 Gweithio. Y next item of business is continuation of the debate on the Scottish Government's programme for government 2016-17. Before I call the cabinet secretary, I want to say something very brief then that I want to eat in every's time. I disappointed yesterday that, despite my polite reminders to members, to speak for up to six minutes, several chose to ignore the request. My duty is to protect the speaking time of all back-benchers and these stolen seconds mean late speakers nearly always have their time cut. I've discovered I've got a nuclear option, the override button, which shuts off the speaker's microphone. When you see my pen in the air, it means one minute to go. There's also a clock. Let's hope the pen or the clock will be pleased if it reset properly does the trick. I will, however, be flexible if there's interventions, but that's the only caveat. Cabinet Secretary, you have up to six minutes. Duly noted, Presiding Officer, and I have to say from memory, Presiding Officer, that it's not the first time that I've had to use when I was chairing party conferences, the button on you, for overrunning on time. But it is. Indeed, and I'm big enough to take that on the chin. But it is a great privilege to open the second day of debate on the programme for Government, a bold plan based on the mandate secured by the First Minister in the Scottish parliamentary elections. We will continue to build a more prosperous nation that ensures opportunity for everyone. We have a clear objective of improving the life chances of young people by closing the gap in educational attainment and giving children the best possible start in life. The First Minister has updated Parliament on how we're responding to the uncertainty born of the EU referendum result. While the UK Government, more than 10 weeks on from the result, has offered little more than sound bites to Scotland's businesses, the Scottish Government takes seriously its responsibility in guiding Scotland through this uncertainty. We have therefore announced the details of the £100 million capital investment boost, investing in a range of sectors to protect jobs and promote economic growth, and also putting in place measures to support business. The UK Government has provided partial guarantees for some European funding schemes. However, that leaves around £750 million short of what we expect to receive as part of membership of the EU up to 2020, putting at risk significant investment and employment. Last month, I wrote to the UK Government urging them to provide the necessary clarity and certainty on those vital European funds. I once again call upon the chancellor to address that as a matter of urgency. Furthermore, we have announced a new Scottish growth scheme, which will be worth up to £500 million over three years. We will work with business to target that scheme at SMEs with the greatest potential for growth and export, and enable them access to finance in the form of guarantees and loans, depending on company need that would otherwise have been unavailable. That is a bold and innovative approach to supporting SMEs, building on our reputation for financial competence and utilising the strength of our balance sheet. However, as the First Minister has said, it needs the support of others to deliver success, and I confirm the Parliament that I have already written to the convener of the finance committee and the chief secretary to the treasury to seek that support. Those two measures only reinforce the Scottish Government's long-standing support for Scottish business and the economy. Our small business bonus scheme has already delivered over £1 billion in cumulative savings for smaller firms, and we have now promised to expand the scheme from next year so that it lifts 100,000 properties out of business rates all together, giving my, of course. I am grateful to the finance secretary for giving way. On Monday, 13 business organisations wrote to him asking that he reconsider the large business supplement, which has taken £62 million out of Scottish businesses into the coffers of the Scottish Government and puts Scottish business at a competitive disadvantage. What is his response? My response is to meet those businesses and understand tomorrow to discuss the matter of business rates and any other matter that they might be interested in. Having already welcomed a number of the interventions since this Government took office, and I am more than happy to report back to Parliament on the outcome of those discussions that will feed into the budget. I look forward to a number of pieces of legislation in which I have had some involvement in previous ministerial portfolios. However, as a consequence of continuing UK Government austerity, the Scottish Government and the budget will continue to fall in real terms until the end of this decade, as it has done since 2010. However, with our existing powers, we have already proven that we can work collaboratively to design devolved taxes better reflecting our policy ambitions. In 2017-18, we will also use, for the first time, additional income tax rate setting powers and will do so in a manner consistent with our objectives of growing Scotland's economy, promoting fairness and providing additional investment in high-quality public services. With the new powers on APD, we are committed to a 50 per cent reduction in APD by the end of this Parliament, which will better support our objective to boost international connectivity and help to generate sustainable growth. I will take the bill through Parliament to establish a framework for that tax. In addition, today, I laid legislation to reform the council tax and the council tax reduction scheme. That will make the council tax more progressive, provide additional investment in our schools and enable more support for those on low incomes. I stress, however, that there will be no change for three out of four households. Those in bands A to D will pay no more than they do now as a result of those changes. The First Minister has repeatedly made— It is his privilege that I give time for interventions. I do not kill the bait. If you will give me the time— I definitely will. I definitely will. That was my caveat. Alex Rowley. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. Does he accept that council tax is local taxation? As such, if he does accept that, then does he accept that it should be for local councils to determine how they spend the council tax that they raise? Cabinet secretary? Yes, I do. Local authorities will keep every penny of council tax even after the regulations that I have laid to Parliament this week. The First Minister has repeatedly made clear that education is this Government's driving mission. Those council tax changes will raise an additional £500 million over the current Parliament to be provided to head teachers to invest directly in schools. The regulations that I have laid for the council tax reduction scheme will provide relief from the changes for up to 54,000 low-income households in bans ETH properties and, separately, increase the child allowance within the council tax reduction scheme by 25 per cent. All of those measures demonstrate our commitment to a fairer Scotland, to strong public services, to an education system that delivers for all of Scotland and, finally, our commitment to growing the economy. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. Can I ask all members who have come in this week to press their request to speak? Bartons, please? They haven't all done so. I call Douglas Ross. We're followed by John Mason. Up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In my contribution today, I want to concentrate on the justice elements announced yesterday by the First Minister in her programme for government. I want to start by welcoming the Scottish Government's commitment to build on the abusive behaviour and sexual harm bill to ensure that the Crown Office has enough tools in the box to prosecute domestic abuse cases, which are, by their very nature, incredibly complex, often involving both psychological and physical abuse. The Scottish Conservatives recognise the importance of ensuring that the law reflects the experiences of domestic abuse victims, and we will work across the parliamentary floor with colleagues across the political spectrum to achieve this end. In doing so, it's important that the views of stakeholders are given due consideration and where necessary acted upon. I know that the Law Society has called for clarity on the Scottish Government's proposals to introducing new law for domestic abuse, highlighting in particular the practical issues in relation to partners and ex-partners that require, in their words, further consideration. The Law Society has also raised concerns about the difficulties for the Crown in acquiring sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. We owe it to the victims of domestic abuse to get our approach to tackling this monstrous and nefarious behaviour absolutely right. I sincerely hope that the SNP Government will be and adopt a consensual approach as it begins this important undertaking. Members on the benches will support the Scottish Government where we can, but we won't simply sit on our hands and accept policies from the SNP that will be to the detriment to the people of Scotland. That brings me nicely on to my next topic, which is about the Scottish Government's plans to integrate the British Transport Police into Police Scotland. The creation of the single police force for Scotland has been beset with problems from the very beginning, and those issues continue to plague the national force. While our policemen and women and support staff do their level best, every day there is another story in the press about the single police force, which reinforces the genuine concerns that were had and continue about the formation of a single police force. How does the SNP plan to address the concerns of worries at the strain that the single police force is under? It wants to add further responsibilities and to ignore the comments of the British Transport Police, which clearly do not want the forces to be merged. However, there has been a consultation that the Government will say, and this is a Government that we understand has a real zest for listening at the moment. However, the consultation was very particular. The Scottish Government is happy to consult on a whole host of things, but it did not consult on whether the functions of the British Transport Police should be assumed by Police Scotland, only how. I do not think that that is correct. Surely a decision of this magnitude with implications that it could have for both forces, the Government would want to look at all the options for devolving British Transport Police, which could have ranged from administrative changes to the full-blown legislative option that is being foisted upon us by the SNP. The Smith commission certainly stated that the responsibility could be devolved, but, as with every issue in that agreement, it should not cause detriment to the United Kingdom as a whole or any of its constituent parts. I seriously believe that, on that simple test alone, the Government's plans fail. Nigel Goodbrand, the chair of the British Transport Police Federation, is quoted today saying that the plans could, at times, leave the network unguarded. Clearly, those changes will have a significant impact on various aspects of forces. For example, police call centres already under strain across the country and proposals that will see more of them closed. Yet, in a written answer from the cabinet secretary last August to my colleague Liz Smith, he accepted that an increase in the number of emergency calls by over 2,000 a year going into those under pressure call centres will take place if the functions of the British Transport Police are assumed within Police Scotland. Yes, I will. I thank the member for giving way. We do agree with a lot of my constituents who do not understand why, on the railway line, there is one set of police and 20 metres away, there is a completely different set of police running things. I will answer that point if I can just in one moment when I quote from the British Transport Police and the British Transport Police authorities' response to the plans that the SNP is trying to forge ahead with. In their report, when they looked at all of the options available, their report said that absorbing the British Transport Police Scottish operations into Police Scotland was the most complex route to devolution. Perfectly time to answer Mr Mason's question, they continued, if policing of the railway network were to be carried out by two bodies, there is a risk for confusion to arise over who would record and investigate crimes which would be highly distressing for victims and cause unnecessary delay. We have that procedure in place just now to avoid those problems, yet Mr Mason seems to think that his constituents actually want that unnecessarily, unnecessarily delay and confusion. I do not want that for my constituents if that seems to be what Mr Mason wants for his. Many questions remain about those proposals, including accountability, the cost, the capacity and negotiations with current staff to name just a few. