but for some reason, unaccountable reason, it seems less keen to do so in the economy. Because across a range of measures, the UK economy is doing better than the Scottish economy. On growth, we lag behind the rest of the UK, despite being boosted by public sector investment in infrastructure. Construction has helpfully provided about 40 per cent of GDP in recent years, but economists describe that as lopsided. We know the problem, which this presents when the futures trust is in difficulty. The delays to construction projects that we witnessed last year and into this year only overcome by increasing private sector involvement to a new level in public sector projects. Our GDP has been adversely affected with a substantial decline in the price of the barrel of oil. We need to see oil and gas bulletins published on a regular basis if the cabinet secretary is to be believed about his openness to working with others across the chamber. However, we also need to see preventative action on jobs, rather than going in after job losses are announced in the north-east as they were over recent weeks. There are opportunities for decommissioning to which we need to consider and to do so sooner rather than later. We also lag behind the rest of the UK in productivity. That is an area where we can make the most difference. The Scottish Government's target is to rank in the top quartile for productivity against our key trading partners in the OECD by 2017. By next year, we will be in that top quartile. Scotland is currently in the third quartile, behind Italy and behind Spain. Our performance is not getting better, it is getting worse. In 2006, we were in 16th place, so I would expect us to have improved. Now, in a second, we are at 19th place. We have dropped three places. I welcome the announcements by the cabinet secretary, but what on earth has the Scottish National Party Government been doing for the past nine years to improve productivity? I give way to Keith Brown. I thank Jackie Baillie for taking intervention. I explained that we have increased our productivity vis-à-vis the rest of the UK by 4.4 per cent. The UK has stood still. Since the time that Labour was lasting control, we have increased productivity. In all the litany of woes, is it possible to recognise some of the efforts that have been undertaken by the Scottish Government in terms of the public infrastructure of transforming it, the saving of Ferguson's and the saving of Tathass steel, or is Jackie Baillie blind to those things? I am not blind, but in the space of seven minutes I want to highlight the challenges ahead. No, but I do want to highlight the challenges ahead, because by being blind to them yourself, I think that you do a disservice to this Parliament and to the Scottish economy. Now, frankly, I pose the question to you of what you have been doing. You can have the litany of excuses and explanations. We were in 16th place in 2006. We are at 19th place now. Your target is to be in the top quartile by the end of 2017. Are you sticking to that target, cabinet secretary? Perhaps you will deal with that in your summing up, because improving productivity is fundamental to improving growth. In reviewing Scottish enterprise, the cabinet secretary would do well to give it targets for building national productivity, support for innovation, support for superfast broadband as a national infrastructure priority, access to venture capital, and also essential if we are to improve productivity. On that note, what on earth happened to the Scottish investment bank? I believe that it has been announced maybe seven times now, Presiding Officer. Will it ever see the light of day? Employment levels have fallen. We now have 21,000 fewer jobs. We are lagging behind the rest of the UK, and of the jobs created under the SNP in the last Parliament, six out of 10 have been in low-paid, insecure work with women making up the majority. We surely can do better than that. Unemployment is increasing. It has gone up by 20,000, so that is now 171,000 unemployed, but there are even more who are economically inactive. Whilst our unemployment is increasing, the UK figure has decreased by 28,000. Across a range of measures, cabinet secretary, we are not doing well, but we can and must do better than that. Let me offer you some suggestions. Let us get on with the review of business rates, recognise the important role of small and medium-sized enterprises, put in place a comprehensive industrial strategy with a specific focus on our science, technology and engineering sectors. Renew our focus on cities as the engine rooms of the Scottish economy. Invest in infrastructure so that we improve connectivity, which is particularly important to our rural economy. The SNP needs to reverse the cuts to education. We cannot cut hundreds of millions of pounds from our schools and expect to have a highly skilled workforce ready to meet the labour market demands of the future. Let us look at the appalling attainment gap in maths that is revealed today. The greatest investment that any Government can make is in human capital, in its people, and education is the foundation stone for that. We should be anticipating the jobs of tomorrow for the industries of the future, industries that we have not even begun to imagine. That is the job that we expect of Government. Action to grow the economy is of fundamental importance. That should be our primary focus over the next five years. With a strong economy, we generate more income for public services and we get a strong society, too. I welcome Keith Brown to his new position. I thank him for the meeting that he generously gave us this morning to explore his portfolio and those of his team, too. I look forward to constructive engagement, even if we might not agree on every occasion, and perhaps we will hear more of that later on. Today is an opportunity for us to set out constructive suggestions that we have for this minority Government. We should remember that it is a minority Government, and it will require support of others across the chamber in order to make progress. I believe that we should be encouraging the Government to come out of the timid corner that it has been hiding in with the lack of ambition that it has for growing our economy. Liberal Democrats believe that our people can be the magnet for investment growth and jobs for Scotland. They are the route for the economic recovery, which is why we think that we should be investing in people in this country in order to secure that economic progress. Thousands of people are off work every year because of depression. That is why I think that we need a step change in our mental health services in Scotland to help them to be active participants in the workforce to improve their mental health means and improvement in the economy. Employers are crying out for a skilled workforce. We need that transformational investment in education to train our people with the skills that employers need. That is why we have been arguing for a £500 million investment for nursery schools in colleges to have that change. We also need improved infrastructure, with improvement in broadband, mobile phone services and transport to ensure that our people have the best on which they can thrive. With those measures, I believe that we can grow the economy, but I also believe that the Scottish Government programme is far too timid in order to meet those challenges that have been outlined already. My original intention was to use that debate to focus on the challenges that our economy faces and the steps that are required to get it back on track. However, this is the first chance that we have had to question the new cabinet secretary since he was appointed to his post, and following the publication of the answers about the £10 billion memorand of understanding this morning, I must focus on that just now. Members will recall that the MOU, with Sinofortoon and the Chinese railway group, was signed with uncharacteristic modesty by the Scottish National Party Government just before the election. Apparently, there was too much else happening to announce an international deal worth £10 billion. I cannot imagine what else was going on at the time that would merit that being put down the priority list. I want to make it clear that I want investment for Scotland, but it has to be ethical investment, with appropriate due diligence conducted before anything is signed. You know that the SNP has lost the argument when they put this kind of rubbish out this morning saying that we are talking down Scotland and accusing us of negativity for daring to ask any questions. They are at it again just now, trying to silence us. I will never be silenced from asking serious questions about the conduct of this Government. I have read the freedom of information documents published today and the parliamentary answers that go with it. Two months after questions were first raised about the project, but the papers confirm our worst fears. No due diligence was conducted before the signing of the document. The Government, and apparently the Chinese railway company representative, knew nothing about the corruption and human rights allegations and abuses that relate to the £1 billion agreement. Someone had concerns, though, as attempts were made on multiple occasions by officials to remove reference to the Chinese railway group from the memorandum and the press statements. Why was that? We have had no explanation for why that was the case. The First Minister said that there were no specific projects, but she sent a message, a special letter expressing her delight, that the specific projects had been well received. Mr Brown, and he will remember this, we had this debate in the early stages of the election campaign, claimed that these companies had a track record of working in the United Kingdom. He cited Port Talbot, so he was comfortable, apparently, with their involvement, but that was not true either, was it? CRG, the China railway group, has not been operating in Port Talbot. The sign of fortune has, but not the CRG. CRG has been rejected by Falkirk Council. The Norwegian oil fund, a country that we often look to in this country here, has withdrawn investment from the CRG following concerns about the risk, not just of corruption, but of gross corruption. The most damning of all, Amnesty International, has condemned the behaviour and ethics of the China railway company after it threw people out of their homes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Those are devastating revelations and far from clearing the Government in this regard. I think that it makes it worse. Let us look at what we have got, officials seeking to tip-ex out the China railway group from the documents. No involvement in Port Talbot has been rejected in Norway, turned down in Falkirk and named and shamed by Amnesty International. However, the Scottish Government refused, just in a second, when the minister generously took an intervention from me, to rule out the company. If all those other operators, countries, review groups, ethnic groups and councils have ruled them out, why on earth are the Scottish Government keeping the CRG still on the table? Keith Brown, quickly please. Will he specify which specific deals were under discussion with the Scottish Government? Can he say what the nature of the financial commitment was and why he thinks a memorandum of understanding constitutes a deal? It would help the debate if he could do that. Willie Rennie's argument about technicalities is that what we have here is a memorandum of understanding. If it means nothing, why on earth did the First Minister sign it? Of course it means something. It should be embarrassed by this rather than celebrating it. Instead of defending the company, it should be instead investing in people in this country, because that is the way in which we can grow the economy. I think that the minister should be embarrassed and should be apologising to the chamber for the mess that he has got this Government into. I move the amendment in my name. We now move to the open debate. There are speeches of six minutes. I let everyone know that time is really tight, so I will be strict on that. First, we have John Mason, followed by Alison Harris. I am delighted that we are debating the economy today, early in the new session. I think that Keith Brown's appointment shows how important this SNP Government considers the economy to be. I think that there are many positive aspects to Scotland's economy, so I hope that we will not get too bogged down today's debate on being negative and running Scotland down. For example, modern apprenticeships going up from 25,000 to 30,000, good news. The small business bonus helping 100,000 small businesses, good news. International exports up 37 per cent from 2007 to 2014, good news. Tourism in Glasgow employing 30,000 people and business tourism worth a billion pounds to the city economy, good news. The debate is obviously wide-ranging, as we have just heard from Willie Rennie, so I will aim to focus on a few aspects, the first being transport. Clearly, one of the requirements of a strong economy must be good transport. That affects our food and drink