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has made the case for that merger by highlighting Scotland's distinctive approach to policing, yet, where his Government's record is concerned in this regard, it is distinctive more for its mismanagement of the merger of Police Scotland and the eight legacy forces than anything else. With that track record, the public will be forgiven for wondering how it can reasonably entrust the Scottish British Transport Police policies to the SNP's care when it has yet to get policing in order. I sincerely hope—and I see your pen waving, Deputy Presiding Officer—that the Scottish Government will listen to the concerns being raised about their plans. When everyone is telling you that you are wrong to forge ahead with a proposal, the Scottish Government should take heed. I not simply say that they and only they know what is best. We have a busy period ahead, Deputy Presiding Officer. Justice is a portfolio that forms a central and stabilising pillar of our democracy, but it is one that, under successive SNP Governments, has not had its problems to seek in recent years. Scottish Conservatives will provide opposition to the Government's ill-thought-through proposals and offer alternatives to ensure that trust and faith can be restored in the Scottish justice system that has sadly been let down by the SNP Governments. Thank you very much, Mr Ross John Mason, to follow by Clare Baker. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We start off effectively at the beginning of a new parliamentary session this week. I think that it is worth remembering why the SNP remains in power. People have seen very competent Government over the last nine years, very able management of Scotland's finances, protection of the NHS, investment in housing, transport and other infrastructure. That is why, once again, the people of Scotland have chosen an SNP Government. The economy will clearly be one of the key themes for Parliament, and I am sure for government, in the coming years. As a member of the economy committee, I look forward to scrutinising what the Government is doing and encouraging or challenging it as appropriate. Just on Monday, the committee had, in a way, day in the grass market and considered some of the many issues that could be on our agenda. Investment, internationalisation, innovation and inclusive growth are priorities that I think most of us are happy to sign up to. Energy is a sector within the economy that continues to be crucial. In fact, some thought that energy should be in the name of the committee. Oil and gas face challenges and are still hugely important in terms of production and decommissioning. However, we need to continue to focus on renewables. Solar seems to be doing surprisingly well for Scotland while tidal power is still in its infancy and offshore wind is costing a fair bit more than onshore. A number of speakers yesterday spoke about the economy, including Alex Neil on Brexit, devaluation and skills shortages, Stuart McMillan on housing, Clare Adamson on the Ravenscrag closure and the resulting poverty, and Alec Rowley on housing and apprentices. Before he moves off energy, if there are proposals come before Parliament to proceed with fracking in Scotland, will he oppose them? Mr Mason? I have said that I very much agree with the present Government position, which is that we should be extremely cautious about fracking and only go ahead if there is real serious reassurance about it. I have to say that cheaper fuel for some of my poorer constituents would be the attractive side of that. However, I was disappointed at the attitude of Ruth Davidson yesterday. She seemed very fearful that Scotland should be in any way different from the rest of the UK. Okay, businesses might pay a bit more rates here, but I am not sure that that is a serious problem. Firstly, we cannot use corporation tax to tax business profits, so business rates are our only option. Secondly, if we can invest any extra money in education and get business a better prepared workforce than it is the case down south, businesses themselves can really be the winners out of that. Yesterday at the economy committee, we had a very useful session on the labour market strategy with Jamie Hepburn as the relevant minister. As members may know, there are 42 pages and I do not think that it pretends to have all the answers, but the important thing for me is that it sets out many of the challenges and also steps that are being taken to address them. However, I am sure that this is a subject that the economy committee will be wanting to keep a focus on over the next five years. After all, the title of the committee is the economy mate jobs and fair work committee, so we want to keep a balanced focus on all of those aspects. The numbers of jobs and the quality of jobs are a huge issue. Both are important. The widening gap between those who earn the most and the least is very concerning to many of us. I do accept that that is also very much an international problem and is probably beyond the control of Westminster itself and certainly requiring powers that this Parliament does not have. However, we play our part and pushing forward the living wage is a key element. For me, there is little point growing the economy if all of our citizens do not benefit. The idea that those who own or manage our business should be free to take as much reward as they want while ordinary workers get a pittance cannot be acceptable in modern Scotland. I do accept that the answers are not easy, but for starters we need to accept that we have a big problem in this area and the labour market strategy does highlight that. Other topics that it touches on include the ageing working population, advances in technology, women returning to work, adapting the workplace, EU protections for workers, keeping skills up to date, challenges for disabled people, carers who want to work and the list goes on. I am also fortunate to be on the Transport Committee, or Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, as it likes to be known. There are a lot of exciting things happening in Scotland, not least the new fourth crossing that we heard about this morning, A9 dualling for road and the Edinburgh Glasgow improvement project for rail. In one sense, those are improvements or upgrades of existing infrastructure and are not new in the sense of reaching new destinations. That highlights one of the challenges for us going forward as a country as to whether we want more shiny new infrastructure or whether we put more into maintaining and improving existing roads and rail lines. That is a subject that we all need to consider. Finally, a couple of the upcoming bills that I very much welcome. Firstly, forestry. When the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee visited an estate near Nairn, we heard quite a lot about forestry a fortnight ago and the potential that sector has. I would certainly hope that, as we get this bill and as we move forward, we can have agriculture and forestry more joined up in a more integrated way. Secondly, railway policing. I very much welcome this bill and the integration of British Transport Police in Scotland with Police Scotland. Frankly, the public want a simpler system. They do not understand why we have one police force doing virtually everything and then another separate police force looking after the railways. The one main proviso is that the specialist function must be maintained, a fatality on a road can mean closure for a lengthy time and that simply cannot be allowed on the rail line where there is no alternative route. In conclusion, I am very happy to support this programme for Scotland and I look forward to all other parties supporting it too. Thank you, Mr Mason. Claire Baker, to be followed by Jenny Gilwit. Thank you, Presiding Officer. An advantage of speaking on the second day of the programme for government is the time to reflect not just on the statement but made by the First Minister but also on the wider policy document that accompanies it. As the First Minister set out yesterday, there are a number of justice bills that are being brought forward, but there are also a number of justice issues while not needing legislation, which still need our attention. As Scottish Labour's justice spokesperson, I will work constructively with my colleagues from all parties who are interested and views aligned. Looking at the programme for government, there is scope for consensus to be reached in some areas. The contract third party rights bill, as well as the expenses and funding of civil litigation bill are two welcome pieces of legislation recommended by the Scottish Law Commission and we will work with the Government on their delivery. The limitation childhood abuse bill was announced yesterday and the child abuse inquiry is challenging and it needs to secure the confidence of victims. The forthcoming legislation to remove the limitation period for child abuse survivors is important and very necessary and I welcome the intention to introduce the bill in the year ahead. However, there will still be debate on this as we progress, but we must ensure that we deliver justice for these victims. I would like to echo Kezia Dugdale's remarks yesterday regarding the Government's intention to introduce a domestic abuse law bill. This is a bill that I and my party very much welcome. This week, we saw the first indication of the impact that Clare's law is having, that almost 1,000 Scots felt the need to check their partner's history and 42 per cent of them received information about a potentially dangerous partner indicates that much more needs to be done to tackle domestic abuse in Scotland. And time has been set aside next week, I understand, to discuss domestic abuse in greater detail. This afternoon, I would like to focus on two areas in particular on the British Transport Police and Police Scotland. First, I would like to raise the decision taken by British Transport Police and anised on Friday to issue officers in Scotland with tasers. Recently, we saw the high-profile death of the former football player Dallian Atkinson in England through a taser. Tasers, while classified as non-lethal, are still potentially deadly pieces of equipment and their deployment and usage should not be taken lightly. There is legitimate public concern about the routine deployment of armed police officers, and while the justice secretary gave a statement on the increase in armed officers, I am disappointed that no such scrutiny has been applied to the announcement around tasers. It is right that officers are able to respond appropriately and that public safety is paramount, but we should not allow that to take place without any proper parliamentary scrutiny. There was also the announcement of the railway policing bill, and we have seen concerns already raised in the chamber, but we have seen concerns from ASLEF, from RMT and from the British Transport Police officers about the Government's intentions. The Smith commission agreed that the functions of the British Transport Police should be devolved with accountability to the Scottish Parliament and to the Government. What was not agreed was that British Transport Police should be scrapped and swallowed up by Police Scotland, a move that centralises it, risks losing valuable expertise, and it erodes the cross-border nature of the Transport Police. We have a British Transport Police at the moment that works well and serves us well in Scotland, but now we have significant concerns about its future and very little assurances from the Government about future staffing and service levels. The consultation that was recently held by the Government was solely focused on how the British Transport Police should be integrated into Police Scotland. Only one model was presented in the consultation, but the Government should now listen to those who know the service best and keep the independence of the British Transport Police. The summer has also seen a number of reports from rank and file police officers about the strain that has been put on the service. That includes a series of astonishing tweets over the summer from the Scottish Police Federation. According to servant officers, there has been a number of incidents and decisions taken where the main objective appears to be saving money rather than ensuring that our communities are safe. That includes claims that people who should be held in custody are being released to avoid officers staying on to complete the case and incur over time. The officers are being told not to be proactive and investigate drug dealers, and officers who are investigating a disturbance deny the request for a police dog as it would send the unit officer into overtime. We even had the ridiculous stories of officers claiming that they were told not to use tea or hand towels because it would cost money to wash and clean them, and also officers shopping in charity shops to purchase equipment. That was all from the Federation over the summer. One incident may be passed off as isolated. However, when a pattern emerges like this, serious questions have to be asked. The FM yesterday claimed that they were protecting the police budget, but this is a Government that is standing still while a force is at risk of going backwards. In the last Parliament, we witnessed the closure of police front deaths and the shutting of local courts and the feeling from many that policing in Scotland was no longer local. There are reports of police divisions regularly sitting under operational base levels, particularly in the east and in our rural areas, and community officers are often under resourced. We have the opportunity through the budget and through the strategic police priorities to change that. We need greater leadership from the Government, from the SPA and from Police Scotland on the big challenges facing policing. The Government liked to highlight that crime was at a 40-year low, yet according to recent figures, only 38 per cent of the crime was reported in Scotland. Only 58 per cent of the public have confidence in the police, and only 63 per cent of those reported were satisfied with how their crimes were handled. We can and must do better in this session when it comes to our police force. Yesterday was just like the first day back at school. 128 MSPs sat mostly well behaved, keen to begin the new parliamentary session with positivity and a genuine desire for Scotland to aspire for all of her people. The First Minister has set out the priorities for the Scottish Government in the year ahead. Much like a school improvement plan, she explained what steps this Government intends to take in order to make our country fairer and more prosperous. I want to use my speech today to talk about the importance of infrastructure and connectivity, particularly for those communities that are not closely linked to big cities. My constituency of Mid Fife and Glanothus is both urban and rural. From the town centre of Glanothus to the seaside beaches of Lower Largo, vital transport links make job opportunities possible for my constituents. Over this Parliament, almost £20 billion will be invested in a major infrastructure programme designed to help to build Scotland's future. As a Fife MSP, I know only too well of the importance of this investment. The New Queensferry crossing has been supported by more than £1.3 billion of Scottish Government funding. The 1.7-mile structure will be the longest-return cable-stayed bridge in the world. Far from being a vanity project, the new bridge is a feat of Scottish engineering, and that is something that we should all be proud of. The bridge is a vital connector for Fife because we are, to some extent, an island region, encased by the River Tey to the north and by the River Forth to the south. Indeed, my father was allegedly the fifth person to cross the new Taro bridge in 1966, after he and his pals cycled at pace behind the Queen Mother's car on the day of the opening. Although it is not of that vintage, I am old enough to remember the bridge toll, scrapped by the SNP Government in 2008, which taxed Fifers visiting the south a pound and the bargain price of 80 pence to visit the sunniest city in Scotland, Dundee. The bridges play a vital role in connecting Fife to our major cities, and therefore in opening up trade opportunities to our businesses which would otherwise cease to exist. Certainly in the winter of 2015, we all became acutely aware of their importance following the sudden closure of the Forth Road bridge. It is because of the Scottish Government investment and because of the recognition of the importance of infrastructure to Fife that we now have a new Queensferry crossing. During the summer recess, I was fortunate to visit the new crossing alongside my colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville MSP, our Murdo Fraser. We scaled the dizzying heights of the north tower in the small yellow lift, which can be seen on the drive across the Forth Road bridge. It sugled us up to the very top, which is two thirds of the height of the Eiffel Tower. The project director on the new crossing told us on a clear day that it was possible to see all the way to Benelomond. Indeed, the views of my constituency were fantastic, but the sheer height of the crossing certainly conveyed to us all the skill and bravery of the vital work that is being done by the 1,256 people employed on the new crossing today. The main role that links the Forth and the Tay bridges is the A92. The stretch of the road in my constituency and travelling north beyond Fruhe has witnessed a concerning number of accidents over the years. Between 2004 and 2014, a total of 259 accidents were recorded. I recognise the work of the Glenwathus area futures group in this, and I am aware that the group recently submitted their action plan to Transport Scotland. I look forward to meeting with Transport Scotland next week to discuss their report on the road prior to publication. Although I am glad that the Scottish Government has committed to a further £200,000 of investment in the A92, I want to publicly reiterate the need for Fife Council, Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government to work in partnership on the vital improvements that are required on that particular route. The Scottish Government refreshed the national transport strategy during 2016 and intends to continue to work with stakeholders to commit to a full review. I would like to see much-needed improvements in communication from Transport Scotland with community groups as part of that. Crossing to the east part of my constituency, you will find the Leven railway station, or at least you would have until 1969 when it closed. The old line sits today untouched. It is a distance of five miles in length and it links the town with Thornton and the main line. When it was first opened, it helped Leven to become a tourist destination. My grandad from Springdown used to tell me stories of his family visiting Leven for their summer holidays from Glasgow. Levenmouth is the largest urban area in Scotland that is not directly connected to rail. The border railway has shown us how investment in rail infrastructure can yield benefits for communities. Levenmouth needs that investment. I am delighted that the Government is committed to investing more than £5 billion over the next three years to revolutionise a rail industry that has been badly neglected over the previous decades. The programme for government is, however, not just about roads and railways. It is also about a subject close to my heart—education. I am very proud that the Scottish Government is the main financial contributor in the new Levenmouth academy, which opened last month. £25 million of Scottish Government money is supporting the new campus. It is a state-of-the-art building and it is supported by partnership working from Fife College on site, providing pupils with much-needed training opportunities. We need to connect job opportunities and open up investment for businesses, particularly in rural areas. New schools will link to new transport priorities, which will provide the next generation with jobs and opportunities, required to close the gap between Scotland's poorest and wealthiest citizens. I am glad that the programme for government commits to direct investment in transport and connectivity. As MSPs, we all have a duty to translate what that will mean in practice for the communities that we represent, which is exactly what I have outlined in my speech. Deputy Presiding Officer, I listened to the First Minister's statement outlining her Government's programme for the coming year. I waited, hoping that she would address the problems that have occurred over the last 12 months over the roll-out of the common agricultural payments to our farming communities. I was waiting for some confirmation that the Scottish Government's payments for the coming year to our farmers would not be a repeat of this year's shambles. I waited, I waited and I waited. Am I surprised that no mention of the common agricultural policy payments by the Scottish Government to our farmers was made? No. This statement by the First Minister was predictably long and rhetoric, long on self-praise and long on wishful thinking. The incompetence that is shown by Scottish ministers on this issue has been clear to all. Deputy Presiding Officer, wouldn't you think that the First Minister would take this opportunity to assure our farmers that this year's incompetence would not be repeated this coming year? I see the First Minister in the chamber and I would be perfectly happy to take an intervention if she could guarantee that. No such reassurance was given and it still isn't being given. However, even though the First Minister ignored her Government shambles of the common agricultural policy payments to our farmers, she did turn briefly to the issue of the European Union itself. She said that 62 per cent of those who voted in the recent referendum in Scotland voted to remain. What she didn't say is that 62 per cent of Scottish voters have voted for the UK to remain in the EU. We were part of the UK vote, just like other areas such as London, Newcastle and Northern Ireland. She again irritated me and I suppose many others when she said earlier this afternoon that she accepts that the Prime Minister has a mandate in England and Wales to leave the UK. There was a UK vote and a UK mandate, despite what I would like, we are leaving the European Union. The First Minister is divisive as ever in her use of language. At the end of her statement yesterday, she said that she will consult on a draft referendum bill so that it is ready for immediate introduction if we conclude that independence is the only way forward. Is that the royal way that she used it, I wonder? In case the First Minister gets ahead of herself here, she should be reminded—and I aim to do that—that Scotland has two parliaments, one dealing with reserve matters. I will take the intervention from the Deputy First Minister if he wishes, rather than muttering away. I wonder if Mr Rumbles could summon up the gumption to see something positive in this debate about what the Liberal Democrats are going to do. The reason why there are only five of them is that they are the miserable summary of the politics that they have been for years. Mr Rumbles? I was hoping that either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister would give that assurance to our farming communities across Scotland to reverse the shambles that they have been presiding over this year, that it will not happen again. Nothing has been brought forward to that effect. Our Parliament deals with constitutional issues. The Parliament that deals with constitutional issues is not this one. The First Minister knows that any bill that the Scottish Government brings forward to this chamber has to be signed off by our Presiding Officer and that it is both ECHR compliant and that it is within the powers of this Parliament. If the First Minister somehow manages to clear this hurdle—and I very much doubt it would—our Scottish courts would strike down the referendum as illegal. This is nothing new, of course, for this Government. Just a few months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that one of this Government's bills was indeed illegal and struck it down. In my view, this is a bizarre debate. The First Minister has spent the summer months talking about nothing else than a second referendum about breaking up Britain. It is clear that this is her priority over the coming years. Nothing else, and it is extremely arrogant of her to say that she will decide what is in the interests of the Scottish people. Two years ago, the Scottish people told her what was in the interests of the Scottish people, that is to stay within the United Kingdom. The programme that was outlined yesterday has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. I, for one, believe that if the SNP Government would just put aside this continuous divisiveness—and we have heard it again today—it would have the opportunity to focus on real measures, real measures that are important to the people of Scotland, not least to our farming communities across Scotland who have been completely neglected with the shambles that the Scottish Government has presided over. They need to focus on their day jobs to try to improve people's lives in Scotland, not to continue with this divisive programme. Clare Haughey, to be followed by Peter Chapman. I am very pleased to be speaking today about a key element in this programme for government debate, education. I am sure that colleagues across the chamber would agree that education is an important aspect of a child's development. It is only right that politicians of all persuasions focus on ensuring that, as a nation, we deliver a first-class education system, one that leaves no child behind, regardless of their social background. A lot has changed since I and many of you in this chamber were at school. The world that we were prepared for for leaving school will be considerably different to that facing this year's primary one-pupil intake when they leave in 2029. The Scottish Government's commitment to education recognises the fast-changing environment that we live in and the need to anticipate future learning requirements. The proposed reforms will free up time and empower teachers to do what they do best, and that is to teach. I believe that there are three key areas essential to providing a good education—curriculum design, environment and equality of opportunity. Those are areas that have been central to the Scottish Government's education strategy since 2007. The curriculum for excellence introduced in 2012 was the culmination of nearly a decade of work, initiated by the previous Labour and Lib Dem Executive in 2003 and brought to fruition by the SNP Government. It was seen as a phased process of reform that would take account of advances in education and deliver a curriculum that challenged and supported a child's full educational journey. It is about lifelong learning and the development of the young workforce of the future, providing them with the skills required to