exports, our tourism in particular, but probably has an impact on every part of the economy. I think that we should very much welcome the investment that there has been in recent years, including the M74 completion and the rail line through Airdrie and Bathgate, as well as most recently to the borders. Many people locally tell me how much they value the M74 since it was completed. The current upgrading of the A8 to M8, the M73, the M74 wraith interchange improvements can and I am sure will be of great benefit to business and the whole economy. Roads all over Scotland impact on tourism, and I spent the holiday weekend camping at Apple Cross in Wester Ross. The roads leading in there are single track with hairpin bends, and truly are dramatic. The area attracts visitors because of the very fact of what the roads were like. The number of bikers this weekend at Apple Cross was absolutely amazing and certainly good for local business. However, Apple Cross is probably the exception, and generally we do want good quality roads to get tourists to their destinations in a reasonable time. The A82 is a really important road for the Highlands and Islands, and much of it between Glasgow and Fort William is pretty good. However, the stretch between Tarber and Adlui alongside Loch Lomond seems to have hardly changed during my lifetime, with the notable exception of Pulpit Rock, and I really would want to make it a priority in our future road investments. Road improvements should also be an improvement for cyclists and others as well. As I drove out of through Glencoe last night, there was a large number of cyclists on the road, and it was frustrating to them and to other road users about the congestion on that road. Secondly, inequality. I am glad to see that inequality is mentioned in the Government motion and in the amendments of Labour and the Lib Dems. However, I do not see that word unless I have missed it in the Conservative amendment. It seems to me that an economy where the income and wealth is in the hands of a very few, even if that economy was growing strongly, would not be a successful economy. That economy would have failed. Sure, I would like to see the economy grow, but more than that I would like to see the present income and wealth shared out more evenly. SCVO and their briefing make the strong point that, quote, less inequality equals a stronger economy. That is also very much the theme of the book, The Spirit Level, which my much-missed former colleague Nigel Don was keen to quote. I accept equality of opportunity as part of the answer, but more equality in what people actually have and actually receive is part of it, too. Next, ownership. I believe that link to inequality is the question of ownership. Not every successful organisation has to be a private company or a PLC. It is encouraging to see more emphasis on social enterprises, although I would still like to see more by way of co-operatives. My understanding is that Germany has been much better than the UK at keeping businesses locally owned and controlled, and for that matter it has been better at maintaining its manufacturing sector in general. For example, Scottish Power was a very successful Scottish company and I do not see any benefit to our economy from its being taken over. In fact, I think that the takeover of a company like that damages our economy, loses us jobs in general and loses us quality jobs in particular. Just yesterday, in the back page of the Glasgow Herald and the main business page, it talked about the acquisition of an Edinburgh virtual reality start-up by Facebook. That was seen as a big success, but part of me feels a bit sad that our measure of success is how well we can sell off our businesses. Is there really no place in Scotland for businesses not only to be started but also to grow and develop while remaining owned here? Population. One of the factors that helps an economy to grow is growing the population. Clearly Scotland has a lot of empty space, even in a city like Glasgow, and we have skill shortages in the NHS, engineering and elsewhere. I should commend successive Governments, not just the present Government, who have recognised that. I welcome the First Minister's Baby Box initiative, and hopefully that will lead to an increased number of babies. Immigration is clearly an area where Hollywood does not have control, and it is all very well opposition parties saying that we should focus on the powers that we have. However, what happens if we need more people? People want to come here, and Westminster says no. Should we just sit back and accept that, or should we be arguing that we need to have at least some discretion in this area, for example for the brain family from Dingwall? I will bring my mark to a close, and I hope that the Opposition members will be a little bit more positive in the next five years about the Scottish economy than they have been in the last five years. Thank you. I call Alison Harris to be followed by Kate Forbes. Please excuse the horse voice. May I begin by saying that it is a great honour and privilege to be elected to represent the people of central Scotland region? Although I live in Falkirk, I must make clear my determination and commitment to all the people of central Scotland and not only those who have voted for me. I will of course work tirelessly for the region as a whole. At this stage, I would like to pay tribute to my esteemed colleague Margaret Mitchell, who has been the sole representative of my party in central regions since 2003. I know for a fact how hard Margaret has worked to serve the people of central Scotland, both in this chamber and outside it. We saw people from throughout Scotland supporting us many for the first time in order to ensure that this Parliament has a strong voice that requires and deserves and that the Scottish Government has a strong opposition. People want rigorous scrutiny and alternative proposals on the issues that matter most to them, namely education, health and the economy. Indeed, to focus in on my own region, the election result appears all the more exciting. For the first time, there are three Conservative representatives who have been elected from the central region. Whereas in previous parliamentary sessions, Margaret Mitchell has worked extremely hard to represent her region, I would like to state that this will not be the same workload divided by three, but rather three times the effort and three times the strong representation will be provided for the people of central Scotland. On a personal note, I am looking forward to getting on with the job in hand of representing the people of central region and ensuring that their voices are heard in this chamber, possibly when I don't have laryngitis though. I am also looking forward to the prospect of scrutinising the SNP Government over the next parliamentary term. I will stand up for hard-working people and strive to strengthen local businesses and promote a stronger economy. At the opening of this fifth session of the Scottish Parliament, there are many different challenges facing Scotland's economy and the Scottish Government will undoubtedly be judged on how it addresses those challenges and how it is able to provide stability and a much-needed boost to the Scottish economy. There have been worrying figures recently in terms of the Scottish economy. Unemployment in Scotland increased by 8,000 between January and March to stand at 169,000. That is clearly deeply worrying and those figures illustrate the on-going challenges in Scotland's labour market. Such figures are disappointing and it is also a great concern that unemployment has risen for the third time in a row in Scotland. Last year, Scotland's growth rate was 0.4 per cent behind the UK as a whole. Indeed, many sections of the Scottish economy are facing difficult times. That is perhaps most apparent in the North Sea oil and gas sector. In this sector, jobs are likely to continue to be sherryed from where to shed. Oil and gas predict a net loss of 26,000 jobs by 2019. I am adamant that North Sea oil and gas can have a bright future once again in Scotland, but we must continue to provide support. Clearly, there are some worrying signs, but it is within the scope of this Government to make the bold choices necessary in order to provide support for Scotland's economy and usher in a period of sustainable growth. We will seek to make the case for growth and for a competitive tax system. The primary test for us when deciding whether to support or oppose this Government will be whether we are helping or hindering growth. I would like to make it clear that we need to see measures brought in to support and encourage our businesses, not discourage them by imposing levies and increasing freight rises. We are committed to evidence-based policy to show how a competitive system of taxation can greatly help businesses, both large and small, across Scotland. It is of paramount importance that we give people and businesses reasons for setting up in Scotland and growing their businesses here. We unashamedly support entrepreneurs, and it is our ambition to make Scotland one of the best places in the world to do business. Especially in times of economic difficulty, we need to ensure a competitive tax regime in order to stimulate job creation. I believe that, across the lifetime of this Parliament, we are presented with a fantastic opportunity to boost Scottish business, to make Scotland the most dynamic and exciting place to do business. It is undoubtedly the case that, during this parliamentary term, we must see an unrelenting focus on Scotland's economy. With new tax powers and existing challenges, there is a lot to get on with, and strengthening our economy must be the major consideration. On this side of the chamber, we will ensure that the Scottish Government is held to account for its actions on the economy, and we will always and resolutely make the case for a competitive tax system and a strong and vibrant economy. Thank you for listening to my croak. Well done, Ms Harris. I call Kate Forbes to be followed by Colin Smyth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a double honour to stand here, both because of the place in which I speak for the first time, but also because of the people I represent in the constituency of Skye, Lachaber and Badenoch, which includes Dingwall the Black Isle and Loch Ness. A constituency that boasts the Coulins and the Cairngorms, Ben Nevis and Loch Ness, which is surely as much scientific evidence as you need to know that I have the most beautiful constituency in Europe. This huge constituency stretches from coast to coast. It is economically diverse. The bedrock to Scotland's food and drink economy, the linchpin to Scotland's tourism industry and an energetic force in Scotland's businesses. Across the 11,863 square kilometres—I expect a few gasps of all of my constituency—creative, entrepreneurial and talented people who live, work and study here. From the small isles scattered off the Lachaber coast to the villages nestled on the shores of the Great Glen and on to the urban centres of Dingwall, Portree, Avymor and Fort William, there is one shared narrative. That is that economic opportunity is critical to population growth in the Highlands. The historic trend in the Highlands over the course of centuries has been emigration, and that means that there are far fewer young people. In fact, if the Highlands had the same demographic profile as the rest of Scotland, there would be an additional 18,000 young people aged between 15 and 30. Across Scotland, economic opportunities underpin public services, but in the Highlands they do more. They stem the flow of emigration, and a strong, resilient Highland economy will create the long-term opportunities to boost business, create jobs, raise wages and invest in the schools, hospitals, roads and public services that make the Highlands an attractive place to live, work and raise a family. As a young Highlander, I have seen more investment in the Highlands over the last two terms of government than I have seen under successive governments. I am excited about the SNP's Government agenda, because it is an agenda that can make the Highlands thrive. I congratulate Keith Brown on his appointment. However, let's start with the Government's commitment to roll out superfast broadband to 100 per cent of homes and businesses over the course of this Parliament. I am absolutely delighted to also congratulate Fergus Ewing on his appointment as the Cabinet Secretary for Carnactivity, with 100 per cent broadband included in his remit. With reliable broadband, anybody can launch a start-up anywhere on the most remote Highland peninsula or island. They can study a whole host of subjects by distance learning from the comfort of their own community. They can access telecare despite living miles away from the nearest GP Broadband is key to unlocking the potential of the Highlands. However, we need physical as well as virtual connectivity. My dad remembers as a wee boy when the family of seven would pile into the five-seater car and choose to drive from Inverness to Glasgow via the A82 rather than the A9 because it was a bit less bumpy. However, it got on those days and I welcome the capital spend on dualling the A9 but also want to see continued upgrades to the A82 as part of the Government's impressive £1.4 billion promise spend on improvements to the roads. I am so pleased to hear John Mason confirming the need to continue to invest in the A82. We need jobs, too, and the Highlands is well on its way to being a world leader in the renewable sector, thanks to the Scottish Government's commitment to developing a globally competitive renewable energy industry, despite the challenges of a UK Government that is anything but committed to this goal. Renewable energy has long been not only a source of electrical power but also an instrument of economic and social regeneration in the Highlands. Just last week, I was pleased to see the £2.6 billion investment in an offshore wind farm in the Murray Firth, with the potential to generate electricity for 450,000 homes, support 900 jobs and almost quadruple offshore wind capacity in Scotland. That is not to mention the wave, the tidal and the continuing hydro potential in our seas and rivers. I hope to see one day energy being completely devolved to this Parliament so that we can see an end to the unjust policy of charging Highlanders higher prices for their energy just because we are remote. When it comes to energy generation, we are the centre. We are also becoming a centre of academic study with the University of the Highlands and Islands, which not only allows our young people to live, stay and study but attracts more. If there is a future for young Highlanders, like myself, and if we want to see the Highlands thrive, then a resilient economy is a necessity. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin by congratulating you on your election to your now, not so new post. For the record, I also declare an interest in this debate as a local councillor who chairs Dumfries and Galloway Council's Economy Committee. As I move from one chamber to another, I am committed to continuing to fight for the people of Dumfries and Galloway and all of the south of Scotland, who have given me the great honour of now serving them in the Scottish Parliament. In this new role, I look forward to falling on from my party colleague Graham Pearson, who made a significant contribution with his highly respected expertise in relation to justice. I also look forward to keeping the red flag flying high in Dumfrieshire, continuing the work of my colleague and friend, Elaine Murray. Elaine was an exceptional constituency MSP in Dumfrieshire for 17 years, serving a local community with real dedication and distinction. Dumfrieshire is where I was born, it's where I was brought up, it's where I still live and that's something that I'm incredibly proud of. Although I have to say that when I was completing my register of interest last week, I did get the impression that the standards clerk maybe didn't share my enthusiasm. I asked excitedly where did I register that I'm a season ticket holder at Cwneith South football club and he promptly replied, he'd be pleased to know that's not something you need to admit to. But the fellow football fans in the chamber will know that Cwneith South's nickname and the name given to people who hail from Dumfries is the Dunhamers. Its origins lie in the 19th century when many people from the town worked away from home, particularly on the railways in Glasgow and talked about going back to Dumfrieshire. It's an apt term for today's debate on the economy. Much of the south of Scotland suffers as a result of the movement out of the region of young people looking for employment opportunities not always available in Dumfrieshire. It's one of the big challenges the economy of the region faces, but it's not the only one. When developing a new regional economic strategy, Dumfrieshire and Galloway Council commissioned the Crite and Institute to carry out a baseline study of the local economy. There are many fantastic successful businesses in the area but what that study showed won't come as a surprise to anyone in this chamber who knows the region. Our GVA per hour is just 82 per cent of the Scottish average. Dumfrieshire and Galloway is the lowest-paid region in Scotland with Ireland's 15 per cent below the national average. The proportion of people of working age with no qualifications is 12 per cent. Compare that to another rural area that Highlands and Islands, where the figure is half at just 6 per cent. There is also real evidence of underemployment. Only two thirds of those unemployment have full-time jobs. However, the challenge that angers me most is the fact that youth unemployment in the region has historically been above the national average. For any young person who is able to work to be out of a job, that is a real tragedy. It's a tragedy for that young person who finds himself unable to get on in life. It's a tragedy for their family who have to motivate and support them, but it's also a tragedy for our economy. We miss out on so much untapped talent. To tackle those economic challenges, I believe that we need the Scottish Government to turn its positive words and its past to economic strategies on regional equity into action. Too often, the south of Scotland has been a forgotten region in the eyes of Government, exasperated by policies such as the centralisation of services that have sucked so many jobs out of the area. However, we have a new ministerial team in the department, including a fellow South Scotland MSP, so I wish the cabinet secretary and minister well. With your indulgence, Presiding Officer, I would like to briefly take up the cabinet secretary's offer for some constructive ideas. I urge him to prioritise the Government's commitment to regional equity. What would that mean for the south of Scotland? Will it mean a fair and equitable distribution of central government jobs, in particular senior posts, to the more peripheral communities of Scotland? It would mean a radical change in the remit of Government agencies to deliver equality when it comes to business support. It's simply unfair that a business in the Highlands and Islands can receive support, but because the remit of Highlands and Islands Enterprise is different from Scottish Enterprise, that same business would not receive the same support if it was based in the south of Scotland. It would also mean a fairer share of investment in our roads infrastructure, such as the A77, the A75, the A76 and the A7. However, it is not just our physical infrastructure that needs investment, so too does our digital infrastructure. For many businesses in rural areas, if they even have superfast broadband, it is often well not very superfast. Connected to that, or rather not well connected, there is a need to keep the pressure on the UK Government to improve mobile phone coverage. For too many people in the south of Scotland, frankly, four years is a type of football pitch and certainly not something that you will get on your mobile phone anytime soon. In concluding, there are many big economic challenges facing south Scotland, but with a genuine commitment from the Scottish Government to regional cohesion, I believe that there are solutions that can lead to a time when young people don't need to leave the south of Scotland to benefit from quality job opportunities, and they no longer have to think about when they will next get the chance to return back and doonhame. Thank you, Mr Smith, very timely. I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Jamie Greene. I want to congratulate Fergus Ewing and Keith Brown for their new appointments. Scotland has many underlying economic strengths. Our highly educated workforce has immense natural resources and thriving industries such as energy, life sciences and tourism. Under the SNP, Scotland has the most competitive business tax environment in the UK, and the number of registered businesses is at an all-time high. We are consistently ranked in the top two areas outside of London for foreign direct investment, as has been alluded to earlier in the debate this afternoon. However, Scotland has certainly been the most successful part of the UK outside of London for the fifth time in six years. I think that that is a record that we are proud of. The small business bonus scheme has also supported small and medium-sized businesses throughout some tough economic times, and the number-clad constituency and the number-clad is a whole. Over 1,200 small businesses have certainly benefited from this particular Scottish Government initiative. Then there is also air passenger duty. It is also one of the highest taxes of its kind in the world. In my opinion, it does not really make any sense. Certainly with the Scottish Government's proposals to have it and then abolish it, that will certainly increase Scotland's international connectivity and boost our local tourism industry. Then there is also the investment into superfast broadband and the ambitious programme to roll it out to 100 per cent of properties across Scotland. Central to the Scottish Government's success has been its record in capital investment to building the strong foundations for the Scottish economy. Within a year of being elected to government, the Scottish Government certainly had huge challenges to face about Scotland and also the UK and globally that the financial crash in 2008 happened. Certainly the Scottish Government had to navigate to the way around this. To do that, the capital investment projects were accelerated to make sure that infrastructure was built that would increase Scotland's competitiveness in the years to come. The figures that speak for themselves, today Scotland spends more on infrastructure per head than elsewhere in the UK. Infrastructure projects totaling almost £6 billion will be under construction during the course of 2016, each of which will continue to deliver benefits for years to come. Long-term infrastructure projects mean massive employment opportunities and the SNP Government is striving to help Scottish businesses to actually harness them. Without doubt, tourism is also one of Scotland's key economic contributors, with overnight visitors generating an excess of £4.5 billion annually and day visitors contributing a further £6.2 billion, giving a total spend close to £11 billion per annum. Not only that, but tourism accounts for over 200,000 jobs, many in rural areas, helping less populous communities to prosper across 20,000 different tourism-related businesses, while feeding into other sectors such as food and drink, retail, transportation and construction. I spoke about the digital connectivity a few moments ago. The quality of the customer journey is increasingly dependent on the availability of digital information, unless you are a model phraser when it comes to this Parliament. In most instances, the customer journey will start with website searches at the planning stage-based home. Information about destinations, accommodation and availability, events and attractions along the customer journey route is increasingly important for our visitors to move within Scotland. The reliability of a broadband and mobile phone connectivity across Scotland is essential to support growth in the visitor economy. Improvements to our digital infrastructure are necessary to support growth in the visitor economy, as well as other economic sectors. That is not just an issue for rural Scotland, but for urban Scotland. That became even more apparent to me throughout the recent Scottish Parliament election. It is certainly where I found gaps in connectivity within the Greenock and Ember Clyde constituency. Scotland's digital future infrastructure action plan outlines the commitment to a world-class, future-proof infrastructure that will deliver digital connectivity across the whole of Scotland by 2020. Bringing superfast broadband to Scotland is one of the most ambitious infrastructure programmes in the whole of Europe. That is a key step in Scotland's Scottish Government's aim for Scotland to become a world-class digital nation by 2021. There is another aspect of tourism, which is the cruise market sector. The cruise market is a developing part of the Scottish tourism offering. Within the market, Scotland is seen as performing strongly in the premium end of the market. To maximise the potential of the market, operations need to be at the premium end, and there is the need to invest to address identified issues. Increasing the number of port calls leads to an increase in the shore excursion offerings and profile destinations. The benefits of the market are hugely benefit to the Greenock and Ember Clyde constituency. With the upcoming investment through the city deal, there will certainly be additional economic benefits for the Greenock and Ember Clyde constituency. More than £40 million is to be invested in the Greenock Ocean terminal, with the construction of a state-of-the-art visitor facility. The port at Greenock provides the gateway to the west of Scotland, but it also opens up other opportunities for people when they come into Ember Clyde to go and see many and learn a bit more about the Ember Clyde area. I am delighted that the Greenock Ocean terminal will be