survive in the ever-changing modern workplace. It is also about being flexible and innovative, engaging with businesses and employers to come into schools and introduce the world of work at an early age, and increasing the employability skills of pupils. Above all, it is about ensuring literacy, numeracy, health and wellbeing, and that they are at the core of the development of every child and are a shared responsibility across the school. The hard work is bearing fruit. This year, Scotland's students achieved nearly 153,000 higher passes, an increase of more than 40,000 since 2006. Last year, record levels of young people, 91.7 per cent, left school for a positive destination in further education, training or employment, all of which is a testimony to the great work that is being done by staff and pupils in schools across the country, and we should applaud them for their commitment and success. Reform on this scale will always bring challenges as it evolves. I applaud the recent announcement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education regarding new guidance in the curriculum, which is designed to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on teachers. A move that has been welcomed by the largest teaching union, the EIS. The teaching environment is also important. No child should have to learn in a school that is in poor or bad condition. The programme for government affirms the Government's commitment to providing children and teachers with the best possible environment in which to learn. With an additional 29 new schools planned this year, that will bring the total number of schools built or refurbished under this Government since 2007 to more than 630. That is almost a quarter of the school estate and nearly doubled the total number of rebuilds and refurbishments undertaken between 1999 and 2007. In addition to positive learning environments, it also provides skilled jobs and apprenticeships in local communities. Equality of opportunities should mean that your social background or circumstances should not be a barrier to your ability to learn to achieve or to attain. Through the Scottish attainment fund, the Government intends to invest £150 million in schools over the next year. That will help teachers at schools in areas of deprivation across the country to develop innovative approaches to improving literacy, numeracy, health and wellbeing in order to close the attainment gap. Raising attainment starts with the youngest and high-quality childcare benefits children and also helps parents to work. I welcome the £500 million pledged by the Government to nearly double childcare to 30 years per week. The Scottish attainment challenge primary school programme is part of the initiative and primary schools across the country will benefit. Those include six in my constituency of Rutherglen. That presents an opportunity for those school communities to look at innovative ways of closing the attainment gap, working with parents, teachers and educational leaders, supporting their ambition for excellence and equity. The attainment fund sits within a wider programme of school reform that includes action to empower local leadership in schools, directing more resources to head teachers and allowing them the freedom to invest those extra resources on what they feel will have the biggest impact in their schools, focusing on reducing the unnecessary workload of teachers and the simplification of the curriculum for excellence. Education is at the heart of this programme for government. Delivering those commitments will help us to realise our ambition to ensure equality of opportunity for every child and young person, for them to be the best that they can be and to close the attainment gap and deliver a first-class education system. Thank you very much, Ms Hawke. Peter Chapman, now to be followed by Graham Day. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to declare that I have interest in farming and these can be seen in the register. Within the rural economy portfolio there are a number of bells to come forward from the Scottish Government. When it comes to crofting there is quite clear cross-party support for reform of the current legislation and I hope that we can produce a bell that will properly support crofting communities across Scotland. We also expect to see the Scottish Government bring forward secondary legislation on land reform in relation to tenant farmers. There are problems here. Just last week I saw in the Scottish Farmer that someone looking for a tenancy in Aberdeenshire had written in explaining that they knew exactly why they couldn't get one. They said, why would a landlord rent a farm out at the risk the rules change and a new game is played? Would you be happy to have bought a house, rented it out and the tenant can turn around and demand money for going out? Or indeed demand to buy it? I couldn't have put it better myself and it's time for the Government to listen to ordinary young people looking to get a start in farming. The Government's manifesto indicates a desire to pass legislation on inshore fisheries and wild fisheries. The wild fisheries bill must be handled carefully but we absolutely need to tackle the sea lice issue in farm salmon. A recent meeting of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation slammed Scotland's regulatory regime as it, I quote, lags far behind all the countries in the North Atlantic. I hope that the Scottish Government will take the opportunity to improve codes of good practice to maintain Scotland's excellent reputation for farm salmon. While we wait for the full detail of the Government's legislative programme on rural matters, there is plenty for ministers to be getting on with. As Mike Rumble said earlier, we still have a shocking situation with regard to CAP payments. Over a thousand farmers are still waiting for their full payment. Indeed, several of my constituents have contacted me complaining bitterly that they only received their initial payment two weeks ago, nine months late. Up till then, no loan, no payment, not a penny. We know how that happened. Money was poured into an IT system that did not work, still is not working and the Government will not tell us when it will be fully functional. Hard working officials in the area offices up and down Scotland are being let down by this Government's inability to deliver the required IT system. This further goes to show the need for a parliamentary inquiry into this debacle. We have had the Audit Scotland report that exposed much of it, but in order for there to be any confidence from farmers in the system, we must, as MSPs, be able to scrutinise the Government on this mess. Mr Rumble. Are the Conservatives as concerned as we are that even now the Scottish Government, given the opportunity, will not come forward and confirm that next year's payments, this coming year's payments, will not be a repeat of the shambles of this last year? I totally agree. I was just going on to say that I hope for the sake of the thousands of farmers seriously affected by the shambles that Fergus Ewing has a plan to get the IT system working for this year's payments. Our rural communities cannot afford to be at the mercy of the SNP's incompetence on this again. I recently met leaders of the offshore fishing industry in Peterhead and they were explaining the many potential benefits of the Brexit result, so I am afraid that I cannot understand the SNP's denial of potential benefits for the fishing industry. We know that we have some of the best fishing waters in the world, and getting control over them will be a huge benefit. Cabinet Secretary. I thank Mr Chapman for taking the intervention. Will the member join with me to call upon the UK Government to return the continuation of payments worth £750 million to Scotland that we would have been entitled to, including those communities, if we were still part of the European Union? Mr Chapman. Nothing will change in the meantime, we have two years to get to that position, but I am explaining the many potential benefits of the Brexit result, so I cannot understand the denial of those benefits for the SNP. When fishermen list their priorities that would help their industry to grow and that would support coastal towns, will the SNP listen? Sadly, no. When a group disagrees with the Government politically, will the SNP put those issues aside and work for the best interests? Again, no. Could it be that rather than standing up for Scotland's fishermen, they are talking Scotland down? Of course, we know why the SNP behaves like that. We know that the business of running Scotland and getting the best deal for its people is never the top priority. It cannot be the top priority because the SNP's focus is pushing for independence no matter the cost. Rather than playing the politics of division and grievance, the governing party should be working with the UK Government to deliver the best Brexit deal for Scotland. I voted remain in June, but I accept the result. That is how democracy works. Although I appreciate that it may be a difficult concept for the party opposite to understand, it is reality. There are real opportunities for farming and fishing communities following the EU referendum result that we must grab with both hands. If the Scottish Government does not do that, the SNP will be remembered for sacrificing rural Scotland on the altar of independence. For those of us who inhabit the environmental bubble, it is easy to forget that we very often talk in terminology, which resonates pretty much only with those who are similarly inclined. That issue was brought into focus during the last Parliament when Alex Ferguson in the course of a chamber debate suggested that rather than talking about biodiversity and risk- quizzical looks from the vast majority of the people that we are trying to reach out to, we talked about the balance of nature, which is, after all, what biodiversity means. In our programme for government speech yesterday, the First Minister identified another helpful change of language around the hugely important issue of climate change. Early this week, as convener of Parliament's environment climate change and land reform committee, I wrote to the Scottish Government asking it to delay publication of the draft RPP 3 until early January in order to maximise the opportunity for committees in the wider Parliament to scrutinise the hugely important third report on policy and proposals. However, what does the term RPP 3 mean to the general way, largely non-engaged public out there? That styling, as the new climate change plan, will resonate better—it is something that the WDF has also taken to it—that will resonate better with the wider audience, because that title spells it very clearly what RPP actually is. That matters because, on the back of Scotland's success in reaching its 2020 greenhouse gas emission targets six years early, RPP 3 represents an opportunity to ramp up the ambitions to aim to exceed a 50 per cent reduction in actual emissions by 2020. However, in doing that, we will be moving into areas that require considerable behavioural change, which will need serious buy-in not just from the public and private sectors but on an individual level. The messaging around RPP 3 and other climate change-related legislation matters. Therefore, the weighing out of the demands that will be made of the transport sector and the plan, as the programme for government document does, is a welcome step. We must, as a country, embrace strategies that reduce demand for transport and decarbonise vehicles. If the reduction in APD produces a net increase in emissions, as it is recognised that it will, then legislation around climate change will have to identify and ensure delivery on countermeasures to that. RPP 3 and the plan new climate change bill will bring a new focus on how we build upon our achievements thus far. So, too, fully integrated with the new climate change plan, as it is intended to be, will the plan new energy strategy, which will lay out the government's low-carbon infrastructure priorities going forward and target reducing energy demand? The coming warm homes bill is another welcome and necessary step in the right direction, given the fact that such a large proportion of our emissions comes from heating. Some of those measures will, either in their entirety or part, come under the direct scrutiny of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. There are other measures within the programme for government that will sit within its brief and impact on climate change adaptation—the investment of £3.6 billion to Scottish Water to upgrade water and sewage infrastructure as one. However, reading the document, I was struck by the range of other measures that, to some degree, will impact positively on their emissions journey, without, in any way, coming under the ECCLR Committee, other than, indeed, the cabinet secretary's remit, as such. The forestry bill could lead to improved levels of tree planting, assisting in carbon sequestration, as well as potentially helping tackle flooding. The replacing of old school, college and hospital buildings with more modern, energy-efficient and environmentally friendly facilities will all help, as will rail improvements coming down the track, illustrating how embedded in virtually every aspect of government activity cutting emissions and tackling climate change is and must be. Turning to other matters that are identified in the programme for government, progress on reaching the 1 million acres of land and community ownership by 2020, an oversight of the process of devolving control of the crowded state, and then ensuring that it operates in a way that sees it being required to take cognisance of much more than simply generating revenue, are two areas that will command the attention of the environment committee. So, too, not surprisingly, will the raft of secondary legislation around the land reform bill. The First Minister in her speech referenced the establishment of a register of controlling interests around land ownership, and the Scottish Land Commission becoming operationalist in two key aspects of this. There are others of importance, such as the land rights and responsibility statement. We, as a Parliament, must recognise the need to explore how we build capacity across Scotland to take full advantage of the opportunities that are created both by the land reform and community empowerment acts that we have passed. Delivering on the potential of those opportunities is not just about funding, it is also about ensuring that all our communities are supported in other practical ways to face up to the demands of the processes that they will be entering into. On the subject of taking around their approach, I highlight what I hope will be an important aspect of the comprehensive decommissioning action plan being worked up by Scottish Enterprise. Of course, we should maximise the economic return for Scotland from an activity that is estimated to attract a spend of £17 billion, but that plan must, I am sure, take account of the potential impact in the marine environment. Removing those structures from the North Sea and dealing with our dismantling can and will create jobs, but there is a serious discussion to be had around circumstances where, from an environmental perspective, it might and I stress might be advantageous to weave elements of them in situ. The highway respect that Scottish Wildlife Trust has made just that point suggests an appeal really that the best interests of the marine environment, not perhaps in the most obvious way, are a priority consideration in any decisions made and on a case-by-case basis. In conclusion, reading through the programme for government document, I noted that, although not highlighted by the First Minister yesterday, my committee can anticipate a wild animals and circuses bill coming its way. Further down the line, we can look forward to bills around wild fisheries and the circular economy. Never let it be said that life as a member of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee is lacking in variety. Andy Wightman I said the last three speakers, Maurice Golden, Lewis MacDonald and James Dornan, you are now down to five minutes, but that is a result of interventions. I think it is a fair compromise in debate so far. Andy Wightman, you have up to six minutes. Like my colleague Patrick Harvie yesterday, I welcome much of what the First Minister announced yesterday and confirm that we will play a constructive role in supporting those measures where we can agree, arguing for changes where we think they are necessary and opposing the proposals where we think they are misguided. I want to focus my comments today on a few areas of the programme where we will be working across the chamber to try and persuade ministers to be bolder, because I think deep down we know that we share ambitions to work, not just to amend and to reform and to change the law, but to transform, to revitalise and to democratise the way we approach so much of Scottish public policy. For example, the Government is committed to inclusive growth and tackling inequality. The First Minister has committed to implementing all of the recommendations of her adviser on poverty and inequality, Naomi Eisenstadt. Yet the Government has already rejected recommendation 9, quote, to be bold on local tax reform, by ignoring Professor Eisenstadt's exhortation to introduce a new system that is, in her words, genuinely progressive and to focus on the bottom 40 per cent of the income distribution in order to tackle income inequality effectively. The finance minister early this afternoon claimed that the proposals tabled today on council tax reform would be more progressive. It is only possible for something to be more progressive if it is progressive in the first place. Council tax is a grubby little miserable compromise that the Government has forced on us, even after the changes that they make, will remain probably the most regressive tax in the United Kingdom, where, according to analysis by Spice, the bottom 10 per cent of households by income will be paying around 9 per cent of their equalised household disposable income in council tax, with the top 10 per cent paying a mere 3 per cent. Moreover, ministers have compromised the fiscal autonomy of local government to such an extent that, in my view, it is now in breach of international law in respect of at least two articles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Professor Bell and David Isar showed back in 2013 that the top 1 per cent of earners in Scotland had, over the period 2007 to 2009, increased their share of total income by more than all of the remaining 99 per cent put together. One of the solutions to that is to introduce a properly progressive income tax system with a top rate of tax that acts as an effective curb on excessive pay demands, but that challenge too has been ducked. Those are examples of where expert and international evidence point to bold and decisive action but where the response of the Scottish Government is timid retreat. Another area where we need bolder action is unhousing. Although the Government's target of 50,000 new social and affordable houses is very welcome, it remains unambitious in relation to the overall housing market, where housing completion targets remain unfulfilled and where the unwillingness to challenge the failed model and vested interests of the speculative volume house building industry means that we forgo the opportunity to create a better system, one that is more affordable, higher quality, more lasting and more democratic. That brings me, Presiding Officer, to another of the Government's priorities, community empowerment. Welcome indeed, as the focus on this is, it is increasingly clear that we are reaching a point where the ambitions of communities are being hindered by the lack of real political and economic power. In recent weeks, I have travelled around Scotland speaking at meetings as part of the Our Land festival. From the radical visions of the communities in Concardin and Valleyfield in Fife over the future of the longannock colliery and power station, to the frustrations of communities elsewhere faced with intractable disputes over mineral rights or faced with intransigent landowners, folk across Scotland are rising to this challenge and I welcome that as I welcome the Government's continuing commitment to empower communities. That is the first administration, I think, since devolution that has reform of local government rather than simply local government as one of the responsibilities of a Scottish minister. It is in this realm that real community empowerment can be achieved through following the recommendations of COSLA's commission on strengthening local democracy. Over this Parliament, we will face the challenge of ensuring that we deliver on the warm homes and fuel poverty agenda. That will involve co-ordinated work between housing, planning, fiscal policy, climate change and energy policy, but we do not know from the programme of government what the Scottish Government's ambitions are for this vitally important bill, one that Greens have argued for as long as this Parliament has existed and the bill that we look forward to working with others across this chamber to make sure is a bill that is worthy of the name. Finally, I want to welcome proposals in the First Minister's programme for Government for a forestry bill and the opportunity to reform the current forestry act that next year will be half a century old. Forestry does not get much of a hearing in this Parliament, but the restoration and expansion of forest cover in Scotland is vital for our economy, the ecological health of our land and soils, for water and flood management, for recreation and above all for its role in tackling climate change. Existing targets for forest expansion are not being met, and this bill provides the opportunity to do much more than the existing goals set by ministers to complete devolution. It provides the first chance in 50 years to modernise the governance and democratise the management of Scotland's public forests and to provide the tools for delivering on bolder reforestation targets. Over the recess, I have been repeatedly saying to those outside this place to be ambitious in the demands that they make of us. I hope that all members agree that with new parliamentary arithmetic, a five-year term, new powers and where we all have a mandate, that we can rise to that challenge. I call Maurice Golden to be followed by Lewis MacDonald up to five minutes, Mr Golden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I recognise and respect the Scottish Government's narrative around moving towards a low-carbon economy in its programme for government. For me, the circular economy goes one step further by creating the right conditions so that we can deliver wins for businesses, for consumers and indeed for the environment. We already have an estimate that the size of the price of the Scottish economy, following a circular economy policy, would be around £3 billion with associated jobs, new jobs of around £20,000. However, that can only be realised with the associated appropriate government programme. Therefore, any legislation or initiatives must reflect a long-term approach to ensure that Government priorities and, indeed, this Parliament is truly reflected in the longer term for the benefit of Scotland. I recognise that not every decision can be justified in purely financial terms and not every investment has to deliver an immediate profit. That is why I believe that the incorporation of natural capital into our decision-making processes for the public sector initially and eventually with the private sector is absolutely critical. For example, the Irvine-to-Girvine Nectar Network, which is a wildlife corridor and Haven for bees and butterflies, is a fantastic example of that. With respect to climate change, I recognise that progress has been made, but in order to realise our ambitions, we must have sector targets for housing, transport and heat, which have a comparatively poor performance. I welcome that the First Minister agrees with Ruth that a commitment to ensure that everyone has a warm home in Scotland is a Government priority and that decreasing fuel poverty means ensuring that those homes are insulated throughout Scotland. Linked to that, and in order to ensure that Scotland's carbon emissions from heat are decreasing, we need to increase district heating as well as renewable heat. Of course, renewable heat does not involve burning waste. I also welcome the new manufacturing institute and trust that the focus will also be on remanufacturing in order to further augment the work of the Strathclyde Institute for remanufacturing. However, I was shocked to learn yesterday that Scottish Enterprise has been tasked with constructing a comprehensive decommissioning action plan. I was not shocked because it is not needed. I was shocked because we do not already have one. We have known that that infrastructure has needed to be decommissioned for many years. The value of this over the next 30 years has put it £40 billion, and there are 35,000 jobs linked to the decommissioning of that infrastructure. Between now and 2024, there are 620,000 tonnes of infrastructure, including 79 platforms and jackets, as well as 321 modules that require to come on-shore. The total numbers are more staggering with 570 platforms in the North Sea, as well as a web of subsea infrastructure, which includes 40,000 concrete mattresses on the seabed, equating to around 200,000 tonnes of concrete. Scotland does not have the infrastructure to deal with this level of decommissioning. In the UK, only T-side and potentially Tine side have the ability to take a single lift platform where it is taken out in one go. Therefore, unless action is taken and not just written in an action plan, we will literally see all the value, all the jobs floating down the sea to England and perhaps occasionally being grounded on a Scottish island. Currently, the decommissioning sector does very well in terms of recycling rates, but reuse is very poor. Reuse provides value not just financially but to the environment as well. For example, pipelines. Reusing a pipeline can add five times more value than simply scrapping it. We have seen an example of that by using redundant steel to construct the Olympic stadium in London. Therefore, I recognise that all the information is available for this action plan and I would like to see action on this this year. Likewise, the Government programme going forward, I look forward to scrutinising that with respect to the climate change bill, the circular economy and zero waste bill as well. I call on Lewis Macdonald to be followed by James Dornan. Up to five minutes each please. Thank you very much. If it is true that there are decades where nothing happens and then there are weeks where