one of the first areas to benefit through that. The Government believes in investing in ways that foster inclusive growth, because inequality threatens the long-term sustainability of our economy. I have Jamie Greene, followed by Ruth Maguire. In John Major's maiden speech to the House of Commons in 1979, which was one year before I was even born, he gave a packed house the following sage advice. I believe that public opinion requires four things of the Government in terms of economic management. It requires them to cut taxes, to curb inflation, to create new jobs and, as far as possible, to maintain satisfactory public services. It was true then, and it is true today. His words echo in my mind as I stand here in this very modern, devolved Parliament of ours. It seems barely a moment ago that I was chatting with Annabel Goldie at a Scottish reception at our party's national conference just two years ago. Oh, she declared, you're from Greenock. We need more people like you in politics, she told me. So I'm deeply honoured to be standing here as a member for the west Scotland region, one that Annabel served with her finest wit, charm and dedication. I give not just my personal thanks for nudging me along as a candidate, but I'm sure that everyone else here would like to thank her for years of service. I grew up in the Gibbs Hill estate of Greenock. It was a community often scarred by the wounds of intergenerational poverty. We played on the streets as children in Kerhardy Street and on Lansbury Avenue, great names of the socialist movement. But much has changed both politically and economically. As the member for Greenock and Unverclyde noted, shiny new cruise liners dock our shores, yet the waverly still cruises by, reminiscent of a bygone era. The iconic shipyard cranes still litter the skyline of Greenock as a testament to the great shipbuilding legacy of the Clyde. I went to James Walk College, a much more famous export of my hometown, a man who counted Adam Smith amongst his friends, and his invention of the steam engine powered the first machines of the industrial revolution. Our country today is a mixture of that great legacy of our past, but also our creativeness, our inventing spirit, our urge to travel and explore. Scotland is not without its problems, however. I was no stranger to the effects of life at the gritty end of the spectrum. Alcohol abuse, domestic violence, sectarianism, bullying and homophobia were all two common demons in our schools, our towns and in our communities. Whilst we can legislate in this chamber to help ease those pains, it is what happens outside of these walls that really matters to people. We cannot fix every problem in our culture or society, but we can be bold with our decisions. We have a duty across this Parliament to work cooperatively to stamp out bigotry, abuse and unfairness in our society. It is the reason why many of us became politicians. It is wrong when political supporters and campaigners use the language of violence and hatred to fight political battles, and we should say so. Over coffee last week, I chatted to our new finance minister, Derek Mackay, and no, I was not asking for tips on his hair or how to stay youthful after five years of Parliament, but I did make him a promise. I promised that I have five years ahead of me to hold the Government to account. Believe me, I will, but today, instead, I wanted to outline some positive thoughts about what I see my role in Scottish politics. Indeed, we have been elected to do a very specific and important job in this Parliament, to scrutinise, to challenge, to hold to account, not to head bash for the sake of political gain, but to, instead, offer alternative views from our centre-right ground, to challenge with ideas, not complaints, to engage in the argument, not be the cause of the argument. In my brief on connectivity, technology and the digital economy, I will be a strong voice for our creative industries, from our animation studios to our programmers, from our writers and our filmmakers. Rural broadband is not just nice to have, it is a must-have, and for some, five years is too late, await. How superfast will it be? Pro-mobile phone reception is not just an annoyance, it is a hindrance to our business. I have speeds of less than one megabit per second where I live in North Ayrshire, and those are speeds from the 1990s, back when apples were things that you ate, not things that ran your life. More must and ought be done in suburbia and in the countryside. I am going to close by offering my congratulations to the other constituency and regional MSPs in my region from all parties. I hope that we can work together productively and put the west of Scotland firmly back on the world map. We may not share views on independence, on taxation, the economy or even who should own the ferries, but we do share a passion for public service and for making Scotland a better place to live in, to work in, to be educated in, to grow old in. There is more that unites us as a nation and a parliament and a people than divides us, but bridges must be built, perhaps even using our own steel next time. We will sit at that table with a positive voice and a positive view, and I hope that that is something that even my opponents may agree with me on. I call Ruth Maguire to be followed by Rhoda Grant. I am honoured to be called to speak for the first time in our national parliament, as the member for, to my mind, the greatest of all Scotland's constituencies, Cunningham South in Ayrshire. I take very seriously the trust placed in me by people of Irvine, Coenning and Stevenson and pledge to work really hard for them and their families in this Parliament and at home in our constituency. It is fitting that I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Margaret Burgess. I am grateful to her for the role she played in our party's successes and the advice and support that she gave me personally as a candidate. However, the most important thing to note today is the wonderful job that she did as a member of Parliament, representing all the people in Cunningham South. I know that there are many, many folk in our constituency who would wish their thanks for her service put on record. As Minister for Housing and Welfare, Margaret oversaw the early achievement of our Government's target of 30,000 affordable homes built, making sure that everyone has a safe, warm, affordable home is key to making Scotland fairer and more prosperous. I know that Parliament recognises that good-quality housing helps to promote social justice, strengthens communities and tackles inequality, as well, of course, as being good for the economy. I welcome our pledge to build at least 50,000 affordable homes over this term, an important investment of more than £3 billion, supporting 14,000 full-time equivalent jobs and generating £1.8 billion in economic activity. Our Scottish Government has a strong record on the economy and, as we move forward, we must work together in this place and outside in our communities to build on that through innovation, investment, internationalisation and, crucially for me, tackling inequality. I know that many in this chamber will share my desire to see economic growth that benefits us all, where people have every opportunity to contribute productively and share in the benefits of increased prosperity in our nation. Both sufficency and security of income are vital to working people. I commend the Government's approach to fair work through the business pledge and look forward to encouraging companies in my constituency to get involved. Our plans to provide flexible, high-quality, state-funded childcare for 30 hours a week for all three and four-year-olds and vulnerable two-year-olds were confirmed by the cabinet secretary as the most important infrastructure project of this Parliament, and they will be transformational. We know that, for parents wishing to return to work, particularly women, the high cost of childcare can be a barrier or see them working for little financial reward, simply to keep their hand in at work, so that universal provision is welcome. Delivering high-quality childcare requires a well-qualified workforce, and in order to provide the flexibility that we have promised, the number of early years workers will need to increase. When planning the workforce, it will be important to remember that many of the women in the early years workforce—and they are predominantly women—will also have caring responsibilities themselves, and part-time and flexible work requirements should be taken into account. I hope that we take the opportunity of this expansion to challenge the gender segregation of the workforce and to address any inequality in the pain conditions between the private and public sector. It is clear that we will need a mixture of providers to achieve our aims for childcare expansion, and indeed all aspects of growing our economy will benefit from partnership working between Government, local and national agencies and business. In my constituency, our SNP-led local authority has taken an innovative approach to economic development with the setting up of Team North Ayrshire, and you can check out their activity on Twitter. The team includes North Ayrshire Council, Ayrshire College, the DWP, third sector partners, Chamber of Commerce, Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and local businesses of all sizes, working together in partnership. Their work includes the trial of an innovation pilot, which led to over 80 referrals of innovation support from Scottish Enterprise, provision of a dedicated resource to help social enterprise established and grow, and support for local businesses to develop export opportunities. With Ayrshire College and North Ayrshire Council working together, we also have a Skills Centre of Excellence in Irvine Royal Academy, offering courses in sport and fitness, health and social care and hospitality. Engineering foundation apprenticeships are also being offered. All that is achieved in a somewhat challenging economic climate, and it shows in my mind that with national and local agencies, the public and private sector are working together with the local community to build on the strengths that we have, it is possible to make a difference. I will finish by saying that I look forward to working on behalf of the people of Cunningham South positively and constructively with anyone who wishes to build a more productive Vader Scotland. I have Rhoda Grant followed by Tom Arthur, Ms Grant. If we are to build the Scottish economy, we need to recognise the differences between rural and urban economies. More than that, we need to recognise local challenges and opportunities. Too often, our economic development appears to hinge on a single approach, which works in some areas, but is actually ineffective and sometimes damaging in others. If we are to build those economies in remote rural areas, we must understand that we cannot do it by pursuing urban approaches such as account management. That is effective for larger companies, but that needs specialist intervention. However, even those larger companies have told me that that support that is on offer is sometimes not always what is required. Support has to be suited to the needs of the business, not just to the needs of the enterprise company. Large companies seldom operate in remote rural areas where businesses tend to be small, often one person in businesses. If we are to help and encourage them, we need to make sure that they can take on maybe another person through employment rather than looking to grow the businesses in the same way as we would account-managed companies. However, the needs of our smaller companies are largely ignored and they are often run by somebody who maybe has the expertise in the product or service that they are providing, but they do not have the knowledge of business practice and indeed do not have networks to fall back on. Unless we recognise the contribution that they make and that they are an untapped resource, we are failing our small rural communities. All our communities need access to high-speed broadband and it is essential for business development. Sadly, remote areas are lagging way behind when they have arguably the most to gain from access. Kate Forbes talked about e-health, e-education close to your community, all examples of service delivery that could be delivered if you had good broadband. Businesses would also be able to reach untapped markets and they would be able to deal with suppliers. The lack of digital infrastructure is driving people out of our rural and remote communities where good access would help with repopulation. I cannot stress enough the importance of this issue to rural economies and we need to set targets for coverage that are rural-proofed and take in the needs of expanding this throughout those communities. We recognise the role of farmers and crofters but seldom have ever offered them support to grow their businesses. The Crofting Commission, when its role was to support crofters, did that in the past but that support was moved to Highlands and Islands Enterprise where it became assistance for crofting communities and crofting communities exist throughout the whole of the Highlands and Islands and therefore that assistance has all but disappeared to active crofters. The same is true of other businesses that use their natural resources and those resources are there to be utilised to the benefit of the local economy. We have natural resources that are second to none but do little to exploit them for our benefit and of course we need to do that in a way that is sensitive to the environment. It is no-one's interest to do otherwise but we also need to use those resources to build local economies and create strong sustainable communities. If I leave aside for a moment and indeed we talked about it at some length this afternoon, the debacle of the cap payments, we already missed an opportunity to show up those rural communities when it came to designing the new scheme. The Scottish Government did not use it to level the playing field or indeed to sustain remote rural communities that continue to pay high watering amounts to large producers and ignore the quality of our smaller producers or use those payments to benefit them. Surely it is wrong that those payments are there to create a fair market. How can it be fair that they have skipped more than they have nots? It actually accentuates the disparity rather than negates it. Once the Scottish Government sort out the current mess of the cap system, they need to look to the future and see how they can devise a new programme that will help small producers to develop and grow and allow those working with geographical disadvantage to have the same opportunities as others. At a time of austerity and indeed austerity plus here in Scotland where both our Governments are cutting taxes and spending, we need more than ever to protect the most vulnerable in our remote rural communities. Those communities are extremely vulnerable. We see centralising of services to save money often sucking the lifeblood out of our communities not a good use of resources because it leads to those communities becoming more expensive to support. If a community is not vibrant how can you attract people in, for example a GP to locate there, then if you cannot do that you have to depend on expensive costings four and five times more. It is simply wrong that we need to focus properly on those communities and help them to build resilience or we will always have to support them. Strong resilient communities will need less support therefore investing in them will provide us with long-term savings. Providing officer, it is not just about saying that rural economies are different, it is about the need to recognise that all local economies have strengths and challenges and we need to provide support for them in a way that suits their needs. I am grateful to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on Scotland's economy and economic future. I would like to begin by offering my congratulations to both Keith Brown and Bergus Ewing on the appointment. It is worthy to note that the creation of a separate economy portfolio underscores Scottish Government's commitment to not only taking Scotland's economy forward but ensuring that all can share in the fruits of economic growth. Many of the contributions so far have quite properly been concerned with Scotland's economic progress to date, but it must be borne in mind that when judging the merits of any economic performance, regional or national, a consideration of context is indispensable if we are to arrive at a credible evaluation. The economic context for nearly all Governments across the globe over the past seven and a half years has been the fiscal catastrophe of 2008, with its corollaries of reduced credit and a prolonged period internationally of sluggish growth. For Scotland to have achieved, against this challenging backdrop, the longest period of consecutive growth since devolution, a significant improvement in productivity and to have reached a record number of registered business is not only testimony to this Government's economic stewardship but, more important, is testimony to the resilience and the talent of the Scottish people. Our challenge now is to take our economy even further forward. I strongly welcome the Government's many specific commitments, in particular the 100 per cent commitment to superfast broadband, which I know will be warmly welcomed in many communities, such as Howard in my constituency of Renfisher South. I also welcome the Government's broad economic strategy. Along with internationalisation and sustained investment in our infrastructure in people, innovation will be central to ensuring continued economic progress. It has been said that we are on the cusp of a new industrial revolution. Just as the internet and the smartphone have transformed our lives over the past two decades, so the internet of things and emerging technologies such as driverless cars have the potential not only to expand our economy but to significantly increase our quality of life. Indeed, if we allow ourselves a moment to indulge and contemplate the coming decades, fields such as genomics and AI could affect as profound a change on the circumstances of humanity as the agricultural revolution or the splitting of the atom. Such are the prospects of an innovative economy. However, just as future growth and prosperity requires an economy driven by innovation, ensuring inclusive growth and shared prosperity will always require an openness to innovation in our economic thinking. Technological progress has brought us many good, but it has had its consequences and challenges. Mature economies across the globe have all been subject to increasing stagnation of low and middle incomes and the construction of medium-skilled jobs. With developments in automation, robotics and artificial intelligence accelerating and the growing centrality of digital information to our economic way of life, we are approaching a fork in the road. We must ask ourselves how we integrate such advances into the economy today and in the future. We can employ those advances of the coming decades for the good of all, or we can blindly place our trust in the market alone, with the dreary inevitability that advances made by the many will lead only to profit for the few. Along the path of unregulated market forces lies in increasing inequality of income and ever-increasing job insecurity, already advanced to some extent by the emergence of the gig economy. However, should we choose the progressive route and harness the products of innovation for the common wheel, it is within the power of this generation to create a truly great society. The path to this positive and progressive future lies not in the political tribalism of the false binaries of public and private, government and enterprise, state and entrepreneur. Rather, it is in the collaborative approach that has been the hallmark of this Government, a willingness to support business and in times of difficulty to step in, a commitment to champion commerce through rates relief and a drive to grower exports and, above all, striving to ensure that ordinary workers, the fundamental wealth creators in our society, receive a living wage. We have come a long way and yet there is distance to travel. Our generation can be the one to realise a truly just society. I commend the Government on its achievements today and I encourage the Government to continue to be bold in their vision for our economy's future and our country's future. Thank you, Mr Arthur. Rachael Hamilton, to be followed by Joan McAlpine. Presiding Officer, I hope that you and the members have had and enjoyed a great bank holiday weekend. I would like to thank those who do not take bank holidays, to thank our service sector, those employed in leisure, hotels, catering and the IT sector, where coverage is expected 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Presiding Officer, it takes all walks of life to assemble a political party. I am proud to stand here amongst advocates, academics and historians, farmers, business people and retailers. Talented individuals eager to oil the cogs of the inner workings of Scotland as part of a wider United Kingdom. Some would say, the harder you work, the luckier you get. Put simply, our result was based on sheer graft and a clear message that appealed to voters, voters who returned the Scottish Conservatives as a fresh new face of opposition. We will deliver and we will not disappoint. I am not sure that I agree with Colin Smyth about the movement of talent. I grew up on my family farm in the Welsh borders, the farm that my grandfather returned to after serving for his country in the Second World War with the Shropshire Yeomanry, the same farm that my father and brother now farm together. This was not a right of passage. Years before, my father took me aside and asked me if I would like to take on the farm. He understood that I was capable and that I merited the same opportunity traditionally reserved for sons of sons. Flattered, but with other ideas, I gracefully turned down his offer and after graduating started work within the agricultural sector in southern Scotland. Miles from the homestead, my new job took me as far west as Ayrshire, through to Dumfries and Galloway, sweeping east to Lauderdale, Berwickshire and as far as the coastline in East Lothian. Fast forward 25 years and I am now proud to be a member of the Scottish Parliament representing this very swathe of Scotland which I regard as my home. My experience of running our family business has given me an insight into what works and what does not. In this Parliament we need to address the two big problems present in Scottish business, business rates and a skills shortage gap. As my colleague Murdo Fraser said earlier, business rates in Scotland have increased by 42 per cent over the last nine years. In this Parliament the focus needs to be on attracting more business to Scotland. At the moment the Scottish Government is making it harder for those who want to do business in Scotland by hiking up business rates and indeed reintroducing sporting rates. Future investment is being turned away and damaging Scotland in the process. We should also not regret our rural economy. I am proud that our farmers and producers play a significant part in the upkeep of our land and indeed the production of some of the finest Scottish food and drink products in the world. Accounting for Scotland's biggest non-energy export generating a record turnover of £14 billion. The tourism sector complements our business sector and is of vital importance to the Scottish economy. Our rural partners in vibrant towns and villages set the stage and the scenery for over 15 million visitors to Scotland every year. Spending by tourists in Scotland generates around £12 billion and contributes around 5 per cent of total Scottish GDP. It too accounts for nearly 8 per cent of employment in Scotland. Breathing life into our rural economy is what I am passionate about. Much more must be done to redistribute this wealth into the wider rural economy. Moving to our skills gap, attracting new business and investment to Scotland is a responsibility that we must take seriously. This Scottish Government must provide people with the resources and skills to meet the needs of business. In East Lothian, for example, only 18 per cent of pupils go on to further education compared to the Scottish average of just over 24 per cent. Simply, an uplift cannot be achieved if the Scottish Government continues to cut college places. Already, 152,000 places have been cut. The course is required to enter the very business that we want to attract. The Federation of Small Business has warned already that there is a lack of skills and how that is impacting on our growth here in Scotland. The time to act is now before the problem escalates. Ironically, even the most successful growth sectors will see a problem with skilling up the next generation of technological specialists. The latest Scottish technology industry survey reveals that the digital tech sector experienced such fast growth that Scotland cannot keep up with its demand for skills. It is another reason to support the provision of college places and address the increasing deficit of ability. The task ahead is clear. To attract business to Scotland, to encourage those businesses to grow and to ensure that Scotland has the skills to meet our future demand. That can only be done by stopping cuts to the college places and stopping rising business rates. In conclusion, I would like to thank the hands that feed us in rural towns and communities. Small businesses such as the ice cream shops in Inelithon and North Berwick and the coffee houses in Lauda and Dunbar. My role in this Parliament is to work with those local businesses and the tourist industry to thrive and drive our economy. I know that ice cream shop but I cannot advertise it. I call Joan McAlpine if you are followed by John Finnie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome the cabinet secretary to his new role. I have always found him to be very receptive and approachable in his previous role in infrastructure and transport. I look forward to continuing that relationship in the future. A number