decades happen, then this summer has been many decades long. It is only a matter of weeks since the EU referendum, but do many it feels as if it happened a long time ago. This debate is about the Scottish Government's plans for this session of Parliament, but it has to be seen in that wider context. The challenge for government is to respond to the prospect of Brexit and to the certainty that there will be fundamental change both at home and indeed in the nature of the European Union itself. It should be an opportune moment, not in terms of reviving the independence debate, but rather in terms of making the best use of the new powers of the Scottish Parliament. Scottish Labour launched its own proposals for responding to the Brexit vote at the end of July. We said that the Scottish Government should bring forward infrastructure spending, particularly on building thousands of new homes. We called for a Brexit support fund to support those sectors that are threatened by leaving the European Union. We called for guarantees of workers' rights, certainty for EU nationals living in the UK, and action by government at every level to tackle austerity. We are, of course, more than willing to work with Scottish ministers on mitigating the impact of Brexit and in trying to minimise the disruption to Scotland's relationship with Europe, but we need the Scottish Government to be bold and ambitious in taking action at their own hand rather than focusing only on the decisions that are taken by others. Brexit is a new threat. The downturn in oil and gas has been happening now for nearly two years and it is still hard looking at this week's document to discern a Scottish Government economic strategy to address the impact of that on the wider Scottish economy. The First Minister yesterday announced one new initiative in this field that Scottish Enterprise will develop a comprehensive action plan to attract decommissioning work to Scotland. Many of the oil and gas and supply chain companies that have been working together on this agenda since 2010 through DCom North Sea will be surprised to learn that the Scottish Government's agencies do not have such a plan in place already. The need for such a plan was graphically illustrated when the Trans Ocean winner drilling rig hit the rocks on Lewis last month and was then towed away past the Arnishard to be decommissioned at the other end of Europe. A further plan to win decommissioning business is welcome, if belated, and I hope that the Scottish Government will work with the many businesses that are already engaged on this agenda and with ports and harbors right around the Scottish coast. From a north-east perspective, I would urge ministers to acknowledge the need to build on and go beyond the Aberdeen city region deal and to set dates when some of the additional projects that are promised by the Scottish Government will actually be delivered, not least on the east coast railway line at Montrose. Other bodies, both public and private, recognise that a city deal alone is not enough and that government needs to be proactive and not just reactive in diversifying the economy and underpinning future economic growth. Aberdeen harbour board has today announced its preferred bidder for developing a proposed new harbour in the Bay of Nigg. Aberdeen City Council is actively promoting an agenda of further devolution from this Parliament to Scotland's cities and regions. The private sector, through opportunity north-east and the business improvement district body Aberdeen-inspired, is committed to regenerating and broadening the base of the local economy. I hope that ministers will agree with all of those initiatives in a positive way. If we agree that devolution is a process and not an event, we should also agree that the process of devolution must mean powers going out from Holyrood to local communities, as well as coming in from Westminster or indeed from Brussels. More needs to be done in the field of skills, too. It is simply not acceptable, as we heard this afternoon, that the Scottish Government is a year behind the UK Government in telling employers and training organisations how the apprenticeship levy will work in Scotland. Likewise, in education, which the First Minister says, it is at the centre of those plans, the lack of adequate investment in the north-east as elsewhere is truly alarming. Aberdeen University, RGU and North East Scotland College had £1 billion in economic value to the north-east economy, but, as Audit Scotland's reports indicated this summer, Scotland's universities and colleges have been at the sharp end of government cuts. Real-terms cuts in recurrent funding will have an impact across the board, and none of those issues can be resolved for free. A Government that truly wishes to rise to the challenge of these times in education and skills, in the economy and the NHS, in our relations with the rest of Britain and the rest of Europe is going to have to make some tough decisions. The SNP's programme for government stops short of taking those tough decisions, until ministers choose to use the powers that they have and take the difficult choices the difficult challenges will simply not go away. We are now moving to the last of the open speeches. Can I remind members that, if they spoke in the debate yesterday afternoon, they should be present in the chamber for the closing speeches today? James Dorn on five minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like many of my colleagues and very few, if any, of our political opponents, I wish to welcome the stream of positive policies for Scotland announced in the First Minister's statement to the chamber yesterday. Obviously, as convener of the education and skills committee, my main focus is in education, and I'm delighted to see the Government's commitment to it reinforced again in the statement. However, it's not just in the field of education where we're doing great things. Social Security Bill stands out as one of the best examples of an opportunity to highlight the clear difference between the social democratic ethos of this Government and this Parliament in comparison to the ideological right-wing isolationist dogma from the Westminster Government, which is still in control of 87 per cent of welfare powers and 85 per cent of taxation, although, again, you wouldn't know that if you listened to the Conservatives or more disgracefully in this Labour Party. However, it's an education that I want to concentrate my time on. There's a huge amount of good work already being done on education with some outstanding results. Another factor you wouldn't be aware of if you just listened to the harbinger of doom on either side of his in this chamber. Just recently, the figures that came out spending per pupil significantly higher in Scotland and south of the border, 9 per cent higher per pupil. We've expanded education maintenance allowance in Scotland, which has scrapped south of the border. This year, Scotland's students achieved 152,700 passes, higher passes, an increase of more than 40,000 since 2006, and only the second time the number has passed has exceeded 150,000. There's many, many more achievements that we could be mentioning here today. I'm just going to do something that I don't normally do. I'm going to give a good example of the great work that's been taking place in a secondary school, and this secondary school isn't even in mine. This is going to sound as if I'm trying to crawl with the Presiding Officer, but I was actually at Duncan Riggs secondary on Monday night to see my grandson Mark get the Proxima Cessate, which is the silver ducks medal at his school, which, two years ago, his sister Abigail got the ducks hat. Obviously, as a proud grandfather, I was absolutely delighted to be there again, but what was really impressive outside of the family connection was the amount of achievements that that school had in athletics and sport in general, in music and drama, and, of course, as well as the academic side. It was great to see, the headteacher was saying in his comments that that's three years on the road, that the results have improved, that there's a steady growth there, and that's great. Now there'll be no disrespect here, Presiding Officer. There'll be nothing particularly special about Duncan Riggs. That will be a good example of what's happening in secondary schools all across the country, including in my constituency. Before I go on to speak about my role as convener of education, I also think that I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't bring up the fears that we have about Brexit that's been touched on by other speakers. The fears that we have around Erasmus, the fears that we have around the impact this may well have on the research, the fears that we have about the possible shortage of staff or the impact that we'll have in foreign students coming to study in Scotland—all of those things because of a Tory leadership challenge, because they were so obsessed with their eternal politics that they didn't look after the country. I cringe when I hear the Conservative Party try and claim that we have not got our eye in the ball when they didn't even realise that the ball was no longer on the pitch and they were still running about like chickens without heads. We are in this situation today, we face these threats today because you didn't care enough about anything but your leadership challenge. Don't take my word for it—I've only got five minutes, I'm sorry—don't take my word for it, take the IPPR's word for it, they're saying that your decisions are meaning that there's going to be unnecessary harm to the UK's educational system and that includes us. So I've only got one minute left and I'd like to briefly talk about the work that we're doing in the committee. Last week, we had a couple of days at Stirling. We went to Stirling University to hear about the Widing Access programme. We visited a local skills provider. I had the privilege to meet people who had been brought up in care, along with my colleague Gillian Martin. We met some kinship carers and also a group of primary school children who showed us an amazing tool, a kit bag that's called one of the many initiatives that help children to improve their emotional literacy and actually sought out work and the impact that it had on these kids. Hearing and seeing these experiences for myself, it was such a valuable perspective and a very keen sense of the responsibility placed on me and the rest of the committee working across a massive remit with so many important issues within it. I could speak for much longer, I know I won't be allowed to, but so I'd just like to finish off by saying once again how pleased I am that education is going to be up front and centre in the Government's programme this year, and I look forward to doing my part as a convener of the Education and Skills Committee. Thank you very much. We move to closing speeches. I call Ian Gray. You have eight minutes, please, Mr Gray. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For a set piece debate, this has been a curiously disultery affair really, especially amongst the Government's own backbenches. Perhaps it's trepidation, maybe they looked back to the first programme of the last Government in 2011. The First Minister's predecessor announced his flagship bills, minimum unit pricing, the offensive behaviour at football act, Police Scotland and the reform of colleges. Five years on, one is mired in the courts, one is ripe for repeal in this Parliament and policing in our colleges have been reformed on to their knees. But then, in fairness, that was a Government whose attention was distracted by an independence referendum. Thank goodness, that was a once-in-a-lifetime thing. Of course, there are as always things in this year's programme to welcome the domestic abuse bill, the long promised removal of the time bar for survivors of sexual abuse, but let me take a moment though to point out that that will not help pre-1964 survivors, and they too have been promised some solution. The majority of survivors are still excluded from the historic abuse inquiry by its remit, and the survivors' confidence in the inquiry hangs by a thread. The resignation of two members of the inquiry panel and their allegations of Government interference have not been addressed, nor will they until a committee of this Parliament investigates them properly. Welcome to, in this programme, the gender balance bill, the child poverty bill and the social security bill. The First Minister and many of our colleagues have rightly said that the social security bill is our opportunity to create a social security system based on dignity and respect, and we will support those efforts. Of course, that bill in particular tells us that this programme for government is a different one for the first time the plans of a government with extensive powers over welfare and taxation. First ministers used to use these occasions to bewail how their lack of fiscal powers hampered their programme for government. Now a First Minister looks at those fiscal levers, empowering her to refuse austerity, to stop the cuts to protect the disabled and the vulnerable, to invest new money in education, and she just looks the other way. All she has to offer on this is a tax cut for airlines and airports, which will only reduce the capacity of that social security system, starve our services, and damage our environment to boot. The more powerful this Parliament