of members have outlined some of the challenges facing their own areas of rural Scotland and South Scotland in particular. I want to talk in my speech today about a solution to some of those challenges. It is rather a dry solution and, if members will bear with me, it merits some explanation. It is called the Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics, which is called NUTS nuts. It is a set of geographical boundaries that are set and regulated by the European Union, the core purpose of which is the reporting of regional statistics to Eurostat. Those inform regional policy development and they determine, crucially, the regional funding allocations. That includes very significant funding streams such as European rural development funding and European structural funding. Until now, the south of Scotland region that I represent has not accurately been reflected in those statistical areas, as the borders are thrown in with urban areas in the east and Dumfries and Galloway is in with urban areas in the west. I was very pleased earlier this year when the Scottish Government approved a proposal supported by the South of Scotland Alliance to create a fifth Nomenclature of Territorial Statistics covering the rural south. I understand that that is now with the Office of National Statistics for approval by Eurostat. That might sound very dry, but it has got very serious implications for the lives of thousands of people living in south of Scotland to quote from the South of Scotland Alliance, which comprises Dumfries and Galloway, Scottish Borders Councils and other key stakeholders. The current areas are so large and diverse that they mask the low levels of GDP and lack of relative prosperity in the south. The new proposed South Scotland nuts 2 area includes North and East Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire, as well as Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. To outline some of the challenges that have now elevated to MSP, Colin Smyth has outlined some of the issues that are facing Dumfries and Galloway in particular. Across the south, low levels of economic production are endemic. South Scotland's GVA per head in 2013 was 70 per cent lower than the EU average. Wage levels are below the Scottish average. There is a lack of high growth sectors in southern Scotland such as information and communication and finance and insurance. Southern Scotland has a relatively low population aged 18 to 40, in comparison with the Scottish average. It has a settlement pattern based on towns, villages and large rural hinterlands. The Scottish Agricultural College undertook research in 2012 looking at the distribution of population and the vulnerability of towns across Scotland. Of the total sample of 90 towns, 22 of them were vulnerable. 22 of them were in southern Scotland and 19 out of the 22 are in the 45 most vulnerable towns in Scotland. How can a new statistical designation help to deal with that kind of endemic problem? To give an illustration, the new statistical designation of southern Scotland shows that GDP in the area is just over £17,000. That compares to the UK GDP average of over £36,000. To compare, the Highland region is actually higher than south of Scotland at over £19,000. We all know the challenges that the Highlands faced. They were very eloquently outlined by Kate Forbes earlier in her maiden speech. If the new statistical designation can unleash a better distribution of European structural funds, we can only benefit from that in the south of Scotland. Those funds are worth over €985 million. They can help SMEs, they can help with digital connectivity, a subject that has been raised by several members. Of course, the social fund can combat the poverty, which is also sadly quite endemic in certain areas of the south and often hidden, because rural poverty often is hidden. However, I am very concerned that the solution, the change that so many people have worked so hard on for so long, is under threat. We have an opportunity, which is immediately met by a threat, and that threat is Brexit. The new MSP for Dumfrieshire, who campaigned successfully to win the constituency for the Conservatives only after the event revealed that he wanted to pull his constituents out of Europe. That threatens the benefits that we could derive from the new statistical designation. It threatens things such as connectivity. It threatens our opportunity to draw down from the social fund. I am sorry, because I just asked the member to be careful that he is in Perda for the referendum. In addition to that, the leader funding that Dumfrieshire and Galloway received in record amounts in this current round, I question where that is going to come from in the future should we leave Europe. I think that it is something that many people will be very concerned about. I have already cautioned the member to be careful. I have outlined some of the challenges that are facing the south of Scotland. I have offered one particular solution. I look forward to playing my part with other south of Scotland members to work constructively with the Government to ensure that our region of Scotland benefits from the economic success of Scotland as a whole. John Finnie, to be followed by Ive McKee, Mr Finnie. Four minutes are thereabouts, please. The Scottish Government motion talks about key challenges facing the oil and gas industry. Indeed, the Labour amendment does that, and the cabinet secretary alluded to it in his opening remarks. We would say that the Green Party is a great opportunity, and the Scottish Green Party believes that we must secure a strong and diverse economy for the future, and that economy should offer security, jobs and decent livelihoods. The oil and gas sector does not represent that long-term security. Indeed, Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, in his comments about fossil fuel investment, would confirm that. It is certainly a fact that using a finite resource that we cannot burn anyway is not our route to a sustainable future. What we need is a managed transition, and I suggest that the Scottish Government can play a pivotal role in that, or we could let neoliberal forces shape it for us. I think that you know which we would prefer on this side of the house. The First Minister talked about legislate to establish a new and more testing target for 2020. Of course, what we do know is that the setting of targets is not a problem for the Scottish Parliament that is achieving those targets. That is a responsibility that we all share and will all participate in. The First Minister, indeed, in her speech, talked about looking for support from across the Parliament for bold and sometimes controversial actions that we will need to take to meet those targets. That is very exciting. I look forward to that. We want boldness, and we will have support from the Scottish Green Party if those proposals are truly bold. The First Minister goes on to talking about living up to moral obligations. As we know, moral obligations are not just for Scotland, they are not just for the rest of the islands. They are not even for the continent, they are for the planet, and that is very important that we recognise that. However, there will not be support from the Scottish Green Party for extolling a UK chancellor who has visited austerity in all the grief that has come with it to give bigger and bigger tax breaks to obscenely wealthy multinational corporations to go further and deeper for resources that we cannot use anyway, if we are genuinely concerned about these moral obligations. There is a massive economic opportunity, as has been alluded to by the First Minister as well. I hope that the rationale for that comment by the First Minister was that her and her officials had digested the wonderful report commissioned by Green MSP's Jobs in Scotland's New Economy, which is perhaps not using the language yet of that report, which talked about her opportunity to move from, and I quote, energy colonisation to energy democracy. However, I think that we would all recognise that a transformation to a just low-carbon economy is about reducing dependency on distant multinational corporations. Frustrated as I am by the reduced time that has been given me, I think that I will move to saying that it is quite apparent that the Scottish Green Party uses different language. We will not pursue growth for growth's sake, and we recognise that to enjoy a prosperous future, we must begin the transition to a sustainable green economy. We support Scotland's diverse economy with investment in sustainable industries and industries that improve quality of life and reduce carbon emissions. An economy that prioritises fair pay, one that breaks the economics of austerity. A more equal society, the vast majority of us want in here, and that has been alluded to by a number of members. At decision time, we will support the Scottish Government motion. It talks about strong public services. I think that there is a serious debate to be had about the funding of that. It talks about the key challenges, but, most important, it talks about tackling equality. If we go about the governorship of our economy in an appropriate way, then we can have a more just and sustainable future. Last week in this Parliament, I spoke about my constituency of Glasgow Provin, our industrial heritage, the opportunity and ambition of our people. Today, I want to talk about how Scotland, led by the SNP Government, can provide those opportunities and I want to talk about ambition for our country. I also want to talk about how we need to do it right, learning from the mistakes of the past and learning also from the successes of others. Fifteen years ago last month, I was one of 3,000 employees made redundant and one of the biggest factory closures this country has ever seen. When it opened in 1990, the Motorola cellular phone plant near Bathgate was one of Scotland's biggest ever inward investments, providing high-value employment to thousands, but, barely 10 years later, those doors had closed and those jobs had gone forever. The silicon glen of my earlier career consisted mainly of what we call screwdriver plants, basic assembly line work, without the research and development and with the strategic business decisions being made elsewhere. At a time when Scotland was viewed as a low-cost country, before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening up of the large Asian economies, those days are gone forever. The successful Scottish economy of the future will be based on innovation and will be based on internationalisation and will understand the value of inclusive growth in driving productivity. The advanced manufacturing will be a crucial component of that success. That will not happen by accident. The fee market, despite what the members on that side might believe, can only play a limited role in delivering a nation's industrial progress. You also need hard work on the part of the Government and its agencies and a clear understanding of where you want to go, something that the SNP Government understands. A country the size of Scotland needs does not need to compete in every single global market. We need to identify niche sectors where we have a competitive advantage and then work ruthlessly to deliver success. The Scottish Government and its agencies are at the forefront of that. Industry leadership groups deliver in sector-specific manufacturing action plans that support environmentally sustainable processes, circular manufacture and renewables industry, and altering procurement policies that make it easier for small and medium businesses to do business with the public sector. A focus on reshoring is identifying where we can bring key elements of the supply chain back to Scotland from overseas, investing in infrastructure, committing to 100 per cent super-fast broadband across the country and encouraging employee engagement in the workplace and the role of the business pledge. PACE teams have a role to play in supporting employees when a business fails, but we also need to be active before the fact, understanding the market environments that our indigenous medium-sized exporting businesses operate within and helping them to stay one step ahead of global trends. I once spent a year working and managing a business in the north of Finland, a region more associated with Santa Claus and Sonas, yet boasting a vibrant manufacturing base. Much of it built on Finland's 1990 success in creating an indigenous telecom sector. Medium-sized businesses are exporting and growing a consequence of local ownership and a Government strategy to support industry, even in rural communities. Scotland's PLC needs to do what all successful businesses do, find the best in the world and learn from them, then do it ourselves only better, understanding that what is good enough today is inadequate for the challenges of tomorrow contains some improvement as a way of life. Learning from the successes of Sweden and Finland's innovation agencies proactively identify opportunities and risks in global markets, understanding the co-ordinated approach of Singapore Government agencies in supporting their global branding and reviewing what Denmark has done with its globalisation strategy and what New Zealand achieved with our 100 per cent pure brand campaign. I want to finish on that note, but we must never stop learning and developing and we must also not forget the tremendous advantages that we enjoy as a country and as an economy. We start from a place that, as the envy of our global competitors, our natural and human resources, our heritage and global recognition are footholding many of the key industries of the future. Let's not set our sights too low. Scotland has the potential to be a world beater in so many sectors, and while we have many short-term challenges to face, we should not limit our ambitions. That SNP Government, we can build that short-term resilience and create those long-term opportunities to drive Scotland forward. I am now moving to the winding-up speeches. All members took part in the debate, so they should be back in the chamber. I call on Willie Rennie to wind up the Liberal Democrats. Mr Rennie, six minutes are there about, please. I want to praise the first-time speakers today. I thought that some excellent contributions to the chamber. Ruth Maguire, Rachel Hamilton, Jamie Greene, Colin Smith, Kate Forbes, Alison Harris—there seem to be some kind of competition as to who had the most beautiful constituency. All I can say is that those members who were praised in their constituency have clearly not been to mine, so I would encourage them to visit the east nuke of Fife and Andrews and all the places in between, including Oxtormachty. Neverab greater town has existed than Oxtormachty. I urge members to celebrate the fact that they have made their first contributions in the chamber, and I am sure that they will make greater contributions as the years go past. We are having the debate in quite challenging circumstances. Members have already alluded to the challenging unemployment statistics. There is a wide gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Normally, it was about nip and tuck before, but there is quite a gap growing with a 5.1 per cent unemployment rate in the rest of the UK and 6.2 per cent in Scotland, which is the widest gap since 2004. The reasons for that seem to be pretty clear. Obviously, there are issues around the oil and gas sector, which are known to us all. Ian Wood has reflected that there could be this year alone 45,000 jobs lost in just this year in itself. I think that we have got to a place where the tax regime matters in this year when it is not making much money, but the foundations of the tax regime are getting to the right kind of place. Of course, there is more work to be done, as I am sure the ministers will highlight, but it is getting to a place where, if the oil price recovers, we have the potential of making sure that the jobs recover in the north-east at the same time. We welcome the fact that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have the new city deal for the region, which will allow the economy to diversify to make sure that we are not just solely dependent on oil and gas, but that we are looking to other sectors that the north-east is particularly strong in utilising the skills of that region, but also investing in the infrastructure, which is sorely required for that part of the world, often neglected, assumed that it was capable of coping by itself, now desperately needing that investment, and thankfully at last that is happening. However, I think that we also have seen massive cuts to the renewable sector, and that was obviously not enough for the Conservative party to see the decline of the oil and gas sector, but now they are imposing massive cuts to the renewable energy sector, having a massive impact not just on wind but also the solar sector as well, with thousands of jobs lost. I think that, especially at this time, when we are facing real challenges with the oil and gas sector, we should be investing in renewables, not cutting renewable support, because I am sure that the ministers will agree that we have seen business confidence and investment confidence in that sector dramatically shattered. That is something that we should be able to repair. However, the Scottish Government has contributed towards the problems, and I am thankful that the minister has apologised earlier on for the debacle of the foreign payments. Hopefully, we will now see the money going out the door so that we can close this massive gap in the rural economy. However, thankfully, I questioned the Government on the Chinese rail company, because not one single SNP backbencher raised one single question about that very important issue, not one single. It talked about many other issues, valid issues, of course, but not one single member raised questions, because there are massive questions that have been raised by the Norwegian oil fund about corruption. I am the stay international about human rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo. There are also questions about the process and the lack of due diligence. I will give John Mason an opportunity now to speak if he wants to make up for the inadequacies of his speech. John Mason? I wonder whether the member would accept that he has failed to convince me that there is a problem here. Well, if evidence from Amnesty International that internationally respected body and the Norwegian oil fund, which I thought were his best mates, is not enough for him, then I do not know what will be enough for John Mason. I have significant concerns, and I think that, as a diligent backbencher, he should have equal concerns as me. If I can just conclude, I urge the Scottish Government to also change course on investment in education. We have seen today new statistics that have shown that the gap in numeracy has grown for primary 4 pupils. We have seen no progress in primary 7 and S2. That should be raising alarm bells within St Andrew's house. We need a dramatic investment in education for colleges, for schools and for nurseries, so that we can invest in the workforce of the future, so that we can grow the economy to create the jobs, the wealth for our economy. That is the way out of our current difficulties. I urge, at this last minute, the Government to change course. I thank Mr Rennie and Richard Leonard to wind up for Labour Party. Mr Leonard, six minutes are there about please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the chance to speak in this debate in which we have heard some very impressive first interventions. I am proud to address the chamber as the Scottish Labour Party's spokesperson on the economy, but I also speak as somebody who has enjoyed the singular privilege of representing working people in the Scottish economy for the last 20 years as a union organiser and for five years before that, as an economist at the Scottish TUC, learning and working alongside great figures like the late Campbell Christie and the late Bill Spears, two of the political architects of the Scottish Parliament. Last week's Ernst and Young report into foreign direct investment in Scotland certainly generated some impressive headlines, but it merits some words of caution too. For a start, those inward investment projects highlighted in the report are predominantly call centres, not headquarter functions. They generate sales and marketing suites, not manufacturing jobs. Even in the report itself, the authors call for the Scottish Government to be, and I quote, more ambitious on manufacturing, a theme that I will return to. I wonder too how many of those new jobs are trade union jobs. We know in the past that there has been some resistance to trade unionisation in the foreign direct investment sector, so I hope that the Scottish Government will be more ambitious on trade unionisation, as well as on manufacturing with those employers too. There is a third note of caution that I want to strike. According to the Scottish Government's own figures, by 2015, the share of our total economic base, owned by interests-based overseas, had risen to over a third, 34.2 per cent to be precise. Because an increasing proportion of our economic base, our firms and capital assets are overseas owned, we can have a high gross domestic product but a much lower national income. Once profits, dividends are repatriated abroad and deducted from the total. For a wider perspective on international investment flows, I recommend to the cabinet secretary that he reads the latest United Nations world investment report. That shows that, whilst it is true in 2014 that the UK attracted US$1.62 trillion worth of inward investment stock, at the same time that the value of outward stock stood at US$1.5 trillion. I inferred from his remarks that somehow investment from outwith the UK is bad. How does that apply to Tata in the work that she is doing, possibly continuing employment in Port Talbot? What does he think in relation to Liberty House, where he and I served in the task force, which led to them being a foreign company helping to save the Scottish steel industry? Is that not a good thing? Yes. As Fergus Ewing mentioned, I was a member of the Scottish steel task force with him and we secured external investment for that. My only point here is that we can become over-dependent on external ownership in the economy. As Ivan McKee described earlier in the debate, if you are over-dependent on a branch plant model, you will be cut when the racialisations take place. If I can return to my theme, I want to say a couple of things again. I mentioned last week about the example of the Tannoy workers in Coatbridge, a group of working men and women who are determinedly standing up for their jobs and keeping their factory open. I think that they deserve the full support of this whole Parliament. The situation of the Tannoy workers is an injustice that reminds us of what a democratically backward industrial system we really have. Here is an example, not of foreign direct investment, but foreign direct disinvestment being contemplated, a threatened strike of capital that I hope the cabinet secretary is challenging with the hon. Mr Beringer, who is based in the Philippines. I take this opportunity to call once again for a rearguard action to be mounted by the Scottish Government in defence of the Tannoy jobs, but we are calling in this debate this afternoon for much more than that. Of course, we were delighted when Jim McCall stepped in to save Ferguson's shipyard from closure on the lower reaches of the Clyde in 2014. Of course, the entire labour movement applauded when the Scottish Steel Task Force, chaired by Fergus Ewing, paved the way for the continuation of our steel industry. Of course, we welcome that, but the point is that we cannot keep relying on defensive rescues of enterprises or even entire industries when they are in trouble. That is why we are demanding positive industrial planning and a comprehensive strategy for manufacturing. As Ivan McKee suggested, we are saying to the new cabinet secretary that industrial reconstruction is needed, and we need to consider the institutions, including the role of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Isles Enterprise, as Colin Smyth mentioned in his contribution, as well as Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council and so on. I want to finish on two points. The first point is that manufacturing matters. Manufacturing industry's share of the Scottish economy has slipped to below 10 per cent. Manufactured products are tradable, so it is good for the balance of payments, especially at a time of falling oil prices, and it opens up scope for innovation. On the internationalisation point that the Government has made, raising demand in the economy at home and developing demand in export markets are not alternative policies but two halves of the one policy. Finally, I said in my first speech to this Parliament that I am here to fight against unemployment and for the new society, which is something greater than Scotland PLC. I think that in this Parliament we have become indifferent to mass unemployment. To Jamie Greene, who quotes John Major, whose chancellor said that unemployment was a price worth paying, I say that we refute that approach to economic policy on this side, and we need to find in ourselves the moral courage required to make full employment once again a goal of public policy. Why on earth? No, I am sorry, the member must wind up. That was a good point to stop at. I call on Dean Lockhart to wind up for the Conservatives. Mr Lockhart, eight minutes are thereabouts, please. I think that we have had a robust, lively and generally constructive debate on the fundamental need to have a strong economy to support our public services in Scotland. I thank the cabinet secretary, Keith Brown, for bringing such an important motion to the chamber at an early stage in the parliamentary term. Earlier today, Mr Brown and myself had a very constructive meeting to discuss the agenda that we both share in terms of having a constructive dialogue to promote the Scottish economy. As we said during our election campaign, not only would we be a strong opposition, but we would be a constructive opposition and bring forward constructive policies where we think that they will help the public