becomes, the more timid it seems that the Government gets. It is like a motorist always demanding a more powerful model whilst doggedly driving along in second gear in the one that they have. We can all join in, as we have on a number of occasions yesterday and today, in denouncing the Tories there for their hypocrisy on protecting the disabled or their pious concern about poverty while their Government cuts the benefits of the poorest and most vulnerable. But unless the Scottish Government is prepared to use the powers of this Parliament to end austerity cuts, to attack poverty and not just denounce it, then their Tory baiting is nothing but talk. It is the same story in education. Last week, the First Minister visited Windygo, a great school in my constituency. But Windygo has had to achieve its success without a penny of attainment challenge funding. When it finally does, when it finally does receive that funding, the Government will pay for it by raiding the budget of the very council that has invested in those pupils over the years. We will lose far more than our schools will gain. The truth is that it is less true, and I will come to why it is true. For nine years, this Government has used the blunt instrument of clobat to force councils to freeze their council tax. Now it will use the same bludgeon to mug those councils for the revenue for the Government's attainment challenge fund. I know that the Government will pretend that this is redistribution, but councils know of old that John Swinney is much more Dick Turpin than he is Robin Hood. That is stealing from the poor who need the services in my communities to give back to the poor in those self-same communities. Let me be clear. We support the investment of an additional £100 million per year direct to schools to address the attainment gap. We have argued for it for years. The Government is doing the right thing, but the Government should have the guts to raise that money itself by asking the richest to pay just a little more in income tax. The Government is taking the decision to raise that money. Orders will be laid this week making the changes to the council tax. Is extra revenue raised from those at the highest level of property redistributed to schools most in need? I would have thought that is redistribution that Labour would have supported. Iain Gray The money has been raised by local revenue, which should be redistributed locally, which is exactly what my council has done to the school that you visited and which you will undermine by taking more money from them than you intend to give back. You have to understand that you cannot will the end of better schools, colleges and universities if you have not the courage to will the means. More than any new mechanism to distribute funding, what our schools need is enough funds to distribute in the first place. I noted previously the lack of enthusiasm among Government backbenchers yesterday and today, but, of course, the periation of the First Minister's statement yesterday roused them from their torpor, because it was about another independence referendum. Just a consultation on a draft bill mind, just in case, the First Minister even got a laugh out of it inadvertently, because she told us that she needed it in case she reached the conclusion that independence is the best thing for Scotland. Presiding Officer, I think we know that the First Minister reached that conclusion a long time ago. Is her faith wavering? Is it fading in the face of the facts? Is it rocked perhaps by rejection in her referendum only two years ago? I do not think so. I do not think so. No, I did once already. I do not think so. Some might be fooled that the First Minister pulled back from independence yesterday, but the true believers on our backbenchers and beyond know that it was a less than subtle nod and wink that this is still her Government's purpose. We have a Government unwilling to protect education budgets or the vulnerable but unflinching in keeping that independence flame alive. Like moths to that flame, all the efforts, the focus and the resources of this Government will gravitate. The day job of education, social security and jobs growth will always come second. That is what we have had for nine long years, and this programme for government is more of the same. Can I remind members of two things, please? First of all, we should not be yelling at each other from a seated position. Second, we should always speak through the chair and not directly to colegs. Can I start on a note of agreement with the First Minister? In her statement yesterday, she referred to the new political environment in which we now operate. That does not just mean that the SNP now faces a Conservative opposition. It also reflects the fact that we will have, as from next April, in this Parliament, one of the most powerful sub-state legislators anywhere in the world, with sweeping new powers on taxation and welfare. You would hardly think that, listening to the First Minister's statement yesterday. In truth, it was pretty thin, gruelous, reminiscent of something that could not be delivered by Henry McLeish or Jack McConnell. Where was the ambition? Where was the grand vision for Scotland? Where were the pledges to use those sweeping new powers to build a stronger economy, a more vibrant society or to address the pressing issues in our public sector? On the basis of what we heard yesterday, we have to look elsewhere for that vision. We agree with the emphasis that the First Minister gave to the Scottish economy. In relation to the specific proposals that were announced, we welcome the coming bill on the reform of air passenger duty, and we await with interest its detail, although we have made perfectly clear in the past that we are skeptical as to both the economic benefits of a 50 per cent reduction in APD without a replacement tax and remain concerned about the impact on the environment. The First Minister made great play of an additional £100 million in capital projects in this financial year, presumably forgetting to mention that it is simply bringing forward the underspend from the last financial year to be spent on projects now. The centrepiece of the Scottish Government's programme for the economy is the proposed new Scottish growth scheme, worth up to £1.5 billion. It is certainly an ambitious and interesting idea, central to the Government's economic strategy. I see that it made the front pages of a number of newspapers this morning. You might expect that the Government, producing such an ambitious scheme, would have done all its homework before it published it. It had dotted all the eyes and crossed all the T's. When I asked the finance secretary and committee this morning what discussions he had had with Treasury prior to publishing this proposal, the answer was none. This is staggering. What an amateurish approach from a Government to make key announcements without even checking first if they can be delivered, and if there are reasons. Oh, yes, Mr Mackay can tell me all about his discussions with the Treasury. Derek Mackay Does the member not think that it was important to bring such a proposal to Parliament first, so that members can engage in such an innovative proposal to stimulate economy? What is more, we spent most of the day in the finance committee discussing the lack of awareness about what the chancellor would do in his autumn statement, so I think that the Government is taking the right actions in this economic package and does Murdo Fraser support the £500 million package, yes or no? Mr Fraser If Mr Mackay wants to see what competent Government is like, all he has to do is swap places with us on these benches, we'll show him what competent Government is like, Government that actually does its homework first. I suspect rather, Presiding Officer, as Jackie Baillie fairly said yesterday that it is more about picking a fight with the Treasury than anything else. However, if there is one measure that the First Minister could have taken to help the economy, that was to, as Ruth Davidson made clear yesterday, rule out a second referendum on independence. Ruth Davidson, Kezia Dugdale and Willie Rennie all referred to that in their contributions yesterday, although when Kezia Dugdale said that there was no support on her party's benches for a second referendum, I wonder if she had cleared that statement with her deputy. The First Minister can't seem to make up her mind on the question of a second referendum because she has a different message for different audiences. In the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum result, she said that a second referendum was now highly likely. Just on Friday, she addressed her MPs and MSPs and sent off her party faithful to survey the Scottish population to hear what they thought about the prospect of independence. Yet, here in the chamber yesterday, she seemed to downplay the prospect of another referendum, promising only to consult on a draft bill, like the grand old Duchess of York marching her troops to the top of the hill and marching them back down again. Perhaps I can save the First Minister and her canvassers a little bit of time. We know what the Scottish people think about independence, because we asked him that question two years ago, First Minister. I hope that you were listening at the time. I will give way, of course. He will recall that, two years ago, his party told the people of Scotland that if they voted no, their membership of the European Union would be protected. What is his position on that today? First Minister, we were told if we voted yes that we could keep the pound of our currency, we were told that we would be rich to the all-price of $105 a barrel, that there would be this tremendous dividend as a result. A tissue of nonsense was told—no, you can sit down, First Minister—a tissue of nonsense was told by the yes campaign during that referendum. Do not come here and try to rewrite history. We now have a chorus of voices from the business community. We have people like the former director of CBI Scotland, Sir Ian McMillan and the former chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, Jack Perry. Of course, they will say that those are the usual suspects, but listen to those who supported the yes campaign in 2014, Dan MacDonald, who said that Jim McCall and Peter Devink, all of whom were in the yes campaign and all of whom were warning against a second independence referendum, we do not even have to look at the business community. All the First Minister has to do is look behind her, Presiding Officer. Look at our colleague, Alec Neil. I do not know if Mr Neil is in the chamber. I looked for him earlier. Mr Neil, who, of course, made a very interesting speech in this debate yesterday. Perhaps he has seen Mr Russell's resurrection of his political career and reinvigoration on the front bench and is hoping to get a slice of the action, but Mr Neil in a very important intervention recently talked about the undesirability of a second independence referendum. Even on her own backbenchers, we have those talking a great deal of sense on this particular issue. A second independence referendum is the last thing that Scotland or the Scottish economy needs. The business community is virtually unanimous on that. We have asked people the question they have already given us a clear answer two years ago. It is no time for a rerun. In her peroration yesterday, the First Minister cast the political debate as that between a social-democratic Government in the mainstream of Scottish public opinion and a Conservative opposition. She said that that means a real battle of ideas. First Minister, could you desist from shouting from your seat, please? I am glad to see that you have agitated the First Minister, Presiding Officer. However, she said that that means a real battle of ideas. On that latter point, she is absolutely right, but the choices that we face are not the choices that she set out. The First Minister talks about her Government supporting economic growth when every indicator has us falling behind the UK as a whole. As we heard this afternoon from Peter Chapman and from Mike Rumbles, her Government has presided over the shambles of a farm payment system causing chaos in the rural economy. She talks about improving public services, but people's experience is quite the opposite. She talks about empowering local communities when her Government has centralised power in Edinburgh, creating a single national police force, emasculating local government and forcing the closure of local services like police control room and courts. As Adam Tomkins reminded us yesterday, this is a Government that is very keen on devolving power from Westminster to Edinburgh, but very reluctant to pass power out from Edinburgh to any other part of Scotland. Far from this being a Government, in the mainstream of Scottish public opinion, the 2014 referendum result shows how divorced from reality that claim is. The bitterness and division that were caused to our country from that whole episode could hardly be classed as showing the sense of solidarity that the First Minister claims for her Government and its programme. Borrowing a phrase from John Major in 1991, the First Minister said that her Government would create opportunity for all, but real opportunity lies in growing the economy by supporting business, in promoting flexibility and local decision making in education, in keeping taxes on hardworking families competitive, on properly funding our further education colleges and on a renewed commitment to addressing fuel poverty. That is what this Opposition stands for. On the key question of Scotland's future, it is this Opposition, not that Government, which is in the mainstream of public opinion. It is this Opposition that says no to a destructive and damaging rerun of the 2014 referendum, and it is this Opposition, not that Government, which truly believes in the best Conservative tradition of opportunity for all. We very much welcome the battle of ideas, Presiding Officer. I have every confidence that it will be our ideas and our visions that will increasingly win the confidence of the Scottish people. I call John Swinney. 