services and the Scottish economy. Turning to the central theme of the motion proposed by the minister, I think that it is very clear from all the discussions today that the Parliament recognises the importance of a strong economy to support the public services. I congratulate all the new members of the chamber who had excellent first speeches, including Rhoda Grant, Ruth Maguire, Katie Forbes, Colin Smyth, Alton Harris, Jamie Greene, Rachel Hamilton and my notes also say a mortal phraser, but I am sure that that must be a mistake. Let me outline what our priorities will be for the Scottish economy. We will address the challenges that we believe that the Scottish economy faces. Over the past five years, the economy has expanded in Scotland by just 1.4 per cent compared with 2.1 per cent across the UK. There is an underperformance in the Scottish economy, and that has an impact on the ability on what we can spend in public expenditure. Unemployment in Scotland is higher than the UK. It is currently 6.2 per cent compared with 5 per cent in the rest of the UK. The latest economic figures show that, for the last nine months, the Scottish economy has become very dangerously close to being in recession. We all know about the problems of the North Sea in terms of the oil price. In the last year, for the first time ever, the economy had a negative contribution from revenues from the North Sea. It costs more in terms of tax incentives than we got from the North Sea. I am sure that everyone in the chamber feels for the families who have suffered and lost jobs and have suffered from the problems that are experienced in the North Sea. Let me summarise the constructive policies that I said that we would bring to the table. We are reducing a co-operation tax to 17 per cent, making us one of the most competitive economies in the world in terms of co-operation tax. The UK is now the fifth largest economy in the world. We overtook France two years ago because of the dynamic policies that we implemented. We in Scotland get the benefit of that through some of the Barnett consequentials as a result of the... I am actually running a bit behind. In future, yes, absolutely. We are proposing to reduce business rates in Scotland. There has been, I think, a 42 per cent increase in business rates over the course of recent years. We think that that is too much of a burden for small and medium-sized businesses in Scotland. We have also made it very clear that, with the new tax and spend powers coming to Parliament, we will guarantee that Scotland will not have a higher tax rate than the rest of the UK. That is an important message to centre business because otherwise we just put ourselves in a competitive disadvantage. We also call on the Government to make it very clear that what it will do with the new tax and spend powers coming to Parliament. I look forward to hearing what the plans are from the Scottish Government in that respect. I think that there is agreement across the chamber that the Government policy with regard to broadband and mobile coverage is very positive. I think that that is a great area where we can all agree that it is important for small business, it is important for families and people living in the more remote areas of Scotland that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government are working together to commit approximately £400 million of investment to expand broadband for homes and businesses, which I think is a very important area, and a good example of where we can work constructively together. With time running short, the other areas of constructive policies that we are looking to introduce would be to address the skills shortage. We all know about the number of college places that have been cut. We believe that to have a competitive economy, it is not all about university. We need vocational training at the college level as well. That is an area that we are looking to focus on, and we would like the Government to look at reinstating some of those college places. Someone mentioned artificial intelligence, and it does seem a bit out there, but based on our discussions with business, it is becoming a real thing. In the same way as automated manufacturing had a real impact on manufacturing jobs in the 1980s, I have spoken to some pretty senior executives in the finance industry in recent weeks. Artificial intelligence at the first stage of AI systems will be coming in place quite soon. That is something economically that we should all really think about how we best prepare. It is a challenge, but it is also an opportunity, and it is something that we look forward to having a constructive dialogue about. The most fundamental issue, I believe, for the Scottish economy is stability. When you are a business person looking to invest in a country, be it Scotland, Swansea or Slovakia, you look at your return on investment. You look at a 10-year horizon, and you look at things such as interest rates, business rates, and you look at how you can maximise your return on investment. All that I would say to the Government is that the biggest uncertainty out there is the question of a second independence referendum. I do not want to go into that debate right now. Can I ask the member to wind up almost immediately an excellent point to end on? I would say that that is the fundamental question that has impacted the economy over the last five years. It is reflected on the FDI job numbers that showed the decline between the FDI job numbers between 2012 and 2015, and it has only increased once the independence question and the independence vote were no. I will end on that note. I call Fergus Ewing to wind up the Government, Cabinet Secretary, till five o'clock, please. I have been immensely heartened by this debate, especially by listening to the new members who are taking part in the debate. I thought, by and large, apart from the political points that the contributions were extremely positive from members who were either making their first or perhaps second speech, Jamie Greene, Rachel Hamilton, Ruth Maguire, Colin Smith, Tom Arfer, Ivan McKee, Mr Lockhart and Mr Leonard. I thought that there was a huge amount of positive approach to the debate, and that is immensely encouraging. I think that Rachel Hamilton referred to the fact that people in tourism work at anti-social hours. That reference was made to artificial intelligence from Mr Lockhart. That might seem slightly risable in the context of this heated debate, but he is absolutely right. It is an extremely important topic and a huge opportunity. Many members from the Conservative ranks, the new ranks, made lots of positive contributions. I wonder whether there is a new tendency in the Conservative party, among the new, as opposed to those who have been around the bloc a bit, such as, if I may say it myself and Mr Private Fraser. We know that the Labour party had the militant tendency, but perhaps the new entries from the Conservatives are the positive tendency of the Conservative party. If that is so, that will be warmly welcomed on those benches. Now, we have had a series of interesting revelations in this debate, none more so than from Mr Mason, who opined that the provision of the baby box will lead to a rise in population. Yes, he did. I never realised that the baby box was so potent, Presiding Officer. We have also heard a lot about the Scottish Government dismissing the problems of the economy. Far be that the case, the economy secretary set out quite clearly that we know that there are huge challenges facing particular sectors in the economy. Of course, there is. Towards the end, there was a realisation that the difficulties that we see are in part because of the difficulties between the oil and gas, but we must not lose sight of the fact that our economy is built on very strong foundations. Scotland's economy grew by nearly 2 per cent last year. During 2015, the economy recorded a record level of employment. I am looking at the longer term and perhaps that puts things in better context. An extra 141,000 people have moved into employment over the past six years. I think that that is perhaps a way to reflect the performance over the past years in the longer term. We have also, as much discussion is considered, had a record year for inward investment, attracting the greatest levels of investment of any part of the UK outside London. Much reference was made to the fact that, in 2014, there was a low, poor performance. Go and study the facts, Private Fraser. You will find that, in 2014, we had the fourth best year since records began in 1999. His assertion is complete rubbish. It is contrary to the facts. In 2014, we had the referendum and we had the fourth highest level of FDI. Therefore, if he does not listen to me and I am not sure that he particularly enjoys listening to me, and I suppose that I can understand that from some point because I do like to correct his facts, listen to Ian McConnell of the Herald. I have no idea whether he is any political views or not, but I have always thought that he is an unbiased, intelligent commentator. Let me quote from him last Friday. He said that, to deliver a 51 per cent rise in inward investment project numbers—that is to 119—a 51 per cent rise—you will learn more. To deliver a 51 per cent rise in project numbers against a soft global economic backdrop and amid a downturn in a key oil and gas sector that has, in the past for Scotland, been the source of so many overseas projects, is really quite something. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. He speaks with such authority on this matter. What was the value of inward investment to Scotland in 2014? He cannot tell us. Let me give you a far better figure. There are 2,200 foreign-owned companies in Scotland. Much of the debate concerns the relative merits of foreign investment as opposed to indigenous investment. I would say that we are living in a global economy and therefore those on the Labour Benches who somehow decry for foreign investment are taking a somewhat narrow partisan view that I think is really a long-past sell-by-date. However, there are 2,200 foreign-owned companies in Scotland employing 303,000 staff. The combined turnover is £100 billion. Why the Conservatives chose to major on this, Mr Fraser, seems a bit of a puzzle to me. I am running out of time. I thought that the most important contribution was made by another new member, a member from the Highlands Cape Forbes, because she said—and she is quite right—that the greatest asset that we have in this country of ours will always be our people. That is why we, in this Government, want more people to come into Scotland and welcome them with open arms to the contribution that they make to our society and welcome those who come from other countries, EU countries, if I am allowed to mention those two initials. We do not want to send them back. We do not want to give them stays of execution when they are not allowed to have a job. They are part of the future of our successful economy and we welcome them. We cherish their contribution to the economy of this country. That concludes the debate on taking Scotland forward, Scotland's economy, short-term resilience and long-term opportunities. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 260, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revision to business for tomorrow, Wednesday 1 June. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 260. No member has asked to speak against the motion. I will therefore put the question to the house. The question is that motion 260, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are all agreed. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. I wish to remind members that if the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser is agreed, then the amendment is the name of Jackie Baillie and Willie Rennie-Fall. The first question is that amendment 212.1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion 212, in the name of Keith Brown, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We were therefore moved to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote is, as follows, yes, 31, no, 88. The amendment is not agreed. The next question is that amendment 212.3, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend motion 212, in the name of Keith Brown, on taking Scotland forward, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The votes for the amendment are, as follows, yes, 50, no, 69. The amendment is not agreed. The next question is that amendment 212.2, in the name of Willie Rennie, which seeks to amend motion 212, in the name of Keith Brown, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are. We are all agreed. Sorry, that was a no. We are not agreed. The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 212.2 is, as follows, yes, 94, no, 25, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is therefore that motion 212, in the name of Keith Brown, as amended, on taking Scotland forward, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 212, as amended, is, as follows, yes, 93, no, 25, there were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time and I now close this meeting.