12 minutes please, Mr Swinney. Presiding Officer, it's a pleasure to close this debate and let me begin by addressing some of the remarks that Ian Gray made about the child abuse inquiry, which falls within my ministerial responsibility. I want to make it absolutely clear at the outset of this parliamentary session, because there have obviously been issues of significance over the summer, that I have looked very carefully at the role of Scottish Government officials in relation to the operation of the child abuse inquiry. I am entirely satisfied that Scottish Government officials have exercised their responsibilities entirely consistently with our role in the Inquiries Act and in the Public Finance and Accountability Act. I am very happy to be scrutinised on that point, but it is an issue that Mr Gray will understand that I have looked at very carefully. I am equally determined to make sure that, I set out clearly to Parliament my determination that the child abuse inquiry should be able to undertake its responsibilities utterly, entirely, independently of Government. That is why I appointed Lady Smith to chair the child abuse inquiry. I am a member of the Inner House of the Court of Session of some 15 years standing with a reputation for a very strong and distinctive exercise of her judicial independence. I hope that my appointment of Lady Smith is viewed across Parliament as an indication of my determination to ensure that the inquiry is able to undertake its functions in an entirely independent fashion in exercising its responsibilities. There are clearly outstanding issues that have been raised with me by survivors, which I am currently considering. I will, of course, come back to Parliament when I have something further to say on those questions. I do want to say to Mr Swinney that I believe in all sincerity that he has satisfied himself with the independence of the inquiry, but it is, of course, the confidence of the survivors that we need to regain. That is the important thing here. I have said to him before privately that, to extend the remit of the inquiry in the way in which survivors have asked, we would go such a long way, I think, to re-establishing that confidence that we need to see. John Swinney? That is, of course, an issue that I am still considering. There are, as Mr Gray will understand, very significant issues that weigh in both sides of the argument about the extent of the remit of the inquiry, but it is an issue to which I am giving very significant and serious consideration. I discussed it with survivor's groups last week, and I will continue my consideration of those points. The debate, Presiding Officer, is an opportunity for the Government to set out its proposals for the duration of this forthcoming parliamentary year and to map out the direction of our policy thinking. Of course, the First Minister made crystal clear in the statement yesterday that at the heart of this programme for government is the determination to focus on strengthening the Scottish economy and on ensuring that we deliver excellence and equity within Scottish education. Ministers are all seized of those responsibilities and obligations as we take forward our agenda. Of course, there are many challenges, and one of the challenges that has percolated through this debate has been the challenge of tackling the issues of poverty and the lack of opportunity in our society. Of course, that issue is very relevant to the Government as we embark upon the consultation around the drafting of a social security bill and the design of a social security system within Scotland. I thought that Clare Adamson, in her contribution yesterday, very powerfully set out the issues that we have to confront about the existence of poverty within our society, the roots of that poverty being driven by the deindustrialisation of Scotland and the social disruption that was undertaken by the recklessness of policy in the 1980s, but it is our determination to make sure that the values that Clare Adamson reflected in her speech of creating a fair and respectful system of social security are at the heart of the decisions that we take. One of the other key points in the debate yesterday was the point that Kezia Dugdale made in response to the speech from Ruth Davidson, who called on us to bring forward proposals for the creation of genuine opportunities for disabled people without a hint of irony of the damage and disruption that has been done to the interests and the wellbeing of disabled people by the welfare actions of the Conservative Government that we have to try to respond to in the actions that we take. In addition to those responsibilities, the Government must ensure its wider responsibilities in relation to the public services. Of course, there has been quite a bit of commentary in the debate about the performance of the health service. Of course, it is interesting to note that, in the Scottish social attitudes survey, there has been a 22 per cent increase in public satisfaction in the national health service in the last 10 years since 2006. 90 per cent of Scottish in-patients say that overall care and treatment was good or excellent. 87 per cent of patients rated the overall care provided by their GP surgery as good or excellent. Those are indications of the strength of the contribution made by hard-working members of staff that are the length and breadth of the country. In a moment, evidenced also by the performance of the accident and emergency system in Scotland, which, in June 2016, was the best performing in the United Kingdom at 95 per cent, compared with 85.8 per cent south of the border and weaker figures in Wales and Northern Ireland. Willie Rennie. To the First Minister, I really think that those figures completely wipe away all the problems that we are having with GP weights and shortages. The length of time that young people are having to wait for mental health treatment, do you really think that those satisfaction figures deal with those problems? What they are is data that I am putting into the debate to perhaps temper some of the miserabilism that we have heard from the Opposition in this debate about public service performance. Mr Rennie is correct to raise the issues about mental health weights. We have seen a 30 per cent increase in demand for mental health services within Scotland, and the Government is putting in more resources to address that issue. We see in relation to GP activities the Government putting in resources to ensure that we can expand GP training and to commit to expanding that service. I simply use that data to put into context some of what has been said today about the performance of the health service. Of course, in all the commentary that we hear about Police Scotland, there is very little commentary in the debate about the fact that Police Scotland, despite the changes in organisation that have taken place, is still presiding over a 41-year low in crime within Scotland, which should reassure members of the public that our police services are working effectively and that the communities that we live in are safer than they were and have been for some considerable time. Will he perhaps address, while he has mentioned the figures about crime being very low, the public confidence in the single police force? Indeed, a recent survey from April to June this year had 40 per cent of people saying that their confidence in Police Scotland was low or very low. Is that acceptable figures for the Scottish Government? Clearly, it is essential that Police Scotland continues to command public confidence within our country. However, I simply ask Mr Ross to reflect on the fact that we do live in a country that has a 41-year low in crime. That is something that should reassure members of the public about the effectiveness of our police forces and the cohesion of our communities, because the nature and cohesion of our communities are central to the work of Police Scotland in the activities that it undertakes. The two principal themes that the First Minister concentrated on were the economy and education. In the course of the debate, there has been some criticism of the Government for putting in place £100 million of additional capital investment within the economy. It is beyond me to work out how people could criticise that. Murdo Fraser has just done it, criticised us for utilising underspend that we had from last year. Is there something wrong with that? Is there something wrong with deploying that investment today when we need it in the face of the wanton vandalism of the Conservative party in the Brexit vote? We are the ones left picking up the pieces for the shambles of the Conservatives and Victoria, and they moan about the fact that we are investing £100 million of extra in the economy. Murdo Fraser's line of argument about the fact that the finance secretary had not gone to the Treasury to seek prior authorisation for our growth scheme, rather suggests that Murdo Fraser is perhaps preparing the ground for the United Kingdom Government to behave in an unreasonable fashion and not accept the legitimate and reasonable proposals of the finance secretary. Let's look forward to Mr Fraser going down to his colleagues in the UK Treasury and getting them to do the decent thing and enabling this Government to support Scottish business as we have always done. Mr Golden made a thoughtful contribution to the debate on the circular economy, and I encourage him to continue with his line of argument to ensure that we expand the wider economic opportunities that are available in Scotland, not at this moment. On education, a great deal has been said in the debate, and of course over the course of the summer I have made good the proposals that I set out in the delivery plan to tackle first of all the reduction in teacher workload to reduce bureaucracy, but it is for a purpose. It is to enable teachers to concentrate on the key task that we have that they have to concentrate on, and that is to raise attainment within Scottish education. That is going to be the centrepiece of what the Government takes forward to ensure that we can deliver for every single young person in Scotland the best opportunity they can aspire to have. The comments that Claire Hawke made in the debate this afternoon about the practical effect of those measures and the points that Jenny Gilruth made about the importance of establishing school, job and college links are fundamental to the process. It was one of the highlights of results day in Scottish education that we saw a 23 per cent increase in vocational qualifications being achieved in Scotland schools, a demonstration that our agenda of developing Scotland's workforce is working for the young people of Scotland and delivering good outcomes and results for them. That is a programme for government that addresses the needs of the people of Scotland. It sets a bold agenda of how we can transform the life chances of young people, how we can strengthen the economy and how we can use the new powers that we have at our disposal to the maximum benefit of the people of Scotland. This Government is determined to improve the life chances of every individual in Scotland. We challenge the opposition parties to work with us in fulfilment of that objective, but what nobody should doubt is the ambition and the determination of this Government to make Scotland a successful country, and that programme will enable us to do exactly that. The next item of business is consideration of motion 1203 in the name of Andy Wightman on behalf of the Scottish Parliament corporate body to appoint members of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit, and I call on Andy Wightman to move the motion. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 1319 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request to speak button now. I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 1319. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion 1319 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick be agreed. I will agree. We are all agreed. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 1323. I asked Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion. The question in this motion will come at decision time to which we now come. There are two questions to be put. The question is that motion 1203 in the name of Andy Wightman on the appointment of members of the Scottish Commission for Public Audit be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The motion is agreed too. The second question is that motion 1323 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick on substitution on committees be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move to members' business. I would ask members to be courteous to the next proceedings.